Greenland ice melt worse than previously believed

[Grumblenuts]

Sure. You're right and thanks for the topic!

 

[EMH]

What's "solid science"?

Not that "solid" if it is "climate science"

But awfully tasty...

 

[Crick]

And you guarantee that you can bring balance back to the Greenland ice by taxing Americans $3 Trillion annually?

Can you guarantee that we can keep burning fossil fuels and see no harm?

 

[EMH]

Can you guarantee that we can keep burning fossil fuels and see no harm?

Your side has ZERO EVIDENCE that increasing atmospheric Co2 causes warming.

Sincerely,

highly correlated satellite and balloon data

 

[Redfish]

Ubiquitous acceleration in Greenland Ice Sheet calving from 1985 to 2022 - Nature

Analysis of more than 236,000 observations of glacier terminus positions shows that accelerated calving reduced the ice area of Greenland by about 5,000 km2 since 1985, producing over 1,000 Gt of freshwater that could influence ocean salinity and circulation.

www.nature.com

Abstract​

Nearly every glacier in Greenland has thinned or retreated over the past few decades1,2,3,4, leading to glacier acceleration, increased rates of sea-level rise and climate impacts around the globe5,6,7,8,9. To understand how calving-front retreat has affected the ice-mass balance of Greenland, we combine 236,328 manually derived and AI-derived observations of glacier terminus positions collected from 1985 to 2022 and generate a 120-m-resolution mask defining the ice-sheet extent every month for nearly four decades. Here we show that, since 1985, the Greenland Ice Sheet (GrIS) has lost 5,091 ± 72 km2 of area, corresponding to 1,034 ± 120 Gt of ice lost to retreat. Our results indicate that, by neglecting calving-front retreat, current consensus estimates of ice-sheet mass balance4,9 have underestimated recent mass loss from Greenland by as much as 20%. The mass loss we report has had minimal direct impact on global sea level but is sufficient to affect ocean circulation and the distribution of heat energy around the globe10,11,12. On seasonal timescales, Greenland loses 193 ± 25 km2 (63 ± 6 Gt) of ice to retreat each year from a maximum extent in May to a minimum between September and October. We find that multidecadal retreat is highly correlated with the magnitude of seasonal advance and retreat of each glacier, meaning that terminus-position variability on seasonal timescales can serve as an indicator of glacier sensitivity to longer-term climate change.

---

---

The more scientists study Greenland, the worse its ice melt looks

A new study found that the loss of ice has been underestimated, adding to a recent string of research that has drawn attention to rapid change in Greenland.

www.nbcnews.com

"
The study analyzed satellite images to track retreat and found that the breakup of icebergs has accelerated in Greenland and that previous analyses might have underrated its influence.

“Current consensus estimates of ice-sheet mass balance have underestimated recent mass loss from Greenland by as much as 20%,” the study’s authors wrote. In recent decades, almost every Greenland glacier has thinned or retreated.

The study, which was published Wednesday in the journal Nature, is yet another sign that Greenland’s ice is melting at hastening and concerning rates. Scientists are growing increasingly concerned that the Earth’s warming could trigger tipping points for major ice sheets. Greenland contains about 8% of the world’s freshwater. Its total melt would raise sea levels by almost 7 feet and could change ocean circulation patterns. "

Its summer, ice melts in summer. and even if the ice is shrinking year round, we humans are not causing it, cannot stop it, and cannot reverse it. The sun controls the climate of planet earth not soccer moms in SUVs

 

[Redfish]

Can you guarantee that we can keep burning fossil fuels and see no harm?

we may be polluting the air and water, but to claim that pollution causes climate change is just plain stupid.

 

[Crick]

Its summer, ice melts in summer. and even if the ice is shrinking year round, we humans are not causing it, cannot stop it, and cannot reverse it. The sun controls the climate of planet earth not soccer moms in SUVs

An enormous amount of evidence and damned near every, single scientist on the planet say you are wrong.

 

[ding]

An enormous amount of evidence and damned near every, single scientist on the planet say you are wrong.

When the northern hemisphere deglaciates the oceans and atmosphere warms. Been happening for the past 3 million years during every interglacial period.

