And what effect will all that near freezing freshwater have on the ocean currents? I am in a temperate zone despite being in northern Europe and worry that the Gulf Stream will slow, stop or change.
5
In Antarctica there is increasing ice. Over the last 18 years global temperatures are flat. We can manage our way through by creating ice if needed. Science and capitalism will prevail
Here is the outcome of an experiment consisting of asking Google for the quote "faster than previously thought". These are some headlines:
-Global sea levels rising faster than previously thought
-Global warming's effects are coming on faster than previously thought.
-Arctic Sea Ice Thinning Faster Than Previously Thought
-Tropical forests may be vanishing even faster than previously thought.
-Global sea levels have risen significantly faster than previously thought
-Greenland Ice Sheet Melting Faster Than Previously Thought
-Icebergs are breaking away from Antarctica faster than previously thought.
-Antarctica's ice discharge could raise sea level faster than previously thought.
-The Ocean's Surface Layer Has Been Warming Much Faster Than Previously Thought.
-Mass Extinction Occurred Much Faster Than Previously Thought.
-Antarctic Permafrost Melting Faster Than Previously Thought
-Scientists Say Venice Is Sinking Faster Than Previously Thought.
-Mammals Becoming Extinct Faster Than Previously Thought.
- A new report says the world's oceans are changing faster than previously thought
-Permafrost melt will release climate-warming carbon dioxide gas into the atmosphere much faster than previously thought.
Climate change could happen much faster than previously thought.
-Permian Mass Extinction May Have Happened 10X Faster Than Previously Thought.
-Global sea levels rising faster than previously thought
-Global warming's effects are coming on faster than previously thought.
-Arctic Sea Ice Thinning Faster Than Previously Thought
-Tropical forests may be vanishing even faster than previously thought.
-Global sea levels have risen significantly faster than previously thought
-Greenland Ice Sheet Melting Faster Than Previously Thought
-Icebergs are breaking away from Antarctica faster than previously thought.
-Antarctica's ice discharge could raise sea level faster than previously thought.
-The Ocean's Surface Layer Has Been Warming Much Faster Than Previously Thought.
-Mass Extinction Occurred Much Faster Than Previously Thought.
-Antarctic Permafrost Melting Faster Than Previously Thought
-Scientists Say Venice Is Sinking Faster Than Previously Thought.
-Mammals Becoming Extinct Faster Than Previously Thought.
- A new report says the world's oceans are changing faster than previously thought
-Permafrost melt will release climate-warming carbon dioxide gas into the atmosphere much faster than previously thought.
Climate change could happen much faster than previously thought.
-Permian Mass Extinction May Have Happened 10X Faster Than Previously Thought.
8
The photos of the ice are beautiful, but none of them show anything to give them scale. If the photo of the iceberg from Jakobshavn indeed shows a mass of over 5 square miles, we need something to give us the scope. I understand the difficulties involved, but it would help make the point if we had some idea of the scale. Even an inserted figure or the scale you often see at the base of a map would help.
Dan Kravitz
Dan Kravitz
1
It is clear that not all scientists agree how fast ice is melting but if we are at or nearing a tipping point we need to know soon. If sea levels raise 10 to 20 feet several cities in the United States will have large areas underwater, which will affect the whole city. To be safe we need to address climate change now. Denying climate change is foolish.
1
Well of course its conveniently "too late" so we'll just have to "adapt", therefore, allowing our global 1%ers to continue rigging societies and economies toward continued mass increases in the number of customers, flooded labor market low-wage workers, resource consumers and polluters for THEIR maxim profit - in a world in which the population increases by 80 million a year. Continuing the whole media, and what passes for an academic intellectual farce of a drama of pretended concern, in which as David Attenborough has said "Population" is a taboo word in considerations about how to prevent the collapse of the earth's biosphere. One can not say the truth, that a ever increasing human population will always over whelm via pollution and destruction of ever more functioning ecosystems any amount of technological progress, Tech or ultimately Matrix nightmare like restrictions on human freedom and resource use put in place by our 1% overlords, who created the whole mess in the first place. The only ones that will of course escape will be by definition the 1%, whose wealth and power will ultimately enable them to use the rest of us as cannon fodder in some "War Against ...." to fix the apocalypse they created. Finally the reason we know of this dynamic, can predict this, is that none of the 1% suffered for the 2008 crash they created, or the sending of most manufacturing to China, or the killing of Americans wages with orchestrated invasions of desperate exploitable immigrants.
3
I can't even begin to imagine the thought processes that devolves to that conclusion, but I know it is the result of rejecting the ultimate moral guiding authority (that would be God...)
Affluence creates wealth and lowers population growth because people do not require many children for labor and social security. China just ended birth restrictions because their population is aging. That means that in 40 years there will be a huge dip in their population with no significant emerging generation to fill the gap.
Over population is not a global phenomenon. It is regional. It goes up wherever you have backward economies. As the Chinese are learning... as economic progress advances - populations growth slows. It only takes a couple of generations for even the most populace nation on the face of the earth is actually worried about demographics...
The most importing thing that humanity can do is to not lose faith in a mighty creator. The moment we lose God - our weak, dark, cold intellect takes over and the most ruthless, evil solutions become perfectly acceptable. Why? Because we made ourselves accountable only to ourselves. Leads to disaster every time.
I work with many scientists and quite of few of them now realize that this is not happenstance. Just the consideration of infinity will lead you back to God - if your eyes are open, and certainly, CERTAINLY... There is room for both God and Science...
Titus Corleone
www.tituscorleone.com
Affluence creates wealth and lowers population growth because people do not require many children for labor and social security. China just ended birth restrictions because their population is aging. That means that in 40 years there will be a huge dip in their population with no significant emerging generation to fill the gap.
Over population is not a global phenomenon. It is regional. It goes up wherever you have backward economies. As the Chinese are learning... as economic progress advances - populations growth slows. It only takes a couple of generations for even the most populace nation on the face of the earth is actually worried about demographics...
The most importing thing that humanity can do is to not lose faith in a mighty creator. The moment we lose God - our weak, dark, cold intellect takes over and the most ruthless, evil solutions become perfectly acceptable. Why? Because we made ourselves accountable only to ourselves. Leads to disaster every time.
I work with many scientists and quite of few of them now realize that this is not happenstance. Just the consideration of infinity will lead you back to God - if your eyes are open, and certainly, CERTAINLY... There is room for both God and Science...
Titus Corleone
www.tituscorleone.com
Everyone here seems to think that humanity is some kind a special place in the universe that will last or should last forever.
The universe is a dark and dangerous place that we know very little about. Anyone's wild stab at the meaning of it all is just as good as anyone else's. We know nothing at all or very little about the place we inhabit or who we are or why we are. The whole concept of life and the universe is far beyond our conceptual imagination.
It is in our nature to try and control our environment. But the nature of the universe is uncontrollable chaos. All we can do is pray and laugh at ourselves for being so gullible to think that we actually matter. The biggest thing about our world is our ego. We think therefore we are. ROL.
The universe is a dark and dangerous place that we know very little about. Anyone's wild stab at the meaning of it all is just as good as anyone else's. We know nothing at all or very little about the place we inhabit or who we are or why we are. The whole concept of life and the universe is far beyond our conceptual imagination.
It is in our nature to try and control our environment. But the nature of the universe is uncontrollable chaos. All we can do is pray and laugh at ourselves for being so gullible to think that we actually matter. The biggest thing about our world is our ego. We think therefore we are. ROL.
4
Your first sentence is what is called a straw man argument. No one here has said anything remotely like that.
People who are concerned about climate change would just like humanity to be around for more than a few more generations. The current emissions path we are on will not allow for that.
People who are concerned about climate change would just like humanity to be around for more than a few more generations. The current emissions path we are on will not allow for that.
4
I'm for doing everything nonviolent in our power to reduce carbon dioxide. I am not willing that governments do anything to that end, because everything government does is accomplished by force and violence and is always counter productive. Statist like to point to Hoover Dam as an effective initiative that could only have been undertaken by a big government, but that is only true if the unseen, "lost opportunities costs" of the dam are ignored. And today , with Lake Mead created by the dam drying up to well below fifty percent of its designed capacity, the unintended consequences of a massive government boondoggle are coming home to roost. Later this year, the intake for Las Vegas' water supply may begin sucking air unless drastic measures are taken, such as draining another government boondoggle, the Lake Powell reservoir behind Glenn Canyon dam. Tell government to keep its mitts off our climate before it is really too late.
1
Something I never see discussed in articles like this: the effect of sea-level rise on shipping (and thus on just about everything from global industry to food supply).
A global rise in sea level of not much more than 1 meter (let's say 3.5 to 4.5 feet) would render most of the world's major sea ports useless and leave the remainder very dangerous to use. Without that shipping infrastructure, human society as we know it is absolutely impossible.
Food for thought. Bon appetit.
A global rise in sea level of not much more than 1 meter (let's say 3.5 to 4.5 feet) would render most of the world's major sea ports useless and leave the remainder very dangerous to use. Without that shipping infrastructure, human society as we know it is absolutely impossible.
Food for thought. Bon appetit.
6
Good point. Since the ice sheets will be disintegrating for centuries we will have no new stable but higher shoreline for centuries. So we can't build new port cities further inland, for centuries . . .
3
Can you put a scale to the pictures? I don't know what the size of that ice calf is, without a point of reference.
I think there is something in the article talking about the scale on some of those, but hundreds of feet high. Greenland ice sheet is several kilometers thick.
However, if you want more information, I think this might interest you:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hC3VTgIPoGU
There's some talk about scale in the last minute or so.
However, if you want more information, I think this might interest you:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hC3VTgIPoGU
There's some talk about scale in the last minute or so.
2
I continue to be grateful that there is still funding for data collection and analysis--and to support the education of researchers to do the work. If those who wish through fear or greed to deny what the data show and prevent important research increase their numbers and power in order to eliminate this funding, we who could have spoken and kept silent will have failed in our duty.
2
This is one topic where being truly "conservative" of our environment requires the powers that be, whether scientists or politicians, to be NOT conservative in behavior and thinking.
1
When I travel around the world, I see river beds that were once seas, prairies that were once glaciers, and whole countries that were once frozen ice. Others are deserts that were once jungles. In my considered opinion, I am glad that I was born in a country that didn't exist before because global arming gave it birth - Canada. I am now living in a country that was 25% underwater. Human ingenuity developed dykes and dams to keep the water out of Netherlands. Countries that are now deserts can be irrigated, are discovering lakes and minerals and energy under their surface and build modern cities up top. I find that as the world changes, more people are surviving on more land, more resources turned into transport, housing and other pursuits of life. Even if the Earth's axis changes and we get warmer, I don't hear the polar bears or Inuit complaining. Can someone tell me that we aren't an adaptable race of humans?
1
Because there are now simply too many of us.
1
The ice sheets covering Greenland and large areas of Antarctica are now losing more ice every year than they gain from snowfall.
Well, no, not really. The iced areas around the east of Antarctica are gaining, not losing.
Climate Scientists are trying increasingly to explain away inconvenient inconsistencies in global warming that tend to suggest otherwise (The Arctic is more important, differences between ice sheets over water and land), and to the same degree that they try to emphasise man's cause of it.
What seems to be never mentioned is that when ice melts over water, evaporation increases - there is no evaporation over ice. What this means is that the world's rainfall has increased on average 0.09 inches per decade since 1901.
Clouds are better keeping in the heat than CO2 but they also block out the sun causing a negative feedback loop. Over the last millions of years, our planet has had countless opportunities to become another Venus or another Mars, but neither has happened. I understand the science, I just don't understand their conclusions.
Well, no, not really. The iced areas around the east of Antarctica are gaining, not losing.
Climate Scientists are trying increasingly to explain away inconvenient inconsistencies in global warming that tend to suggest otherwise (The Arctic is more important, differences between ice sheets over water and land), and to the same degree that they try to emphasise man's cause of it.
What seems to be never mentioned is that when ice melts over water, evaporation increases - there is no evaporation over ice. What this means is that the world's rainfall has increased on average 0.09 inches per decade since 1901.
Clouds are better keeping in the heat than CO2 but they also block out the sun causing a negative feedback loop. Over the last millions of years, our planet has had countless opportunities to become another Venus or another Mars, but neither has happened. I understand the science, I just don't understand their conclusions.
You are mistaken. "The planet's two largest ice sheets – in Greenland and Antarctica – are now being depleted at an astonishing rate of 120 cubic miles each year. That is the discovery made by scientists using data from CryoSat-2, the European probe that has been measuring the thickness of Earth's ice sheets and glaciers since it was launched by the European Space Agency in 2010.
Even more alarming, the rate of loss of ice from the two regions has more than doubled since 2009, revealing the dramatic impact that climate change is beginning to have on our world."
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/aug/24/incredible-polar-ice-...
Even more alarming, the rate of loss of ice from the two regions has more than doubled since 2009, revealing the dramatic impact that climate change is beginning to have on our world."
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/aug/24/incredible-polar-ice-...
2
Surging seas:
http://ss6m.climatecentral.org/#12/40.7116/-73.9950
http://ss6m.climatecentral.org/#12/40.7116/-73.9950
2
Nuclear power plants all over the world are located at coastlines. Big storm surges can swamp backup generators, and Fukushima has shown us the consequences-- a catastrophe we have no means of ending. Shutting these plants down doesn't solve the problem, either. Stored spent fuel can and will melt down -- again, Fukushima shows us how. These plants all have to be decommissioned, and their fuel has to be sealed away in concrete-- somewhere impregnable. And soon. It takes about a decade for this stuff to cool off enough to be stored. And please stop talking about nuclear power as a path away from fossil fuels.
1
Excellent article, though disturbing to read all the deniers here. Lucky for the planet, we have one candidate who has put the issue of climate change and global warming front and center in his campaign - Bernie Sanders. Here's hoping the public spots the genuine article - Bernie - and votes for him next year.
2
NYT - "...whether we'll have time to respond to climate change or whether it's already too late."
What do we do if it is found that it is already too late?
What do we do if it is found that it is already too late?
There's an interesting book that may provide some guidance. Learning to Die in the Anthropocene: Reflections on the End of a Civilization (City Lights Open Media)Oct 6, 2015
by Roy Scranton
by Roy Scranton
1
We must do all that we can to slow global warming climate change. At the same, let's acknowledge the sad truth that it is irreversible. But still fight nonetheless.
OK, we filled in much of NY city and we built there knowing that ocean levels are static.We built in New Orleans ,knowing the few hundred feet below sea level was unsustainable. They built sea walls in Europe centuries before power plants. and last but not least our deserts of California and Arizona Mojave and death valley have been deserts for over forty thousand years but we have built there. Hence the climate has not changed although civilization and human habitation has and drastically.
