I am an American so obviously facts only exist if I believe in them and basically what I’m trying to say is, I don’t believe Greenland even exists. And even if it did we’ll just build a wall and it will all go away. Merry Christmas!
30
It may well not be too late if we act intelligently. Therefor, it is definitely too late.
29
This article is not surprising. As log as we keep our heads firmly planted in the ground there will be no change. But who wants to know the truth and then do something about it? Very few I'm afraid. We have known about this for decades yet very little has been done. It won't be the rich that will suffer, it will be the poorest of the poor because they won't be able to move to higher ground. The situation is bad as this article suggests and will only get worse I'm afraid.
8
I think that regardless of how severe climate change effects get. There will be a good portion of the population who will believe in anything but the science behind it. Partially because it’s more convenient, but also because it’s so much easier to blame others. I never forget some in the right wing circles claiming Katrina was “gods punishment” for New Orleans being a welcoming city to lgbt people. This very well frames what the next step for these climate change deniers will be. A tacit acknowledgement that they might have been wrong, swiftly followed by condemnation of those who they blame for living too dangerously close to the shores, or being of the wrong color or creed or tradition... The planet
4
Nothing can stop it now. Methane bloom is just around the corner. When that happens sea level rise will be the least of our concerns.
15
I suppose flood insurance won't cover the losses from rising sea levels. Assuming there is still flood insurance.
2
Maybe it is too late. What if every government in the world’a obsession with a growing economy, grows us right out of existence. There’s no will to change our trajectory. I’m not sure what to tell my children. Oh well, it was fun while it lasted.
7
I love that they always throw in the big "if" with every disturbing story about climate change - IF we choose to act. IF we act to mitigate. As IF humans could act responsibly.
6
Dinosaurs probably thought what's the big deal I can out walk the comet damage. But they were wrong as are all the commenters that claim this is no big deal. They ignore that storm surge on top of sea level rise puts places like Manhattan and Miami underwater. It is a shame that we cannot modify our use of fossil fuels to reduce this damage and give us more time to adjust. Remember all that property that goes under water reduces tax revenues and storm damage increases insurance costs to everyone. Without Flood Insurance which is underwritten by all the tax payers many property owners would go bankrupt. We all are paying for sea level rise.
8
Not sure what the fuss is about. I can see the fur-clad Neanderthals huddled around the fire obsessing about the fact that the climate is warming and the ice is melting. Yet here we are today. Change happens. Must it be bad, simply because it's different?
Adapt or be selected out. Freezing here in the northeast, I can see an overwhelming number of benefits to a warming trend, and only a few downsides. More water, higher temperatures, more evaporation, more rainfall. There are large parts of the world which should benefit.
Tough if your house is within 2 feet of a major body of water, I guess. Time to move inland.
3
@JJ Shlabotnik, and people have 20 years to wander inland. Not a big rush. Let's see some human ingenuity applied to all the options.
It is completely misleading for people to say "coastal cities are flooded", when people can walk faster than the sea is incoming...
The writer needs to provide all the options for human responses.
1
@JJ Shlabotnik
Does the word drought mean anything to you, adapt or be selected out, pretty short sighted, since those in coastal regions, Texas, Louisiana, Florida, category 5 storms, more damage, etc. No, it won't be pleasant.
5
Rise by 2 feet over 2 decades? Seriously, most people can out-walk that rise.
Are you factoring in human ingenuity?
2
@richa
Name one coastal city in this country that has done one thing to prevent being flooded. Take the Japanese, they use huge pumps and underground 60 million gallon plus tanks to move water away from their version of Wall Street. Tell me, what do you think would happen to the US economy if the epicenter of our economy i.e. Wall Street were to flood.
5
Human environmental destruction has already guaranteed human demise by the end of the century. There is no reason for hope in this regard.
5
Considering the fact that 8 billion and counting humans continue to spew carbon and chemicals into the environment, we should probably realize that it’s too late for us to reverse course and start making plans for a future of higher sea levels, wild weather, higher temperatures and environmental refugees. Will life on the planet survive?
11
Make Greenland green again! The problem with these chicken little doomsday scenarios is that they've become so common for so long that they end up as little more than background noise. No one is really paying attention. The sky is falling ... again, yawn. If activists were being honest, of course, they would tell us the truth which is that the only thing to stop a global catastrophe, assuming predictions of activist scientists is right, is for the human species to return to living in grass huts and caves. I'm guessing we won't do that especially in countries that are governed democratically. There is an alternative - hope for technology to save us once more. I favor hope over despair which is why I tune out the chicken littles.
3
@J
Funny, you'll be the one that tramples everyone else to get to safety. So what do you think happens to human beings when the air, water, and land is so polluted that nothing grows. People like you floor me, because like republicans that think government is too big, until their Disability checks stop. Oh yes, 57% of the citizens of Harlan County get's 57% of their income from good ole Uncle Sam. In fact, republican held states use more welfare than any other states, 12 of the 15 states that collect the highest amount of welfare/gov aid are republican.
11
Are any of these studies ever gonna mention the increase in evaporation rates in the temperate and equatorial zones that will also occur with this 2C degree rise in global temp? 2C globally means an even higher number in the tropical belt, within which sits a whole lot of ocean. A lot more square mileage than found at the poles combined. Ergo.. a lot more clouds blocking sunlight...
Not to worry! Once we all switch to electric cars, there won't be any burning of energy to move energy (gone will be tanker trucks hauling gas to gas stations) so in most cases the energy will flow weightlessly from the source (owned by energy companies) to your house and car and recharge stations. That cost per gallon that you paid at the pump that was the slice of pie the transport company took delivering the gas to the pump will then be a decrease in the carbon footprint and an increase in profit that goes straight to the energy company. No more delivery middle man taking their cut!
Now.. consider... who thought up this global warming thing?
1
@Cletus Butzin
Wow, I can't for the life of me, figure out why your not a climate scientist. Oh wait, yes I can.
8
@Cletus Butzin my money says the sun thought it up.
It's already too late, it's why the rich keep feeding us propaganda to confuse the issue and create a debate that shouldn't exist. It's a political impossibility to curb emissions enough globally to reverse the damage without killing off 90% of the human race. It's why Exxon covered up the fact that they have known it for decades. Ending it would have meant the end of their riches and domination of the world economy.
5
@Devin Greco
It won't matter in 50 years, our society will be collapsing by then.
2
My sad citation :
“I used to think the top environmental problems were biodiversity loss, ecosystem collapse and climate change. I thought that with 30 years of good science we could address those problems. But I was wrong. The top environmental problems are selfishness, greed and apathy…and to deal with those we need a spiritual and cultural transformation—and we scientists don’t know how to do that.”
- Gus Speth
https://loe.org/shows/segments.html?programID=15-P13-00007&segmentID=6
18
History is full of examples of behaviors that have been shunned or outlawed because of their negative consequences to human survival. (incest, murder, lying, etc.)
It seems to me that a few more behaviors need to be added to that list.
Stop burning fossil fuels. Of course, we need to do this in an orderly fashion.
Reduce the Human population so that the natural ecological systems of the planet can function. All living things will then be able to enjoy this beautiful planet. Again, this needs to be done in a thoughtful orderly fashion and it might take 100 years.
Now, that our planet is in jeopardy, we need to be more thoughtful Beings. Lets use our big brains to insure our survival.
10
Our behavior won't change. And even the most aggressive environmentally minded citizen can't change their lives enough to stop the oncoming disaster. And who will suffer? The children we are breeding and the animals whether domestic or wild. So, while we go about our day tossing the plastic packaging of irresponsible corporations and treating the gifts of the Earth as if they are ours to misuse at will, the fate of the planet gets written. We are a pitiful species - selfish, shortsighted and irresponsible and the reward for that is an uninhabitable planet.
10
I’m glad this story was listed in the top stories area of NYT mobile app. Too often I only see them in my environmental feed. If you want people to care they have to be informed. And the latest surveys show some of this urgent news is getting through to people. Keep up the headlines!
6
In related news: "Shutdown imperils NASA’s decadelong ice-measuring campaign"
By Paul VoosenJan. 18, 2019 , 3:10 PM
"The spreading effects of the partial U.S. government shutdown have reached Earth’s melting poles. IceBridge, a decadelong NASA aerial campaign meant to secure a seamless record of ice loss, has had to sacrifice at least half of what was supposed to be its final spring deployment, its scientists say. The shortened mission threatens a crucial plan to collect overlapping data with a new ice-monitoring satellite called the Ice, Cloud, and Land Elevation Satellite-2 (ICESat-2)."
More here:
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/01/shutdown-imperils-nasa-s-decadelong-ice-measuring-campaign
Having continuity in the observation records is important to ensure good analysis so we know where things are going. This isn't the only science mission being hurt by the shutdown, just one of many, worldwide.
3
When was the first tipping point?
@Rob Brown
Have you ever seen the picture of Washington crossing the Delaware ever notice all the ice, did you know that was at the end of the little ice age, only 200 years ago. Have you noticed how much of the ice packs have melted. The north and south poles, the ice plays an important role in the balance of nature.
The sea's food chain is now being disrupted, the crill, are vanishing, the herring numbers are falling, and the Salmon and other species of fish that eat the herring, their numbers are dropping. Since everything is interconnected, (Native Americans knew that much) what happens when one link in the chain is broken, species die, including human beings.
The earth, it will recover, but the human species won't recover. The world as you know it today, will be much worse 50-75 years from now, what then. If your young now, you'll be old then, what then.......
3
From the article: "Current projections say that if the planet warms by two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) over preindustrial times, average sea levels will rise by more than two feet"
During the previous interglacial period, when temperatures were less than 1 degree Celsius warmer than today, sea levels were 6-9m higher than today.
And a large fraction of that sea level rise could arrive over the next 100 years.
