The Impact Of The Melting Ice Sheet
The big news in climate change this week is the announcement of the irreversible melting of the West Antarctica ice sheet. What will the impact be on the United States?
Climate Central’s enhanced analysis paints a much more detailed pictured for completed states. For example, more than 32,000 miles of road and $950 billion of property currently sit on affected land in Florida. Threatened property in New York and New Jersey totals more than $300 billion. And New England states all face important risks.
The predicted sea level rise will take a long time to unfold. The numbers listed here do not represent immediate or literal threats. Under any circumstances, coastal populations and economies will reshape themselves over time. But the new research on West Antarctic Ice Sheet decay — and the amount of humanity in the restless ocean’s way — point to unrelenting centuries of defense, retreat, and reimagination of life along our coasts.
And that is the irreversible part. Unless we do more to combat climate change soon, it will be much worse.
Click here for reuse options!Copyright 2014 Liberaland
By: Stuart Shapiro
Stuart is a professor and the Director of the Public Policy
program at the Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy at Rutgers
University. He teaches economics and cost-benefit analysis and studies
regulation in the United States at both the federal and state levels.
Prior to coming to Rutgers, Stuart worked for five years at the Office
of Management and Budget in Washington under Presidents Clinton and
George W. Bush.
118 responses to The Impact Of The Melting Ice Sheet
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
arc99 May 15th, 2014 at 13:08
This story from the Washington DC area speaks for itself. Natural forces are at work. But clearly man-made factors are exacerbating the problem. What will be the right wing response when their coastal homes are underwater?
Benghazi?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/24/AR2010102402996_2.html?sid=ST2010110800183
Last house on sinking Chesapeake Bay island collapses
John Tarter May 15th, 2014 at 13:15
Clearly man made factors are not exacerbating anything. Please explain what caused “global warming” 10,000 years ago?
mea_mark May 15th, 2014 at 13:25
Clearly, man made factors are exacerbating the problem. You just don’t want to recognize it. The question is, why?
BanditBasheert May 15th, 2014 at 18:27
Benghazi!!!!!!
arc99 May 15th, 2014 at 20:24
why indeed? why do they guffaw and make stupid jokes about blizzards being “proof” that it is all a hoax, when the fact is that the best available science has been predicting for years that in certain instances, the changes in our climate will produce more extreme WINTER weather. just one example here published five friggin years ago , page 38
http://downloads.globalchange.gov/usimpacts/pdfs/climate-impacts-report.pdf
The maximum seasonal coverage of Great Lakes ice decreased at a rate of 8.4 percent per decade from 1973 through 2008, amounting to a roughly 30 percent decrease in ice coverage (see Midwest region). This has created conditions conducive to greater evaporation of moisture and thus ***heavier snowstorms***.
arc99 May 15th, 2014 at 13:44
I am not a climate scientist. By the same token, I am not an aeronautical engineer, but I do believe that machines weighing hundreds of tons can fly. The information I use to form my opinions is based on the consensus of the best scholars in the field.
This is a portal to any number of materials explaining the SCIENCE.
If you want to cast your lot with the 3% of scientists who disagree with this consensus, you go right ahead and I trust you will make similar demands on that 3% to substantiate their conclusions as well.
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence
Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities, and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.
Roctuna May 15th, 2014 at 14:16
The relationship between CO2 and atmospheric warming, aka the “greenhouse effect” is not disputed science by anyone, anywhere. It’s well established and proven. The last time we saw CO2 content in the atmosphere over 400ppm (as it is now) was in the Cretaceous period and it was much, much warmer than now. The poles were ice free and there were dinosaurs in Antarctica. Scientists can demonstrate that in the past these changes in CO2 content took place over thousands or tens of thousands of years and flora/fauna had time to adapt. The rate of change is at the root of the problem. Mankind has altered the atmosphere on a similar scale but accomplished it in decades. No one knows for certain the unintended consequences of such a rapid change but the fact that the atmosphere is warming and will continue to warm is not open to debate. We’ve been measuring the change for decades. Are you going to believe thousands of thermometers and temp readings or faux news? The fact that it was warmer in the past, prior to the industrial age, is irrelevant to the discussion of climate change today, as conditions are vastly different today.
BanditBasheert May 15th, 2014 at 18:29
Your first sentence is an untruth.
Just because you deny something, doesn’t make you right. I’ll take science over “the stupid” anytime.
Science can be proven.
Religious dogma cannot.
Nobama May 16th, 2014 at 09:29
I agree. The WaPo article stated the islands have been sinking since around 1910. What did man do to cause that? The article also explains why the whole area around the bay is gradually sinking.
Roctuna May 16th, 2014 at 18:08
Clearly the writer of the WaPo article talked to some scientists to get the explanation and he did a good job of explaining crustal rebound and sea level rise in laymans terms. I’m curious as to why you accept the scientific explanation for crustal adjustment but not the scientific explanation for the sea level rise? There’s two processes at work here. BTW, 1910 is when the island was abandoned, not when it began sinking. The combination of subsidence and sea level rise made it uninhabitable in 1910
Nobama May 17th, 2014 at 09:07
I have lived on the Chesapeake Bay and the Severn River for 50 of my 58 years. No one including myself have seen any measurable rise in the water here. Note the article PREDICTED there would be cities underwater in the future. Other articles use terms of “may or possible or likely”? I have seen articles ranging from 8 inches to a 4 foot rise with not any real forecast as to when it will happen. Einstein had a prediction or two that were proven to not be true years later. It was predicted that man would never reach the moon. Scientists stated long ago it was physically impossible for a man to break the 4 minute mile running. Science is an idea that is studied and researched often resulting in different opinions. Global warming changes to climate change changes to climate disruption? What will it be called next? I just don’t buy it.
Roctuna May 17th, 2014 at 09:51
When islands are disappearing right in front of you, yet you haven’t seen “any measurable rise in the water here” what else is there to say? Chesapeake Bay isn’t the only place on the water. What you may or may not observe there, doesn’t mean sea level isn’t rising elsewhere, and is being scientifically documented.
Nobama May 17th, 2014 at 10:44
The Chesapeake Bay goes directly to the Atlantic Ocean so I would say if there was a rise in the sea level it would also occur inthe bay. Does water seek its own level? Yes and for that matter a water level [ a construction tool]
was used for centuries until transit and laser levels were invented. Assateague and Chincoteague Islands are not sounding any alarms yet and they are where the bay meets the ocean. Our governor never misses an opportunity to exploit a crisis either and he would be all over the media about it.
arc99 May 17th, 2014 at 11:03
Your presumptions notwithstanding, the science indicates that Assateague will also be facing challenges in about 70 – 80 years if things continue. page 23.
http://www.rockymountainclimate.org/images/AtlanticSeashoresLow.pdf
In 2009, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in charge
of Chincoteague NWR, which overlays the southern part
of Assateague Island NS, used a modeling program (Sea
Level Affecting Marshes Model, or SLAMM) to project
the ecosystem effects of sea-level rise on Assateague
Island.109 When the refuge manager got the results, “It
hit me like a ton of bricks and took my breath away,” he
said.110 No wonder—as the FWS has summarized it, what
the model predicts is:
nothing less than a wholesale transformation of the
refuge. Vast swaths of wetlands, and the precious
shorebird habitats contained within, would likely be
radically altered—or even under water—in 2100.
According to the model, rising sea levels over the next
100 years will flood coastal marshlands and transform
inland habitats at Chincoteague NWR—producing a
cascade effect on the refuge’s habitats.111
Nobama May 17th, 2014 at 11:38
A projection is not absolute fact. The model is based on what info is available. Back in 1970 there were claims that D.C. and NYC would be underwater by the year 2000 and we were heading towards a mini ice age. So we stop burning coal as Germany, India and China are building coal fired power plants at a record pace will it make a difference?
Roctuna May 18th, 2014 at 09:12
I’ll take one more run at you. If you don’t find these compelling, at least Arc99 and others will appreciate them:
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/indicators/oceans/sea-level.html
http://www.ucsusa.org/science_and_impacts/impacts/causes-of-sea-level-rise.htmlI
I don’t how else to convince you that the science is definitive, from many perspectives. This denial craze is dangerous to the country.
Nobama May 18th, 2014 at 11:40
Look above for a link to a NASA airhead’s claim.
arc99 May 18th, 2014 at 11:56
of course, you will not provide references to where 97% of the experts in the field agreed with this prediction. you will also I presume provide references to the peer review process of the research which led to the conclusion.
attempting to discredit an entire organization of industry experts by the decades-old mistake of one person is not a convincing argument.
as I said, believe the 3% to your heart’s content. believe whatever you want. I am done trying to change minds on the issue. it is like the birth certificate nonsense. no amount of proof will ever be satisfactory.
Roctuna May 18th, 2014 at 16:15
I’ve mentioned on LL before that I sailed on a research ship in the Pacific in 1982. As late as that, the best models available (extremely crude by today”s standards) predicted near-future cooling. That was because the models were driven by what we knew about Northern Hemisphere glacial cycles. So it wasn’t a mistake to make that prediction at that time. The data sets today are orders of magnitude larger and cover many more climate proxies. The deniers struggle with the uncertainties of scientific advancement. I believe that’s because they prefer to let an authority figure tell them what to think.
arc99 May 18th, 2014 at 12:05
since you decide to propagate a 40+ year old prediction that was not accurate, I thought it worth repeating a prediction that is quite accurate . refer to page 38
http://downloads.globalchange.gov/usimpacts/pdfs/climate-impacts-report.pdf
The maximum seasonal coverage of Great Lakes ice decreased at a rate of 8.4 percent per decade from 1973 through 2008, amounting to a roughly 30 percent decrease in ice coverage (see Midwest region). This has created conditions conducive to greater evaporation of moisture and thus ***heavier snowstorms***.
Nobama May 18th, 2014 at 12:29
http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/nearly-frozen-lake-superior-ma/23439393 It happens every 15 or 20 years
arc99 May 18th, 2014 at 12:49
my reference was to point out the intellectual dishonesty of right wing pundits, politicians and other unskilled skeptics who would have us believe that harsher winter storms are proof that global warming is a hoax.
quite the opposite is true. harsher winter storms have been part of the forecast for years. I provided one example.
but it is a convenient argument for the skeptics. on the one hand argue that predictions are not facts.. yet when the predictions come true, claim it does not matter. talk about covering both sides… again not at all a convincing counter-argument, but convenient. I give you that…
Nobama May 18th, 2014 at 21:20
“Harsher winter storms have been part of the forecast for years. So when the forecast finally comes true after years it is global warming to blame.You say if winter is cold and harsh that is because of global warming but if the winter is warm it’s also the result of global warming? Let me sleep on that one when and if I can stop laughing!
arc99 May 18th, 2014 at 22:17
well since I am laughing at your position that when the predictions do not come true it is proof that global warming is not real, and when the predictions do come true, it is still proof that global warming is not real, I suppose we are both enjoying a good chuckle.
Nobama May 19th, 2014 at 09:34
I like this global warming thing. It might even hit 70 today. Quiet too. No one has their AC on yet. Do we know what will happen next week, next month or next year? Not really.
craig7120 May 18th, 2014 at 10:24
There were claims? LOL @ you….got proof? or must we believe your word that “claims” were made that D.C. & NYC would be under water by 2000? Why do you require less proof for your word than that over data explaining climate change?
Explaining algebra to a dog is easy, their comprehension is where the problem lies.
Sit!
Nobama May 18th, 2014 at 11:18
http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/washingtonpost_historical/doc/148085303.html?FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:AI&type=historic&date=washingtonpost+%2C+&author=By+Victor+Cohn%3B+Washington+Post+Staff+Writer&pub=The+Washington+Post%2C+Times+Herald+%281959-1973%29&desc=U.S.+Scientist+Sees+New+Ice+Age+Coming&pqatl=top_retrievesA NASA scientist’s wisdom hahahaha
craig7120 May 18th, 2014 at 12:47
Did you even bother to read that tiny paragragh? D.C. & NCY underwater? I didn’t read that anywhere, you’re not one to be taken serious.
Next!
arc99 May 17th, 2014 at 09:51
I no longer care whether skeptics buy it or not. Skeptics are are a distinct minority. As each prediction of the climate scientists comes true (rising sea levels, drought, and more severe summer AND winter storms), skeptics will always have some explanation about why the phenomenon predicted years ago are now happening.
It is a waste of time to try to change the minds of those whose hatred of liberals and Al Gore clouds their ability to logic and reason.
What climate scientists have told us would happen for the past 10-20 years is happening. So who am I going to believe, right wing spin or my own lying eyes?
Nobama May 17th, 2014 at 11:16
Here we had significant snow twice in 6 years with average winter temps. No record heat in the summers recently either. There were a few years in the late 70s and early 80s of hot summers but nothing severe recently. Sure we had some effects of the hurricane that hit New Jersey and New York but nothing significant on the east coast for decades prior. How many Hurricanes has Florida had lately? Wind and ocean currents determine the path of hurricanes unless there is new information I missed out on. If I remember correctly wind currents caused warm water to come from the bottom of the ocean and melt ice that was reported recently. How would global warming determine wind activity?
arc99 May 17th, 2014 at 11:34
I think I mentioned earlier, I am not a climate scientist. I have given up changing the minds of skeptics. The scientific information, including hurricane research is out there should you choose to avail yourself of it. And it comes not from leftist blogs but from NASA and NOAA.
Ignore it as you so desire. Or maybe, just maybe if you spend some time reviewing the material instead of demanding that laymen like me interpret years of complex research, your questions would be answered.
Nobama May 17th, 2014 at 19:57
I read up a bit on the NASA article but also looked at this from Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2014/05/16/record-polar-ice-extent-debunks-antarctic-global-warming-scare/
arc99 May 18th, 2014 at 12:16
the author of the Forbes article is an attorney with no scientific background. the author works for the Heartland Institute which among its many accomplishments, dismissed the research into the connection between cigarette smoking and cancer as “junk science” got it.
so using your logic in quoting Mr. Taylor, next time I have a medical problem, I will contact my auto mechanic immediately;
Chinese Democracy May 18th, 2014 at 21:32
you dont have to be be a climatologist to realize that the cooling or warming of the oceans due to whatever factor can change the jet stream .. or as you call it wind
arc99 May 17th, 2014 at 10:06
Tell these folks that you don’t buy it.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/alaskan-village-vanish-water-decade-scientists-article-1.1412920
Climate change will cause Alaskan village to vanish under water within 10 years:
For years, the Iñupiat people have relied on a thick build-up of Arctic ice to protect their shores from erosion and storms. But as temperatures climb, the ice is forming later and melting earlier, according to scientist Christine Shearer, author of “Kivalina: A Climate Change Story.”
craig7120 May 16th, 2014 at 10:20
So who told you that there was global warming 10, 000 years ago? Is it a hunch? Are you going to argue that you were around 10, 000 years ago?
For argument sake, lets say you believe what someone told you there was climate change 10,000 years ago, was that someone your brother in law or a scientist? If scientist, what creditability does your scientist have over the 98% of the others in their field who disagree?
When searching for a doctor or dentist do you use the same type of screening method?
I’m beginning to jump on board with the gop and their strict voter ID laws, but change it to, must be science literate. Stooopid people need to just stand aside when important issues such as the continuation of our species is at stake.
Dwendt44 May 25th, 2014 at 00:03
If you eliminate the science illiterate, you do away with most of the Republican voters.
raincheck December 19th, 2014 at 09:55
“Stooopid people need to just stand aside when important issues such as the continuation of our species is at stake”
hahaha I just love that statement! It would sure help matters if they did.
I think all of the “deniers” should be, relocated…. right on the coast… as close to the water as possible
BanditBasheert May 15th, 2014 at 18:26
We’re going to have waterfront property when all this happens!! No more California in the way.
arc99 May 15th, 2014 at 13:08
This story from the Washington DC area speaks for itself. Natural forces are at work. But clearly man-made factors are exacerbating the problem. What will be the right wing response when their coastal homes are underwater?
Benghazi?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/24/AR2010102402996_2.html?sid=ST2010110800183
Last house on sinking Chesapeake Bay island collapses
John Tarter May 15th, 2014 at 13:15
Clearly man made factors are not exacerbating anything. Please explain what caused “global warming” 10,000 years ago?
mea_mark May 15th, 2014 at 13:25
Clearly, man made factors are exacerbating the problem. You just don’t want to recognize it. The question is, why?
BanditBasheert May 15th, 2014 at 18:27
Benghazi!!!!!!
arc99 May 15th, 2014 at 20:24
why indeed? why do they guffaw and make stupid jokes about blizzards being “proof” that it is all a hoax, when the fact is that the best available science has been predicting for years that in certain instances, the changes in our climate will produce more extreme WINTER weather. just one example here published five friggin years ago , page 38
http://downloads.globalchange.gov/usimpacts/pdfs/climate-impacts-report.pdf
The maximum seasonal coverage of Great Lakes ice decreased at a rate of 8.4 percent per decade from 1973 through 2008, amounting to a roughly 30 percent decrease in ice coverage (see Midwest region). This has created conditions conducive to greater evaporation of moisture and thus ***heavier snowstorms***.
arc99 May 15th, 2014 at 13:44
I am not a climate scientist. By the same token, I am not an aeronautical engineer, but I do believe that machines weighing hundreds of tons can fly. The information I use to form my opinions is based on the consensus of the best scholars in the field.
This is a portal to any number of materials explaining the SCIENCE.
If you want to cast your lot with the 3% of scientists who disagree with this consensus, you go right ahead and I trust you will make similar demands on that 3% to substantiate their conclusions as well.
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence
Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities, and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.
Roctuna May 15th, 2014 at 14:16
The relationship between CO2 and atmospheric warming, aka the “greenhouse effect” is not disputed science by anyone, anywhere. It’s well established and proven. The last time we saw CO2 content in the atmosphere over 400ppm (as it is now) was in the Cretaceous period and it was much, much warmer than now. The poles were ice free and there were dinosaurs in Antarctica. Scientists can demonstrate that in the past these changes in CO2 content took place over thousands or tens of thousands of years and flora/fauna had time to adapt. The rate of change is at the root of the problem. Mankind has altered the atmosphere on a similar scale but accomplished it in decades. No one knows for certain the unintended consequences of such a rapid change but the fact that the atmosphere is warming and will continue to warm is not open to debate. We’ve been measuring the change for decades. Are you going to believe thousands of thermometers and temp readings or faux news? The fact that it was warmer in the past, prior to the industrial age, is irrelevant to the discussion of climate change today, as conditions are vastly different today.
BanditBasheert May 15th, 2014 at 18:29
Your first sentence is an untruth.
Just because you deny something, doesn’t make you right. I’ll take science over “the stupid” anytime.
Science can be proven.
Religious dogma cannot.
Oblowz May 16th, 2014 at 09:29
I agree. The WaPo article stated the islands have been sinking since around 1910. What did man do to cause that? The article also explains why the whole area around the bay is gradually sinking.
Roctuna May 16th, 2014 at 18:08
Clearly the writer of the WaPo article talked to some scientists to get the explanation and he did a good job of explaining crustal rebound and sea level rise in laymans terms. I’m curious as to why you accept the scientific explanation for crustal adjustment but not the scientific explanation for the sea level rise? There’s two processes at work here. BTW, 1910 is when the island was abandoned, not when it began sinking. The combination of subsidence and sea level rise made it uninhabitable in 1910
Oblowz May 17th, 2014 at 09:07
I have lived on the Chesapeake Bay and the Severn River for 50 of my 58 years. No one including myself have seen any measurable rise in the water here. Note the article PREDICTED there would be cities underwater in the future. Other articles use terms of “may or possible or likely”? I have seen articles ranging from 8 inches to a 4 foot rise with not any real forecast as to when it will happen. Einstein had a prediction or two that were proven to not be true years later. It was predicted that man would never reach the moon. Scientists stated long ago it was physically impossible for a man to break the 4 minute mile running. Science is an idea that is studied and researched often resulting in different opinions. Global warming changes to climate change changes to climate disruption? What will it be called next? I just don’t buy it.
Roctuna May 17th, 2014 at 09:51
When islands are disappearing right in front of you, yet you haven’t seen “any measurable rise in the water here” what else is there to say? Chesapeake Bay isn’t the only place on the water. What you may or may not observe there, doesn’t mean sea level isn’t rising elsewhere, and is being scientifically documented.
Oblowz May 17th, 2014 at 10:44
The Chesapeake Bay goes directly to the Atlantic Ocean so I would say if there was a rise in the sea level it would also occur inthe bay. Does water seek its own level? Yes and for that matter a water level [ a construction tool]
was used for centuries until transit and laser levels were invented. Assateague and Chincoteague Islands are not sounding any alarms yet and they are where the bay meets the ocean. Our governor never misses an opportunity to exploit a crisis either and he would be all over the media about it.
arc99 May 17th, 2014 at 11:03
Your presumptions notwithstanding, the science indicates that Assateague will also be facing challenges in about 70 – 80 years if things continue. page 23.
http://www.rockymountainclimate.org/images/AtlanticSeashoresLow.pdf
In 2009, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in charge
of Chincoteague NWR, which overlays the southern part
of Assateague Island NS, used a modeling program (Sea
Level Affecting Marshes Model, or SLAMM) to project
the ecosystem effects of sea-level rise on Assateague
Island.109 When the refuge manager got the results, “It
hit me like a ton of bricks and took my breath away,” he
said.110 No wonder—as the FWS has summarized it, what
the model predicts is:
nothing less than a wholesale transformation of the
refuge. Vast swaths of wetlands, and the precious
shorebird habitats contained within, would likely be
radically altered—or even under water—in 2100.
According to the model, rising sea levels over the next
100 years will flood coastal marshlands and transform
inland habitats at Chincoteague NWR—producing a
cascade effect on the refuge’s habitats.111
Oblowz May 17th, 2014 at 11:38
A projection is not absolute fact. The model is based on what info is available. Back in 1970 there were claims that D.C. and NYC would be underwater by the year 2000 and we were heading towards a mini ice age. So we stop burning coal as Germany, India and China are building coal fired power plants at a record pace will it make a difference?
Roctuna May 18th, 2014 at 09:12
I’ll take one more run at you. If you don’t find these compelling, at least Arc99 and others will appreciate them:
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/indicators/oceans/sea-level.html
http://www.ucsusa.org/science_and_impacts/impacts/causes-of-sea-level-rise.htmlI
I don’t how else to convince you that the science is definitive, from many perspectives. This denial craze is dangerous to the country.
Oblowz May 18th, 2014 at 11:40
Look above for a link to a NASA airhead’s claim.
arc99 May 18th, 2014 at 11:56
of course, you will provide references to where 97% of the experts in the field agreed with this prediction. you will also I presume provide references to the peer review process of the research which led to the conclusion.
attempting to discredit an entire organization of industry experts by the decades-old mistake of one person is not a convincing argument.
as I said, believe the 3% to your heart’s content. believe whatever you want. I am done trying to change minds on the issue. it is like the birth certificate nonsense. no amount of proof will ever be satisfactory.
Roctuna May 18th, 2014 at 16:15
I’ve mentioned on LL before that I sailed on a research ship in the Pacific in 1982. As late as that, the best models available (extremely crude by today”s standards) predicted near-future cooling. That was because the models were driven by what we knew about Northern Hemisphere glacial cycles. So it wasn’t a mistake to make that prediction at that time. The data sets today are orders of magnitude larger and cover many more climate proxies. The deniers struggle with the uncertainties of scientific advancement. I believe that’s because they prefer to let an authority figure tell them what to think.
arc99 May 18th, 2014 at 12:05
since you decide to propagate a 40+ year old prediction that was not accurate, I thought it worth repeating a prediction that is quite accurate . refer to page 38
http://downloads.globalchange.gov/usimpacts/pdfs/climate-impacts-report.pdf
The maximum seasonal coverage of Great Lakes ice decreased at a rate of 8.4 percent per decade from 1973 through 2008, amounting to a roughly 30 percent decrease in ice coverage (see Midwest region). This has created conditions conducive to greater evaporation of moisture and thus ***heavier snowstorms***.
Oblowz May 18th, 2014 at 12:29
http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/nearly-frozen-lake-superior-ma/23439393 It happens every 15 or 20 years
arc99 May 18th, 2014 at 12:49
my reference was to point out the intellectual dishonesty of right wing pundits, politicians and other unskilled skeptics who would have us believe that harsher winter storms are proof that global warming is a hoax.
quite the opposite is true. harsher winter storms have been part of the forecast for years. I provided one example.
but it is a convenient argument for the skeptics. on the one hand argue that predictions are not facts.. yet when the predictions come true, claim it does not matter. talk about covering both sides… again not at all a convincing counter-argument, but convenient. I give you that…
Oblowz May 18th, 2014 at 21:20
“Harsher winter storms have been part of the forecast for years. So when the forecast finally comes true after years it is global warming to blame.You say if winter is cold and harsh that is because of global warming but if the winter is warm it’s also the result of global warming? Let me sleep on that one when and if I can stop laughing!
arc99 May 18th, 2014 at 22:17
well since I am laughing at your position that when the predictions do not come true it is proof that global warming is not real, and when the predictions do come true, it is still proof that global warming is not real, I suppose we are both enjoying a good chuckle.
Oblowz May 19th, 2014 at 09:34
I like this global warming thing. It might even hit 70 today. Quiet too. No one has their AC on yet. Do we know what will happen next week, next month or next year? Not really.
craig7120 May 18th, 2014 at 10:24
There were claims? LOL @ you….got proof? or must we believe your word that “claims” were made that D.C. & NYC would be under water by 2000? Why do you require less proof for your word than that over data explaining climate change?
Explaining algebra to a dog is easy, their comprehension is where the problem lies.
Sit!
Oblowz May 18th, 2014 at 11:18
http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/washingtonpost_historical/doc/148085303.html?FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:AI&type=historic&date=washingtonpost+%2C+&author=By+Victor+Cohn%3B+Washington+Post+Staff+Writer&pub=The+Washington+Post%2C+Times+Herald+%281959-1973%29&desc=U.S.+Scientist+Sees+New+Ice+Age+Coming&pqatl=top_retrievesA NASA scientist’s wisdom hahahaha
craig7120 May 18th, 2014 at 12:47
Did you even bother to read that tiny paragragh? D.C. & NCY underwater? I didn’t read that anywhere, you’re not one to be taken serious.
Next!
arc99 May 17th, 2014 at 09:51
I no longer care whether skeptics buy it or not. Skeptics are are a distinct minority. As each prediction of the climate scientists comes true (rising sea levels, drought, and more severe summer AND winter storms), skeptics will always have some explanation about why the predictions they scoffed at are now happening.
It is a waste of time to try to change the minds of those whose hatred of liberals and Al Gore clouds their ability to logic and reason.
What climate scientists have told us would happen for the past 10-20 years is happening. So who am I going to believe, right wing spin or my own lying eyes?
Oblowz May 17th, 2014 at 11:16
Here we had significant snow twice in 6 years with average winter temps. No record heat in the summers recently either. There were a few years in the late 70s and early 80s of hot summers but nothing severe recently. Sure we had some effects of the hurricane that hit New Jersey and New York but nothing significant on the east coast for decades prior. How many Hurricanes has Florida had lately? Wind and ocean currents determine the path of hurricanes unless there is new information I missed out on. If I remember correctly wind currents caused warm water to come from the bottom of the ocean and melt ice that was reported recently. How would global warming determine wind activity?
arc99 May 17th, 2014 at 11:34
I think I mentioned earlier, I am not a climate scientist. I have given up changing the minds of skeptics. The scientific information, including hurricane research is out there should you choose to avail yourself of it. And it comes not from leftist blogs but from NASA and NOAA.
Ignore it as you so desire. Or maybe, just maybe if you spend some time reviewing the material instead of demanding that laymen like me interpret years of complex research, your questions would be answered.
Oblowz May 17th, 2014 at 19:57
I read up a bit on the NASA article but also looked at this from Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2014/05/16/record-polar-ice-extent-debunks-antarctic-global-warming-scare/
arc99 May 18th, 2014 at 12:16
the author of the Forbes article is an attorney with no scientific background. the author works for the Heartland Institute which among its many accomplishments, dismissed the research into the connection between cigarette smoking and cancer as “junk science” got it.
so using your logic in quoting Mr. Taylor, next time I have a medical problem, I will contact my auto mechanic immediately;
Chinese Democracy May 18th, 2014 at 21:32
you dont have to be be a climatologist to realize that the cooling or warming of the oceans due to whatever factor can change the jet stream .. or as you call it wind
arc99 May 17th, 2014 at 10:06
Tell these folks that you don’t buy it.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/alaskan-village-vanish-water-decade-scientists-article-1.1412920
Climate change will cause Alaskan village to vanish under water within 10 years:
For years, the Iñupiat people have relied on a thick build-up of Arctic ice to protect their shores from erosion and storms. But as temperatures climb, the ice is forming later and melting earlier, according to scientist Christine Shearer, author of “Kivalina: A Climate Change Story.”
craig7120 May 16th, 2014 at 10:20
So who told you that there was global warming 10, 000 years ago? Is it a hunch? Are you going to argue that you were around 10, 000 years ago?
For argument sake, lets say you believe what someone told you there was climate change 10,000 years ago, was that someone your brother in law or a scientist? If scientist, what creditability does your scientist have over the 98% of the others in their field who disagree?
When searching for a doctor or dentist do you use the same type of screening method?
I’m beginning to jump on board with the gop and their strict voter ID laws, but change it to, must be science literate. Stooopid people need to just stand aside when important issues such as the continuation of our species is at stake.
Dwendt44 May 25th, 2014 at 00:03
If you eliminate the science illiterate, you do away with most of the Republican voters.
raincheck December 19th, 2014 at 10:55
“Stooopid people need to just stand aside when important issues such as the continuation of our species is at stake”
hahaha I just love that statement! It would sure help matters if they did.
I think all of the “deniers” should be, relocated…. right on the coast… as close to the water as possible
BanditBasheert May 15th, 2014 at 18:26
We’re going to have waterfront property when all this happens!! No more California in the way.
Avory † Blonde May 15th, 2014 at 13:09
Stuart, if you’re really so worried about Antarctic ice melting, then please answer a couple of questions:
1. Why is Antarctic sea ice currently at an all-time high since satellite measurements began? http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.recent.antarctic.png
2. Why are satellite-measured temperatures of the Antarctic trending downwards? ftp://ftp.ssmi.com/msu/graphics/tlt/plots/rss_ts_channel_tlt_southern%20polar_land_and_sea_v03_3.png
mea_mark May 15th, 2014 at 13:23
It could be that the ice is no longer on land, it has slid quicker than normal off the land and is now in the water where it melts a lot faster raising the ocean levels. More sea ice can be bad.
BanditBasheert May 15th, 2014 at 18:25
Well said. And true.
Avory † Blonde May 24th, 2014 at 23:21
If something is floating in the ocean, unsupported by anything other than the water, then that object displaces its weight in water. When the ice melts, it does not raise the ocean level at all.
Obewon May 25th, 2014 at 00:23
Furthermore since 2010 the ESA’s CryoSat-2 increases the observable antarctic ice sheet area by +500%: “In sharp contrast to previous altimeter missions, CryoSat-2 surveys virtually the entire Antarctic continent, reaching to within 135 miles (215 kilometres) of the South Pole. This has enabled a fivefold increase in the sampling of coastal regions where today’s ice losses are concentrated.” http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2635170/Antarctic-ice-losses-doubled-159-GIGATONNES-thats-430-000-Empire-State-Buildings-year-satellite-reveals.html
raincheck December 19th, 2014 at 09:49
“it has slid quicker than normal off the land and is now in the water”
You seem to have conveniently left this part out… or do you have trouble remembering, from one sentence to the next?
Roctuna May 15th, 2014 at 14:03
I did graduate research in Antarctica so I hope you’d consider me a credible source but mea_mark gave you the correct answer. There are land-borne ice sheets and over water they form ice shelves. The ice shelves used to freeze to the sea floor each winter and advanced slowly during the Antarctic summers when they were floating. They advance because they are pushed by the ice sheets sliding off the highlands of West Antarctica. We have more sea ice now because the ice shelves no longer freeze to the bottom in the winter and are being pushed year round, and more quickly, by the ice sheets. Increased wind velocity around Antarctica helps break up and disperse the ice shelves more quickly which also make it easier for the ice sheets to push out more.
Avory † Blonde May 24th, 2014 at 23:18
It would be quite difficult for the ice breaking off from the West Antarctic sheets to make their way all the way around the continent. And I am surprised you conclude the ice in the first chart I posted comes from that source. As you can see from the graph, the sea ice ranges from 16 million square kilometers in the Antarctic winter to a low of about 3 million in the summer. Most of that ice is being formed as the sea freezes in the winter and thaws in the summer. See the following Univ of Illinois Arctic Climate Research Center map:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/NEWIMAGES/antarctic.seaice.color.000.png
Avory † Blonde May 24th, 2014 at 23:31
The West Antarctic Ice Sheet has been slowing and steadily sliding into the ocean since the end of the last glacial period of the Pleistocene ice age. Approx 11,000 years. That’s what glaciers do. They are rivers of ice that slowly flow from high elevation to lower elevation, and if the path is clear, to the ocean. What we are seeing with the WAIS is simply the slow, delayed recession from the end of the glacial period. Since the Antarctic is the coldest place on earth, that recession has happened more slowly there than anywhere else. Since the sea ice has reached a maximum and Antarctic temperatures are trending downwards, there is no reason to fear the melting of the WAIS will accelerate.
Obewon May 25th, 2014 at 00:14
Avory. Your Chart is fictional and doesn’t show the doubling in Antarctic Ice sheet losses e.g. “Between 2010 and 2013, West Antarctica, East Antarctica and the Antarctic Peninsula lost 134, 3 and 23 billion tonnes of ice each year, respectively.”-ESA 19 May 2014 Three years of observations from ESA’s CryoSat satellite show that the Antarctic ice sheet is now losing 159 billion tonnes of ice each year – twice as much as when it was last surveyed! http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Observing_the_Earth/CryoSat/CryoSat_finds_sharp_increase_in_Antarctica_s_ice_losses
Avory † Blonde May 15th, 2014 at 13:09
Stuart, if you’re really so worried about Antarctic ice melting, then please answer a couple of questions:
1. Why is Antarctic sea ice currently at an all-time high since satellite measurements began? http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.recent.antarctic.png
2. Why are satellite-measured temperatures of the Antarctic trending downwards? ftp://ftp.ssmi.com/msu/graphics/tlt/plots/rss_ts_channel_tlt_southern%20polar_land_and_sea_v03_3.png
mea_mark May 15th, 2014 at 13:23
It could be that the ice is no longer on land, it has slid quicker than normal off the land and is now in the water where it melts a lot faster raising the ocean levels. More sea ice can be bad.
BanditBasheert May 15th, 2014 at 18:25
Well said. And true.
Avory † Blonde May 24th, 2014 at 23:21
If something is floating in the ocean, unsupported by anything other than the water, then that object displaces its weight in water. When the ice melts, it does not raise the ocean level at all.
Obewon May 25th, 2014 at 00:23
Furthermore since 2010 the ESA’s CryoSat-2 increases the observable antarctic ice sheet area by +500%: “In sharp contrast to previous altimeter missions, CryoSat-2 surveys virtually the entire Antarctic continent, reaching to within 135 miles (215 kilometres) of the South Pole. This has enabled a fivefold increase in the sampling of coastal regions where today’s ice losses are concentrated.”-Via ESA. Antarctic ice melt has doubled to 159 GIGATONNES (that’s 430,000 Empire State Buildings) a year since 2010, New 2010 ESA satellite reveals. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2635170/Antarctic-ice-losses-doubled-159-GIGATONNES-thats-430-000-Empire-State-Buildings-year-satellite-reveals.html
raincheck December 19th, 2014 at 10:49
“it has slid quicker than normal off the land and is now in the water”
You seem to have conveniently left this part out… or do you have trouble remembering, from one sentence to the next?
Roctuna May 15th, 2014 at 14:03
I did graduate research in Antarctica so I hope you’d consider me a credible source but mea_mark gave you the correct answer. There are land-borne ice sheets and over water they form ice shelves. The ice shelves used to freeze to the sea floor each winter and advanced slowly during the Antarctic summers when they were floating. They advance because they are pushed by the ice sheets sliding off the highlands of West Antarctica. We have more sea ice now because the ice shelves no longer freeze to the bottom in the winter and are being pushed year round, and more quickly, by the ice sheets. Increased wind velocity around Antarctica helps break up and disperse the ice shelves more quickly which also make it easier for the ice sheets to push out more.
Avory † Blonde May 24th, 2014 at 23:18
It would be quite difficult for the ice breaking off from the West Antarctic sheets to make their way all the way around the continent. And I am surprised you conclude the ice in the first chart I posted comes from that source. As you can see from the graph, the sea ice ranges from 16 million square kilometers in the Antarctic winter to a low of about 3 million in the summer. Most of that ice is being formed as the sea freezes in the winter and thaws in the summer. See the following Univ of Illinois Arctic Climate Research Center map:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/NEWIMAGES/antarctic.seaice.color.000.png
Avory † Blonde May 24th, 2014 at 23:31
The West Antarctic Ice Sheet has been slowing and steadily sliding into the ocean since the end of the last glacial period of the Pleistocene ice age. Approx 11,000 years. That’s what glaciers do. They are rivers of ice that slowly flow from high elevation to lower elevation, and if the path is clear, to the ocean. What we are seeing with the WAIS is simply the slow, delayed recession from the end of the glacial period. Since the Antarctic is the coldest place on earth, that recession has happened more slowly there than anywhere else. Since the sea ice has reached a maximum and Antarctic temperatures are trending downwards, there is no reason to fear the melting of the WAIS will accelerate.
