The warming of Greenland progressing more rapidly than predicted

[Hafar1014]

View attachment 1213000

The countries with the most renewable energy have the highest costs

 

[Hafar1014]

I would suggest you stop embarrassing yourself and defer to the global scientific community, on scientific topics you know nothing about.

Tomorrow is Earth Day 2022 and marks the 52nd anniversary of Earth Day, so it’s time for my annual CD post on the spectacularly wrong predictions that were made around the time of the first Earth Day in 1970…..

In the May 2000 issue of Reason Magazine, award-winning science correspondent Ronald Bailey wrote an excellent article titled “Earth Day, Then and Now: The planet’s future has never looked better. Here’s why” to provide some historical perspective on the 30th anniversary of Earth Day. In that article, Bailey noted that around the time of the first Earth Day in 1970, and in the years following, there was a “torrent of apocalyptic predictions” and many of those predictions were featured in his Reason article. Well, it’s now the 51st anniversary of Earth Day, and a good time to ask the question again that Bailey asked 21 years ago: How accurate were the predictions made around the time of the first Earth Day in 1970? The answer: “The prophets of doom were not simply wrong, but spectacularly wrong,” according to Bailey. Here are 18 examples of the spectacularly wrong predictions made around 1970 when the “green holy day” (aka Earth Day) started:

1. Harvard biologist George Wald estimated that “civilization will end within 15 or 30 years [by 1985 or 2000] unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”

2. “We are in an environmental crisis that threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation,” wrote Washington University biologist Barry Commoner in the Earth Day issue of the scholarly journal Environment.

3. The day after the first Earth Day, the New York Times editorial page warned, “Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction.”

4. “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make,” Paul Ehrlich confidently declared in the April 1970 issue of Mademoiselle. “The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years [by 1980].”

5. “Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born,” wrote Paul Ehrlich in a 1969 essay titled “Eco-Catastrophe! “By…[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.”

6. Ehrlich sketched out his most alarmist scenario for the 1970 Earth Day issue of The Progressive, assuring readers that between 1980 and 1989, some 4 billion people, including 65 million Americans, would perish in the “Great Die-Off.”

7. “It is already too late to avoid mass starvation,” declared Denis Hayes, the chief organizer for Earth Day, in the Spring 1970 issue of The Living Wilderness.

8. Peter Gunter, a North Texas State University professor, wrote in 1970, “Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China, and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”

Note: The prediction of famine in South America is partly true, but only in Venezuela and only because of socialism, not for environmental reasons.

9. In January 1970, Life reported, “Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”

10. Ecologist Kenneth Watt told Time that, “At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.”

11. Barry Commoner predicted that decaying organic pollutants would use up all of the oxygen in America’s rivers, causing freshwater fish to suffocate.

12. Paul Ehrlich chimed in, predicting in 1970 that “air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.” Ehrlich sketched a scenario in which 200,000 Americans would die in 1973 during “smog disasters” in New York and Los Angeles.

13. Paul Ehrlich warned in the May 1970 issue of Audubon that DDT and other chlorinated hydrocarbons “may have substantially reduced the life expectancy of people born since 1945.” Ehrlich warned that Americans born since 1946…now had a life expectancy of only 49 years, and he predicted that if current patterns continued this expectancy would reach 42 years by 1980 when it might level out. (Note: According to the most recent CDC report, life expectancy in the US is 78.6 years).

14. Ecologist Kenneth Watt declared, “By the year 2000 if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, `Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say,`I am very sorry, there isn’t any.’”

Note: Global oil production last year at about 95M barrels per day (bpd) was double the global oil output of 48M bpd around the time of the first Earth Day in 1970.

15. Harrison Brown, a scientist at the National Academy of Sciences, published a chart in Scientific American that looked at metal reserves and estimated that humanity would totally run out of copper shortly after 2000. Lead, zinc, tin, gold, and silver would be gone before 1990.

16. Sen. Gaylord Nelson wrote in Look, “Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”

17. In 1975, Paul Ehrlich predicted that “since more than nine-tenths of the original tropical rainforests will be removed in most areas within the next 30 years or so [by 2005], it is expected that half of the organisms in these areas will vanish with it.”

18. Kenneth Watt warned about a pending Ice Age in a speech. “The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years,” he declared. “If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an Ice Age.”

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The countries with the most renewable energy have the highest costs

The highest wind and solar lead to the highest cost.
Hydro is still the cheapest.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Tomorrow is Earth Day 2022 and marks the 52nd anniversary of Earth Day, so it’s time for my annual CD post on the spectacularly wrong predictions that were made around the time of the first Earth Day in 1970…..

In the May 2000 issue of Reason Magazine, award-winning science correspondent Ronald Bailey wrote an excellent article titled “Earth Day, Then and Now: The planet’s future has never looked better. Here’s why” to provide some historical perspective on the 30th anniversary of Earth Day. In that article, Bailey noted that around the time of the first Earth Day in 1970, and in the years following, there was a “torrent of apocalyptic predictions” and many of those predictions were featured in his Reason article. Well, it’s now the 51st anniversary of Earth Day, and a good time to ask the question again that Bailey asked 21 years ago: How accurate were the predictions made around the time of the first Earth Day in 1970? The answer: “The prophets of doom were not simply wrong, but spectacularly wrong,” according to Bailey. Here are 18 examples of the spectacularly wrong predictions made around 1970 when the “green holy day” (aka Earth Day) started:

1. Harvard biologist George Wald estimated that “civilization will end within 15 or 30 years [by 1985 or 2000] unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”

2. “We are in an environmental crisis that threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation,” wrote Washington University biologist Barry Commoner in the Earth Day issue of the scholarly journal Environment.

3. The day after the first Earth Day, the New York Times editorial page warned, “Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction.”

4. “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make,” Paul Ehrlich confidently declared in the April 1970 issue of Mademoiselle. “The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years [by 1980].”

5. “Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born,” wrote Paul Ehrlich in a 1969 essay titled “Eco-Catastrophe! “By…[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.”

6. Ehrlich sketched out his most alarmist scenario for the 1970 Earth Day issue of The Progressive, assuring readers that between 1980 and 1989, some 4 billion people, including 65 million Americans, would perish in the “Great Die-Off.”

7. “It is already too late to avoid mass starvation,” declared Denis Hayes, the chief organizer for Earth Day, in the Spring 1970 issue of The Living Wilderness.

8. Peter Gunter, a North Texas State University professor, wrote in 1970, “Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China, and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”

Note: The prediction of famine in South America is partly true, but only in Venezuela and only because of socialism, not for environmental reasons.

9. In January 1970, Life reported, “Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”

10. Ecologist Kenneth Watt told Time that, “At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.”

11. Barry Commoner predicted that decaying organic pollutants would use up all of the oxygen in America’s rivers, causing freshwater fish to suffocate.

12. Paul Ehrlich chimed in, predicting in 1970 that “air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.” Ehrlich sketched a scenario in which 200,000 Americans would die in 1973 during “smog disasters” in New York and Los Angeles.

13. Paul Ehrlich warned in the May 1970 issue of Audubon that DDT and other chlorinated hydrocarbons “may have substantially reduced the life expectancy of people born since 1945.” Ehrlich warned that Americans born since 1946…now had a life expectancy of only 49 years, and he predicted that if current patterns continued this expectancy would reach 42 years by 1980 when it might level out. (Note: According to the most recent CDC report, life expectancy in the US is 78.6 years).

14. Ecologist Kenneth Watt declared, “By the year 2000 if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, `Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say,`I am very sorry, there isn’t any.’”

Note: Global oil production last year at about 95M barrels per day (bpd) was double the global oil output of 48M bpd around the time of the first Earth Day in 1970.

15. Harrison Brown, a scientist at the National Academy of Sciences, published a chart in Scientific American that looked at metal reserves and estimated that humanity would totally run out of copper shortly after 2000. Lead, zinc, tin, gold, and silver would be gone before 1990.

16. Sen. Gaylord Nelson wrote in Look, “Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”

17. In 1975, Paul Ehrlich predicted that “since more than nine-tenths of the original tropical rainforests will be removed in most areas within the next 30 years or so [by 2005], it is expected that half of the organisms in these areas will vanish with it.”

18. Kenneth Watt warned about a pending Ice Age in a speech. “The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years,” he declared. “If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an Ice Age.”

The ice agent stuff is fringe nonsense. The consensus of the evidence and thus the scientists has been the same for over 50 years.

And a lot of those things are true. Mostly you dont care, because you will die soon. So will we all. But the world we.leave our grandkids and their kids and theirs will matter.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The highest wind and solar lead to the highest cost.
Hydro is still the cheapest.

Hydro is cheap, if no costs to the ecosystem.

Not so cheap, when people downstream need the water and wildlife in it.

Not dogging on it too much, but that one has to pick its spots. Like windmills. And nuke plants.

But we are smart enough to do it all, right?

Right?

 

[Old Rocks]

Old Rocks​

Diamond Member​

• Sep 9, 2010
• 
  
• Add bookmark
• #1

Look at the minimum for this years arctic ice. Almost as low as 2007, and still declining.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.area.arctic.png

Now look at the global sea ice area, note the right hand side of the graph. See how much time the ice area is below the zero line since 2003.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg

And here is the present line of the Arctic Ice area

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png

Still trending down. Another week of no uptrend, and we may well see another low for the Arctic Ice Melt.

Here;

 

[Old Rocks]

You’ve been predicting Ice Free Arctic since at least 2010

See above

Well yes, I have. But I have not said that it would be next year, or even in this decade. But it will happen, it is already in the pipeline even were we to cease producing GHGs instantly. 2012 almost became the first year for that due to unusual wind and storm conditions.

Arctic Sea Ice Decline (1979-2024)

Tutorial for ArcGIS Online

storymaps.arcgis.com

 

[Old Rocks]

Hydro is cheap, if no costs to the ecosystem.

Not so cheap, when people downstream need the water and wildlife in it.

Not dogging on it too much, but that one has to pick its spots. Like windmills. And nuke plants.

But we are smart enough to do it all, right?

Right?

At one time we took 2 million salmon a year out of the Columbia. Then we built the dams. Perhaps if we add the amount of the cost of the food from those salmon to the cost of the dams, that hydropower might not look so cheap.

 

[Old Rocks]

Meanwhile here is what is really going on based on the official data:

Greenland Ice losses,

View attachment 1212739
The changes of total mass balance,

View attachment 1212740

Oooooo, I am sure Old Rocks is in deep panic now!!!!

I am sure that you are so damned stupid you do not even realize that the scale of the two graphs are so different that the comparison is meaningless. The first is measured in giga tons, the second in millions of gigatons. That is literally a million to one difference in the slope of the graphs.

 

[theHawk]

The warming and melting of Greenland, in fact, of the whole Arctic, is progressing much more rapidly than the scientists predicted. Evidence from the ice cores and ground underneath the ice show that in the past there was major ice loss at lower GHG levels than we have today. And as the warming Arctic makes the jet stream Rossby waves more extreme, southern areas are seeing colder winter storms, while the Arctic sees brief periods of above freezing temperatures in the dead of winter.

"A rapidly warming Arctic that feels unfamiliar even to experts​

The changes in Greenland are part of a broader pattern across the Arctic, where warming is proceeding at roughly four times the global average. Long term assessments like the annual Arctic Report Card have documented how sea ice, snow cover, and permafrost are all shifting in ways that would have been hard to imagine a generation ago. One recent installment described how the region now looks dramatically different than it did 20 years ago, noting that it is the continuation of a long term pattern and that the Arctic has shifted into a new state of being. That new state includes more rain on snow, more open water in autumn, and more frequent episodes of extreme warmth.


Some of those extremes have stunned even veteran researchers. Earlier this month, temperatures near the North Pole spiked more than 36°F above average, briefly pushing conditions above the melting point in the heart of winter. Scientists who work in Svalbard, Norway, in the high Arctic have described how the signs of rapid climate change are unmistakable, as documented in a detailed Transcript of their observations. When I hear glaciologists and sea ice experts say that the Arctic they study today barely resembles the one they first encountered in their careers, it becomes clear why the word “terrifying” is no longer considered hyperbole."

MSN

Hence why we need to get control of it. There will be mass amounts of resources under that ice.

 

[Old Rocks]

View attachment 1213000

Apples and oranges. Not only that, you graph is a lie concerning the cost of electricity in the US. Very few nations are as lucky as the US to have so many ways of generation. However, due to the present kakistocracy in DC, we are not taking advantage of the least costly forms of generation. And here is the correct numbers for the cost of electricity in the US;

Approximately 16.68 cents per kilowatt-hour
The average cost of electricity in the U.S. is approximately 16.68 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh) as of March 2024 and is projected to rise to 17.11 cents/kWh by March 2025. Additionally, the average retail price for households reached around 16.48 cents per kWh in 2024.

Quick Electricity+1

 

[Old Rocks]

Hence why we need to get control of it. There will be mass amounts of resources under that ice.

Always about money, no thought of the consequences. LOL Typical of a stupid ass "Conservative". A real conservative would take into account what those resources cost compared to the costs of a rapidly changing climate and major increase in extreme weather events.

 

[theHawk]

Always about money, no thought of the consequences. LOL Typical of a stupid ass "Conservative". A real conservative would take into account what those resources cost compared to the costs of a rapidly changing climate and major increase in extreme weather events.

The consequences are China or Russia will move in and take it.

Boomers like you are so ******* naive and dumb. Like your belief in climate change hoax nonsense.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Apples and oranges. Not only that, you graph is a lie concerning the cost of electricity in the US. Very few nations are as lucky as the US to have so many ways of generation. However, due to the present kakistocracy in DC, we are not taking advantage of the least costly forms of generation. And here is the correct numbers for the cost of electricity in the US;

Approximately 16.68 cents per kilowatt-hour
The average cost of electricity in the U.S. is approximately 16.68 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh) as of March 2024 and is projected to rise to 17.11 cents/kWh by March 2025. Additionally, the average retail price for households reached around 16.48 cents per kWh in 2024.
Quick Electricity+1

Thanks for the link.
Which states have the most expensive power?
Which states have the greenest power?

 

[fncceo]

The warming and melting of Greenland, in fact, of the whole Arctic, is progressing much more rapidly than the scientists predicted

Why do you think we’re going to make it the 51st State?

 

[fncceo]

Always about money, no thought of the consequences.

Running out of money is pretty much the worst consequence any can imagine.

 

[HikerGuy83]

Always about money, no thought of the consequences. LOL Typical of a stupid ass "Conservative". A real conservative would take into account what those resources cost compared to the costs of a rapidly changing climate and major increase in extreme weather events.

We do.

And when that starts happening, we'll get after it.

 

[HikerGuy83]

I am sure that you are so damned stupid you do not even realize that the scale of the two graphs are so different that the comparison is meaningless. The first is measured in giga tons, the second in millions of gigatons. That is literally a million to one difference in the slope of the graphs.

Which makes his point.

The ice loss doesn't even show up as something measureable when considering the total ice mass of greenland.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Well yes, I have. But I have not said that it would be next year, or even in this decade. But it will happen, it is already in the pipeline even were we to cease producing GHGs instantly. 2012 almost became the first year for that due to unusual wind and storm conditions.

Arctic Sea Ice Decline (1979-2024)

Tutorial for ArcGIS Online

storymaps.arcgis.com

And by “we” ceasing to produce GHG, you mean China, right?

 

[EMH]

Greenland's continent specific ice age is at least 1 million years old, and

EVERY SINGLE YEAR IT GROWS ANOTHER LAYER OF ICE ON TOP, WHAT ICE CORES DOCUMENT, AND HENCE IS GROWING ICE NOT LOSING IT....