• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ice Melt is 20 Years Ahead of Schedule

LOL... Why are you talking from where the sun doesn't shine?

No, the scientists in collaboration with the IPCC et. al. conveniently ignore such facts if they are even aware of them.

Please show me where they discuss that they are aware of such insolation increases in the IPCC material.


Please show me where such as what you point out is accepted by the science community as significant evidence enough to contradict AGW. Otherwise, it's about as significant as what comes out of where the sun don't shine.
 
Please show me where such as what you point out is accepted by the science community as significant evidence enough to contradict AGW. Otherwise, it's about as significant as what comes out of where the sun don't shine.
Surface insolation is key. Any scientist who was studied the basics regarding the earths atmospheric heat knows that.
 
Your analogy is flawed, We know enough about COVID-19 to know that we need a vaccine.
With AGW, the actual details are much less precise.
If the aerosol Dimming and Brightening study is correct, a vast amount of the recent observed warming,
could be attributed to more solar energy reaching the ground, vs less solar energy leaving the earth.
Consider that the IPCC claimed in 2013 that the net forcing from all activity between 1750 and 2011,
was 2.29 W/m2, while a study of the increases in solar energy reaching the ground, show an increase
from 1992 to 2001 of almost 6 W/m2.
"Over the period covered so far by BSRN (1992 to 2001), the decrease in earth reflectance corresponds to an increase of
6 W m-2 in absorbed solar radiation by the globe (22). "

We know enough about both COVID and AGW to take action. In the case of COVID, people are dying now. In the case of AGW, people aren’t dying yet. Each involve very diff time frames. Virus happens very fast compared to AGW. With virus, once confirmed, it’s spreading uncontrollably such that 2 month later is too late. An effective enough vaccine may take 18 mos or longer, or never, though so far we’ve survived them all. In the meantime, we struggle with an effective response, even knowing what we do. With AGW, any action will take many yrs to have an effective enough impact to even slow warming, let alone settle-down to zero. The diff is we’ve taken more action against COVID as it is in our face, but less against AGW because it’s less “in our face”. Diff time frames. The analogy works.

Your “solar energy reaching the ground” argument does not work, as explained in the following excerpt from the article in the link given further below.

“For more than 40 years, satellites have observed the Sun's energy output, which has gone up or down by less than 0.1 percent during that period. Since 1750, the warming driven by greenhouse gases coming from the human burning of fossil fuels is over 50 times greater than the slight extra warming coming from the Sun itself over that same time interval.”

https://climate.nasa.gov/blog/2910/what-is-the-suns-role-in-climate-change/

The scientific community does not recognize your argument as valid, and with good reason.
 
We know enough about both COVID and AGW to take action. In the case of COVID, people are dying now. In the case of AGW, people aren’t dying yet. Each involve very diff time frames. Virus happens very fast compared to AGW. With virus, once confirmed, it’s spreading uncontrollably such that 2 month later is too late. An effective enough vaccine may take 18 mos or longer, or never, though so far we’ve survived them all. In the meantime, we struggle with an effective response, even knowing what we do. With AGW, any action will take many yrs to have an effective enough impact to even slow warming, let alone settle-down to zero. The diff is we’ve taken more action against COVID as it is in our face, but less against AGW because it’s less “in our face”. Diff time frames. The analogy works.

Your “solar energy reaching the ground” argument does not work, as explained in the following excerpt from the article in the link given further below.

“For more than 40 years, satellites have observed the Sun's energy output, which has gone up or down by less than 0.1 percent during that period. Since 1750, the warming driven by greenhouse gases coming from the human burning of fossil fuels is over 50 times greater than the slight extra warming coming from the Sun itself over that same time interval.”

https://climate.nasa.gov/blog/2910/what-is-the-suns-role-in-climate-change/

The scientific community does not recognize your argument as valid, and with good reason.
Um! The increased solar energy reaching the ground, (Insolation) is not from increases in solar intensity,
but rather in changes in transparency in Earth's atmosphere.
Think of it like opening and closing a Venetian Blind on a sunny day, the Sun's intensity may not change in the short
term, but the solar energy that gets into the home can change by a large amount.
If, as the empirical data shows, the amount of solar energy reaching the ground, has increased
by 6 W/m2 just between 1992 and 2001, then the IPCC's total anthropogenic forcing between 1750 and 2011
of 2.29 W/m2, is brought into question.
It would also be fair to call the increase of 6 W/m2, anthropogenic forcing as well, but it is not something we want to reverse.
(We did pass regulations that removed many aerosols from emissions, and cleared the skies.)
 
Um! The increased solar energy reaching the ground, (Insolation) is not from increases in solar intensity,
but rather in changes in transparency in Earth's atmosphere.
Think of it like opening and closing a Venetian Blind on a sunny day, the Sun's intensity may not change in the short
term, but the solar energy that gets into the home can change by a large amount.
If, as the empirical data shows, the amount of solar energy reaching the ground, has increased
by 6 W/m2 just between 1992 and 2001, then the IPCC's total anthropogenic forcing between 1750 and 2011
of 2.29 W/m2, is brought into question.
It would also be fair to call the increase of 6 W/m2, anthropogenic forcing as well, but it is not something we want to reverse.
(We did pass regulations that removed many aerosols from emissions, and cleared the skies.)
You have to remember.

The simple fact that 6 is greater than 2.29 is denied by the followers of the AGW dogma.

They will not accept for the century or so we burned wood for heat, and dirty coal in power plants, that we had reduced the earth temperature from it's all time highs of the late 30's and early 40's.

They will not accept that today's temperatures are only higher than the past, because the past has been "corrected" to suit the narrative.

They do not comprehend that invisible aerosols have such a dramatic effect.
 
Not denial, simply perspective.
The statement is that the Greenland Ice sheet is loosing 480 gigatons of ice annually.
While it is rather difficult to find, the total mass of the Greenland ice sheet is 2,900,000 gigatons.
https://web.viu.ca/earle/geol305/The Greenland Ice Sheet.pdf

A cubic kilometer is a gigaton!
So a loss of 480 gigatons of ice annually, is a loss of .00165%
A century of such losses, would reduce the mass of the Greenland ice sheet by 1.65%.
I like your thought train, but you got one very major contributing factor missing that changes the picture significantly.

And you made a typo. So a loss of 480 gigatons of ice annually, is a loss of .0165% is correct. And the 100 year total is correct.

The melt rate is not constant. The melt rate is rising., As a matter of fact the rate at which the ice is melting is increasing as well. And an other big, albeit smaller, contributor is the decrease in precipitation.

In a 28 year period the rate of melting has increased from about 25GT to 250GT. Now if we were to extrapolate this until we reach 100 years, you would end up with a loss of 5.5% If the rate increases, it will be more. and if the precipitation keeps declining the way it is now it will increase even further. And a decrease of ice of 6-7% in 100 years is a lot. It is actually 10 times more than what most people predict., and still 3 times more than what you predict. The number you give seems to be on the high side. For some reason I can not open your pdf though. Is it possible that the precipitation has not been subtracted from the melt? After all, this is what ultimately would determine the sea level rise...


Joey
 
I like your thought train, but you got one very major contributing factor missing that changes the picture significantly.

And you made a typo. So a loss of 480 gigatons of ice annually, is a loss of .0165% is correct. And the 100 year total is correct.

The melt rate is not constant. The melt rate is rising., As a matter of fact the rate at which the ice is melting is increasing as well. And an other big, albeit smaller, contributor is the decrease in precipitation.

In a 28 year period the rate of melting has increased from about 25GT to 250GT. Now if we were to extrapolate this until we reach 100 years, you would end up with a loss of 5.5% If the rate increases, it will be more. and if the precipitation keeps declining the way it is now it will increase even further. And a decrease of ice of 6-7% in 100 years is a lot. It is actually 10 times more than what most people predict., and still 3 times more than what you predict. The number you give seems to be on the high side. For some reason I can not open your pdf though. Is it possible that the precipitation has not been subtracted from the melt? After all, this is what ultimately would determine the sea level rise...


Joey

More than 99.5% of the Greenland ice sheet present in 1900 is still there today.
2 New Papers: Scientists Report A Rapid Deceleration Of Greenland Ice Sheet Melt Since 20132 New Papers: Scientists Report A Rapid Deceleration Of Greenland Ice Sheet Melt Since 2013
By Kenneth Richard on 16. September 2019
Greenland’s ice sheet mass losses have significantly decelerated since 2013 – a reversal from the rapid retreat from the 1990s to 2012 driven by cloud forcing and the NAO (Ruan et al., 2019). The post-2013 “relatively stable” ice sheet even gained mass during 2017-’18 (Andersen et al., 2019). Ruan et al., 2019 Decelerated Greenland […]
Posted in Arctic, Cloud Climate Influence, Glaciers | 11 Responses
For Most Of The Last 10,000 Years, Greenland Ice Sheet and Glacier Volume Was Smaller Than TodayFor Most Of The Last 10,000 Years, Greenland Ice Sheet and Glacier Volume Was Smaller Than Today
By Kenneth Richard on 5. August 2019
Most of the ice currently melting on Greenland only formed during the last few hundred years. Image Source: Mikkelson et al., 2018 A new paper (Axford et al., 2019) reveals NW Greenland’s “outlet glaciers were smaller than today from ~9.4 to 0.2 ka BP” (9,400 to 200 years before 1950), and that “most of the […]
 
I like your thought train, but you got one very major contributing factor missing that changes the picture significantly.

And you made a typo. So a loss of 480 gigatons of ice annually, is a loss of .0165% is correct. And the 100 year total is correct.

The melt rate is not constant. The melt rate is rising., As a matter of fact the rate at which the ice is melting is increasing as well. And an other big, albeit smaller, contributor is the decrease in precipitation.

In a 28 year period the rate of melting has increased from about 25GT to 250GT. Now if we were to extrapolate this until we reach 100 years, you would end up with a loss of 5.5% If the rate increases, it will be more. and if the precipitation keeps declining the way it is now it will increase even further. And a decrease of ice of 6-7% in 100 years is a lot. It is actually 10 times more than what most people predict., and still 3 times more than what you predict. The number you give seems to be on the high side. For some reason I can not open your pdf though. Is it possible that the precipitation has not been subtracted from the melt? After all, this is what ultimately would determine the sea level rise...


Joey
I am not sure we know if recent changes in Greenland's ice is part of a cycle, we have very limited data.
 
Surface insolation is key. Any scientist who was studied the basics regarding the earths atmospheric heat knows that.


You won't/can't answer the question because the great majority of scientist do not draw the same conclusion as you from surface isolation data, regardless of such being "key" or not.
 
Um! The increased solar energy reaching the ground, (Insolation) is not from increases in solar intensity,
but rather in changes in transparency in Earth's atmosphere.
Think of it like opening and closing a Venetian Blind on a sunny day, the Sun's intensity may not change in the short
term, but the solar energy that gets into the home can change by a large amount.
If, as the empirical data shows, the amount of solar energy reaching the ground, has increased
by 6 W/m2 just between 1992 and 2001, then the IPCC's total anthropogenic forcing between 1750 and 2011
of 2.29 W/m2, is brought into question.
It would also be fair to call the increase of 6 W/m2, anthropogenic forcing as well, but it is not something we want to reverse.
(We did pass regulations that removed many aerosols from emissions, and cleared the skies.)


I didn’t say any increase of insolation was from solar intensity. I’m agreeing with what the article said that variation in the sun energy had insignificant effect on GW, whether during a cooling or warming period of intensity. The only driver of origination for insolation is the total solar irradiation, which the IPCC says is not a significant cause of GW.

You pick out some figures of what is variation from a measurement, used for locales that are the highest near the equator, and interpret that they are what is causing GW, not the CO2 released by man. But science does not agree with you. You’re throwing obscure data against the wall that doesn’t stick.
 
I didn’t say any increase of insolation was from solar intensity. I’m agreeing with what the article said that variation in the sun energy had insignificant effect on GW, whether during a cooling or warming period of intensity. The only driver of origination for insolation is the total solar irradiation, which the IPCC says is not a significant cause of GW.