Reading these comments indicates that we are not yet ready to do anything meaningful to change our behavior to reduce global warming. My grandchildren will pay for it.
9
The climate always changes. Alligators in a tropical environment once roamed what today is Alaska.
Studies enlighten, if anyone reads them and thinks.
Paying taxes on C02 will not change anything. Changing our behavior can eliminate pollution, but the challenges of eliminating our polluting military, radically altering the way we grow our crops and feed ourselves, and living without plastics are daunting, with government standing in the way.
Studies enlighten, if anyone reads them and thinks.
Paying taxes on C02 will not change anything. Changing our behavior can eliminate pollution, but the challenges of eliminating our polluting military, radically altering the way we grow our crops and feed ourselves, and living without plastics are daunting, with government standing in the way.
2
London was built at sea level 2000 years ago because for thousands of years sea level was relatively stable. We now have hundreds of coastal cities for the same reason. Now sea level rise from humans burning fossil fuels threatens them all at an almost unimaginable cost.
Losing a stable shoreline and all our port cities combined with the mass migration of hundreds of millions of people will cause global economic collapse.
Losing a stable shoreline and all our port cities combined with the mass migration of hundreds of millions of people will cause global economic collapse.
3
Yes, climate always changes. And in the past animals (in which I include early humans) moved elsewhere to a better climate, once an area became uninhabitable.
So.. where shall we go now? There are 7 BILLION of us. If you have any good ideas as to where we should go - like those alligators - please do let us know. The problem actually ISN'T climate change; that's just a symptom. The problem is the sheer, overwhelming and ridiculous number of people.
So.. where shall we go now? There are 7 BILLION of us. If you have any good ideas as to where we should go - like those alligators - please do let us know. The problem actually ISN'T climate change; that's just a symptom. The problem is the sheer, overwhelming and ridiculous number of people.
1
Seeing all that ice (and ice melt) makes me wonder:
Couldn't Nestle (Swiss company) "harvest" glacial run off from Greenland and deliver the sort of product that they only advertise, instead of taking water from parched areas in the US. Or for that matter, from anywhere else.
Some say the world will end in fire,
others say it'll end in ice.
Perhaps it'll end in a pile of worthless money
after we've staked the Earth in a game of dice.
Couldn't Nestle (Swiss company) "harvest" glacial run off from Greenland and deliver the sort of product that they only advertise, instead of taking water from parched areas in the US. Or for that matter, from anywhere else.
Some say the world will end in fire,
others say it'll end in ice.
Perhaps it'll end in a pile of worthless money
after we've staked the Earth in a game of dice.
2
Anyone contemplating a vote for H. Clinton who is also aware of the immediate threat of climate change should consider the following.
Regarding Hillary Clinton’s climate change plan
“It’s just plain silly,” said James Hansen, a climate change researcher who headed Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies for over 30 years. “No, you cannot solve the problem without a fundamental change, and that means you have to make the price of fossil fuels honest. Subsidizing solar panels is not going to solve the problem.”
http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/08/01/james-hansen-hillary-clintons-cli...
Regarding Hillary Clinton’s climate change plan
“It’s just plain silly,” said James Hansen, a climate change researcher who headed Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies for over 30 years. “No, you cannot solve the problem without a fundamental change, and that means you have to make the price of fossil fuels honest. Subsidizing solar panels is not going to solve the problem.”
http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/08/01/james-hansen-hillary-clintons-cli...
2
Marc Morano who founded Climate Depot assisted Rush Limbaugh, moved on to Senator Inhofe's EPA site, then the Swiftboat campaign. He is a leader of the unskeptical "skeptic" effort. The best PR money can buy supported by the wealthiest industries on earth, carefully distorts and misleads, sometimes subtly, as here where he uses Dr. Hansen's words against their meaning.
Dr. Hansen was not advocating against solar, just saying we need more. He is a prominent advocate of the lesser evils of nuclear power to assist in transitioning away from the dangerous level of fossil emissions. Many of us regard the dangerous of nuclear waste to be less than the dangers now growing - and obvious for those paying attention - from continued fossil emissions.
Of course, if we weren't all so afraid of nuclear, we would be installing advanced nuclear, which is heading towards recycling its fuel. Instead, we are "grandfathering" second generation nuclear, often at sites under threat from rising seas and increasingly chaotic weather and extreme precipitation events, as is infrastructure everywhere.
But will we spend on infrastructure? No, we'd rather get more bombs and materials even the military doesn't think are useful.
The military has to deal with reality unlike our political brats throwing tantrums.
However, despite this argument, there is one truth there:
"You have to make the price of fossil fuels honest" - good luck getting that through an obstructionist money-driven Congress.
Dr. Hansen was not advocating against solar, just saying we need more. He is a prominent advocate of the lesser evils of nuclear power to assist in transitioning away from the dangerous level of fossil emissions. Many of us regard the dangerous of nuclear waste to be less than the dangers now growing - and obvious for those paying attention - from continued fossil emissions.
Of course, if we weren't all so afraid of nuclear, we would be installing advanced nuclear, which is heading towards recycling its fuel. Instead, we are "grandfathering" second generation nuclear, often at sites under threat from rising seas and increasingly chaotic weather and extreme precipitation events, as is infrastructure everywhere.
But will we spend on infrastructure? No, we'd rather get more bombs and materials even the military doesn't think are useful.
The military has to deal with reality unlike our political brats throwing tantrums.
However, despite this argument, there is one truth there:
"You have to make the price of fossil fuels honest" - good luck getting that through an obstructionist money-driven Congress.
12
Climatedepot is run by Marc Morano, a former aide to Rush Hudson Limbaugh III, and Sen. James "Snowball" Inhofe.
While the quote is accurate, you'd be well advised to not link to a known shill for the oil industry. Most of climatedepot's "reporting" tends to be on the bizarre side.
While the quote is accurate, you'd be well advised to not link to a known shill for the oil industry. Most of climatedepot's "reporting" tends to be on the bizarre side.
2
As you said, the quote is accurate. You can find it on many web sites.
1
We cannot adapt to certain levels of global warming. We could hit 6C above preindustrial temperatures this century. The last time that happened enough methane hydrates were released to add another 6C to global temperatures. That event was called the Permian extinction and it wiped out 95% of life on Earth.
"One scientific paper investigating "kill mechanisms" during the end-Permian suggests that methane hydrate explosions "could destroy terrestrial life almost entirely". Acting much like today's fuel-air explosives (or "vacuum bombs"), major oceanic methane eruptions could release energy equivalent to 10,000 times the world's stockpile of nuclear weapons."
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2007/apr/23/scienceandnature.climatechange
"One scientific paper investigating "kill mechanisms" during the end-Permian suggests that methane hydrate explosions "could destroy terrestrial life almost entirely". Acting much like today's fuel-air explosives (or "vacuum bombs"), major oceanic methane eruptions could release energy equivalent to 10,000 times the world's stockpile of nuclear weapons."
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2007/apr/23/scienceandnature.climatechange
4
Scary to see all the climate change "skeptics" and deniers showing up here.
If anything, this article is conservative in its predictions - since other feedback loops, like thawing permafrost, aren't mentioned. Perhaps we need to start preparing ourselves for the idea that sea levels could rise 2-3 meters by the end of the century - and start to plan accordingly.
If anything, this article is conservative in its predictions - since other feedback loops, like thawing permafrost, aren't mentioned. Perhaps we need to start preparing ourselves for the idea that sea levels could rise 2-3 meters by the end of the century - and start to plan accordingly.
14
Everyone who followed the link to this article, myself include, was already firmly ensconced on one side of the fence or the other. No-one's mind was changed. At most, those siding with the gist of this essay may find their concerns heightened; those against, more convinced than ever of their superior crystal ball.
I fall into the former camp, and I will be dead decades or centuries before any calamity occurs. And the bloodlines of my parents stop with my sisters and my sons, and are carried further only by the children of my brother's only son, which is to say they will soon be diluted out of memory and mind.
So my concerns are not for my progeny. They are for all those who will live in the centuries to come who will be decent and kind and generous folk, who will know as history what we believe will be "our" future. And they will have every right and justification to curse us for our ignorance and our too-little too-late approach because we allowed ourselves to be bullied into "proving" our arguments before taking any substantive action.
I fall into the former camp, and I will be dead decades or centuries before any calamity occurs. And the bloodlines of my parents stop with my sisters and my sons, and are carried further only by the children of my brother's only son, which is to say they will soon be diluted out of memory and mind.
So my concerns are not for my progeny. They are for all those who will live in the centuries to come who will be decent and kind and generous folk, who will know as history what we believe will be "our" future. And they will have every right and justification to curse us for our ignorance and our too-little too-late approach because we allowed ourselves to be bullied into "proving" our arguments before taking any substantive action.
10
"they hope to determine" means "they expect to discover evidence that confirms what they already suspect"-that we have gone flying past the point of no return, the celebrated "tipping point", and are like lemmings racing toward a cliff. Even this question is the wrong one because to avoid reaching the tipping point now, now that there are over 7 billion of us, would require stopping on a dime, which species do not do, unless they run smack into a wall (or over a cliff) and go extinct. This is the celebrated "punctuation" of "punctuated equilibrium" - the theory that species do not evolve by slow changes over long periods of time, but change suddenly, as when a natural catastrophe occurs and wipes out some and opens doors for others, after which there is a return to relative stasis. That we are that species, flying past the tipping point and heading straight for that fate is the real story here, and that is a philosophical story not a scientific one, a story about human folly on a grand scale, and our passive acceptance of it even though we know we are are contributing to our own undoing by our celebrated "life style". This does not mean that humanity is not something extraordinary and glorious - quite the contrary. But it does mean that our species is fated for extinction, like all others, and that perhaps we are a merely a clever ape (Homo ingeniosis) and not a (doubly) wise one, as the scientific name Homo sapiens sapiens presumes.
2
What a pointless discussion. Pollution in its many forms, and the huge amounts of energy required to live our lives, are bad and should stop.
Who can seriously argue that dumping waste is good?
Business...research technologies that will drastically reduce energy consumption by phones, cars, buildings. I don't mean a cell phone battery that lasts a week instead of a day. I mean one that will last 5 years. Just think what will happen to your share price if you build it first.
And stop arguing if climate change is man-made or not. It really doesn't matter...the future needs smarter energy use.
Who can seriously argue that dumping waste is good?
Business...research technologies that will drastically reduce energy consumption by phones, cars, buildings. I don't mean a cell phone battery that lasts a week instead of a day. I mean one that will last 5 years. Just think what will happen to your share price if you build it first.
And stop arguing if climate change is man-made or not. It really doesn't matter...the future needs smarter energy use.
3
I’m too old to care that much about Global Warming but I always ask family who come visiting my home ( and notice in other homes) why they don’t flip the light switch off when they leave the room. The response is blank, and I believe this is a common response all over this country. People literally won’t lift a finger to help themselves but add to the hysteria and charges against oil companies when given the chance.
4
Nobody is too old to care about it. You're right though, people have come to regard this as a non-issue. It's happening now, as should be obvious to anyone paying attention to weather over the entire world and over time (which is all that climate is, including the atmosphere in our "world").
www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/
www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/
2
Ms. Anderson - paying attention to the climate is simply an observation on your part based on scant information. Paying attention to actual scientific study shows very conclusively that the there is very little to worry about with regards to climate change other than the demagoguery of politicians and some in the scientific community. If you really pay attention - do you read these studies? you'll easily conclude that climate change is in fact a hoax. Nasa just released a study showing polar ice caps are growing not melting. In spite of significant CO2 emissions the past 10 years, temperature has been steady - not warming. More? Ice cap melting that has occurred has been proven - PROVEN - to be from volcanic activity not warming temperature. When politicians want to change economies skepticism should be warranted - not mocked.
It's not this is a non-issue but, at a gut level, everyone understands this is irreversible.
Instead of spending all the money on studying the glaciers with pin pricks, we need to get real about ISIS and eliminate them post haste. The slaughter in Paris should be a final wake up call to western civilization and those living in mindless cocoons, which includes the US in particular, before it is too late. To do this requires real statesmen which we apparently lack today. It will not be an easy task.
1
Humans can and will (must) adapt to the negative consequences of climate change. There may also be positive consequences. Some forest scientists contend that a warmer climate should benefit higher altitude tree growth.
When I read history, there are myriad issues that seem impossible to contend with from a modern perspective. Smallpox epidemics, the Black Death, or imagine millions dying from influenza! The danger of fire in crowded cities before pressurized water! Look at history, human civilization is all about overcoming dangers just as serious as higher sea levels. In my life the existential threat was (and still could be) "nuclear winter" ie permanent climate disaster brought on as a side effect of a massive nuclear war. Compare that to your slightly higher sea level! It's fascinating how the next generation drops old threats to cuddle & kumbaya with the new, even when the old is not yet extinct.
Climate change is not an "existential threat" to humans on this planet. The tendency to write in those terms is a function of the ubiquity of communications media, multiplied by the tendency for humans to wish to be outraged and express outrage. Yes we cause climate change, yes we should act to slow it. No we will not necessarily stop it and no it will not end our endeavors here.
When I read history, there are myriad issues that seem impossible to contend with from a modern perspective. Smallpox epidemics, the Black Death, or imagine millions dying from influenza! The danger of fire in crowded cities before pressurized water! Look at history, human civilization is all about overcoming dangers just as serious as higher sea levels. In my life the existential threat was (and still could be) "nuclear winter" ie permanent climate disaster brought on as a side effect of a massive nuclear war. Compare that to your slightly higher sea level! It's fascinating how the next generation drops old threats to cuddle & kumbaya with the new, even when the old is not yet extinct.
Climate change is not an "existential threat" to humans on this planet. The tendency to write in those terms is a function of the ubiquity of communications media, multiplied by the tendency for humans to wish to be outraged and express outrage. Yes we cause climate change, yes we should act to slow it. No we will not necessarily stop it and no it will not end our endeavors here.
1
Climate scientists disagree. We are about to blow past the "safe" 2C target, yet even 2C is going to be a catastrophe. Here's the first line of recent paper written by James Hansen, NASA’s former lead climate scientist, and 16 co-authors, many of whom are considered among the top in their fields:
"There is evidence of ice melt, sea level rise to +5–9 m, and extreme storms in the prior interglacial period that was less than 1 ◦C warmer than today."
The extreme storms Hansen refers to moved boulders 10 times the size that modern storms move and the rain alone is sufficient to drown anything in their path. So our "safe" 2C target includes enough sea level rise to drown every coastal city and unsurvivable storms.