2
So here's my paranoid comment : it seems the only way such a thing might be stopped from happening, or at least slowed, is if, 1) a super-volcano erupts, giving us at least a few years of "winter" in which to re-think solutions, or 2) some rich but stupid politician with a lot of power starts a nuclear war in order to distract from his legal problems, with the side effects being a nuclear "winter" for years to come, along with a large reduction in world population, which would also automatically reduce greenhouse gasses.
(Paranoid, sure, but also possible, even if far-fetched...)
1
Ever since the Inustrial Revolution took off, we have priced the environment at zero, all in lrder to keep prices low. Dump waste into the river? Costs nothing. Except fpr the cost of waterar teatment to make the water drinkable. Dump coal smoke into the air? Costs nothing. Oops, it did, in the nasty pea-soup fogs in London in the early 1900s, which killed people. But hey, it cost the factory nothing, so it kept prices low.
And so on and so forth ad nauseam.
The ultimate craziness is talk about "balancing the needs of the enviornmen and the economy" That's like talik about "balancing the needs of the lungs and the heart."
5
Still Trump fiddles while climate change grows ever more dire. Worse, he reverses emissions and other regulations that could help and pulls out of the Paris Accord, apparently because he, the so-called Great Negotiator, was not a party to it.
We must rein in this horrible administration and get the Senate to do its duty again. While McConnell waits for Trump to agree to legislation, from ending the shutdown to anything else, he gives up all his legislative power to a whining, snivelling worm of a man who is inept and incompetent.
4
@Barbara
Well, that's because people like him, and Mitch, won't be around to suffer with the damage they caused. By the way, next time you hear from a republican how bad environmental regulations are, just ask them, so what planet do you plan on living on when you've polluted this planet to the point that nothing can live.
4
Some people are telling me that this is a fake video from the fake news of the failing New York Times. I can't reveal my sources but I will register Republican and buy some beach -front property in Scranton , Pennsylvania.
1
the best and easiest solution is to offer every woman on Earth free access to family planning and birth control if she wants it. Most women really do understand that a planned child has a better chance, and relatively few women really want unlimited pregnancies and unlimited births. Every area that has embraced family planning-birth control has had a falling birth rate.
Fewer humans = less need for energy and manufactured stuff and this = less global warming. Also leads to more natural habitat saved and more forests allowed to grow and suck up CO2 while contributing Oxygen.
It's a way to decrease the burden of population on the planet without drastic measures. China's one child policy had unintended consequences and I really don't think most of us would support forced sterilization or forced abortion.
But freedom to choose the size of one's family supports the individual. the nation, and the planet.
2
Many, if not most, of Greenland's glaciers that exit to the ocean (tidewater glaciers) do so a well below sea level.
That means that the glaciers rest on bedrock many hundreds of meters below sea level and they do so for many 10s to 100s of kilometers inland. Obviously, the fronts of glaciers that do not rest on bedrock, float.
Thus, they are along their length below sea level effected by changing ocean temperatures and, in the case of floating fronts, more immediately effected by changing ocean temperatures.
So, glaciers calve off iceberg from their fronts (floating or not) and retreat inland trying to reach a point where the warming ocean waters don't reach and melt them.
The dynamics become more complicated when you consider the snow that may or may not fall upon the interiors of glaciers and, thus, "refresh" them.
1
@Fred
And I can't for the life of me figure out why NOAA doesn't simply hire you as climate scientist........Obviously, with temperatures rise, so much for the snow the "refreshed" the glacier. Yes, I'm from Alaska....
2
I'm a complete pessimist about our species taking the necessary steps to even slow global warming, never mind to bring it to a halt (taking into account the inertia in the ocean-air system). I'm glad I won't be here to experience this and other effects of the Sixth Great Extinction, though I wish the images of angels on clouds were true, so I could watch what is going to happen.
4
@Bob Garcia The best case at this point is very much like how you deal with being in a car or plane crash by maintaining whatever control you have. Of course what is going on now is exactly the opposite where you don't just stop driving but you actively do all the wrong things. Eg. You throw more coal on the Titanic's boilers while in the icefield so the first class get to NY sooner - then after you hit an iceberg you decide an open bar for them is the best policy.
1
@Bob Garcia I guess that's what the Neanderthals thought about the First Great Extinction. The Ice Age has come and gone. Yet here we are today. Why so pessimistic?
@JJ Shlabotnik
Human beings have only really been here in numbers for about 10,000 years. Sure bones that were 300,000 years old were found, but they were not humans as we know us. You know, evolution.
2
Until there are more than just a few people affected by global warming many will not believe in it, particularly those living in the US. In the northeast, yesterday was one of the coldest days of the winter so far. The view people have of global warming is that it's never cold, there's never any snow, and we don't need to put on gloves, etc. In other words, we're still having winter and that means that global warming is a lie. No matter what any scientist says a lot of Americans, including our "president" won't believe it when it's winter, or it's spring, or we get that odd cold day in the summer.
They aren't scientists but they feel entitled to their own facts. That goes for climate change, health care, and the laws of thermodynamics. Even appealing to them about leaving the planet a better place elicits little if any response. They don't care.
12
@hen3ry Funny you should say that. This new story might interest you. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/22/climate/americans-global-warming-poll.html
3
If we are at tipping point, wouldn’t we have seen sea level rise acceleration by now? Check out the tidal guage data on noaa website and show me a city on the US east coast that has experienced acceleration of sea level rise. The ones I looked up all showed a linear trend of 1-4 mm/yr with no sign of acceleration with some going as far back as 1911. Previous IPCC reports have showed average linear trends of 3-4 mm/yr. What has changed? If anything , looks like we we are getting cooler the past few years. A big frustration I have Is deciding what historic data to believe since certainly the models are
not up to snuff wrt predictive power and have been very misleading.
1
Hi, @Marky Mark --it's John. I wrote the story. Here's a good article from NASA about the fact that global sea level rise is, in fact, accelerating. https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2680/new-study-finds-sea-level-rise-accelerating/
19
@Marky Mark
The trend in sea level rise doesn't bode well for coastal areas.
1870-1924 0.8mm per year
1925-1992 1.9mm per year
1993-2012 3.1mm per year
Currently around 4.4mm per year according to this paper. http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/10/104007/meta
When you graph the above it looks very much like the beginning of a very non-linear upward curve.
graph of sea level rise through 2012 https://robertscribbler.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/hansen-sea-level-rise.png
graph of post glacial sea level rise, http://vademecum.brandenberger.eu/grafiken/klima/post-glacial_sea_level.png , note the curve at Meltwater Pulse 1A.
Ice sheet mass loss, notice the lines curve downwards indicating acceleration.
http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/IceSheet/IceMass.png
7
@Marky Mark - one risk with the NOAA Tides and Currents site is the risk of clicking the "Relative Sea Level Trends" tab for a tide gauge and expecting to see anything but a straight line, since that's what that tab shows: just the trend over the entire period. It will always be a straight line.
Here's 8638610 Sewells Point, Virginia showing the "Variation of 50-year RSL Trends" which shows how the rate is changing over time.
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=8638610
It shows one risk of looking at individual locations and trying to figure out what the global ocean is doing. Coastal sea level, as the NOAA charts say, is "relative" in part because the land itself might be rising or sinking. Different cyclical changes in wind patterns and currents can also affect sea level at a specific point, as the Sewell's Point data shows.
So now we have satellite data for 40 years or so, showing trends away from coasts, for the entire global ocean. Trends are starting to accelerate as John and Erik also remark. Here's a good site for the different global measurements.
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
4
Smart Viking marketing - icy Greenland versus greenish Iceland. Little did they know that humankind would mess the planet up such that greenery would emerge from the ice in Greenland.
The tipping point is where there is no more ice giving up all of its inherent cooling power (from the latent heat of fusion) in ice. Where are humans going to get the ability and all the energy to extract all of that latent heat of fusion to refreeze liquid water back to ice - from salt water, no less?
0C ice can absorb up to 79 calories per gram before turning to liquid without increasing in temperature. A single gram of 0C liquid water increases one degree C per single calorie. Continue adding another 79 calories and that same gram of water will have a temp of 79C. HUGE increase.
Ice is our buffer and savior to a runaway global scale warming - for now and as long as there is enough of it. Once the ice is gone, we'll give Venus a run for her money.
Of course it is warming faster! As more ice is lost, the less ice there is to absorb the excess heat. Ice is a remarkable heat absorber buffering any increase in temperature - making us believe that the temperature appears stable, until it is gone.
My question is how much of the latent heat of fusion on the top layers of ice has already been absorbed - and will melt to liquid form with just a tiny bit more heat absorption? We will need a lot of cooling - up to 79 calories extracted from every gram of 0C liquid water to refreeze it to 0C.
6
@PAN
That is exactly what I've been saying about this ice melting, and how the ice caps interact with the global environment. Then again, I can spell thermodynamics without spell check, and I understand the concept as well.
1
Good luck telling China to cut its emissions! I have been there several times and they aren’t interested in what you have to say.
Given that, I would be buying land in upstate NY.
2
@Christian - uh-huh. While the fossil industry leads its zombie horde around here, we're passing up the business opportunity of the century, handing it to others.
"China and India Overshoot their Renewable Energy Targets Regularly and Are Exiting Coal
China and India are currently well on track to achieve their climate targets set for the Paris Agreement.
China aims to increase the renewable energy capacity by 38% in 2020 compared to 2015 levels, equaling 680 Gigawatt (GW) of installed capacities and investments of USD361 billion in renewable energies. For comparison: Germany, which ranked first in the Allianz Climate & Energy Monitor 2016 for its renewable energy policies, currently has roughly 100 GW renewables installed. A new park of 10 wind mills has around 0.04 GW of capacity.
