Is Global Warming becoming unstoppable?

[cynic]

Maybe that 27.5M could have been better spent on insuring against the prophesied apocalypse.

Instead of scientists, 100 carpenters could be tasked with the construction of a very large boat, in which pairings of all the world's land dwelling heterosexual species of fauna could then be herded.

 

[Tisme]

Maybe that 27.5M could have been better spent on insuring against the prophesied apocalypse.

Instead of scientists, 100 carpenters could be tasked with the construction of a very large boat, in which pairings of all the world's land dwelling heterosexual species of fauna could then be herded.

Would we build it in cubits by long armed people?

 

[cynic]

Would we build it in cubits by long armed people?

That would surely depend upon the obesity of the fauna populace, from which the pairings are to be selected.

In order to deduce this one must ask:

Within which of the 7 years is the fauna populace grazing?

Is it the 7 years of abundance, or the seven years of famine?

If the former, then long armed people will be mandatory for facilitation of the appropriate measurements.

If the latter, then the services of amputees may be required.

 

[wayneL]

Hetrosexuals?

Not in the brave new postmodern LGBTIQDIDWHBXYEHHCEGHIURSGKHDHURGJHGERHJGFHJFHITDFH world.

 

[basilio]

What would happen if the Thwaites glacier proves as unstable as feared and collapses in the near future ?

This scenario didn't surface yesterday. If anyone was looking glaciologists had discovered in past few years that the warming ocean was reaching rapidly into the underside of the glaciers and lifting and detaching the glacier from its bedrock home. The glaciologists also discovered that after the last ice age there had been similar rapid collapses of icecliffs as the world started to warm. This is not new.

So what would happen ?

The fate of Pine Island and Thwaites glaciers in Antarctica is in the balance — and so is that of all our cities
TWO enormous glaciers could soon irrevocably reshape our future. They’re melting. They’re fragmenting. And a cataclysmic collapse of an entire Antarctic ice sheet may be just decades away.

Jamie Seidel
News Corp Australia NetworkNovember 25, 201710:55am

• Video
• Image

1:43
/
3:24
Autoplay

Antarctic Glacier Melting Due to High Winds, Causing Potential Impact to Sea Levels. Credit - Australian Antarctic Division via Storyful

PINE Island. Thwaites.

These two names are likely to become increasingly familiar in future years.

They’re among Antarctica’s biggest and fastest-melting glaciers.

But what makes these different is that they’re fed from ice sitting on solid ground.

This ice does not displace the ocean.

That means all the water that melts off them must be added to the total mass forming the world’s seas.

Current calculations put that at roughly 3.4 meters.

According to US meteorologist Eric Holthaus, that’s enough to inundate every coastal city on our planet.

“There’s no doubt this ice will melt as the world warms,” Holthaus writes. “The vital question is when.”

And that’s the thing.

Scientists used to think it would take thousands of years for Antarctica’s ice sheets to melt under a warming atmosphere.

But new evidence shows it could happen within a few decades.

http://www.news.com.au/technology/e...s/news-story/cd363c1430b2788154f5bb14b44c1c39

 

[explod]

Hetrosexuals?

Not in the brave new postmodern LGBTIQDIDWHBXYEHHCEGHIURSGKHDHURGJHGERHJGFHJFHITDFH world.

Marcel Duchamp, Modernism in the hanging of the toilet seat 1917; then,

Postmodernity, the search for unreality;

and then oh dear meee...comes

Climate Change, so shut the doors, block the ears and answer every question but the one put

Ole Pal

 

[wayneL]

I just think we need better questions...

...Ol' Bean

 

[basilio]

I just think we need better questions...

...Ol' Bean

Fair enough. Try this for size.

The International group of scientists researching the stability of the Thwaites glacier come to a conclusion in the next 3-5 years that there is a moderate/high/ certain probability that the glacier will collapse in the next 15-25 years with a consequential collapse of the ice cliffs it is buttressing. As a consequence there will be a large scale movement of the inland ice cliffs into the Antartatic oceans from 2040 onwards and that by 2060 world wide sea levels will be 1.5 to 3 metres higher.

This dramatic increase in sea level will not stabilise at this point with uncertain additional effects from the melting of the Greenland Ice Cap and other inland ice sheets.

What do we do ?

(By the way scietists are certain there is no way the Thwaites glacier will survive the current climate. The only question is when will the cork pop.)

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/...acier-could-be-globally-catastrophic-thwaites
http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2018/02/01/glacial-geoengineering-sea-level-rise/

 

[cynic]

Fair enough. Try this for size.
...from the melting of the Greenland Ice Cap and other inland ice sheets.

What do we do ?

(By the way scietists are certain there is no way the Thwaites glacier will survive the current climate. The only question is when will the cork pop.)
...

I have already answered that question, if you are so damned certain, then build a mighty big boat!

 

[basilio]

Maybe concerns about the collapse of the Thwaites glacier are totally unnecessary?
This perspective on the effects of irreversible, run away CC by a biologist seem to take far more precedance.

Looking on the bright side... at least we won't to have worry about growing old and feeble or running out of money to finance our twilight years.

 

[Knobby22]

The International group of scientists researching the stability of the Thwaites glacier come to a conclusion in the next 3-5 years that there is a moderate/high/ certain probability that the glacier will collapse in the next 15-25 years with a consequential collapse of the ice cliffs it is buttressing.

Hi Basilio
That sentence doesn't make sense, something is missing.

 

[basilio]

The International group of scientists researching the stability of the Thwaites glacier come to a conclusion in the next 3-5 years that there is a moderate/high/ certain probability that the glacier will collapse in the next 15-25 years with a consequential collapse of the ice cliffs it is buttressing. basilio

Hi Basilio
That sentence doesn't make sense, something is missing.

I think it does make sense in the overall context of the West Antarctic ice cap being protected by the Thwaites glacier which sits on the edge of the ocean and is fed by the ice cap.

The article I was referencing a few posts earlier noted that all glaciologists are very concerned about the escalating collapse of the Thwaites glacier. It is being uncut by warm ocean waters which are lifting it off the bedrock and allowing it to slip faster and faster into the ocean.

Once upon a time scientists thought this break up would take centuries. However because the last 10-15 years has seen quite startling changes they now think break up of the glacier could happen much, much quicker - perhaps in a matter of a few decades.

If in fact the glacier does collapse in 20-30-40 years the inevitable consequence will be a rolling collapse of the West Antartic ice shelf that is currently being supported by this glacier. The ice cliffs cannot support themselves.

Glaciologists are so concerned they are embarking on a 5 year program to do exhaustive studies of the Thwaites glacier around it, under it, through it and see if they determine when it might actually break up and if there is any way this process can be delayed or stopped.

If the analysis comes back with a high degree of confidence that the glacier will collapse in the next 20-40 years the inevitable consequence is the inundation of all world wide coastal cities. This would start happening within a decade of the collapse of the glacier because the volume of ice that would go into the sea would be that big. This rate of sea leve rise has a historical precedent.

The two articles I referenced go into more detail.

 

[cynic]

Maybe concerns about the collapse of the Thwaites glacier are totally unnecessary?
This perspective on the effects of irreversible, run away CC by a biologist seem to take far more precedance.

Looking on the bright side... at least we won't to have worry about growing old and feeble or running out of money to finance our twilight years.

So are you now telling me that we no longer need to build that boat?

It looks like the 27.5M may have been needlessly wasted, when it could have been better used to send ourselves into oblivion with one ripsnorter of a doomsday eve party!

 

[wayneL]

Interesting, and meshes with my observations

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272494418301488

Abstract
We conducted a one-year longitudinal study in which 600 American adults regularly reported their climate change beliefs, pro-environmental behavior, and other climate-change related measures. Using latent class analyses, we uncovered three clusters of Americans with distinct climate belief trajectories: (1) the “Skeptical,” who believed least in climate change; (2) the “Cautiously Worried,” who had moderate beliefs in climate change; and (3) the “Highly Concerned,” who had the strongest beliefs and concern about climate change. Cluster membership predicted different outcomes: the “Highly Concerned” were most supportive of government climate policies, but least likely to report individual-level actions, whereas the “Skeptical” opposed policy solutions but were most likely to report engaging in individual-level pro-environmental behaviors. Implications for theory and practice are discussed.

 

[Tisme]

 

[cynic]

Interesting, and meshes with my observations

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272494418301488

Abstract
We conducted a one-year longitudinal study in which 600 American adults regularly reported their climate change beliefs, pro-environmental behavior, and other climate-change related measures. Using latent class analyses, we uncovered three clusters of Americans with distinct climate belief trajectories: (1) the “Skeptical,” who believed least in climate change; (2) the “Cautiously Worried,” who had moderate beliefs in climate change; and (3) the “Highly Concerned,” who had the strongest beliefs and concern about climate change. Cluster membership predicted different outcomes: the “Highly Concerned” were most supportive of government climate policies, but least likely to report individual-level actions, whereas the “Skeptical” opposed policy solutions but were most likely to report engaging in individual-level pro-environmental behaviors. Implications for theory and practice are discussed.

Interesting how this aspect of human behaviour was accurately prophesied long ago.
If only they had eyes willing to see, and ears willing to listen, our most zealous climate crusaders could then benefit from revision of the demonstrable truths underlying the following proverbs, :



and

 

[cynic]

 

[noirua]

Is Global Warming becoming unstoppable? = Yes!
Eventually when the earth is in a bad state it will be evacuated as people move to other planets. That will then leave planet Earth about 10 thousand years to recover. During that time all humans will be banned from returning and thus hastening recovery.

 

[Sdajii]

The climate has never stopped changing. It has been warmer than at present (many many times, including recently - only a few thousand years at most), it has changed at a faster rate than it currently is, and has always been in a chaotic cycle.

'Unstoppable' implies that it 'should' or was sitting stable, at some baseline, until humans started playing around. No climate scientist says this, and most of the people saying it are the climate alarmists. If it was currently 'unstoppable' (stoppable from doing what exactly?), whatever couldn't be stopped would have happened hundreds of millions/billions of years ago.

I am not a climate denier (sic), no doubt humans are interacting with the climate, but what the vocal folks say about it is complete nonsense. The actual climate scientists, biased as they are, mostly don't agree with the full on alarmists you hear from on social and mainstream media. They're inherently biased and no doubt their predictions will turn out to be massively exaggerated, just as their previous predictions which have had time to play out were seen to be. Yes, we are playing with the climate, but no one seems capable of being rational about it. They're either irrationally alarmist or playing ostrich. Anyone anywhere in the middle is accused by everyone else of being at their opposite extreme.

 

[Tisme]

Humans started meddling in climate change when they started burning the bush 70k years plus ago for game and consequently deserts. When they started oak building sailing ship armadas. When imbeciles cleared the prairies for dust storms and tornadoes. When they built huge dams in China that buggered up the reliability of monsoons. When they sealed up the ozone hole over antarctica which caused it to warm up ever since.