The recent findings regarding ice loss in Greenland are deeply concerning, shedding light on the significant environmental changes occurring in the region. According to a study published on Tuesday, the area of ice loss in Greenland over the past three decades amounts to approximately 36 times the size of New York City. This dramatic loss of ice has led to a transformation of the landscape, with barren rock, wetlands, and shrub areas replacing once-frozen terrain.

 

The study, conducted by analyzing satellite imagery, reveals that Greenland has lost a staggering 28,707 square kilometers (around 11,000 square miles) of ice during the specified period. This loss is attributed to rising air temperatures, which have in turn elevated land temperatures and accelerated the melting of permafrost. The thawing of permafrost releases carbon dioxide and methane, contributing to further global warming, while also causing land instability that could impact infrastructure and buildings.

 

 

The consequences of ice loss extend beyond Greenland's borders, with implications for climate change and sea level rise worldwide. The melting ice is creating a feedback loop whereby areas once covered by snow and ice now absorb more solar energy, leading to further melt and negative impacts. Additionally, increased water from ice melt is raising land surface temperatures and affecting natural ecosystems.

 

Greenland, as the world's largest island, plays a crucial role in global climate dynamics. Its rapid warming, occurring at twice the global mean rate since the 1970s, underscores the urgent need for action to address climate change. The study's authors warn of the likelihood of more extreme temperatures in the future, emphasizing the importance of mitigating further environmental degradation.

 

 

The impact of ice loss extends beyond environmental concerns, affecting indigenous communities that rely on natural ecosystems for survival. Coastal communities, in particular, face challenges due to the flow of sediments and nutrients into coastal waters, impacting fishing practices and traditional ways of life.

 

As Greenland's ice continues to diminish, it serves as a stark reminder of the urgent need for collective action to combat climate change and protect vulnerable ecosystems. Addressing the root causes of ice loss and implementing measures to mitigate its effects are critical steps toward safeguarding the planet for future generations.

 

14.02.24

Source

14 minutes ago, Social Media said:

The study, conducted by analyzing satellite imagery, reveals that Greenland has lost a staggering 28,707 square kilometers (around 11,000 square miles) of ice during the specified period. T

LOL, Chicken Little is on the run.

There is a way to go before we need to panic. Check out the map, from the same source. Note where the ice cap is. It's not on the coast where the OP photo is set.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_ice_sheet

The Greenland ice sheet is an ice sheet about 1.67 km (1.0 mi) thick on average, and almost 3.5 km (2.2 mi) at its thickest point.[2] It is almost 2,900 kilometres (1,800 mi) long in a north–south direction, with the greatest width of 1,100 kilometres (680 mi) at a latitude of 77°N, near its northern edge.[1] It covers 1,710,000 square kilometres (660,000 sq mi), around 80% of the surface of Greenland, and is the second largest body of ice in the world,

 

 

 

On 2/14/2024 at 5:59 AM, thaibeachlovers said:

LOL, Chicken Little is on the run.

There is a way to go before we need to panic. Check out the map, from the same source. Note where the ice cap is. It's not on the coast where the OP photo is set.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_ice_sheet

The Greenland ice sheet is an ice sheet about 1.67 km (1.0 mi) thick on average, and almost 3.5 km (2.2 mi) at its thickest point.[2] It is almost 2,900 kilometres (1,800 mi) long in a north–south direction, with the greatest width of 1,100 kilometres (680 mi) at a latitude of 77°N, near its northern edge.[1] It covers 1,710,000 square kilometres (660,000 sq mi), around 80% of the surface of Greenland, and is the second largest body of ice in the world,

 

 

 

I'm sure you think that what you posted is relevant, but you failed to explain why.

The doomsday cult in full swing today. 

 

I'm starting to worry about all those beach side properties Bill Gates has. What we really need is for some rich woke celebrities to buy some more carbon credits before they board their next private jet to their polo match. Can someone call Harry and tell him to buy some more today before any more ice caps melt please? 

44 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

The doomsday cult in full swing today. 

 

I'm starting to worry about all those beach side properties Bill Gates has. What we really need is for some rich woke celebrities to buy some more carbon credits before they board their next private jet to their polo match. Can someone call Harry and tell him to buy some more today before any more ice caps melt please? 

A certain ex-President has a penchant for both climate alarmism and the hypocrisy of buying beachfront property as well.

 

Also just a thought, isn't the place called "Green"land for a reason? 

28 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

The doomsday cult in full swing today. 