India is also developing its renewable energy capacity at a rapid pace. In 2016, solar and wind installations exceeded the annual goal by 43% and 116% respectively. For 2022,India plans 175 GW of installed renewables. With market forces set into action by a clear policy intent, India is expected to comfortably achieve its climate targets.
Both countries are looking to exit coal-based power generation: China is cancelling plans for new fossil-based power plants and swiftly decommissioning existing coal power plants, while India is considering plans to stop building new coal power plants after 2022."
https://unfccc.int/news/china-and-india-lead-global-renewable-energy-transition
3
@b fagan
Sounds good...I would not bet on it!
@b fagan
China, is going to be the green energy kings, Exxon and others are still stuck in oil.
2
As the news is largely dominated by politics, social issues, the economy, entertainment, the major issue of our time is relegated to the sidelines and back pages.
What part of the word accelerated is not understood? Both greenhouse gas emissions and the rate of ice melting are accelerating. That means 2,4,8, 16 etc., not 2,3,4,5 etc., which would be bad enough. With this report, and the recent one on Antarctic ice melting SIX times faster than previously thought (the previous being only a few years ago), we are looking at many feet of sea level rise very soon, 10-20 years I would estimate. If all that ice melts, in an accelerating way, we are looking at over one hundred and eighty feet of sea level rise, with every coastal city in the world destroyed.
Now does your little pet issue still seem important?
6
@A Science Guy
The part where money and politics become a bigger factor than facts and common sense. Since there is no world government, there is no effective way to control emissions. The other issue, in retrospect, is that profits are derived from consumption of energy and raw materials. The consumption of these things is what is leading to the changes in our atmosphere and environment. Hence we have no mechanism to make curbing emissions a more profitable choice. Unfortunately, humans have proven time and time over that yes, they prefer profit and lifestyle over the future of the planet and their children.
5
@A Science Guy Ok science guy, you blew it when you said many feet of sea level rise in 10 to 20 years. If you are so sure, put your money where your not very well informed mouth is. I will wager $1 million, that the level of sea level rise you are forecasting will not occur. Just so we dont have to wait so long, let's bet on a mere one foot of sea level rise in the next 5 years, which is well below your "estimate." Are we on?
Dr. Trussel's comment printed in the last paragraph of this instructive article reads "by limiting greenhouse gas emissions we limit warming .... That, it seems, is our call to make." Indeed, that one call should be to our local Congressperson and our two Senators insisting they co-sponsor the Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act, introduced to both chambers for Congress in November, 2018. The Energy Innovation Act will be reintroduced in the 116th Congress. It's our best plan for reducing greenhouse gases and moving away from a fossil fuel based economy. Make The Call.
11
I continually ponder what the headlines would have been when the North American Ice Sheet was receding. The earth is dynamic and only one of two things are happening. Either we are moving away or moving toward the next ice age. For all the freeze frame thinkers here is a tip: The only constant is change. We need to be focusing on adptability, not modifyingb the global dynamics. Tip: As the Sun dies Earth heats up and then burns up. Maybe by then we will have propulsion systems that can move thevEarth to adifferent solar system.
3
@Rob Wood - Tip: As humans have already been modifying the global dynamics by our greenhouse emissions and land use changes, it behooves us to skip your long-term outlook in order to avoid massive, unnecessary adapting.
Many of the projections currently suggest sea level rise of about two feet by century end, but more of the current research indicates that could be underestimating.
But gee, how bad could it get if we kept ignoring the problem?
Greenland's ice is enough to raise sea level 20 feet.
Antarctica's ice is enough to raise sea level 200 feet.
It's not likely we will melt it all, but why play chicken with even significant fractions of that much water? How much adapting would you anticipate for Florida with a 25 foot rise?
https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/quickfacts/icesheets.html
20
@Rob Wood "We need to be focusing on adptability, not modifyingb the global dynamics". Except that we are already modifying the global dynamics. We've been doing so evre since we accelerated foail fuel burning as part of the Industrial Revolution, and we've been doing so to the ecosystems ever since we invented agriculture. What we've lacked is the ability to think of the Earth as a system, or rather, a system of interlocking systems. We can now do so, wth the help of computers. Adapting to the new realities will be impossible without systems thinking, and such adaptation will require "modifying the global dynamics".
1
@Rob Wood Receding is an understatement. Millions of square miles of 2 mile thick ice disappeared within a few thousand years. That was a rapid retreat.
Note to Mr. Schwartz and others writing truthfully about the effects of climate change: This administration could care less about science, let alone facts. Americans who care about the planet have been changing their lifestyles to mitigate their impact on the earth. I'm talking about doing a heck of a lot more than simply recycling. We have to circumvent the political liars and cowards in office who deny science and climate change;they are the paid lackeys of special interests who benefit by over-consumption and interest on debt. My current hope is that Millennials, who are living more simply and who are the best educated American generation, will make far greener political decisions than their predecessors. They may actually significantly reduce, but not avoid, the environmental calamity that melting glaciers and sea packs will create by the end of this century. In fact, I am teaching my children strategies that allow them to survive and adapt to climate change. I also put no faith in supernatural intervention. We are well past the point of no return on that one. Our android successors will have a good laugh at our expense 1000 years from now as they recreate the world.
