Grim Picture of Polar Ice-Sheet Loss 412
ananyo writes "A global team of researchers has come up with the most accurate estimate yet for melting of the polar ice sheets, ending decades of uncertainty about whether the sheets will melt further or actually gain mass in the face of climate change. The ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica are melting at an ever-quickening pace. Since 1992, they have contributed 11 millimeters — or one-fifth — of the total global sea-level rise, say the researchers. The two polar regions are now losing mass three times faster than they were 20 years ago, with Greenland alone now shedding ice at about five times the rate observed in the early 1990s. This latest estimate, published this week in Science, draws on up to 32 years of ice-sheet simulations and 20 years of satellite data to give an estimate two to three times more accurate than that in the last IPCC report."
Fingers in ears (Score:5, Funny)
LALALAALAAA we can't hear you.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
When shit eventually hits the fan, those fingers will be pointing blame... at someone.
The US Army Corps of Engineers [businessweek.com] maybe ?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Fingers in ears (Score:4, Informative)
Well, while you're technically correct, the terms are there out of today's perceptions, and the meanings are understood as crystal clear, at least by most of us in the US.
Racist...in general means White attitudes towards Blacks or other less Caucasian skin tones. You don't generally hear that Blacks can be racist or act in a racist manner against Whites...it just isn't in the popular vernacular. So, the reverse-racism or reverse-discrimination are understood to mean anti-white attitudes from blacks....for the most part.
Re: (Score:2)
Looking back at data from various sources shows it's cyclical with a trend towards ice melt not being restored by the subsequent winter ice freeze from one year to the next.
"cyclical with a trend"
So you admit the reduction in ice extent (volume, mass, whatever) is not caused by the "cycles".
(How long are these cycles you see anyway - 365 days?)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Fingers in ears (Score:4, Interesting)
You do realize that previously the deniers argued that it absolutely *wasn't* happening. Now that we've proven it *is* happening they are on to, "Well ok, but it's not us that's causing it".
1. It's not happening.
2. Okay, it's happening, but we didn't do it.
3. Okay, it's happening, and we did it, but it's too expensive to fix it.
I'm interested to know (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Couple of things they fail to mention:
1) A lot of that ice grew in the 1940s.
http://news.ku.dk/all_news/2012/2012.5/glaciers_greenland_photos/ [news.ku.dk]
"At the time many glaciers underwent a melt similar or even higher than what we have seen in the last ten years. When it became colder again in the 1950s and 1960s, glaciers actually started growing," says Dr. Kurt H. Kjær"
"Kurt H. Kjær has previously worked with his colleague Svend Funder from Center for GeoGenetics on investigating sea ice extent in the Ar
Re: (Score:3)
1. Given that the warming from AGW can been occurring since about 1970, I would imagine that most of what is melting now was frozen before 1970.
2. The "unprecedented melt" referred to is a one-day melt, not a decades-long process like that we are experiencing under global warming and mentioned in this article.
3. That article is from 2009. In 2012 the Arctic sea ice was far below any extent recorded since 1979.
4. Antarctic sea ice is increasing because it's sliding off the continent of Antarctica due to the
Re:GW is real (Score:4, Insightful)
And it's trolls like you spreading FUD that don't help matters.
Re: (Score:3)
Is there?
Do we have data with the accuracy and precision to measure annual global temperature differences to a degree where we'd be able to notice a trend of 0.5 degrees over a 100 year span?
No, we don't. We have some data points and statistical smoothing that says over the course of this thousand year period, the average global temperature was X +/- a degree and over that thousand year period, the average global temperature was Y +/- a degree.
There seems to be this fiction that's developed among the "True
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Volcanoes aren't a major contributor to CO2 (Score:5, Informative)
it is incredibly foolish to believe that humans are responsible for the melting of the polar icecaps. one volcano eruption puts off more CO2 than all of the emmissions that humans have put out since there were humans.
That statement is factually incorrect. Volcanos do not emit more CO2 than humans-- they emit less, by orders of magnitude.
http://www.agu.org/news/press/pr_archives/2011/2011-22.shtml [agu.org]
http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/archive/2007/07_02_15.html [usgs.gov]
http://www.agu.org/pubs/pdf/2011EO240001.pdf [agu.org]
http://www.skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming.htm [skepticalscience.com]
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11638-climate-myths-human-co2-emissions-are-too-tiny-to-matter.html [newscientist.com]
From http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2011/06/scienceshot-volcano-co2-emission.html [sciencemag.org] :
"A popular myth among climate change skeptics is that volcanic emissions of carbon dioxide dwarf those generated by humans. But a new report in today's issue of Eos reveals precisely the opposite: In a mere 2 to 5 days, smokestacks, tailpipes, and other human sources of CO2 spew a year's worth of volcanic emissions of that greenhouse gas. According to the paper, five recent studies suggest that volcanoes worldwide (such as Alaska's Shishaldin, shown) emit, on average, between 130 million and 440 million metric tons of CO2 each year. But in 2010, anthropogenic emissions of the planet-warming gas were estimated to be a whopping 35 billion metric tons. Individual events—such as Mount Pinatubo, whose major eruption in 1991 lasted about 9 hours—can produce CO 2 at the same rate that humans do, but they do so only for short periods of time. It would take more than 700 Mount Pinatubo-sized eruptions over the course of a year to emit as much carbon dioxide as people do, the study notes."
Let me note that it is misinformed statements like this that tend to make real scientists dismiss global-warming deniers as crackpots. If you really want skepticism of anthropogenic global warming to be taken seriously, you need to have a basic understanding of the real world.
Re:'emmissions' and 'eruptions' are not the same (Score:5, Interesting)
Check the numbers [Re:'emmissions' and 'eruptions' (Score:4, Informative)
...Given the fact that 1 eruption can change global climate for several years...
An eruption can change climate for several years... but not due to the emission of greenhouse gasses, which are trivial.
The aerosols from an eruption, however-- the ash and sulfates-- can block sunlight and have a significant cooling effect. This is a very real effect, and making sure that climate models correctly model the effect of historic volcano eruptions is a useful way of verifying the fidelity of climate models.
CO2 emissions from volcanoes on the other hand, are just not significant. It's somewhat hard comprehend the scale of 30 trillion kilograms of carbon dioxide, which is the amount emitted by humans per year, but if you picture a cube of coal about 10km on a side, that will start to give you an idea. This is much larger than the total of what is out by volcanoes, including both eruption and non-eruption emissions.
Re: (Score:3)
Water, water everywhere [Re:Volcanoes aren't a...] (Score:5, Informative)
this clearly shows that humans are in no way responsible for global warming.
Unfortunately, it shows nothing of the sort.
It says that water vapor is the most significant greenhouse effect gas. Water vapor indeed is a greenhouse gas, but water vapor cycles in and out of the atmosphere based primarily on temperature. The hotter is is, the more water evaporates into the atmosphere; the colder it is, the more water condenses out of the atmosphere. So, basically, water vapor is an amplifying agent-- if you increase the temperature, more water evaporates, and the greenhouse effect increases. This is well known.
I would like to really suggest you read the IPCC Working-Group 1 report, "The Physical Science Basis of Climate Change" http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.shtml [www.ipcc.ch]
You would be able to argue more effectively if you started out by being aware of what is already known.
Re: (Score:2)
The closest to a supervolcano eruption in recent years was Krakatoa in 1883, and we still have ice in poles.
A small push could be the difference between a person at the top of a cliff and a corpse at the bottom, and you will be a killer if you do it, even if the cause of death was mostly being up there.
Return to the Jurassic World [Re:GW is real] (Score:5, Insightful)
So where the ice was 100 years ago before global warming started is exactly where "normal" is and where the ice should always have and forever have stayed?
Depends what you mean by the word "normal." The dinosaurs lived perfectly well in a world that had no ice caps at all, and in which the entire center of the United States was a shallow ocean that stretched from Colorado to Pennsylvania. You could call that "normal" if you like.
However, there would be a great deal of disruption to human civilization to change to that state. We have an ecosystem (and an economic system) that is well adapted for the climate we have now, not one that is significantly warmer and with significantly higher sea levels. It would cause trillions of dollars of costs just to relocate the part of the population that lives in places that will be underwater, not even to mention changing the agricultural infrastructure. Doing this slowly is one thing. Doing ten thousand years worth of climate change in fifty years is another.
It would be nice for Canada, Norway, and Siberia, though. Not so nice for the United States (except for Alaska); we have a very good climate for agriculture right now, and don't really want to have the climate of Mexico move up to Kansas. Oddly, Canada, Norway and Russia are the most adamant of the countries that are trying to block restrictions on greenhouse effect gas emissions. That's probably just a coincidence, though, since those countries are also major fossil-fuel exporters.
I for one.. (Score:5, Funny)
I for one look forward to being an island-dwelling overlord...
Re: (Score:3)
Bring it back! http://movieline.com/2012/11/27/waterworld-remake-syfy-movie-tv-show-series/ [movieline.com]
It's OK (Score:5, Funny)
We have a spare on Mercury.
Oh noes! 11 mm in 20 years! (Score:4, Funny)
Everybody raise their houses by 2cm, quick!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
55mm in 20 years, 11mm due to ice loss, a bunch more due to thermal expansion of the oceans which is also AGW-related.
5cm may not sound like much to you, but to someone looking for a 30+ year real estate investment, and observing this trend of accelerating ocean rise, it will effect property valuations for some coastal property. Especially since the expectation is that, unchecked, this measurement will eventually be in meters.
Re:Oh noes! 11 mm in 20 years! (Score:5, Interesting)
It's not just the people with beachfront properties that need to be worried...
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Unfortunately, California and the Western U.S. will likely be on the on the end where more water evaporates and other areas, like Seattle maybe, will be on the end where "more water precipiates". So California and the Western U.S. are likely to become more desertified, and unfortunately when they do get rain, the risk of flash flooding will actually be worse because more rain will fall and the land will be less able to absorb it.
Isn't climate change wonderful? The people who already "get too much rain" w
Re: (Score:3)
In the case of California, it's not a problem if the rain comes more intensely, as long as there is m
Re: (Score:3)
Please toe the party line. Global warming is always and everywhere, per definition, bad. It cannot possibly have any positive effects anywhere. It does its deeds in such a way that evil is maximized. That's how nefarious it it.
If you still don't understand, an example: if you are cold and your friend next door is hot, global warming will freeze you as dry as a funeral pyre and boil your friend in his flooded home. At the same time.
Re: (Score:3)
What the models point to is more extremes – some areas with severe flooding and storms, and other areas more like deserts.
Models are unable to predict at smaller then the continental scale (read the IPCC report). As an example,
California is not slated to get a wetter climate out of climate change.
This depends a LOT on whether El Niño becomes more common or less common, and models are also unable to predict that.
Re:Oh noes! 11 mm in 20 years! (Score:5, Funny)
but to someone looking for a 30+ year real estate investment, and observing this trend of accelerating ocean rise, it will effect property valuations for some coastal property.
I live about 15 miles inland, so raising seas will actually increase my house value because I'll then be able to sell it as having a sea-view! /sarcasm
Re:Oh noes! 11 mm in 20 years! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Oh noes! 11 mm in 20 years! (Score:4, Insightful)
Everything is AGW related - hot spells, cold spells, droughts, floods, riots, earthquakes, locusts, hurricanes, doldrums - that's a cop out.
The fact of the matter here is that 11mm in 20 years, or 55mm in 20 years, is ridiculously small. Seriously, 6 *centimeters* in 20 years. Even with a thirty year horizon, that's not more than 10 *centimeters*.
Quick quiz: how much did ocean levels rise from 1900-2000, and how many acres of real estate were devalued because of it?
As for acceleration, sea level rise is actually *slowing* - there's simply no possible plausible scenario that is going to turn *millimeters* of change into *meters* of change in in 20 years, or even 100 for that matter.
Re: (Score:3)
there's simply no possible plausible scenario that is going to turn *millimeters* of change into *meters* of change in in 20 years
Never said that. When buying a house, many purchasers want their kids and grandkids to be able to enjoy it as an inheritance. Coastal erosion is a well know source of devaluation. 5cm of average sea level rise translates to several meters on a flat beach.
Re: (Score:3)
Costal erosion is orders of magnitude more impactful than a 5cm average sea level rise. In fact, an average 5cm sea level rise tells you *nothing* about how local costal conditions are going to respond -> there are plenty of places where the high tide level *falls* even as "average sea level' is on the rise.
Not to mention, a 5cm average sea level rise, even if completely evenly applied to every coastal area, is dwarfed by natural variation in tidal range.
Oh, and nice trick turning centimeters of *height
Re: (Score:3)
My point is that sea level rise does *not* necessarily amplify effects of costal erosion. You're making an unsupported assertion there.
If I point out a costal area where the coastal erosion has been steady for the past 100 years, even though sea level has increased, will you accept that as a refutation of your assertion?
And if you are going to make an amplification assertion, will you quantify it? If sea level rise amplifies c
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, no, we don't.
http://notrickszone.com/2012/11/29/stefan-rahmstorfs-sea-level-amnesia-using-his-own-numbers-sea-level-rise-actually-dropped-3/ [notrickszone.com]
Frankly, rates of change in this system will *always* be changing. As it stands, they're not following the steady uptick in atmospheric CO2, which tends to cast doubt on any causal relationship from CO2.
Re: (Score:3)
55mm in 20 years, 11mm due to ice loss, a bunch more due to thermal expansion of the oceans which is also AGW-related.
BS. If you look at the actual data [colorado.edu] you'll note that the rate of sea level rise has decreased since 2002. This is entirely inconsistent with a) the claim being made by these researchers and b) the idea that the current high levels of atmospheric CO2 are causing unusual warming, swamping natural variability.
The ocean heat sink is supposed to receive something like 80% of the AGW related heat increase, causing thermal expansion as you state.
"Forget the experimental evidence - it's ruining our beautiful theory!
Re: (Score:2)
You are cherry picking data sources. Also, as with most data from natural sources, noise is expected, which is why we employ statistical analysis.
Re: (Score:3)
If you look at the actual data you'll note that the rate of sea level rise has decreased since 2002.
No, he'll see a denialist bufoon trying to split a 20 year graph of noisy data into two distinct sections. He won't see the scientist that actually created that data doing something so dumb.
First of all, genius, the scientists collecting that data apply a linear regression right there on the chart, to the "noisy data". If you do the same thing to the most recent ten years worth (I have) you'll see that there's a significant decrease in the trend. That is all perfectly legitimate analysis.
I'm a realist, and believe in emperical verification of theory. So far the warmist alarmist predictions have been quite poor. They are adept at constant revisionism though.
You tried exactly the same back in 2009, to claim that global warming had stopped in 1998. However, 3 years more data of climing temperatures showed that you were exactly the idiot people said you were. Trying to make patterns out of short term noise.
I guess you're unaware that temperatu
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Only in a small zone near the freezing point.
Re:Oh noes! 11 mm in 20 years! (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on the temperature. at 3C yes, at 5C no.
Re: (Score:2)
The gravitational pull of the arctic ice (or lack of it) is on of the most influential factors:
http://e360.yale.edu/feature/the_secret_of_sea_level_rise_it_will_vary_greatly_by_region/2255/ [yale.edu]
Re: (Score:2)
So your assertion is that from 1992-2012, ice caps melted and caused 11mm of sea level rise, but from 1972-1992, there were only 2mm of sea level rise due to ice caps?
Pics or it didn't happen.
Oh, and just for fun, any observations you can cite of weather, CO2, ice cover, and global average temperature that would falsify your assumption that humans control the weather and the sea levels of the earth now?
Re: (Score:3)
I'm skeptical that there exists any necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. I challenge you to cite the one you believe in.
Without specifying who "the scientists" are. I might know less than Richard Lindzen, for example, but I certainly know more than Michael Mann :)
The nice thing about science is that it can be pla
Model fits data [Re:Oh noes! 11 mm in 20 years!] (Score:3)
I'm skeptical that there exists any necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. I challenge you to cite the one you believe in.
I don't know what the word "catastrophic" means here. I assert that the global climate models, which suggest that human-induced greenhouse warming has raised global temperatures by approximately 0.5 C and will continue to raise global average temperatures by an amount that is calculatable to within (currently) an error band of about 50%, is supported by the best data we have. Is that what you call "catastrophic" anthropogenic global warming? I would call it "paying attention to the science." If this is
Re: (Score:3)
No, the question is even deeper than that - I dispute that a warmer world is a worse world. I can stipulate to warming, and even some measurable effect of humanity's CO2 emissions to that warming, but I will assert that this is *not* damage.
1850 was colder than 2012. 1900 was colder than 2012.
Do we really want to return to the population and technology of 1850 or 1900?
Apocalyptic nuts will always find *something* to worry about, I suppose...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously, you think people wouldn't have been hurt by supermegaultrastorm sandy if their houses had been 2cm higher?
Really?
Predictions? (Score:3)
Given that the article is pay-walled, is there any prediction about ice loss? What are the most recent predictions that have given accurate result in the past?
My prediction for this discussion (Score:4, Insightful)
I predict:
People who don't believe in AGW/man made climate change will think that this study is just part of the conspiracy
Most people who do believe in AGW/man made climate change will continue to suggest remedies that just will not happen due to economics/human nature
The small amount of actually useful discussion of how we can adapt to a changing climate (no matter what it's cause) will be drowned out in the accusations and counter accusations
Re:My prediction for this discussion (Score:5, Interesting)
Here's my non-predicted reaction: We're boned.
Specifically, we aren't going to do what's necessary until it's already too late, because humans do a really bad job of responding to threats that aren't immediate. I won't be surprised if some people manage to adapt and survive, but it's going to be very messy, expensive, and violent (desperate people do not just lay down and die quietly), and there's no way those who survive will have the same standard of living as a typical modern American.
Re:My prediction for this discussion (Score:5, Insightful)
The small amount of actually useful discussion of how we can adapt to a changing climate (no matter what it's cause) will be drowned out in the accusations and counter accusations
Well, the good news is that the status of the atmosphere, and the survival of the human species, does not depend on discussions on slashdot.
The bad news is that it instead depends on discussions between politicians, lobbyists, and voters.
Re: (Score:2)
Humans you know, this planet is full of them!!
Re: (Score:2)
How very well stated.
Re: (Score:2)
Just like every good hero, rather than slaying the beast, we defeat it by letting it do what it does, but not matter. So let the ice melt, so long as we can displace the extra water. Build autonomous drills that just crawl the sea floor and start poking holes, giving the water somewhere to go
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
People who don't believe in AGW/man made climate change will think that this study is just part of the conspiracy
Most people who do believe in AGW/man made climate change will continue to suggest remedies that just will not happen due to economics/human nature
Then some of us will wait until our subscription of Science arrives so we can actually read the study before making fools of ourselves in ignorance.
Re:My prediction for this discussion (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean, seriously, why do you care if Earth becomes another Venus?
My twin nieces, Ruby and Winnie. My nephews Leo and Max.
Sorry to appeal to emotion, but I find your attitude a little cold, a little remote, a little shitty.
Re: (Score:3)
Sorry to appeal to emotion, but I find your attitude a little cold, a little remote, a little shitty.
Look on the bright side: with global warming and rising seas, his attitude will get warmer, less remote (as we all huddle together on Island Everest), and a tsunami may wash his shitty attitude away.
Re: (Score:3)
I mean, seriously, why do you care if Earth becomes another Venus?
My twin nieces, Ruby and Winnie. My nephews Leo and Max.
Sorry to appeal to emotion, but I find your attitude a little cold, a little remote, a little shitty.
Like many on /., he has little chance of breeding, so might as well make the most of it if he's not going to propagate his genes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You may not care about others, but do you perhaps care about whether your children and grandchildren suffer from poverty, starvation and illnesses?
I wouldn't mind if the planet went out with a big bang, but I'm no fan of suffering. Except people in white cars who cut in front of me.
Re: (Score:3)
So you're saying Sheldon Cooper is behind it all?
Re: (Score:3)
If everyone slacked off and never worked or studied, we'd live in a world without many of the luxuries we enjoy today.
If every species in the Universe adopted this attutude, that would be a recipe for one giant trailer park of cosmological existence.
Even if we make the (arguably reasonable) assumption that there is nothing unique about our little corner of existence, it is still incumbant upon us not just to enjoy our day to day lives, but to foster an environment that is conducive to more enjoyable lives.
Re:My prediction for this discussion (Score:4, Funny)
Doctor Manhattan, is that you?
Re:My prediction for this discussion (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
even reading something as simple as wikipedia yields knowledge that Greenland's climate has changed dramatically many times over the last 100,000 years. proven by ice core samples.
In other words, Greenland has been covered in ice for 100,000 years. How else would we have 100,000 year old ice cores? What's happening now obviously hasn't happened in the past 100,000 years or we wouldn't have that record.
the climate has always changed and will always change. its nonsense to believe that the climate has to al
Re:My prediction for this discussion (Score:5, Informative)
DNA of trees, plants, and insects including butterflies and spiders from beneath the southern Greenland glacier was estimated to date to 450,000 to 900,000 years ago, according to the remnants retrieved from this long-vanished boreal forest. That view contrasts sharply with the prevailing one that a lush forest of this kind could not have existed in Greenland any later than 2.4 million years ago.
So the most recent time Greenland could have supported significant plant life was 450,000 years ago. More recently than expected, still not recent.
The Wikipedia article does not say that Greenland's climate has changed dramatically many times over the last 100,000 years, it says that ice cores from Greenland have shown that the world's weather and temperature can change rapidly and that this has happened often over the last 100,000 years. This is not a reassuring finding, as it implies that the seemingly stable climate that we've enjoyed over the last few thousand years can change very quickly if pushed.
Yes, we all know that older folk have been ignoring warnings about global warming since the seventies. That's not something to brag about.
Yes, the climate has not been the same and will not remain the same forever. This is not an excuse to continue polluting. All people die sometime, right? So shooting them in the head now doesn't really matter, does it?
Re: (Score:3)
1000 years ago Greenland had no ice as well because the Vikings were living on it.
That is trivially easy to disprove. If Greenland had no ice 1000 years ago then sea level would have been 20 feet higher than it is now. If it had had even 5% less ice sea level would have been a foot higher then. It wasn't. There were a few areas on the extreme south of Greenland where the ice may have been back another mile or two from where it is now and the Vikings could eke out a living with livestock but Greenland has never been completely ice free for at least 100,000 years and probably much long
On the plus side! (Score:2)
Well, at least snow and ice definitely don't have some of the highest Albedo values among terrestrial surface coverings, so losing them won't increase absorption of solar radiation at all!
Re: (Score:2)
Well, at least snow and ice definitely don't have some of the highest Albedo values among terrestrial surface coverings,
It's a liberal consipracy that most ice is white---that's the color of surrender and what liberals want you to believe. Have you ever been to the poles to check? No, so stop believeing the propaganda and get the facts [timecube.com]. And don't come back whining to me until you've read all of that primary source.
no rapid melting (Score:2, Informative)
The study excludes suggestions of rapid melting: "Antarctica is not losing ice as rapidly as suggested by many recent studies. What’s more, snowfall in east Antarctica still seems to be compensating for some — but not all — of the melting elsewhere in Antarctica." It generally just seems to confirm what people had been assuming was happening anyway: a modest amount of melting in response to increasing temperatures. Note that melting from ice sheets only accounts for 20% of total sea level
Re: (Score:2)
Is it really so hard to look this up on Wikipedia yourself?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise [wikipedia.org]
Accurate Estimate (Score:2)
Predictions are about the future, not the past! (Score:3, Insightful)
So, you came up with a model that accurately predicts the past?
What nonesense is that? The accuracy of a model can only be determined by testing it against reality, and not against the data it has been fitted to. You need new data to do that and I'm sorry to tell you that new annual data sets will arrive only at a pace of one per year.
Meanwhile, shut up and look at the models you've made so far and be ashamed of the constant revisions in both directions.
In any other branch of science coming up with the kind of models and inaccuracies that climate science comes up with, scientists would simply say .. well, sorry, we cannot model these processes with any degree of accuracy and be done with it. If you came up with a better model, well, good for you, but now you have to *prove* it is actually better than all the rest so far.
Re: (Score:2)
I love posts like this. Is it caused by your blinding arrogance making you assume that you're vastly more intelligent and knowledgable that the scientists or is it caused by some misguided political philosophy which causes you to reject inconvenient facts.
What's more amusing is your complete ignorance of science:
In any other branch of science coming up with the kind of models and inaccuracies that climate science comes up with, scientists would simply say .. well, sorry, we cannot model these processes with
A daily unreality (Score:3)
Problem is that for most people it doesn't gel with their personal experience.
If The Scotsman newspaper runs this news then it's a guarantee that for a couple of days following the article the letters page would be full of "It was snowing here; so much for global warming" and "But I saw ice on the ground this morning" and similar variants.
And yes, I know it's my own fault for reading the letters page in The Scotsman.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
This is not a new problem. For instance, The Daily Show [thedailyshow.com] described the issue brilliantly almost 2 years ago.
Re: (Score:3)
For the record, I think anthropogenic climate change is very plausible, but as a computational physicist who has looked at some climate models I also think the detailed predictions are likely quite wrong, as in fact they have proven to be every single time they have been put to test.
All models are wrong (climate or otherwise), but some are useful. Things could get chaotic as feedbacks kick in, but so far the models have given us a good sense of the trajectory for global temps/sea level/etc.
I call foul! (Score:2)
There isn't actually a picture!
It's Been Happening.. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's been happening for the the last 12K Years, I think it is about time someone took notice.
Really? Do you have a reference for that? I would be really interested in knowing about it.
Thor be praised (Score:2)
I have it on good authority that Techno Viking [youtube.com] is excitedly awaiting the construction of his summer home in northern Greenland.
Queue the denialists ... (Score:2)
And once queued, we'll cue them one by one.
What's Polar Ice? (Score:3, Funny)
Polar ice is Cartesian ice after a coordinate trasformation.
What, what? This doesn't make sense. (Score:2)
The ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica are melting at an ever-quickening pace. Since 1992, they have contributed 11 millimeters — or one-fifth — of the total global sea-level rise
The ice sheets in Antarctica are growing. It's the only reliable good news.
One fifth? Where's the other 4/5th coming from?
Sea Level (Score:4, Insightful)
Connect the Caspian Sea and the Dead Sea (and the rest of the Great Rift Valley) to the open ocean and watch the water level drop.
Turns out (Score:3)
http://www.skepticalscience.com/greenland-used-to-be-green.htm [skepticalscience.com]
Lots of things cause climate change.
Look on the bright side of life. (Score:2)
If the sea level would just rise about 30 more meters or so my house would be on the beach, plus -- and this is a big plus -- no one would ever have to smell New Jersey again.
US is the world's biggest carbon reducer!!! (Score:2)
The US becomes the biggest reducer due to being the 2nd largest carbon producer and its production decline.
The US shift to natural gas regulation was not because
Re: (Score:2)
They planned the leak to cover up something else.
Re:32 years of simulations? (Score:5, Funny)
Genius. I'll break out the 1000-mile wide scale, you lift greenland onto it.
Re: (Score:3)
Except that Russia is not good place to do business (at least for manufacturing):
Endemic levels of corruption (higher than even China), a for sale judiciary, a regime that is intent on scaring away foreign capital, workforce that unsuited for large scale Chinese style factory deployment, oligarchical control of existing infrastructure and government, nontransparent capital markets, the list goes on and on.