Slashdot Mirror
ICE Satellite Maps Profound Polar Thinning
xp65 writes "Researchers have used NASA's Ice, Cloud and Land Elevation Satellite to compose the most comprehensive picture of changing glaciers along the coast of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets. The new elevation maps show that all latitudes of the Greenland ice sheet are affected by dynamic thinning — the loss of ice due to accelerated ice flow to the ocean. The maps also show surprising, extensive thinning in Antarctica, affecting the ice sheet far inland. The study, led by Hamish Pritchard of the British Antarctic Survey in Cambridge, England, was published September 24 in Nature."
That would be sensationalism. So far, it is measured in cm; by the turn of the century (90 years from now) it is projected to be a few meters,
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.
Exactly. I've described my research into Greenland's ice sheets. My most recent estimates show that Greenland as a whole is losing ~100 Gtons of ice every year, but my advisor believes my estimate is too low by a factor of 2. As you say, northern Greenland is gaining mass, but southestern Greenland is losing much more mass. Climate change is a very serious problem, and I'm really annoyed that health care is currently distracting the Senate from an issue that affects the future of the entire human race.
The last article I read in Science compared model prediction of sea level rise, and found that observations showed the sea levels rising even faster than the models predicted. Perhaps this was just short-term weather, though: more recent measurements may indicate agreement with the models.
Okay, yes. Technically I agree. The political/economic ramifications of our response to climate change aren't completely within the domain of physical science, so they're not facts in the way that the anthropogenic origin of abrupt climate change is a fact. For example, our technology could suddenly jump forward very quickly, rendering adaptation very simple and cheap.
But we're talking about the future of the human race here. Let's choose the safest option, and try to avoid the worst effects by moving from coal power to modern nuclear power. As technology advances, solar, wind, tidal and geothermal power can play an increasing role. We've stagnated and become complacent in a world powered by cheap oil; another industrial revolution is long overdue.
Yes, 2008 and 2009 had smaller ice extent minima than 2007. But the point is that climate models had previously predicted larger ice extent minima than were observed in 2007. So the last several years tend to confirm that the previous measurements were due to short-term weather variability rather than a flaw in the climate models.
Ask, and you shall receive. No serious scientist is actually "guessing" that the decline has been constant, and no climate model that I'm aware of makes that prediction. Short term variability is expected, but the data shows a clear downward trend over the last 30 years.
I've discussed this claim before. Short version: there hasn't been a cooling trend over the last ten years, major or minor.
The climate varies naturally on long timescales but Meehl 2004 shows the current warming can't be accounted for by natural forcings. Greenhouse gas emissions are the only way we can explain the temperatures over the last ~40 years.
It's a better idea to get your science from scientists rather than politicians. The CO2 emissions by living organisms are part of a closed cycle, and those isotopes don't match the composition of the atmospheric CO2 that's currently ~26% higher than it's been in the last 650,000 years. Other sources such as volcanoes emit 100x less than humans do. Also, water vapor isn't relevant because it has a short lifetime in the atmosphere and isn't well-mixed to the top of the atmosphere. I've discussed all these issues at length.
They have never been able to accurately predict what the weather will be tomorrow. It is arrogant for Al Gore (who incidentally also invented the Internet) to claim he knows what the effect will be decades from now. The largest cause of CO2 emissions is natural activity. The most abundant greenhouse gas is water vapor. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas#Greenhouse_effects_in_Earth.27s_atmosphere
3 myths in one go? Not bad. First link on google for climate myths gives 3 rebuttals: Chaotic systems are not predictable, CO2 isn't the most important greenhouse gas and finally CO2 isn't the most important greenhouse gas
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.
According to a recent survey, about 10% of scientists believe that the current warming is natural, 4% believe there is no warming, and 84% believe the current warming is caused by humans. So, yeah, some scientists are skeptical of global warming.
But stop trying to count heads on each side of the debate. As I've repeatedly stressed in that last link, science isn't democratic. It's about evidence. When I see some convincing evidence against the existence of abrupt climate change, then I'll be interested.
And of course the IPCC doesn't conduct original research. They compile previously peer-reviewed research into reports that summarize the best scientific evidence available.
Wrong.