Global Heating Pace Risks 'Unstoppable' Sea Level Rise as Antarctic Ice Sheet Melts (theguardian.com) 247
The current pace of global heating risks unleashing "rapid and unstoppable" sea level rise from the melting of Antarctica's vast ice sheet, a new research paper has warned. From a report: Unless planet-heating emissions are swiftly reduced to meet the goals of the Paris climate agreement, the world faces a situation where there is an "abrupt jump" in the pace of Antarctic ice loss around 2060, the study states, fueling sea level rise and placing coastal cities in greater peril. "If the world warms up at a rate dictated by current policies we will see the Antarctic system start to get away from us around 2060," said Robert DeConto, an expert in polar climate change at the University of Massachusetts and lead author of the study. "Once you put enough heat into the climate system, you are going to lose those ice shelves, and once that is set in motion you can't reverse it."
DeConto added: "The oceans would have to cool back down before the ice sheet could heal, which would take a very long time. On a societal timescale it would essentially be a permanent change." This tipping point for Antarctica could be triggered by a global temperature rise of 3C (5.4F) above the preindustrial era, which many researchers say is feasible by 2100 under governments' current policies. The new research, published in Nature, finds that ice loss from Antarctica would be "irreversible on multi-century timescales" should this happen, helping raise the world's oceans by 17cm to 21cm (6.69in to 8.27in) by the end of the century.
DeConto added: "The oceans would have to cool back down before the ice sheet could heal, which would take a very long time. On a societal timescale it would essentially be a permanent change." This tipping point for Antarctica could be triggered by a global temperature rise of 3C (5.4F) above the preindustrial era, which many researchers say is feasible by 2100 under governments' current policies. The new research, published in Nature, finds that ice loss from Antarctica would be "irreversible on multi-century timescales" should this happen, helping raise the world's oceans by 17cm to 21cm (6.69in to 8.27in) by the end of the century.
Psychics? (Score:4, Funny)
Stop the hysteria (Score:2, Interesting)
A mere fifth of a meter over 80 years, that's nothing. Anything built to competent civil engineering standards will be fine, stupidly built things can be demolished and moved. There is no real problem here.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is, who pays for it? Personally, I think the people who fuck something up should pay for the cost of fixing it. That's called "personal accountability."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why should people who OWN the buildings pay? Even when you are trying to be facetious, you can't construct a logical argument.
First, they did not BUILD the buildings, so they aren't to blame. When people did build the buildings, there was not the same danger. That came later, due to other people's actions. The people who cause the issues with the environment should pay for the damage they caused. I don't see what's even controversial about that.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, like New Orleans being below sea level but relying on dirt dykes, they should quit being dumb and build proper shit if they want to live there and not be a carcass floating down street with maggots chewing into their body at the water line, next time.
Re: (Score:2)
Is New Orleans the only place facing issues with sea level rise? No. They are not. The people of New Orleans did not, themselves, build those dykes. They are not "dirt." and when they were built, they were more than enough to handle the issue. But, get this: things have changed since those measures were put in place. And people caused those changes. If someone does something that harms you, wouldn't you want recompense?
I honestly don't see how you are even arguing that people who fucked something up should
Re: (Score:2)
No, those levees had failed before, Hurricane Betsy 1965 to be precise. They are dirt, earthen. They turn to mud when overrun and it's game over (again, just like 1965).
I'm saying city of New Orleans put part of city below sea level. Fuck up like that and you'll be screwed. You're going to tell me it's not their own damn dumb-ass fault?
I'm not a moron enough to live behind an earthen levee. If I did, I'd have reasonable expectation of becoming a corpse floating in street with maggots chewing at the w
Re: (Score:2)
Why are you going on about New Orleans like it represents every area impacted by climate change? It's not really representative of the problem in general. I mean, what about people living on islands? Fuck them, right? Should be smart enough to be born somewhere else, LOL!
And anyway, the Levee system was built by the Army Corps of Engineers, not "New Orleans." And they have been much improved since Katrina. It was never just "dirt." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
I get the feeling you are just fucking arou
Re: (Score:2)
The levees that failed were "natural levees" of sand, clay and silt. They were there before Army Corps of engineers messed with them and made similar ones. Sometimes people have the mistaken notion that the concrete flood walls on top of those were the entire "levee" not realizing it was tiny part on top utterly dependent on the mass of the natural one which was "rinse away" once water went over it like your hair conditioner. Ridiculous to depend on such a thing in 20th century.
People on coast don't ne
Learn some physics (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I am not a climate alarmist. But there are a lot of places (see Florida for example) where 20 cm will put large areas underwater. That is just a topographical fact. There are also some islands that would be in big trouble (see the Tuamotos). Maybe not so many people live on those islands.
Re: (Score:2)
You're silly, linking to article "where all the ice melted". No scientist is claiming ALL the ice will melt. Again, those in costal areas will be fine, if proper civil engineering principles observed. The sea can rise for tsunami and storm surges. Being a moron like those in New Orleans, which is next to sea but below sea level, and relying on dirt berms will get you disaster. Putting your nuclear reactors backup generators in the basement next to the sea like a moron will ( and did) get you disaster.
Re: (Score:3)
Your sea wall already better be able to deal with many meters of rise because of storm surges. don't be like a third world shithole hut dweller who has a disaster for every strong wind or 5 magnitude earthquake.
At This Point (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Something is wrong with you.
What the fuck is the premise? (Score:2, Troll)
"Risks unstoppable sea level rise"?
So the premise is that sea level rise and global warming is "stoppable"? Do these people think themselves gods? Science has clearly outlined that global warming was ongoing ever since last Ice Age ended tends of thousands of years ago, back when places like Denmark were covered by glaciers. This is a part of natural cycle of the planet.
Our problem is that our emissions of CO2 into the atmosphere accelerated the warming. Not that we "controlled the sea level rise" and then
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not that hard to cool the planet. Blast enough nuclear explosives in the ground the release massive amounts of dust into atmosphere.
That's what fears of nuclear winter were.
The problem there is actually not so much the fallout as the fact that while global warming is about increase of energy state of the planet and therefore abundance of life on it, global cooling is the time of global death. Almost nothing survives on glaciers, and far less life lives in tundra compared to temperate areas, much less j
too late (Score:4, Informative)
The oceans have warmed and are releasing trapped methane from the ocean floor, https://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov... [noaa.gov]
We are currently at 409 parts per million of CO2. The last time the earth broke 400ppm was the Pliocene Epoch, between 2.6 and 5.3 million years ago. 5.3 Million years ago: https://www.nationalgeographic... [nationalgeographic.org]
Hint: during the Pliocene Epoch the oceans were 75-80 feet higher: https://www.nature.com/article... [nature.com]
Sorry kiddos, we’ve hit feedback loop and our grand kids will be really, really uncomfortable on very crowded planet that doesn’t want to grow food. We have passed the point of being able to fix it, let alone convince US republicans there's a problem. Turn of this next century is going to be bummer.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Sorry kiddos, weâ(TM)ve hit feedback loop and our grand kids will be really, really uncomfortable on very crowded planet that doesnâ(TM)t want to grow food. We have passed the point of being able to fix it, let alone convince US republicans there's a problem.
Did you ever stop to think some of us don't listen to you because your position is bonkers! You say we are in an unstoppable feedback loop, but decry anyone who isn't trying to do what you say is impossible. I'd like to walk on the moon - would you suggest I focus on trying jump higher?
MOXIE to the rescue (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah and also work on efficient methane to liquid fuel processes. Liquid fuels are much easier to store and just as easy to burn as methane. That way we can keep our liquid fuel infrastructure which is, truth be told, very useful.
Re: (Score:2)
Who cares about efficiencies if the inputs are sufficiently cheap and abundant. Centralize the stuff enough (much like oil terminals and the like are now) and you can power it with vast arrays of floating solar cells, and wind turbines, and tidal power plants in upper and lower latitudes.
A lot of sun shines down on this marble.
