Climate Change - General Discussion : Read the Mod Note in post #1 before posting

dense

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

No, you missed what I said. The whole Antarctic is NOT melting, nor will it. Only 0.01% of it has melted in 25 years, with just a 7-mm rise in sea level. 90% of it shows signs of growth. That melt is the equivalent of just 1 teaspoon of water out of a 50-litre container. That's the context were talking here, yet you're there talking about people and rising shorelines. A little bit of perspective works wonders.

I've already tried to explain this but it's like people want a catastrophe to come of it regardless of reality.

dense wrote: »

That means 99.989% of it hasn't melted.

99.99% is rather close to 100% isn't it?

Akrasia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

No, you missed what I said. The whole Antarctic is NOT melting, nor will it. Only 0.01% of it has melted in 25 years, with just a 7-mm rise in sea level. 90% of it shows signs of growth. That melt is the equivalent of just 1 teaspoon of water out of a 50-litre container. That's the context were talking here, yet you're there talking about people and rising shorelines. A little bit of perspective works wonders.

Who said the whole antarctic is melting? What does that even mean. The graphic I posted days ago shows that Antarctica is losing mass even when you take into account the relative stability of the eastern antarctic

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/attachment.php?attachmentid=453694&d=1529340375

And the rate of loss is accelerating. 6 of the 8mm of sea level increase has been in the last 10 years, 4 of that 6 has been in the last 4 years.

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

Who said the whole antarctic is melting?

Well you brought it up.

Akrasia wrote: »

If the entire antarctic melts we're talking Kevin Costner movies here.

The graphic I posted days ago shows that Antarctica is losing mass even when you take into account the relative stability of the eastern antarctic



And the rate of loss is accelerating. 6 of the 8mm of sea level increase has been in the last 10 years, 4 of that 6 has been in the last 4 years.

You're still missing the point on scale. That graph only represents around 0.01% of the total mass. Of course it shows a loss, but this loss is minute. Even at several times the current rate of melt it would take the WAIS several thousand years to fully melt and rise sea level by around 3 metres. Since 2002 the rise has been on average around 0.35 mm/yr. Even at several times that were still only talking at most a couple of cm per decade in future. Not exactly the catastrophe of sixth mass extinction Waterworld proportions.

https://gracefo.jpl.nasa.gov/resources/34/antarctic-ice-loss-2002-2016/

The mass of the Antarctic ice sheet has changed over the last several years. Research based on observations from NASA’s twin NASA/German Aerospace Center’s twin Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) satellites indicates that between 2002 and 2016, Antarctica shed approximately 125 gigatons of ice per year, causing global sea level to rise by 0.35 millimeters per year.

Akrasia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Well you brought it up.

Only in the context of saying we don't need the entire antarctic to melt to have a huge problem on our hands. Of course the entire antarctic isn't going to melt any time soon. The west antarctic ice sheet on the other hand didn't exist the last time temperatures and CO2 levels were the same as they are today, and sea levels were 6 to 9 metres above where they are today.
It's only a matter of how long it takes for these ice sheets to collapse, and obviously keeping global warming to a minimum will buy us more time to prepare.


http://science.sciencemag.org/content/355/6322/276

You're still missing the point on scale. That graph only represents around 0.01% of the total mass. Of course it shows a loss, but this loss is minute. Even at several times the current rate of melt it would take the WAIS several thousand years to fully melt and rise sea level by around 3 metres. Since 2002 the rise has been on average around 0.35 mm/yr. Even at several times that were still only talking at most a couple of cm per decade in future. Not exactly the catastrophe of sixth mass extinction Waterworld proportions.

https://gracefo.jpl.nasa.gov/resources/34/antarctic-ice-loss-2002-2016/

The loss isn't minute, in the last 5 years, the loss has been enough to raise global sea levels by 1mm a year and the loss is accelerating with newly discovered mechanisms that could see dramatic and abrupt changes as lubricated ice flows lose their buttresses and flow more freely into the ocean
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature24458

And it's not just happening in Antarctica, greenland ice loss is also accelerating (yes it is http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/02/great-greenland-meltdown ) and rates of global sea level rise has also increased since the 1990s by about 30%.

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

Only in the context of saying we don't need the entire antarctic to melt to have a huge problem on our hands. Of course the entire antarctic isn't going to melt any time soon. The west antarctic ice sheet on the other hand didn't exist the last time temperatures and CO2 levels were the same as they are today, and sea levels were 6 to 9 metres above where they are today.
It's only a matter of how long it takes for these ice sheets to collapse, and obviously keeping global warming to a minimum will buy us more time to prepare.

See, you're still doing it. Ignoring the details. We're talking thousands of years. Do you accept that? I even factored in melt rates several times what they are today for you.

The loss isn't minute, in the last 5 years, the loss has been enough to raise global sea levels by 1mm a year and the loss is accelerating with newly discovered mechanisms that could see dramatic and abrupt changes as lubricated ice flows lose their buttresses and flow more freely into the ocean
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature24458

And it's not just happening in Antarctica, greenland ice loss is also accelerating (yes it is http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/02/great-greenland-meltdown ) and rates of global sea level rise has also increased since the 1990s by about 30%.

Only 30%? I actually thought it was more than that! 30% of a small number is still a small number. I posted some numbers before but you still remain keen on ignoring their context.

Akrasia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

See, you're still doing it. Ignoring the details. We're talking thousands of years. Do you accept that? I even factored in melt rates several times what they are today for you.




Only 30%? I actually thought it was more than that! 30% of a small number is still a small number. I posted some numbers before but you still remain keen on ignoring their context.

If the acceleration continues you get a logarithmic equation that adds up to bigger increases by 2100 and much bigger changes beyond that

A 2017 report doubled the IPCC sea level projection's for some scenarios because we now a lot more now about how ice sheets collapse than we did before 2013. They think there will be a minimum of 2ft sea level rise even with emission cuts, and that's using a conservative estimate for how fast polar ice sheets will collapse

The SWIPA analysis estimates that
when all sources of sea-level rise are
considered (not just those from the
Arctic), the rise in global sea level by
2100 would be at least 52 cm for a
greenhouse gas reduction scenario
and 74 cm for a business-as-usual
scenario. These estimates are almost
double the minimum estimates
made by the IPCC in 2013.
https://www.amap.no/documents/doc/Snow-Water-Ice-and-Permafrost.-Summary-for-Policy-makers/1532

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

If the acceleration continues you get a logarithmic equation that adds up to bigger increases by 2100 and much bigger changes beyond that

A 2017 report doubled the IPCC sea level projection's for some scenarios because we now a lot more now about how ice sheets collapse than we did before 2013. They think there will be a minimum of 2ft sea level rise even with emission cuts, and that's using a conservative estimate for how fast polar ice sheets will collapse

Still ignoring the thousands of years then, so I'll take it you accept it. We're talking about Antarctica here, not the Arctic, but even going on the SWIPA report, if Antarctic melt makes up around one third of the total sea level rise, that's around 25 cm by 2100, which is what I've been saying; in the order of a couple of cms per decade. Not life-changing.

Akrasia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Still ignoring the thousands of years then, so I'll take it you accept it. We're talking about Antarctica here, not the Arctic, but even going on the SWIPA report, if Antarctic melt makes up around one third of the total sea level rise, that's around 25 cm by 2100, which is what I've been saying; in the order of a couple of cms per decade. Not life-changing.

Why are you separating the sources of sea level rise when talking about the consequences. A meter of sea level rise certainly would change a lot of lives and end a lot of lives when storm surges reach places that locals thought would be safe from the water.

A hundred million people would be displaced by this level of sea level rise, and it doesn't stop rising on the first ofJan 2100

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

Why are you separating the sources of sea level rise when talking about the consequences. A meter of sea level rise certainly would change a lot of lives and end a lot of lives when storm surges reach places that locals thought would be safe from the water.

A hundred million people would be displaced by this level of sea level rise, and it doesn't stop rising on the first ofJan 2100

Because we were talking about Antarctica, because you posted an article on it.

What if the EAIS continues to increase during the next decades?

Akrasia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Because we were talking about Antarctica, because you posted an article on it.

What if the EAIS continues to increase during the next decades?

We're talking about sea level increases, and the Antarctic is just one component of this. It was pretty disengenuous to say that 25cm of sea level rise is 'not life-changing' when we're not facing 25cm of sea level rise, we're facing at least 3 times that amount and many multiples of that amount if you don't stop counting at the arbitrary date of 01.01.2100

What if the EAIS continues to grow? Well, that's already been accounted for in the projections. The Sea level projections include gains on the EAIS, but these are not enough to compensate for the ice loss in the antarctic peninsula and WAIS.

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

We're talking about sea level increases, and the Antarctic is just one component of this. It was pretty disengenuous to say that 25cm of sea level rise is 'not life-changing' when we're not facing 25cm of sea level rise, we're facing at least 3 times that amount and many multiples of that amount if you don't stop counting at the arbitrary date of 01.01.2100

What if the EAIS continues to grow? Well, that's already been accounted for in the projections. The Sea level projections include gains on the EAIS, but these are not enough to compensate for the ice loss in the antarctic peninsula and WAIS.

