Slashdot Mirror
Scientists Have Reduced the Forecast of Sea Level Rise Seven Times Due To Melting of the Antarctic (maritimeherald.com)
The destruction of the Antarctic ice sheet may not lead to such a catastrophic rise in the level of the oceans, as previously thought. In a new study, the authors calculated that instead of growing by a meter or more by 2100, a growth of 14-15 cm is likely, writes N + 1. At the same time, the melting of the ice of Greenland and Antarctica is not fully taken into account in modern climate models, as it will lead to even more destabilization of the regional climate. Both studies on this are published in the journal Nature. An anonymous reader shares the report from Maritime Herald: In the first study, Tamzin Edwards from King's College London and her colleagues question this prediction. According to Edwards, who is quoted by the college press service, scientists re-analyzed data on ice loss and ocean level 3 million years ago, 125 thousand years ago and in the last 25 years and estimated the likelihood of rapid destruction of unstable sea areas of Antarctic glaciers, which the authors 2016 was associated with a meter increase in the level of the oceans. The hypothesis of such destruction received the abbreviated name MICI (marine ice cliff instability). They found that MICI does not necessarily explain the dynamics of sea level in the past, and without this the probability that the level will grow by more than 39 centimeters by 2100 is only about 5 percent. Edwards notes that in their model, even if the Antarctic glaciers really will collapse rapidly, the maximum increase in sea level will not exceed half a meter, and the most likely growth will be 14-15 cm. At the same time, scientists cannot completely eliminate the MICI phenomenon: they only talk about that more research is needed in this area.
In the second article, Edwards and Nick Golledge of Queen Victoria University in Wellington and their co-authors write that current climate models do not fully take into account the consequences of the destruction of the ice of Greenland and the Antarctic, which will slow down the Atlantic Ocean and further melt the Antarctic ice due to "locking" of warm water in the Southern Ocean (climatologists call such self-enhancing processes positive feedback processes). In addition, according to the authors of the article, the melting of ice in the warming scenario of 3-4 degrees compared with the middle of the XIX century will lead to a less predictable climate and an increase in the scale of extreme weather events.
In the second article, Edwards and Nick Golledge of Queen Victoria University in Wellington and their co-authors write that current climate models do not fully take into account the consequences of the destruction of the ice of Greenland and the Antarctic, which will slow down the Atlantic Ocean and further melt the Antarctic ice due to "locking" of warm water in the Southern Ocean (climatologists call such self-enhancing processes positive feedback processes). In addition, according to the authors of the article, the melting of ice in the warming scenario of 3-4 degrees compared with the middle of the XIX century will lead to a less predictable climate and an increase in the scale of extreme weather events.
"We know that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will warm things up."
Hold up, you are confusing correlation with causation here. There is yet any scientific proof yet that this is the case. So far it looks to be the case that higher CO2 amounts are contributing to warming things up but that is because we have correlation. Correlation does not equal causation. Just because CO2 its will trap heat does not mean that it traps enough to be of concern.
"How much warming will result from adding CO2 to the atmosphere?"
If they knew that then model predictions would be more accurate and since they cannot determine how much, it adds to skepticism that CO2 is really trapping heat at all.
"Of course, we have estimates for that last question, but the error bars are huge."
And this is why I call much of it a cult... the desire to ramrod legislation and ridicule anyone not buying the mantra. Lets gets some solid provable data out here.
Right now GW is entirely a Hoax, not because of it happening or not, but because the solutions being recommended do not actually solve the problem and are nothing more than money changing and wealth redistribution gimmicks which according to history will likely only lock the solutions down to the wealthy elite as becoming the proprietors and gatekeepers of solutions for global warming creating an even larger wealth gap, despite the believe it would reduce it.
I agree - the threats raised by greens are too big to be ignored. These cretins managed to ban all reliable sources of energy in my country by 2038. If that is left standing we may hope that our neighbours will not cut us off the European grid to prevent massive instability - better blackout in Germany only than everywhere (the situation is already difficult in winter months because of the amount of energy that renewables do not produce then). The good thing is when storms hit the wind parks we have to pay our neighbours to take the superfluous energy. Green is dangerous indeed.
"None of the intelligent ones doubt that CO2 warms the atmosphere to some degree. Or if there is an intelligent person who doubts it, I would like to meet them."
And that is exactly why you are a cultist. Doubt is the enemy of Faith, it is NOT the enemy of science. You will never run into anyone intelligent by the standards you have set. You will only run into unintelligent people. By the way... avoid the mirror, you will not find any intelligent folks there either.
Stop treating people that don't believe in the same things you do as being ignorant or stupid. They just just do not come to the same conclusions that you do when looking at the evidence. And since you make it clear that the only intelligent people on the subject are the cultists then you leave little room for discussion on the subject. You are exactly the kind of person this is the problem in this discussion, moron to a fault and anyone unwilling to subscribe to your version of idiocy cannot be intelligent.
I don't view scientists that believe in AGW as stupid, but I do view the people agreeing to Political wealth redistribution schemes as a solution to it as stupid. But folks like you... I just consider you to be nothing more than a member of another moronic cult that can't separate fact from faith.