9
@TFL Personally, I'm waiting for Jesus to come down from the sky and wave his magic wand.
@TFL I couildnt disagree more. This administration has it right. The last administration proclaiming that CLIMATE CHANGE was our biggest national security threat, were the ones who couldnt care less about facts, old sport. Every time the previous prez showed up for a commencement address at a military academy, telling the cadets that CLIMATE CHANGE was the greatest threat they'd face, it was embarrassing, and the eyes of the cadets were rolling backwards. At the end obama received a resounding golf clap.
So Greenland is warming twice as fast as the rest of the globe? Here's a graph from Berkeley earth of the avg temps for Greenland:
http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/auto/Regional/TAVG/Figures/greenland-TAVG-Trend.pdf
Note that according to BE (a noted pro warming org) that the temps went up from 1920 to the 1940's, then declined by almost 2 degrees C, then have popped back up to just slightly above the 1940 level now. That doesn't suggest anything more than the temps have oscillated over the last 100 years.
Most of the temp stations used by BE are the ones used by NOAA although BE adds in other stations they have data for. Also note that there are only 2 stations that were operating in Greenland prior to 1900 that are still in operation now. The earlier Greenland temps are based on extrapolations from distant stations (as are more recent). Most of the small handful of temp stations in Greenland now were put in place post 1940. And most of these are on the coasts.
In sum, I don't buy that Greenland is warming twice as fast as the rest of the planet. The Greenland temp record is, to say the least, sketchy at best. In fact, if you look at the graph, how can you say Greenland is warming at all if temps now are not significantly different (given the large confidence intervals) that it is warming at all.
4
@Ralphie, it's John. I wrote the story, which says the Arctic is warming twice as fast as the rest of the planet, a phenomenon known as Arctic amplification. You can read more about it here: https://climate.nasa.gov/news/927/arctic-amplification/
51
You misinterpret the information. When I look at the graph, I look at trends. The graph shows the 10 year moving average mean temperature was about -19 C between 1820 and 1920. Since then it shows the 10 year moving average mean temperature was about -18 C since 1920. That is a significant increase, Ralphie. And, since the graph tells us absolutely nothing about the rest of the planet, your conclusion about temperatures in Greenland vs the rest of the world is unfounded.
13
@John Schwartz Thanks for responding. However, arctic amplification makes sense -- we only have a very short historical record for Greenland re it's temps or sea ice levels or the melting of glaciers. Moreover, the flow of warmer air from the tropics isn't something new. While there is no doubt that the graph I posted shows an upswing in Greenland temps recently, it also shows an equivalent downswing immediately preceding. Therefore isn't the question of whether what we are seeing is really a long term trend or just cyclicality? The truth is we have very limited data and most of it covers only a small fraction of time.
JSH -- I don't believe I misinterpreted anything. The data from 1820-1920 is pretty hypothetical. You had NO active stations in Greenland prior to 1866 per BE (only 2 active in the 19th century to now), and none that I can find that they would used outside of Greenland to make estimates with. So who knows what the actual temps were in Greenland in the 19th or early 20th century. Even now the density and distributon of land stations is minimal compared to the US.
3
Two years ago, a group of climate scientists headed by James Hansen, Director of Columbia University's Climate Impacts, Awareness, and Solutions Program, wrote a paper which came to very much the same conclusions - and essentially, predicted the forces which generated the Puerto Rico, Houston, and North Carolina hurricanes a year later. Dr. Hansen created a general-consumption video abstract of the paper, describing a future in the North Atlantic when "all hell will break loose":
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JP-cRqCQRc8
In a 2015 public statement he and others scientists stated emphatically: "Nuclear power paves the only viable path forward on climate change." Yet inexplicably, we continue to place our faith in the intermittent, meager potential of "renewable" sources of energy.
How long must it take - how many more articles like this one must be published - before the public comes to believe James Hansen knows what he's talking about?
8
Guided by the recent IPCC report, reducing fossil fuel pollution 45% in 12 years is everyone's problem. In my view, simple solutions are the most effective.
A recent 30 minute experience sitting in stopped traffic on a major highway convinces me that each and every one of us has the power to lower our uses of carbon. I turned off my car. As soon as I got home I calculated that I had saved 3 pounds of carbon pollution from the earth's air. Think of the effect if the estimated 700 cars around me had also turned off their engines.
6
If you're living in India and have no reliable electricity or any of the "comforts" most Americans take for granted, wouldn't you want that? Or if you're one of the scores of Chinese or other people living in "underdeveloped" countries, wouldn't you long for a simple, middle class living? This completely understandable desire will likely have seriously dire consequences on any hope of reining in climate change and the host of other environmental challenges we face. It occurs for me as the intractable problem driving all of it.
6
@curt hill Fortunately, I understand that human CO2 emissions have a minimal impact on climate change. It is not one of the things that keep me up at night. I worry about things I can actually do something about.
