Slashdot Mirror
Greenland Glaciers Melting Much Faster
grqb writes "NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory says that satellite observations indicate that Greenland's glaciers have been dumping ice into the Atlantic Ocean at a rate that's doubled over the past five years. Greenland Ice Sheet's annual loss has risen from 21.6 cubic miles in 1996 to 36 cubic miles in 2005 and it now contributes about 0.5 millimeters out of 3 millimeters to global sea level increases. One theory as to why this is happening is that the meltwater, caused by increasing temperatures in Greenland, serves as a lubricant for the moving ice, hastening its push to the sea. Another study has estimated that the warming rate in Greenland was 2.2 times faster than the global norm -- which is in line with U.N. climate models."
the 'extremists' in the middle east want to destroy our (the US and Europe's) way of life, so they sent a boatload of people to breathe really heavily on the 'burgs. Since they already live in a desert, the 'global cooling' effect that the melting of the iceburgs will cause will not affect them. BOOYA!
This sounds like Greenland's problem, not ours. We need to start litigation to force Greenland to stop this harmful dumping of ice into the ocean.
But during these past 5 years, the favored phase of the NAO has been negative, which is associated with ridging into Greenland (translating into warmer temperatures there) while Europe and the eastern United States is colder.
I just don't think it's a good idea to make climate extrapolations from five years of data over a small part of the globe. There's plenty of other evidence of global warming without this bullshit.
Let's invade Greenland for insulting our state religion by allowing science to accurately predict events in their country.
1) The fact that we need to do something now to save the world before its too late!
To them I say.. its useless. Your puny little voices will not be heard. The only way to stop global warming were for the people of the world to collectively reduce their usage of energy and lower their standard of living. Its not happening. It simply is not going to happen.
2) The fact that it cannot be proven that it is human's causing this global warming, and that we know very little about the climate and have been measuring it for a very very short time.
To them I say.. Sure. Fine. But just remember that our great and global civilization wont be the first to have underestimated their effect on nature. History has shown that civilizations CAN affect the environment around them to the point that their civilization becomes unsustainable. Look up the end of the Mayan civilization. Actually even the Easter Islands belong to this category.
Bottom line. I dont think we are hurtling toward the point of no-return.. I believe we are PAST the point of no return.. at this point we might as well just try to find ourselves another planet, or work on technologies that make sure our civilization can survive the future.
- Tempestdata
At this point I don't care who or what is causing the meltdown. What I want are some realistic ways to mitigate the effects. Solutions, not finger pointing.
"The bass, the rock, the mic, the treble. I like my coffee black, just like my metal" - Mindless Self Indulgence
Up until just recently, pretty much everyone (even the staunchest environmentalists) thought that the Greenland sheet was quite stable. This does not bode well for the fans of that lovable dane, Bjørn Lomberg, the skeptical environmentalist. As I recall, a good bit of his "evidence" was based on the relative stability, and even mass-increase, of the Greenland sheet - which now seems pretty much debunked by this news. Where's the ice stable now, Mr. Head-in-the-sand? Perhaps Antartica yet bears out your theory? In any case, Denmark lies pretty pretty close to sealevel, as I recall.
It's going to be fascinating watching what happens over the next few decades, and how the governments and people of the world end up dealing with it. It could go all sorts of ways.
Your assertion contradicts the data. Can you give me a reference to back up your claim?
l As you can see, Iceland's glaciers are in a state of retreat.
Here is the real data: http://www.geo.unizh.ch/wgms/mbb/mbb8/sum0203.htm
I think God finally agrees that watercooling is indeed better. Imagine the silence we will have!
The ESA has data showing Greenland's ice mass getting bigger._ icesheet_growing.html?4112005
http://www.universetoday.com/am/publish/greenland
I don't doubt that human existence is causing some changes in the Earth's environment, but I doubt we've hit the point of no return yet. Besides, if we're ever going to colonize nearby space, we'll needs lots of water. And since this is the only planet we know of to have vast amounts of liquid water (and certainly the only one we readily have access to), perhaps it's not such a bad thing that all the Earth's ice is melting. Adaptation has worked for our species before, I'm sure it can work again.
If all of the glacier ice on Greenland melted, worldwide ocean levels would rise 20 feet. I got this number from the history channel so I don't know how accurate they are with non-Hitlter based facts. Anyway the article says the current Greenland glacier melting accounts for a 0.5 mm rise in ocean levels per year.
1 foot = 304.8 millimeters
304.8 * 20 * 2 = 12,192
So we have 12,192 years until all the glacier ice melts in Greenland assuming the rate is constant. We still have some time.
The best education consists in immunizing people against systematic attempts at education. - Paul Feyerabend
It's a scary read. Some evidence seems to support that global dimming might be the cause of famine in Africa.
There's a lot about the subject on google.
You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. -- Harlan Ellison
Muslims hate the Danes, and now they're on George W's radar...
Step 1, Kick Denmark out of NATO.
Step 2, Bomb their shitty country back to the stone age.
Step 3, See if the ice is still melting on Greenland.
Step 4, Ask the world community to join in since it's going shit creek.
Step 5, ???
Step 6, Drill for more oil in Alaska.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4720536. stm
Btw, it is interesting that if you go to the Science/Nature section on bbc, there are 8 articles dealing with energy crisis/global warming currently, and that number was higher a few days ago when I first checked.
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
No it doesn't. This study only measured iceloss by looking at glacier thickness and velocity around the coast line.
Inland the ice sheet is actually gaining thickness. There is always a different side to the story. The geophysics department at Copenhagen University, where I have studied (astrophysics though) has thoroughly confirmed this.
Reference:a -eas110405.php
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-11/es
Here is an article published last year:
1 5356v1
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/11
Recent Ice-Sheet Growth in the Interior of Greenland
Ola M. Johannessen, Kirill Khvorostovsky, Martin W. Miles, Leonid P. Bobylev
Abstract:
A continuous data set of Greenland Ice Sheet altimeter height from ERS-1 and ERS-2 satellites, 1992 to 2003, has been analyzed. An increase of 6.4 ± 0.2 centimeters per year is found in the vast interior areas above 1500 meters, in contrast to previous reports of high-elevation balance. Below 1500 meters, the elevation-change rate is -2.0 ± 0.9 cm/year, in qualitative agreement with reported thinning in the ice-sheet margins. The spatially averaged increase is 5.4 ± 0.2 cm/year, or ~60 cm over 11 years, or ~54 cm when corrected for isostatic uplift. Winter elevation changes are shown to be linked to the North Atlantic Oscillation.
A vast new source of fresh water is available.
:-))
Fresh water is lighter than sea water.
Hence, all that is needed is a BIG plastic pipe to move all the fresh water south to irrigate the deserts of North Africa (it's downhill all the way
You missed out those of us who are actually in favor of the acceleration of man's destruction of the environment! If you don't give us our cue, how are we supposed to know when to give our opinions?
When mean temperature is raised by three degrees, ice melts. It's happeing all over the arctic, and anyone who thought that somehow Greenland would somehow avoid the trend is, literally, all wet.
Sometimes the old, simple technologies are the answer ...
... the key is finding an area that's natually very cold to deposit the snow and, ideally, is located near fresh water.
Perhaps running a large series of snow making machines drawing water directly from the ocean, or more ideally a fresh water source that deposits into the ocean, 24/7 may be the answer to lower sea levels.
It wouldn't matter much where in the world this process is done, since water will find its level
Thanks for the laugh. The amount of power it would take to do what you suggest (not to mention materials for building the infrastructure) would cause so much fossil fuels to be burned that global warming would increase the entire time you were making snow.
"Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
Yep, seen it. Now scale that to absolute temperature...or even the average background temperature of space, since that (in addition to atmospheric transmittance and global emissivity) is the prime factor affecting heat transfer away from the earth. When you do that, you'll find the graph looks pretty darn flat. My point is not that the temperature is not changing, but the graph blows it a little out of proportion. Also, you don't directly address the parent's point, because all of the points used to generate that graph are averages taking from millions of wildly varying data points taken globally each year. This variation is what he was referring to.
Wait for it, I'm sure the redneck ramblers have some obscure and insignificant point to bring to our attention which completely nullifies this research and shows global warming is not actually occuring. Thats right, it's all just an invention of the Democrats (not that they seem particularly motivated to do anything about it) and they have just bribed 99% of the worlds scientists (the rest work for Exxon).
Islands like Kiribati and Tuvalu in the Pacific ocean have already been experiencing rising sea-levels over a period of 13 years according to a tide-gauge project run by Australia's Bureau of Meteorology.
The rate of about 6mm (0.236 inches) per year is quite slow, but it is significant for low-lying islands like these ones.
... taking off your sandals and striking yourselfon the head until you bleed:
http://www.physorg.com/news10978.html
Warmer than a Hot Tub: Atlantic Ocean Temperatures Much Higher - Scientists have found evidence that tropical Atlantic Ocean temperatures may have once reached 107F (42C)--about 25F (14C) higher than ocean temperatures today and warmer than a hot tub.
Ooops.. and that was normal back then? With oceans like that how much ice do you think was floating in them?
http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/vars un.html
Mike Flaugher: It is my personal belief that with the beginning of Sunspot Cycle 23, we MAY be entering into a period of climate disturbance similar to that in the early 1800's, and POSSIBLY like that of the three major disturbances of the last millennium, the Wolf, Sporer and Maunder Minimums. The latter possibility we will not know with certainty for several decades. Solar Cycle 23, however, appears at this time poised to begin a major downshift in solar levels which may well cause reactions in the stratosphere and, through mechanisms now being studied as illustrated in some of the articles above, a series of reactions in the lower atmosphere. I believe that the manifestation of these changes may soon be felt as a shifting of weather patterns of moisture, dryness, and temperature.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/ne ws/2004/07/18/wsun18.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/07/18/i xnewstop.html
Global warming has finally been explained: the Earth is getting hotter because the Sun is burning more brightly than at any time during the past 1,000 years, according to new research. Dr Sami Solanki, the director of the renowned Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Gottingen, Germany, who led the research, said: "The Sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures.
"The Sun is in a changed state. It is brighter than it was a few hundred years ago and this brightening started relatively recently - in the last 100 to 150 years."
Ooops. How are we going to turn down the Sun?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period
The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) or Medieval Climate Optimum was an unusually warm period during the European Medieval period, lasting from about the 10th century to about the 14th century. It has been argued a better name would be the Medieval Climatic Anomaly. The MWP is often involved in contentious discussions of global warming and the greenhouse effect.
Ooops. We've obviously already have been there - much to the chagrin of one or the other faction trying to justify social change by predicting dire climatic consequences. These factions - as the Wikipedia goes on - of course are hard at work trying to find ways to paint the current warming trend as something novel and unique even in view of literally rock-solid past evidence. The Wikipedia is another btw another good starting point for the debate between the global cooling/warming factions and the CO2 doomsday prophets.
While we're at it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_Climatic_Opt imum
Some more warming in timeframe of 9000 to 5000 years B.P (Before present, before 1950 CE that is):
The Holocene Climate Optimum was a warm period during roughly the interval 9,000 to 5,000 years B.P.. This event has also been known by many other names, including: Hypisthermal, Altithermal, Climatic Optimum, Holocene Optimum, Holocene Thermal Maximum, and Holocene Megathermal.
Temperature variations during the
Someone said "Nothing is constant except change." Get used to it, and learn to be a Darwinian survivor or become extinct. Is there more to say? Yup. But do not pretend that long term cycles DO NOT exist, and that those LONG TERM are so dramatically large in terms of varying solar input to the Earth's atmosphere, that they will not and can not dramatically alter Earth's climate over time. It is a fact these changes have ocurred regularly and will ocurr again.
