"Glaciers are moody things with myriad personalities. Some are pretty stubborn, refusing to melt too much as Earth’s climate warms...
Several versions of the model were run to simulate the next 500 years, each time adding another process to see what impact it had.
The two largest effects were rebounding bedrock followed by the gravitational attraction, both of which slowed Thwaites Glacier’s shrinkage. The higher model resolution showed that these processes were stronger in the immediate vicinity of the glacier than you would see in coarser models that average over larger areas. Together, they reduced the movement of the glacier’s grounding line by almost 40 percent in the year 2350, reducing its contribution to sea level rise by 25 percent." arstechnica.com/science/2019/04/springy-bedrock-could-reduce-sea-level-rise-but-not-any-time-soon/?utm_source=pocket-newtab
Honestly, do you really want the planet to end up like Beijing? Really?
Lucas Roberts
Bruh lets dig sum oil
Robert Wilson
antarctic is growing but Greenland and the north pole is shrinking with a net loss of ice
Camden Thompson
>glaciers defy the laws of physics because they're stubborn Only a retarded roastie could reach to that conclussion lmao
Easton Hall
Which as it is ocean ice means fuck all for sea levels for exactly the same reason as why your drink does not overflow when the icecubes in it melt.
Jacob Thomas
No, it is not growing. The bedrock movements slow down ice loss, but it is very much still losing mass, and will be for the next few hundred years. Your source doesn't even say that it's growing, just that it will not lose as much mass per year after 2100 compared to before then. It's retarded to suggest that ice mass is going up. Read a fucking book, you moron.
Greenland is not ocean ice and the arctic tundra is also not ocean ice.
Jason Cook
no no you dont umderstand global warming also means cooling! A-and earth quakes! All the bad things! Just pay some carbon tax and live in a straw hut!
Levi Harris
>refusing to melt too much as Earth’s climate warms 3km thick ice refuses to melt as temperature rises from -80 to -79.7. Those stubborn glaciers prove our fear mongering wrong!
Gabriel Mitchell
THULE IS RESURFACING
Luis Diaz
Nope. But not going to pay some global government of unelected bureaucrats some tax so they can steal our sovereignty
>but Greenland and the north pole is shrinking with a net loss of ice That's an incorrect assessment of the situation. Greenland is losing more ice than before because more snow is falling on top pushing the glaciers out faster. So a smart alarmist will say nonsense like 'The rate of Greenland ice loss is raising the fastest in 100 years!'. While leaving our why it is losing more ice.
Caleb Gray
Remember when the sea level was going to rise to flood the coasts within 10 years? It was in the 90s
Robert Howard
False data from 'corrected' records is simply fraud.
Mmmhmm. And sea levels have risen by only a couple of inches in the last century, despite all this supposedly catastrophic global warming that's going to flood everywhere (and keeps on failing to).
Michael Bell
Remember peak oil? funny how they stopped talking about that one.
Alexander Clark
Global warming is a self-accelerating process. CO2 can stay in the atmosphere for up to 200 years, so it's a safe bet that the trend will continue for at least that long, even if people went and became extinct tomorrow. It's actually more interesting than just temperature changes. As the ice recedes, the bedrock previously under it rises up because it has no pressure on the outside rim. Because of this, the ice is protected and melts at a slower pace. Sea levels have risen by about 7 inches since 1900, give or take, depending on which coast you're living on. Because loss of ice mass is self accelerating, it's very likely that sea level will rise triple that or more between now and the next century.
Daniel Taylor
>Some are pretty stubborn, refusing to melt too much as Earth’s climate warms Jesus Christ
Gavin Lee
Oh we have a tiny upswing so that means climate change isnt real
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age > It has been conventionally defined as a period extending from the 16th to the 19th centuries,[3][4][5] but some experts prefer an alternative timespan from about 1300[6] to about 1850
>start of all the global warming "proof" charts - 1850 >It warms up directly after a period of extreme cold
Landon Gutierrez
Honestly, do you really want the planet's people to look like they are from Venezuela? Really?
Sea level is by far the easiest of all the alleged dooms to fix. Pump water over the Trans-Antarctic mountain range to create man made ice accumulation.
Michael Young
Climate science is flawed, you wont watch this video because it goes against your narrative but pleaee feel free to comment if you do. youtu.be/NYoOcaqCzxo
Jack Collins
Fun fact: atmospheric CO2 was orders of magnitude higher in the past. "venus" didn't happen. Life on earth did not die.
Camden Flores
Yet what factors other than man-made ones that have changed over that time frame. It doesn't matter if Earth was warmer in the distant past the continents were in a different location so that doesn't matter.
Luis Green
What's that?
Tyler Young
The big fiery ball in the sky for one, of which mankind is but a speck by comparison.
Jayden Edwards
The sun didn't increase its output at the same rate as CO2 emissions.
Jace Nelson
Climate change deniers are fucking weird.
How in the fuck do you think that humans don't effect their environment? We've destroyed seas. Chopped down entire forests and prairies to build concrete monstrosities in hundreds of square miles, and we're overfishing and polluting the ocean so much (China and India ) that it's actually toxifying the water to the point that ocean biodiversity is rapidly declining.
This is happening on a global level. There are literally less trees by dozens of magnitudes today than even 300 years ago around the entire earth. Industrialization coupled with the literal exponential growth of human populations has reshaped the earth as we see it. Of course all this will impact weather patterns.
Bentley Morris
What output are you talking about ?
Cameron Kelly
Funny how the sun got more active right around 1850 too.
afaik east antarctica is gaining and will probably keep gaining while everything else melts, due to the precipitation increase more than offsetting its losses
still bad, either way mass is going off land into the ocean, meaning it raises sea level
Ethan Thomas
I can't help but notice you don't attribute CO2 to those changes. Yet that's what's being taxed and traded and controlled.
Hunter Sullivan
It's not economically viable to move water in that way. The easy fix is to abandon coastal areas or attempt to waterproof them so that they don't lose land to ocean rise. Even if you wanted to, moving teratons of water in a way that doesn't contribute to the issue even more is beyond our reach. I didn't claim any of that. You should note that sea level was also much higher in the geologic past, which is the main problem. Best case scenario in the next 80 years is 2 feet of rise, which will cause tens of millions of people property damage. Yes, not all of Antarctica is losing ice, but the subject matter here implied that all ice loss had stopped (or will stop) when that's far from the truth.
Xavier Ward
>still bad, either way mass is going off land into the ocean, meaning it raises sea level No. It's net positive, meaning that more ice is building up than is being lost.
Sea level is only going up because the mass of the glaciers is going up and that creates a gravitational attraction that pulls more sea water to it. If you melted all the ice in Greenland the sea level in the North Atlantic would go down due to the lack of the mass pulling water towards it.
Christian Howard
Watch the video i posted and then explain which solar output you are using please
Andrew Morgan
CO2 is one of many factors and is an easily controllable metric for brainlet politicians to beat their chests around for 'making change'. It's the easiest possible solution to a complex problem that would require drastic countermeasures to reverse its current course.
It's just a bandaid fix to prolong our problem and hopefully kick the can down to our kids so they can deal with it. I still welcome it rather than absolutely no change at all.
Jeremiah Sanchez
You are saying it my implication. That there will be runaway temperature rise ending up in a venus earth - this is how you are getting that you are going to get 2 feet in 80 years despite only getting a couple of inches in the 100 before that. Which is bullshit.
The dinosaurs were wiped out my a meteorite, not the huge amounts of CO2 (by today's standards) in the atmosphere.
Brayden Cooper
>It's not economically viable to move water in that way. It's vastly cheaper than giving up the costal areas or trying to tax carbon into lower the sea level. A 10GW nuclear reactor complex would be able to pump enough water over the range to rapidly reverse the ocean level change, it would cost less than the carbon tax Australia was paying to run the plant and pumps.
Joseph Gutierrez
>CO2 is one of many factors and is an easily controllable metric for brainlet politicians to beat their chests around for 'making change'. It's the easiest possible solution to a complex problem that would require drastic countermeasures to reverse its current course. It's not. CO2 has to the limit of 0 no more heating capacity. That is to say our current CO2 levels can double and cause no measurable greenhouse gas warming. You would get warming from the explosion of plant growth but not from the greenhouse effect of CO2.
Taxing and controlling CO2 to reduce warming is like trying to reduce the lethality of a nerve gas that's already well past it's LD100 be slowing how much more you are adding.
you nigger, that first sentence got me excited.. like the nazis figured out a way to make the continent come alive and start growing to go finish its work
Jason Cook
Explain this graph to me
Michael Martin
Again, I don't know what you're going on about. I said that sea level rise is the issue at hand, not whatever garbage you're thinking about Venus. Ice loss is accelerating, and consequently the oceans will rise at a faster rate. 10 Gigawatts is orders of magnitude off from where you would have to be to pump up the hundreds of gigatons of water going into the seas every year. Doing some quick research, the abstract of the study linked here states that to mitigate sea level rise, you would need to consume over 7% of the world's current energy production. That's also ignoring that sea level rise is going up, so that number will only be higher in the future. grist.org/science/surprise-pumping-water-onto-antarctica-to-prevent-sea-level-rise-is-a-bad-idea/
Christopher Davis
Well sorry to not believe the boy who cried wolf but we have been told that we're all going to die unless we change our ways in about 10 years every 10 years for at least the last 60.
Aaron Kelly
climate change doesn't equal global warming. they're two different things. the first is real, the second is hype.
Cooper Ward
A strawman is not a valid way to argue a point. You need to make arguments based off of real data.
Jonathan Johnson
This. Exactly.
Whatever happened to the new ice age they warned the public about in the 70ies?
What happenened to acid rain?
To the "Waldsterben" in Germany?
What happened to the hole in the ozone layer? ...and don't tell me hair spray.
And while we're at it: why isn't half Africa dead because of Aids? Or Ebola. We're getting told a constant stream of new lies for shekels and giving up ever more freedom.
Brayden Peterson
>you dont umderstand global warming It's the old anti-nuclear academic grievance industry that had no way to pay their bills after the end of the Cold War.
Mason Wilson
That was not a strawman, that was a statement of fact about global warming and related doom-saying. If they keep consistently getting it wrong, I stop believing them even if they start pulling out charts.
Nolan Nelson
Semantics aside, you're commenting on quotes that you've selectively put up rather than refuting the interpretation or process of the data, or finding flaws in my own points. If you don't want to talk about it, leave the thread.
Tyler Price
>sun does light >light hit sky >sky has many parts >water kills many light >ozone kill purple light >carbon dioxide kill red light top graph is what light survives and hits your eye
Leo Gomez
I'm commenting on what we have all been lambasted with for my entire adult life. And no I will not leave the thread. Instead I will keep on telling you know-it-alls that no you don't in fact. Your data, theories and predictions continue to not actually produce these predicted catastrophic results in the real world.
Matthew Carter
>Your data, theories and predictions continue to not actually produce these predicted catastrophic results in the real world. Prove your claims, then. Find some real studies that ended up not being accurate, and prove why they're relevant to today's data. Otherwise, shut the fuck up.
Josiah Walker
Miami is not underwater. Not even close. It should be by now according to Al Gore, backed up by all the science of the time.
Austin Adams
>Miami is not underwater Which study claimed this?
Hunter Harris
>Makes an Antarctica thread >Turns out to be clickbait for a global warming rant
An inconvenient truth. The actual data behind which was provided by (if I remember correctly) Michael Mann of the Climate Research Unit here in bongland. He's pretty much Mr Climate Change, put it on the map, and has incidentally been implicated in a data fiddling scandal.
James Mitchell
Climate change is just a 21th century doomsday religious cult for brainlets, nothing else
Jacob Adams
>(((National Snow and Ice Data Center))) imagine believing the ice kike lies
That's not at all specific. What quote or study said that Miami would be underwater by now? And also, they key point is that you're discrediting the whole field without demonstrating a relationship between current work and supposed incorrect studies of the past.
Tyler Gutierrez
I don't know off hand which one specifically, but it was a claim in that. That being the springboard by which the western world went about implementing all their climate change policies and legislation.
Jaxson Edwards
You're not proving anything by talking out of your ass. At this point, you should probably reconsider what you're actually taking issue with.
Brayden Robinson
Anthropogenic global warming theory. Usually I would be all facts and figures but I have literally been arguing about this subject for decades on and off and today I can't really be that arsed. Sorry.
Luke Gutierrez
High energy EM radiation from the sun shoots through the atmosphere hits the ground gives up some of the energy. It travels upwards off into space. As it passes through the atmosphere different gasses absorb the light at different wavelengths. The bands that CO2 can absorb energy on already absorb all of the energy that is heading up. This is due to the overlap of other gasses.
In short CO2 can't absorb any more energy because it's already in conjunction with the other gasses getting it all.
Julian Nelson
>Ice decreases: we know with absolute certain that this is because of global warming caused by human CO2 emissions >Ice increases: "Glaciers are moody things with myriad personalities." This is not how science works
Yeah I'm not talking about some mythical 3m+ rise in sea level over 20 years. I'm talking about the current average global rise rate not some magical dooms day outcome.
>"Wind farms on the Antarctic continent could theoretically provide that much energy," Pick the most expensive option then say. >" the cost of such an operation would be so astronomical that they don’t even venture an estimate."
>And we’d want to avoid West Antarctica entirely, of course, because that’s a loose canon that’s threatening to drown us all if we so much as look at it funny. Ah yes the sign of a well rationed argument.
Get a better source that's not making up strawmen.
Charles Campbell
so ny and los angeles drown and we all pretend to be upset about it, who gives a fuck
Matthew Hughes
I'm not talking about the article, I'm talking about the study it links to. The fact of the matter is that producing the energy levels required for sea levels to break even is economically impossible. Don't cherry pick parts of the article; they aren't related to my point. Anybody who doesn't want to be taxed out of their asses
Michael Thomas
WE MUST CLAIM THE GREAT WHITE SOUTH FOR OURSELVES AND OUR POSTERITY!!!
Mason Williams
like 3 global warming doomsdays have passed already anyway, just keep moving the date when it passes and get back out on the soapbox yelling about how night the end is this time. Like I said up there worst case scenario NY and LA drown and we pretend to be upset.
Kayden Thompson
A good heuristic is that any field that has the word "science" in the title is not really science.
>Computer science: interdisciplinary field of mathematics and linguistics. Has pretty much nothing to do with science >Social science: 100% asspulled bullshit bearing not even a slight similarity to reality >Neuroscience: a field of visual art, involving taking MRI images of brains and coloring them in with the MS paint fill bucket tool >Climate science: a money laundering and diploma mill scheme where Chinese and Indian grad students get PhDs designing climate models for their D&D campaigns and millions of dollars are funneled through "green" shell companies owned by Al Gore's family members
