A dismantling of one of the last bastions of climate-change deniers

[shira]

A new study argues that the expansion of the area of sea-surface ice in the antarctic is actually strong evidence that there is a significant, ongoing loss of ice mass on the Antarctic continent due to melting, and this loss of ice mass - and the consequent rise in sea level - is actually occurring much more rapidly than current models predict.

The basic idea is that rising deep ocean temperatures are causing increased melting of the continental ice shelf, leading to a pooling of cool, less-dense, less-salty (and thus more easy-to-freeze) water on the sea surface surrounding the Antarctic. It's this growing pool of cool surface water that's freezing and expanding. Furthermore, this effect is just one of a series of positive feedback loops that increase the overall melt rate of the Antarctic ice shelf. The net effect is that sea level is rising more rapidly than previously predicted.

Here is the paper's abstract:

There is evidence of ice melt, sea level rise to +5–9 m, and extreme storms in the prior interglacial period that was less than 1 ◦C warmer than today. Human-made climate forcing is stronger and more rapid than paleo forcings, but much can be learned by combining insights from paleoclimate, climate modeling, and on-going observations. We argue that ice sheets in contact with the ocean are vulnerable to non-linear disintegration in response to ocean warming, and we posit that ice sheet mass loss can be approximated by a doubling time up to sea level rise of at least several meters. Doubling times of 10, 20 or 40 years yield sea level rise of several meters in 50, 100 or 200 years. Paleoclimate data reveal that subsurface ocean warming causes ice shelf melt and ice sheet discharge. Our climate model exposes amplifying feedbacks in the Southern Ocean that slow Antarctic bottom water formation and increase ocean temperature near ice shelf grounding lines, while cooling the surface ocean and increasing sea ice cover and water column stability. Ocean surface cooling, in the North Atlantic as well as the Southern Ocean, increases tropospheric horizontal temperature gradients, eddy kinetic energy and baroclinicity, which drive more powerful storms. We focus attention on the Southern Ocean’s role in affecting atmospheric CO2 amount, which in turn is a tight control knob on global climate. The millennial (500–2000 year) time scale of deep ocean ventilation affects the time scale for natural CO2 change, thus the time scale for paleo global climate, ice sheet and sea level changes. This millennial carbon cycle time scale should not be misinterpreted as the ice sheet time scale for response to a rapid human-made climate forcing. Recent ice sheet melt rates have a doubling time near the lower end of the 10–40 year range. We conclude that 2 ◦C global warming above the preindustrial level, which would spur more ice shelf melt, is highly dangerous. Earth’s energy imbalance, which must be eliminated to stabilize climate, provides a crucial metric.

Also, the first official peer-review of this paper is in.

This is another Hansen masterwork of scholarly synthesis, modeling virtuosity, and insight, with profound implications. The main thrust of the paper, the part getting all the press, arises from the confluence of several recent developments in glaciology. First is the identification of a runaway condition in outflow glaciers of the West Antarctic ice sheet that makes the IPCC prediction for year-2100 sea level rise clearly obsolete. The other is the recognition that warming ocean temperatures at the grounding line for the glaciers is driving a really strong flow and thus melting response. Temperatures at this depth tend to have a paradoxical inverse relationship with surface temperatures, which can cool due to fresh meltwater input, trapping heat in the subsurface. This idea may also explain the mystery of why Heinrich events, collapses of the Laurentide ice sheet, always came at cold times in the D-O cycles.

Climate skeptics have long held out the growing extent of Antarctic sea ice as "proof" that there's no net melting of polar ice.

Of course, climate skeptics will desperately search for ways to ignore this paper, and I'm sure we'll see cherry-picking of negative reviews. But whether or not this new paper has got it right, one thing it does demonstrate is that single, abstract measures of the Earth's climate "health" - such as the area of surface ice - do not necessarily react as simple-minded climate skeptics would have us believe. More Antarctic surface ice doesn't automatically mean "no net Antarctic melting."

Climate skeptics, you can run but you can't hide forever.

 

[sandorski]

They will find something. It will get more bizarre as time passes and the evidence continues to mount ever higher, but they'll find something.

 

[Paratus]

A new study argues that the expansion of the area of sea-surface ice in the antarctic is actually strong evidence that there is a significant, ongoing loss of ice mass on the Antarctic continent due to melting, and this loss of ice mass - and the consequent rise in sea level - is actually occurring much more rapidly than current models predict.

The basic idea is that rising deep ocean temperatures are causing increased melting of the continental ice shelf, leading to a pooling of cool, less-dense, less-salty (and thus more easy-to-freeze) water on the sea surface surrounding the Antarctic. It's this growing pool of cool surface water that's freezing and expanding. Furthermore, this effect is just one of a series of positive feedback loops that increase the overall melt rate of the Antarctic ice shelf. The net effect is that sea level is rising more rapidly than previously predicted.

Here is the paper's abstract:



Also, the first official peer-review of this paper is in.



