Scientists Have Reduced the Forecast of Sea Level Rise Seven Times Due to Melting of the Antarctic

[Doc7505]

Scientists Have Reduced the Forecast of Sea Level Rise Seven Times Due to Melting of the Antarctic​

Scientists Have Reduced the Forecast of Sea Level Rise Seven Times Due to Melting of the Antarctic | Maritime Herald
By Svilen Petrov ~~ The destruction of the Antarctic ice sheet may not lead to such a catastrophic rise in the level of the oceans, as previously thought. In a new study, the authors calculated that instead of growing by a meter or more by 2100, a growth of 14-15 cm is likely, writes N + 1.
At the same time, the melting of the ice of Greenland and Antarctica is not fully taken into account in modern climate models, as it will lead to even more destabilization of the regional climate. Both studies on this are published in the journal Nature. The melting of the ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica is considered one of the most dangerous global consequences of climate change caused by human activity, which will lead to an increase in the level of the World Ocean. There are very significant reserves of ice, and the rate of its melting has increased in recent years. However, the range of estimates of the speed of this process in the future and the final rise in the level of the oceans is quite large. So, in 2016, in one of the works, it was assumed that by 2100 due to the sharp destruction of the Antarctic ice sheet, the level of the World Ocean could rise by a meter or more.
In the second article, Edwards and Nick Golledge of Queen Victoria University in Wellington and their co-authors write that current climate models do not fully take into account the consequences of the destruction of the ice of Greenland and the Antarctic, which will slow down the Atlantic Ocean and further melt the Antarctic ice due to “locking” of warm water in the Southern Ocean (climatologists call such self-enhancing processes positive feedback processes).


~~~~~~
It appears that some climate scientists are actually doing science. Now to get some of this downstream to the communists pushing for the complete reorganization of economic systems, or at least those that support them.
Just to be sure, we should follow Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and cease all air and motor travel. Perhaps we should go farther and stop all defensive air and motor travel. We will be the only country that does this, but America must lead by example. We will find a way. Think of the children. We can accomplish this is 12 years by increasing punitive taxation and shaming via media outlets.
This is one of the most confounding of modern mysteries - scientists everywhere are vying for large grants to study this anomaly but that presents a problem since the new green deal will soak up much of the available tax revenues and bond sales. Ink will be in short supply so the option of just printing more money is limited. Using metal coins for money are also out of question since mining is forbidden to due to carbon sequestration protocols and the like.
As soon as those new green deal fiscal problems are solved, the scientists promise to get on it right quick.

Gore Rewrites ‘Inconvenient’ Claim about NYC Flooding in
Gore Rewrites ‘Inconvenient’ Claim about NYC Flooding in ‘Sequel’ | Climate Depot
Gore Rewrites ‘Inconvenient’ Claim about NYC Flooding in ‘Sequel’ Read the Full Article. Immediately, after showing Florida, Gore showed animations of drowning cities and countries: San Francisco, The Netherlands, Beijing, Shanghai, Calcutta and then Manhattan. “But this is …

According to Al Bore our coast lines were supposedly to be flooded years ago. Not so New York and London are still above the waterline.
A 14 to 15 centimeter rise by 2100? That’s 5 or 6 inches. Of course the five boroughs of New York City will have to be evacuated because of the rising sea level but most of the country will survive OK.

 

[H B Lowrie]

So confusing, so we're to trust science now?

 

[Crick]

Yes

The OP hasn't told you one damned thing about the work of real science

 

[mamooth]

Here's the recent paper, thought you wouldn't know it from the OP.

Revisiting Antarctic ice loss due to marine ice-cliff instability
---
Predictions for sea-level rise this century due to melt from Antarctica range from zero to more than one metre. The highest predictions are driven by the controversial marine ice-cliff instability (MICI) hypothesis, which assumes that coastal ice cliffs can rapidly collapse after ice shelves disintegrate, as a result of surface and sub-shelf melting caused by global warming. But MICI has not been observed in the modern era and it remains unclear whether it is required to reproduce sea-level variations in the geological past. Here we quantify ice-sheet modelling uncertainties for the original MICI study and show that the probability distributions are skewed towards lower values (under very high greenhouse gas concentrations, the most likely value is 45 centimetres). However, MICI is not required to reproduce sea-level changes due to Antarctic ice loss in the mid-Pliocene epoch, the last interglacial period or 1992–2017; without it we find that the projections agree with previous studies (all 95th percentiles are less than 43 centimetres). We conclude that previous interpretations of these MICI projections over-estimate sea-level rise this century; because the MICI hypothesis is not well constrained, confidence in projections with MICI would require a greater range of observationally constrained models of ice-shelf vulnerability and ice-cliff collapse.
---

 

[Billy_Bob]

I see the left-tards are still playing with their broken models using highly exaggerated scenarios. How is that working out for your temperature predictions? You've only missed the mark by 1.6 deg F in 16 years exaggerating the warming by almost 600%

You retards love you some Chicken little... Are you all sharing with AOC?

 

[mamooth]

I see the left-tards are still playing with their broken models using highly exaggerated scenarios. How is that working out for your temperature predictions? You've only missed the mark by 1.6 deg F in 16 years exaggerating the warming by almost 600%

Billy, how's your amazing report going, the one that will overthrow the current scientific theories?

Nothing? You lied about that, like you're lying here?

Everyone can see you're quite skilled at being a lying little cocksuck. And that's your only skill.

 

[Billy_Bob]

I see the left-tards are still playing with their broken models using highly exaggerated scenarios. How is that working out for your temperature predictions? You've only missed the mark by 1.6 deg F in 16 years exaggerating the warming by almost 600%

Billy, how's your amazing report going, the one that will overthrow the current scientific theories?

Nothing? You lied about that, like you're lying here?

Everyone can see you're quite skilled at being a lying little cocksuck. And that's your only skill.

Here ya go you lying little bastard...

I would call this an EPIC FAILURE by the IPCC and their so called scientists...

 

[mamooth]

I would call this an EPIC FAILURE by the IPCC and their so called scientists...

I would call it more open fraud on your part.

What do you hope to accomplish by posting faked graphs? After all, everyone already knows you're a cult fraud.

Now, you need to get back to that paper that will overturn all of science. AHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA.

 

[SSDD]

I see the left-tards are still playing with their broken models using highly exaggerated scenarios. How is that working out for your temperature predictions? You've only missed the mark by 1.6 deg F in 16 years exaggerating the warming by almost 600%

Billy, how's your amazing report going, the one that will overthrow the current scientific theories?

Nothing? You lied about that, like you're lying here?

Everyone can see you're quite skilled at being a lying little cocksuck. And that's your only skill.

Here ya go you lying little bastard...

View attachment 246015

View attachment 246017

I would call this an EPIC FAILURE by the IPCC and their so called scientists...

There are problems with hansen's predictions that you didn't mention..if you look at his business as usual scenario, he appears to be not that far off... The problem with that is that in reality, CO2 emissions were 25% more than his business as usual scenario assumed...had he assumed a 25% increase in CO2 emissions, his model would have predicted even more warming..and he would have, in turn been even further from the mark...

 

[Billy_Bob]

I see the left-tards are still playing with their broken models using highly exaggerated scenarios. How is that working out for your temperature predictions? You've only missed the mark by 1.6 deg F in 16 years exaggerating the warming by almost 600%

Billy, how's your amazing report going, the one that will overthrow the current scientific theories?

Nothing? You lied about that, like you're lying here?

Everyone can see you're quite skilled at being a lying little cocksuck. And that's your only skill.

Here ya go you lying little bastard...

View attachment 246015

View attachment 246017

I would call this an EPIC FAILURE by the IPCC and their so called scientists...

There are problems with hansen's predictions that you didn't mention..if you look at his business as usual scenario, he appears to be not that far off... The problem with that is that in reality, CO2 emissions were 25% more than his business as usual scenario assumed...had he assumed a 25% increase in CO2 emissions, his model would have predicted even more warming..and he would have, in turn been even further from the mark...

Agreed;

It also shows the divergence factor to be above +2 from even that model. Way outside 2std's.. Epic model fail..

 

[SSDD]

I see the left-tards are still playing with their broken models using highly exaggerated scenarios. How is that working out for your temperature predictions? You've only missed the mark by 1.6 deg F in 16 years exaggerating the warming by almost 600%

Billy, how's your amazing report going, the one that will overthrow the current scientific theories?

Nothing? You lied about that, like you're lying here?

Everyone can see you're quite skilled at being a lying little cocksuck. And that's your only skill.

Here ya go you lying little bastard...

View attachment 246015

View attachment 246017

I would call this an EPIC FAILURE by the IPCC and their so called scientists...

There are problems with hansen's predictions that you didn't mention..if you look at his business as usual scenario, he appears to be not that far off... The problem with that is that in reality, CO2 emissions were 25% more than his business as usual scenario assumed...had he assumed a 25% increase in CO2 emissions, his model would have predicted even more warming..and he would have, in turn been even further from the mark...

Agreed;

It also shows the divergence factor to be above +2 from even that model. Way outside 2std's.. Epic model fail..

He also didn't factor in two very large El Nino events into his figures...it was just dumb luck that those two events happened and brought his estimate a bit closer to reality...had he figured on not one but two strong el ninos, his estimates would have also been much warmer...

I suppose there are those around us who believe el nino events are manmade as well...

 

[skookerasbil]

Nobody knows dick about the future climate.....the IPCC said decades ago that models are ghey for making predictions. The climate crusaders know it too....gotta keep the hysterical trigger at full-on all the time.

 

[Crick]

Here is Hansen's Scenario A, B and C projections versus actual temperatures. I find it interesting how different these data are than are those you chose to post. Why might that be? Because your actual, UAH Lower Troposphere, show almost zero warming over a period (1988 - 2012) where every other dataset shows warming approaching 0.5C

Hansen's Assumptions
Greenhouse Gas Changes and Radiative Forcing
So which scenario was the most accurate representation? Figures 4 below provides the answer. The radiative forcings for Hansen's three scenarios were estimated using the simplified radiative forcing expressions from the 2001 IPCC report, based on the projected greenhouse gas atmospheric concentrations for Hansen's scenarios. The actual radiative forcing estimates are taken from Skeie et al. (2011).

Hansen et al. only modeled the temperature response to greenhouse gas changes (and a few simulated volcanic eruptions). So in his simulations, the greenhouse gas (GHG)-only forcing and 'all forcings' are the same. In reality, they are not, with the main non-GHGforcing involving human aerosol emissions, whose effects remain one of the biggest uncertainties in climate science.

In our analysis here, we're interested in the changes since 1988, particularly through 1998. The radiative forcing changes since 1988 are shown in Figure 4.



Figure 4: Radiative forcing changes (1988 to 2010) for the three emissions scenarios in Hansen et al. 1988 (dark blue [A], red , and green [C]) vs. Skeie et al. (2011) GHG-only (light blue) and all anthropogenic forcings (purple).

Both the GHG-only and net anthropogenic forcing changes between 1988 and 1998 were very close to Hansen's Scenario C, consistent with Figure 1 above, primarily due to the CFCemissions reductions as a result of the Montreal Protocol.