Climate Change is here and man made

[Damocles]

I agree with 1 and 2. Number 3 fails to take into consideration numerous other factors from the arguments that I've seen.

I'd invited your own calculation on that then. Assume your parameters. I won't even ask why. All I'll do is compare them to current rates from Greenland.

I've just explained things that the arguments I've seen for your figure didn't take into effect? Maybe it's easier if you provide your own argument then I can argue against it rather than the opposite

 

[Skashion]

I've just explained things that the arguments I've seen for your figure didn't take into effect? Maybe it's easier if you provide your own argument then I can argue against it rather than the opposite

You want me to do the maths?

 

[Skashion]

East Antarctic Ice Sheet ~ 30,000,000 KM^3 of ice.
Each Km^3 = 0.9 Gt.

Current loss from Greenland ~ 300 Gt p/a

IF East Antarctic lost mass at current rate of Greenland = 90,000 years.
So, if it lost ice ten times as fast, it would be 9,000 years.
A hundred times as fast, 900 years.

My conservative estimate of at least a few thousand years (3,000 years), 30 times as fast as Greenland currently is.

So,even assuming my ultra-conservative calculation, as far as I'm concerned, is that the Eastern Antarctic ice sheet, will loss mass at 30 times the rate Greenland is despite actually GAINING mass at the moment, it will take 3,000 years for 60m of sea level rise.

Damocles is now going to tell you why the East Antarctic ice sheet, will melt MORE than 30 times as fast as Greenland, when it's currently gaining mass.

 

[Damocles]

No, Damocles will point out for maybe the fourth time that warming in that region is a logarithmic phenomena and ask his friend Skashion what will happen to the EA ice mass if the WA ice mass continues with its current melting.

EDIT: I'd also like to point out that EA isn't gaining mass on a longitudinal scale, it seems stable on 10+ year graphs but it had a good years in 2005/09 which is where the "Gaining mass" idea comes from, but I've chosen not to argue this as it's irrelevant to the overall point

 

[hilts]

East Antarctic Ice Sheet ~ 30,000,000 KM^3 of ice.
Each Km^3 = 0.9 Gt.

Current loss from Greenland ~ 300 Gt p/a

IF East Antarctic lost mass at current rate of Greenland = 90,000 years.
So, if it lost ice ten times as fast, it would be 9,000 years.
A hundred times as fast, 900 years.

My conservative estimate of at least a few thousand years (3,000 years), 30 times as fast as Greenland currently is.

So,even assuming my ultra-conservative calculation, as far as I'm concerned, is that the Eastern Antarctic ice sheet, will loss mass at 30 times the rate Greenland is despite actually GAINING mass at the moment, it will take 3,000 years for 60m of sea level rise.

Damocles is now going to tell you why the East Antarctic ice sheet, will melt MORE than 30 times as fast as Greenland, when it's currently gaining mass.

Surely someone has argued this point? why do most scientists believe there is great cause for concern? if us plebs can't trust the majority of scientists how would we come to any sort of conclusion?

 

[Damocles]

Surely someone has argued this point? why do most scientists believe there is great cause for concern? if us plebs can't trust the majority of scientists how would we come to any sort of conclusion?

Because climate scientists look at the big picture and don't focus on a very narrow subsection of it. Again, the scientific consensus on climate change is absolutely clear, something everybody seems to be dodging.

 

[BoyBlue_1985]

Surely someone has argued this point? why do most scientists believe there is great cause for concern? if us plebs can't trust the majority of scientists how would we come to any sort of conclusion?

Because climate scientists look at the big picture and don't focus on a very narrow subsection of it. Again, the scientific consensus on climate change is absolutely clear, something everybody seems to be dodging.

the real reality is that if it does indeed exist there is jack all we can do about it so what doesnt everyone just accept that if it is happening then it will always stay happening. Well unless we just nuke all the new developing countries

 

[johnny on the spot]

Ric,

Put Damocles back in charge.

Thanks,

Bluemoon

 

[Skashion]

No, Damocles will point out for maybe the fourth time that warming in that region is a logarithmic phenomena

and ask his friend Skashion what will happen to the EA ice mass if the WA ice mass continues with its current melting.

Has there been logarithmic warming in that region? Particularly in the East Antarctic where I was under the impression that there was no trend or even a tiny amount of cooling. I should certainly love to see some evidence. I should also like to hear a reason why the logarithmic warming has not led to logarithmic ice loss. Surely that is very important.

I don't know, I'd like to hear more from you because I'm getting very little.

By the way, I found this interesting, but I'd like to see the full report, but NASA report ice gain across the Antarctic ice sheet as a whole: <a class="postlink" href="http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20120013495" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20120013495</a>

 

[BulgarianPride]

East Antarctic Ice Sheet ~ 30,000,000 KM^3 of ice.
Each Km^3 = 0.9 Gt.

Current loss from Greenland ~ 300 Gt p/a

IF East Antarctic lost mass at current rate of Greenland = 90,000 years.
So, if it lost ice ten times as fast, it would be 9,000 years.
A hundred times as fast, 900 years.

My conservative estimate of at least a few thousand years (3,000 years), 30 times as fast as Greenland currently is.

So,even assuming my ultra-conservative calculation, as far as I'm concerned, is that the Eastern Antarctic ice sheet, will loss mass at 30 times the rate Greenland is despite actually GAINING mass at the moment, it will take 3,000 years for 60m of sea level rise.

Damocles is now going to tell you why the East Antarctic ice sheet, will melt MORE than 30 times as fast as Greenland, when it's currently gaining mass.

The problem with this is the simplicity. The environment is a dynamic system, what you have done is taken an average. It doesn't account of many factors that are not static. Knowing the current system output does not really tell us how the system will behave in the future. We can apply an average like you've done, but in most cases this is a bad estimate. What we need is a better model.

I think a question we need to answer is "What is the steady state model of the earth?". We can be set into "chaos" by certain inputs ( us as an example), but higher order factors eventually put us back into the steady state. The steady state does no imply static, but it implies a natural order of the system. That is the system wants to reach this steady state over time. However if the inputs are so extreme, the system will break down and could be naturally unrecoverable. We obviously need a model ( mathematical equations, usually high order differential equations ) to try to predict what will happen. Current models don't predict a nice future, could that our model is not accurate, i.e driving factors over a long period of time.