Climate skeptics have long held out the growing extent of Antarctic sea ice "proves" undermines the claim that climate change is causing an overall melting of polar ice.

Of course, climate skeptics will desperately search for ways to ignore this paper, and I'm sure we'll see cherry-picking of negative reviews. But whether or not this new paper has got it right, one thing it does demonstrate is that single, abstract measures of the Earth's climate "health" - such as the area of surface ice - do not necessarily react as simple-minded climate skeptics would have us believe. More Antarctic surface ice doesn't automatically mean "no net Antarctic melting."

Climate skeptics, you can run but you can't hide forever.

It makes sense. ESA had satellite measuring gravitational changes at the Poles. They detected loss of ice in Antartica. With sea ice extent increasing I think this paper shows where it's going.

The danger from sea level rise as I've said numerous times is 650 million people live 10m elevation from the ocean. Not to mention every port city.

They will find something. It will get more bizarre as time passes and the evidence continues to mount ever higher, but they'll find something.

That they will.

My money is on the "pause" and troposphere satellite data.

 

[JSt0rm]

Get ready for a thread full of charts and graphs.

 

[Paratus]

Get ready for a thread full of charts and graphs.

(You better believe it )

 

[nickqt]

Ah, geez, this old argument?

Look, ferns and dinosaurs and shit really liked it when the temperature was 5 degrees Celsius warmer than it is now.

Check and Mate.

 

[JSt0rm]

Ah, geez, this old argument?

Look, ferns and dinosaurs and shit really liked it when the temperature was 5 degrees Celsius warmer than it is now.

Check and Mate.

Only issue is they had more oxygen.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Get ready for a thread full of charts and graphs.

Yeah...fuck any facts that may explain what's happening.

 

[Newell Steamer]

Aw fellas, we've embarrassed her.

She doesn't want to whip out and wear for us all her pretty dresses.

Go on now - tell'er how sorry we are and would love to see her in her best.

 

[JSt0rm]

Yeah...fuck any facts that may explain what's happening.

is that what I said? No. You know, that actually makes what you said a strawman. :ninja: like for real.

 

[umbrella39]

If DSF moved any further to the retarded right on this issue he'd fall off the flat earth...

 

[Greenman]

The dead horse we just can't stop beating.

 

[nickqt]

Yeah...fuck any facts that may explain what's happening.

Your motto, indeed!

 

[Spungo]

The danger from sea level rise as I've said numerous times is 650 million people live 10m elevation from the ocean. Not to mention every port city.

Even if we stop the sea level rise, I'm sure those people will find other creative ways to kill themselves.
mass killings under communist governments
list of wars by death toll

Here is a very interesting video about the "mouse utopia" experiment.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Z760XNy4VM
When given a very good environment, overpopulation drove the mouse population to self-extinction. It's freaky how human-like mice are. The mice became violent. They started forming groups that were basically gangs, and they would bully specific mice. Some mice socially withdrew. The test was such a disaster than all of the mice died.

I might just be more jaded as I get older, but it seems like improving things doesn't actually make us happier.

 

[Paratus]

Even if we stop the sea level rise, I'm sure those people will find other creative ways to kill themselves.
mass killings under communist governments
list of wars by death toll

Here is a very interesting video about the "mouse utopia" experiment.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Z760XNy4VM
When given a very good environment, overpopulation drove the mouse population to self-extinction. It's freaky how human-like mice are. The mice became violent. They started forming groups that were basically gangs, and they would bully specific mice. Some mice socially withdrew. The test was such a disaster than all of the mice died.

I might just be more jaded as I get older, but it seems like improving things doesn't actually make us happier.

You know a lot of those people live in the U.S. too. Like me and the rest of Houston for example.

I'd also point out moving ports every 10-20 years is going to be very expensive. Maybe we could pay a little now instead of a lot more later?

 

[Spungo]

You know a lot of those people live in the U.S. too. Like me and the rest of Houston for example.

I'm not at all worried about Americans. We generally pull together and try to help each other out, and we have lots of space. It's people in India and Bangladesh who should worry. If human lives are completely worthless at a population density of 1200/km^2, see what happens when rising sea level pushes that up to 2000 people/km^2.

I'd also point out moving ports every 10-20 years is going to be very expensive. Maybe we could pay a little now instead of a lot more later?

It's probably cheaper to move ports. Even if we completely stop all carbon emissions, earth will continue warming for another 100-200 years. To stop the ice from melting, we would need to have negative carbon emissions. Not a little negative, but hugely negative emissions. Emissions would need to be as negative in the future as they are positive today, and we would need to run full tilt like that for a century just to undo some of the damage we've done already. We would need to pull all existing cars off the road. Every single one of them. All coal power plants shut down. All natural gas power plants shut down. All natural gas furnaces removed. The amount of effort it would take to stop the warming is so high that there's no way to imagine it. You would need to shut down all heating and air conditioning in every building. If you thought getting emissions to 0 was difficult, try building an economy where net carbon emissions are negative. Instead of people being kicked out of Bangladesh due to rising sea level, millions of people would be kicked out of Alaska, Canada, Russia, and much of the northern United States because it would be uninhabitable. Try living in Alaska without natural gas heating. You'll be dead within 1 year.

It's nice that people are trying to find solutions to the carbon problem, but it seems like a utopian ideal we can't possibly reach. Right now we're arguing over whether it should take 90 years or 100 years for Bangladesh to completely sink. I guess it's nice to have another 10 years before everyone is dead, but in the end, we're not going to stop it. I don't see much of a push from the political left or right to switch our power over to 90% nuclear. The left wants the entire population of Canada and Russia to die, and the political right wants increased coal use so the entire population of Bangladesh dies. I don't see anyone suggesting we try to prevent deaths.

 

[Jaskalas]

I read about the ground line erosion a month or two ago.

Which makes a lot of sense, as the Eemian demonstrated natural meltdown of the Western Antarctic, and Sea Levels +6-9 m (20-30 feet) relative to today. It happened last interglacial, why wouldn't it happen this interglacial?

The danger from sea level rise as I've said numerous times is 650 million people live 10m elevation from the ocean. Not to mention every port city.

Pretend humanity never existed in the first place, and there's strong evidence to suggest those ports and locations would be underwater in a few hundred to a thousand years, before the Holocene ends.

Throw 400ppm on top of that, and Humanity could end tomorrow - what we have already done ensures all that "worst case" is happening. Now take a realistic approach to stopping CO2... 600, 800, 1,000ppm? When does it actually end?

Bottom line - no action changes the outcome for those 650 million people and "every port". What is there left to discuss for Sea Level?

You know a lot of those people live in the U.S. too. Like me and the rest of Houston for example.

I'd also point out moving ports every 10-20 years is going to be very expensive. Maybe we could pay a little now instead of a lot more later?

You... think that's preventable? You've spent enough time on this topic to know better.

 

[shira]

I read about the ground line erosion a month or two ago.

Which makes a lot of sense, as the Eemian demonstrated natural meltdown of the Western Antarctic, and Sea Levels +6-9 m (20-30 feet) relative to today. It happened last interglacial, why wouldn't it happen this interglacial?



Pretend humanity never existed in the first place, and there's strong evidence to suggest those ports and locations would be underwater in a few hundred to a thousand years, before the Holocene ends.

Throw 400ppm on top of that, and Humanity could end tomorrow - what we have already done ensures all that "worst case" is happening. Now take a realistic approach to stopping CO2... 600, 800, 1,000ppm? When does it actually end?

Bottom line - no action changes the outcome for those 650 million people and "every port". What is there left to discuss for Sea Level?

You... think that's preventable? You've spent enough time on this topic to know better.

By your reasoning, medical research, the practice of medicine, and living a healthy lifestyle are all pointless, since everyone will eventually die of something at some point in the future. But I'm guessing you like advances in medical science, go to the doctor, and modify some of your behaviors to be healthier.

Now please explain to us again why mankind doing all it reasonably can to mitigate human contributions to climate change makes no sense.

 

[Jaskalas]

By your reasoning, medical research, the practice of medicine, and living a healthy lifestyle are all pointless, since everyone will eventually die of something at some point in the future. But I'm guessing you like advances in medical science, go to the doctor, and modify some of your behaviors to be healthier.

Tell us, what sum of tithe protects the 650 million and "every port" from the rising sea? You're apparently under the same delusion as Paratus by thinking it has not already occurred.

If you want to draw in medical parallels, this is akin to the parents of the brain dead child - who refuse to let go and pretend that the rotting corpse is going to pull through. Although I'd give her a greater chance of waking up healthy than the Sea Level not rising as Paratus described.

Now please explain to us again why mankind doing all it reasonably can to mitigate human contributions to climate change makes no sense.

Please explain to us where I said that in the first place. I protest the obvious delusion that you can part the seas and stop 10 meters of Sea Level rise that has already been set into motion. Now you draw up some straw man as if I oppose what we "can reasonably do".

Speaking of reason, are you NOT aware of my plan? It should be old news to anyone on the subject now, but let's cut to the point. Do you support an immediate mass production of nuclear energy? I do.

We'll see who is reasonable.

 

[pcgeek11]

Only issue is they had more oxygen.

Plants do not benefit from increased O2 levels.

 

[JSt0rm]

Plants do not benefit from increased O2 levels.

But dinosaurs do

 

[pcgeek11]

But dinosaurs do

Do they?

 

[JSt0rm]

Did*

 

[blankslate]

It's freaky how human-like mice are. The mice became violent. They started forming groups that were basically gangs, and they would bully specific mice. Some mice socially withdrew. The test was such a disaster than all of the mice died.

I might just be more jaded as I get older, but it seems like improving things doesn't actually make us happier.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nb6yOklzHMI&t=0m27s


....

 

[88keys]

Buy a bag of ice at the store.... Slam the bag of ice on the ground... Now we have more ice

Conservative logic.