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.
Those things you listed aren't climate change. They are pollution, which nobody is in favor of or disputes.
You conflate the two on purpose, of course.
The ozone layer was literally never there all the time. The hole was coming and going periodically. The scientists doctored their presentation of the data to convince the policy makers by showing only the data pertaining to the hole showing up.
Now that we have a veritable global cooling going on, it is time to start doing real science. The Earth is definitely changing; would be good to know why.
Right now so called climate change science is yeah, cute Alexandria Ocasia somebody in a makeup looking like a twin of Huma Abedin in a makeup and trying to tax the Mankind for the beneift of certain business interests. It's frankly scary.
That's true, warmer air is moister which traps more heat, which is a positive feedback. But it can also result in more cloud formation, increasing albedo and reflecting more heat, which is a negative feedback. Yet clouds can reflect heat back down again too, and the amount varies with altitude.
There's a lot we don't know about cloud formation under those conditions, so a lot of uncertainty as to degree. Current thinking is that net feedback is somewhat positive. Bottom line: It's complicated.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
One of the hardest elements to predict is the pace of ice-sheet melting. This should be the message here.
It will probably be tolerable in my lifetime, but the Greenland ice sheet alone holds enough water to raise sea levels 7 metres. And it is melting, it is just a question of how fast.
I don't think a lot of intelligence comes from the "climate change is a hoax" side. That side relies on politics and religion to drive what they think. Obviously climate change can't be real, because the Bible says so, or it can't be real because it will mean the free market isn't the best solution to all problems, or it can't be real because I saw a Youtube video that said it wasn't.
Granted, there are those who believe in climate change who have not done the science either and are just parroting what their peer group says. I would however give them more credence for at least defaulting to what the majority of scientists think is likely as opposed to defaulting to what a few conspiracy theory politicians think.
Nope, you just need to dump politically motivated science, which like social sciences (again politically motivated) is not actually science at all
Intelligence aside, the ability to receive and process evidence contrary to one's belief set is rarer than hen's teeth.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway