Well, we are chatting about but pros work a lot on it:
I found also - on Wired on line, don’t laugh, it’s a cool place -
Two articles on topic:
My opinion is they offer a balanced picture.
Re “Extreme Heat in the Oceans is Out of Control”
The statement that “The seas have absorbed over 90 percent of the excess heat from greenhouse gas emissions, essentially saving humanity from itself” is misleading.
The total heat content of the oceans is enormous when compared to the atmosphere. The atmosphere contains only about 2% of earth’s heat, the land masses another 2% and the oceans about 93%, with the remainder locked up in ice.
The oceans, on average, are warmer than the atmosphere and so the net energy flux across the ocean/atmosphere interface carries heat from the ocean to the air and not the reverse. The sun is the primary source heating the ocean as any downward infrared energy (back radiation) from global warming cannot penetrate the surface of the ocean more than a few microns.
The current theory suggests that the downward infrared radiation heats the very thin skin layer of the ocean which has the effect of reducing the flow of heat from the ocean to the air, thus allowing the oceans to retain more heat over time. Detractors of this theory point out that the increase in skin temperature would increase evaporation rates and thus tend to cool the skin surface, largely nullifying any warming effect.
Re “The WIRED Guide to Climate Change”
The statement: “Today, we know that, absent any change in our behavior, the average global temperature will rise as much as 4 degrees Celsius by the end of the century. Global sea levels will rise by up to 6 feet.” is based on the so-called “business as usual” scenario (RCP8.5/SSP8.5) which is highly unlikely, if not impossible.
Based on the sea level rise rates during the past 2 decades, it appears that we are on track to see a sea level rise by 2100 of between 0.3 meters and 1.0 meters (1 foot and 3.3 feet) with the most likely outcome about 0.5 meters (1.64 feet).
Your replies are correct and well given.
But…
I can only say: Houston we have a problem!
0.5 meters would be a great fuss on all coastal environments.
Yes, especially areas like Houston where there is strong land subsidence well higher than the global sea level rise
Speaking of the Greenland Ice Sheet only:
RE " Melting Greenland ice has already caused a 1.2 centimeter sea level rise"
Sounds correct. 1.2 cm over 20 years = 0.6 mm/yr. At this rate Greenland will add less than 2 inches to the global SLR by 2100. If this melt rate doubles between now and 2100 then the Greenland contribution would rise to between 2.5 and 3 inches.
yes but all the scare mongering assumes the rest of the planet remains static?
land is moving, some going up some going down.
The collapse of Antarctica’s Thwaites Glacier is a low probability / high consequence event that might be considered to be “hype”.
https://cires.colorado.edu/news/threat-thwaites-retreat-antarctica’s-riskiest-glacier
“It’s doubled its outflow speed within the last 30 years, and the glacier in its entirety holds enough water to raise sea level by over two feet. And it could lead to even more sea-level rise, up to 10 feet, if it draws the surrounding glaciers with it.”
Yes, indeed. Land subsidence is a much more significant issue in many areas. Look at Jakarta where parts of the city have sunk 2.5m in 10 years.
sure my question is what does all this do to sea levels?
Should we re flood the Netherlands…lol
Make land reclaim illegal?
About Netherlands:
1 Like
My logic is , does your glass overflow when the cubes melt. No.
If land ice melts it causes the sea to rise. The arctic ice is melting which causes more snow to fall in winter ( the arctic was a snow desert with little precipitation) which will pile up and renew the glaciers. Renewable power is good but we need reliable new safe nuclear for steady delivery reliability. The sun is getting brighter and assisting global warming. The only way to stop that is putting solar shields in space to block the light. The earth warmed many times when man wasn’t around. Plant some trees like I do to capture carbon burned by me making a living.
1 Like
Good news:
The revised estimate reduces global sea level rise by 3 inches if all glaciers were to melt.
Not so good news:
But it raises concern for some communities that rely on seasonal melt from glaciers to feed rivers and irrigate crops. If glaciers contain less ice, water will run out sooner than expected.
Damn, you can’t win.
But if you fill the glass to the brim, then add ice cubes, it will.
My advise is; Take a good sip before adding ice or water.
Just like when glaciers calf into seawater; at first only 9/10th of the resulting iceberg displace water, but as it drifts into warmer water it all melts and add it’s full load to the oceans
PS> Good Scotch is too expensive to waste by watering it out.
“Add 3 drops of cold water” is the professional advise I got on a whiskey tasting seminar.
1 Like
Large icebergs keeps on breaking off from the Antarctic Ice Shelf;
Antarctica’s average annual temperature ranges from about −10 °C at the coast to about −60 °C in the interior high elevations so rapid melting is not an immediate concern. East Antarctica is still gaining ice mass even while West Antarctica is losing ice mass.
You are mixing volume and weight, where would that 10th/10th of water come from?
The displacement of a floating iceberg remains the same, whether solid or liquid.
If the glass is full of seawater and you add freshwater ice cubes the glass wont overflow.
Every Scandanvian I know says they learnt this at school.
When the arctic, which is floating melts there is no change in sea level