Study Confirms Climate Models are Getting Future Warming Projections Right

@JCS

Believe what you want.



Geothermal remains poorly studied with too many assumptions.
Flowing water between a glacier & terra firma is under rated
to reflect blame on man made global warming.

Tainted science. ​

It doesn't matter who "they" pay to say otherwise with Science credentials.
Put the pieces of the puzzle together yourself.
Flowing water . . . .

 

@Moi621

OTHER POINTS TO CONSIDER REGARDING THE YAHOO ARTICLE YOU POSTED:

Although the article you posted doesn't specifically implicate geothermal/volcanic heat to subglacial melt, I won't deny that volcanic heat is likley contributing to some degree of melting beneath Thwaites proper. But there are a few things to keep in mind:

* This doesn't mean Thwaites began melting because of volcanism, but volcanism may have begun contributing to or hastening the melt or instability later on after the initiation of melting due to global warming (ie, from warmer air and water temperatures & currents).

* Per the links/info I posted earlier, geothermal/hydrothermal/volcanic heat sources have very little bearing on global warming itself, but may influence or hasten the rate of demise of nearby glaciers/ice sheets if they can cause melting from below. However, volcanic destabilization & activity can be triggered if glaciers/ice sheets above them begin melting from global warming & ocean currents.

* Unlike the WAIS which mostly sits atop an underwater seabed, East Antarctica mostly sits atop a bed that's above sea level. The latter is therefore not exposed to warm ocean currents and, hence, are not subject to rapid melting as is seen in the WAIS.

* Most of the WAIS, and almost the entirety of Thwaites glacier, sits on a seabed deep below sea level where it gets a lot of exposure to warmer oceanic currents, such as the Circumpolar Deep Water (CDW) which circulates along the Antarctic Circumpolar Current (ACC)...and which are continuing to warm. The deepest part is Bryd Glacier, the base of which lies 9416 ft below sea level. (Note: At these depths water temperatures remain stable within a few degrees, so geothermal heat sources wouldn't be enough to warm the water enough to melt glaciers. NASA has confirmed earth's ocean abyss has not warmed. [LINK] It's well known for years that these warm currents have been melting glaciers at the grounding zone.

* The seabed that the WAIS sits on slopes downward, which enhances the demise of glaciers as it melts & moves.

* Melting of Thwaites glacier has accelerated, but why relatively later post-industrial age? Could it be that the melting & reduction of the ice sheet (due to global warming) has destabilized and triggered the subglacial volcanoes to become more active?

* If volcanism in the WAIS has contributed to ice sheet melt/reduction, it shouldn't be assumed that it is the dominant, or even initial, force behind glacial melting. Nor is there any reason to assume that geothermal heat is in any way the driving force behind global warming. The WAIS ice sheets have existed relatively undisturbed for thousands of years, with some approaching 1 million years old.

* The speed at which ice is flowing seaward on the Thwaites Eastern Ice Shelf has slowed in the last 10 years, but Schroeder and his colleagues' data suggests that it won't be enough to stabilize the precarious, eroding glaciers on the Walgreen Coast, which could face even more thinning, ultimately destabilizing the rest of the ice shelf in the coming decades. [LINK]

 

Flat earther? I thought climate deniers were the ones who believed in a flat earth because they have a general mistrust & suspicion of scientists.

Everyone has failed? Have you posed this question (via email or in person) to a real scientist doing real time climate change research, or do you choose only to ask forum layman/amateurs? If the latter, then what kind of answer are you expecting? Would you even be able to understand or know if the answer provided enough substantiation for AGW? Could you even accept it if it was?

(1) The following 16 minute video, entitled The evidence for climate change WITHOUT computer models or the IPCC explains everything in clear, easy-to-understand words. All climate skeptics should see this video.



Also see Top 10 Climate Change Myths (by same youtube poster)



(2) The change is too abrupt, and with no other noticeable or measurable causes other man-made. That may be the biggest issue. A very slow & steady increase may have a long-term but neutral effect, but abrupt changes don't allow time for adaptation by either plants or animals.

(3) To me it's not a belief...it's a very real possibility based on the evidence thus far. The real uncertainty, it would seem, is how far can it progress?

We can't spew out tons of greenhouse gases for almost three centuries, clear/burn/destroy vast swaths of forests, clear vast swaths of land for agriculture, emit tons of heat from industries/homes/vehicles/machinery/fires, alter millions of acres of landscape by clearing unspoiled land for sprawling cities, pull tons of oil from the ground, draw tons of water from the water table, dam thousands of waterways, pollute the air & water, decimate animal populations, explode our population from 2 to almost 8 billion in less than a century and expect there to be no climate impact. Please! The question is what is the future impact, particularly if we continue along the same path?

The earth's ecosphere is a finely tuned system with its own natural means of maintaining greenhouse homeostasis. Man has added to that at an accelerated & exponential rate for almost three centuries. Like water pouring into a bathtub...if the input rate is greater than the rate it can be drained, then the tub will overflow. Likewise with greenhouse gases. More is being produced than can be eliminated...and adding to this problem is the destruction of some of earth's means of correcting the imbalance.

And in case you're wondering if volcanoes are the source of all that excess CO2, here is a good article on this topic you should read.

 

@JCS

Believe what you like.



I couldn't find the article I would have liked to reference
from when the flowing water was discovered.


I imagine global geothermal could be evaluated from orbit.


Moi
Climate Changes,
Just Like The Weather.

 

Your quote:

"BTW glaciers don’t melt. They recede because of lack of snowfall at their sources."

What questions have I avoided? I cut/paste (as explained earlier) so that...
(1) There's no question of my sources, exactly what was said, or who said it.
(2) It allows the reader to review the entire material if they wish to critique/rebut it.
(3) I want to avoid a war of semantics or the drone of "prove it". So read the words/quotes directly from the scientists themselves.
(4) If I only post a link it's likely the reader won't read it. So I read the material, then cut/paste the most relevant portions.

The focus should not be to reduce global warming, but to reduce human impact (including GHG mitigation). This would mean population reduction in order to reduce consumption, waste, and heat emissions. These benefits can be enhanced by a conversion to green/sustainable forms of industry, energy production, agriculture, and city infrastructure. A massive tree planting & ecosystem rehab campaign should be included...and so on.

Example: Planting billions of trees globally would pull tons of carbon from the air. But trees do so much more: They also clean the air of pollutants, provide a habitat for many animals, increase biodiversity, stablize & protect the soil, lower the water table, improve water quality, control salinity, reduce/absorb heat, provide food/medicine/recreation for people, and beautify the planet.

We often debate global warming/climate change, but the fact remains that we're making our planet more & more unlivable by polluting, abusing, and over-using that which sustains us. The issue of global warming/climate change is too wrought with politics, special interests on both sides, and endless debate. However, we can't deny that the period from the industrial age (late 18th century) up to now, plus the population explosion from 2 billion to almost 8 billion in only the last 90 years (9 billion projected by 2050) has been a relatively short period of time. Yet, look at the horrendous environmental impact we've had in that short period. Virtually every natural resource on a global scale has been spoiled, while others destroyed, and many areas made unlivable for either its indigenous animals or people.

If we focus on human impact, then global warming/climate change will take care of itself...and then ultimately become no longer a concern.

The "economic costs" are irrelevant in the face of the costs to human well-being, our beautiful environment, and our natural resources. Looking around one can see the costs have already been high no matter the economic system or status. Money is an unnecessary vestige of an ancient hierarchical form of control & enslavement. Still, as long as we continue to use money, it should be used to serve our well-being...not destroy one another & our beautiful world.

After all, money & gold would be worthless in a world where edible food & potable water were very scarce.

Just think a bit.

Population reduction doesn't mean culling the population. People are already dying by the tens of millions annually from poverty-related deaths, wars, disease, epidemics, high infant mortality, malnutrition & famine, suicide/stress, accidents, natural disasters, medical treatment, and poisoning (man-made toxins).

We need only to increase the standard of living & education level, which would naturally reduce people's desire for children. Eg, Norway has the highest standard of living which has resulted in negative population growth. Their govt has had to pay its people to have more babies. Also, people with higher education levels & professionals tend to have fewer children as well.

Higher standard of living + increased per capita education level + the concurrent death rate = negative population growth.

Negative population growth would also be enhanced initially by a voluntary and/or incentivized decision to not have children (or to only have one child). An individual sense of responsibility for both self & the greater good would naturally develop with higher living standards, limitless educational opportunities, greater health, a clean environment, comfort & safety, contentment (no stress), and healthful abundant food & water that's easily accessible.

It's best to observe & follow the wisdom of nature. Those at the top of the food chain should keep their numbers low or they'll end up gobbling everything up until there's nothing left. Keep the population reasonable and let nature thrive. In turn, we'll thrive because abundance, optimal health, and room to live & play will be assured always.

 

For all:

Educational short video on how Antarctic ice melts

https://www.nationalgeographic.com....elting-at-a-dangerous-paceheres-why-6104.aspx

 

That’s funny. You actually believed that glacial ice does not melt ?? My point went right over your head. But nice cut and paste again from the thousands of phony alarmist drive papers bought and paid for by the government take over of “science”.

 

Did you have trouble reading it? Yes flat earther.

As usual you are completely wrong. Flat earthers rely on faith in their belief systems and ignore actual science as you have.

Actually I have and they couldn't do it either. But in case you haven't figured it out yet this is a debate forum and I'm challenging you to back up your belief in humans being the primary reason for climate change and you can't do it.

There isn't a single proven fact anywhere in either of those videos

If you want to pretend there is then cite the specific time and I'll be happy to prove you wrong. Again.

Until then this isn't a ragu commercial where you think you can post someone's opinion and just claim the evidence is in there somewhere.

#1 you haven't proven it is abrupt nor have you proven human based factors are the primary reason for climate change.

Psst. I've got news for you. That's a belief.

LOL All I asked for was proof, not theory, proof that humans are the primary source for climate change and of course you couldn't do it. You posted no actual numbers of human based interference nor did you prove humans are the primary cause.

Posting a bunch of youtube videos and thinking that covers your inability to have actual science back up your beliefs doesn't cut it.

But don't worry you have quite a lot of company on the flat earther side of this debate.

If your argument is that CO2 is the primary factor for climate change (and I'm giggling already at that flat earth theory) start with actual proof that CO2 levels are the primary reason for climate change throughout history. Go ahead.

Until then leave the youtube videos with their unsupported theories at home.

 

So basically you have no rebuttal. Not once did you address the salient points made in the videos. When/if you do (which requires you to actually WATCH & LISTEN to the videos), I'll listen.

 

I believe you need glasses...or stronger glasses.

Where did I cut/paste in my reply to yours? If you're talking about my reply to Moi621, I really have no choice. There's too much info & too many details to paraphrase from...plus, I already gave the reasons why I do this. But I don't just cut/paste...I read the entirety of what I post...plus I post pics & graphs to better illustrate what's being talked about.

I believe you don't like my cutting/pasting because you don't want to have to read the hard science. You'd rather I give you a claim without scientific citations so that your non-scientific rebuttal will look better. Sorry...but either show me the science or be dismissed.

 

Anyone can cut and paste.

 

I choose wisely. I address the question using the science that's already out there. I'm not going to make stuff up or deny facts. The science is there. Either accept what it shows (but remain open for further data), or bury your head in the sand & follow the flat earth people.

 

All you do is practice confirmation bias. Anyone can “confirm” anything they have faith in.

 

“BTW glaciers don’t melt. They recede because of lack of snowfall at their sources.” (AFM) http://www.politicalforum.com/index...jections-right.566751/page-38#post-1071362082

It obviously did not go over his head, because his response was clearly that they can melt. The tiny little river, about six inches across, that flowed down through McMurdo was certainly not from ice moving up hill after a Herbie.

 

Not really, faith can exist without any proof.

 

And again another who missed the point sailing right over his head - the short term receding of glaciers has nothing to do with them melting.

 

Google 2+2=5. You will find pages of "proofs". Do you faithfully believe that 2+2=5 ??

 

The definition of "receding glacier" includes melting and evaporation, they do not all recede from evaporation, so your statement that "glaciers don’t melt" is still incorrect.

 

The overwhelming reason for the short term receding of glaciers is lack of snowfall at the source. Glaciers melt at the base due to friction and at the top surface in the summer. Those processes have nothing to do with global warming.

I’ve explained this many times. How many additional times will it take ???

 

When you say "BTW glaciers don’t melt," you will have to explain it many times over especially after saying it went right over someone's head, and doing that more than once.

Glaciers can melt due to things happening at the base unrelated to any friction, like a volcano...Pressure:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regelation

Glaciers melting at the top certainly can happen with global warming.

 

It's not getting through. Not much I can do about that. Glaciers melt at the top every summer.

 

AFM at a restaurant:

"The ice in my drink seems to have receded. May I please have more ice?

 

It DOES get through to the subglacial bedrock...and is why they use dyes to determine where it exits. Did you not recall the articles + video + pics I posted earlier? Those rivers of melted water cut through ice like a hot knife through butter...cracking & weakening the glacier...and also accelerate the movement of the glacier from beneath. The supraglacial lakes/rivers also absorb more energy from the sun because they're darker than the surrounding ice + they're liquid...so their growth is accelerated by their very presence. The seasons are also getting warmer.

Antarctica Breaks Its Hottest Recorded Temperature
https://www.ecowatch.com/antarctica-hottest-temperature-record-2645059660.html

The other major melting occurs around the grounding line/zone where warmer ocean currents melt the glacier, causing retreating of the grounding line, enlarging cavitation, and weakening & calving of the ice sheet & glacial tongue/shelf in front of the grounding line.

 

Meaningless. ^^^^ Google 2+2=5.

 

The water level stays constant.