11–20 of 23 posts
Note that the graphs at the top of the page are extent (surface area) not volume. Volume graphs (as in the article) are at the bottom of the page... Graphs for global and arctic sea ice are on different pages.
So, if I'm reading the nifty infographic correctly, essentially all of the mass loss occurred between 1997-2000, and the total tonnage has remained consistent or even grown somewhat since 2000 (solid gray line in embedded timeseries chart in the first main figure). The article really tries to focus on the loss aspect, and the amount of ice lost between 1997 and 2000 is certainly shocking - nearly 10,000 gigatons in j…
So, if I'm reading the nifty infographic correctly, essentially all of the mass loss occurred between 1997-2000, and the total tonnage has remained consistent or even grown somewhat since 2000 (solid gray line in embedded timeseries chart in the first main figure). The article really tries to focus on the loss aspect, and the amount of ice lost between 1997 and 2000 is certainly shocking - nearly 10,000 gigatons in j…
How do current climate scientists reconcile reporting the relatively slow loss of glacial ice at both poles currently is something that’s unnatural, worrying, proof of humans destroying the planet, a doomsday scenario for life on earth… with the fact that North America was covered by a sheet of ice that was 2-3 kilometres thick only 20,000 years ago. A blink in geological time. Disclaimer: Yes, human greenhouse gas e…
Sans humans, surely the earth systems would be slowly creeping back towards more and more ice ... at least by the pattern of glacial advance and retreat in this current long term (million year) age of mini ice cycles.
But it's not, is it?
Instead the sea | earth surface layer is getting hotter, much hotter than expected and on a rapid (by geological time) scale.
This is entirely due to human activity as our population has rapidly expanded in the past 100 years and our resource consumption has exploded to match, dragging up carbon that took millions of years to lay down and more to bury deep.
The pressure this presents on human day to day existence is pressing down fast, we've become more and more dependant on daily movements of food and energy that are critically reliant on everything being "just so" - as much as we might kid ourselves we do not have robust supply chains that can rapidly adapt to the challenge of feeding a billion people if broad area cropping zones tip and become non productive for a decade or more.
Very few people are panicing about the fate of the planet on a thousand year time scale - it's a pretty rubust orbiting mass.
Sensible people are concerned about the future of humans on the scale of a hundred years.
It takes planning and coordination to ride such things out with minimal impact.
How do current climate scientists reconcile reporting the relatively slow loss of glacial ice at both poles currently is something that’s unnatural, worrying, proof of humans destroying the planet, a doomsday scenario for life on earth… with the fact that North America was covered by a sheet of ice that was 2-3 kilometres thick only 20,000 years ago. A blink in geological time. Disclaimer: Yes, human greenhouse gas e…
So, if I'm reading the nifty infographic correctly, essentially all of the mass loss occurred between 1997-2000, and the total tonnage has remained consistent or even grown somewhat since 2000 (solid gray line in embedded timeseries chart in the first main figure). The article really tries to focus on the loss aspect, and the amount of ice lost between 1997 and 2000 is certainly shocking - nearly 10,000 gigatons in j…
How do current climate scientists reconcile reporting the relatively slow loss of glacial ice at both poles currently is something that’s unnatural, worrying, proof of humans destroying the planet, a doomsday scenario for life on earth… with the fact that North America was covered by a sheet of ice that was 2-3 kilometres thick only 20,000 years ago. A blink in geological time. Disclaimer: Yes, human greenhouse gas e…
Similarly, climate change isn't a threat to life on earth as we know it, but it does inconvenience a few species. And asking people to move to another country because you drowned their island or burnt their city isn't a great way to make friends.
By and large the Earth is a big wet rock that suffers a variety of misfortunes from time to time, and it tends to suck for things living on it during those times. Climate change just happens to be one of those periods of unpleasantness, except this one is human caused and happens on a human timescale. If humans sent a asteroid hurting towards ourselves, to hit us in a few decades, you'd probably see a few protests and strongly worded science studies about that too.
How do current climate scientists reconcile reporting the relatively slow loss of glacial ice at both poles currently is something that’s unnatural, worrying, proof of humans destroying the planet, a doomsday scenario for life on earth… with the fact that North America was covered by a sheet of ice that was 2-3 kilometres thick only 20,000 years ago. A blink in geological time. Disclaimer: Yes, human greenhouse gas e…
As to your main question, I don't see the same conclusion from the data. "Relatively slow" to what? We do have a good understanding of how greenhouse gasses work, and the data for glacial loss is correlated with gas emissions very tightly. I should probably dive into the most up to date data rather than use nebulous words like "very" and "good", but my stance is built on quite a bit of research into it a decade ago while pursuing an Atmospheric Sciences degree, so unless there's been new information that completely changes our understanding, I'd say it still carries weight.
How do current climate scientists reconcile reporting the relatively slow loss of glacial ice at both poles currently is something that’s unnatural, worrying, proof of humans destroying the planet, a doomsday scenario for life on earth… with the fact that North America was covered by a sheet of ice that was 2-3 kilometres thick only 20,000 years ago. A blink in geological time. Disclaimer: Yes, human greenhouse gas e…
Stepping aside all the hate one gets for being critical of a scientific theory (as we all should do, regardless of how well established it is), there is quite a bit of evidence that polar ice helps to regulate global temperature, seasonal extremes (both hot and cold), seasonal timings, and weather patterns. These are all things we rely on to feed the global population, and live in all the places we do. As to your mai…