Opinion 2 Questions about Global Warming

Prutfis said:
Siberia has a lot of permafrost. It's very bad that it's heating up. Release of methane etc.
I'll repeat, 250 billion metric tons every year of the Greenland iceshelf is melting and its accelerating. This causes rising sea levels but more importantly desalination. The major ocean currents will be effected and that's another major bummer.
You seem to already have determined what answers you want and cherrypick data that you clearly don't understand.
And we haven't even gone over the destruction of bio diversity yet. Another area that's looking pretty bleak
Click to expand...
Why is Greenland getting colder?
 
Bballfan123 said:
C3S_ESOTC2020_Arctic_Temperature_Fig1_branded.png

From this photo there seems to be a lot of warming in North Central Siberia. Not as much around the ACTUAL ice sheet, which is located in Greenland in the Northern Hemisphere. There is no ice sheet in North Central Siberia, there is sea ice but no actual miles-thick ice sheet. North Central Siberia IS warming rapidly, about that there is no doubt.

From that picture, so far, it seems like the actual ice sheet, located in Greenland, is not being affected AS MUCH.

From this photo I can see that there has been between -0.5 C to 1.5 C of warming. I personally think that the ice sheets are far more resilient than we believe them to be. I think they have their own micro-climate not replicated anywhere else in the world, as it would be incredibly difficult to model a miles-thick ice sheet. Nowhere else is going to behave the same. Sea ice won't behave the same as an ice sheet. Who knows, maybe in winter the increased snowfall rate from warmer water will offset the increased warming during summer from warmer air? I don't know. I'm just not as doom and gloom about the glaciers melting. I used to be, really looked at the data, and now not so much.

Can you admit that if you zoom in on the glacier you can see there is a negative temperature anomaly, colored in blue, in the central eastern portion of the island? Why is that happening? 2020 was one of the warmest years on record, there SHOULD NOT be a negative temperature anomaly over Greenland, located in the Arctic, which is the fastest warming region on Earth. But there is, and if you go back to other years it is always there. Why??? Very strange

I zoomed in on it here:
Click to expand...

That temperature anomaly in the North Atlantic by eastern Greenland is believed to be a result of slowing Trans Atlantic current.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/atlanti...owed-15-per-cent-since-mid-twentieth-century/

The net overall effect of the temperature change over Greenland shows ice loss, shown here:

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/ice-sheets/

273 Billion Metric Tons per year lost since 2002
 
Voodoo_Child906 said:
That temperature anomaly in the North Atlantic by eastern Greenland is believed to be a result of slowing Trans Atlantic current.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/atlanti...owed-15-per-cent-since-mid-twentieth-century/

The net overall effect of the temperature change over Greenland shows ice loss, shown here:

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/ice-sheets/

273 Billion Metric Tons per year lost since 2002
Click to expand...

That is for Greenland
Has lost ~273 Billion Metric Tons per year since 2002
That adds up to 273*20=5460 Billion Metric Tons (approx)

For Antarctica
Has lost ~151 Billion Metric Tons per year since 2002
Antarctic ice sheet is approx

24,380,000 gigatonnes

5460 / 24,380,000 = 0.000223954061 * 100 % = 0.000123872026 %

So in the last 20 years the Antarctic has lost 0.012 % of its mass. Antarctica has 99.988% of its mass compared to 2002. Even if the rate of loss increases sevenfold to 1,000 Billion metric tons per year (which seems to not be happening as the rate seems to be linear from the graphs on the NASA website) that would mean we would lose 20,000 Billion metric tons in the next two decades.

25,460 / 24,380,000 = 0.00104429861 * 100 = 0.1044 %

Which would put us at losing 0.1044 % of the mass. Which means we would have 99.8905% of the 2002 mass, in 2042. which seems reasonable. That is in a very very bad situation where the melting rate accelerates sevenfold.

If it stays at 151 Billion Metric Tons per year, in the year 2042 we will have
151 * 40 = 6,040 Billion Metric Tons lost

6,040 / 24,380,000 = 0.000247744053 * 100 = 0.02477 %

So 99.975 % of the 2002 mass will still be there in 2042. If the rate remains the same

EDIT: https://nsidc.org/learn/parts-cryosphere/ice-sheets/ice-sheet-quick-facts

Greenland ice sheet contains about 2.7 million cubic kilometers
At the current rate of change of 273 Billion

273*40=10920 Billion metric tons lost by 2042

10,920 / 2,700,000 = 0.00404444444 * 100 % = 0.4044
So 0.4044 % would be lost by 2042, compared to 2002.
99.5956% would remain. If we keep losing ice at the same rate (has been largely linear last 20 years according to those charts)

If the rate increases fourfold to 1,000 Billion metric tons per year, starting immediately, (a doomsday scenario) we would lose 273*20 + 1,000 * 20 = 25,460 Billion metric tons

25,460 / 2,700,000 = 0.00942962963 * 100 % = 0.9%
So we would have 99.1 % Mass remaining, by 2042. I think that gives us time.


That is somehow reassuring, even if it is exponentially increasing we have time to right the ship. I am not as doom and gloom as you
 
Last edited:
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddar...ns-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses

'A new NASA study says that an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is currently adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning glaciers.



The research challenges the conclusions of other studies, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) 2013 report, which says that Antarctica is overall losing land ice.



According to the new analysis of satellite data, the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001. That net gain slowed to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008.



“We’re essentially in agreement with other studies that show an increase in ice discharge in the Antarctic Peninsula and the Thwaites and Pine Island region of West Antarctica,” said Jay Zwally, a glaciologist with NASA Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, and lead author of the study, which was published on Oct. 30 in the Journal of Glaciology. “Our main disagreement is for East Antarctica and the interior of West Antarctica – there, we see an ice gain that exceeds the losses in the other areas.” Zwally added that his team “measured small height changes over large areas, as well as the large changes observed over smaller areas.”'
 
Bballfan123 said:
That is for Greenland
Has lost ~273 Billion Metric Tons per year since 2002
That adds up to 273*20=5460 Billion Metric Tons (approx)

For Antarctica
Has lost ~151 Billion Metric Tons per year since 2002
Antarctic ice sheet is approx

24,380,000 gigatonnes

5460 / 24,380,000 = 0.000223954061 * 100 % = 0.000123872026 %

So in the last 60 years the Antarctic has lost 0.012 % of its mass. Antarctica has 99.988% of its mass compared to 2002. Even if the rate of loss increases sevenfold to 1,000 Billion metric tons per year (which seems to not be happening as the rate seems to be linear from the graphs on the NASA website) that would mean we would lose 20,000 Billion metric tons in the next two decades.

25,460 / 24,380,000 = 0.00104429861 * 100 = 0.1044 %

Which would put us at losing 0.1044 % of the mass. Which means we would have 99.1% of the 2002 mass, in 2042. which seems reasonable. That is in a very very bad situation where the melting rate accelerates sevenfold.

If it stays at 151 Billion Metric Tons per year, in the year 2042 we will have
151 * 40 = 6,040 Billion Metric Tons lost

6,040 / 24,380,000 = 0.000247744053 * 100 = 0.02477 %

So 99.975 % of the 2002 mass will still be there in 2042. If the rate remains the same


That is reassuring, even if it is exponentially increasing we have time to right the ship. I am not as doom and gloom as you
Click to expand...

We were discussing Greenland and you said Greenland was getting colder. Overall it's getting warmer so I'm not sure what you were talking about?
 
Last edited:
dirtypablo said:
You're conflating a bunch of separate things. He was talking about the Greenland ice sheet mass, and its YEARLY change, and you're talking about the snow cover in a single month. Then, in your post you say winter sea ice - winter sea ice and snow cover aren't the same thing, and when it comes to sea ice the more important parameter is largely mass, not area.



https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1904242116#:~:text=The ice sheet gained 47,13.7 ± 1.1 mm SLR.

Not only that, but you're ignoring the larger trend that is clearly pointed out in your own article.



So, the total snow cover in the northern hemisphere is 376,000 square miles below the average, but you're pointing out that it is 30,000 square miles above the average in a specific location. That's a 10x total decrease over the increase you're pointing out.
Click to expand...
In a doomsday scenario the ice sheet is what needs to be saved. It is a hundred times bigger than all the sea ice combined. I think the information about the Greenland ice sheet is the most important, right now. Russia and Northern Europe are losing ice, the far larger amount concentrated in Greenland is what is concerning.
 
Bballfan123 said:
It's entirely possible that, say, summers will increase by 6C and winter will be colder by -4C (summer as in 6 months and winter the other 6 months, which is vaguely how Siberian weather works). Let's play easy mode and smooth out the data and that would indeed give a 2C increase in average temperature. And would give much hotter summers, and also paradoxically colder winters.

For reference, this year was the most snow cover in the northern hemisphere in the last 59 years. I believe BECAUSE of global warming. A 6C hotter summer would give hugely more amount of thermal energy in the Arctic ocean. When the cold season comes in October this leads to massive amounts of snow, which then causes a decrease in the winter temp. I am curious what the map will show after Russia's terrible 2023 winter.

References:
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/monthly-report/global-snow/202301
January 2023. Northern hemisphere ice is down almost 1 million square kilometers, but:

"The North America and Greenland snow cover extent was 17.66 million square kilometers (6.82 million square miles), which is 70,000 square kilometers (30,000 square miles) above the 1991-2020 average. This tied 1977 and 2019 as the 25th-largest snow cover extent for North America on record."

If we are getting colder why is the month ice coverage average 30,000 square miles above average? That's not a ton, but it's certainly not like the ice is vanishing before our eyes. The NOAA says ice coverage is above average. Good enough for me

https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3263/9/3/135
Northern Hemisphere Snow-Cover Trends (1967–2018): A Comparison between Climate Models and Observations

"quite different from the modelled predictions. Moreover, the observed trends for autumn and winter suggest a long-term increase, although these trends were not statistically significant. Possible explanations for the poor performance of the climate models are discussed."


https://www.severe-weather.eu/globa...-hemisphere-highest-56-years-winter-cold-rrc/
Snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere now Among the Highest in 56 years Increases the Likelihood of Cold Early Winter Forecast both in North America and Europe
From November 2022

This is on the first page of a Google search. Not some hare brained crackpot website.
Click to expand...
HA

ha!
 
heloder said:
Of course, but he seems to be insinuating that garbage in the oceans is pollution, whereas greenhouse gasses or other aerosol pollutants in the atmosphere are not.
Click to expand...

It's a, err, interesting take...
 
Siver! said:
It's a, err, interesting take...
Click to expand...
It's not new, though. Usually when I talk to Conservatives about climate change they pivot towards "well I think we should take care of the forests and hunt responsibly and clean up garbage", which is awesome, but also completely besides the point. Garbage sucks. It kills animals. It's ugly. It releases microplastics and chemicals into the environment. But it's not anywhere near a point where it's going to be remotely as catastrophic as climate change.

It's kind of like when you talk to them about renewable energy and they come back with "I read wind turbines kill tons of birds!" without mentioning the fact that fossil fuels kill vastly more.
 
Last edited:
Bballfan123 said:
2 questions about global warming I never quite understood

First off: the goal is to reduce global warming to 'less than 2C'. Currently we are at around 1.5C of warming I believe?

My question is how is 2C even 'that bad'? The Arctic is cold. Like really really cold. Around -20C in winter and 5C in summer, basically every day. There are parts that are even colder, some parts of Russian Siberia average below -40C in the winter for approx 6 months. 6 months of eternal freezing cold. How would a 2C increase to -38C cause any change at all? Seems like nothing really would happen. The only places that would see a noticeable effect would be like the east coast of U.S., where a 2C increase could bring some parts from a -1C average to a 1C average. Which would mean a lot less snow for some mild parts but the actual arctic and super cold regions would still stay super cold.
It was -89F in Yakutia earlier this winter, I don't see how bringing the temp up to approx -84F is going to cause any sort of difference. It's still fucking cold.

Second if the Arctic is warming faster than average what are the regions that are warming slower than average? I want to be able to play in snow 100 years from now and want to buy land in places that are more resilient.
Click to expand...
1. That's the average temperature over the entire planet. That's a fuck of a lot of atmosphere so to raise the whole thing by 1 degree represents a huge amount of energy. Since that huge amount of energy is not distributed uniformly, it causes severe damage.

2. If we keep adding CO2 to the atmosphere there may be no such thing.
 
People fear change and the powerful want to maintain the status quo.

That's all this is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Siver!
International UAE Host COP28 to Massively Increase Own Oil Production/Sales
Replies
14
Views
586
lsa
lsa

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,237,157
Messages
55,471,529
Members
174,787
Latest member
Biden's Diaper

Share this page

Back
Top