 

[Redfish]

An enormous amount of evidence and damned near every, single scientist on the planet say you are wrong.

they have been paid to say that, are you completely ignorant? Show the link confirming that fossil fuel use causes global warming (er climate change) Remember in the 1970s it was global cooling caused by humans. Both were and are lies to get YOUR money.

 

[Crick]

they have been paid to say that, are you completely ignorant? Show the link confirming that fossil fuel use causes global warming (er climate change) Remember in the 1970s it was global cooling caused by humans. Both were and are lies to get YOUR money.

EVERY - SINGLE - ONE ???

Can you provide a single scientist saying it's a hoax? A fraud? Can you find just one who says they were offered money to lie about global warming? Just ONE?

 

[Grumblenuts]

EVERY - SINGLE - ONE ???

Can you provide a single scientist saying it's a hoax? A fraud? Can you find just one who says they were offered money to lie about global warming? Just ONE?

Are you kidding? Redfish puts his shorts on backwards half the time because he can't see to find the label anymore.

 

[Mashmont]

EVERY - SINGLE - ONE ???

Can you provide a single scientist saying it's a hoax? A fraud? Can you find just one who says they were offered money to lie about global warming? Just ONE?

You realize if there is global warming, it's excellent news. One third of earth's landmass is north of the 45th parallel. This means HUGE tracts of previously uninhabitable land in Siberia, Canada, and Greenland will soon be available for development and farming. Maybe that's why Bill Gates is buying up farmland in North Dakota.

 

[Crick]

You realize if there is global warming, it's excellent news. One third of earth's landmass is north of the 45th parallel. This means HUGE tracts of previously uninhabitable land in Siberia, Canada, and Greenland will soon be available for development and farming. Maybe that's why Bill Gates is buying up farmland in North Dakota.

I guarantee you the harm will outweigh the benefits by orders of magnitude. What do you think it's going to cost to relocate several hundred million people and the businesses at which they work? It's not as if there are empty homes for them to move to or businesses available to give them work. And the cost of simply dealing with the physical mess will run into the trillions. And look at a globe. For every degree of latitude we might gain in the north, we will lose a degree in the south. One degree of latitude at the equator has an area of 1,718,169.000 square miles. At 60 degrees of latitude it is one half that, at 859,085 square miles. And the soil is... questionable. And, of course, agriculture requires infrastructure: roads, silos, processing, mass transportation. And those things might be difficult to afford given the money that will be getting spent to relocate the hundreds of millions of people losing their homes and places of employment on the coasts.

 

[Mashmont]

I guarantee you the harm will outweigh the benefits by orders of magnitude. What do you think it's going to cost to relocate several hundred million people and the businesses at which they work? It's not as if there are empty homes for them to move to or businesses available to give them work. And the cost of simply dealing with the physical mess will run into the trillions. And look at a globe. For every degree of latitude we might gain in the north, we will lose a degree in the south. One degree of latitude at the equator has an area of 1,718,169.000 square miles. At 60 degrees of latitude it is one half that, at 859,085 square miles. And the soil is... questionable. And, of course, agriculture requires infrastructure: roads, silos, processing, mass transportation. And those things might be difficult to afford given the money that will be getting spent to relocate the hundreds of millions of people losing their homes and places of employment on the coasts.

I guess you didn't read the part about 1/3 of the world land mass lying above the 45th parallel. As for relocating people in the tropics, there just isn't that much development in that band. No developed countries. No economic powerhouses. It's mostly people living in huts and shanties. And that's assuming they have to be relocated, which of course they wouldn't. Sea-level rise is a myth. Islands appear and disappear all the time.

 

[EMH]

Islands appear and disappear all the time

It is called subduction.

The Co2 FRAUD 10 years ago was claiming islands in the South Pacific were sinking due to "ocean rise."

Life in a disappearing country

It's one of the clearest injustices of climate change: The Marshall Islands likely won't exist if we warm the planet 2 degrees. I traveled to the remote Pacific to learn what it's like to try to process that doomsday forecast. And why some people already are making the painful decision to leave...

www.cnn.com

The Co2 FRAUD no longer tries this BS because they were BUSTED around that time...


In reality, the Marshalls and other island chains in the South Pacific are attached to a tectonic plate that is approaching Pacific Ring of Fire. In several million years, the Marshalls will not just be underwater, they will be under the Earth's crust.

Of course, in reality the tectonic plate doesn't come up to the fault and bend at a 90 degree angle. The bend of the plate going under the other plate is parabolic and extends for hundreds of miles...

 

[Crick]

Oi vey.

I guess you didn't read the part about 1/3 of the world land mass lying above the 45th parallel.

I did. Apparently you read absolutely nothing I posted.

As for relocating people in the tropics, there just isn't that much development in that band.

Good god. Sea level rise is not latitude-dependent. People all over the planet will have to be relocated. Here is what matters regarding sea level rise.

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Global-population-in-billions-in-2020-by-a-distance-from-the-coast-and-b-elevation_fig2_367637643

960 million people live within 10 kilometers of the ocean and 900 million live within 10 meter of mean sea level.

No developed countries. No economic powerhouses. It's mostly people living in huts and shanties.

It's New York City, Washington DC, Los Angeles, Chicago, London, Hong Kong, Shanghai, Tokyo.

And that's assuming they have to be relocated, which of course they wouldn't. Sea-level rise is a myth. Islands appear and disappear all the time.

What do you actually mean when you say it is a myth? This is not the tale of Apollo and Cassandra. It is reported by years of records from thousands of sources all over the planet. And since the 1980s, by continuous records from satellite altimetry data. Why would you choose to reject that information?

I added another question to my previous post that you didn't address but might not have seen. Due to the wording of this thread's title, I have to ask you, the OP, if you believe that global warming is an act of God.

 

[eagle1462010]

You stupid warming fucks been wrong forever.

We were supposed to apready be underwater.

You dont listen to losers who are always wrong.

 

[Crick]

You stupid warming fucks been wrong forever.

We were supposed to apready be underwater.

You dont listen to losers who are always wrong.

Has CO2 in the atmosphere increased as the world continued to burn fossil fuels? Yes
Have temperatures continued to increase as CO2 increased? Yes.
Has sea level rise continued and accelerated as temperatures rose? Yes.
Has ice around the planet been melting at an accelerating pace? Yes.
Are these observations not validated by essentially every scientist on the entire planet? Yes.

You would be the stupid fuck who has always been wrong and to whom we definitely should not listen.

 

[ding]

Has CO2 in the atmosphere increased as the world continued to burn fossil fuels? Yes
Have temperatures continued to increase as CO2 increased? Yes.
Has sea level rise continued and accelerated as temperatures rose? Yes.
Has ice around the planet been melting at an accelerating pace? Yes.
Are these observations not validated by essentially every scientist on the entire planet? Yes.

You would be the stupid fuck who has always been wrong and to whom we definitely should not listen.

Is the northern hemisphere deglaciating? Is heat being circulated from the Atlantic to the Arctic?

 

[EMH]

Has CO2 in the atmosphere increased as the world continued to burn fossil fuels? Yes
Have temperatures continued to increase as CO2 increased? Yes.

We have two and only two measures of atmospheric temps, satellites and balloons...

Key claim against global warming evaporates

Satellite and weather balloon data used to argue that climate models were wrong and that global warming isn't really happening turns out to be based on faulty analyses, according to three new studies.

www.nbcnews.com

satellite and weather balloon data have actually suggested the opposite, that the atmosphere was cooling



So, Co2 went up, atmospheric temps did not. Conclusion = Co2 does NOTHING

Has sea level rise continued and accelerated as temperatures rose? Yes.

except all the photographic evidence shows NO OCEAN RISE, and you cannot show us any photos of "ocean rise"

Has ice around the planet been melting at an accelerating pace? Yes.

If there was an ongoing net ice melt on Earth, Surface Air Pressure would increase, but instead for the past 70 years it is trending down.

Also, if there was ice melt, you should be able to show us a photo of ocean "rise" but you and the Co2 FRAUD cannot do that

Are these observations not validated by essentially every scientist on the entire planet?

A climate "scientist" is not a scientist and does not practice science. A "climate scientist" takes data showing NO WARMING and FUDGES IT to show "warming" that does not exist.