Re: (Score:2)
MOXIE [mit.edu] produces oxygen from carbon dioxide by splitting one oxygen atom off, and thus produces carbon monoxide as a byproduct. This is no big deal on Mars (which already has carbon monoxide as a component of its atmosphere), but we probably don't want to do it on Earth.
In any case, it takes energy.
If that energy were generated from fossil fuels... it's a net loss. If it's not produced from fossil fuels, instead of using energy to reduce carbon dioxide, it would make more sense to take the same energy and us
Niuclear power and synthesized fuels (Score:2)
Using nuclear power to produce liquid hydrocarbon fuels means closing the carbon loop and making every currently existing hydrocarbon burner a carbon neutral vehicle. This is highly valuable for rockets, aircraft, and large ships where the energy density of batteries and other energy storage would make them impractical.
As it is electric vehicles are highly impractical outside of a few niche applications. A commuter car that takes a round trip of under 100 miles is a small portion of the total transportati
Fear is an addictive drug. (Score:2, Troll)
tsia.
If someone removes that object of fear, the fear-addicted just find something else to be afraid of.
I wonder if this is a particular vulnerability of democracy, since the political class ALSO agrees that purveying fear is useful?
Nobody's gonna risk their job (Score:2)
deep ocean heat sink (Score:2)
The deep ocean was cold and mixed with the surface water to regulate temperatures.
For decades this heat sink has been slowly warming.
It is a gigantic volume of water/heat sink.
You're all pretty well fucked.
Unless you're a surfer because it means more extreme weather storm swells.
Huey, the God of surf
http://mountainman.com.au/surf... [mountainman.com.au]
Go inland (Score:2)
I don't get worried about sea level rise. Who cares? Sea levels have risen and fallen throughout mankind's history. Dozens of cities litter the sea floor. Somehow, we manage to not drown every time.
So, if you're worried about sea level rise, go inland.
Re: (Score:2)
Insert Old El Paso 'Why not both?' meme here.
Re: (Score:3)
It has been up until now. Once the ice sheets start seriously melting it won't be.
Re: (Score:3)
Someone said long ago the earth was flat and you could sail right over the edge. So wth.
The earth moves beneath our feet. (Score:2)
Because of the motion of tectonic plates on the planet the rise of the oceans will not be evenly distributed.
There is evidence of Egypt being under water in relatively recent times, geologically speaking. Large portions of the USA between the Appalachians and Rocky Mountain ranges was also under water, and also under ice, in recent geological periods. To address this on human time scales will mean large civil engineering projects to build sea walls and other features to hold back the sea. People may have
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
So, if we're saying "this is unstoppable" can we finally move to the "how do we mitigate the inevitable changes" stage rather than the "how can we best use the looming changes to increase our political and economic power" bit y'all have been stuck on for the last couple of decades?
Or is the doom screaming by people who fly around on private jets to talk about how everyone other than them needs to live the lifestyle of a character in a Dickens novel just going to ratchet up even further?
Re: (Score:2)
DoD has had multiple reports on this and is working to stop it, while at the same time, trying to get ready for worst case situation.
Fact is, by killing off Oil/Nat Gas/Coal burning, and switching to a mixture of energy like Nuclear, Geothermal, Wind, solar, hydro, etc, we are slowly getting cheaper energy. In addition, by moving off ICE vehicles, we are gaining faster, low maintenance EVs, that are already cheaper than comparable LICE competitors (all 4 of Tesla models are
Re: (Score:2)
Cool story bro - so there is no need than for banning ICE equipment or adding subsidies for electric. Same for renewables - If they are so much better the economics well speak for themselves and people will switch.
Now if you want to talk about repeal and elimination of policy that subsidizes Oil and Gas - I am all ears.
The only reason you should need to pay someone to eat is if you are trying to force a shit sandwhich down their gullet. Nobody wants more expensive dirtier energy solutions, if they are choos
Re: (Score:2)
In addition, by moving off ICE vehicles, we are gaining faster, low maintenance EVs, that are already cheaper than comparable LICE competitors (all 4 of Tesla models are cheaper than DIRECT LICE competitors).
That is 4 models, while the LICE makers prices are still too high.
And I agree that we do not need to ban LICE. THey will disappear on their own.
As to AE, we need to change subsidies. It is time to stop subsidies on Wind, Utility solar, etc. Instead, focus on Off-shore wind, Rooftop SOlar, geothermal, and storage.
At the same time, need to kill off Oil/Nat Gas subsidies and instead, have them pay taxes that should be paid. For example, road tax.
Re: (Score:3)
So, if we're saying "this is unstoppable" can we finally move to the "how do we mitigate the inevitable changes" stage rather than the "how can we best use the looming changes to increase our political and economic power" bit y'all have been stuck on for the last couple of decades?
Start by making plans to evacuate all of Miami. We'll go from there.
Or is the doom screaming by people who fly around on private jets to talk about how everyone other than them needs to live the lifestyle of a character in a Dickens novel just going to ratchet up even further?
The problem with environmental leadership in government is that they only get reelected if it looks like they're doing something, so rather than do the non-glamorous and expensive things that will actually reduce CO2 emissions, like building more nuclear power plants, pushing for approval of more modern nuclear plant designs that are smaller and safer, a phased-out ban on coal-based power production, building a national superconducting pow
Re: (Score:3)
Start by making plans to evacuate all of Miami. We'll go from there.
If it's "inevitable" then the above is going to happen, anyway. Using it for shock value doesn't improve the situation. That's really the point I was trying to make: If $WORST_CASE_SCENARIO is now $BEST_CASE_SCENARIO then a reasonable response would be "doing things that will provide benefit during the situation we will have to live with" rather than "focusing all of our efforts to make sure this thing we cannot possibly stop will not happen."
By any objective measure, the latter is an absolutely stupid pl
Re: (Score:2)
Start by making plans to evacuate all of Miami. We'll go from there.
If it's "inevitable" then the above is going to happen, anyway. Using it for shock value doesn't improve the situation. That's really the point I was trying to make: If $WORST_CASE_SCENARIO is now $BEST_CASE_SCENARIO then a reasonable response would be "doing things that will provide benefit during the situation we will have to live with" rather than "focusing all of our efforts to make sure this thing we cannot possibly stop will not happen."
By any objective measure, the latter is an absolutely stupid place to put your focus--and yet that's still the conversation we're having.
Ah, but inevitable doesn't mean "inevitable within [n] years". Every extra decade you delay the inevitable sea level rise gives you more time to evacuate or build sea walls or otherwise mitigate the disaster.
Re: (Score:2)
China makes all the stuff And is still only half as polluting as America. [ourworldindata.org]
Per capita numbers don't tell the whole story. China has twice as many people per capita living in rural areas, most of whom (about 75%) do not own automobiles. China has 4.26x the U.S. population, but about the same number of automobiles as the U.S.; the reason such low car ownership works well in China is because their population density of China is also 4.27x that of the U.S. More people in a smaller area means less need for driving to get things done.
Several percent of people in China (in rural areas
citation required (Score:3)
This has melted enough of the Antarctica ice cap, that it has allowed volcanoes underneath to start releasing lava/heat. So, not only are we heating up the ice cap from above, but NOW, we have caused the heating from underneath.
Fire and Ice: Why Volcanic Activity Is Not Melting the Polar Ice Sheets [nasa.gov]
"...while Antarctica’s known volcanism does cause melting, Ivins and Seroussi agree there’s no connection between the loss of ice mass observed in Antarctica in recent decades and volcanic activity. The Antarctic ice sheet is at least 30 million years old, and volcanism there has been going on for millions of years. It's having no new effect on the current melting of the ice sheet."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'll see your unnamed volcanologist, and raise you the two JPL scientists that work in the Sea Level and Ice group that the science writer referenced for the article.
Re:THis is already unstoppable (Score:5, Interesting)
China is too busy being expansionist and with empire-building to care.
India is too busy just trying to afford to feed everyone.
Here in the U.S.? Too many people either don't believe any of this is real, or just don't care and refuse to be 'inconvenienced' by it. At least half of our politicians fall into that category, and also are too absorbed by trying to retain their political power while screwing over the people on the other side of the aisle; their reality doesn't extend past the next election cycle, a hundred years from now isn't real to them.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:THis is already unstoppable (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Their CO2 is from the concrete and steel they use to build cities that sit empty and crumble to dust; not from the cheap chotski crap they pump out. It's from power plants pumping out energy for 1.4 billion people and the parallel consequence of having to get water to those same people. It's from their trash and refuse breaking down in landfills, the deforestation of their country and the expansion of farmland into unsustainable areas.
Re: (Score:3)
China, the United States, and India (Score:5, Informative)
Let's be honest about it: China, India, and the United States, which by the way is where I live. ...
The US accounts only about 15% of the global CO2 emissions, whereas China and India combined are expected to generate nearly 75% of the CO2 emissions this century.
This is inaccurate. Currently China is indeed number one in total emissions at 28% of the world's emissions, but the United States (not India) is number two at 15%. India is a distant third, at 7%.
source: https://www.ucsusa.org/resourc... [ucsusa.org]
Original comment was correct: China, India, and the United States need to reduce emissions.
Anonymous Coward is demonstrating why it is a wicked hard problem, of course: each nation says "it doesn't matter if we reduce emissions; it's the other guys."
(per capita, of course, the US blows away China and India. China is number one because their population is so high, 4.3 times that of the US).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Once we sequester what is in the air all we have to do is not go back to living like the industrial revolution. Nobody needs to sacrifice lifestyle just stutter a little greed, accept their overpopulation problems mean suck until they get it under control (looking at you China a
Re: (Score:2)
Mother nature already takes care of increasing CO2. She uses TREES and other green plants. You do remember the photosynthesis cycle, don't you? The green plants breath in our CO2, add water and sunlight, and breathe out O2, which we need to breathe in to stay alive, and sugar, which we eat for energy.
Dr Alfred Bartlett, retired CU prof, stated that modern farming is nothing more than using land to convert OIL into food. You reduce or stop oil production and millions of people will starve, beginning
Re: THis is already unstoppable (Score:2)
But economics cares a lot.
Re: (Score:2)
Here in the U.S.? Too many people either don't believe any of this is real, or just don't care and refuse to be 'inconvenienced' by it.
I have to drive to work. I have to heat my house. I don't consider that an "inconvenience" as it is required to not die.
That said, I look for ways to achieve those goals with the least CO2 emissions as possible, because gasoline is expensive. Is human made climate real? The answer doesn't really matter as I would make the same choices regardless.
Re: (Score:2)
Heat your home? How about using heat pump, either Air sourced, but ground sourced is better. This can provide BOTH heating and cooling. Add in bunch of insulation and you can have CHEAP HVAC in your house.
Re: (Score:2)
BS - heat pumps work great in certain climates - warmer ones.
Try having an electric heat pump in MN or Maine - its NOT cheaper than gas!
Re: (Score:2)
Living in the US Midwest I can say the same. I had to replace my furnace when natural gas was peaking in prices and opted for a heat pump to address this. Because of the need to deal with the occasional -40 degree winter days there is no heat pump that can keep up and still fit on my property I had to have a natural gas furnace. Shortly after I bought my heat pump natural gas prices fell back to more sane prices and I essentially lost all cost savings the heat pump would have bought me.
I like the idea of
Re: (Score:2)
Re: THis is already unstoppable (Score:2)
So, you're willing to lend people capital to take advantage of this killer deal?
There are lots of things that are cheaper in the long run. Many of those things are not affordable to most people.
And besides, buying a used ICE vehicle is better for the environment than buying a new EV. So, maybe you don't have a fucking clue.
Re: (Score:2)
It would cost you $5-7 to fully charge a Tesla and get over 300 miles of range. Plus the annual maintenance costs are much lower.
Re: (Score:2)
It would cost you $5-7 to fully charge a Tesla and get over 300 miles of range. Plus the annual maintenance costs are much lower.
What happens to the battery after, say, 10 years? This is the thing I'm not clear on.
Re: THis is already unstoppable (Score:2)
It loses range after about a decade (not a lot of data on this yet, though). You will have several years of degrading battery performance. You can buy a new battery when the benefits outweigh the costs.
And since old EV batteries still hold charge, they can be repurposed for solar storage or what not. Most likely this will result in a trade-in program. You get a new battery for a couple thousand, and the old one gets attached to the grid.
Re: (Score:2)
If we sequester the built up gas pumped into the atmosphere over the past couple centuries and make China/India behave we can persist without this probem in perpetuity.
you just don't want to change your ways (Score:2)
I have to drive to work.
No, you don't. Advocates of reducing our energy dependence are almost all of them also advocates of improving mass transportation. You could take a train to work, or bicycle to work, or walk to work. Or telecommute, of course.
You don't live in walking distance of work? This is the effect of the advent of dirt-cheap gasoline: people moved out to suburbs when cars became ubiquitous and people decided they don't need to live near their work. You're part of the problem. Move closer to your work.
I have to heat my house.
Only a trivial
Re: (Score:2)
You elitist fucking city liberals. Oh, surely we can all afford to live near work. Just buy a $120k Tesla. Mass transit. Bicycle. Let them all eat cake.
You people live in your own tiny little utopia. Go fuck a blender, asshole.
Re: (Score:2)
I have to drive to work.
No, you don't.
You have no idea what kind of work anyone does. For myself I do installs and maintenance of network equipment. This means I have to be on site to swap out a switch or router on short notice. I'll have to take 300 pound laser printers to an office, wrestle it into place, configure it to talk to the network, and train the staff on it's use.
I don't consider that an "inconvenience" as it is required to not die.
It is not "required", because there are other alternatives.
Bullshit. Again you have no idea on how other people live. Not everyone in the world sits in front of a computer for their work. I live in the US Midwest, where a lot
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
No, USA emissions don't matter any more now because of China's. USA cutting their emissions 25 percent wouldn't matter, rounding error, because China's is so very massive and growing.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is also why I continue to say that America, being the great importer right now, needs to put a slowly increasing tax on consumed goods/services based on where the worst part of these come from. This would stop all nations and states from growing their emissions, and reward those that have/are cleaning up.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
*scratches head*
Ummm.. Trump did that already.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Are you say "all nations" just because it give you warm and fuzzy feeling to have everyone linking arms and singing kumbaya? That's not a reason nor argument. Most nations don't matter at all and never will.
Take your emotional sentimental slop somewhere else, logic and hard numbers are all that matter. China and soon (20 years) India will be emitting most the carbon and only what they do will matter.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The real issue is not total, but DIRECTION. We need ALL NATIONS to to at least quit increasing CO2. This idea that China, India, etc can continue to increase emissions, when we
Only bad when other people do it. (Score:5, Insightful)
America accounts for ~14% of the global emission in 2020. That is not that much.
It's way too much when you only have 4.25% of the population WindBourne.
Imagine if everyone was as bad as that...
Re: (Score:2)
The reality is that China/India cleaned up their act our numbers would get better without us changing anything. The global economy as well because they could undercut us all by refusing to treat their people and environment to the same standard we do.
Re: (Score:3)
Most of the real number is base load but we are actually getting saddled with some of China and India's crimes in that because of the goods/services we import.
No that isn't true at all.
If trade were included [ourworldindata.org] America would be 6% worse, and China 10% better.
If you use consumption based numbers [ourworldindata.org] adjusted for trade. America is almost 3x as bad as China instrad of 2x as bad. And America is 10x worse than India.
Re:THis is already unstoppable (Score:5, Interesting)
Still with all that said, I really suspect that my kids will see a world without arctic ice caps, Greenland without ice and the Majority of Antarctica without ice.
No, your kids won't see any such thing. The fearmongers want you to think that, but they're depending on the fact that most of the world is effectively innumerate. Both the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets can not melt in the lifetime of your children because the sheer tonnage of ice is so high that no reasonable estimate for the amount of energy to melt it all can be applied to them in that amount of time.
Humans might be able to eliminate the entire Greenland ice sheet within the lifespan of your children. It would require detonating a large fraction of the entire world's nuclear arsenal to accomplish it, and a big chunk of that would be cheating by blasting ice off of the rock, not melting it. Short of that, no, that ice sheet is not going away in the next century.
In round numbers, the Greenland ice sheet is 2,850,000 cubic kilometers of ice. According to gravitational data from the GRACE satellites, it lost 0.1% of its mass between 2002 and 2012. Over the course of the next ten decades (assuming your children will be extremely long-lived), and bearing in mind that time interval is limited by the fact the GRACE satellites were only launched in 2002 so there is no more data available than that, the Greenland ice sheet could lose right around 1% of its mass, assuming that rate should be compounded per decade. To a completely unjustified number of significant digits, Greenland will still have 99.00499975% of its ice one century from now.
Greenland will have 99% of its ice in a century. No one alive today would be able to tell at a casual glance that the Greenland ice sheet had lost any ice at all between now and May of 2121. It requires extreme precision in satellite instruments followed by very careful statistical analysis of the data to notice that the Greenland ice sheet is losing 0.1% of its ice per decade. And no, that rate is not accelerating. In fact it declined precipitously in 2017 and 2018, two years among several when the winter gain in mass exceeds the previous summer's loss in mass. This is quite common, which contributes to why the loss rate is so low.
To inject a little reality into the discussion, if the currently calculated melt rate continues, and compounds over time, in ten thousand years, Greenland will still have 37% of its ice. The Antarctic ice sheet is bigger. Much bigger.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Both the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets can not melt in the lifetime of your children because the sheer tonnage of ice is so high that no reasonable estimate for the amount of energy to melt it all can be applied to them in that amount of time.
You don't have to. Instead you can increase meltwater to create under-ice rivers which lubricate the icesheet, allowing country-sized chunks of it to slip into the sea and melt at their leisure.
Greenland will have 99% of its ice in a century. No one alive today would be able to tell at a casual glance that the Greenland ice sheet had lost any ice at all between now and May of 2121.
And the sea is a limitless source of fish; the sky is too big to be affected by factory pollution, and dumping shit in rivers just takes it away never to be seen again.
Change the record, this one's cracked.
Re: (Score:3)
You don't have to. Instead you can increase meltwater to create under-ice rivers which lubricate the icesheet, allowing country-sized chunks of it to slip into the sea and melt at their leisure.
Ah yes. What if the sun explodes and melts Greenland?! Fear, fire, foes!
You are a victim of the fear mongers. Greenland is not going to shed country-sized chunks of ice. Ice doesn't work like that.
And the sea is a limitless source of fish; the sky is too big to be affected by factory pollution, and dumping shit in rivers just takes it away never to be seen again.
Change the record, this one's cracked.
Uh huh. I'm sorry the real Greenland data doesn't comply with the narrative you have swallowed, but it doesn't.
Also polar bears aren't starving. They have feet, and will eat anything, including you.
Stop listening to lying media. The narratives are so far divorced from the real science these days that they m
Re:THis is already unstoppable (Score:5, Interesting)
Still with all that said, I really suspect that my kids will see a world without arctic ice caps, Greenland without ice and the Majority of Antarctica without ice.
No, your kids won't see any such thing.
Areyoukiddingme looks right on this one. The article says there is expected to be an "abrupt jump" in the ice loss rate by 2060, not that the Antarctic or Greenland will be ice free. The prediction is only 7 or 8 inches of sea level rise by the end of the century (for comparison, melting all of the Greenland ice would cause 17 to 23 feet of sea level rise.)
So, no: don't expect your children to see Greenland ice free by 2100. Most of the current predictions suggest much longer than that. (One study found that under current conditions, the entire Greenland Ice Sheet would likely melt in a millennium... not in 80 years. ref: https://www.nasa.gov/feature/g... [nasa.gov] )
Re: (Score:3)
Most of the current predictions suggest much longer than that. (One study found that under current conditions, the entire Greenland Ice Sheet would likely melt in a millennium... not in 80 years. ref: https://www.nasa.gov/feature/g... [nasa.gov]
And if you read the fine print in that study, only half of their simulation runs melted the Greenland Ice Sheet in 1000 years. The other half took longer. The NASA article carefully doesn't say how much longer.
