Melting ice sheets will add over 15 inches to global sea level rise by 2100

[Admin]

A new, international study shows the significant impact that melting ice sheets will have on global sea levels.

Melting ice sheets will add over 15 inches to global sea level rise by 2100 : Read more

 

[Erny_Module]

 

[c1p43r z3r0]

say buh-bye to all those 15 inch high islands out there...

 

[NewGTGuy]

In 1982 NASA said that Southern California and Florida would be underwater in 30 years. All these so called "climate scientists" have a dreadfully inaccurate record. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice.... you know how it goes... NEXT!

 

[WKBeaty1]

Well I did the math a few years back when, again, Antarctica was melting out of control. And it showed as the temps warm, the atmosphere (troposphere) will absorb all or most of the water from the melting ice. Could the authors of this study explain how they handled the increased caring capacity of the air as it heats up? Just 1.5 C increase adds a lot of water caring capacity to the atmosphere. Also as cold areas become temperate, plants and bio-activity also absorb a lot of water. More water in the air and maybe deserts become green... We see the "greening" affect already. It is not always the end of the world, just seems to be a group that wants it to be the end of the world.

 

[Helio]

The news a few years a go that there were over 135 volcanoes found under the ice sheet I trust was in their modeling, but why not mention them or have they been debunked? I need to be convinced that the modeling is solid and that "consensus science" is distinguished from "agenda science", which often has the greater financial rewards. We all are guilty of tending to believe what we want to believe, especially me, admittedly.

 

[Ranbud]

So tell me this, How much has the ocean risen in the last million or so years as the ice sheets that covered north America have melted, even when there were no humans it seems the earth was getting warmer, How did that happen????

 

[abrickell]

A new, international study shows the significant impact that melting ice sheets will have on global sea levels.

Melting ice sheets will add over 15 inches to global sea level rise by 2100 : Read more

This article has nothing to do with space. It should be on a climate change website, not space.com. Please stick to your knitting!

 

[Erny_Module]

So tell me this, How much has the ocean risen in the last million or so years as the ice sheets that covered north America have melted, even when there were no humans it seems the earth was getting warmer, How did that happen????

Climate scientist: "Oh, that's irrelevant, because reasons! Anyway, by adding "corrections' and 'adjustments' we can easily make all that go away. " Bad humans!

 

[Sproly]

In 1982 NASA said that Southern California and Florida would be underwater in 30 years. All these so called "climate scientists" have a dreadfully inaccurate record. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice.... you know how it goes... NEXT!

I remember specifically growing up in the 90s that I had old at the time textbooks claiming NYC would be underwater by the year 2000. Then in HS, textbooks claimed the entire eastern seaboard of the US would be underwater by 2020. As I graduated college that date was pushed back to 2050. Now I see it's further pushed back to 2100. The beauty of climate science is that you can just keep pushing the date back indefinitely and nobody can question if your models are at all accurate (as one would in the face of repeated instances of inaccuracy) lest you run the risk of being called a "climate denier". They've got it all figured out. That sweet grant money will always keep rolling in.

 

[Ken Fabian]

This has brought out the lurking climate science deniers, but I am not impressed. Pseudonymous pseudo-experts verses people and institutions that actually measure and study the questions? There is no competition.

All the top level science is dismissed because a media article quoted someone who said something that was wrong - but not interested in all that climate science has got right?

A worst case scenario getting publicised that ended up being closer to the most likely ? When the most likely is about where we are now, ie with every real world measure and indicator showing a warming climate system.

Global surface temperatures - still rising.
Ocean Heat content - still rising.
Global Sea Levels - still rising.
Sea Surface temperatures - still rising.
Sea ice extent - still shrinking.
Sea ice concentration - still decreasing.
Ice Sheet mass loss - still increasing.
Global Snow cover - decreasing.
Etc, Etc - for every change that indicates warming.

I think the significance of Near Earth Space and satellite technology is profound; beyond Near Earth may have great appeal but it is where the greatest benefits are being realised. All those invaluable satellites that look down are showing that global warming is really happening. Grace, Aqua, Aura, Calypso, Cloudsat, Icesat, Grace, Geocarb etc, etc... all giving data that confirms and informs - and none of them showing climate change is false or insignificant.

 

[Sproly]

Point proven. No one has said it isn't warming. The debate is just how much humans contribute and whether or not the removal of their contributions (if substantial) would reverse the warming trend or if this is something that's going to happen regardless as it has quite a few times in the past already. It isn't like Earth has always had ice caps and this is the very first time in the whole of the Earth's history that they are threatened.

https://imgur.com/a/z4UcefS

If anything, according to the data it's out of the ordinary that we do have polar ice caps. Most of the land we've built our civilization on is on loan and the earth will reclaim it in time as it has time and time again. The argument that we can stop and reverse this trend would actually be man-made climate change.

 

[Ken Fabian]

Sproly - Whatever the climate may have been millions of years ago it is climate change within the lifetimes of people now living, people to whom we have obligations of care, that matters. The susceptibility of the climate to change means human additions of CO2 are significant; it would need to be climate that resists change to make CO2 emissions irrelevant.

I've noticed how critics of climate science and climate responsibility like to look at either very short periods - a very few years, where ordinary variability appears to overwhelm the rate of warming - or else very long periods - that give the appearance of current change being insignificant in comparison. Neither gives an appropriate perspective. Within the timeframes relevant to existing people and infrastructure, these current climate changes are very significant.

Joint statement by multiple National Academies of Sciences - that I trust far more than the comments in forums.space.com -

Despite increasing consensus on the science underpinning predictions of global climate change, doubts have been expressed recently about the need to mitigate the risks posed by global climate change. We do not consider such doubts justified.

 

[Sproly]

In terms of the whole of the earth, human lifetimes are a "very short period". Very long periods would in fact give the proper perspective when talking about a cycle that spans the full history of the earth. Looking out to those time-frames, we see that what appears to be a skyrocketing upward trend with no end in sight when you look at this through the lens of the human lifetime is just the same upward trend that will see it's peak like all of the other seemingly neverending warming periods. The Cretaceous Thermal Maximum comes to mind here. We can't even hope to compete with the production of greenhouse gases that the whole of the oceanic rift system could produce then and yet it didn't result in the runaway effect we keep being told we will experience. In fact, the runaway effect has never actually taken place at any of the points in time the earth experienced rapid warming otherwise our planet would've become venus 2.0 millions of years ago which if the consensus is correct, should absolutely without a doubt have happened. Especially at the CTM which saw CO2 concentrations alone north of 1000 ppm and thats leaving out methane and SO2. The earth always seems to arrest the warming trends. I'm more interested in how the earth cools itself as that is the real key toward climate control.

 

[Ken Fabian]

Sproly #14 - Trust or distrust the institutions and practices of science as you like; I do and see the knowledge of dangerous climate change that climate science has revealed and the window of opportunity that knowledge gives as precious beyond price; that it is treated as pearls before swine is disappointing and dismaying. I would like to be able to expect people in positions of trust and responsibility to take the consistent and persistent expert advice (they asked for, so they would not jump in unknowing) seriously.

 

[bolide]

Well I did the math a few years back when, again, Antarctica was melting out of control. And it showed as the temps warm, the atmosphere (troposphere) will absorb all or most of the water from the melting ice. Could the authors of this study explain how they handled the increased caring capacity of the air as it heats up? Just 1.5 C increase adds a lot of water caring capacity to the atmosphere. Also as cold areas become temperate, plants and bio-activity also absorb a lot of water. More water in the air and maybe deserts become green... We see the "greening" affect already. It is not always the end of the world, just seems to be a group that wants it to be the end of the world.

Yes, it stands to reason that as less water is locked up in ice, more will be carried in other parts of the environment, including the atmosphere. We can assume that all those other parts will pick up their proportional shares of the increase.

So what are those proportions?

The atmosphere carries 0.001% of Earth's water.

All the world's fresh water amounts to 2.5% of the total.

That leaves 97.499% of the increase to be absorbed by the oceans. Less than a rounding error for the data ranges in the article.

Good thing that somebody "did the math" ...

 

[bolide]

I remember specifically growing up in the 90s that I had old at the time textbooks claiming NYC would be underwater by the year 2000. Then in HS, textbooks claimed the entire eastern seaboard of the US would be underwater by 2020. As I graduated college that date was pushed back to 2050. Now I see it's further pushed back to 2100. The beauty of climate science is that you can just keep pushing the date back indefinitely and nobody can question if your models are at all accurate (as one would in the face of repeated instances of inaccuracy) lest you run the risk of being called a "climate denier". They've got it all figured out. That sweet grant money will always keep rolling in.

I call BS. Show us some reputable sources from back then that made those predictions.