We'll likely hit 3C by mid-century and by that point amplifying feedbacks--ice melt, methane release, massive fires-- will make Earth extremely hostile to human life.
"There is evidence of ice melt, sea level rise to +5–9 m, and extreme storms in the prior interglacial period that was less than 1 ◦C warmer than today."
The extreme storms Hansen refers to moved boulders 10 times the size that modern storms move and the rain alone is sufficient to drown anything in their path. So our "safe" 2C target includes enough sea level rise to drown every coastal city and unsurvivable storms.
We'll likely hit 3C by mid-century and by that point amplifying feedbacks--ice melt, methane release, massive fires-- will make Earth extremely hostile to human life.
2
I can remember being fascinated with the idea of human induced climate change when I was a little kid. Growing up Catholic certainly made for an interesting time. To be scientifically curious was almost countercultural in my family.
This article leads me to reflect on the place of religious belief in our world. People who believe Jesus Christ is going to come back and save us (as one of our current GOP Presidential candidates believes) and the planet from the accumulating consequences of our continued trashing of the planet are playing the biggest dice game known to man. It's the equivalent of continuing to saturate your home with gasoline and then walking around its perimeter with a lighted match all the while saying to the sky above: "Someone will come down and protect me from my own ignorant actions." Actions have consequences. Our collective inaction will be our undoing.
Many humans have taken complete leave of their senses. And nowhere is this perhaps more evident than how people are (and are not) responding to the threat of catastrophic climate change.
This article leads me to reflect on the place of religious belief in our world. People who believe Jesus Christ is going to come back and save us (as one of our current GOP Presidential candidates believes) and the planet from the accumulating consequences of our continued trashing of the planet are playing the biggest dice game known to man. It's the equivalent of continuing to saturate your home with gasoline and then walking around its perimeter with a lighted match all the while saying to the sky above: "Someone will come down and protect me from my own ignorant actions." Actions have consequences. Our collective inaction will be our undoing.
Many humans have taken complete leave of their senses. And nowhere is this perhaps more evident than how people are (and are not) responding to the threat of catastrophic climate change.
10
There are so many sneering comments from people proud to be ignorant, each certain they know some basic fact that those stupid scientists overlooked:
"Why are we still wasting money on research? I thought the science was 'settled' ?" [oo gotcha! That rapid human-driven warming is happening is settled, the rate and size of the catastrophe is not.]
"Antarctica has been frozen since Antarctica and South America separated in the Miocene,..-it has been warmer than now several times in those millions of years--Antarctica didn't melt then, nor will it now--the weight.. has depressed much or Antarctica to well below sea level, so were it to melt that space would then be available for the water ..and sea level would actually fall. "
and
"Ice, melting in water, does not make the water level rise. "
[The ice in question is above sea level. The first comment seems to think that the continental rebound of Antarctica from the weight of the ice would happen faster then tens of thousands of years and somehow lead to a sea level fall.]
And the ever popular: "It's absurd that somebody actually makes these predictions, let alone writes it down and gets it published. They can't even predict tomorrow's weather." [A thirty-year old joke. Weather forecasts are actually pretty good now. The real point is that weather forecasting is when you put a kettle on the stove and ask where the bubbles will rise, climate is predicting how long it takes to boil - just heat in versus heat out.]
"Why are we still wasting money on research? I thought the science was 'settled' ?" [oo gotcha! That rapid human-driven warming is happening is settled, the rate and size of the catastrophe is not.]
"Antarctica has been frozen since Antarctica and South America separated in the Miocene,..-it has been warmer than now several times in those millions of years--Antarctica didn't melt then, nor will it now--the weight.. has depressed much or Antarctica to well below sea level, so were it to melt that space would then be available for the water ..and sea level would actually fall. "
and
"Ice, melting in water, does not make the water level rise. "
[The ice in question is above sea level. The first comment seems to think that the continental rebound of Antarctica from the weight of the ice would happen faster then tens of thousands of years and somehow lead to a sea level fall.]
And the ever popular: "It's absurd that somebody actually makes these predictions, let alone writes it down and gets it published. They can't even predict tomorrow's weather." [A thirty-year old joke. Weather forecasts are actually pretty good now. The real point is that weather forecasting is when you put a kettle on the stove and ask where the bubbles will rise, climate is predicting how long it takes to boil - just heat in versus heat out.]
3
The discussion on human caused climate change is for the most part just that - a discussion. As a scientist that has some knowledge and understanding of human cause climate change and its consequences I place my money on the side of the line that whatever we humans do now and in the future to attenuate the consequences - save a global shut-down of the petroleum-driven social-economy - it will not matter.
It's already too late. But let's pretend it's not too late. Does anybody really think the world community is suddenly going to get together and start singing Kumbaya and do something about it?
The Chinese were just caught underestimating the amount of CO2 they're pumping into the air by 20%. Since this information came from the Chinese, does anyone really believe that it's only 20%? Since gas prices have gone down, Americans are buying gas guzzling cars and trucks at a greatly increased rate. When car companies can't meet pollution standards or gas mileage estimates, well, they just lie about it. "What? I can reduce global climate change but it might cost me something and I'll have to slightly change the way I do things? Get out of my face, you liberal, commie rabble-rouser! No such thing, anyway!"
The world won't come to an end, but the human race will and soon. Much sooner than we think. And the end will be horrific. It's going to involve suffering and killing and dying in manners and numbers that the human race has never seen before. Before it's done, to actually die will actually be considered sweet relief. If we don't become completely extinct as a species, we'll certainly be reduced to much more manageable levels and Mother Nature will finally be able to breath a sigh of relief. I really think it's time to stop writing about global climate change because. let's face it, nobody that can do anything about it is listening and anyway, we're already doomed.
The Chinese were just caught underestimating the amount of CO2 they're pumping into the air by 20%. Since this information came from the Chinese, does anyone really believe that it's only 20%? Since gas prices have gone down, Americans are buying gas guzzling cars and trucks at a greatly increased rate. When car companies can't meet pollution standards or gas mileage estimates, well, they just lie about it. "What? I can reduce global climate change but it might cost me something and I'll have to slightly change the way I do things? Get out of my face, you liberal, commie rabble-rouser! No such thing, anyway!"
The world won't come to an end, but the human race will and soon. Much sooner than we think. And the end will be horrific. It's going to involve suffering and killing and dying in manners and numbers that the human race has never seen before. Before it's done, to actually die will actually be considered sweet relief. If we don't become completely extinct as a species, we'll certainly be reduced to much more manageable levels and Mother Nature will finally be able to breath a sigh of relief. I really think it's time to stop writing about global climate change because. let's face it, nobody that can do anything about it is listening and anyway, we're already doomed.
1
Sad....but true.
1
The northern states were covered with ice just like Greenland 14000 years ago. Since then the glacier has retreated about three thousand miles all the way to Greenland. That comes to a retreat rate of a mile every five years. Green house gases help execrate the decline in the ice pack but it will keep melting anyway. Perhaps we should just prepare for a warming world and rising sea levels.
1
Don't waste your time worrying about this possible catastrophe. The earth will be long gone before any of this happens. Humans will be colonizing other planets and starting the same destructive process all over again. We may not be alone in the universe but we're certainly one of a kind...
1
Thanks for this article. I would dearly love to see a new NYT section, like Arts, Opinion, World, etc., for global warming articles. I would love to see daily articles like this one on all aspects of global warming, climate change, and related problems, events, and issues, including development of new and sustainable energy technologies. We need to still the politicizing of this issue, put it front and center in everyone's mind, so that we might deal with the "possible" and not only be prepared for the "probable," as Rignot suggests. I'd rather, for the sake of all life on earth, overcompensate and err on the side of caution against a dying planet, rather than dismiss and disparage, and have our children and grandchildren inherit massive death and destruction.
6
This is the sea level measured in NYC, which is the one relevant to NYC.
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=8...
It shows the SAME sea level rise in Lincoln's time as now
(any long time gauge shows the same.)
So the effect of a century of accumulated CO2 emissions worldwide on sea level rise is ZERO.
Yet that does not deter the scare mongering, or the idea that the next climate agreement would be crucial for sea levels.
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=8...
It shows the SAME sea level rise in Lincoln's time as now
(any long time gauge shows the same.)
So the effect of a century of accumulated CO2 emissions worldwide on sea level rise is ZERO.
Yet that does not deter the scare mongering, or the idea that the next climate agreement would be crucial for sea levels.
1
"there is strong evidence that global sea level gradually rose in the 20th century and is currently rising at an increased rate, after a period of little change between AD 0 and AD 1900."
https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-5-1.html
https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-5-1.html
3
Also worth noting that at a time in history of rising CO2 emissions, temperature has actually been quite level the past 20 years. Polar Ice Caps appear to be growing at a far greater rate than melting (google a study by NASA on this) and volcanic activity accounts for whatever melting has occurred. Funny how actual science by climatologists who contradict politician/ demagogues are the ones constantly insulted and mocked by those who think that a single hurricane is a sign of global warming - it is an Orwellian world!
Let's look at what is real today.
Basements in Florida are filling up with water.
Hurricane Sandy caused billions of dollars in damages
Hurricane Katrina caused billions of dollars in damages.
These are the realities that we will continue to face and which will gradually get worse. Especially since The Three Stooges would make better President's than the current crop of GOP candidates
Basements in Florida are filling up with water.
Hurricane Sandy caused billions of dollars in damages
Hurricane Katrina caused billions of dollars in damages.
These are the realities that we will continue to face and which will gradually get worse. Especially since The Three Stooges would make better President's than the current crop of GOP candidates
7
Hurricanes activity are at historic lows - so your observations about Florida, Katrina or Sandy are just wrong in that these disasters have always occurred but are actually occurring at a slow rate at this time in history. Again, your conclusion that Sandy and Katrina are signs of anything significant regarding climate are wrong.
Lloyd Levine, you appear to have missed a good deal of cyclonic activity elsewhere.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Pacific_hurricane_season
and
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Pacific_typhoon_season
and
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_North_Indian_Ocean_cyclone_season
In addition, you are ignoring all extreme precipitation and wind events that do not fall in the cyclonic activity category.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Pacific_hurricane_season
and
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Pacific_typhoon_season
and
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_North_Indian_Ocean_cyclone_season
In addition, you are ignoring all extreme precipitation and wind events that do not fall in the cyclonic activity category.
2
Sorry Lloyd, you are wrong. "2015 Sets a New Record for Category 4 and 5 Hurricanes and Typhoons"
http://www.weather.com/storms/hurricane/news/record-most-category-4-or-5...
http://www.weather.com/storms/hurricane/news/record-most-category-4-or-5...
1
My apologies, I meant to say that the Paris conference should require that no more building or roads be built that are lower than 200 feet ABOVE sea level.
2
Prediction: we won't have to wait for the Greenland glacier to melt - it could just slide off into the sea.
1
It's too late. Let's give up. It's not really happening anyway.
I can't believe this article never once addressed the other side of the equation: how fast are these ice sheets and glaciers being replenished?
You need to actually read the article. First sentence of the second paragraph: "The ice sheets covering Greenland and large areas of Antarctica are now losing more ice every year than they gain from snowfall."
2
George HW Bush famously declared, "The American way of life is non-negotiable." He neglected to mention that the associated costs are non-negotiable as well.
Costs: not just melting ice but trans-national droughts and crop failures, damaging storms and floods, increased pests and plant diseases ... also endless bankrupting wars and devastating militant attacks.
The American way pushes its costs onto 3d parties, animal, vegetable and mineral. From there the costs bounce back against Americans and their businesses. One cost not mentioned above is the relentless and unstoppable decay of credit, banking and money.
It's not the ice: we change our ways and jettison the consumption -- cars, tract houses, jet vacations, business cartels and neoliberal politics -- or we will be too broke to do anything about the other 'Brand X' costs except weep.
Costs: not just melting ice but trans-national droughts and crop failures, damaging storms and floods, increased pests and plant diseases ... also endless bankrupting wars and devastating militant attacks.
The American way pushes its costs onto 3d parties, animal, vegetable and mineral. From there the costs bounce back against Americans and their businesses. One cost not mentioned above is the relentless and unstoppable decay of credit, banking and money.
It's not the ice: we change our ways and jettison the consumption -- cars, tract houses, jet vacations, business cartels and neoliberal politics -- or we will be too broke to do anything about the other 'Brand X' costs except weep.
3
I have been disappointed that a very insightful book, recently contributed by two highly capable historians of science, seems to have disappeared from the radar. Well reviewed when it came out--at least apparently--this book contains a number of sociological and historical ideas and arguments which are complementary to the science presented in this article. Indeed, they are more than complementary. They are essential to a complete understanding of what we may be facing. The title of this book is: THE COLLAPSE OF WESTERN CIVILIZATION: A VIEW FROM THE FUTURE.
You can find it on Amazon. It should be required reading for a thinking humans.
You can find it on Amazon. It should be required reading for a thinking humans.
2
Naomi Oreskes has not gone off the radar! Lots of good people are doing what they can, but the opposition is clever and well organized and financed, a polished surface hiding a whole lot of blind ignorance disguised in sciencey ways. See the NIPCC, the recent French math thing, Heartland, Singer, NIPCC, and all.
2
Latest NASA photos shows Antarctica expanding to the largest it's been since NASA started taking photos in 1970. Antarctica is bigger than continental USA.
You are mistaken. "The planet's two largest ice sheets – in Greenland and Antarctica – are now being depleted at an astonishing rate of 120 cubic miles each year. That is the discovery made by scientists using data from CryoSat-2, the European probe that has been measuring the thickness of Earth's ice sheets and glaciers since it was launched by the European Space Agency in 2010.
Even more alarming, the rate of loss of ice from the two regions has more than doubled since 2009, revealing the dramatic impact that climate change is beginning to have on our world."
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/aug/24/incredible-polar-ice-...
Even more alarming, the rate of loss of ice from the two regions has more than doubled since 2009, revealing the dramatic impact that climate change is beginning to have on our world."
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/aug/24/incredible-polar-ice-...
2
And we have this fool from texas heading a science committee in congress hassling scientists and denying climate change, along with a bunch of other right wing nuts.
3
Although I consider myself to be a conservative, I am entirely willing to believe that global climate change is happening, and that it is caused by human activities. If I had to make a bet though, I would say that it isn't going to be the biggest problem humanity will face over the next 100 years. That's a long time, and people are capable of adapting fast.
I suspect that the biggest problems may be political, and that the situation today in Europe and the Middle East is a harbinger of much worse to come. I think that chaos driven by population increase (due primarily to the massive and continuing population explosion in sub-Saharan Africa, which was not anticipated by demographers), political instability (I don't see the Middle East becoming sane any time soon, and that contagion could also spread to Africa), and resource shortages (not just Peak Oil, but Peak Everything) could easily outweigh the slow moving burden of climate change. The more complex a system becomes, the more fragile it becomes, and the more vulnerable to totally unanticipated failure modes. Human society has become extraordinarily complex, and my fear is that if we should hit one of those failure modes, the disaster will be much bigger, and come upon us much faster, than anything mother nature could do to us.
I suspect that the biggest problems may be political, and that the situation today in Europe and the Middle East is a harbinger of much worse to come. I think that chaos driven by population increase (due primarily to the massive and continuing population explosion in sub-Saharan Africa, which was not anticipated by demographers), political instability (I don't see the Middle East becoming sane any time soon, and that contagion could also spread to Africa), and resource shortages (not just Peak Oil, but Peak Everything) could easily outweigh the slow moving burden of climate change. The more complex a system becomes, the more fragile it becomes, and the more vulnerable to totally unanticipated failure modes. Human society has become extraordinarily complex, and my fear is that if we should hit one of those failure modes, the disaster will be much bigger, and come upon us much faster, than anything mother nature could do to us.
1
are right. Climate change has been on-going for millions of years and will continue in a slow, evolving way where humans are proven to adapt. Politics is an every day event in which disasters are unfolding daily. More people will die from greed, fear and human misery caused by wars, terrorism and catastrophic wealth accumulation that will explode as always into more wars and terrorism on a global scale. we are now all part of a global village in which one event explodes into another and we all suffer global stock market crashes, global currency wars, global political mistakes, global corporate implosion on the environment, food production and now migration.
Perhaps the Paris conference should require that zoning laws and regulations prevent any more buildings or highways that are less than 200 feet below sea level.
Greenland is part of Denmark. You can see the ice budget of Greenland on the national Danish site
http://www.dmi.dk/en/groenland/maalinger/greenland-ice-sheet-surface-mas...
Greenland GAINS on average 300GT of ice annually by snow deposit minus melting (the RHS of the Acc. SMB graph shows the yearly accumulation)
Greenland never lost more ice by melting than deposited by snow.
Greenland loses ice only by calving icebergs at the edge. That is, if too much ice calves, less will be at the edge.
So the idea that its ice would melt into the sea is nothing but an entirely baseless, defying science and reason, pure, scare mongering.
By the scientifically illiterate for the scientifically illiterate.
Who cover their illiteracy by pretending that they are "on the side of science."
http://www.dmi.dk/en/groenland/maalinger/greenland-ice-sheet-surface-mas...
Greenland GAINS on average 300GT of ice annually by snow deposit minus melting (the RHS of the Acc. SMB graph shows the yearly accumulation)
Greenland never lost more ice by melting than deposited by snow.
Greenland loses ice only by calving icebergs at the edge. That is, if too much ice calves, less will be at the edge.
So the idea that its ice would melt into the sea is nothing but an entirely baseless, defying science and reason, pure, scare mongering.
By the scientifically illiterate for the scientifically illiterate.
Who cover their illiteracy by pretending that they are "on the side of science."
"If climate changes, the surface mass balance may change such that it no longer matches the calving and the ice sheet can start to gain or lose mass. This is important to keep track of, since such a mass loss will lead to global sea level rise. As mentioned, satellites measuring the ice sheet mass have observed a loss of around 200 Gt/year over the last decade. " Quoting from the link you provided above.
1
Adrian O: you need to go back and re-read the article. The charts and the data indicate a net loss to the Greenland icemass of 200gt/year since 1990.
2
Articles such as this usually either tilt toward the hyperbolic, which ultimately undermines their impact among those skeptical of the science, or toward politics, which does the public's understanding of scientific investigation further disservice. This article, by contrast, takes a refreshingly rational approach, by breaking down the complex science and lucidly explaining its likely implications.
Thank you, Mr. Gertner and NYTimes for not only presenting the science to the public, but introducing the scientists as neither superheroes nor hyperventilating partisans.
Thank you for not making this an article about politics, but instead focusing on what we know now and why we must continue to strive to minimize that which we don't yet know; plus the implications of inaction. My only hope is that politicians and the public will read it from start to finish.
R. Scherer
Northern Illinois University
Thank you, Mr. Gertner and NYTimes for not only presenting the science to the public, but introducing the scientists as neither superheroes nor hyperventilating partisans.
Thank you for not making this an article about politics, but instead focusing on what we know now and why we must continue to strive to minimize that which we don't yet know; plus the implications of inaction. My only hope is that politicians and the public will read it from start to finish.
R. Scherer
Northern Illinois University
4
The planet will warm, climate will change, millions will die, and life on this planet will go on. It will adapt to the catastrophe of human infestation of the planet, with all that means. It has adapted to everything from the great oxygen catastrophe to the meteor that killed the dinosaurs.
No, life will not become unsupportable, and yes, we will learn to harvest clean energy. But too late. And eventually we will use what we learn to get off this planet and seek out others to pollute. Oh, who will save the cold, crystalline beauty of the inorganic universe from being slimed by defecating life?
No, life will not become unsupportable, and yes, we will learn to harvest clean energy. But too late. And eventually we will use what we learn to get off this planet and seek out others to pollute. Oh, who will save the cold, crystalline beauty of the inorganic universe from being slimed by defecating life?
Danish Meteorological Institute Data Show GREENLAND ICE MASS BALANCE HAS GROWN IMPRESSIVELY Since 2014
In the 2014/2015 season the daily course and accumulated ice mass development on Greenland measured in gigatons since September 1, 2014 is showing a mass growth of around 200 gigatons, or 200 cubic kilometers.
In the 2014/2015 season the daily course and accumulated ice mass development on Greenland measured in gigatons since September 1, 2014 is showing a mass growth of around 200 gigatons, or 200 cubic kilometers.
It does no such thing. Your summary requires selective vision (days rather than years, and selective comparisons):
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/index.uk.php
First paragraph:
"Since the 1970s the extent of sea ice has been measured from satellites. From these measurements we know that the sea ice extent today is significantly smaller than 30 years ago. During the past 10 years the melting of sea ice has accelerated, and especially during the ice extent minimum in September large changes are observed. The sea ice in the northern hemisphere have never been thinner and more vulnerable."
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/index.uk.php
First paragraph:
"Since the 1970s the extent of sea ice has been measured from satellites. From these measurements we know that the sea ice extent today is significantly smaller than 30 years ago. During the past 10 years the melting of sea ice has accelerated, and especially during the ice extent minimum in September large changes are observed. The sea ice in the northern hemisphere have never been thinner and more vulnerable."
3
Fiddling while Rome burns. It boggles my mind that we continue to argue about this. My grandchildren (and the animals, and the plants) will suffer because all the ignorant, selfish people unwilling to admit/act before it's too late will drag us down with them. Tragic is not strong enough of a word.
2
Humanity seems to be rapidly approaching a crescendo of extinction. Which road will lead us to our 'dead end' first; Unresolved pathways of war, population unsustainability or the degradation of the very house we live in-- earth.
2
Of course it's too late. The article's premise is that even if global warming could be stopped, humans would be able to radically change their behavior and collectively work together towards this common good on a massive scale. Now, when was the last time you've experienced this? Case closed.
2
I am not a scientist, but do respect scientists and their theories put forward from their information gathered, such as reported in this article. I consider climate change a given. It is beyond fathomable all of the other problems climate change is beginning to have on our ecosystems worldwide and exploding population growth is only exacerbating it. The natural order will have the final say in the matter as this planet was here billions of years before we arrived and will be here billions of years after we are gone.
1
Bravo to the NYT's allocating resources for in-depth work on our greatest crisis ever. Kudos for Jon Gertner's engaging presentation of the evidence and the people who are compiling it. Academics like Eric Rignot deserve double Nobels in science and peace.
4
What is more frightening than the very real possibility of rapid sea level rise, as this article outlines, is the utter idiocy of the comments made here by deniers of the science.
8
The Ice Age was caused by human's using fire or perhaps it was their belching. It's always my fault and never a natural climatic cycle.
Having gone through the comments after reading this very well-written article, I can confidently say that essentially all the deniers here who somehow missed eighth-grade science could have their questions & complaints answered if they'd just read the article -- once again, proving that these folks are either the most ignorant class of people on Planet Earth, or total shills, not in any way open to actually, you know, learning something.
8
Many thanks to the NYT and Mr. Gertner for this amazing article. It should be enough to open eyes to the catastrophe that is unfolding in our lifetime, but unfortunately, with last night's tragic attacks in Paris, I wonder if the talks will happen at all.
Climate change is like the melting ice sheets.....it's happening slowly, and human fingerprints are all over it. The catastrophic results will harm future generations, so why should we worry now....we've got to think of economic growth. We've got to grow the economy and that takes more fossil fuels. Drill, baby, drill! Melt, Greenland, Melt!
I have very little hope for the Paris climate talks. Sorry, kids!
Climate change is like the melting ice sheets.....it's happening slowly, and human fingerprints are all over it. The catastrophic results will harm future generations, so why should we worry now....we've got to think of economic growth. We've got to grow the economy and that takes more fossil fuels. Drill, baby, drill! Melt, Greenland, Melt!
I have very little hope for the Paris climate talks. Sorry, kids!
2
I'm glad to see this prominent coverage, but it strikes me as dangerously flawed in two important respects. First, the graf about COP21 outcomes completely overstates the likely outcome of the upcoming Paris talks, by suggesting that they are seeking "to set emission targets that would keep the planet’s temperatures from rising two degrees Celsius (or about four degrees Fahrenheit) above the average for the industrial era, a benchmark thought to ensure that we will avoid the most catastrophic impacts of a warming world."
On the contrary, the already announced voluntary emissions reduction targets fall WAY SHORT of what the science tells us is needed to prevent a two degree warming. Even Christina Figueres, who is leading the negotiations on behalf of the UN, admits this. Yes, there is progress in that some global agreement is occurring, but it is not nearly enough.
That leads to the other major flaw in this piece. What do the studies by Rignot and others tell us about the difference in the risk of a rapid, catastrophic melt based on various scenarios of temperature rise? Is his pessimistic scenario based on two degrees of warming, or six? It's that distinction that needs to be hammered home in order to make the case for a far more rapid mobilization to end the burning of fossil fuels than is currently being proposed in the halls of power.
On the contrary, the already announced voluntary emissions reduction targets fall WAY SHORT of what the science tells us is needed to prevent a two degree warming. Even Christina Figueres, who is leading the negotiations on behalf of the UN, admits this. Yes, there is progress in that some global agreement is occurring, but it is not nearly enough.
That leads to the other major flaw in this piece. What do the studies by Rignot and others tell us about the difference in the risk of a rapid, catastrophic melt based on various scenarios of temperature rise? Is his pessimistic scenario based on two degrees of warming, or six? It's that distinction that needs to be hammered home in order to make the case for a far more rapid mobilization to end the burning of fossil fuels than is currently being proposed in the halls of power.
3
Here is an interesting recent climate paper by James Hansen which details why even 2C would be a catastrophe. What is needed to avoid the worst outcome of AGW is to achieve planetary energy balance by reducing atmospheric CO2 down to 350ppm. Anything above that and we continue to heat dangerously.
http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/15/20059/2015/acpd-15-20059-2015.pdf
http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/15/20059/2015/acpd-15-20059-2015.pdf
1
The rough surface of the eroded ice in the photo greatly increases heat transfer to the ice to melt it faster.
Unfortunately, vast numbers of religiously deluded people are determined to prove that God exists by forcing it to intervene in their compulsive self-destruction.
Unfortunately, vast numbers of religiously deluded people are determined to prove that God exists by forcing it to intervene in their compulsive self-destruction.
1
That's the presumption of their studies?
Will we have time to "respond" or is it "too late"?
Will we have time to "respond" or is it "too late"?
The questions isn't whether we have time to turn around global warming or not. The question is: will we?
2
too late? it is irresponsible to give people the excuse to do nothing about cc.....if you cut an artery and don't do anything about it, you could die. whereas, if you can stop the bleeding, although weaker, you will survive.
4
Yes, despair and apathy are forms of laziness. Time to get weaving!
4
The bigger issue here and looking to the past will not provide any help because of the human contribution to global warming that has been going on for 1/2 century, is are we now looking at a self-contained mechinism in Greenland and Antartica that operates on an accelerating basis vs. a slow change. Already the scientists have had to re-calibrate the acceleration of the icecaps.
Finally, With the massive dumping of cold fresh water into the clod salt water off the east coast the conveyor belt current that starts in the S. Atlantic is slowing and this is having a major impact on the habitat along the eastern seaboard. We would also expect to see hurricanes veer to open oceans in the Atlantic because of the cold fresh water. We would also expect to see Nor'easter to stall and hang in New England.
Finally, With the massive dumping of cold fresh water into the clod salt water off the east coast the conveyor belt current that starts in the S. Atlantic is slowing and this is having a major impact on the habitat along the eastern seaboard. We would also expect to see hurricanes veer to open oceans in the Atlantic because of the cold fresh water. We would also expect to see Nor'easter to stall and hang in New England.
4
Excellent article and summary of many of the concerns of geologists and other earth and climate scientists. It's all about looking at the best scientific data and understanding we have today, projecting plausible risks, and deciding if we should try and do something about them.
The behavior of glaciers and ice sheets cannot be predicted with certainty, especially over decades, though our longer range projections of their behavior over centuries or millennia is likely to be more accurate.
But as the author notes (and other researchers agree), we know from the geologic record as temperature rose at the end of the last ice age, there were 300 to 500 year periods where sea level rose up to 15 feet per century. So we know it can happen because it has happened.
The question is do we want to keep pumping more CO2 into the atmosphere...which will inevitably raise the avg T of the planet about 4-6 deg F, and increase the probability that the ice sheets understudy will continue to melt, raising sea level substantially (4-6 feet is substantial, but the possibility of dozens of feet is real)...or do we want to try and mitigate the risk.
The author in effect believes the odds are very likely that 4-6 feet is pretty much inevitable right now. The risk of inaction on shifting off fossil fuels is too great. As citizens we should write our elected officials and demand a subsidized shift to clean renewable energy sources. It's the only thing that makes sense given the risks.
The behavior of glaciers and ice sheets cannot be predicted with certainty, especially over decades, though our longer range projections of their behavior over centuries or millennia is likely to be more accurate.
But as the author notes (and other researchers agree), we know from the geologic record as temperature rose at the end of the last ice age, there were 300 to 500 year periods where sea level rose up to 15 feet per century. So we know it can happen because it has happened.
The question is do we want to keep pumping more CO2 into the atmosphere...which will inevitably raise the avg T of the planet about 4-6 deg F, and increase the probability that the ice sheets understudy will continue to melt, raising sea level substantially (4-6 feet is substantial, but the possibility of dozens of feet is real)...or do we want to try and mitigate the risk.
The author in effect believes the odds are very likely that 4-6 feet is pretty much inevitable right now. The risk of inaction on shifting off fossil fuels is too great. As citizens we should write our elected officials and demand a subsidized shift to clean renewable energy sources. It's the only thing that makes sense given the risks.
7
I agree with you up to the last two sentences.
We need to conserve energy. Subsidizing renewable energies does increase the amount of wind, solar etc. But it actually puts more energy on the market, which tends to push energy prices down. Plus, it requires management from a government agency, which decides on the amount of subsidy for specific renewable technologies.
A better way to go is to put a price, similar to a sales tax, on the carbon content of fossil fuels. That would make renewables more attractive since they would not be subject to the price, and so it would encourage growth of renewables, while discouraging fossil fuel use. The revenues of this could be returned to households, which would make it revenue-neutral (no increase in tax revenue to the government). This idea is known as Carbon Fee and Dividend (CF&D), and this idea is due to James Hansen.
Whereas subsidies for renewables does nothing to encourage conservation, CF&D would reward energy conservation, by raising the price of energy. That price increase would make many renewable technologies economically viable - technologies which currently struggle to compete against very cheap fossil fuels. The dividend meanwhile returns revenue to households, thus cushioning the added cost, and protecting low-income households. 60% of households will win.
If you want to write to your elected officials, please mention to them that they should sponsor legislation to implement carbon fee and dividend.
We need to conserve energy. Subsidizing renewable energies does increase the amount of wind, solar etc. But it actually puts more energy on the market, which tends to push energy prices down. Plus, it requires management from a government agency, which decides on the amount of subsidy for specific renewable technologies.
A better way to go is to put a price, similar to a sales tax, on the carbon content of fossil fuels. That would make renewables more attractive since they would not be subject to the price, and so it would encourage growth of renewables, while discouraging fossil fuel use. The revenues of this could be returned to households, which would make it revenue-neutral (no increase in tax revenue to the government). This idea is known as Carbon Fee and Dividend (CF&D), and this idea is due to James Hansen.
Whereas subsidies for renewables does nothing to encourage conservation, CF&D would reward energy conservation, by raising the price of energy. That price increase would make many renewable technologies economically viable - technologies which currently struggle to compete against very cheap fossil fuels. The dividend meanwhile returns revenue to households, thus cushioning the added cost, and protecting low-income households. 60% of households will win.
If you want to write to your elected officials, please mention to them that they should sponsor legislation to implement carbon fee and dividend.
"If the ice sheets on Greenland and Antarctica were to collapse and melt entirely, the result would be a sea-level rise of 200 feet or so."
How about a discussion of the Antarctic ice pack, which is at record levels? You wonder why we "climate change" skeptics are skeptical.
How about a discussion of the Antarctic ice pack, which is at record levels? You wonder why we "climate change" skeptics are skeptical.
Icepack refers to sea ice, which - when it melts - does not affect sea level any more than the melting of ice cubes changes the level in a glass of water (or any other beverage). The concern in Antarctica is the pace of movement of the land bound West Antarctic ice sheet. As the land-based ice hits the sea, the sea level will most definitely rise to levels not experienced since before the last glacial maximum (ca. 20,000 years ago), during which much of what we know as humanity developed.
4
The Antarctic ice pack is not at record levels. Your information is incorrect.
3
From a prudent risk management point of you, the question is: Can we live with the worst-case scenario? If the answer is 'no,' that risk should not be taken.
2
Unmentioned in the article is the fact that the earth's crust rebounds upward when the weight of the ice is removed. Greenland's coastline areas won't suffer much from sea level rise, but the rest of us better look out for salt water on the door step.
3
Antarctica's ice sheet is large enough that its gravity pulls the ocean towards it. As it melts the Northern Hemisphere will experience greater sea level rise due to the weakened pull of that ice sheet's gravity.
3
Wonderful irony that Florida will be the first to go and that 1%er shoreline assets everywhere are threatened. Yet it is also very sad that the bottom 1% will suffer much more.
2
I wonder how Greenland ever received that name when it has been covered in ice for thousands and thousands of years.
That's an old question, answered long ago. The Norse (the first Europeans who settled south Greenland around 1000 AD), used the name Greenland in a savvy promotional gambit to get more settlers from mainland Scandinavia and Iceland to follow the pioneers. It worked, for a while actually. The collapse of the settlements in southestern Greenland eventually occurred a few hundred years later due to a confluence of different processes (cooling North Atlantic climate accompanied by European plague, economic downturn and general neglect of the western 'colonies'). But at the time it was settled, the ice free portions of southwest Greenland were quite amenable to the sheep farming that the Norse were accustomed to, whereas Iceland (settled ca. 874 AD) - their first landfall - was already suffering its first effects of erosion from forestry and agriculture and human crowding as farms were handed down and divided amongst too many heirs. Soon after its discovery, Greenland Norse were already moving on to northern Newfoundland, which was even more lush during the Medieval Warming period than South Greenland. An early example of "the grass is always greener..."
4
"...the (IPCC) panel’s official outlook tends toward the conservative..."
Minimizing the estimated sea-level rise seems wishful, not conservative.
Minimizing the estimated sea-level rise seems wishful, not conservative.
3
I had thought we would act decisively after Katrina. Then after Sandy. It will take a catastrophe on a global scale to make us see that nothing else trumps having a stable climate. I will continue to do my tiny part, but billions of personal acts are not going to be enough.
2
Why not mention the storm of '38 while you're at it?
I believe you have misstated the IPCC's projections for sea level rise this century. In AR5 they stated that it would range between 26 and 98 cm.
We have to plan for the probable and even the possible when the future of people, species and the planet are at stake. We can focus on technological solutions like the dam around Greenland or even more drastic projects proposed in geo-engineering. We can also focus on social solutions with a wide transformational scope.
One such solution is proposed in Verhagen 2012 “The Tierra Solution: Resolving climate change through monetary transformation” where the looming climate change catastrophe is combated by the transformation of the world’s unjust, unsustainable and, therefore, unstable international monetary system. Basing this basic global system on a carbon standard of a specific tonnage of CO2e per person, the financial, economic and commercial systems are also transformed given that the international monetary system like glue binds them together. The conceptual, institutional, ethical and social dimensions of this transformed international monetary system of sound money on a healthy Earth are described in the above book and updated at www.timun.net.
One such solution is proposed in Verhagen 2012 “The Tierra Solution: Resolving climate change through monetary transformation” where the looming climate change catastrophe is combated by the transformation of the world’s unjust, unsustainable and, therefore, unstable international monetary system. Basing this basic global system on a carbon standard of a specific tonnage of CO2e per person, the financial, economic and commercial systems are also transformed given that the international monetary system like glue binds them together. The conceptual, institutional, ethical and social dimensions of this transformed international monetary system of sound money on a healthy Earth are described in the above book and updated at www.timun.net.
Interesting article. Keep publishing this kind of information, NYT. It's important that we look our fears in the face and begin to grapple with solutions.
7
keep on with this NYTimes. Great article. We all need to know.
5
I remember what a Chinese classmate told me. During the Cultural Revolution, he was sent to a village high in the mountains. There was a small river. As winter came, the river gradually froze solid. No ice fishing, it was solid ice.
Then, every spring, in one instant, the river went from ice to rushing water.
Of course, one factor was that this was in the mountains, and it was a steep drop for the river. The Greenland ice sheet is on a much more gentle slope.
But the possibility of seeing something like that mountain river phenomenon is something to think about.
No! We need our fossil fuels to maintain our lifestyles. And that mountain river possibility won't happen any time soon.
Let our grandchildren worry about it.
If they can.
Then, every spring, in one instant, the river went from ice to rushing water.
Of course, one factor was that this was in the mountains, and it was a steep drop for the river. The Greenland ice sheet is on a much more gentle slope.
But the possibility of seeing something like that mountain river phenomenon is something to think about.
No! We need our fossil fuels to maintain our lifestyles. And that mountain river possibility won't happen any time soon.
Let our grandchildren worry about it.
If they can.
Replacing fossil fuel has been dangerously slow. To a large extent this has been due to the intermittent nature of wind and solar projects.
Revolutionary science is birthing breakthrough 24/7 green technologies. One example consists of engines that run without fuel on atmospheric heat, a huge reservoir of solar energy that has never been tapped for electric power.
A Ford engine was converted, after 9 years of work, by Chris Hunter. That serves as Proof-of Concept. AESOP Energy is converting a small Briggs & Stratton engine and a Mitsubishi V6 to demonstrate the surprising potential.
Conversions use propane as a refrigerant. The propane is not consumed, it simply provides the temperature differential required for these engines to run.
Four engines have been designed to run on atmospheric heat from scratch. They will need no internal propane. Two are piston engines, a 4 cylinder and a 10 cylinder. The remaining two are turbines: one with a shaft to spin a generator and the second a pure jet.
Conversion prototypes are under construction. A 4 cylinder piston engine will follow. These engines can be scaled to very large sizes.
SECOND LAW SURPRISES can be found under MORE on the aesopinstitute.org website.
AESOP Energy is also developing prototypes of a 24/7 AC Geomagnetic generator - based on unique theory and an accidental discovery. This could become a 24/7 AC alternative to solar panels.
Fossil fuels can be replaced much more rapidly than has been true to date.
Revolutionary science is birthing breakthrough 24/7 green technologies. One example consists of engines that run without fuel on atmospheric heat, a huge reservoir of solar energy that has never been tapped for electric power.
A Ford engine was converted, after 9 years of work, by Chris Hunter. That serves as Proof-of Concept. AESOP Energy is converting a small Briggs & Stratton engine and a Mitsubishi V6 to demonstrate the surprising potential.
Conversions use propane as a refrigerant. The propane is not consumed, it simply provides the temperature differential required for these engines to run.
Four engines have been designed to run on atmospheric heat from scratch. They will need no internal propane. Two are piston engines, a 4 cylinder and a 10 cylinder. The remaining two are turbines: one with a shaft to spin a generator and the second a pure jet.
Conversion prototypes are under construction. A 4 cylinder piston engine will follow. These engines can be scaled to very large sizes.
SECOND LAW SURPRISES can be found under MORE on the aesopinstitute.org website.
AESOP Energy is also developing prototypes of a 24/7 AC Geomagnetic generator - based on unique theory and an accidental discovery. This could become a 24/7 AC alternative to solar panels.
Fossil fuels can be replaced much more rapidly than has been true to date.
An island is a body of land surrounded by water. That makes Australia an island, far larger than Greenland. No such snowfalls occurred there. Starting off with inaccuracies and continuing on with emotive assertions put this reader to a screeching halt fairly quickly.
Australia is a continent.
1
That's all it takes to close down your mind, a quibble about what is an island vs. what is a continent? You're easy.
1
No concern about which is how far from the equator? Meanwhile, back at the ranch, it is heat, flood, and alternately drought, that plague Australia. They had to add new colors to the heat charts there recently:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/damian-carrington-blog/2013/jan/0...
All quote->
Australia adds new colour to temperature maps as heat soars
Forecast temperatures are so extreme that the Bureau of Meteorology has had to add a new colour to its scale. It is a sign of things to come
• Australian project simulates effects of runaway climate change
• Deadly heatwaves will be more frequent in coming decades
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/damian-carrington-blog/2013/jan/0...
All quote->
Australia adds new colour to temperature maps as heat soars
Forecast temperatures are so extreme that the Bureau of Meteorology has had to add a new colour to its scale. It is a sign of things to come
• Australian project simulates effects of runaway climate change
• Deadly heatwaves will be more frequent in coming decades
1
The Club of Rome publication of "Limits to Growth" and Paul Erlich's "The Population Bomb" had some exaggerated projections of consequences of unchecked population growth. However, their alarmist pronouncements helped galvanize bi- and multi-lateral funding for expanding access to contraception setting reduced fertility goals.
Though some countries may have over-shot their fertility targets (e.g., China, Thailand, Eastern Europe) can anyone argue that slowing population growth was a bad thing from a global perspective?
The same applies to global warming and slowing glacial melt.
We need to act now and aggressively.
Though some countries may have over-shot their fertility targets (e.g., China, Thailand, Eastern Europe) can anyone argue that slowing population growth was a bad thing from a global perspective?
The same applies to global warming and slowing glacial melt.
We need to act now and aggressively.
5
Let's hope obviously it's not too late. If it is, we can thank the GOP which has scorned anyone who dared to defer to reason and science.
If there's still time to affect the future, then maybe we can elect more responsible people in 2016.
If there's still time to affect the future, then maybe we can elect more responsible people in 2016.
5
Bear in mind that even a relatively small increase in sea level will have (is having?) a devastating impact on coastal areas, through higher storm surges, infiltration of acquifers by salt water and so on. These increases will come much sooner than we think (in fact, it is already happening). And we should not forget that sea level rise is not the only problem with global warming.
1
The branch of Physics we are messing with is the SAME Physics that makes Venus hot enough to melt Lead and Mars cold enough to freeze out Carbon Dioxide, and those are our SISTER Planets. If the Permafrost starts venting in earnest that's a thermochemical RUNAWAY reaction that doesn't end until the Permafrost does (and CO2 levels are triple what they are today).
3
Factoid: There are 25.4 millimeters in an inch; therefore, 3.3 mm is closer to 1/8 in than 1/10 in, a 25% difference. Opinion: Could there be a military analogy here? Better to overestimate the enemy's strength than to underestimate it.
1
Studies have shown that the IPCC has for decades consistently understated the rate and intensity of climate change and the danger those impacts represent. I think Hansen has a better handle on sea level rise predictions.
The study by Hansen mentioned in the article also focusses on extreme storms. The first line in that study reads: "There is evidence of ice melt, sea level rise to +5–9 m, and extreme storms in the prior interglacial period that was less than 1 ◦C warmer than today."
The extreme storms that Hansen refers to moved boulders 10 times the size that modern storms move. So the "safe" target of 2C that we are apparently going to blow past includes enough sea level rise to drown every coastal city and unsurvivable storms.
The IPCC’s overly conservative reading of the science means governments and the public could be blindsided by the rapid onset of the flooding, extreme storms, drought, and other impacts associated with catastrophic global warming.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-science-predictions-pr...
http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/15/20059/2015/acpd-15-20059-2015.pdf
The study by Hansen mentioned in the article also focusses on extreme storms. The first line in that study reads: "There is evidence of ice melt, sea level rise to +5–9 m, and extreme storms in the prior interglacial period that was less than 1 ◦C warmer than today."
