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.
"You mean other than over a century of repeatable lab experiments?"
This is why you are ignorant. How many years did it take them to first break the sound barrier? How many people "just like you" that said it was "scientifically" not possible to travel faster than the speed of sound?
"And basically our entire understanding of electromagnetism?"
Which is limited, there is still a ton of research into magnetism happening... are you stupid enough to think we already know everything there is to know about electromagnetism? People like you are going to cause a war over your "perceived" delusions... in fact there are already people calling for the murder or incarceration of "deniers".
I want proof, and that is YOUR SIDE's responsibility to provide it. The current evidence presented is NOT PROOF!
The current rise in temperature around the world is also adequately explained by our constant increase in energy production and consumption. A lot of science back in the day though they had the final solutions as well, though it turns out much of it was wrong now... after we went back and revisited the "evidence"
Only a cultist asks for me to prove AGW wrong, especially when the AGW cultists have not proven that AGW as we claim to understand it is correct. How is it that you cannot understand that when you accept this stuff on faith that you are not different that the rest of the religions looking to rule the world with their version of "the truth".
One can also use empirical evidence to note that Fox is basing its existence on pushing editorialized news rather than unbiased news. Sure other stations are biased but they strive to make sure the bias is in the editorials.
It's not Fox I worry about though, it's the really extremist sites the push conspiracy theories or click bait viewpoints. World News Daily, Brietbart, Infowars. Even scarier is when the president seems to listen more to those sites than to his advisors.