The Earth's circular to elliptical orbit changes, the Earth axis tilt off the Solar plane, and the Precession of the Earth's spin axis all cause changes which seem to be at the root of a 100,000 year cycle. This has been seen in the Vostok ice core samples going back 500,000 years in Antarctic ice by measuring CO2 variations on the repetetive 100,000 year cycles (or nearly so).
Without man's influence these cycles and the "Ice Ages" ocurred regularly and repeatedly, and I propound that they will continue again, and I see nothing man is capable of doing to stop the cycles. Man might speed a cycle up by a few years or decades or slow it down, but I see no chance to "stop it".
Believe me? No. Start with the Milankovitch cycles and other data on this page http://www.aos.wisc.edu/~aos100-2/clim/>
No matter what the U.N. or the U.S. or all the countries of the world do, the weather will change dramatically, the sea levels will rise and fall, as will CO2 levels, and man will make little dent in this cycle.
It will have no effect on people who already believe global warming is happening other than confirming what we believe.
People who have a vested interest in the world not moving to combat global warming (like energy company lobbyists) will cite the fact that the climate has changed in the past, claim this accelerating melting is part of that natural change, and use it as an excuse to do nothing. When the effects of global warming become too sever to ignore any longer, they will feign ignorance, claim noone could have seen it coming, then demand a silver bullet-type solution from the same scientists who have been telling them what needs to be done for decades, but were ignored because the executives possess a shortsightedness bordering on myopia (that is to say, their utter inability to see beyond next quarter's profit goal).
Am I psychic, or just really, really cynical?
They're saying that the rate itself doubled, not the total loss.
FC Closer
> For heavens sake, why is everyone so arrogant to think that our species is capable of uprooting ...because the idea that we cannot do anything at all--that humans can only sit back and watch the planet change--is scarier than the thought that we might be causing it.
>the climate cycle of a [b]planet[/b]?
Integrate Keynote and LaTeX
Come on, now you're just being lazy. Put some effort into it.
:-))
"People curious about computers start running Linux. They start writing kernel modules, device drivers, GNU software. They start creating little Lego Mindstorms projects. Eventually, they start overclocking. The effects of overclocking on global warming are rather like the effects of cow methane: if a single cow in Iowa rips one, no matter how bad it smells, it probably won't contribute much to global warming. However, if all the cows on the planet simultaneously fart, we have a problem. In other words, Linux is responsible for global warming. The Film Actor's Guild (F.A.G.) was unavailable for comment at press time, but it is well-documented that Alec Baldwin endorses Linux and encourages members of FAG to use the popular operating system: 'All FAGs should run Linux', he is quoted as saying."
(Sorry, just having a bit of fun.
Assume I was drunk when I posted this.
The starting point for anthropogenic warming is at temperatures already very, very near the the highest seen in over 650,000 years, based on available data.
Yes, global climate changes. But no, it has not changed into the realms we are moving into, at least not within the time span of the evolution of our species, or of almost all species now on the planet. We are moving global climate into new regimes.
The speed of my car changes all the time, too, But that does not mean I can put my foot to the floor when I'm already doing 75 mph, and expect things to remain all right for very long.
http://www.unconfirmedsources.com/?itemid=1516&cat id=9
Bruce
If the atlantic conveyer slows or stops, then northern and western europe will get colder. All sorts of changes will happen.
The global temperature will still go up overall though. Changes will include an increase in temperature near the equator, and reduced rainfall in the existing temperature zones, causing big effects for farming. Storms will get more powerful, and sea levels will rise.
As with any big complex system, you introduce more energy (temp=energy), the system gets more chaotic. We can't say with certainty what will happen, or when exactly it'll happen, but it won't be fun or cheap to deal with. You won't see a decades cycle for glaciers though, as the system doesn't change that fast. We're starting to see the effects of 100 years of huge amounts of CO2 being pumped into the atmosphere. The effects will carry on getting worse for decades, even if we drastically cut emissions now. If we don't, we just make things even worse for our children and grandchildren. I think they're really gonna hate us for not doing anything about our ongoing mess, even though we knew what we're causing.
Remember kids, it's all fun and games until someone commits wholesale galactic genocide.
To use similar, but more reasonable logic to the previous poster, if it continues to double every five years, that means the entire 6096 mm will be gone in x years where
2 ^ (x / 5)= 6096
(x / 5) log 2 = log 6096
x = 5 log 6096 / log 2
or 63 years.
Are you worried that melting glaciers may raise ocean levels, inundating coastlines and triggering massive damage?
Fear Not! NASA scientists have discovered a glacier that is not only not melting, but actually growing!
It is, of course, the glaciation on Mt. St. Helens. It had been blown away a few years ago, but it is now growing back!!!
So Panic Not! All we need to do is detonate a few thousand volcanos in Greenland, Siberia and Antarctica: problem solved!
--- Attorneys Assisting Citizen-Soldiers & Families -
(this should be too obvious for me to have to say it but...) The only way to stop global warming is to reverse the flow of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. This is not the same as reducing energy use. We can use all the wind power we want (1.2 TW available in the CONUS alone). We can use nuclear. We can do something about sources of nitrous oxide and methane (a bugaboo that hits Europe hard). We can even burn coal as long as we stuff the carbon back underground where it came from. We can wrap our houses in really good insulation to keep heat in instead of burning fuel to replace losses.
Oh, definitely true. The thing to do is use the same capabilities which let us change things so far in the direction they've gone, and instead use them to change things back.Have you looked at the Keeling curve? The seasonal swings in CO2 concentration are still much bigger than the annual rise. If we could grab enough of that carbon before it goes back into the atmosphere and stash it away, we could level the trend. Think about possibilities for a while, and study (starting with chem and physics). No telling what you might come up with.
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
And in the real world, a faceful of high velocity bus is still terminal, no matter what benefits you've managed to stuff in your pockets while it was on its way.
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
Equilibrium processes?
We WERE at equilibrium. We have added a new substantial source of CO2, and we are now moving to a new higher equilibrium concentration. Tehjabsolute levels of
BTW, your volcanic CO2 numbers are very, very wrong. Anthropogenic CO2 emissins are more than two orders of magnitde heigher than volcanic emissinons. Total natural emissions of CO2 are about a norderof magnitude higher than anthropogenic inputs. Adnanthropogenic inputs are changing the equilibrium.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=160
http://www.radix.net/~bobg/faqs/scq.CO2rise.html
This folloing info is from the second URL
>From its preindustrial level of about 280 ppmv (parts per million
by volume) around the year 1800, atmospheric carbon dioxide rose to
315 ppmv in 1958 and to about 358 ppmv in 1994 [Battle] [C.Keeling]
[Schimel 94, p 43-44]. All the signs are that the CO2 rise is
human-made:
* Ice cores show that during the past 1000 years until about the year
1800, atmospheric CO2 was fairly stable at levels between 270 and
290 ppmv. The 1994 value of 358 ppmv is higher than any CO2 level
observed over the past 220,000 years. In the Vostok and Byrd ice
cores, CO2 does not exceed 300 ppmv. A more detailed record from
peat suggests a temporary peak of ~315 ppmv about 4,700 years ago,
but this needs further confirmation. [Figge, figure 3] [Schimel 94,
p 44-45] [White]
* The rise of atmospheric CO2 closely parallels the emissions history
from fossil fuels and land use changes [Schimel 94, p 46-47].
* The rise of airborne CO2 falls short of the human-made CO2 emissions.
Taken together, the ocean and the terrestrial vegetation and soils
must currently be a net sink of CO2 rather than a source [Melillo,
p 454] [Schimel 94, p 47, 55] [Schimel 95, p 79] [Siegenthaler].
* Most "new" CO2 comes from the Northern Hemisphere. Measurements
in Antarctica show that Southern Hemisphere CO2 level lags behind
by 1 to 2 years, which reflects the interhemispheric mixing time.
The ppmv-amount of the lag at a given time has increased according
to increasing anthropogenic CO2 emissions. [Schimel 94, p 43]
[Siegenthaler]
* Fossil fuels contain practically no carbon 14 (14C) and less carbon
13 (13C) than air. CO2 coming from fossil fuels should show up in
the trends of 13C and 14C. Indeed, the observed isotopic trends
fit CO2 emissions from fossil fuels. The trends are not compatible
with a dominant CO2 source in the terrestrial biosphere or in the
ocean. If you shun details, please skip the next two paragraphs.
* The unstable carbon isotope 14C or radiocarbon makes up for roughly
1 in 10**12 carbon atoms in earth's atmosphere. 14C has a half-life
of about 5700 years. The stock is replenished in the upper atmosphere
by a nuclear reaction involving cosmic rays and 14N [Butcher,
p 240-241]. Fossil fuels contain no 14C, as it decayed long ago.
Burning fossil fuels should lower the atmospheric 14C fraction (the
`Suess effect'). Indeed, atmospheric 14C, measured on tree rings,
dropped by 2 to 2.5 % from about 1850 to 1954, when nuclear bomb
tests started to inject 14C into the atmosphere [Butcher, p 256-257]
To suggest that global warming is going to change the environment is the same as suggesting that there will be no future ice ages. Since there have been around 20 in the past 2 million years on something like a 110,000 year cycle - this would mean that the last has come and gone. Please note that 5 million years ago there were trees north of the Arctic circle.
If we believe in irreversable Global Warming, then we can expect the planet will revert to the warm phase which is about 20 degrees F (10C) on average warmer than now and which the planet enjoyed for oh about +85% of the last 500+ million years. This will melt the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets. http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm
There is no evidence to suggest this will happen. Most likely we are simply in an interglacial and there will be another glacial cycle just as there has been in the past.
If we reject the idea of the Global Warming, then this senerio - if the planet warms up a little for a short while then it will just delay the onset of the next ice age.
During the last ice age there were glaciers as thick as the Matterhorn in Switzerland is high. Toronto was covered by more than a mile of ice. That is a lot of ice and it wouldn't be very nice to live in a world like this.
The thing is that whoever is correct, there is little that mankind can do about it. If we have a warming trend for a while then some islands may be flooded and Florida might need to hire some Dutch engineers. Britain may once again be able to tend vinyards. If we have global cooling for a while as occured during the little ice age then we may find that we won't have enough food to eat.
A far more pressing problem is that mankind is buring fossil fuels at a totally unsustainable rate. IMHO we are going to be facing the peak of world oil production within a couple years and when this happens, $70 oil is going to look real cheap.
So I would suggest that rather than worry about global warming, we should instead prepare for a world with less oil and gas. This will probably have the side effect of reducing CO2 emissions. If anyone considers this a positive outcome then fine.
North America peaked in natural gas production in 2001. Since that time - what has the population of North America done to cope?
The answer is pretty much nothing. A huge part of the fertilizer industry has been shut down. Now part of the plastics industry will follow suit. The price of Natural Gas goes up and up (and temporarily down for now - yes I DO know about gas in storage levels) and still people talk about building more gas fired electricity stations. Ontario is still thinking there is no issue and they can have all the gas they want and I read New York State is also imbued with a high level of polyanna thinking.
The last major company to think this way was Calpine. They are in bankruptcy now. If we look at their history we will find that a few years back their shares were trading at $45 bux. They had more gas turbines on order than could be built in the USA. They were planning on burning most of the North American gas supplies all by themselves. The market LOVED THEM.
I do not subscribe to the fears of Global Warming. However I will say again - those who do should get off their butts and do something about it. Insulate your homes. Shut off your furnaces. Stop driving your cars.
Do something that counts, something that will reduce your demand for fossil fuels. If you want to justify it by citing Global warming then be my guest. But however you justify it - DO SOMETHING. Tear a wall down in your house and use some spare time to put R50 insualtion into it. That alone will accomplish far more than wasting your time worrying about something you can do nothing about.