You pick out some figures of what is variation from a measurement, used for locales that are the highest near the equator, and interpret that they are what is causing GW, not the CO2 released by man. But science does not agree with you. You’re throwing obscure data against the wall that doesn’t stick.
You are not agreeing with me, you are attempting to deflect the argument back to the IPCC's position.
If we consider that 6W/m2 increase in insolation between 1992 and 2001, only a tiny portion of that could have come from increases in greenhouse gasses,
Maybe 0.27 W/m2, the balance over 5.5 W/m2 came from more of the available sunlight reaching the ground.
The TSI is the available sunlight at the top of the atmosphere, The insolation is how much makes it to the ground.
So while the IPCC is correct that TSI has not changed much, the portion that reaches the ground has increased a lot.
I know this does not agree with your dogma, but it is still data that must be accounted for.
 
You won't/can't answer the question because the great majority of scientist do not draw the same conclusion as you from surface isolation data, regardless of such being "key" or not.
Almost all of them treat it as not changing. However, given the data, they will not deny the science of it like you do.
 
I am not sure we know if recent changes in Greenland's ice is part of a cycle, we have very limited data.
Hi Longview,

Haven't given that too much thought to be honest. I always think of everything going in cycles. I guess it is going in cycles.

I am a bit warry when people start predicting how much the sea level will rise. I am sure it is rising. And I am sure that without human presence or interference it would also rise. What I worries me about this is the rapid changes we are seeing right now. It is the speed at which everything is changing that is causing issues. It gives us less time to prepare.

Anyway, back to the subject. I think it's part of a cycle. I also think that there is cycles within each cycle. And since Greenland and its ice is of such extreme proportions, it is not exactly going to melt over night. So when all is done we can look back and recognize the cycles within as well.

And mind you, things can change overnight. One large volcanic eruption and we may head into a period of cold which we have not seen for centuries. That would be temporary relief though I'm afraid.


Joey
 
So, we don't even have the 12 years that AOC warned about. That comes as no surprise to me. However, I am sure there will be a lot of denials and citations from dubious websites.

There always are.
Despite what the great prophet AOC says, nature works on its own time line not mans. Anyone who takes her predictions serious is just another rock in her box of rocks.
 
Hi Longview,

Haven't given that too much thought to be honest. I always think of everything going in cycles. I guess it is going in cycles.

I am a bit warry when people start predicting how much the sea level will rise. I am sure it is rising. And I am sure that without human presence or interference it would also rise. What I worries me about this is the rapid changes we are seeing right now. It is the speed at which everything is changing that is causing issues. It gives us less time to prepare.

Anyway, back to the subject. I think it's part of a cycle. I also think that there is cycles within each cycle. And since Greenland and its ice is of such extreme proportions, it is not exactly going to melt over night. So when all is done we can look back and recognize the cycles within as well.

And mind you, things can change overnight. One large volcanic eruption and we may head into a period of cold which we have not seen for centuries. That would be temporary relief though I'm afraid.


Joey
How much sea level rise do you think is happening and how much of that is natural?

Do you have any idea what factors are at work to cause sea level rise other than warming?
 
I read a very interesting article explaining how so much doubt is created about climate change and the impact of climate change on our environment.

They basically copied the book which they used when people starting saying that smoking was bad for our health. Exactly the same.

The big energy companies pay for institutions to make publications that are in their favor. These publications are often only partially true and therefore distorting reality. The people writing these articles are either not qualified or biased themselves because of the money they have received. Some of them even admitted this later.

As a matter of fact, Trump is doing the same thing with the guy he hired to replace Fauci and Birx. This guy is a doctor, but this is not his field. And so Trump can publish what he wants to hear claiming that it is the advice of an 'expert'. It ALWAYS works, because a lot of people will believe it.

Same thing is happening with climate change. Numbers get taken out of context. Small events that are in conflict of what we may expect are used as examples that show the opposite of climate change. etc.

At the same time, there has also been exaggeration from the like of Greenpeace. And where there is no exaggeration there is a bias because any news that is not supportive of the 'cause' is conveniently discarded. No don't get me wrong. Greenpeace has done a great job. Especially in creating awareness of the issue in the first place. But, they have made big mistakes too and not all they publish should be readily accepted as the truth. Or at least not the whole truth...

If you are interested, go and read 'The skeptical environmentalist'. A very interesting book, but not an easy read.

Joey
 
Climate change hysteria is hysterical to watch.

Some wrong switches in the brains of people who feel their personal existence is the center of the universe.
 
How much sea level rise do you think is happening and how much of that is natural?

Do you have any idea what factors are at work to cause sea level rise other than warming?

Hi Tim,

I've got to do some more homework on your first question.

The second question I am not going to do any homework... Instead I hope to give you enough to make you aware how complicated it is and why scientists uses supercomputers to model this. And I do this by listing some of the factors at play, as you requested.

- When it gets warmer, ice will melt. Meltwater will of course result in an increase in seawater.
- Warmer air can contain more water vapor. As a matter of fact, for every 1 degree C the temperature increases, the air can contain 7% more water vapor. And with the predicted temperature increase of 4% this means that the atmosphere can contain 28% more water vapor. 27% is a LOT. More water in the air means less water in the sea, so this is lowering the sea-level.
- Warm water expands. This means that when the oceans get warmer, the water expands and since it can not go down or left or right it has to go up. And yes, this means that it is a contributor to sea-level rise.
- Landmasses will start to rise when the ice on top of them is absent. The loss of weight causes the land to rise. As a matter of fact, many areas of land are still rising today because of the decrease in weight after loosing all the ice during the last ice age.
- There is talk about runway effects. This can easily be dramatized for a Hollywood movie, but it true, in theory, that this can happen. Let me give you one example how one side effect helps accelerate the main effect. When ice melts it gets dirty. We've all seen that. The beautiful white snow we remember from early winter is nearly black by the end of spring. Well, if you had a lot of snow that is of course. But that is what we are talking about here right. A lot of snow and ice. Now, in Greenland, the same thing is happening of course. So because it gets a little bit warmer, the ice starts to melt end turns darker. The more ice melts, the darker it gets. Because the ice will melt and flow away and or evaporate and leave behind much of the dirt that colors the ice. Much of the dirt will stay in place however. And this means that the surface is getting darker. This means less light is reflected and more heat is absorbed. And this results in more melting because of the higher temperature.
- The CO2 content of both the air and the water also have an impact on the evaporation rate and the amount of water the air can contain.

And to make matters even more complicated, the sea-level rise is not uniform over the planet. Some areas will see more rise than other areas. This is not something that is often discussed, but it is there.

I guess what I am trying to say is that it is very complicated science. Scientists can make predictions, but they are not very accurate. But the trend they are predicting is accurate. The trend is melt and temperature increase. Unfortunately, it is this uncertainty which gives the deniers a say when they pull data out of context.

Joey
 
Last edited:
How much sea level rise do you think is happening and how much of that is natural?

Hi Tim,

The last 25 years has an average sea-water level increase of about 3mm per year. In the 125 years preceding this the average sea-level rise was only about 1mm. I guess that answers your question with 2mm by man made climate change and 1mm by earth it self.

Now I do see the danger in making this claim though. However, natural changes do not go very quick and it is exactly this sudden change in the rate of temperature change that is so unusual that it can be contributed to man made climate change.

Joey
 
I read a very interesting article explaining how so much doubt is created about climate change and the impact of climate change on our environment.

They basically copied the book which they used when people starting saying that smoking was bad for our health. Exactly the same.

The big energy companies pay for institutions to make publications that are in their favor. These publications are often only partially true and therefore distorting reality. The people writing these articles are either not qualified or biased themselves because of the money they have received. Some of them even admitted this later.

As a matter of fact, Trump is doing the same thing with the guy he hired to replace Fauci and Birx. This guy is a doctor, but this is not his field. And so Trump can publish what he wants to hear claiming that it is the advice of an 'expert'. It ALWAYS works, because a lot of people will believe it.