You're misconstruing my point. You know well I was only referring to the Antarctica part because we were only talking about there.

Akrasia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

You're misconstruing my point. You know well I was only referring to the Antarctica part because we were only talking about there.

We talked about the antarctic because that's where one particular study focused on, but I also did talk about greenland, and global sea level rises too.

If the current rate of sea level acceleration is maintained to 2100, oceans will be rising by 1cm a year.

dense

More relief for those contorted by visions of man made catastrophic melting of Antarctica.

Recall that

A Giant Iceberg in West Antarctica Is Disintegrating, And Scientists Are Worried

https://www.sciencealert.com/this-giant-iceberg-in-west-antarctica-is-disintegrating-as-we-speak-pine-glacier

And

A Major Antarctic Glacier Just Lost a Massive Chunk of Ice 4x The Size of Manhattan

More serious for sea levels than Larsen C.

https://www.sciencealert.com/major-antarctic-glacier-iceberg-four-times-size-manhattan-climate-change

Well the reason it's disintegrating and is the fastest melting glacier in Antarctica is nothing to do with C02 according to new research which I am not in the slightest bit surprised hasn't been shared here...........

Our finding of a substantial volcanic heat source beneath a major WAIS glacier highlights the need to understand subglacial volcanism, its hydrologic interaction with the marine margins, and its potential role in the future stability of the WAIS.

Evidence of an active volcanic heat source beneath the Pine Island Glacier

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-04421-3


Sleep easy in the knowledge that it is not a man made volcano.

dense

Further news regarding context and perspective that will upset Mary Robinson and the #climatejustice gang:


-New research shows that droughts in Europeover the past 250 years are more common than had previously been suspected.



Revisiting the recent European droughts from a long-term perspective
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-27464-4


Mind you, another report could quite feasibly be published next week claiming the exact opposite, such is the nature of this settled area of the sciences.

Pa ElGrande

dense wrote: »

Further news regarding context and perspective that will upset Mary Robinson and the #climatejustice gang

I doubt it. Only virtue signalling empowered women, and imposing costs on people other than themselves matter to the climate justice movement. They say it's going to flood in 70 years time so let's have people at the margins with the lowest incomes pay the price today while they enable graft and use green washing as a cover story for all the consultancy fees they earn. . .

. . . . Most of the world’s 6,000 national parks and 100,000 protected places have been created by the removal of tribal peoples. Hundreds more parks are being created every year as countries commit to meeting the UN’s goal to protect 17% of land by 2020. And the human toll is rising accordingly. “Eviction numbers are declining,” says Rosaleen Duffy, a political ecologist at Sheffield University. “There are still large-scale, violent evictions, generally in national parks, but they are less common now. But much more common is the everyday form of exclusion [of tribal groups] which makes it impossible for anyone to live in protected areas.”

source

The government of Ivory Coast took action recently against cocoa-driven deforestation by expelling cocoa farmers from Mount Péko National Park (which means “mountain of hyenas” in the local Gueré language).

According to a report by Human Rights Watch and the Ivorian Coalition of Human Rights (RAIDH), the evictions were poorly planned and carried out in violation of human rights standards. When we visited Mount Péko after the eviction, we found the park once again filled with cocoa smallholders who had returned. Some smallholders explained to us that when they finally returned to Mount Péko, they simply paid the authorities higher bribes to go back to cultivating their lands in the park.

source

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

We talked about the antarctic because that's where one particular study focused on, but I also did talk about greenland, and global sea level rises too.

If the current rate of sea level acceleration is maintained to 2100, oceans will be rising by 1cm a year.

The current acceleration in sea level rise contribution due to Antarctic melt is best fit by a quadratic polynomial, which predicts a cumulative rise of around 240 mm by 2100. Differentiating it at that point (x=1296 months from Jan 1992) gives a slope of around 3.1 mm/yr.


Data download

Akrasia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

The current acceleration in sea level rise contribution due to Antarctic melt is best fit by a quadratic polynomial, which predicts a cumulative rise of around 240 mm by 2100. Differentiating it at that point (x=1296 months from Jan 1992) gives a slope of around 3.1 mm/yr.


Data download

And Antarctic ice loss is about a third of global sea level rise, so when you factor in the other 2/3 you get about 1cm of global sea level rise a year by 2100. That's what I said earlier.