8
@curt hill - since the glaciers that provide water for these very same people will be eviscerated, their problems will be much greater than a lack of reliable electricity or the ability to acquire televisions.
7
@curt hill The drive towards modernity for all people is at the basis of global climate change. As the billions of people in India and China improve their economic standing the world will suffer. This is not to blame those people. Over the last 125 yrs the population of the west has in many ways achieved modernity and affluence and the result is we're at the point of no return with sea level rise and increasing CO2 levels. As more and more people acquire air conditioning, cars, washers/dryers, etc. we as a species will be beyond the point of being able to change CO2 output and then "Mother Nature" will take over.
2
(Intended Audience: The wives and daughters of the carbon barons & the carbon-sponsored politicians)
I truly fear for the future safety of the children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren of the owners, board members and executives of the oil, natural gas, coal and pipeline companies and their sponsored political “leaders.”
As living conditions on our planet become unbearable due to the severe, relentless impacts of Climate Change, generations of devastated citizens around the world will ask: “Who is most directly responsible for this existential catastrophe?”
When these citizens look around, they will find many of the culpable carbon barons and carbon-sponsored politicians have already passed on to whatever afterlife awaits them. But the direct descendants of the carbon barons and the carbon-sponsored politicians will still be here. And there will be no escape – not even behind their gated communities – from the wrath of billions of incensed citizens on every continent.
For the carbon barons, it all comes down to one essential choice to be made RIGHT NOW: harvest their carbon assets and sacrifice their descendants – or – strand their carbon assets and save their descendants?
For the carbon-sponsored politicians, it also comes down to one essential choice to be made RIGHT NOW: continue to dither on Climate Change legislation and sacrifice their descendants – or – pass sweeping and meaningful Climate Change mitigation legislation and save their descendants?
8
I don’t doubt that climate change is a real peril to mankind’s survival, and that melting glaciers free water to raise sea levels.
However, one assertion gives me pause: “Warming oceans are currently the leading cause of sea-level rise, since water expands as it warms.”
My ice-cube tray disagrees.
4
It’s called Thermal Expansion. When you warm up sea water beyond 4 degrees Celsius the molecules violently push on one another, expanding the total volume of liquid and making it take up more space.
12
@Jennifer your ice-cube tray does not present empirical scientific evidence of the volume of water at all temperatures. You are just observing that ice expands. Water does expand as it warms; ice expands at a fixed rate, liquid water expands at an accelerating rate with increasing temperature. This phenomenon makes ice less dense than the water around it, which is the reason why ice floats.
15
@Fred I think the ice cube tray is a very good analogy, and not just in the instance that Jennifer mentioned. I also find it as a good analogy to explain how slowly atmospheric warming impacts ocean temperatures. As we know, when you take a tray of ice cubes from the freezer and place it in the air at room temp, it doesnt instantly reach equilibrium with the room temperature. It takes awhile for the ice to melt. Likewise, when the atmosphere warms, it takes quite awhile for that warming to have any material impact on ocean temperatures. A one degree warming of the atmosphere over the past 150 years, had about as much impact on ocean temps, as that tray of ice had on cooling off the room.
2
Humans are not good at recognizing tipping points. That's one reason large nations get into wars: a bunch of small, insignificant-looking steps leading to a tipping point that sets off war. For a good example, read "The Sleepwalkers" about how Europe stumbled itself into World War I.
Scientists recognize that climatic tipping points are real, but the average Joe thinks that adding more CO2 to the air will just warm the planet in a linear, additive way.
With that in mind, it's probably not so dangerous for scientists to use "tipping point" language in their descriptions. It won't lead to widespread feelings of hopelessness, because the wider population simply can't grasp the idea. Abstract thinking is just not their glass of beer.
Heck, I've been teaching upper-level college biology for 25 years, and I'm lucky if half my students understand a linear rate, never mind acceleration.
24
@Duane McPherson (Mrs. Gary, here) Love "The Sleepwalkers"; have read it twice, which, considering its length, I consider an achievement. Amazing that the empires of the time functioned, given the lack of centralized decision-making, i.e. the Foreign Minister having a wholly different foreign policy from that of his P.M.
2
"Researchers said these findings underscored the need for action to curb emissions of planet-warming gases and avoid the worst effects of climate change."
We need to accept the fact of global climate change and ask ourselves how we live with it. Exponential world population growth makes the notion of curbing emissions ludicrous and dangerously misleading. The matter of utmost urgency is continued development in coastal areas, which will in fact find themselves underwater despite well intended hyperbole about hope, carbon taxes, etc.
Arguments about "tipping points" are also misplaced and appear to assume some sort of homeostasis in world population growth. But population growth has become a cancer that has metastasized and threatens our existence. Curbing emissions would do little more than implementing a fad diet alone to cure cancer. So, until we abandon the central concept of capitalism and infinite growth our climate will continue to change at the peril of those who ignore it or offer false promises of hope.
