Ice sheet contributions to future sea-level rise from structured expert judgment

Post by thinkcontext » Wed, May 22, 2019, 4:23 PM UTC

mooseburger wrote: post #74

ridicter wrote: post #26

If you're interested in getting involved in addressing climate change, here are two options for citizens to get involved: 1) The Citizens Climate Climate Lobby has been around ten years, and it currently has a bill in Congress that has bipartisan (1 Republican) support: The Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act ( http://energyinnovationact.org/ ). With this plan, all the revenue from a carbon tax* is directly ret…

> Carbon pricing (which can come in the form of a tax or cap and trade) is the single most effective mechanism to address climate change. Is it? That's how France ended up with the yellow vests. It seems likely that demand for fossil fuels will prove rather inelastic, such that everyone just ends up paying more and not changing behavior in a significant enough way.

Post by klyrs » Wed, May 22, 2019, 4:52 PM UTC

war1025 wrote: post #79

klyrs wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Scientists have been ringing the alarm since the 1970s. In the US and Canada, conservatives have gone to great lengths to censor this science and and the center-left has collaborated in the advancement of oil in spite of the increasingly overwhelming evidence that we're causing significant climate change. This study is just some climate scientists doing their jobs, and the publication date was Monday. Such things hap…

I will admit I didn't read the article, which now that I look, it's from a scientific journal. So you're right, this article doesn't apply to my statement. Anyway, thanks for the reasoned response.

Post by dreamache » Wed, May 22, 2019, 5:18 PM UTC

sampo wrote: post #57

glerk wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This includes economic and social justice issues. In other words, it’s co-opting the environment crisis to push for wealth redistribution.

Not that some wealth redistribution wouldn't be nice, but doesn't it have potential to actually increase global carbon emissions?

Post by simonh » Wed, May 22, 2019, 6:29 PM UTC

lazyjones wrote: post #52

simonh wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Current estimates, before this finding, are that it's rising by about 3mm/year, up from an average of 1-2mm/year for the previous century. About 55% of that is estimated to be due to continental ice melt and 30% to thermal expansion of the oceans.

> it's rising by about 3mm/year, up from an average of 1-2mm/year for the previous century That's a questionable comparison since we don't have reliable data from before 1993. If the actual sea level rise was 3mm/year recently, we should surely not expect it to rise 25mm/year on average for the next 80 years?

Post by baking » Thu, May 23, 2019, 1:02 AM UTC

klyrs wrote: post #83

war1025 wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I will admit I didn't read the article, which now that I look, it's from a scientific journal. So you're right, this article doesn't apply to my statement. Anyway, thanks for the reasoned response.

As others have pointed out, the headline is trash. My takeaway is that the melting ice sheets introduce greater uncertainty to climate models. Loss of uncertainty means that our ability to reason about the climate is diminished. In sports terms: imagine that the star players on two teams are all suddenly taken out. Suddenly it's a rookie game, and there's barely any stats to go by. Do you bet more aggressively, or mo…