ice sheet losses in Greenland and Antarctica reach new highs

Gloop said:
Where will we migrate, and what will we eat? grubs in the antarctic foothills?
Click to expand...
Yes. James Lovelock in The Vanishing Face of Gaia proposed that if humanity were to survive, it would be in narrow band not quite at the poles, but near enough that temperature extremes are moderated so as to allow life, albeit in a newly evolved form. The article of the previous post says that Jason Box is planning on moving to Greenland. That would just about make that a possibility. I wonder whether there is not forming an international team of scientists who are going to make a go of survival in the face of what we've locked in. At least 4-degrees C.
 
The Guardian, 10-July-2015: Scientists predict huge sea level rise even if we limit climate change
Even if world manages to limit global warming to 2C — the target number for current climate negotiations — sea levels may still rise at least 6 meters (20 ft) above their current heights, radically reshaping the world’s coastline and affecting millions in the process.

That finding comes from a new paper published on Thursday in Science that shows how high sea levels rose the last time carbon dioxide levels were this high.

That was about 3m years ago, when the globe was about 3-5F warmer on average, the Arctic 14.4F warmer, megasharks swam the oceans, and sea levels stood at least 20 ft above their current heights.
Click to expand...
UnderWater.png
 
Hmm, that looks a bit higher than 20 feet, dude.

Do these types of images come from the climate doomsday cult? :lol:
 
neptronix said:
Hmm, that looks a bit higher than 20 feet, dude.

Do these types of images come from the climate doomsday cult? :lol:
Click to expand...

It's much easier to see using the slider bar on the Guardian's website - but with the waterline being shown at about 1/3 up the trunks of those trees, I'd say the rendering is fairly representative of the claim. The timescale of the 20 foot rise is not mentioned until further down the article, but at least it is mentioned in a roundabout way. Current IPCC estimates are listed 39 inches at end of century, but our understanding of the rate of rise and associated ice collapse still needs more study to lock down the shape of that graph, between today and the future's upper bound.
 
Even knee-high might be a bit... awkward. Living on one island, one spring we were boogie boarding wearing wetsuits across a grassy lawn. There were (old, rotten) duckboards still lying around from past "events". At least it was "fresh" water on the NA "Great" Lakes. :)
 
I think climate change is as or nearly natural as any time it's happened in the past. The sun's poles supposedly flip every decade or so, and it appears the earth's does as well over much longer periods. Magnetic weakening, shifting, then reversal. Mass change.
Could explain why there's millions of acres of forest frozen a mile under the ice in antarctica? Or maybe why the continents appear to fit together like a puzzle. Or the many cities buried underwater, so many not brought to light. Or even the innocent seashells in the middle of the desert? Sure, it could be seagulls :D

No need to be concerned with rising water or any of this though.
Let's just live till we die,
in the way suited to our best mind's eye.

Yes (nature of thread) that includes learning yourself about pollution and being responsible for our own, (boy that river runs deep when you think about it) - but I'm not about to let the system tell me I'm a waste of oxygen or space- cuz that's the motive I see in agenda 21 and the UN bs.
 
Increased solar output has apparently been elimnated as a possible cause of global warming. IIRC solar output is currently lower than normal.
 
nutspecial said:
No need to be concerned with rising water or any of this though.
Let's just live till we die,
in the way suited to our best mind's eye.
Click to expand...

My "problem" maybe? I'm from a long line of trouble makers. Folks that fought to make the future a "better place". "Weird" stuff like giving women the right to vote. :wink:

It may be that mass consumption and waste may not be the best approach on an overpopulated planet.
 
Dramatic sea-level rise imminent, study shows. Here's why
Click to expand...
http://www.theweathernetwork.com/ne...-level-rise-ahead-as-world-warms-study/54062/

"... predict the future by looking at the past." (Love that part.)

"While this amount of sea-level rise will not happen overnight, it is sobering to realize how sensitive the polar ice sheets are to temperatures that we are on path to reach within decades," lead researcher Andrea Dutton said in a release from the university.
Click to expand...

Our own prognosis looks even worse ... levels are around 400 ppm, and still rising.

Fun video w/fun comments, EG:
I think I'm going to list my Miami condo. Time to get rid of it before the real estate drops out from underneath (both the market and literally as tides overtake the bottom floors.
Click to expand...
 
[youtube]B11kASPfYxY[/youtube]
 
An age when the Americas are continents of those dying off because they can't survive their lifestyle, while the Europeans sure can figure out how to endure. Yeah, about that Mini Ice Age:

[youtube]7FItlStGMY4[/youtube]
 
The article is referencing sunspot activity, not solar radiation in a general, complete sense. The title of the article is sensational, and the "mini ice age" banter is not present in the study referenced. Low solar sunspot activity can effect local weather patterns, as seen in Europe in the 1600's, but as far as climate science, apparently is a relatively minor input as far as global average temperature is concerned. My ham radio buddies will not be pleased, however.
 