10
People respond to proximate stimuli, and that is just the nature of the beast. Sometimes, the government can act on long-run interests, but only if there is a responsible consensus among political elites. Our government is captured by irresponsible oligarchs. In short, only once erratic weather hits more people, more often, they will "perceive" the issue.
On the bright side, since it is going to happen, anyway, I look forward to seeing the Greenland found by the first Vikings.
1
@Craig Mason The Vikings were not the European people to live in Greenland. Those would have been the Albins.
1
Sad to say, but in the grand scope of life on our planet the vast, and I mean 99.99%, don’t do anything about climate change. Those of us who face facts rather then fall for the denial don’t do much anything on their own to stop the change or form mass protests or seriously press the governments of the world to enact anything to help. Some nations make promises but have not enacted any real solutions. They have been making these same promises for the past four decades but greenhouse emissions have continued to rise year after year. Only a few electric vehicles are available but they are priced so ordinary people can’t afford them and the poor have no means to buy a used electric vehicle.
Not to mention the majority of the worlds population either denies, or the information is suppressed, in regards to the emissions from the huge cattle and chicken industry which in itself emits more greenhouse gases than every other industry.
We may as well just shut up about climate change and just face the fact that we ARE going to destroy humanity and there is nothing anybody is going to do about it. Pretty soon it will be too late anyhow.
The corrupt corporations of the world, aided by corrupt governments across the globe, are never going to allow their profits to be cut or slowed in any way, so we can conduct study after study, prove over and over again that we are killing the planet, and sit around talking about it until we are blue in the face, but absolutely nothing will change.
31
Hi, @David Parchert -- I wrote the Greenland story. Some of the most knowledgeable people in the field see reasons for hope. I wrote this story recently, and hope you find something to like in it: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/19/science/climate-change-doom.html
20
@John Schwartz John, I dont know if you remember me, but we spoke a couple of times on the phone. I enjoyed reading your article that is optimistic, and gets away from the doom and gloom narrative of the alarmists. Life has continually improved on our planet for the last thousand years, and most notably the last 100. The planet is far cleaner today, than when I was a kid growing up in the 70's. I cant recall the last time I heard of an air pollution alert day in NYC, when in the 70's it was a daily occurrence in the summer. We humans have made great strides in the improvement of our lives, while also improving the environment. As Bjorn Lomborg said, we all need to just "Cool It."
3
Dear Mr. Schwartz,
I know that many scientists believe there is reason for hope, and I know we could stop climate change, and reverse its effects, but it will not happen. The dynamics of governments across the globe are becoming more Trumpian ever since Trump won the election and pulled the United States out of the Paris Accord, which is a joke anyway. Every single nation in the accord just blows hot air (no pun intended) and has not come close to enacting any real change. Do you honestly believe that these countries will force the corporate world to adhere to anything that will dramatically reduce emissions spewed into the atmosphere? I certainly don’t. So whatever scientific consensus of hope is nothing more than misplaced hope that mankind’s desire for wealth and power will suddenly have a change of heart and forgo profit in exchange for saving humanity.
11
What can we do? This issue has been politicized.
4
@Russell - change politicians
3
More nonsense from "scientists" who need more funding to keep their gravy train running. I've been hearing about this "tipping point" for at least the last 30 years.
3
@bob pretty sure "scientists", even cave man scientists, aren't in it for the money. Fossil fuel and industrial agriculture operations not so sure.
31
My advice, put your life savings into purchasing coastal properties.
30
@bob
Dumb scientists....what could they possibly know compared to a wise horse's bottom like yourself ?
21
Waiting for the Koch Brothers or Exxon Mobil or Mitch McConnell's coal mining friends to take action is a guarantee of global catastrophe.
Models referencing a "tipping point" may not readily translate the urgency of impending change.
One way to represent climate change would be to think in terms of a hurricane.
In contrast to misapprehension about climate change, with hurricanes, there is no gradual process of change.
There is a buildup, a trajectory and path, and massive forces brought upon all it touches..... rapidly.
My fear is that some are lulled into models and notions of gradual change.
25
@macdray If this study it valid, which is highly questionable, there are no amount of taxes that will change the trajectory. Thats the point though, since this alarmism is only meant to separate the taxpayer from their money, and not actually solve anuthing
4
@bob Way to focus on the least important conceivable aspect of a news story. Personal greed, saving some small percentage of personal wealth is obviously so much more important than slowing down or even reversing dramatic climate changes with potential dramatic effects on our already heavily leveraged relationship with the natural world that sustains us.
29
@John Griswold climate change is a natural occurring phenomena. What happened to the 2 miles of ice that sat on top of most of North America and Europe a mere 10 to 15 thousand years ago? Do you think their "scientists" were warning cave people about the perils of climate change then, and should stop starting fires to keep themselves warm?
2
Sadly, there are those that will subscribe to the rants of "hoax" from the likes of trump, limbaugh and coulter rather than listen to educated scientists who devote their careers to this subject matter. Yes Houston, we have a problem.
72