 

I'm starting to worry about all those beach side properties Bill Gates has. What we really need is for some rich woke celebrities to buy some more carbon credits before they board their next private jet to their polo match. Can someone call Harry and tell him to buy some more today before any more ice caps melt please? 

Surprise! Surprise! more mind reading from a right winger. As for whatever beachfront property Bill Gates may have, given his vast wealth, even if it all disappeared under water tomorrow, I doubt that it would affect his financial situation much. 

 

For those whose financial interests are keenly affected by climate change it's a different story:

As climate catastrophes rise, reinsurers reduce risks
Monaco (AFP) – Natural disasters are now happening so frequently that reinsurers -- the firms that sell insurance to insurance companies -- are scaling back their exposure to such risks...

Reinsurers identified climate change as the biggest risk they now face in a survey by PricewaterhouseCoopers and the Centre for the Study of Financial Innovation.

"Climate change is the number-one risk once again as reinsurers bear the brunt of the cost of catastrophe claims from an ever-increasing number of extreme weather events," the report said.

https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20230913-as-climate-catastrophes-rise-reinsurers-reduce-risks

 

Climate Change Is Destabilizing Insurance Industry

The president of one of the world’s largest insurance brokers warned Wednesday that climate change is destabilizing the insurance industry, driving up prices and pushing insurers out of high-risk markets.

Aon PLC President Eric Andersen told a Senate committee that climate change is injecting uncertainty into an industry built on risk prediction and has created “a crisis of confidence around the ability to predict loss.”

Reinsurance companies, which help insurers pay catastrophic losses, “have been withdrawing from high-risk areas, around wildfire and flood in particular,” Andersen told the Senate Budget Committee.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-change-is-destabilizing-insurance-industry/

 

Homes in parts of the U.S. are "essentially uninsurable" due to rising climate change risks

"The insurance industry is raising rates, demanding higher deductibles or even withdrawing coverage in regions hard-hit by climate change, such as Florida and Louisiana, which are prone to flooding, and California because of its wildfire risk. "

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/insurance-policy-california-florida-uninsurable-climate-change-first-street/

 

 

5 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

A certain ex-President has a penchant for both climate alarmism and the hypocrisy of buying beachfront property as well.

 

Yep, that's because he knows it's a load of tosh.

 

Their actions speak far louder than their words. 

3 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Surprise! Surprise! more mind reading from a right winger. As for whatever beachfront property Bill Gates may have, given his vast wealth, even if it all disappeared under water tomorrow, I doubt that it would affect his financial situation much. 

 

For those whose financial interests are keenly affected by climate change it's a different story:

As climate catastrophes rise, reinsurers reduce risks
Monaco (AFP) – Natural disasters are now happening so frequently that reinsurers -- the firms that sell insurance to insurance companies -- are scaling back their exposure to such risks...

Reinsurers identified climate change as the biggest risk they now face in a survey by PricewaterhouseCoopers and the Centre for the Study of Financial Innovation.

"Climate change is the number-one risk once again as reinsurers bear the brunt of the cost of catastrophe claims from an ever-increasing number of extreme weather events," the report said.

https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20230913-as-climate-catastrophes-rise-reinsurers-reduce-risks

 

Climate Change Is Destabilizing Insurance Industry

The president of one of the world’s largest insurance brokers warned Wednesday that climate change is destabilizing the insurance industry, driving up prices and pushing insurers out of high-risk markets.

Aon PLC President Eric Andersen told a Senate committee that climate change is injecting uncertainty into an industry built on risk prediction and has created “a crisis of confidence around the ability to predict loss.”

Reinsurance companies, which help insurers pay catastrophic losses, “have been withdrawing from high-risk areas, around wildfire and flood in particular,” Andersen told the Senate Budget Committee.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-change-is-destabilizing-insurance-industry/

 

Homes in parts of the U.S. are "essentially uninsurable" due to rising climate change risks

"The insurance industry is raising rates, demanding higher deductibles or even withdrawing coverage in regions hard-hit by climate change, such as Florida and Louisiana, which are prone to flooding, and California because of its wildfire risk. "

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/insurance-policy-california-florida-uninsurable-climate-change-first-street/

 

 

 

Insurance companies using climate alarmism to raise premiums and reduce cover is hardly a shocker.

 

Back in reality, climate related death risk is at an all time low.

 

3 hours ago, placeholder said:

you failed to explain why.

There is still a lot of ice left  ?

and (maybe) we are at the end of an ice age so "naturally" the ice caps will be smaller than during full ice age.

Wow, good to know that we're much more informed and knowledgable than all those pesky scientists

Thanks guys, for a minute I was worried there.

 

43 minutes ago, Chelseafan said:

all those pesky scientists

not all scientists agree  but if the funding they receive depends upon confirming a certain narrative then likely they will continue to confirm otherwise they are out if funding and a livelihood.

1 hour ago, JonnyF said:

 

Insurance companies using climate alarmism to raise premiums and reduce cover is hardly a shocker.

 

Back in reality, climate related death risk is at an all time low.

 

Thanks for the conspiracy theory. What don't you understand about the fact that they are abandoning markets? Not exactly a route to profitability. And what do mortality rates have to do with damaged property? There are obvious reasons why mortality has gone down from natural disasters that have nothing to do with their intensity.

6 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Thanks for the conspiracy theory. What don't you understand about the fact that they are abandoning markets? Not exactly a route to profitability. And what do mortality rates have to do with damaged property? There are obvious reasons why mortality has gone down from natural disasters that have nothing to do with their intensity.

 

Ever considered houses being built in less habitable places due to population explosion?

 

Ever considered construction methods becoming less robust? My Victorian era properties I rent out in the UK could withstand a truck hitting them. A brand new condo I rented in Bangkok you could put your fist through the wall. 

 

Ever consider costs of repair going through the roof due to rampant inflation?

 

So let me get this right. Far less people are dying from climate disaster than ever before but more roof tiles are blowing off? Well, that's it then, I'll cancel my holiday in Australia and buy an electric car (although insurance costs are rocketing on those as well). 

13 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

Ever considered houses being built in less habitable places due to population explosion?

 

Ever considered construction methods becoming less robust? My Victorian era properties I rent out in the UK could withstand a truck hitting them. A brand new condo I rented in Bangkok you could put your fist through the wall. 

 

Ever consider costs of repair going through the roof due to rampant inflation?

 

So let me get this right. Far less people are dying from climate disaster than ever before but more roof tiles are blowing off? Well, that's it then, I'll cancel my holiday in Australia and buy an electric car (although insurance costs are rocketing on those as well). 

Far less people are dying because 

1)Huge improvements in advanced warnings

2) Faster transportation to faster escape

3)Improved disaster relief

4)Improvements in medical care

 

I don't care about your anecdotal assessments of construction methods

As for rampant inflation...the world had a brief bout of rampant inflations following the covid epidemic. Most of the 21st century has been marked by low inflation. In addition, as I already pointed out, what's stopping insurance companies from raising their rates instead of fleeing?

1 hour ago, johng said:

There is still a lot of ice left  ?

and (maybe) we are at the end of an ice age so "naturally" the ice caps will be smaller than during full ice age.

The issue isn't how much ice is left it's how much ice it's losing and going to lose. That melted ice is what's going to affect sea levels and currents.

2 hours ago, johng said:

 

and (maybe) we are at the end of an ice age so "naturally" the ice caps will be smaller than during full ice age.

Actually, we're still in an ice age. This is what's called an interglaciation period. And that doesn't explain why the rate of warming has accelerated so rapidly and in line with the consensus of climatologists.

2 hours ago, Hanaguma said:

A certain ex-President has a penchant for both climate alarmism and the hypocrisy of buying beachfront property as well.

 

Also just a thought, isn't the place called "Green"land for a reason? 

Another person who confuses science with celebrity. First off, why is it hypocrisy? Again, even if they lose the property, will that affect their standard of living? What's more, do you know how high Obama's property is above sea level? Do you know whqt rate the sea level is rising there?

 

As for why it's called Greenland? The story goes that Erik the Red named it Greenland to attract settlers. But no one really knows why. Including you.

 

Which is not to say that Greenland was never green.

"Greenland was once truly green, according to new research which shows that the southern highlands of the country used to be home to a lush boreal forest... The scientists reached their conclusion after analysing ancient DNA from the base of an ice core taken at the Dye 3 site in southern Greenland... The samples were dated back to between 450,000 and 800,000 years ago, making them the oldest authenticated DNA obtained so far."

https://cordis.europa.eu/article/id/28003-greenland-once-truly-green-scientists-reveal

10 hours ago, johng said:

not all scientists agree  but if the funding they receive depends upon confirming a certain narrative then likely they will continue to confirm otherwise they are out if funding and a livelihood.

Poppycock and balderdash. There may be a few rogues out there but the general concensus is that climate change exists.

6 hours ago, Chelseafan said:

the general concensus is that climate change exists.

Of course climate change exists. ...the point being is  human activity causing it,  by how much  and what if anything can be done about it.

Maybe we remove 6 billion humans from existance..the remainder living in an Amish paradise ?

39 minutes ago, johng said:

Of course climate change exists. ...the point being is  human activity causing it,  by how much  and what if anything can be done about it.

Maybe we remove 6 billion humans from existance..the remainder living in an Amish paradise ?

I don't think they're proposing anything as dire as removing 6 billion people.  They just want those 6 billion people to transfer a bunch of their money to a few who are pushing "the science".

 

 

17 minutes ago, impulse said:

I don't think they're proposing anything as dire as removing 6 billion people.  They just want those 6 billion people to transfer a bunch of their money to a few who are pushing "the science".

 

 

 

*  "their science".

 

Which has a similar degree of validity as "Meghan's truth".

1 hour ago, johng said:

what if anything can be done about it.

 

Just do what Woke, Millionaire celebrities like Bill Gates does, purchase carbon credits and re-board the private jet to your waterfront holiday home (or Epstein's island) where you can lecture the masses about climate change.

 

Apparently, the ice reforms and defies gravity to place itself at the top of the iceberg within 30 minutes of purchase. Or your money back. 

31 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

Just do what Woke, Millionaire celebrities like Bill Gates does, purchase carbon credits and re-board the private jet to your waterfront holiday home (or Epstein's island) where you can lecture the masses about climate change.

 

Apparently, the ice reforms and defies gravity to place itself at the top of the iceberg within 30 minutes of purchase. Or your money back. 

Another irrelevant deflection about celebrities and such that has nothing at all to do with the science.

1 hour ago, impulse said:

I don't think they're proposing anything as dire as removing 6 billion people.  They just want those 6 billion people to transfer a bunch of their money to a few who are pushing "the science".

 

 

As opposed to the equitable way that fossil fuel companies distribute their profits now? Or how the rulers of various oil producing states lavish those funds on their citizens and stint on  themselves? At least that must be the case in the alternative universe  that you clearly inhabit.

if it wasnt for fossil fuels we wouldnt be here in an internet forum arguing about "man made climate change"

we would be out in the fields doing arduous work just trying to scratch enough to survive.

Man made climate change.  Biggest hoax since snake oil.

 

But if you must put blame, I’ll blame Al Gore and John Kerry’s Gulfstream.

22 minutes ago, johng said:

if it wasnt for fossil fuels we wouldnt be here in an internet forum arguing about "man made climate change"

we would be out in the fields doing arduous work just trying to scratch enough to survive.

 

I thnk that's what the elites really want.

 

Them jet setting around the globe in private jets where they attend extravagant conferences in huge motorcades to tell the rest of us to be happy with a more austere lifestyle, owning nothing and scraping a living so we can pay more taxes to them under the guise of saving the planet.

 

Oh wait a minute, that's already happening!! And some of the turkeys on this thread are voting for it. 

 

Thatcher saw through it decades ago.

 

16 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

I thnk that's what the elites really want.

 

Absolutely, so it's important for everyone to point out their hypocrisy

at every opportunity and push back against their tyranny in every way

(that is safe and affective  and errr legal too 😋  )

28 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

I thnk that's what the elites really want.

 

Them jet setting around the globe in private jets where they attend extravagant conferences in huge motorcades to tell the rest of us to be happy with a more austere lifestyle, owning nothing and scraping a living so we can pay more taxes to them under the guise of saving the planet.

 

Oh wait a minute, that's already happening!! And some of the turkeys on this thread are voting for it. 

 

Thatcher saw through it decades ago.

 

 

8 minutes ago, johng said:

 

Absolutely, so it's important for everyone to point out their hypocrisy

at every opportunity and push back against their tyranny in every way

(that is safe and affective  and errr legal too 😋  )

Yes, we must do everything we can to protect Little Oil against Big Green. It's a fight worth choking for.

28 minutes ago, johng said:

 

Absolutely, so it's important for everyone to point out their hypocrisy

at every opportunity and push back against their tyranny in every way

(that is safe and affective  and errr legal too 😋  )

 

I think so many people are seeing through it now.

 

The extreme leftists will continue to support "their science" of course but it's just a means to an end for them. Removing assets and control from the individual and into the hands of the state. If that has to be under the guise of "saving the planet", so be it as far as they are concerned. The fact that their actions don't match their rhetoric tells you everything you need to know.