"Even a tiny temperature spike could cause sea levels to rise 20 feet"
http://inhabitat.com/scientists-say...ature-could-cause-sea-levels-to-rise-20-feet/
plane-in-water-rising-sea-levels-537x358.jpg

nclimate2715.jpg


“People can argue that we had these kinds of extremes well before human influence on the climate–we had them centuries ago,” study lead author, Erich M. Fischer told the New York Times. “And that’s correct. But the odds have changed, and we get more of them.”
Click to expand...

Via New York Times, April 28:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/28/s...remes-to-global-warming.html?ref=science&_r=2
 
I like how he immediately starts out by blaming right wing business favorites.
And yes, blaming someone else is a popular sentiment. But the oil gods are only rich and powerful because we keep buying their products. This is like blaming the drug dealer for your addiction.

He then goes on to say that government is the solution while also realizing that government isn't the solution in a former paragraph. Oops.

He really ought to keep to his physics gig..

I wrote an article along these lines recently on my own site, in an attempt to connect oil usage to war in order to convince libertarians that environmentalism is for them, but this applies to everyone across the political spectrum:
http://neptronix.org/wordpress/essay-why-every-libertarian-should-support-alternative-energy/
 
neptronix said:
This is like blaming the drug dealer for your addiction.
Click to expand...

Hehe...

The addicted blame the drug dealer
The govrnment blames the drug for addiction
Teh drug dealer blames the addicted for addiction

Endless blaming.... :wink:
 
The fact that they showed that on such a small scale is rather unconvincing to me. I also don't know where the baseline was set.

Vostok-12kyr1.png

Those kinds of swings constantly happen over hundred year timespans. The black line is an average.

Vostok-ice-core-petit.png


Over longer periods of time, the temperature swing is even more intense.
So... we're freaking out over 1/16th variance of what the earth, apes, humanity, and a wide variety of species have already survived through.

This is why i am not a member of the environmentalist doomsday cult. A large population collapse due to limited resources is still a reality though when the last technological high hanging fruit is picked that allows us to add a few more billions of humans to this planet.
 
The baseline is printed right on the graph... 1981-2010 average = 0. I'm not sure what unconvincing means in this context, what do you need convinced of? The "small scale" is just the data that is present in that particular data set, and that was the warmest year since they've been collecting. That data isn't from a doomsday cult, it's from climate research, it just happened to be a unique enough event for a reporter to make a little story about it. The temperature in 2014 isn't a big story, it's just a milestone story. People just have an affinity for milestones, round numbers (400ppm, 2 degrees C), etc. Even though the same results are evident at 1.97 C and 398 ppm, lol.

I'm 100% certain climate researchers are aware of the temperature records we have available to us throughout history that you've posted. I'm not sure what conclusions you are drawing from these graphs that are different from field research? As to freaking out, well that's the job of sensational media stories, otherwise who would read it! They just glom on to the significant events and milestones of anthropogenic climate effects, since it's a pretty big story in general, and gives them an excuse to talk about it. Scientists themselves aren't so much only concerned with the numbers and data collected, or the variance as you put it - just the probable effects that take place due to the net change in the climate system. "Survived through" would be a really low bar for earth and environmental science to set for themselves! I think they quite like to understand mass extinction events, biodiversity, and the role of climate in that bigger picture - i.e. the really interesting stuff.
 
Folks? Thing is, maybe, that in "modern human lifetime" spans of time like "only" the last few centuries, darned males "got lucky" with females and went on a home making spree, building lots of... buildings etc aka "infrastructure". And, "Ain't it nice by the beach Honey?" We figure out that big stuff floats (see "transport" and "economy"). But our sciences were left to play catchup? ("Lovely canyons Honey! Not sure how these Grand Canyons got here in NA...") Anyway. Seems we're getting a bit more "reality-based" these daze. And it's turning lots of things (like "insurance", as just one example) topsy-turvy.

And at some point we figured out watt those sticky tar sands were good for. And who cares if we start to burn the stuff.
 
kd8cgo said:
The baseline is printed right on the graph... 1981-2010 average = 0. I'm not sure what unconvincing means in this context, what do you need convinced of? The "small scale" is just the data that is present in that particular data set, and that was the warmest year since they've been collecting. That data isn't from a doomsday cult, it's from climate research, it just happened to be a unique enough event for a reporter to make a little story about it. The temperature in 2014 isn't a big story, it's just a milestone story. People just have an affinity for milestones, round numbers (400ppm, 2 degrees C), etc. Even though the same results are evident at 1.97 C and 398 ppm, lol.
Click to expand...

kd8cgo, that is a temperature anomaly graph, so the 0 point does not point to an actual average temperature of 0 degrees C.

I am asking what temperature set the baseline at, relative to various geologic records which have recorded long and wild swings up or down of 6C. I'm looking for a way to link up long term geologic records to current records.

The doomsday cult type never presents long term data in contrast with very short term, yet i see them claiming that this warming is unprecedented and has never happened before all the time. That's some genuine fear baiting hot air, in my opinion.

There is a lot of data from various sediment and ice cores. Look at the extremely wide temperature swings in the ocean here. This certainly affects what is on the surface. I also do not know the baseline temperature here. But baseline over a much longer period is less relevant vs a short period of 100-150 years, correct?

climate-reconstructions-500000-years2.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top