Arctic thaw quickening threatens trillion-dollar costs - report

[just.a.thought]

4 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

We

Well, then, can you pass it along to me and any others who are interested via PM.

Maybe it is this one.

The SWIPA 2011 is a follow up to the AICA 2005 and covers data collected from 2008-2011.

 

https://www.innovation.ca/sites/default/files/Rome2013/files/SWIPA Overview Report 2011.pdf

[Scott]

It will be some time before information will be passed on.  Referring to the news articles posted as fake news has and will earn a suspension.  

 

 

[ddavidovsky]

The only way to tackle this problem (and that of population control associated with it) is to curb economic growth. I've been saying this for years, and I've been the only person on the planet saying this.

 

It can be done gently, first by banning new energy sources and agricultural expansion and certain technologies, forcing us to live within our means. It will mean general austerity and interim human suffering - only at a controlled level, as opposed to the uncontrolled and potentially catastrophic level to which we are now exposed.

 

However, humans collectively do not have the self-discipline and self-denial to contain the problem. Even the intellectuals are fiddling while the Earth burns - some of them here on this thread. Put me in charge and I'll save the planet. It's your last and only chance.

[boomerangutang]

7 hours ago, ddavidovsky said:

The only way to tackle this problem (and that of population control associated with it) is to curb economic growth. I've been saying this for years, and I've been the only person on the planet saying this.

 

It can be done gently, first by banning new energy sources and agricultural expansion and certain technologies, forcing us to live within our means. It will mean general austerity and interim human suffering - only at a controlled level, as opposed to the uncontrolled and potentially catastrophic level to which we are now exposed.

 

However, humans collectively do not have the self-discipline and self-denial to contain the problem. Even the intellectuals are fiddling while the Earth burns - some of them here on this thread. Put me in charge and I'll save the planet. It's your last and only chance.

                       I think we're on the same page. Affecting peoples' outlook is paramount - to slowing Earth's degeneration.   Start with gently discouraging people from making more babies.  Numerous studies have shown that:  allowing/enabling females to be educated is probably the one best thing - toward that goal.

 

                    Continue by educating folks on how to get by - by using less resources and electricity.  

 

               It's almost funny, there are thousands of different sorts of 'experts' who get hired every day to advise on things like 'mental disorders', 'business strategies', 'interior decorating' etc ad infinitum,  but there is no such thing as a specialist who advises people on 'how to live with less of a damaging footprint' (for lack of another term)   Granted, there are books, such as "Diet For A Small Planet" or videos like Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth."    ......but environmental concerns and lessening human populations should be put on the front burners.  It's the most important WW issue.

 

                         Instead, politicians can't stop talking/worrying about money and wars.  A prime example is the current unelected men running Thailand who just committed to spending tens of billions of baht on Chinese subs that aren't even needed, ....and did so without any public or political input.  They just decided, "We want the subs. We control the money.  Let's do it."

 

                    If countries' leaders put 1/50th the concern and funds toward trying to slow the destruction of the environment as they do towards war and fattening their wallets, .....we'd be on the right track.

[ilostmypassword]

9 hours ago, just.a.thought said:

Maybe it is this one.

The SWIPA 2011 is a follow up to the AICA 2005 and covers data collected from 2008-2011.

 

https://www.innovation.ca/sites/default/files/Rome2013/files/SWIPA Overview Report 2011.pdf

That's the 2011 report. Not the current one. I did download the 20 page summary of the 2017 report which I found online. But I can't remember where.

[rickudon]

True that predictions can get it wrong, and the computer models may as well. But at least it is possible to extrapolate the direction in which things are going. Ten years ago the deniers were ecstatic about the 'pause' even though scientists did say it was just an unusually long set of years below the average. Now 9 of the last 10 years have been the warmest on record, with the last 3 years all setting new records. The global average temperature is now 1 degree centigrade higher than the average for the 20th century.

 

So we know what direction things are going, just how fast it will change in the future is harder to predict. It is pretty safe to say that it will get warmer, sea levels will rise, and that local climates will change. You can either plan for it and try to mitigate the effects, or react after it happens and try to play catch up.

 

I am some what optimistic about the future. Not all climatic changes will be bad, you will be able to grow more crops at higher latitudes. Higher CO2 will make some crop yields go up. But in other areas crop yields will fall because of more drought and because some crops will now find temperatures above their optimum ranges (this is already a big factor in what you can grow and when you can grow it in the tropical zones).

 

Also coal use is falling in many countries. In the Uk we had our first 24 hour period without any coal fired power stations working, because we didn't need them. China's coal use has been static for 2 years. It is now feasible to think of a future where fossils fuels are no longer important (a long time yet, but it will come).

 

Population. Not such a big issue as it was even 20 years ago. Many countries, especially in Europe, have stable or falling populations. Practically all countries have falling fertility rates (these fall before population growths do). Even India now has a population growth rate of a little over 1%, half what it was 50 years ago.

 

The next 30 years are the crunch years. As long as we keep trying to tackle the problems, after that we should see the problems begin to ease. Or we can wait until catastrophe strikes, and then try and deal with it .....

[soalbundy]

On 4/25/2017 at 9:10 PM, ilostmypassword said:

It isn't just population. It's consumption per capita. I read that 25 average bengalis consume as many resources as 1 average american.

Just goes to show how greedy these Bengalis are

[tuktuktuk]

Let's just go ahead and spend a trillion dollars to see if we can stop it. How should we split the tab amongst the countries?  Should we let Thailand manage the expenditures?

[Joebuzz]

Long ago social scientists stated that the world could only support, indefinately, about 2.5 to 3 billion people.  They should have started aerial spraying birth control 30 years ago.  Fortunately, I won't live much longer and when I reincarnate I'm going to a different place because this one is hell for a better one and I'm pretty sure that one is hell for an even better one.  Yep, I'm upwardly mobile.

[pkspeaker]

'Melting Ice' is scientific FRAUD. Sea ice doesn't contribute to 'rise sea levels' (which does not exist) in the first place.

 

http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses

 

http://notrickszone.com/2017/03/02/new-paper-indicates-there-is-more-arctic-sea-ice-now-than-for-nearly-all-of-the-last-10000-years/#sthash.DHZBYDgy.Afd7s9r7.dpbs

 

http://notrickszone.com/2016/12/15/scientists-greenland-is-now-much-colder-with-more-advanced-ice-sheet-margins-than-90-of-the-last-7500-years/#sthash.Prr6kAwJ.oZ3nhxvN.dpbs

 

[ilostmypassword]

8 hours ago, pkspeaker said:

'Melting Ice' is scientific FRAUD. Sea ice doesn't contribute to 'rise sea levels' (which does not exist) in the first place.

 

http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses

 

http://notrickszone.com/2017/03/02/new-paper-indicates-there-is-more-arctic-sea-ice-now-than-for-nearly-all-of-the-last-10000-years/#sthash.DHZBYDgy.Afd7s9r7.dpbs

 

http://notrickszone.com/2016/12/15/scientists-greenland-is-now-much-colder-with-more-advanced-ice-sheet-margins-than-90-of-the-last-7500-years/#sthash.Prr6kAwJ.oZ3nhxvN.dpbs

 

You're confused. The Greenland ice melt in question is from glaciers, not sea ice.

[pkspeaker]

The topic is about sea ice, not land ice that is correct, but there is not a lack of sea ice this year:

http://www.thegwpf.com/trapped-in-thick-arctic-ice-canadian-fishermen-call-for-compensation/

 

in 2014 antarctic sea ice set another record as well, even if there is a little less sea ice this year it wouldn't matter.. meanwhile both greenland and antarctic are gaining ice so these stories every week about various 'melting ice problems' due to 'greenhouse gasses' are ridiculous and misleading.

[ilostmypassword]

24 minutes ago, pkspeaker said:

The topic is about sea ice, not land ice that is correct, but there is not a lack of sea ice this year:

http://www.thegwpf.com/trapped-in-thick-arctic-ice-canadian-fishermen-call-for-compensation/

 

in 2014 antarctic sea ice set another record as well, even if there is a little less sea ice this year it wouldn't matter.. meanwhile both greenland and antarctic are gaining ice so these stories every week about various 'melting ice problems' due to 'greenhouse gasses' are ridiculous and misleading.

It's a nonsense story about the implications of those fishermen being trapped in sea ice.  Yes they were trapped in sea ice. But that was because northerly winds piled it up. It says nothing at all about the total amount of sea ice in the arctic.

 

It's simply false that Greenland is gaining ice overall. It's losing ice and the pace is accelerating

https://www.skepticalscience.com/greenland-cooling-gaining-ice.htm

 

As for Antarctica, according to the Nasa Study it is gaining ice. But the rate of gain is in decline.  And this is from one of the authors of the study:

Study Authors: Findings Mostly In Agreement With Other Studies, Do Not Discount Future Sea Level Rise. Zwally stated in the NASA press release that the study is "essentially in agreement with other studies" showing that land ice in West Antarctica is severely decreasing, but that the "main disagreement is for East Antarctica and the interior of West Antarctica." He also noted that over the next couple of decades, ice loss in West Antarctica will likely outweigh the snowfall increase in East Antarctica, and that sea level rise over past decades must be coming from somewhere else. 

https://mediamatters.org/research/2015/11/04/nasa-scientist-warned-deniers-would-distort-his/206612

 

Also, the Nasa studied ended in 2008. A gravitimetric study of Antarctica through 2014 showed this:

Gravity data show that Antarctic ice sheet is melting increasingly faster

During the past decade, Antarctica's massive ice sheet lost twice the amount of ice in its western portion compared with what it accumulated in the east, according to Princeton University researchers who came to one overall conclusion — the southern continent's ice cap is melting ever faster.

The researchers "weighed" Antarctica's ice sheet using gravitational satellite data and found that from 2003 to 2014, the ice sheet lost 92 billion tons of ice per year, the researchers report in the journal Earth and Planetary Science Letters.

https://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S43/04/11E77/index.xml?section=topstories

 

 

 

 

[pkspeaker]

But as a whole, both Antarctica & Greenland are gaining ice, not loosing.  Lets put this in perspective.  If I have an ice cream cone with 1 scoop on it, I then add 1 scoop.. it now has a larger surface mass budget even though it's base is the same size.  This is exactly what is happening in both Antarctica & Greenland-They are both getting BIGGER & BIGGER as the snow & ice piles up.

 

This 'gravity data' you are referring to is NASA's GRACE satellite (Gravity Recovery & Climate Experiment)  measures gravity anomolies basic explanation here:

 

To use the GRACE satellite to claim that these land masses are actually loosing gigatons of ice gives the scientists that create these papers a HUGE fudge factor-and that's the only reason they create them.  It's like this..a block of ice has a greater MASS than an equally sized block of snow; So they're suggesting that sure Antarctica & Greenland is getting bigger; but its like this big fluffy snow thing, but we think it's actually loosing MASS.  Like I guess if you were to walk on the Greenland ice sheet-you will fall into a snowy quicksand-you will not.

The only reason they are doing this is so pundits & politicians can claim there is 'melting ice' when in fact the opposite is happening, the less definitive study is supposed to trump something that is absolutely precise, like the data I put up. 

[boomerangutang]

4 hours ago, pkspeaker said:

The topic is about sea ice, not land ice that is correct, but there is not a lack of sea ice this year:

http://www.thegwpf.com/trapped-in-thick-arctic-ice-canadian-fishermen-call-for-compensation/

 

in 2014 antarctic sea ice set another record as well, even if there is a little less sea ice this year it wouldn't matter.. meanwhile both greenland and antarctic are gaining ice so these stories every week about various 'melting ice problems' due to 'greenhouse gasses' are ridiculous and misleading.

Many scientific studies show Greenland is losing ice at alarming rates.  Some say over 40 cubic miles/year.  There are lakes on Greenland ice sheet where there never were before in recorded history. 

 

Only a died-in-the-wool denier would say publicly that Greenland is gaining ice.  It has as much credence as Trump saying his inauguration crowd was the biggest in history.

[pkspeaker]

Boomer LOOK AT THE DMI CHART.  As a whole is is gaining ice, it may be loosing ice in some area's, but it's surface mass budget is increasing.  Who's the 'denier' here, can you look at a chart?  can you understand a basic chart?

[ilostmypassword]

35 minutes ago, pkspeaker said:

But as a whole, both Antarctica & Greenland are gaining ice, not loosing.  Lets put this in perspective.  If I have an ice cream cone with 1 scoop on it, I then add 1 scoop.. it now has a larger surface mass budget even though it's base is the same size.  This is exactly what is happening in both Antarctica & Greenland-They are both getting BIGGER & BIGGER as the snow & ice piles up.

 

This 'gravity data' you are referring to is NASA's GRACE satellite (Gravity Recovery & Climate Experiment)  measures gravity anomolies basic explanation here:

 

To use the GRACE satellite to claim that these land masses are actually loosing gigatons of ice gives the scientists that create these papers a HUGE fudge factor-and that's the only reason they create them.  It's like this..a block of ice has a greater MASS than an equally sized block of snow; So they're suggesting that sure Antarctica & Greenland is getting bigger; but its like this big fluffy snow thing, but we think it's actually loosing MASS.  Like I guess if you were to walk on the Greenland ice sheet-you will fall into a snowy quicksand-you will not.

The only reason they are doing this is so pundits & politicians can claim there is 'melting ice' when in fact the opposite is happening, the less definitive study is supposed to trump something that is absolutely precise, like the data I put up. 

All you offer are assertions. No links to studies.  And then, as usual for climate deniers. you impugn the motives of scientists.  Such nonsense.

[pkspeaker]

nope, i linked to studies, look up

[ilostmypassword]

56 minutes ago, pkspeaker said:

nope, i linked to studies, look up

Yes you did. Well, the Nasa assertion I have already debunked.  As for the other 2 links, I looked up the scientists  whose work is being cited as the basis of these assertions about Arctic Ice.  Actually, these 2 scientist did groundbreaking work debunking the link between solar activity and the warming of the earth over the last 47 years. The study so dishonestly cited by the those at the web site  you linked to actually establish the opposite of what they are saying.

"Now Lassen and astrophysicist Peter Thejll have updated the research and
found that while the solar cycle still accounts for about half the temperature
rise since 1900, it fails to explain a rise of 0.4 °C since 1980. “The
curves diverge after 1980,” says Thejll, “and it’s a startlingly large
deviation. Something else is acting on the climate.”

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg16622370-800-dont-blame-the-sun/

 

 

[anon4546543]

On 25/04/2017 at 7:45 PM, RickBradford said:

^^

I'm not sure it's online anywhere -- I was sent the report by a friend who's in the environment business.

And the friend in the environment business is a clerk at the front desk. Just shot yourself in the foot, buddy of a climate denier

[jcsmith]

On 4/25/2017 at 3:52 PM, seancbk said:

 

That is a solution.  

Do you volunteer to be one of the mass starvations?

[ilostmypassword]

5 minutes ago, jcsmith said:

Do you volunteer to be one of the mass starvations?

I think this is one of those situations where you are going to find yourself drafted whether or not you have bone spurs.

[Guest]

9 hours ago, pkspeaker said:

The topic is about sea ice, not land ice that is correct, but there is not a lack of sea ice this year:

http://www.thegwpf.com/trapped-in-thick-arctic-ice-canadian-fishermen-call-for-compensation/

 

in 2014 antarctic sea ice set another record as well, even if there is a little less sea ice this year it wouldn't matter.. meanwhile both greenland and antarctic are gaining ice so these stories every week about various 'melting ice problems' due to 'greenhouse gasses' are ridiculous and misleading.

This info come from a website which publish this 

http://www.thegwpf.com/category/international-news/
 

Which are the two countries, which have been promoting green energy for years? Ah, those are China Germany. Their economies must be in bad stage by now. 

Maybe everything, which is published in the Interwebs is not pure truth?

[rickudon]

Arctic sea ice was at an all time low for March in March this year.

 

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

 

Pkspeaker was referring to that the Greenland Ice sheet is growing. Er ... sort of ... what he was referring to was SMB - Surface Mass Balance. Yes this is positive. BUT this is a measure of snowfall/rainfall - meltwater/evaporation. It does not include calving of icebergs from glaciers, but as this happens mainly once the ice has become to float on the sea, it isn't counted.

 

 Quoted from the same original source as PK's graphs came from -

 

Quote

For an ice sheet that neither grows or shrinks, there is at all points averaged over the year a balance between

• the amount of snow that falls and is compressed to ice
• the amount of snow and ice that melts or evaporates (sublimates) and
• the amount of ice that flows away due to the ice motion

The two first contributions make up the surface mass balance. For the ice sheet as a whole, there is a balance between the surface mass balance and the amount of ice that calves into the ocean as icebergs.

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.

 

 

[ilostmypassword]

6 hours ago, rickudon said:

Arctic sea ice was at an all time low for March in March this year.

 

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

 

Pkspeaker was referring to that the Greenland Ice sheet is growing. Er ... sort of ... what he was referring to was SMB - Surface Mass Balance. Yes this is positive. BUT this is a measure of snowfall/rainfall - meltwater/evaporation. It does not include calving of icebergs from glaciers, but as this happens mainly once the ice has become to float on the sea, it isn't counted.

 

 Quoted from the same original source as PK's graphs came from -

 

 

 

I believe calving doesn't happen once the ice is floating on the sea. Calving is the process of glacier ice, which is on the land, becoming sea ice.

"Cows have calves, glaciers calve icebergs, which are chunks of ice that break off glaciers and fall into water.

Calving is when chunks of ice break off at the terminus, or end, of a glacier. Ice breaks because the forward motion of a glacier makes the terminus unstable. We call these resulting chunks of ice "icebergs."

https://www.asf.alaska.edu/blog/what-is-glacial-calving/

[ExpatOilWorker]

On 25/4/2560 at 10:28 AM, boomerangutang said:

All deniers can deny any news like that.  Here are some of their flaccid points:

 

>>>  the sun is getting brighter

>>>  CO2 is good for plants, so why worry.  

>>>  Just because 96% of scientists say so, doesn't mean it's true

>>>   Scientists are only bellyaching about GW 'cause it garners more funding

>>>   It's a liberal tree-hugger plot to hurt fossil fuel corps.

>>>   It's a plot by the Chinese (thank Trump for that zinger)

>>>   Climate has changed for tens of millions of years, so what's the big deal?

>>>   Billionaire fossil fuel company execs don't believe the data, so that proves it's false.

>>>   Millionaire Republican politicians, including Trump, don't like the data, so it must be false.

 

It has both been much colder and much warmer in the past 400,000 years. Sea levels were 120 m lower only 30,000 years ago.

 

Since we have ice core samples from both poles that are up to 800,000 years old, the polar caps did NOT melt during previous warmer periods and will NOT melt now. 

[boomerangutang]

headline from a Washington Post article:

 

"Greenland lost a staggering 1 trillion tons of ice in just four years"

 

details

[soalbundy]

5 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

headline from a Washington Post article:

 

"Greenland lost a staggering 1 trillion tons of ice in just four years"

 

details

how careless of them

[boomerangutang]

2 minutes ago, ExpatOilWorker said:

It has both been much colder and much warmer in the past 400,000 years. Sea levels were 120 m lower only 30,000 years ago.

Since we have ice core samples from both poles that are up to 800,000 years old, the polar caps did NOT melt during previous warmer periods and will NOT melt now. 

                        The issue is not what happened 400k or 800k years ago.  It's what's happening now and in the near future.  Since when does losing 50 cubic miles of ice/annually (not being replaced) be defined as 'not melt' ?

 

            Last time I checked, ice melts when temperatures rise.  Maybe you skipped science class - the day that lesson was taught.

 

                      I noticed your moniker 'ExpatOilWorker'.  It fits with your anti-GW mindset.   It's similar to how AC electric corporations in the US are doing all they can to squelch public demand for solar.  Electric corporations are even taking out sweet-sounding web sites with titles like "Green Future" and then offering nothing to viewers, except wasting viewers' time - all in their desperate plan to keep people from switching to solar - therefore extending the near-stranglehold of fossil fuel driven societies.   Don't get me wrong, fossil fuels are useful and convenient, and I drive 3 vehicles:  One is diesel, one is petrol, and the other is LPG.   But I truly want to to segue to alternative clean energy (I already use PV solar for pumping water, and passive solar for heating water). 

 

                           Before cars dominated roads, the people making/selling buggy whips were probably sorely worried they would lose a lot of business.  But they adapted, and things move on.  Similarly, even coal industry execs are acknowledging that coal is on the way out, and are (hopefully) adapting to cleaner renewable industries.

 

 

[Guest]

57 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

headline from a Washington Post article:

 

"Greenland lost a staggering 1 trillion tons of ice in just four years"

 

details

The problem of that article is that it communicates scientific facts quite poorly. It throws big numbers without explanations, what those are really saying. Readers need visualisation and comparison examples. In this case nobody understands what trillion tonnes really is.

 

Better to say XX meters of the average XXXX meters ice sheet on Greenland. etc. 

 

The science is probably right, but when the science is badly communicated, it's difficult to convince readers of the issue.