General / Off-Topic Recycle or Die! (the elite environmental thread)

[Zak Gordon]

‘Extraordinary thinning’ of ice sheets revealed deep inside Antarctica:

‘Extraordinary thinning’ of ice sheets revealed deep inside Antarctica

New research shows affected areas are losing ice five times faster than in the 1990s, with more than 100m of thickness gone in some places

www.theguardian.com

Ice losses are rapidly spreading deep into the interior of the Antarctic, new analysis of satellite data shows.

The warming of the Southern Ocean is resulting in glaciers sliding into the sea increasingly rapidly, with ice now being lost five times faster than in the 1990s. The West Antarctic ice sheet was stable in 1992 but up to a quarter of its expanse is now thinning. More than 100 metres of ice thickness has been lost in the worst-hit places.

A complete loss of the West Antarctic ice sheet would drive global sea levels up by about five metres, drowning coastal cities around the world. The current losses are doubling every decade, the scientists said, and sea level rise are now running at the extreme end of projections made just a few years ago.

The research, published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, compared 800m satellite measurements of ice sheet height from 1992 to 2017 with weather information. This distinguished short-term changes owing to varying snowfall from long-term changes owing to climate.

“From a standing start in the 1990s, thinning has spread inland progressively over the past 25 years – that is rapid in glaciological terms,” said Prof Andy Shepherd, of Leeds University in the UK, who led the study. “The speed of drawing down ice from an ice sheet used to be spoken of in geological timescales, but that has now been replaced by people’s lifetimes.”

As with everything to do with AGW, it is the speed of the change that is the greatest concern, as this pattern lends itself to domino scenarios where you hit various tipping points and multiple negative (in terms of human and natural eco systems abilities to adapt) effects start to take place in rapid succession.

 

[Felix DiCestria]

Concerning, though my mind is struggling to accept the concept of East and West Antarctica...

 

[Zak Gordon]

Well it's a big place. It probably has a North and South as well!

 

[Felix DiCestria]

If / When things go **** up the question is how it will play out.
Direct effects like storms or heatwaves should be fairly obvious as to how to deal with.
For economic collapse the usual advice is to put 10% of your savings/investments into bullion; usually this references gold but at ~£1,000 per ounce somewhat impractical. I prefer Silver which at ~£11-12 oz gives a more achievable entry point.
In case of civil unrest I'd take the greyman approach.

 

[TruthSeeker]

‘Extraordinary thinning’ of ice sheets revealed deep inside Antarctica:

‘Extraordinary thinning’ of ice sheets revealed deep inside Antarctica

New research shows affected areas are losing ice five times faster than in the 1990s, with more than 100m of thickness gone in some places

www.theguardian.com

As with everything to do with AGW, it is the speed of the change that is the greatest concern, as this pattern lends itself to domino scenarios where you hit various tipping points and multiple negative (in terms of human and natural eco systems abilities to adapt) effects start to take place in rapid succession.

It looks like a line since 1880 according to well lots of smart people who kept an eye on it ? https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-sea-level

It seem like its natural accurance, and somewhat to do with Human effect in my opinion, even though they try to spin it like it's all our fault, yet the graph shows it's has been rising for decades prior.

The effect is minimal, as it would have happen anyway - is my conculusion.

 

[Shinji Ikari]

It looks like a line since 1880 according to well lots of smart people who kept an eye on it ? https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-sea-level

It seem like its natural accurance, and somewhat to do with Human effect in my opinion, even though they try to spin it like it's all our fault, yet the graph shows it's has been rising for decades prior.

View attachment 132005

The effect is minimal, as it would have happen anyway - is my conculusion.

Decades prior to what?

 

[Felix DiCestria]

Sea level since the Little Ice Age?

 

[TruthSeeker]

Sea level since the Little Ice Age?

Yea, we still don't know what caused it, neither do we know what caused the real Ice Ages prior.

We should be glad the temperature is rising. Because according to the 3 recent Interglacial periods, we are at the end of our Interglacial periode now.

You can also see the levels of CO2 during our last Interglacial periode

 

[Shinji Ikari]

Yea, we still don't know what caused it, neither do we know what caused the real Ice Ages prior.

We should be glad the temperature is rising. Because according to the 3 recent Interglacial periods, we are at the end of our Interglacial periode now.

View attachment 132011

You can also see the levels of CO2 during our last Interglacial periode

Are you sure we don't know? What about Milankovich cycles?

 

[TruthSeeker]

Are you sure we don't know? What about Milankovich cycles?

Variations in the Earth's orbit did not cause the ice age cycles per se – they rather paced them. A certain orbit of the Earth can be associated with many different climates. The one we have today is in fact similar to the one we had during the most intense part of the last ice age.

 

[Felix DiCestria]

Current level of CO2 is 415 ppm, well above anything shown on the graph.

 

[Shinji Ikari]

Variations in the Earth's orbit did not cause the ice age cycles per se – they rather paced them. A certain orbit of the Earth can be associated with many different climates. The one we have today is in fact similar to the one we had during the most intense part of the last ice age.

Milankovich cycles are not only about the orbit of the Earth but the tilt of the axis of rotation of the Earth.

 

[Talarin]

Current level of CO2 is 415 ppm, well above anything shown on the graph.

That may is true, but what does it actually mean?

What is the physical difference between a "natural peak" of 300ppm (as seen on that graph), a "manmade peak" of 415ppm (current measurement) and a "projected manmade" 550ppm around 2100 (IPCC estimated RCP4.5)?

How do those differences compare to potential natural variations?

Milankovich cycles are not only about the orbit of the Earth but the tilt of the axis of rotation of the Earth.

Doesn't really matter though, does it? The point was exactly the same as one I made earlier in the thread. If CO2 emissions only became significant in the period since about 1970 then changes prior to that must be due to other causes. Starbrow's comment about homocentric explanations is perfectly reasonable.

 

[Shinji Ikari]

Doesn't really matter though, does it? The point was exactly the same as one I made earlier in the thread. If CO2 emissions only became significant in the period since about 1970 then changes prior to that must be due to other causes. Starbrow's comment about homocentric explanations is perfectly reasonable.

True, that doesn't change the fact that current temperature changes are not being able to be replicated in supercomputer simulations without our own input in CO2 not to mention that the past changes in temperature are not nearly as abrupt as the one we are seeing right now.

 

[Felix DiCestria]

In order to keep below a 2 degree rise we needed to peak at 411ppm. That is unobtainable now.
The next target is for 3.5 degrees but this requires serious work.
If we hit 6 degrees it's essentially all over.
Fuel companies are lobbying that 4.5 degrees could be survivable but only the guys being paid by them, (mostly the same individuals that were paid by tobacco companies to claim cigarettes didn't cause cancer) are saying that, essentially you write off everything but Northern Europe and New Zealand.

 

[TruthSeeker]

In order to keep below a 2 degree rise we needed to peak at 411ppm. That is unobtainable now.
The next target is for 3.5 degrees but this requires serious work.
If we hit 6 degrees it's essentially all over.
Fuel companies are lobbying that 4.5 degrees could be survivable but only the guys being paid by them, (mostly the same individuals that were paid by tobacco companies to claim cigarettes didn't cause cancer) are saying that, essentially you write off everything but Northern Europe and New Zealand.

Come on guys, look closer to the grapth and similar graphs from Vostok station data and tempreture for those periodes, you can see that Nature achieved same temperature at different levels of CO2, some beeing much lower than even 300 ppm.

You guys focus to much on CO2 and paint it as the main source of temprature rise.

Also considering Ice age temperature drops up to 6 degree down - the higher Tempreture we get, the easier it would be to survive the next Ice age imo.

 

[Felix DiCestria]

 

[TruthSeeker]

8 cm in 30 years - Sea Level rise.
To reach the critical 1 meter, it will take over 350 years. 5 Meters ( aka total meldown ) - over 1500 years at the given rate.

So not in lifetime, but in far far future. If you look how much our Tech advanced in the last 30 years - you realise solving this problems would become much much easier in the future, when it becomes more of a problem.

All this projections are often wrong. Look at real data that happend: and its 8 cm in 30 years. ( FYI 23 cm in 140 years ( since 1880 ) - Not 1 meter, not 5 meters. )

 

[Shinji Ikari]

8 cm in 30 years - Sea Level rise.
To reach the critical 1 meter, it will take over 350 years. 5 Meters ( aka total meldown ) - over 1500 years at the given rate.

So not in lifetime, but in far far future. If you look how much our Tech advanced in the last 30 years - you realise solving this problems would become much much easier in the future, when it becomes more of a problem.

All this projections are often wrong. Look at real data that happend: and its 8 cm in 30 years. ( FYI 23 cm in 140 years ( since 1880 ) - Not 1 meter, not 5 meters. )

You are assuming a linear increase in sea level rise which is not the case.

 

[TruthSeeker]

You are assuming a linear increase in sea level rise which is not the case.

I didn't not assumed, i specifically calculated with out it. Also to show how little of an increase has happend so far in our lifetime.

What this people do, is just want for you to be scared. They put this false prediction oh how it will be in 2100 just to scare you. But what they don't tell you is that our rapid increase in technology development will solve this problem in the future.

This whole Climate Changes/ Sea level rise is not science anymore it's a cult, and just like in every other cult, they scare you with their false prophecies of doom. And they will keep on doing it, until you are scared and become easy to fall under their control. But in reality there is nothing to fear!