"after more than a quarter of a century of stability."
Sounds so much more impressive than 25 years.
A trio of glaciers in a vast region of northeastern Greenland previously thought to be stable are thinning and moving into the sea, forcing climate scientists to reevaluate their projections of sea-level rise upward. "We're seeing an acceleration of ice loss," study coauthor Michael Bevis of Ohio State University told USA …
Sounds so much more impressive than 25 years.
Not as impressive as El Reg insisting in article after article how the glaciers were fine on Greenland and indeed, were growing.
Doesn't look good for Somerset
Ah yes, Somerset. That county where only 3% of land experienced flooding caused by rain (not melting glaciers) and where 97% of the county remained completely unflooded.
Do you mean that you've forgotten the whole south of England is sinking? That will cause more flooding than these pifling glaciers.
Norfolk can look forward to becoming one big Lido. I knew those webbed feet and fingers of the locals would come in handy one day...
Speak for yourself. I live at a high altitude.
Don't panic. It's only the usual Chicken Licken doom-and-bother mongers, ensuring the steady future flow of grant money and justifying their pointless existence by insisting that the sky is falling. Again.
Meanwhile, in the realm of real, actual, ideology-free, a-political sciencey science - the first direct evidence of cosmic inflation! That's science news worth reporting.
Did you type that with your head still buried in the sane or did you lift it out for a minute.
My head's always buried in the sane - it's the enviro-loons who are drawn to the insane. Insane science-free-science and proto-marxist, trendy-anti, sound-bite-pop-psych, idiot ideology - for example "The science is settled", "There is scientific consensus", "to disagree is to be mentally unstable" (an old Soviet trick that one) and on, and on, ad nauseam.
You may live above the flood line, but most of the worlds food comes from sea-level +10m or less
But the world's oceans won't rise by 10m. There is very little time before the ice age comes, that will create a biiiig drop in the ocean levels.
"There is very little time before the ice age comes..."
Really? Last I looked North America's 'bread-basket" was higher than 10m ASL, so too the Steepes, most of South America and Aus. People like to build cities by the sea, not very good for them but then cities don't grow much food, they consume it.
The planet has gone through hot and cold cycles without the benefit of humanity four and five times respectively since the precambrian period (http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm). We pesky humans were not around for most of the previous warming and cooling sessions... and it is pure hubris that we think we are the driving force behind the current warming trend. Humanity might in fact be the only critter in our planet's history that have evolved enough to think our way out of a mass-extinction event to survive as a species Earth will go through its cycles with or without us, as it has in the past... they might get worse, they might not, we simply need to survive them. If the super massive volcano under yellowstone park blows it's lid, or the planet gets smacked by a large asteroid all of the current effort to protect the environment will be for naught.
"sooooo... basically we're f*cked?"
You have a problem with that?
Looks like your head is up your ass. I kown, your argument is that it's not in the "good" book, so let's not get facts in the way.
Just a thought, but we could try reducing greenhouse gas emissions to see if that helps.
"the first direct evidence of cosmic inflation!"
So someone might have enough Nigis to own a Triganic Pu very soon?
is still under 1.2 metres by 2100. I live in Florida, max alt approx 100 m above sea level. However, I don't live near the coast; can't afford waterfront property. A lot of those who can afford to buy on Singer Island and the other barrier islands are going to be crying.
How sad. Too bad. My heart truly bleeds for them.
Nice for you. Trouble for some.
Bevis should ask Butthead for help.
I looked up the ice volumes in the big land-based icefields only recently. If the Greenland icecap were to melt entirely (which would take a hell of a long time), global sea levels would rise about six metres. Of course, it's not strictly necessary for all of it to melt. The same effect is achieved by sliding it off Greenland into the ocean.
Does that account for the crust rebound when all the weight of that ice disappears? Not trying to be snarky, I just know that the Great Lakes, formed by glaciers, is rebounding still thousands of years later.