The extreme storms that Hansen refers to moved boulders 10 times the size that modern storms move. So the "safe" target of 2C that we are apparently going to blow past includes enough sea level rise to drown every coastal city and unsurvivable storms.
The IPCC’s overly conservative reading of the science means governments and the public could be blindsided by the rapid onset of the flooding, extreme storms, drought, and other impacts associated with catastrophic global warming.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-science-predictions-pr...
http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/15/20059/2015/acpd-15-20059-2015.pdf
6
The climate is more complex than human beings or all the king's computers or all the king's software can't gat it. For 1,000,000 years -- think of it -- the weather changes, freezes burns it relentlessly changes. To think thatbyounand I have changed it in 100 years???? Give me a break. It is same old, same old strategy to gain and retain POWER, RAW POWER over you and me. Remember the atomic bomb panics in the '50s? Thomas Malthus and his followers regularly ever since? Just say no to the politicians wanting to take your money. NO!
Http://www.periodictablet.com
Http://www.periodictablet.com
The hidden political agenda behind so-called "climate change (ne "global warming") is what calls us to question the truth of man-made global warming. It does not help the cause that data is manipulated and invented, models are deliberately skewed to produce results which portray an imminent disaster of melting polar caps, rising seas, drowning coastlines, drowning polar bears, and starving little polar bear cubs -- none of which is true, not one.
And what is this hidden political agenda -- you might ask? It is Global Wealth Redistribution, to be effected through so-called Cap & Trade," wherein sovereign nations would cede to the UN the authority to set carbon emission "caps."
Except the "caps" aren't really limits, but rather thresholds, over which rich nations would be obligated to buy the "surplus" carbon credits of poor nations. This scheme, which masquerades as a cure for global warming, would in actuality do nothing for global warming if it really were occurring. But since it is just a fiction anyway, the uber-left promoting this scheme can just claim the scheme worked.
And being that most of the world's population, and nearly all of its politicians, are scientifically illiterate, who is to say different? Well, real scientist are challenging it -- only to be viciously attacked by both the scientifically illiterate, and by a liberal press which does not tolerate real scientific inquiry.
And what is this hidden political agenda -- you might ask? It is Global Wealth Redistribution, to be effected through so-called Cap & Trade," wherein sovereign nations would cede to the UN the authority to set carbon emission "caps."
Except the "caps" aren't really limits, but rather thresholds, over which rich nations would be obligated to buy the "surplus" carbon credits of poor nations. This scheme, which masquerades as a cure for global warming, would in actuality do nothing for global warming if it really were occurring. But since it is just a fiction anyway, the uber-left promoting this scheme can just claim the scheme worked.
And being that most of the world's population, and nearly all of its politicians, are scientifically illiterate, who is to say different? Well, real scientist are challenging it -- only to be viciously attacked by both the scientifically illiterate, and by a liberal press which does not tolerate real scientific inquiry.
What "real scientists" would those be? Can you name them and the peer-review articles they have written; the extent of their research; their affiliations; their qualifications?
Should be easy, right?
Should be easy, right?
2
So every single major scientific body in the world has intentionally fudged the data from all around the globe to make it look like it's warming, gotten every single university and government in the world to go along, and managed to hide this fact from the world. Right.
If this is then case, then
Why are Greenland and Antarctica losing 120 cubic miles of ice every year? And why has the melting of ice from the ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica doubled since 2009?
Why did the 150 glaciers in Glacier National Park at its founding in 1910 melt leaving only 25?
Why are glaciers around the entire world under similar accelerating retreat?
Why does sea level rise continue to accelerate and why does the acidification of the ocean continue to accelerate?
Why are plants and animals moving higher in elevation or towards the poles if they can?
Why did 14 of the 15 warmest years in the historical record all occur this century?
Why is the extinction rate in the tropics now 10,000 times the background rate?
Yeah, it's all a conspiracy to get Americans’ tax dollars, wonder how we got the rest of the world to go along with our liberal tax scheme?
If this is then case, then
Why are Greenland and Antarctica losing 120 cubic miles of ice every year? And why has the melting of ice from the ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica doubled since 2009?
Why did the 150 glaciers in Glacier National Park at its founding in 1910 melt leaving only 25?
Why are glaciers around the entire world under similar accelerating retreat?
Why does sea level rise continue to accelerate and why does the acidification of the ocean continue to accelerate?
Why are plants and animals moving higher in elevation or towards the poles if they can?
Why did 14 of the 15 warmest years in the historical record all occur this century?
Why is the extinction rate in the tropics now 10,000 times the background rate?
Yeah, it's all a conspiracy to get Americans’ tax dollars, wonder how we got the rest of the world to go along with our liberal tax scheme?
3
This is a great article, conveying both the uncertainties and certainties of the consequences of climate change. The scientists who tackle these questions are undoubtedly some of the best in any field today.
But there's a gaping hole when it comes to policy recommendations. These glaciologists describe a problem and define limiting cases of slow vs. fast deterioration of glacial ice. I am a scientist too, and frankly we've got to talk not just about the scale of the problems arising from climate change. We also need to wade into the real world of policy and politics, communicating with legislators and guiding public policy on how to address these same problems.
A vital ingredient of any policy for reducing carbon emissions is to price the emissions which are the source of the problem. I highly recommend spending some time looking at www.carbontax.org or www.citizensclimatelobby.org.
I applaud Jim Hansen for taking this step (actually long ago). Now how about more of his colleagues from the academic side of climate science and glaciology stepping up and recommending specific actions?
Wharton
But there's a gaping hole when it comes to policy recommendations. These glaciologists describe a problem and define limiting cases of slow vs. fast deterioration of glacial ice. I am a scientist too, and frankly we've got to talk not just about the scale of the problems arising from climate change. We also need to wade into the real world of policy and politics, communicating with legislators and guiding public policy on how to address these same problems.
A vital ingredient of any policy for reducing carbon emissions is to price the emissions which are the source of the problem. I highly recommend spending some time looking at www.carbontax.org or www.citizensclimatelobby.org.
I applaud Jim Hansen for taking this step (actually long ago). Now how about more of his colleagues from the academic side of climate science and glaciology stepping up and recommending specific actions?
Wharton
7
You point out a glaring and obvious issue. Thank you. It is way past time for action, and arguing is just another technique for prolonging doubt and delay. With all our futures at stake, this is not acceptable, never has been, and the time is getting shorter by the day, terrorists notwithstanding.
3
The scope of action necessary is large, as pointed out by Alice Bows-Larkin in a very clear TED talk, worth the 14 minutes: https://www.ted.com/talks/alice_bows_larkin_we_re_too_late_to_prevent_cl...
2
A quote from the article. "The ice sheets covering Greenland and large areas of Antarctica are now losing more ice every year than they gain from snowfall." I wonder why it does not mention the NASA study that says. "A new NASA study says that an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is currently adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning glaciers." Inconvenient facts? http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-i...
You might just take a look at the rest of NASA.
http://climate.nasa.gov/
(You guys have no shame when it comes to selective quotes.)
I won't debunk this one again, but you may find a skilled response from Dr. Rignot here (previously quoted, easily found in "Readers' Picks" under my name):
http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/11/study-concludes-antarctica-is-gai...
http://climate.nasa.gov/
(You guys have no shame when it comes to selective quotes.)
I won't debunk this one again, but you may find a skilled response from Dr. Rignot here (previously quoted, easily found in "Readers' Picks" under my name):
http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/11/study-concludes-antarctica-is-gai...
2
There are serious problems with that study. It disagrees with dozens of other studies and decades of data.
"“There is no quality data to support the claims made by the authors of [ice] growth in East Antarctica,” said Eric Rignot, principle scientist for the Radar Science and Engineering Section at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory."
"“There is no quality data to support the claims made by the authors of [ice] growth in East Antarctica,” said Eric Rignot, principle scientist for the Radar Science and Engineering Section at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory."
Does any of this fit into chaos theory? Is it possible that everyone could be surprised by a more sudden collapse? (Having written the question I scrolled down to notice Chris Carmichael's comments on the same subject.) There are so many feedbacks, known and unknown. What is the sea floor like under and next to the glaciers etc.? How much more darkness might be added from particulates? Weather patterns and other unpredictable events make these predictions very complex.
Jane Taras Carlson
Jane Taras Carlson
"It would not take 200 feet to drown New Orleans. Or New York. A mere five or 10 feet worth of sea-level rise due to icebergs, and a few powerful storm surges, would probably suffice."
Neither would it take icebergs or storm surge. The sea-level rise that is already baked in by two degrees C will drown New Orleans by the end of this century.
http://choices.climatecentral.org
For now, it is development money that pours in, and every day there is a new construction project breaking ground. Ground that will likely be underwater within our lifetimes.
Neither would it take icebergs or storm surge. The sea-level rise that is already baked in by two degrees C will drown New Orleans by the end of this century.
http://choices.climatecentral.org
For now, it is development money that pours in, and every day there is a new construction project breaking ground. Ground that will likely be underwater within our lifetimes.
5
a well written piece of reporting, although it's dispiriting to see the "it's too late now to do anything to stop it" meme forming its shoulder shrugging rhetoric.
the science illiteracy evident in the comments here ("calving glaciers are growing", "man's contribution is very small" and, my favorite, "it's about CONTROLLING PEOPLE!!") means you have to keep running these patient, factual, clear eyed reports as frequently as you can find people to write them. look at what the washington post regularly puts in its pages, and you'll see where journalism is going.
every great newspaper influences the course of history from time to time. the NY Times had the pentagon papers, the washington post had watergate. which paper, by the excellence and diligence of its reporting, will propel climate change into the necessary political conversation?
an argument is when one person will not walk away from their assertions. it's incumbent on us who understand what is happening and have actually read (rather than claim to have read) the science on climate change to not walk away from this one. we have evidence, physical law and common sense on our side; the skeptics and deniers just have bluster, blinders and ignorance.
the science illiteracy evident in the comments here ("calving glaciers are growing", "man's contribution is very small" and, my favorite, "it's about CONTROLLING PEOPLE!!") means you have to keep running these patient, factual, clear eyed reports as frequently as you can find people to write them. look at what the washington post regularly puts in its pages, and you'll see where journalism is going.
every great newspaper influences the course of history from time to time. the NY Times had the pentagon papers, the washington post had watergate. which paper, by the excellence and diligence of its reporting, will propel climate change into the necessary political conversation?
an argument is when one person will not walk away from their assertions. it's incumbent on us who understand what is happening and have actually read (rather than claim to have read) the science on climate change to not walk away from this one. we have evidence, physical law and common sense on our side; the skeptics and deniers just have bluster, blinders and ignorance.
2
If we are going to keep the Earth a habitable place for humans to live, what we call "human nature" has to change. We can no longer afford our tribalism, superstition, selfishness and greed. The human race must work together as one to keep our ecosystem from collapse.
Changing human nature is a very hard task, but it is not impossible. We have changed our attitudes about slavery, race, women's place in society, gay's place in society, and many other things. Without changing ourselves, we will commit ecological suicide by wiping out everything that supports us.
Get rid of all of our petty differences, please, so we, as a species, can continue to grow, not in population, but in wisdom of how to treat nour home right.
Changing human nature is a very hard task, but it is not impossible. We have changed our attitudes about slavery, race, women's place in society, gay's place in society, and many other things. Without changing ourselves, we will commit ecological suicide by wiping out everything that supports us.
Get rid of all of our petty differences, please, so we, as a species, can continue to grow, not in population, but in wisdom of how to treat nour home right.
1
The article begins with "The loss is evident in the rushing meltwater rivers, blue gashes that crisscross the ice surface in warmer months and drain the sheets’ mass by billions of tons annually." as if this does not occur every summer, now and even at the height of the "ice ages". The fact that ice melts in the summer is not new, perhaps the balance of melt over accumulation is, perhaps reigniting a natural trend seen at the end of the last ice age, perhaps even influenced by our CO2 emission. Another quote " perhaps a foot or two per century, which might allow coastal communities to adapt and adjust". Well of course they (we) could, would, will. Disruptions? of course, for some, opportunities for others (like inland farmers whose land will become more urban, thus more valuable). Some say it is already "too late". Too late for what, for the Earth's survival, for "climate's" survival, or for the ultra conservative wish for "no change from the past". We are the adaptable species, right? So we WILL adapt and probably even prosper, no matter what the climate does. If it changes in some ways, some will win and some will lose, both human and "ecological"; if it changes another way, others will win and others will loses. I just ask that the potential winners be invited to the decision tables.
The climate we are in the process of creating could be extremely hostile to human life. For example, we could hit 6C this century. Last time that happened it caused the Permian extinction which wiped out 95% of life on Earth.
"One scientific paper investigating "kill mechanisms" during the end-Permian suggests that methane hydrate explosions "could destroy terrestrial life almost entirely". Acting much like today's fuel-air explosives (or "vacuum bombs"), major oceanic methane eruptions could release energy equivalent to 10,000 times the world's stockpile of nuclear weapons."
Sound like we could adapt?
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2007/apr/23/scienceandnature.climatechange
"One scientific paper investigating "kill mechanisms" during the end-Permian suggests that methane hydrate explosions "could destroy terrestrial life almost entirely". Acting much like today's fuel-air explosives (or "vacuum bombs"), major oceanic methane eruptions could release energy equivalent to 10,000 times the world's stockpile of nuclear weapons."
Sound like we could adapt?
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2007/apr/23/scienceandnature.climatechange
2
"could be", "could", "could". Yes of course, it is possible, but I strongly suspect any and all of those catastrophes are highly unlikely. And remember we can only resolve to about three or four million years (about 1% of the age) for the Permian extinctions. Remember, 5-10% of genera survived. So we have perhaps a million years at least to "adapt". Remember, we humans are the smart ones, the only ones that can "adapt" to such a degree. What were we like a million years ago? Our adaptability is in our advantage, don't you think? I can argue either way.
There is a ton to learn about ice and sea levels. A key thing left out of all of the studies is gravity and the impacts of the surface crust along with gravity with all this "rise and fall' of both water and ice. The weight and distribution across the surface of the earth is not insignificant.
These guys arguing with NASA over the accuracy of telemetry and sensors is absurd. No question where the expertise of that lies and if an argument comes it won;t be from Climatologists. Climatologists need some real refreshers in math and data skills as well as sensor and measurement collection anyway.
The conclusions of this are extreme but the analytics are of great discussions. http://www.scmsa.eu/archives/SCM_RC_2015_08_24_EN.pdf
These guys arguing with NASA over the accuracy of telemetry and sensors is absurd. No question where the expertise of that lies and if an argument comes it won;t be from Climatologists. Climatologists need some real refreshers in math and data skills as well as sensor and measurement collection anyway.
The conclusions of this are extreme but the analytics are of great discussions. http://www.scmsa.eu/archives/SCM_RC_2015_08_24_EN.pdf
OMG, that silly meme again. The Societe Mathematique is the latest phony skeptic meme. I won't say more, as it is a complete waste of time to pay attention to this.
Pure math is beautiful, but it does not relate to climate, which is complicated and interesting in a different and relevant way.
Pure math is beautiful, but it does not relate to climate, which is complicated and interesting in a different and relevant way.
1
Oh boy, finally looked closely enough to find the bibliography (162). A complete waste of time. Heartland, already!
1
The scmsa outfit is an organization well known for supplying whatever its clients ask it to produce.
It is staffed with mathematicians — not climatologists. Simply read the subjects they have covered. Very few are connected to climatology.
You have too much faith in mathematicians when they venture far from their chosen field,
Would you respect their work if they, for example, critiqued brain surgery?
It is staffed with mathematicians — not climatologists. Simply read the subjects they have covered. Very few are connected to climatology.
You have too much faith in mathematicians when they venture far from their chosen field,
Would you respect their work if they, for example, critiqued brain surgery?
1
We will have more or less time depending on how far we live from the seas.
Greenland got its name because it had forests around 1000 AD.
It's absurd that somebody actually makes these predictions, let alone writes it down and gets it published. They can't even predict tomorrow's weather.
9
I hate to have to explain to you the difference between climate, and weather. So, I won't. Then again, you're from WV, so you're probably ok with breathing in "safe coal".
6
Actually, they do a pretty good job, while the book of Genesis and Reagan's letters to the Romans predict absolutely nothing, being in the first case mythology and in the 2nd a complete fiction. Religious and "free enterprise" rejections of empirical evidence are at best stupid, and at worst incredibly irresponsible.
3
It's absurd when the NYT even approves a comment like yours, especially a comment that comes from a state where humans have abused the land for over a century.
2
Every day, on my bike, I watch the avalanche of company cars flowing into the industrial area where I work. While I wait to cross the street, I count the number of company cars, a lot of them SUVs, with only one person in them. My record is 30 to 1 car with more than one rider. My colleagues say they are concerned about sustainability in questionnaires, but I keep on wanting to put a poster at the entrance to the building that says, Protecting the climate is when I drive every day all by myself with my 1.5 tons of plastic and metal to work and back. Even if I did so, the poster would disappear quickly and would have no effect even on those colleagues who see it. And we have a great ride-sharing program... We humans don't deserve our planet.
49
Auto emissions account for a very large % (50?) of greenhouses gases. They are also the one very large factor in the grim equation of global warming that every car owner has control of. Everyone can cut back on car use by bicycling 5% or more of their miles. Bicycling is by far the cleanest form (including their manufacturing) of practical transportation. Park your car and RIDE. Bikes are much faster in cities than cars. There is really never a traffic jam or grid lock for a bicycle. We basically need to start a world movement to embrace the bike and minimize cars to which the world is currently addicted. Cars are obviously more useful than cigarettes but the addiction factor is identical. The existential cost of cars is global not just individual.
Your (Mr Pfeiffer's) home is in the flat-as-a-pancake Neckar valley, close to the very flat Rhein valley. Bicycling has to be easy there. I've biked extensively in the triangle between Worms, Koblenz and Trier in '10, '11 and '12.The number of cyclists in Germany in their 70's and 80's is impressive but the number in the 30-60 year old group is depressingly small. Very few 'road bikes'. If, exercise isn't appealing there is a fantastic range of battery bicycles available. They are totally fun to ride.
The Seattle riders are strong at 40-70, 15-40 growing weak at 70+
Road bikes are the lightest +/- 7 kg, fastest, most fun bikes. 15-45+ yr olds can cruise at 30-40 kph and sprint at 50 kph. It's a joyful way to get around.
Your (Mr Pfeiffer's) home is in the flat-as-a-pancake Neckar valley, close to the very flat Rhein valley. Bicycling has to be easy there. I've biked extensively in the triangle between Worms, Koblenz and Trier in '10, '11 and '12.The number of cyclists in Germany in their 70's and 80's is impressive but the number in the 30-60 year old group is depressingly small. Very few 'road bikes'. If, exercise isn't appealing there is a fantastic range of battery bicycles available. They are totally fun to ride.
The Seattle riders are strong at 40-70, 15-40 growing weak at 70+
Road bikes are the lightest +/- 7 kg, fastest, most fun bikes. 15-45+ yr olds can cruise at 30-40 kph and sprint at 50 kph. It's a joyful way to get around.
2
Same here, working at a company that makes software for major carbon emitters (err, power companies) in the US. The people who work there love to talk about their luxurious vacations, their ongoing home renovations, their acquisition of the latest electronic gadgets, their recently born children, or their shiny new cars. They don't take their own advice, leaving lights and video screens on all day in empty rooms, throwing recyclable plastic right into the garbage without a second thought, and commuting up to an hour in each direction five days a week. Even those of us who are deeply concerned about climate change find it impossible to "divest" due to the way that America is structured. Buy this, buy that, drive here, drive there, don't think too much, OK, just get married and reproduce and pay taxes.
3
I have many friends who live at sea level. We have talked about what would happen to them if either or both the Greenland or Antarctic ice sheets slid off into the sea. All would drown if at home at the time, along with billions of others.
None of them are bothered a bit by the possibility. That's the trouble with "modern" humans........... short term thinking dominates any forward planning, and that one primary flaw has pushed us and the earth into the survival decline both are suffering from now.
None of them are bothered a bit by the possibility. That's the trouble with "modern" humans........... short term thinking dominates any forward planning, and that one primary flaw has pushed us and the earth into the survival decline both are suffering from now.
43
Perhaps they know better than you that the entire thing wouldn't slide off all at once.
1
Even the "fast melt" guy is not predicting speeds that might drown anyone.
There is plenty to worry about, but your friends are right not to fear that.
There is plenty to worry about, but your friends are right not to fear that.
2
"When I'm President, I'm gonna build a wall to prevent those glaciers from crossing the border into the oceans--and I'm gonna make Greenland pay for it, too!"--Donald J. Trump
66
Oh, walls don't work?
France just shut their border. Seems they think border fences DO work.
France just shut their border. Seems they think border fences DO work.
I assumed you were joking at first, and then I had to wonder: has he said this?
2
I have one question that I think explains the divide between those who are convinced in large sea level rise verses slow and steady rise.
The article states that we are measuring a rise rate of 0.1 inches of rise per year but the most conservative estimate of 1.6 feet by the end of the century translates to 0.22 inches of rise per year. That is a large discrepancy of data and prediction for anyone outside of science that produces a natural amount of skepticism. Can the Times provide a scientist's analysis of this discrepancy?
The article states that we are measuring a rise rate of 0.1 inches of rise per year but the most conservative estimate of 1.6 feet by the end of the century translates to 0.22 inches of rise per year. That is a large discrepancy of data and prediction for anyone outside of science that produces a natural amount of skepticism. Can the Times provide a scientist's analysis of this discrepancy?
7
The earth is getting warmer so the rate of melt is expected to increase and hence the rate of increase each year is expected to increase.
1
I believe the snowball down the hill analogy explains that discrepancy.
There is no discrepancy of data. The rate of increase (0.1 in / yr now) is not constant but rather correlated with global temperatures and which are projected to increase. An average rate for the century of 0.22 in / yr is consistent with 0.1 now and approximately 0.3 by 2100. Coming up with better estimates, both upper and lower, as to how the current 0.1 will evolve motivates a lot of the work described by the article.
1
One quick question. Why are no satellite comparison photos shown?
7
It's a conspiracy.
1
Why? You know the satellite temperature readings show no temp increase for the past 20 years, right? So I bet the satellite photos show no sea level rise.
"Why are no satellite comparison photos shown?"
Because they would contradict the article.
Because they would contradict the article.
Antarctica has been frozen since Antarctica and South America separated in the Miocene, millions of years ago and the South Circumpolar Current began to flow--it has been warmer than now several times in those millions of years--Antarctica didn't melt then, nor will it now--the weight of the ice has depressed much or Antarctica to well below sea level, so were it to melt that space would then be available for the water it became (10% less volume than the ice it was)--and sea level would actually fall.
Stan
Stan
8
The crazies are out today with this one. Most of the antarctica ice is above not below sea level. IF antarctica were to as you say, rise after the ice melts, it would raise not lower the sea level in other places on earth.
1
So saith the confident man who lives a mile above sea-level.
The direct peril doesn't appear to be melting of interior glacial ice, that could be captured in interior lakes by your "depression" effect. It lies in icebergs and ice sheets "calving" from the edges of the glaciers where they meet oceans and eventually melting, increasing the overall volume of water in oceans.
The direct peril doesn't appear to be melting of interior glacial ice, that could be captured in interior lakes by your "depression" effect. It lies in icebergs and ice sheets "calving" from the edges of the glaciers where they meet oceans and eventually melting, increasing the overall volume of water in oceans.
1
Thank you for your scientific input scientist Stan0301.
Why are we still wasting money on research? I thought the science was "settled"?
2
Because that's how science works. Climate is an endlessly complicated system and there is always more to find out and figure out. So far virtually all the research points in the same direction, and we can expect all the ongoing and future research will continue to point in the same direction.
Enough research has been done and redone and confirmed and reconfirmed in all kinds of ways that we are well beyond understanding what is going on however. And way past the point where very comprehensive action should be taken.
Enough research has been done and redone and confirmed and reconfirmed in all kinds of ways that we are well beyond understanding what is going on however. And way past the point where very comprehensive action should be taken.
1
Even it the fact the earth is warming drastically is settled, the exact rate, the time we have to react, and the best methods to mitigate all require research.
1
it's what scientists do. Study, continue to gather data. We still study almost everything.
1
Proof positive that humans are largely perverse and stupid. To disagree with a thermometer is simply asinine. As is quibbling over micro measurements.
What the article does not plainly say but does state obliquely is that life as we know it is running out rapidly.
That the right has politicized this is the most asinine thing I can think of at the moment.
And a heads up to NYTs headline creator; it's only a secret to the ignorant and the cowardly, and I guess those so full of themselves they don't or can't care.
What the article does not plainly say but does state obliquely is that life as we know it is running out rapidly.
That the right has politicized this is the most asinine thing I can think of at the moment.
And a heads up to NYTs headline creator; it's only a secret to the ignorant and the cowardly, and I guess those so full of themselves they don't or can't care.
51
Kindly stop uttering your opinion and give us the facts, Jack
Ice, melting in water, does not make the water level rise.
3
Sorry that's got you worried. Here's a topographic map of Greenland. And a lot of Antarctica's ice is on land as well.
http://www.livescience.com/39298-under-the-greenland-ice-sheet.html
http://www.livescience.com/39298-under-the-greenland-ice-sheet.html
8
Good attempt at diversion. The glaciers are on land. They melt, the water gets added to the oceans. When you pour more water into a bucket, the water level rises.
23
Yes but the ice on greenland isn't on the water. When it melts (or slides into the water) it WILL raise the leve.
2
Most online readers of the Times will never see this important article/report because of its placement.
But we often see articles and discussions regarding our countries disinterest in science.
Well, the world as humans have known it is rapidly disappearing, literally.
And a large segment of our educated informed cognoscenti such as those managing the New York Times still feel/think that global warming is a back page issue.
Their attitude is beginning to remind me of the Twilight Zone, or the Outer Limits TV shows.
But we often see articles and discussions regarding our countries disinterest in science.
Well, the world as humans have known it is rapidly disappearing, literally.
And a large segment of our educated informed cognoscenti such as those managing the New York Times still feel/think that global warming is a back page issue.
Their attitude is beginning to remind me of the Twilight Zone, or the Outer Limits TV shows.
27
In defense of this article, it is in the Magazine, which is part of the Sunday NYTimes, and will no doubt grow in readership with time. Too bad one of those fabulous pictures isn't on the cover, but this is excellent coverage, and the choice of Rignot is wise, as it presents the more "alarmist" (aka "honest") views. Simply put, those who actually visit these sites are freaked out. It's only the armchair theoreticians who can be so dismissive.
More unfortunate is the diversion of increasing focus on our planetary health due to the Paris terrorist attacks. To begin with part of Al Gore's long-planned "24 Hours of Reality" today has been derailed.
More unfortunate is the diversion of increasing focus on our planetary health due to the Paris terrorist attacks. To begin with part of Al Gore's long-planned "24 Hours of Reality" today has been derailed.
7
You are correct. Newspapers like the NYTimes try much better than television news programs which are a horrendous disaster in the duty they have to report Climate change -- it is the most important issue of our time. ISIS will be destroyed over the years, they are not a permanent threat that can destroy the planet as we know it (ecosystem decay including agriculture and all the other flooding and economic disaster discussed here; note that we are actually doing something about that threat of ISIS but little about climate change. Do you see any discussion on CNN about climate change? very, very little.
The Guardian newspaper in England has made a major, major commitment to discussion of climate change -- the NYTimes a weaker one. They may be increasing the discussion in the last 3 months and lets hope they keep it up.
The Guardian newspaper in England has made a major, major commitment to discussion of climate change -- the NYTimes a weaker one. They may be increasing the discussion in the last 3 months and lets hope they keep it up.
2
As a hard-core native Bostonian born and raised in Hull, I wish someone would explain to me why in the 45 years I've lived away from my hometown I've never, on return visits,witnessed any signs of flooding on the penisular from either Hingham Bay, Boston Harbor or the Atlanic Ocean. When is the catastrophe scheduled to occur? After all, aren't these global warming enthusiasts all geniuses?
This thorough, interesting, well written article deserves a read, perhaps a reread or two. Some of the comments appear to be here only to assert prejudice. The beginning of learning is to acknowledge what we don't know, and this article, focusing especially on Dr. Rignot, makes that a pleasure.
Rignot speaks for me here:
"Last year, Rignot updated his findings, again relying on remote-sensing data, and declared that the deterioration of these glaciers had continued and was now ‘‘unstoppable.’’ He had known this for a while, he says, and the paper reflected ‘‘a point of exasperation.’’ As he puts it, ‘‘It was time to speak a little more loudly about it.’’"
Truth or consequences? How about we cut out the political posturing to acknowledge that we all share a hospitable planet and should care for it and each other by slowing down, and where possible, stopping the waste and pollution.