 

[bolide]

So tell me this, How much has the ocean risen in the last million or so years as the ice sheets that covered north America have melted, even when there were no humans it seems the earth was getting warmer, How did that happen????

At the last glacial maximum, sea level was about 130 meters (425 ft) below its current level.

No one has ever argued that only human activity causes global warming. The argument is that our greenhouse gas emissions significantly increase global temperature above the natural variations.

 

[Helio]

No one has ever argued that only human activity causes global warming. The argument is that our greenhouse gas emissions significantly increase global temperature above the natural variations.

It's surprising how many times it must be clarified on both sides of this debate that the planet is warming as it comes out of its last round of ice ages, so we are really trying to address mankind's contributions, but saying "anthropogenic" all the time is not our style.

The proper term, IMO, that I would like to hear used far more often is "climate sensitivity". How sensitive is our climate to changes, all changes. The water mentioned above that adds to our atmosphere is a good example of asking how it will impact the climate because water vapor is the main greenhouse gas. Will more clouds form to reflect sunlight?

The models need to be more like today's hurricane models. Will 400 ppm for today's CO2 be a huge issue at, say, 450 ppm? That question requires huge sensitivity modeling that likely doesn't exist in any accurate form, but I'm no expert.

The complexity required to produce an effective model is mind-boggling since some variables greatly affect other variables and linearity likely doesn't work much either. I've seen the equations for GR but I've never seen the equation for climate change, but they are probably public after all. When these models can tell us the temperature rise in 100 years, but are very fuzzy on what it will be in 10 or 20 years, something smells fishy.

 

[Ken Fabian]

The water mentioned above that adds to our atmosphere is a good example of asking how it will impact the climate because water vapor is the main greenhouse gas. Will more clouds form to reflect sunlight?

When is this supposed to cut in? So far any such effect is way short of bringing climate to equilibrium; we've had about 1 C of post industrial warming and it is accelerating, not slowing down.

When these models can tell us the temperature rise in 100 years, but are very fuzzy on what it will be in 10 or 20 years, something smells fishy.

I think this is a misunderstanding on your part. I doubt you would say models of Earth's seasons based on axial tilt are fishy because we cannot predict if a particular week in Spring is going to be warmer than average or cooler. We expect the precision to be worse the shorter the period we look at; single days in Spring would be harder to predict than weeks, whereas going month by month it will be closer to the modeled average.

You should look up ENSO - because a couple more La Nina's vs el Nino's within a 20 year period is enough climate variability to show less warming than the longer term trend, (and more el Nino's will make it exceed it). Predicting ENSO is proving difficult, so accurately predicting global surface temperatures for less than 20 years remains difficult. So far el Nino's and la Nina's are occurring in about the same frequencies as historical, so over longer periods the effect averages out - and longer term average warming is around the middle of the range of predictions.

The heat Earth is accumulating is mostly going into oceans and currently expansion of sea water is the main contributor to sea level rise, with growing contributions from ice sheet mass loss, as per the Space.com article. Surface air temperatures have a lot of day to day, year to year and decade to decade variability around a continuing warming trend.

But I don't see any room for fuzziness about whether OHC (as a measure and indicator of global warming) is likely to be warmer in 10 or 20 years - 1/10th of that, ie two years in a row of NOT going up is a notable exception to a steady rise -

Yes, it stands to reason that as less water is locked up in ice, more will be carried in other parts of the environment, including the atmosphere. We can assume that all those other parts will pick up their proportional shares of the increase.

So what are those proportions?

The atmosphere carries 0.001% of Earth's water.

All the world's fresh water amounts to 2.5% of the total.

That leaves 97.499% of the increase to be absorbed by the oceans. Less than a rounding error for the data ranges in the article.

Good thing that somebody "did the math" ...

Seems kind of obvious that most of the water ice melt ultimately makes it's way to the oceans but doing the math to confirm is worthwhile. I was tempted to leave this thread for use as a group think bubble - I'm doubtful any minds will be changed.

 

[Ken Fabian]

It's surprising how many times it must be clarified on both sides of this debate that the planet is warming as it comes out of its last round of ice ages,

That is not correct, we were experiencing slow cooling before we started pumping lots of CO2 into the atmosphere - warming after the last glacial maximum had already ended -

 

[Helio]

When is this supposed to cut in? So far any such effect is way short of bringing climate to equilibrium; we've had about 1 C of post industrial warming and it is accelerating, not slowing down.

My point wasn't to argue that warming that produces more atmospheric moisture would bring cooling from more clouds. My point was to show how complicated the modeling requirements are since one variable (moisture) can have more than one effect on the climate as it can influence other variables (e.g. albedo?) and not in linear ways.

I'm not a climate (anthropogenic) denier; I'm an Average Joe that sees the Bandwagon effect affecting science, though not all of it's bad. I'm going to want more hard reasons to accept dramatic claims. As Sagan said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" (and reliable models). Models require predictions and how many of those have failed? This is unfortunate as it makes it tougher for quality science to garner the respect it deserves from all the other Average Joes. Some, perhaps you, admittedly, may have a better grasp of the accuracy of today's model, but are all the cards being put on the table in a fully transparent manner?

How many variables are in today's models? How may coefficients? How many of those variables have dependencies with other variables?

I'm not arguing that all or some or even one model is wrong, but I am less confident in any set of models that involves big money and acts in less than honest ways for their view of the good of society. Consensus science limits critical scrutiny almost always. Of course, that alone doesn't make them wrong.

I think this is a misunderstanding on your part. I doubt you would say models of Earth's seasons based on axial tilt are fishy because we cannot predict if a particular week in Spring is going to be warmer than average or cooler.

Perhaps given my immaturity on this topic. Nevertheless, assuming accelerated warming, wouldn't an average for any given week not be higher say over 10 years or 20 years? If not, why not?

You should look up ENSO - because a couple more La Nina's vs el Nino's within a 20 year period is enough climate variability to show less warming than the longer term trend, (and more el Nino's will make it exceed it). Predicting ENSO is proving difficult, so accurately predicting global surface temperatures for less than 20 years remains difficult. So far el Nino's and la Nina's are occurring in about the same frequencies as historical, so over longer periods the effect averages out - and longer term average warming is around the middle of the range of predictions.

Thanks, that's interesting. These events are more fodder for the models, yet if they are well understood, then those cycles should be predictable, thus a 10 year or 20 year estimate should be, eventually, attainable.

But anyone having taken a course in heat transfer will soon learn that a simple equation can quickly become very difficult to put into practice. Digital computers couldn't handle the math in my day, so we had to use analog computers. Those were simple heat problems.

But I don't see any room for fuzziness about whether OHC (as a measure and indicator of global warming) is likely to be warmer in 10 or 20 years - 1/10th of that, ie two years in a row of NOT going up is a notable exception to a steady rise -

How close are today's models when doing retrodictive analysis? How close a fit do they have on that 3-month average? If the fit is close, then perhaps the model may prove accurate for the future? I assume that physics can eventually handle this and that the Butterfly Effect isn't going to present a major barrier to accurate modeling.

Seems kind of obvious that most of the water ice melt ultimately makes it's way to the oceans but doing the math to confirm is worthwhile. I was tempted to leave this thread for use as a group think bubble - I'm doubtful any minds will be changed.

Hopefully I'm honest enough with myself when I say I'm open to learning, which is why you see me asking and not "telling" so much. I have no axe to grind or even a soap box. I've learned to work with anti-BBT folks, YEC, UFO believers, etc., and my hope is to have a serious understanding of what the state of the art truly is.

 

[Helio]

It's surprising how many times it must be clarified on both sides of this debate that the planet is warming as it comes out of its last round of ice ages,

That is not correct, we were experiencing slow cooling before we started pumping lots of CO2 into the atmosphere - warming after the last glacial maximum had already ended -

But you clipped the rest of my sentence...
"so we are really trying to address mankind's contributions, but saying "anthropogenic" all the time is not our style. "

I was speaking about how Climate Change is too often being addressed by all parties (not so much scientists) in the public. They aren't as focused as they should be on mankind's contributions. Claiming that there was once a mile of ice over what is Chicago today and, of course, now it's melted shouldn't be the attention since the seriousness of mankind's contributions will be undermined. My point is about communicating away from the idea of general warming and more to the key issue -- "mankind's contribution" and its causal actions on the climate. How do we get the public to keep that focus?

 

[Lovethrust]

This is a very stimulating exchange and has been an excellent read! Thanks for the effort everyone is putting into this.

 

[Helio]

I find an interesting source of information is presented at Climate Etc. Judith Curry, founder, went against the mainstream and the early IPCC reports 10 years ago. She bravely opposed consensus science and questioned some aspects of those reports. Apparently, the blow-back was quite strong.

It was interesting a few years ago when I read of her advocacy for red teaming, though I don't know what has become of that idea.