It's a fictional "entertainment" book yes, however, it's has many facts, all backed up by legit data that refutes the claims of global warming. Do you even know when the "theroy" of global warming came to be? 1989, and guess what happened that year? 4 countries exploded Nukes, big earthquake in San Francisco, Berlin Wall fell, and there was a drout in the U.S. Bottom line is this: people believe what they want, and you believe that global warming exists. I live in Chicago and it's -10 wind chill right now. Think I believe in Global warming? Re-read the link I sent: During the 1960s the retreat began to slow down, and some of the glaciers are now advancing again.
In other news, suspicions that the giant magnifying glass in orbit is causing the glaciers to melt was dismissed as just being to silly.
You're correct... floating ice does not make the water level rise. However, melting ice that was supported by a land mass that is not floating in the water will indeed make the water level rise.
The way I see it, the most likely fallout of planet wide warming is an increase in infectious diseases. Take a look at the avian bird flu as it is slowly spreading across the world despite our best efforts to contain it. The higher the temperatures go, the more interesting the disease become. It's no accident that the most virulent diseases in the world are in warm moist climates.
Even that is not an alarmist thing to say. We can adapt. But in a warmer Earth, I think disease may play a bigger roll in population reduction than many anticipate. In a colder Earth, we play the bigger role by killing each other for diminishing food and fuel resources. Pick your poison.
I know there are always a lot of people that say, "Hey, it is not so bad. We will adapt. Etc." But I think everyone can agree that the tone of commentary on the planets climate has shifted pretty dramatically since I was in school 15 years ago. We've got some serious trends emerging including high hurricane activity (with unusual electrical properties never before witnessed), rapid melting of glaciers that is outstripping the predicted rates by our best scientists (just today recent data is showing Greenland melting far faster than we predicted even 5 years ago and the arctic shelves are calving into the ocean at a rapid rate), increased threat of a pandemic despite our rapidly increasing scientific knowledge in the field of epidemiology (right now we are looking at a bird flu which is a hit on our food rather than on our population directly), and of course, our dwindling fossil fuel supplies upon which our industries are based.
That last one I put in there as an indicated of economic stresses on the system. We will feel some pressure from that one. Yes, we can transition away from fossil fuels, but if you combine the economic pressure from that with rising sea levels displacing industry and people, greater likelihood of worldwide epidemics (sure the US is pretty covered but 3rd world countries should be terrified by this possibility more than a US citizen could likely imagine), and so on.
Any one of these things, we can deal with, but we are not confronting just one thing. We are confronting a multitude of things that are all converging on our current way of life: an unsustainable one. Heck, I work in health care and I know the exponential cost projects very well. We can't sustain the costs. There's just no way. Something will give within the next 10 to 20 years...which again coincides with all these other things. There's a big pattern here. I don't think many people see the forest for the trees on this right now. You can argue about this one posts topic, but it's just one topic of a dozen that are all pointing toward, "Ouchtime".
I don't think it's hopeless, but I think there's a Hell of a lot of work to do in the next 20 years. People need to start making right choices on their own and helping their neighbors to get educated and shift their life choices toward a path that protects us from the problems on the horizons. In health care, it's simple things like HSAs that let you get tax free payroll deductions into an investment account to pay for health care and getting more educated about what treatment you really need and what you don't (you might not need that drug the Doctor is being paid to prescribe--sometimes you do). Here's a fact: health care costs are rising exponentially and well beyond the capacity of our insu
The last line you quoted is the key -- increased snowfall is cyclical, linked to the North Atlantic Oscillation.
The accelerated flow of the ice into the ocean, by contrast, is new and apparently related to warmer ocean and maybe meltwater from the surface of the ice flowing down through crevices and lubricating it.
The natural forces are cyclical (aside from the fact that the sun will continue to become warmer until it becomes a red dwarf and swallows the planet, but that's later).