Obewon May 25th, 2014 at 00:14
Avory. Your Chart is fictional in that it doesn’t show volume declines, or the doubling in Antarctic Ice sheet losses e.g. “Between 2010 and 2013, West Antarctica, East Antarctica and the Antarctic Peninsula lost 134, 3 and 23 billion tonnes of ice each year, respectively.”-ESA 19 May 2014 Three years of observations from ESA’s CryoSat satellite show that the Antarctic ice sheet is now losing 159 billion tonnes of ice each year – twice as much as when it was last surveyed! http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Observing_the_Earth/CryoSat/CryoSat_finds_sharp_increase_in_Antarctica_s_ice_losses
fancypants May 15th, 2014 at 17:21
Back in the 1980s we researched and found the ozone layer had a hole big enough to fit any American skyscraper in it sideways and today your witnessing its long term results.
Science Dictionary
ozone layer
A region of the upper atmosphere containing relatively high levels of ozone, located mostly within the stratosphere, with the greatest concentrations occurring from about 15 to 30 km (10 to 19 mi) above the Earth’s surface. The ozone absorbs large amounts of solar ultraviolet radiation, preventing it from reaching the Earth’s surface. The concentration of ozone in the ozone layer is usually under 10 parts per million. Also called ozonosphere .
BanditBasheert May 15th, 2014 at 18:24
Psssst. Neocons and Republicans don’t believe in science of any kind.
fancypants May 15th, 2014 at 18:59
you don’t have to believe. All you have to do is start from the 80s and look at weather reports up to today.
mea_mark May 15th, 2014 at 20:08
And therein lies the problem, GOPers don’t want to look.
fancypants May 15th, 2014 at 17:21
Back in the 1980s we researched and found the ozone layer had a hole big enough to fit any American skyscraper in it sideways and today your witnessing its long term results.
Science Dictionary
ozone layer
A region of the upper atmosphere containing relatively high levels of ozone, located mostly within the stratosphere, with the greatest concentrations occurring from about 15 to 30 km (10 to 19 mi) above the Earth’s surface. The ozone absorbs large amounts of solar ultraviolet radiation, preventing it from reaching the Earth’s surface. The concentration of ozone in the ozone layer is usually under 10 parts per million. Also called ozonosphere .
BanditBasheert May 15th, 2014 at 18:24
Psssst. Neocons and Republicans don’t believe in science of any kind.
fancypants May 15th, 2014 at 18:59
you don’t have to believe. All you have to do is start from the 80s and look at weather reports up to today.
mea_mark May 15th, 2014 at 20:08
And therein lies the problem, GOPers don’t want to look.
JeffreyPtr May 16th, 2014 at 10:23
What can actually be done and how much will it cost? It’s not enough to say stop burning fossil fuels when there is nothing today that can replace that energy source.
The Lochnar May 23rd, 2014 at 13:37
http://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=kp&v=uK367T7h6ZY
JeffreyPtr May 23rd, 2014 at 16:25
He’s talking about a technology that is not yet ready to implement. There are technologic hurdles to be overcome before you could begin to think about building enough reactors to replace coal and oil generated power.
The Lochnar May 25th, 2014 at 05:08
Yes – there are hurdles but not nearly the level of difficulty as the NIF fusion reactor hopeful. Fusion would be the best but it is still a long ways off as no continuos operate fusion reactor has been demonstrated. China and India are both working on their own thorium based designs. The LFTR design has so many appealing attributes in the areas of safety and waste production that it should be put on the fast track.
Chinese Democracy May 25th, 2014 at 01:54
great video . I love the TED talks
Chinese Democracy May 25th, 2014 at 01:51
scrubbers on smoke stacks that conservatives say cost to much ( but they say EVERYTHING costs to much unless its going in their pocket)
Much much greater investment in a combination of alternative energy solutions.
Stop playing games. Conservatives and their backers view alternative energy as a threat to their pocket book. Time to get them to grow a pair.
I agree enough saying . Time for more doing
JeffreyPtr May 16th, 2014 at 10:23
What can actually be done and how much will it cost? It’s not enough to say stop burning fossil fuels when there is nothing today that can replace that energy source.
The Lochnar May 23rd, 2014 at 13:37
http://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=kp&v=uK367T7h6ZY
JeffreyPtr May 23rd, 2014 at 16:25
He’s talking about a technology that is not yet ready to implement. There are technologic hurdles to be overcome before you could begin to think about building enough reactors to replace coal and oil generated power.
The Lochnar May 25th, 2014 at 05:08
Yes – there are hurdles but not nearly the level of difficulty as the NIF fusion reactor hopeful. Fusion would be the best but it is still a long ways off as no continuos operate fusion reactor has been demonstrated. China and India are both working on their own thorium based designs. The LFTR design has so many appealing attributes in the areas of safety and waste production that it should be put on the fast track.
Chinese Democracy May 25th, 2014 at 01:54
great video . I love the TED talks
Chinese Democracy May 25th, 2014 at 01:51
scrubbers on smoke stacks that conservatives say cost to much ( but they say EVERYTHING costs to much unless its going in their pocket)
Much much greater investment in a combination of alternative energy solutions.
Stop playing games. Conservatives and their backers view alternative energy as a threat to their pocket book. Time to get them to grow a pair.
I agree enough saying . Time for more doing