And their model is probably wrong because the GRACE data contradicts it. Data trumps model every time.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Inconvenienced?" (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm in the U.S. too -- but like many people I know? We're not complaining about some "small level of inconvenience" to fix climate change. We're complaining because the suggestions of what we "need to do" to stop it have a huge financial impact for people at the individual level, without so much as a guarantee any of it will really work!
I mean, realistically - what can I do on a personal level that will have more than a negligible level of impact at improving the global situation? People will tell me to "change my driving habits" (which I can't do much more of without quitting my job, which demands a daily commute that's probably about 75 miles total). They'll tell me to invest many tens of thousands of dollars to use more "clean energy alternatives". (I already forked out about $34,000 on PV solar at my last residence, and despite tax credits giving me about 1/3rd. of it back? I'm still not convinced it was financially a wise move? I only used them for about 5 years before I had to sell the place, due to a job change and relocating.) Now, my new place's roof doesn't even face the right direction for rooftop solar to work very well, if I even wanted to do that again. Beyond all of this, all people seem to do is suggest a lot more taxation in one form or another.
Re:"Inconvenienced?" (Score:5, Insightful)
Blame India and China.
Learn to swim.
Re: "Inconvenienced?" (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
More than that, when the US does commit to following "green" standards, it really does follow them to the letter, unlike certain other countries that even have actual international climate agreements named after their capital city, or entire regions.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/p... [cbsnews.com]
https://www.americanprogress.o... [americanprogress.org]
Remember the VW emissions scandal? Yeah well it was a pretty big deal in the US, and VW had to pay dearly for it...but only in the US. In all of the EU, emissions cheating is perfectly legal, and
Re: (Score:3)
Which means that we will need to geo-engineer the planet in order to prevent a civilization-threatening climate shift. The risks of failu
Re: (Score:2)
I've concluded that we're past the point where we could have mitigated it. We'll hit a low-carbon infrastructure about a century too late. The arctic will be gone,
I'm not sure what you mean by that. The Arctic is defined by geometry; it's not going anywhere unless you change the Earth's axial tilt. You mean, the Arctic will be ice free?
possible within my lifetime.
Climate change is real... but it is slow. The Arctic will, definitely, be somewhat warmer. That is (as the subject line says) probably unstoppable by now.
Ecosystems that we depend on for food will collapse
Well, ecosystems will change, that's definite. Probably change faster than they can move (forests don't move very quickly), and that will definitely stress them.
and a good number of coastal cities will be unviable. Not because of the sea level rise but because of the extreme weather.
Weather effects of
Re: (Score:2)
Unburn the carbon [Re:THis is already unstoppable] (Score:2)
Good idea, but if you have that tech, the place to implement it would be to put it at the output of the smokestacks burning fossil fuel, where carbon dioxide concentration is measured in percent, not parts per million.
But... what energy source runs that process? Wouldn't it be more efficient to just use that energy source to turn off the burning in the first place, rather than burn carbon to make energy and then use energy to unburn the carbon?
Re: (Score:2)
First, there's several hundred gigatons of excess carbon up there already, by the time humanity gets a frikkin clue it'll probably be twice that, and natural sinks only pull a few gigatons out per year. We'll probably need to actively pull it out unless we want to wait a thousand years for it to naturally drop back to normal.
Second, your idea is predicated on the entire world suddenly achieving enlightenment simultaneously. That's VERY unlikely to happen. Once
Re: (Score:2)
I bet you laugh people who anticipate the second coming in their lifetime too?
Get a grip
Asbestos (Score:3)
Just imagine if the cancer causing properties of asbestos were announced in today's world. There would be social media groups and protests saying the claims made by science are false and asbestos is good for you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I am interested in volcanism associated with ice, snow and meltwater (i.e. glaciovolcanism) and its inter-relationships with climate and global change. Establishing lithofacies-based methods to derive critical parameters of past ice sheets (e.g. thickness, age, surface elevation, stability). My research is principally conducted in Antarctica (the largest & longest-lived glaciovolcanic province in the world) and Ic [theconversation.com]