> Does that account for the crust rebound
I am not a geophysicist, but I'm sure that crustal rebound takes vastly longer than the melting that triggers it. As you say, North America is still seeing the effect, and England too is still lifting in places and tilting following the last glaciation. I was just pointing out the scale of the matter: I don't expect the Greenland icecap to disappear into the ocean any time soon.
PS: if you were to melt the Antarctic ice cap, you could add another sixty metres to sea levels. Now you're talking!
>global sea levels would rise about six metres.
Actually its over 7m but point taken.
Read the paper. The authors describe the increased mobility of the glaciers under study as a local effect. In fact, nearby is another glacier where temperatures are below normal (another local effect).
Alarmists take this local effect and scream about it being part of a global pattern when there is absolutely no support for such an assertion. Can you imagine what the well-paid warmist propaganda mill would say if anyone focused on that other, cooler, region and crowed that it was a sign that global warming was untrue?
Move along. There really is very little to see here.
I seem to have missed the "screaming" to which you refer.
Very little indeed.
The only well paid group of people here is the global warming/climate change deniers, funded by companies with vested interests in keeping the status quo with emissions, oil/coal use, and so on and so forth. Billions of dollars go here, and yet the science that supports them is under 1% of published papers.
I don't think that many people "deny" that climate changes (although the term "deniers" seems to be just a way of alarm mongers trying to say that anyone who disagrees is a bad person, a bit like a holocaust denier).
It wouldn't be unreasonable to "deny" that the globe hasn't warmed in nearly 20 years, because that's what the data seems to show. As the concentration of atmospheric CO2 has continued to increase throughout that period this ought to cast some doubt on the validity of climate models which predict catastrophic warming because of CO2.
Also, I think that you will find that almost all of the billions of dollars are spent in supporting "Climate Change" alarm, through government research grants, green subsidies, taxes, etc. The sceptics all look pretty much shoe-string operations.
yet the science that supports them is under 1% of published papers.
I assume you mean in climatology or one of its sub fields, but it would help if you enlighten us. You denialists are usually so insistent on being as specific as possible.
No model is perfect, we all know that. But as more data is identified and included, as more tweaks are made, the models get better. This new study adds a new tweak and therefore makes the models slightly more accurate, which is a good thing.
Actually 10 times 0 is still 0. The models have never been validated against real-world conditions. Early models failed to predict the Sahara desert. I expect it's been programmed in by now, but only as a programmed artefact, not a genuine result of running the model.
Tweak, fiddle the numbers, fudge - whatever you decide to call it, there is no science in "climate science".
@Fluffy Bunny re: "there is no science in 'climate science'."
To quote one of your fellows, that sage of Leon Schlesinger Productions, Bugs Bunny, "What a maroon!"
I realize, sir or madam, that such an ad hominem attack is, indeed, the lowest form of argument, and for that I apologize. Kinda. But for you to say that there is "no science in climate science" warrants a Bugsian reproach.
Please post logical, well-though-out, well-researched, well-sourced disagreements, if you would, and not overarching ludicrousness.
FluffyBunny merely pointed out the very salient fact that 'climate science' simply ain't so. There is no science in evidence. It's some maths and stats and computer modelling, masquerading as science, fuelled by politics and careerism - not by ethics and the search for a deeper understanding of the nature of things.
That search in real science comes laden with the concomitant truth that one's current understanding may well be trumped by another's research or technology - one's view of the matter at hand may well be re-informed and thus is subject to change, and in no way ever, is any science 'settled'. This 'science' of climate has extended no experiments to replicate, no theories to test, no results of any new scientific value added to the pantheon whatsoever.
Also, real science has no call to self-validate, it just is. Climate 'science' just can't put the megaphone down for two minutes, as we'll all forget they ever existed if they do so. Their models are broken, the results fudged and lied about, their aspirations are purely political and self-serving.