Pa ElGrande

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2u_TIWPupw

Per Tony Heller: Hansen got everything exactly backwards and he's toasted by climate scientists in the press as being a prophet and being right about everything. Because in climate science everything is like Alice down the the rabbit hole. Talking to climate scientists and climate journalists is like talking to the Mad Hatter whatever they say is normally the exact opposite of reality. So what's this all about? United Nations climate official Ottmar Edenhofer explained he said "One has to free oneself that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environment any more. We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy" said Edenhofer. Do Edenhofer spilled the beans facts and data don't matter in climate science, it's all about redistributing the worlds wealth and it's all about controlling energy policy.




UK homes could face higher power costs as government looks to lower business burden

LONDON (Reuters) - Britain is considering giving more companies exemption from schemes to help pay for renewable power, but warned the move could lead to higher costs for households and non-exempt firms.

British businesses have long complained they face some of the highest electricity costs in Europe and the government is looking for ways to support the business community following its vote to leave the European Union.

But the government also wants lower electricity prices for households, and plans to launch a price cap on the most widely used tariffs through regulator Ofgem by the end of the year.

An impact assessment of the business exemption plans, published alongside a consultation by Britain’s Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) on Friday, said the proposals could add 1 to 7 pounds a year to household bills.

“A rise in electricity bills may decrease household’s disposable income and have a disproportionately large effect on poorer income groups,” the impact assessment said.

source

Burning Wood as Renewable Energy Threatens Europe’s Climate Goals

The European Union declared this week that it could make deeper greenhouse gas cuts than it has already pledged under the Paris climate agreement. But its scientific advisors are warning that the EU's new renewable energy policy fails to fully account for the climate impacts of burning wood for fuel.

By counting forest biomass, such as wood pellets used in power plants, as carbon-neutral, the new rules could make it impossible for Europe to achieve its climate goals, the European Academy of Sciences Advisory Council (EASAC) wrote in a strongly worded statement.

The council said the renewable energy policy's treatment of biomass is "simplistic and misleading" and could actually add to Europe's greenhouse gas emissions over the next 20 to 30 years.

source

Meanwhile in Ireland, long before the tides rise we will have a problem That of total dependency on a single fuel source to maintain a reliable electricity grid and the same people who object to coal will also object to nuclear plants in the country, it should be pointed out they have no objection to using nuclear power shipped in via the inter-connector from the UK. Very likely I will be dead by 2040, tough luck to those who have to survive in a low carbon economy without reliable electricity generation.


€1.2bn ESB coal power station now worthless

Moneypoint consists of three, 305-megawatt steam generating boilers and its maximum power output is the equivalent of about 20pc of the electricity demand in the Republic of Ireland. It uses about two million tonnes of coal a year.

Despite being environmentally unfriendly, it remains an important part of Ireland's energy infrastructure. However, it's likely to be decommissioned in the next decade or so.

"That 2025 to 2030 period is what we're aiming for," said Mr Fenlon.

The Energy Institute, a professional organisation for the energy industry in Ireland, has previously pointed out that even if was economically feasible to convert Moneypoint to burning gas, Ireland's power system would become too dependent on imported gas.

The ESB previously touted the long-term possibility of Moneypoint being converted to a nuclear power station.

However, public opposition means it's highly unlikely that this would ever succeed.

source

Gaoth Laidir

As Alanis Morissette would say, isn't it ironic? A shortage of CO2 causing problems...

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/co2-shortage-sparks-fears-over-summer-beer-supplies-1.3537160

Beer and fizzy drinks are in danger of falling flat after fears of a shortage of carbon dioxide production in Europe surfaced at the weekend.

Concerns about CO2 are usually more about there being too much of the gas. But a shortage among some of the biggest suppliers in north-western Europe has emerged, potentially endangering a much-needed boost to beer sales during the World Cup football tournament

...

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

And Antarctic ice loss is about a third of global sea level rise, so when you factor in the other 2/3 you get about 1cm of global sea level rise a year by 2100. That's what I said earlier.

Yes, I know that's what you said. Who knows, though, if the volcanic activity that seems to be affecting melt dies down then we could see a deceleration overall as the glaciers further inland stay preserved. Every 362 Gt of melt equates to 1 mm rise, but we're unlikely to see fast-enough movement of glaciers towards the coast once this current coastal ice melts . In any case, 250 mm/10 inches over 120 years is not drastic. Plenty of time for organised adaption.

dense

Akrasia wrote: »

And Antarctic ice loss is about a third of global sea level rise, so when you factor in the other 2/3 you get about 1cm of global sea level rise a year by 2100. That's what I said earlier.

So what you're saying is that the scientific community is experiencing difficulties attributing global sea level rises solely to C02 emissions once it accounts for natural heat sources under Antarctica, global land subsidence, alongside sedimentation and remote sensing issues.


