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.
That the greens have predicted. I never thought you could do worse than economists and still be called a science. Maybe they should change their name to climate studies and be moved in with the gender studies people.
This is a dangerous and foolish attitude to take. The threats facing humanity raised by the "greens" -- your chosen term not mine -- are real, quantifiable, and ongoing and will not go away because a particular milestone has not been reached when predicted. There are crystal clear and very worrying trends across a range of domains such as climate, deforestation, availability of fresh water, insect populations, desertification, and pollution. Brushing them aside because the "apocalypse" hasn't happened yet is beyond silly.
soylentnews.org
That the greens have predicted. I never thought you could do worse than economists and still be called a science. Maybe they should change their name to climate studies and be moved in with the gender studies people.
So one group publishes a pair of papers that predict a particular bad outcome of climate change will be less severe than previously predicted.... and climate science is terrible now?
You think this one pair of papers by one group is correct and disproves all the existing sea level rise predictions? You don't suppose they made a mistake in their analysis that some other group will find and publish a response?
For sea level rise in particular it's always been accepted that it's really hard to model which is why there's always massive ranges given.
At the same time I suppose you also think that Climate Science is some sort of conspiracy were they don't let any researchers break the party line. Lucky these folks were able to sneak their papers into an obscure little journal like Nature.
This is how science works, usually everyone is in general agreement but sometimes someone publishes an outlier, usually they're wrong but sometimes they're right and they become the new general agreement.
Hopefully this time the dissenting prediction is right because sea level rise is really bad!
I stole this Sig
The article that you quote was posted by a marketing manager. It looks to me as if he paraphrased a report he didn't understand. The article was from "The Maritime Herald", which is a on-line magazine mainly about shipping. The origin of the article is stated to be "Maritime News of Russia".
This article looks less reliable than most that are published here, and that's not any kind of praise.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Hold up, you are confusing correlation with causation here. There is yet any scientific proof yet that this is the case.
You mean other than over a century of repeatable lab experiments? And basically our entire understanding of electromagnetism?
Ezekiel 23:20
Hold up, you are confusing correlation with causation here. There is yet any scientific proof yet that this is the case
Yeah, this is one is well supported by experiment. See this for a demonstration. There are equations and references here. Some scientists doubt that there will be a crisis because of AGW, but none doubt that adding CO2 to the atmosphere produces a warming effect. I responded to you, but I admit I think you are ignorant and will not read the things I linked to.
It's not ignorance, so much as an unshakable belief set. There are many very intelligent folks on both sides of the Climate Change argument.
Sadly, political beliefs skewer scientific evidence, because it is one of the pillars in the us vs. them political landscape our democracy has devolved into.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway