EPA doing its job, no wonder so many panties in a wad!

[Trakar]

Now is not the time to create new federal regulations on energy producers. Go to China and nag them and leave the US alone for a couple of years while we straighten out the economy.

You don't lead the way by lagging behind.

Once we have our own house in order then we gain the moral/ethical high-ground to advise others (and earn a profit from teaching others) how to follow in our footsteps.

 

[Trakar]

A single coal fired power plant can put out 4,000 megawatts.

Reference?
The largest US coal power station I see in the US is Plant Scherer in Forsyth GA, and it uses 4 880MW turbines for a total capacity (not average generated power) of 3,200MW.

Average utilization of coal fired plants is over 90% as opposed to under 20% for wind powered generators. furthermore, such a plant can be built on a couple of acres as opposed to the hundreds of acres required by wind generation.

nonsequitor
Can you please point out the reference to the 4GW coal-fired plant you mentioned?

Windfarm land is generally on unproductive land that is unsuitable for other development or on land that is multipurposed to accommodate agriculture, recreation, and or nature preservation spaces.

 

[Trakar]

Genesis 1-28

King James Bible
And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

American King James Version
And God blessed them, and God said to them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.

American Standard Version
And God blessed them: and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the heavens, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Genesis 1:28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."

"dominion" does not mean to "destroy or degrade with reckless abandon or sloven neglect"
Dominion comes with the responsibility to preserve and tend so that it may maintain value and worth not just for the present but for all future generations.

 

[daveman]

Reference?
The largest US coal power station I see in the US is Plant Scherer in Forsyth GA, and it uses 4 880MW turbines for a total capacity (not average generated power) of 3,200MW.

Average utilization of coal fired plants is over 90% as opposed to under 20% for wind powered generators. furthermore, such a plant can be built on a couple of acres as opposed to the hundreds of acres required by wind generation.

nonsequitor
Can you please point out the reference to the 4GW coal-fired plant you mentioned?

Windfarm land is generally on unproductive land that is unsuitable for other development or on land that is multipurposed to accommodate agriculture, recreation, and or nature preservation spaces.

Kendal Power Station - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Power generation is done by six 686 MW units for a total installed capacity of 4,116 MW.​

And before you say anything, he never said it had to be in the United States.

 

[westwall]

EPA’s Regulation of Coal-Fired Power: Is a “Train Wreck” Coming?
Congressional Research Service report Aug. 8, 2011

from the Summary:

... The primary impacts of many of the rules will largely be on coal-fired plants more than 40 years old that have not, until now, installed state-of-the-art pollution controls. Many of these plants are inefficient and are being replaced by more efficient combined cycle natural gas plants, a development likely to be encouraged if the price of competing fuel—natural gas—continues to be low, almost regardless of EPA rules...

Now where have we heard this recently?!

So the "train wreck" for older, inefficient and was already "on the books" due to market factors, whether or not the EPA tightened and enforced its air quality regulations!

...Older, smaller, less efficient units already face a train wreck. In 2010, 48 of them with a combined capacity of 12 GW were retired, according to one source. Another source identifies 149 coal-fired units with a combined capacity of 19.7 GW whose retirement has been announced or implemented in the past few years. In recent weeks, as utilities weigh the cost of retrofitting and operating their older units, more retirements have been announced.
But this does not mean that the newer (post-1970) coal-fired facilities that have invested in
pollution controls over the years will be shuttered. Most of them already comply with many of the proposed rules, or if not, they can do so with modest modifications to their pollution control equipment. A train wreck for this group seems unlikely...

Source: Sue Tierney, “EPA Proposed Utility Air Toxics Rule –Managing Compliance in Reliable Ways,” Congressional Staff Briefing, May 9, 2011, p. 10. The chart is based on EIA Form 860 data. A similar chart produced by EIA itself can be found at http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=1830.​

The CRS report acknowledges the benefits of these new EPA rules and tightening of enforcement for existing rules. In one example, the clamp down on smog-causing sulfur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide would help prevent tens of thousands of cases of bronchitis and heart attacks, with the potential to save 30-40 thousand lives/year. That’s a quarter trillion dollars in health benefits, compared with 3 billion per year in costs by 2014.

“In most cases,” CRS concludes, “the benefits are larger.”

The extraction companies don't care about clean air and water.

That is why they want to kill the EPA and our fellow citizens.

Uhhhh (knocking lightly on skull) if the "extractors" kill all the people who buys their stuff?

 

[westwall]

What living organism does not produce CO2?
How much CO2 is produced from the Oceans?
What happens when photosynthesis stops?
Do you know a safer refrigerant?

All nonsequitors to the topic of discussion, but:

The biologic production of CO2 is irrelevent as that is carbon already existent in the active carbon cycle of the biosphere. The CO2 that is causing problems is the sequestered CO2 that has long been isolated from the active carbon cycle, which we are now adding back into the cycle at rates it is incapable of removing from the environment.

Currently the oceans are Carbon sinks providing a net absorption of between 1/4 and 1/3 of all the sequestered carbon we are dumping into the atmosphere.

Photosynthesis is the process of using sunlight to generate plant sugars, in the process some CO2 is processed and some oxygen is released. Please demonstrate the relevence of including this process in this discussion.

CO2 is not a refrigerant. perhaps you are thinking of HFCs, HCFCs, CFCs, or halomethanes? Regardless, one of the oldest used is probably one of the environmentally safest, Ammonia (R717). It has been used commercially for more than 130 years and is economical, efficient and in small doses, environmentally friendly.

How did the sequestered CO2 get there in the first place? What happens when CO2 levels increase? What CO2 concentration levels are neccessary for plant growth? When CO2 levels increased the last time what was the effect on global climate if any (provide empirical data not computer models), CO2 levels were higher then 400ppm last century, what happened to the excess CO2 and why didn't the global temperature rise then?

 

[daveman]

Uhhhh (knocking lightly on skull) if the "extractors" kill all the people who buys their stuff?

That's what happens when you operate on sheer emotionalism.

 

[bripat9643]

Reference?
The largest US coal power station I see in the US is Plant Scherer in Forsyth GA, and it uses 4 880MW turbines for a total capacity (not average generated power) of 3,200MW.

Average utilization of coal fired plants is over 90% as opposed to under 20% for wind powered generators. furthermore, such a plant can be built on a couple of acres as opposed to the hundreds of acres required by wind generation.

nonsequitor

It's entirely relevant to all that blather you posted about how wind power is growing by leaps and bounds. It takes thousands of wind turbines to replace a single coal fired power plant, and their utilization is often as low as 3%.

Can you please point out the reference to the 4GW coal-fired plant you mentioned?

Here ya go:

Nanticoke Generating Station - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Nanticoke Generating Station is the largest coal-fired power plant in North America, delivering up to 2,760 MW[1] of power into the southern Ontario power grid from its base in Nanticoke, Ontario, Canada. Previous to unit shutdowns, its generating capcity was 3,964 MW.[2]

Windfarm land is generally on unproductive land that is unsuitable for other development or on land that is multipurposed to accommodate agriculture, recreation, and or nature preservation spaces.

They are unsightly and they kill birds by the thousands. Just ask anyone who lives near one.

 

[Chris]

INDIAN wind-power company Suzlon Energy is planning a $1.3 billion project in regional South Australia to power 225,000 homes a year.
Outgoing Premier Mike Rann met with the company, the biggest wind-turbine supplier in India and the world's fifth-largest, during a trade trip earlier this month when he told Indian media that Suzlon had "really been helping us in generating wind power".

Mr Rann refused to discuss the major project with The Australian yesterday.

A spokesman for the Premier said there was a "media announcement strategy" in place with another news outlet.

However, following further inquiries, Suzlon Energy Australia chief executive Dan Hansen revealed the planned "Ceres Project" was initiated by farmers and developers on South Australia's Yorke Peninsula.

Mr Hansen said the state's largest wind farm would be built about 20km southwest of the Yorke Peninsula town of Ardrossan and incorporate up to 180 turbines with a generating capacity of up to 600MW.

$1.3bn Indian wind-power plan to feed 225,000 homes | The Australian

 

[Chris]

Wind power provided 18.9% of electricity production and 24.1% of generation capacity in Denmark in 2008,[1] Denmark was a pioneer in developing commercial wind power during the 1970s, and today almost half of the wind turbines around the world are produced by Danish manufacturers such as Vestas and Siemens Wind Power along with many component suppliers.[2]

Wind power in Denmark - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[westwall]

Reference?
The largest US coal power station I see in the US is Plant Scherer in Forsyth GA, and it uses 4 880MW turbines for a total capacity (not average generated power) of 3,200MW.

Average utilization of coal fired plants is over 90% as opposed to under 20% for wind powered generators. furthermore, such a plant can be built on a couple of acres as opposed to the hundreds of acres required by wind generation.

nonsequitor

It's entirely relevant to all that blather you posted about how wind power is growing by leaps and bounds. It takes thousands of wind turbines to replace a single coal fired power plant, and their utilization is often as low as 3%.

Can you please point out the reference to the 4GW coal-fired plant you mentioned?

Here ya go:

Nanticoke Generating Station - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Nanticoke Generating Station is the largest coal-fired power plant in North America, delivering up to 2,760 MW[1] of power into the southern Ontario power grid from its base in Nanticoke, Ontario, Canada. Previous to unit shutdowns, its generating capcity was 3,964 MW.[2]

Windfarm land is generally on unproductive land that is unsuitable for other development or on land that is multipurposed to accommodate agriculture, recreation, and or nature preservation spaces.

They are unsightly and they kill birds by the thousands. Just ask anyone who lives near one.

They are also loud as hell. I know several people who moved away from wind farms as they were being driven crazy by the whop whop whoping going on incessantly.

 

[bripat9643]

"The Commons" are all resources that are commonly held right to by all people. Some lands are considered part of the commons, but the term is best applied to items like Air and Water.

That's recent liberal horseshit propaganda. "The commons" refers to a feudal land use practice first explained by William Foster Lloyd:

Tragedy of the Commons: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics | Library of Economics and Liberty

The rational explanation for such ruin [the tragedy of the commons] was given more than 170 years ago. In 1832 William Forster Lloyd, a political economist at Oxford University, looking at the recurring devastation of common (i.e., not privately owned) pastures in England, asked: “Why are the cattle on a common so puny and stunted? Why is the common itself so bare-worn, and cropped so differently from the adjoining inclosures?”

Lloyd’s answer assumed that each human exploiter of the common was guided by self-interest. At the point when the carrying capacity of the commons was fully reached, a herdsman might ask himself, “Should I add another animal to my herd?” Because the herdsman owned his animals, the gain of so doing would come solely to him. But the loss incurred by overloading the pasture would be “commonized” among all the herdsmen. Because the privatized gain would exceed his share of the commonized loss, a self-seeking herdsman would add another animal to his herd. And another. And reasoning in the same way, so would all the other herdsmen. Ultimately, the common property would be ruined.

Liberals have tried to transform the terminology into meaning that "the commons" is something sacred that the government should regulate. Originally it was meant to demonstrate precisely the opposite, that common ownership should be abolished wherever possible.

 

[Chris]

The worldwide wind energy market has been rebounding strongly from a weak 2010 through the first half of this year, according to the World Wind Energy Association’s (WWEA) first half report for 2011. Some 18,405 megawatts (MW) of wind power came on-line in the first six months of 2011, a 15% year-to-year increase over first half 2010′s 16,000MW, bringing worldwide wind power capacity to 215,000MW as of end June. Worldwide wind capacity rose 9.3% during 2011′s first six months and by 22.9% when compared with the first six months of 2010.

The top five producers of wind power worldwide — China, the USA, Germany, Spain and India — continue to dominate the wind power market, accounting for 74% of global wind power capacity.

China remained the worldwide leader in wind power capacity with approximately 52 gigawatts (GW) installed, and it continued to dominate the worldwide wind power market for new wind turbines through the first six months of 2011. China added a record 8GW of wind power during 2011′s first half, accounting for 43% of worldwide demand. That compares to the 50% of new wind power demand China accounted for in 2010.

The US added 2,252MW of wind power capacity in 1H 2011, some 90% more than it installed in a weak 1H 2010. Canadian wind power capacity also showed strong growth, installing 603MW. Wind power capacity rose most in Ontario, which enacted its ‘Green Energy Act.’

Germany continued to lead the European wind power market, which showed stronger growth in the first six months of 2011 than it did the previous year. Germany installed 766MW of wind power, bringing its total capacity to 27,981MW. Spain installed 484MW, bringing total installed capacity to 21,150MW, Italy installed 460MW to total 6,200MW, France installed 400MW to total 6,060MW, the UK installed 504MW to total 5,707MW, and Portugal installed 260MW to bring its total installed wind power capacity to 3,960MW.

Wind Power Growth Rises 15% in H1 2011, Capacity Grows ~23% | CleanTechnica

 

[Old Rocks]

Renewable is over 10% at present. Solar and geothermal have yet to be a factor.

Renewables are over 10%? DoE says otherwise:

Year-to-date, coal-fired plants contributed 43.6 percent of the power generated in the United States. Natural gas-fired plants contributed 21.7 percent, and nuclear plants contributed 19.4 percent. Of the 0.8 percent contributed by petroleum-fired plants, petroleum liquids accounted for approximately 0.4 percent and petroleum coke accounted for roughly 0.3 percent. Conventional hydroelectric sources provided 9.0 percent of the total, while other renewables (biomass, geothermal, solar, and wind) and other miscellaneous energy sources generated the remaining 5.5 percent of electric power (Figure 2).​

Hydroelectric is not an enviro-nut approved source, because it interferes with turtles humping, and we can't have that.

So where do you get your 10% figure? Just make it up?

Oh, and look what else I found:

Only around a quarter of the new electricity capacity introduced in 2010 came from wind power, down from 42 percent in 2009, according to a report from the U.S. Department of Energy.

The average cost of installing new wind power held steady in 2010, while the cost of other forms of electricity fell, according to the report.

--

The key problems remain building and maintaining new transmission lines, according to the report. It’s easy enough to generate electricity from a wind turbine, but more difficult to move it from point A to point B. It’s a problem that all new types of renewable energy face, Asmus said.​

Your growth curve is plateauing.

Were we to get serious about replacing coal, we could do that in a generation. We won't, and our children and grandchildren will pay the price of the willfull ignorance and greed of the present generation.

Can't you make a case without resorting to fear-mongering?

No, it doesn't look like you can.

9% + 5.5% = 14.5% Ever bother to take basic math in grade school?

In case you have not noticed, we are going to have to rebuild our transmission infrastructer in any case, much of it is older than I am. And it is no harder to transmit energy from solar, geothermal, wind, or any other sourcy than it is from a coal fired plant. Really dumb statement.

 

[Old Rocks]

"The Commons" are all resources that are commonly held right to by all people. Some lands are considered part of the commons, but the term is best applied to items like Air and Water.

That's recent liberal horseshit propaganda. "The commons" refers to a feudal land use practice first explained by William Foster Lloyd:

Tragedy of the Commons: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics | Library of Economics and Liberty

The rational explanation for such ruin [the tragedy of the commons] was given more than 170 years ago. In 1832 William Forster Lloyd, a political economist at Oxford University, looking at the recurring devastation of common (i.e., not privately owned) pastures in England, asked: “Why are the cattle on a common so puny and stunted? Why is the common itself so bare-worn, and cropped so differently from the adjoining inclosures?”

Lloyd’s answer assumed that each human exploiter of the common was guided by self-interest. At the point when the carrying capacity of the commons was fully reached, a herdsman might ask himself, “Should I add another animal to my herd?” Because the herdsman owned his animals, the gain of so doing would come solely to him. But the loss incurred by overloading the pasture would be “commonized” among all the herdsmen. Because the privatized gain would exceed his share of the commonized loss, a self-seeking herdsman would add another animal to his herd. And another. And reasoning in the same way, so would all the other herdsmen. Ultimately, the common property would be ruined.

Liberals have tried to transform the terminology into meaning that "the commons" is something sacred that the government should regulate. Originally it was meant to demonstrate precisely the opposite, that common ownership should be abolished wherever possible.

Ah yes. So people like you can destroy the resources as rapidly as possible. Yes, the government, or governments, do have to regulate the 'commons' if we are to have said resources in the future.

 

[Old Rocks]

Reference?
The largest US coal power station I see in the US is Plant Scherer in Forsyth GA, and it uses 4 880MW turbines for a total capacity (not average generated power) of 3,200MW.



nonsequitor

It's entirely relevant to all that blather you posted about how wind power is growing by leaps and bounds. It takes thousands of wind turbines to replace a single coal fired power plant, and their utilization is often as low as 3%.



Here ya go:

Nanticoke Generating Station - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Nanticoke Generating Station is the largest coal-fired power plant in North America, delivering up to 2,760 MW[1] of power into the southern Ontario power grid from its base in Nanticoke, Ontario, Canada. Previous to unit shutdowns, its generating capcity was 3,964 MW.[2]

Windfarm land is generally on unproductive land that is unsuitable for other development or on land that is multipurposed to accommodate agriculture, recreation, and or nature preservation spaces.

They are unsightly and they kill birds by the thousands. Just ask anyone who lives near one.

They are also loud as hell. I know several people who moved away from wind farms as they were being driven crazy by the whop whop whoping going on incessantly.

So it is better to load up our children with lead and mercury? Even as the fans in the computers were engineered to be much quieter, so can the windmills be. Each form of power has drawbacks. And there are vast stretchs of land, the Dakotas, Wyoming, Southeastern Oregon, that have very few people and high wind potential.

 

[Old Rocks]

What living organism does not produce CO2?
How much CO2 is produced from the Oceans?
What happens when photosynthesis stops?
Do you know a safer refrigerant?

All nonsequitors to the topic of discussion, but:

The biologic production of CO2 is irrelevent as that is carbon already existent in the active carbon cycle of the biosphere. The CO2 that is causing problems is the sequestered CO2 that has long been isolated from the active carbon cycle, which we are now adding back into the cycle at rates it is incapable of removing from the environment.

Currently the oceans are Carbon sinks providing a net absorption of between 1/4 and 1/3 of all the sequestered carbon we are dumping into the atmosphere.

Photosynthesis is the process of using sunlight to generate plant sugars, in the process some CO2 is processed and some oxygen is released. Please demonstrate the relevence of including this process in this discussion.

CO2 is not a refrigerant. perhaps you are thinking of HFCs, HCFCs, CFCs, or halomethanes? Regardless, one of the oldest used is probably one of the environmentally safest, Ammonia (R717). It has been used commercially for more than 130 years and is economical, efficient and in small doses, environmentally friendly.

How did the sequestered CO2 get there in the first place? What happens when CO2 levels increase? What CO2 concentration levels are neccessary for plant growth? When CO2 levels increased the last time what was the effect on global climate if any (provide empirical data not computer models), CO2 levels were higher then 400ppm last century, what happened to the excess CO2 and why didn't the global temperature rise then?

Really, Walleyes? 400 ppm in the last century? Care to show where and who measured it?

That is about the dumbest thing you have posted yet.

What was it like the last time CO2 levels were this high?

What was it like the last time CO2 levels were this high?

A vivid picture of our climate's future can be found in our past. Currently, atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) levels have reached 390 parts per million (ppm). The last time CO2 was that high was around 3 million years ago, during the Pliocene. Back then, CO2 levels remained at around 365 to 410 ppm for thousands of years. Consequently, the Pliocene gives us vital clues of the long-term effects of raised CO2 levels. New research has just been published that examines this period and confirms previous findings that the Pliocene was dramatically warmer than current temperatures.

The research, published in Csank et al 2011, uses two independent methods to measure Arctic temperature during the Pliocene, on Ellesmere Island. They find that Arctic temperatures were 11 to 16°C warmer (Csank 2011). This is consistent with other independent estimates of Arctic temperature at the time. Global temperatures over this period is estimated to be 3 to 4°C warmer than pre-industrial temperatures. Sea levels were around 25 metres higher than current sea level (Dwyer 2008).

This tells us our climate is sensitive to changes in CO2. If we were to stabilise CO2 levels at around 400 ppm, we'd expect over the long-term a further warming of 2 to 3°C, which is significantly greater than the warming predicted by climate models. This is because climate models only include short-term feedbacks, such as increased water vapor and melting of sea ice. They are yet to take into account the long-term feedbacks from the melting of ice sheets and vegetation changes.

This also tells us that ice sheets are sensitive to sustained warmer temperatures. The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets lost significant amounts of ice during these warmer temperatures. This sensitivity is apparent in current observations, with both Greenland and Antarctica losing ice at an accelerating rate.

The ice loss is particularly dramatic in Greenland. Two decades ago, the Greenland ice sheet was in approximate balance - ice loss at the edges as glaciers calved into the ocean was balanced by ice gain in the interior from increased snowfall. One decade ago, the ice loss at the edges had increased and Greenland was losing around 100 billion tonnes of ice every year. Currently, this ice loss has increased to around 300 billion tonnes of ice per year.

 

[bripat9643]

Ah yes. So people like you can destroy the resources as rapidly as possible. Yes, the government, or governments, do have to regulate the 'commons' if we are to have said resources in the future.

You failed to get the point, once again. The whole point of the parable about "the tragedy of the commons" is that eliminating the commons by turning it into private property is the best way to eliminate the problem. The example is not a rationalization for government regulation.

 

[bripat9643]

So it is better to load up our children with lead and mercury? Even as the fans in the computers were engineered to be much quieter, so can the windmills be. Each form of power has drawbacks. And there are vast stretchs of land, the Dakotas, Wyoming, Southeastern Oregon, that have very few people and high wind potential.

They are also far from populated areas where the power will be consumed. That means building unsightly high tension lines that run for thousands of miles. That cost is seldom figured into the utopians schemes of the wacko environmentalists.

What the leftist can never seem to understand is that everything man does has a trade-off. They behave as if government can wave its magic wand and make the costs of a technology disappear. They simply pretend those costs don't exist.

 

[bripat9643]

As per usual, you're confusing cause and effect. CO2 was higher in the Pliocene because temperatures were warmer, not visa-versa. The reason for the warmer Pliocene climate has been known for decades. When the land Bridge between South American and Antarctica disappeared it allowed the polar current to entirely surround Antarctica, and then it soon became covered with glaciers. That lowered temperatures to modern levels.

It had nothing to do with the concentration of CO2.

Really, Walleyes? 400 ppm in the last century? Care to show where and who measured it?

That is about the dumbest thing you have posted yet.

What was it like the last time CO2 levels were this high?

What was it like the last time CO2 levels were this high?

A vivid picture of our climate's future can be found in our past. Currently, atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) levels have reached 390 parts per million (ppm). The last time CO2 was that high was around 3 million years ago, during the Pliocene. Back then, CO2 levels remained at around 365 to 410 ppm for thousands of years. Consequently, the Pliocene gives us vital clues of the long-term effects of raised CO2 levels. New research has just been published that examines this period and confirms previous findings that the Pliocene was dramatically warmer than current temperatures.

The research, published in Csank et al 2011, uses two independent methods to measure Arctic temperature during the Pliocene, on Ellesmere Island. They find that Arctic temperatures were 11 to 16°C warmer (Csank 2011). This is consistent with other independent estimates of Arctic temperature at the time. Global temperatures over this period is estimated to be 3 to 4°C warmer than pre-industrial temperatures. Sea levels were around 25 metres higher than current sea level (Dwyer 2008).

This tells us our climate is sensitive to changes in CO2. If we were to stabilise CO2 levels at around 400 ppm, we'd expect over the long-term a further warming of 2 to 3°C, which is significantly greater than the warming predicted by climate models. This is because climate models only include short-term feedbacks, such as increased water vapor and melting of sea ice. They are yet to take into account the long-term feedbacks from the melting of ice sheets and vegetation changes.

This also tells us that ice sheets are sensitive to sustained warmer temperatures. The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets lost significant amounts of ice during these warmer temperatures. This sensitivity is apparent in current observations, with both Greenland and Antarctica losing ice at an accelerating rate.

The ice loss is particularly dramatic in Greenland. Two decades ago, the Greenland ice sheet was in approximate balance - ice loss at the edges as glaciers calved into the ocean was balanced by ice gain in the interior from increased snowfall. One decade ago, the ice loss at the edges had increased and Greenland was losing around 100 billion tonnes of ice every year. Currently, this ice loss has increased to around 300 billion tonnes of ice per year.