The human fingerprint is rather hard to detect and isolate there alright.

Akrasia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Yes, I know that's what you said. Who knows, though, if the volcanic activity that seems to be affecting melt dies down then we could see a deceleration overall as the glaciers further inland stay preserved. Every 362 Gt of melt equates to 1 mm rise, but we're unlikely to see fast-enough movement of glaciers towards the coast once this current coastal ice melts . In any case, 250 mm/10 inches over 120 years is not drastic. Plenty of time for organised adaption.

Actually, when the sea ice melts it removes the buttress that slows the ice sheets as they advance into the sea, So lost sea ice causes faster coastal ice loss which causes ice further inland to accelerate. As long as there is glacial flow to the sea. The fastest flowing glacier in the world is in Greenland and it flows at over 40 meters a day 3 times faster than in the early 90s

https://www.egu.eu/news/100/greenlands-fastest-glacier-reaches-record-speeds/

And the vast majority of the melting is caused by warmer water, not volcanic activity.
And were likely to see an increase in seismic activity where the ice loss causes the crust to rebound. There is no reason to believe that seismic or volcanic activity in Antarctica will decline.

mikeecho

If this global warming lark means that we get snow in the winter, and 20+°c in the summer.. I'm all for it.

amadangomor

mikeecho wrote: »

If this global warming lark means that we get snow in the winter, and 20+°c in the summer.. I'm all for it.

Winters of -20°c daytime temperatures if the Gulf stream gets cut off would not be fun.

Meteorite58

Mod Note: Off Topic posts removed. Stay on topic.

Political discourse better kept for another forum.

Please adhere to the forum charter . Pay especial attention to 5. No trolling/goading posts which serve only to aggravate other users.




EDIT: Truthspeaker21 Given time off from forum for being uncivil and trolling.

dense

Anyone like to take a stab at what NASA is playing at here?


https://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/show_station.cgi?id=308860860000&dt=1&ds=13


https://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/show_station.cgi?id=308860860004&dt=1&ds=2

Akrasia

Unprecedented rainfall in Japan this week. More than 80 people dead.

dense

Akrasia wrote: »

Unprecedented rainfall in Japan this week. More than 80 people dead.

Japan has historically been prone to heavy floods.

Konkoku floods, the oldest recorded flood events in Japan, occurred around the middle of the 7th century. Disastrous flood events happened essentially annually during the rainy periodfrom 623 and 741 A.D. Floods threatened Kyoto and destroyed the Barada bank in 750 A.D. Economically catastropic floods also occurred in Kinugawa and Aratamakawa in 758 AD and 761 AD. The 772 AD Yodo river flood caused the Barada bank to break again. During 796 to 1530 A.D., more than 48 floods occurred in the Kyoto area, including 19 in Kinki following a long period of rain.



Enormous mortality and destruction resulted from floods in years 858, 1231, 1486, and 1530 A.D. Japanese floods frequency increased after 1530 with the 1542 Kamanashikawa flood, 1604 Kantou flood, 1610 Toukaidou flood, 1624 Tonekawa, Arakawa, Chikumakawa flood, 1650 Kyushu Kinki Toukaidou flood, 1681 Takamatsu flood and the 1694 Fujikawa Chikumakawa flood. More than 100 Kunkoku floods occurred between 1530, the largest of which killed more than 10,000 people.



The 1742 Inunomansui flood disaster (see Table 1) killed 2800 people.



The Muroto Typhoon of 1934 and the Vera Typhoon of 1959 led to major floods and killed more than 3000.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901114002433

Pa ElGrande

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6dH7StJB2WA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0yADH-ikuo

source

See: http://models.weatherbell.com/climate/ncep_cfsr_t2m_anom.png

Large portions of the Atlantic Ocean were normal or colder than normal and it was colder than normal across a lot of Africa, almost all of the Arctic and the Arctic Ocean, Greenland, India, Mexico, central Europe, most of Brazil, the Philippines, all of Antarctica (for scale Antarctica 1.38 times the size of Europe.) and across almost all of the Southern Ocean.


You can check out how the Greenland ice sheet is doing compared to previous years. I 'll hold off on building the Ark for another year yet.




One town in Northern Sweden is still trying to get rid of the last Winters snow pile and meanwhile in the Arctic the icebreakers are still busy.

There seems to be more ice up there today than a decade ago.

Akrasia

On average global SST anomaly is still well above average, so those cool parts are dominated by hot parts elsewhere

Here's the SST Anomaly map from 08/07/17


The June Arctic sea ice extent is the 4th lowest on record
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

A new study into ice shelf collapse links it to sea ice loss https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0212-1