Arctic thaw quickening threatens trillion-dollar costs - report

[boomerangutang]

2 minutes ago, oilinki said:

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.

1 trillion tons = roughly the weight of 3 billion 747 jets.

 

Here's another way to look at what a trillion looks like, .....in dollar bills:

pagetutor.com/trillion/index.html

 

A better measurement, in my opinion, is cubic miles.   When I heard that Greenland is losing between 40 and 50 cubic miles of ice each year, that got my attention.  Imagine a square area of land, 7 miles each side (49 sq.miles) and 1 mile deep.  

 

How would you convey the concept of a trillion tons of ice - to the man on the street?  Perhaps it's enough to fill one of the Great Lake basins?

[tuktuktuk]

4 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

1 trillion tons = roughly the weight of 3 billion 747 jets.

 

Here's another way to look at what a trillion looks like, .....in dollar bills:

pagetutor.com/trillion/index.html

 

A better measurement, in my opinion, is cubic miles.   When I heard that Greenland is losing between 40 and 50 cubic miles of ice each year, that got my attention.  Imagine a square area of land, 7 miles each side (49 sq.miles) and 1 mile deep.  

 

How would you convey the concept of a trillion tons of ice - to the man on the street?  Perhaps it's enough to fill one of the Great Lake basins?

It depends on your purpose. Do you want to incite fear or convince him it won't matter for a hundred years?  Telling him it's about 0.03% of the ice on Greenland and only about 0.3 centimeters spread over the worlds oceans probably won't turn him into a global warming activist. You certainly wouldn't want to tell him that you doubt measurements like this are sufficiently precise to draw any conclusions from. 

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

1 trillion tons = roughly the weight of 3 billion 747 jets.

 

Here's another way to look at what a trillion looks like, .....in dollar bills:

pagetutor.com/trillion/index.html

 

A better measurement, in my opinion, is cubic miles.   When I heard that Greenland is losing between 40 and 50 cubic miles of ice each year, that got my attention.  Imagine a square area of land, 7 miles each side (49 sq.miles) and 1 mile deep.  

 

How would you convey the concept of a trillion tons of ice - to the man on the street?  Perhaps it's enough to fill one of the Great Lake basins?

No swimming pools  / Jet's at this scale :)

 

As I said before, compare it to the thickness of the ice sheet itself. How many meters over Greenland's ice sheet area. How many percentages of the ice sheet itself.

 

Ice sheet Area: 1.71 million km² = 1.71e+12m2 = 1710000000000m2
Lost ice: Trillion m3 = 1000000000000m3 (I shortcut without ice/water weight/volume change)  

Ice sheet Average thickness: 2,000–3,000 m (I'm using 2500m)

 

Therefore:

Lost ice sheet in one record year:

1000000000000m3/1710000000000m2=0.58m = 58cm (2 feet?)

 

Which is 0.58m/2500m*100 percentage of the total ice sheet

= 0.02320%

 

Do recheck my calculation, I'm only on my 3rd cup of

coffee :)

 

[dageurreotype]

On 25/04/2017 at 7:16 PM, RickBradford said:

As usual, I am guaranteed to be the only person who has actually read the report this silly Reuters' article is based on, and, as usual, the mainstream media is doing its best to scare people.

 

The actual report is much less alarmist, and not even new, as the authors admit:  "The implications of most findings in [the study] are not fundamentally different from those reported in 2011."

 

Still, that's good for the media, as they get to scare gullible people twice about the same thing.

 

The breathless Reuters line about "rising sea levels" - yes, an extra 25 centimetres by 2100. It won't even lap the front door of Al Gore's beachfront mansion.

 

And just like in 2011, the report is based on those infamous computer models, which have gotten everything wrong since they were invented.

 

They end with the traditional climate science appeal for lots more money: "The report also identifies many more specific data gaps and research needs..."

 

Still, it gives the usual people a chance to bash President Trump (yawn) and feel all virtuous about themselves by shouting "denier" at everyone.

Just one impact of sea levels from personal experience and backed up in this scientific PDF, if you've the patience to read it. http://www.mccip.org.uk/media/1256/2013arc_sciencereview_09_ce_final.pdf

 

As to Trump, I've no feelings about him one way or another, he's simply yet another puppet, albeit a colourful one who changes policy on the hoof.

[ilostmypassword]

2 hours 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. 

Of course sea levels were much lower 30,000 years ago.  That was the latest Ice Age. As for the arctic ice cap. We don't have cores from the arctic ice cap that are 800000 years old. And that's because the north pole is covered with sea ice. The northern cores come from greenland's glaciers.

As for the arctic polar cap never having been free of ice...

"The Arctic is on track to be free of sea ice this year or next for the first time in more than 100,000 years, a leading scientist has claimed."

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/arctic-could-become-ice-free-for-first-time-in-more-than-100000-years-claims-leading-scientist-a7065781.html

Edited May 3, 2017 by ilostmypassword

[Guest]

58 minutes ago, tuktuktuk said:

It depends on your purpose. Do you want to incite fear or convince him it won't matter for a hundred years?  Telling him it's about 0.03% of the ice on Greenland and only about 0.3 centimeters spread over the worlds oceans probably won't turn him into a global warming activist. You certainly wouldn't want to tell him that you doubt measurements like this are sufficiently precise to draw any conclusions from. 

This is true. I do want us to all care about our planet and stop raping it.

 

But data is data and it should be presented in the understable format, even if it doesn't really support our own current views and values.

 

 

[boomerangutang]

1 hour ago, oilinki said:

No swimming pools  / Jet's at this scale :)

As I said before, compare it to the thickness of the ice sheet itself. How many meters over Greenland's ice sheet area. How many percentages of the ice sheet itself.

Ice sheet Area: 1.71 million km² = 1.71e+12m2 = 1710000000000m2
Lost ice: Trillion m3 = 1000000000000m3 (I shortcut without ice/water weight/volume change)  

Ice sheet Average thickness: 2,000–3,000 m (I'm using 2500m)

Therefore: Lost ice sheet in one record year:

1000000000000m3/1710000000000m2=0.58m = 58cm (2 feet?)

Which is 0.58m/2500m*100 percentage of the total ice sheet = 0.02320%

Do recheck my calculation, I'm only on my 3rd cup of coffee :)

average 2 ft. loss over the entire giant island of Greenland is more than significant, in my view.  

 

Thanks for crunching the numbers.  It looks as though someone stayed awake during math class.

[nauseus]

3 hours 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. 

Although it is unlikely that all of the ice at the poles will disappear, to say that the polar ice caps cannot melt completely is rather risky. 

Prior to the Oligocene the world had little or no polar ice at all.

[tomwct]

Just a normal cycle! 10,000 years from now it will freeze up again like it did 10,000 years ago. No reason to fret. Enjoy life to it's fullest. The good thing is we have a competent President who is not lying to you all! Enjoy the warming while it lasts. It will get cold again.

Edited May 3, 2017 by tomwct

[ExpatOilWorker]

2 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

Of course sea levels were much lower 30,000 years ago.  That was the latest Ice Age. As for the arctic ice cap. We don't have cores from the arctic ice cap that are 800000 years old. And that's because the north pole is covered with sea ice. The northern cores come from greenland's glaciers.

As for the arctic polar cap never having been free of ice...

"The Arctic is on track to be free of sea ice this year or next for the first time in more than 100,000 years, a leading scientist has claimed."

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/arctic-could-become-ice-free-for-first-time-in-more-than-100000-years-claims-leading-scientist-a7065781.html

 

Right, but melting of floating sea ice will not change sea levels, so other than the fact it is an interesting development it is irrelevant.

Edited May 3, 2017 by ExpatOilWorker

[ExpatOilWorker]

3 hours ago, boomerangutang said:

                        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.

 

 

 

We can't predict the future, but we can look at the past. Since the Greenland ice cap didn't melt during previous warm(er) periods, it is a good bet that it will also not melt this time around.

 

I am actually not bias to any industry, but it sound like you see bogymen anywhere when you see fact that you don't like. 

[ilostmypassword]

6 minutes ago, ExpatOilWorker said:

 

Right, but melting of floating sea ice will not change sea levels, so other than the fact it is an interesting development it is relevant.

Melting sea ice will not change sea levels is correct. But the melting glacial ice will. 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, ExpatOilWorker said:

 

Right, but melting of floating sea ice will not change sea levels, so other than the fact it is an interesting development it is relevant.

Floating ice doesn't, ice on land does. If the arctic becomes free of ice, it should be a warning sign for everybody.

 

Furthermore the warming doesn't only affect the ice on sea. It affects to the permafrost, which can be a big issue from the Siberian region.

http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20170223-in-siberia-there-is-a-huge-crater-and-it-is-getting-bigger

Then there are the ocean currents, which can become unstable. This would be really big thing for the whole world.

The Thermohaline Circulation

 

 

[ExpatOilWorker]

5 minutes ago, oilinki said:

Floating ice doesn't, ice on land does. If the arctic becomes free of ice, it should be a warning sign for everybody.

 

Furthermore the warming doesn't only affect the ice on sea. It affects to the permafrost, which can be a big issue from the Siberian region.

http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20170223-in-siberia-there-is-a-huge-crater-and-it-is-getting-bigger

Then there are the ocean currents, which can become unstable. This would be really big thing for the whole world.

The Thermohaline Circulation

 

 

 

But since we have core samples that are 400-800,000 years old, the main ice cap on land will NOT melt.

 

That a bit of coastal glaciers are being reduced is just a natural cycle.

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, ExpatOilWorker said:

 

But since we have core samples that are 400-800,000 years old, the main ice cap on land will NOT melt.

 

That a bit of coastal glaciers are being reduced is just a natural cycle.

For me it doesn't matter wether the Greenland glaciers melt. For me, the big issue is climate change due slowdown / interruption of The Thermohaline Circulation. It would mean global havoc when the nature can't keep up with the changing climate around the World.  

[ilostmypassword]

4 minutes ago, ExpatOilWorker said:

 

But since we have core samples that are 400-800,000 years old, the main ice cap on land will NOT melt.

 

That a bit of coastal glaciers are being reduced is just a natural cycle.

Who cares if it doesn't all melt?  That doesn't address the quesiton of how much melting is going on and what it contributes to sea ice.

And your comment about a bit of coastal glaciers is melting?  You got some evidence to cite that that's what this phoenomenon is?  Now you're making things up.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/02/great-greenland-meltdown

[ExpatOilWorker]

1 hour ago, ilostmypassword said:

Who cares if it doesn't all melt?  That doesn't address the quesiton of how much melting is going on and what it contributes to sea ice.

And your comment about a bit of coastal glaciers is melting?  You got some evidence to cite that that's what this phoenomenon is?  Now you're making things up.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/02/great-greenland-meltdown

So no need to be alarmed: Under the same high–global warming scenario, eight ice sheet models predicted anywhere between 0 and 27 cm of sea level rise in 2100 from Greenland melt.

[nauseus]

Everyone should be concerned. Look back a lot further to when the world had little or no polar ice at all. Nobody can say that that cannot happen again. But the biggest difference now (against more recent changes of climate) is the rate  of change of climate and average temperatures, which increased coincidentally with the rise in man-made emissions and later more so with the exponential rise in the human population after WW2. 

 

[rickudon]

One other point. About 50% of the rise in sea level is believed to be due to thermal expansion. As the oceans warm up, they take up more space. Because the volume of the oceans is so great, they take a long time to warm up and there is a long term time lag before equilibrium is reached - possibly thousands of years. So even if we stopped global warming now, but air temperatures remained the same, sea level would keep on rising.

 

Also, Isostatic readjustment of the northern continents from the last ice age is still happening (where there used to be ice sheets which have since melted, the removal of the large volume of ice makes the underlying land rise, just like unloading a ship). So sea levels will keep on rising for thousands of years.

 

Tip - do not invest in Florida, most of it will not be there in 1000 years.

 

Also, a point about the Greenland ice sheet melting. Although maybe only 0.02% of it melts per year, IF that rate was to continue, it would take only 5000 years to disappear - less time than the last ice age. Reality is that once it no longer is close to the sea, the rate will slow down a lot. Remember when the Vikings found Greenland, it was possible to grow some crops there. When the little ice age happened, that was no longer possible. But now they can again. Differences of 1 degree centigrade can make big differences to climate, and can change the dynamics of what is possible - for good, or for bad.

[ExpatOilWorker]

3 hours ago, nauseus said:

Everyone should be concerned. Look back a lot further to when the world had little or no polar ice at all. Nobody can say that that cannot happen again. But the biggest difference now (against more recent changes of climate) is the rate  of change of climate and average temperatures, which increased coincidentally with the rise in man-made emissions and later more so with the exponential rise in the human population after WW2. 

 

 

Further back than 800,000 years?

You are trying to compare million of years variation with a couple of hundred of years. Make no sense at all.

[nauseus]

8 minutes ago, ExpatOilWorker said:

 

Further back than 800,000 years?

You are trying to compare million of years variation with a couple of hundred of years. Make no sense at all.

 

I am not trying to make any comparisons, merely pointing out that :

1. The poles have been effectively devoid of ice before, therefore it cannot be inconceivable or impossible for that to happen again!

2. The recent rates  of change of climate and temperatures are significant and coincident with the rise in emissions and population.

[USPatriot]

Anyone want to bet money will fix it.

[nauseus]

1 minute ago, USPatriot said:

Anyone want to bet money will fix it.

Nope!

[boomerangutang]

                           Speaking of changing ocean currents:  One plausible theory sees the Gulf Stream changing course drastically so, rather than bringing warm equatorial waters up to northern Europe, ....big changes would ensue.  A planet which is warming overall, may result in a colder northern Europe, including the British Isles.  That would be enough for people like Trump to declare, "You see, all this talk of climate warming is bogus, because now there are glaciers forming in Scotland."

 

                      Yet, Trump would be wrong again, as he is on so many issues, because northern Europe is a comparatively small slice of the entire global surface.   For example, a comparatively small portion of the Earth's surface may experience cooling, but concurrently, it's possible that wide swaths of land and oceans could experience dire warming, as is already happening in parts of N and NE Africa.

[ilostmypassword]

20 hours ago, ExpatOilWorker said:

So no need to be alarmed: Under the same high–global warming scenario, eight ice sheet models predicted anywhere between 0 and 27 cm of sea level rise in 2100 from Greenland melt.

And if Greenland were the only contributor to rising seas, you might be raising a good point. But it isn't the only contributor. So the rise in sea level will be much greater.

[ExpatOilWorker]

2 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

And if Greenland were the only contributor to rising seas, you might be raising a good point. But it isn't the only contributor. So the rise in sea level will be much greater.

 

...or not happen at all. The jury is still out.

 

A warmer and more moist climate could also result in more snow fall and a thicker land based ice cap. Tat said, if the West Antarctic shelf float away, then we all get wet feet.

[anon4546543]

11 hours ago, ExpatOilWorker said:

 

...or not happen at all. The jury is still out.

 

A warmer and more moist climate could also result in more snow fall and a thicker land based ice cap. Tat said, if the West Antarctic shelf float away, then we all get wet feet.

So you want to wait for a jury result. Or take action now.

The future of your children and all mankind maybe awaits your vote to at least to start preventative measures

On 2017-4-25 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

[ballzafire]

[Yawn]...

The Great Global Warming Swindle
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52Mx0_8YEtg

[anon4546543]

7 minutes ago, ballzafire said:

[Yawn]...

The Great Global Warming Swindle
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52Mx0_8YEtg

You want to bet the lives of your children on this

[ballzafire]

Climate cycles are simply linked to solar cycles. CO2 increase/decrease is a CONSEQUENCE of cyclicality -- NOT the driver. CO2 has NEVER been a driver of climate change.

Natural processes far, FAR outweigh anything produced by humans. Human-produced CO2, therefore, is inconsequential.

You and others are reacting to the brainwashing you've received from the incessant drumbeat of the globalist-controlled mainstream media, and all the bought-and-paid-for corrupt scientists and politicians, who see fit to enslave you with a global carbon tax. If that's not a problem for you, then welcome to your Brave New World, son...

Period.

Watch the video from the link I posted -- and get educated...