Clean renewable energy development and improvements in storage and delivery would be a fabulous jobs program. What's not to like?
Rignot speaks for me here:
"Last year, Rignot updated his findings, again relying on remote-sensing data, and declared that the deterioration of these glaciers had continued and was now ‘‘unstoppable.’’ He had known this for a while, he says, and the paper reflected ‘‘a point of exasperation.’’ As he puts it, ‘‘It was time to speak a little more loudly about it.’’"
Truth or consequences? How about we cut out the political posturing to acknowledge that we all share a hospitable planet and should care for it and each other by slowing down, and where possible, stopping the waste and pollution.
Clean renewable energy development and improvements in storage and delivery would be a fabulous jobs program. What's not to like?
137
Here's more: if there is a slight chance (and there is way more than that), what is it about ignoring the risk. As to longer time scales, a couple of hundred years is pretty short, but as far as I've been able to see, following a variety of information over time, that is more likely than not for this bit (remember Sandy?), at least for the low-lying bits, and many of these cities, like mine, are based at 3-5 feet above flood tide. I have pictures of that flood tide which is now visible higher and more frequent than it was a couple of decades ago.
"‘On these longer time scales,’’ says Anders Levermann, a sea-level expert at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, ‘‘the magnitude of the sea-level rise could get so big that we have to evacuate New York, Calcutta, Hong Kong, Shanghai, Hamburg and most of the Netherlands.’’"
"‘On these longer time scales,’’ says Anders Levermann, a sea-level expert at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, ‘‘the magnitude of the sea-level rise could get so big that we have to evacuate New York, Calcutta, Hong Kong, Shanghai, Hamburg and most of the Netherlands.’’"
50
No, not evacuate, that is hyberbole. Move them inland or raise the sea walls are both viable alternatives. I recommend a combination of both, eventually vacating flood prone areas except for agriculture and utility corridors. Let insurance rates reflect actual flood costs, then they will drive the market to either raise sea walls and dikes or move away, as each landowner makes his or her decision whenever land is sold.
Have you sent this article and your comments in a letter to Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), chair of the Senate Committee on Climate? As your comments are well-written, to send them to the "chief denier" would be a very good deed.
2
since the economy and capitalism are a big part of not dealing with climate change perhaps one solution is to sell the ice - " I could cup my hands and drink meltwater from snow that fell thousands of years ago, water as cold and pure as any that exists in nature'
no just joking the area would be destroyed even faster
no just joking the area would be destroyed even faster
8
Sounds scary, however calving glaciers are growing glaciers. When they 'melt' they shrink and retreat.
7
Very hard to believe that anyone actually thinks this...
20
Technically not true. A calving glacier in a steady-state is neither growing nor shrinking. New snowfall just balances the amount lost to calving/melting. Glaciers move, flowing downhill. In a non-steady-state, more snow than melting may just pile up--but over time might, with its extra height and weight, cause the flow of ice to the sea increase, increasing calving while the glacier itself is growing, as Bytor45 notes. However, if there is more melting/calving, without enough snowfall to replace the lost ice, the glacier will shrink, sometimes by calving fast enough so the glacier retreats away from the ocean, or by losing altitude. Neither of these effects necessarily reduces calving, and may increase it if the shrinkage of the front is faster than flow of the glacier. In addition, melt-water on the surface of glaciers finds its way to the glacier base, lubricating it so it can move with less resistance from the ground, and increasing the glacier flow rate, hence calving.
In the article, glaciers that were simultaneously increasing calving, and flow rate; retreating "upstream"; and losing elevation were described. These are shrinking glaciers while calving.
In the article, glaciers that were simultaneously increasing calving, and flow rate; retreating "upstream"; and losing elevation were described. These are shrinking glaciers while calving.
1
No, calving glaciers are moving glaciers. Not necessarily growing.
1
About 3/4 the way through the article it is mentioned that sea level has been 20 feet higher in a previous warm period. Actually there have been many warm periods like that with sea level increases greater than that. You can search and find USGS publications to review that information. You can also read suggestions there may have been periods warm enough where sea levels rose as much as 80 feet and there may have been no ice left on the planet. Of course all of these warm periods and accompanying sea level rise happened without any man-made CO2 contribution. Now of course with billions of people living on the planet and many living next to the sea any sea level change is a significant event. Of all the studies I've reviewed man's contribution to actual warming of the planet is very small and probably insignificant compared to the natural causes of warming. So, it would probably be much more effective and efficient (speaking as a civil engineer) to deal with the rising sea as necessary.
12
Actually the figure is 200 feet. However, the contribution from Greenland is only part of the total.
25
Ms. Schroeder,
As a mechanical engineer, I checked 1st law balance on the climate system in the last 40 or so years. I do not know what period you are referencing, but the claim that man-made contribution is dwarfed by natural contributions to warming certainly does not apply to the last 40 years. If you take the information from ARGO and its predecessors (ocean temperatures), GRACE (Ice mass loss), the NOAA MSUs and sondes (lower troposphere) and the boreholes (land surface) you conclude that the climate system added something like 275 zetajoules since about 1971. That is a big number, but if you believe quantum mechanics and the measurements of the abundance of CO2, you find that CO2 added since 1970 has added over 600 zetajoules in that period. The excess of course has been radiated to space and cancelled by aerosol albedo negatie forcings from volcanoes, pollution and aerosol-cloud interactions. The lesson is that anthropogenic CO2 has added several times more energy to the climate system than is needed to explain the observed warming. (See IPCC WG1 Box 3,1) and Murphy et al., 2009. The lesson here is that the First Law of Thermodynamics is a powerful tool to investigate the energy budget of climate and the findings is that climate has gained energy and CO2 is largely responsible.
It may certainly be necessary for civil engineers to build some levees as we adapt. It is more necessary to stop burning carbon soon. Or things will get much worse.
Chuck
Golden
As a mechanical engineer, I checked 1st law balance on the climate system in the last 40 or so years. I do not know what period you are referencing, but the claim that man-made contribution is dwarfed by natural contributions to warming certainly does not apply to the last 40 years. If you take the information from ARGO and its predecessors (ocean temperatures), GRACE (Ice mass loss), the NOAA MSUs and sondes (lower troposphere) and the boreholes (land surface) you conclude that the climate system added something like 275 zetajoules since about 1971. That is a big number, but if you believe quantum mechanics and the measurements of the abundance of CO2, you find that CO2 added since 1970 has added over 600 zetajoules in that period. The excess of course has been radiated to space and cancelled by aerosol albedo negatie forcings from volcanoes, pollution and aerosol-cloud interactions. The lesson is that anthropogenic CO2 has added several times more energy to the climate system than is needed to explain the observed warming. (See IPCC WG1 Box 3,1) and Murphy et al., 2009. The lesson here is that the First Law of Thermodynamics is a powerful tool to investigate the energy budget of climate and the findings is that climate has gained energy and CO2 is largely responsible.
It may certainly be necessary for civil engineers to build some levees as we adapt. It is more necessary to stop burning carbon soon. Or things will get much worse.
Chuck
Golden
80
Human produced CO2 amounts to less than 3% of the annual total (Google it)--thus any CO2 reduction they talk about is reduction of that "less than 3%"--so, a reduction of 10% (impossible) would be "Ten percent of 'less than 3%'"--an amount far to small to measure
Stan
Stan
3
A most excellent and balanced piece. Readers might enjoy reading more about Jakobshavn and seeing time-lapse calving events at this link http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,154.msg65271.html#msg65271
8
Also the main Sea Ice blog, though it's partly in abeyance during the freezing season, being mostly focused on the Arctic.
http://neven1.typepad.com/
It cross references most (all?) of the best worldwide sources on ice, particularly accessible through the graphics page.
https://sites.google.com/site/arcticseaicegraphs/
http://neven1.typepad.com/
It cross references most (all?) of the best worldwide sources on ice, particularly accessible through the graphics page.
https://sites.google.com/site/arcticseaicegraphs/
13
People can understand the need to buy fire insurance for their house even though the chances of an individual house catching fire are quite small.
However, they seem incapable of understanding the need to take out environmental insurance by switching to green energy sources even though the chances of catastrophic global warming are significantly greater than the chances of an individual house catching fire.
Also, witching to green energy would have an overall economic benefit even if there was no global warming, so that switching to green energy is the equivalent to being paid to by the insurance company to get insurance.
However, they seem incapable of understanding the need to take out environmental insurance by switching to green energy sources even though the chances of catastrophic global warming are significantly greater than the chances of an individual house catching fire.
Also, witching to green energy would have an overall economic benefit even if there was no global warming, so that switching to green energy is the equivalent to being paid to by the insurance company to get insurance.
111
To add to your point of discussion, switching to non fossil fuel energy also has the potential consequence of cleaner air as well.
6
The essential problem with coming up with extremely short-term (<1,000 years) is that weather and climate are not linear deterministic systems. They are chaotic. Right now we have to model these systems using linear deterministic models because that is all we have.
What will really happen is that the weather and climate will follow strange attractors where systems jump from one set of "rules" to another in a manner that is not predictable. Massive shifts in weather patterns, far greater than what is already observed, will take place in short time frames.
The last time this happened was the Younger-Dryas Stadial when North America went from being a lush forested plain to being a arid arctic desert. All large mammals went extinct (including man) along with about half of birds, reptiles and plants. This climate change happened in about 60-70 years and remained for around 1500 years.
What will really happen is that the weather and climate will follow strange attractors where systems jump from one set of "rules" to another in a manner that is not predictable. Massive shifts in weather patterns, far greater than what is already observed, will take place in short time frames.
The last time this happened was the Younger-Dryas Stadial when North America went from being a lush forested plain to being a arid arctic desert. All large mammals went extinct (including man) along with about half of birds, reptiles and plants. This climate change happened in about 60-70 years and remained for around 1500 years.
30
Chris Carmichael,
You might want to spend some time at the US National Academy of Sciences' "Climate Modeling 101" site (http://nas-sites.org/climate-change/climatemodeling/index.php) before making a fool of yourself on the Internet again.
You might want to spend some time at the US National Academy of Sciences' "Climate Modeling 101" site (http://nas-sites.org/climate-change/climatemodeling/index.php) before making a fool of yourself on the Internet again.
1
You can do nonlinear dynamics simulations of at least parts of the system and observe the chaos. And you can have chaotic behaviour in deterministic systems. The problem is one of approximations, whether the model used is linear or based on nonlinear dynamics.
And even if you had a supercomputer that could compute the (nonlinear) dynamics of all the atoms in the world at the atomic level (classical level), and you had a perfect energy function, you would still find it hard to make long term predictions due to chaos (exponential sensitivity to initial conditions).
And even if you had a supercomputer that could compute the (nonlinear) dynamics of all the atoms in the world at the atomic level (classical level), and you had a perfect energy function, you would still find it hard to make long term predictions due to chaos (exponential sensitivity to initial conditions).
1
Also, see Limits to Growth published in 1972 which analysed not just the climate system but the entire ecosystem using nonlinear systems dynamics. I'm sure climate models use nonlinear modelling. And like I said before, determinism doesn't preclude chaos.
1
So nasa last week said antarctic gained 112 billon tonnes of ice yearly for 20 year is now according to this article losing ice. I think I will take nasa's information over yours.
3
Great you like NASA. Here's more:
http://climate.nasa.gov/
Plenty more on this at the NYTimes; have a look.
This study stopped at 2008, so recent information was not included.
http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/11/study-concludes-antarctica-is-gai...
Another scientist (and more at the link):
"Eric Rignot, who has worked on similar Antarctic studies, has been fielding a lot of questions about this one ... “I am afraid I have some rather harsh words about it,” he wrote. Rignot said the data just aren’t precise enough to support the paper's conclusions.
"“Zwally's group is the only one pushing its interpretation beyond the realm of the inherent uncertainty of the data. Accumulation of snow in East Antarctica is 10 centimeters water equivalent per year. To detect changes in accumulation of 136 gigatons (with no error bar), or 10 percent, Zwally et al. needs to detect changes of the order of 1 centimeter. Current technology such as ICESat cannot detect any change smaller than 20 centimeters. Radar altimetry (used for the earlier period) is closer to 40-50 centimeter noise, but nobody really knows. There is no way to detect changes in East Antarctic accumulation at the 10 percent level, not even 50 percent level, with those kinds of error bars,” ...
"“The Zwally group’s findings are at odds with all other independent methods: re-analysis, gravity measurements, mass budget method, and other groups using the same data.”"
http://climate.nasa.gov/
Plenty more on this at the NYTimes; have a look.
This study stopped at 2008, so recent information was not included.
http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/11/study-concludes-antarctica-is-gai...
Another scientist (and more at the link):
"Eric Rignot, who has worked on similar Antarctic studies, has been fielding a lot of questions about this one ... “I am afraid I have some rather harsh words about it,” he wrote. Rignot said the data just aren’t precise enough to support the paper's conclusions.
"“Zwally's group is the only one pushing its interpretation beyond the realm of the inherent uncertainty of the data. Accumulation of snow in East Antarctica is 10 centimeters water equivalent per year. To detect changes in accumulation of 136 gigatons (with no error bar), or 10 percent, Zwally et al. needs to detect changes of the order of 1 centimeter. Current technology such as ICESat cannot detect any change smaller than 20 centimeters. Radar altimetry (used for the earlier period) is closer to 40-50 centimeter noise, but nobody really knows. There is no way to detect changes in East Antarctic accumulation at the 10 percent level, not even 50 percent level, with those kinds of error bars,” ...
"“The Zwally group’s findings are at odds with all other independent methods: re-analysis, gravity measurements, mass budget method, and other groups using the same data.”"
38
Greenland is not Antarctica ...
14
Greenland and West Antarctica are losing ice, but the most recent NASA analysis seems to indicate that East Antarctica is gaining ice and doing so at a greater rate than West Antarctica is losing it. Although we won't really have the satellite tools to clearly measure what is happening for a few more years, since we are talking about very small changes in elevation over many thousands of square miles.
However, increasing ice mass in Antarctica implies that the ocean water is heating up faster than we thought.
Eventually. the increased melting and calving in East Antarctica will out do the increasing snow fall. However, the biggest risk for an unexpectedly large sea level rise comes from Greenland with a somewhat lesser risk from West Antarctica. Serious losses from East Antarctica likely won't happen until we are all dead.
However, increasing ice mass in Antarctica implies that the ocean water is heating up faster than we thought.
Eventually. the increased melting and calving in East Antarctica will out do the increasing snow fall. However, the biggest risk for an unexpectedly large sea level rise comes from Greenland with a somewhat lesser risk from West Antarctica. Serious losses from East Antarctica likely won't happen until we are all dead.
4