Their models are broken, the results fudged and lied about, their aspirations are purely political and self-serving.
Oh no, it's a conspiracy!
Real science ALWAYS validate. Thats how you make sure it is correct. And when incorrect, REVALIDATE.
Without validation it is just... religion.
>FluffyBunny merely pointed out the very salient fact that 'climate science' simply ain't so.
And you and he have amply demonstrated that neither of you have a clue about how science works.
The whole of science is a model, constructed from hypothesis, compared with empirical observations. The climate change models are still improving, but they're light years ahead of the denialists' efforts.
strum, science is a model constructed from scientific hypotheses. What is the difference between climate change hypotheses and scientific hypotheses? A scientific hypothesis can be tested.
Climate science produces models that describe what happened in the past in order to generate current measurements. The model takes historical data, and churns out the right number for today - hurrah!
We then look at the future predictions of that model and turn it into policy and taxes, but at no point is that model tested - it fits the old data, and it is right now, and that is good enough seemingly for most people.
It also seems that when you have new historical data that then doesn't fit the existing model, or changes the model forecast, then the implication is that the model is wrong, and it is tweaked until it gives the forecasts that are desired.
No not a conspiracy, more individuals and organisations acting in their own interest.
By example I offer a quote from the project leader on a job I once worked on:
"This is the Critical Design Review, to find out if there are any show stoppers...
so we'd better not find any or the show might stop"
In stellar and solar system modelling, we found a lot of "errors" showing up with recent moves to 64-bit systems were due to recurrent use of rounded results as input to the next stage of a series of looped calculations (a big no-no, if you think about it).
It turned out the 32-bit systems were giving errors too, but because there was nothing to compare them against, they were assumed correct - despite most modelling systems having solar systems flying apart after a few tens of millions of years, emperical evidence that ours is at least 4 billion years old notwithstanding.
As a result of investigating why we were getting "wrong" answers, we discovered systemic faults in the way things were being done. Backtracking and rerunning a bunch of older stuff resulted in solar systems taking _much_ longer to fly apart - a few hundred million years, still not billions. There's still something off down at the umpty-nth decimal place.
Good scientists work out why things are wrong. Bad ones dump in a fudge factor and say "we'll get back to that later". The problem is that most scientists are utterly shit at computing but not quite experienced enough in the field to realise it. (It amazes me that some people manage to get anything done at all, given the rotten code they turn out.)
(FWIW there's still an urban legend that 64-bit systems give different results to 32-bit systems for the same code. The answer is "Yes, if your code is badly written and riddled with schoolboy errors")
Yep, validate one's results - not validate one's opinion of self or one's own belief system.
Human-caused climate change is real and it is hazardous to long-term habitability of the earth. These are facts. Read what the experts have been saying for years.
So what are we doing about it? What are YOU doing about it? Apathy/inaction effectively advocates more of the same destructive behaviors. For those of us that can think critically and are informed we know that we can and MUST do better. So join the efforts. Get involved. Don't be someone that just goes with the flow. Swim!
lol, trolly troll is obvious. Get away with ye.
A bit early to buy visittropicalgreenland.com ?
If these are the current models, they don't yet include physically accurate modeling of clouds (they parametrize them, but the real-life parameter values are still unknown), and didn't predict the recent loss of ice cover in the Arctic and the increase in ice cover in the Antarctic. I'm not sure I'd yet want to rely on them for predictions about the year 2100.
I hope it is simply the case that there is an army of simple loons that invade the reg on any climate article, otherwise this outpouring of moron-juice is a sad reflection on the readership.
Generally tech people I know are empirical, logical thinkers and will investigate things and make their own mind. The swarm of cut and pasted responses that hit every climate article are quite out of character for my rose tinted view of the audience here (but then I try and avoid Apple/MS comments)
Generally tech people I know are empirical, logical thinkers and will investigate things and make their own mind
I can only presume that you don't frequent these comment boards
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017