Same thing is happening with climate change. Numbers get taken out of context. Small events that are in conflict of what we may expect are used as examples that show the opposite of climate change. etc.

At the same time, there has also been exaggeration from the like of Greenpeace. And where there is no exaggeration there is a bias because any news that is not supportive of the 'cause' is conveniently discarded. No don't get me wrong. Greenpeace has done a great job. Especially in creating awareness of the issue in the first place. But, they have made big mistakes too and not all they publish should be readily accepted as the truth. Or at least not the whole truth...

If you are interested, go and read 'The skeptical environmentalist'. A very interesting book, but not an easy read.

Joey
The claim about using the tobacco playbook is BS.
The Skeptical Environmentalist is indeed a great book.
 
Hi Tim,

I've got to do some more homework on your first question.

The second question I am not going to do any homework... Instead I hope to give you enough to make you aware how complicated it is and why scientists uses supercomputers to model this. And I do this by listing some of the factors at play, as you requested.

Less arrogance would be good at this point but I will endure your foolishness;

- When it gets warmer, ice will melt. Meltwater will of course result in an increase in seawater.
- Warmer air can contain more water vapor. As a matter of fact, for every 1 degree C the temperature increases, the air can contain 7% more water vapor. And with the predicted temperature increase of 4% this means that the atmosphere can contain 28% more water vapor. 27% is a LOT. More water in the air means less water in the sea, so this is lowering the sea-level.

How does a +3c equalte to a 4% rise in world temperature? Give the world's average is ~300K? Less arrogance would be good.

- Warm water expands. This means that when the oceans get warmer, the water expands and since it can not go down or left or right it has to go up. And yes, this means that it is a contributor to sea-level rise.

The degree of the expansion, according to the paper by some mechanical engineers the IPCC paid to look into it is about 7cm per degree rise by 2100. So 21cm max. Although the temperature is not going up quick enough to get that at all.

- Landmasses will start to rise when the ice on top of them is absent. The loss of weight causes the land to rise. As a matter of fact, many areas of land are still rising today because of the decrease in weight after loosing all the ice during the last ice age.

Yeah, what effect do you think isostatic rebound will have on world sea levels?

- There is talk about runway effects. This can easily be dramatized for a Hollywood movie, but it true, in theory, that this can happen. Let me give you one example how one side effect helps accelerate the main effect. When ice melts it gets dirty. We've all seen that. The beautiful white snow we remember from early winter is nearly black by the end of spring. Well, if you had a lot of snow that is of course. But that is what we are talking about here right. A lot of snow and ice. Now, in Greenland, the same thing is happening of course. So because it gets a little bit warmer, the ice starts to melt end turns darker. The more ice melts, the darker it gets. Because the ice will melt and flow away and or evaporate and leave behind much of the dirt that colors the ice. Much of the dirt will stay in place however. And this means that the surface is getting darker. This means less light is reflected and more heat is absorbed. And this results in more melting because of the higher temperature.
- The CO2 content of both the air and the water also have an impact on the evaporation rate and the amount of water the air can contain.

You have no clue about any of this. Greenland has a net snow fall more than the rate of melting. For the vast majority of it it will continue to be very white. Whilst there is indeed some effect from increased soot due to the pollution from China's industry the darkening of Greenland's ice, when it happens, is generally due to the growth of bacteria within the ice. In Greenland if you see dark ice it has been stable and not snowed on for many years.

And to make matters even more complicated, the sea-level rise is not uniform over the planet. Some areas will see more rise than other areas. This is not something that is often discussed, but it is there.

For the impact of world sea level rise it will be universal. That there are other factors creating local differences is a separate issue. See isostatic rebound and other tectonic forces.

I guess what I am trying to say is that it is very complicated science. Scientists can make predictions, but they are not very accurate. But the trend they are predicting is accurate. The trend is melt and temperature increase. Unfortunately, it is this uncertainty which gives the deniers a say when they pull data out of context.

Joey

So, how much sea level rise are you expecting to happen by 2100? Where do you think the water is supposed to come from? I will expect some sort of numbers and I would like them to be supported by some sort of referances, especially if you are going to be talking down to me.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom