-
As of today ICMag has his own Discord server. In this Discord server you can chat, talk with eachother, listen to music, share stories and pictures...and much more. Join now and let's grow together! Join ICMag Discord here! More details in this thread here: here.
Have you looked at the North Pole lately?
- Thread starter igrowone
- Start date
No, DYOR 
Hahaha ok.
Nobody is going to give you any consideration if that's how you want to proceed.
Nobody is going to give you any consideration if that's how you want to proceed.
Some good news for a change
Some good news for a change
UBS Bank won’t fund new offshore Arctic oil, gas projects
A multinational investment bank will no longer support offshore drilling in the Arctic, a move that could affect future funding for oil and gas projects in Alaska
By The Associated Press
March 7, 2020, 1:57 PM
KENAI, Alaska -- A multinational investment bank has ended support for offshore drilling in the Arctic amid efforts to tackle climate change, a move that could affect future funding for oil and gas projects in Alaska, a newspaper said.
Switzerland-based UBS Bank joined several other investment companies in pulling funding and support for new offshore projects in the region, the Anchorage Daily News reported Friday.
The firm has “committed to no longer provide financing where the stated use of proceeds is for new offshore oil projects in the Arctic," the bank said in a statement.
Multiple U.S. banks including Wells Fargo & Company, Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase have also announced similar policy shifts stating they were no longer supporting new projects in the region.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/ubs-bank-wont-fund-offshore-arctic-oil-gas-69458793
Some good news for a change
UBS Bank won’t fund new offshore Arctic oil, gas projects
A multinational investment bank will no longer support offshore drilling in the Arctic, a move that could affect future funding for oil and gas projects in Alaska
By The Associated Press
March 7, 2020, 1:57 PM
KENAI, Alaska -- A multinational investment bank has ended support for offshore drilling in the Arctic amid efforts to tackle climate change, a move that could affect future funding for oil and gas projects in Alaska, a newspaper said.
Switzerland-based UBS Bank joined several other investment companies in pulling funding and support for new offshore projects in the region, the Anchorage Daily News reported Friday.
The firm has “committed to no longer provide financing where the stated use of proceeds is for new offshore oil projects in the Arctic," the bank said in a statement.
Multiple U.S. banks including Wells Fargo & Company, Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase have also announced similar policy shifts stating they were no longer supporting new projects in the region.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/ubs-bank-wont-fund-offshore-arctic-oil-gas-69458793
M
moose eater
There's 3 or 4 major banks, including Wells Fargo, JPMorgan-Chase, and another, who are refusing to invest in Arctic National Wildlife Refuge prospects for oil and gas, and/or off-shore drilling in the Arctic.
It's not lost on me that these folks are still investing in oil elsewhere, or that if there were a spill off-shore of the North Coast or Northwest Coast of Alaska, there's ZERO chance of a clean-up in those areas.
But it's not just sensitivity to PR issues and the perception of potential devastation created if there's an accident in bouncing sea ice with sometimes-outrageous winds.
Most/many/all of them are aware that at ~$50/bbl for crude, and the current oil coming from the N. Slope being undesirably high in sulfur, the COST of extracting oil or gas from the ANWR is less than profitable by the various mega-bank fraudsters' standards on Wall St.
Either way, with a current oil glut, no hopes of any meaningful cleanup in the conditions that exist in the coastal/sea ice areas up that way, etc., I'm about pleased as punch to see them backing away form the projects at hand.
Of some serious humor (for me, anyway), having jousted with the Oilies up here for many years, seeing the Major Oil Producers get a firm "No" from the fraudster banks on Wall St., is like watching 2 real assholes in the 'hood pummeling on each other; more cause to crack a beer, pull up a camp chair, and watch the festivities for a while. ;^>)
It's not lost on me that these folks are still investing in oil elsewhere, or that if there were a spill off-shore of the North Coast or Northwest Coast of Alaska, there's ZERO chance of a clean-up in those areas.
But it's not just sensitivity to PR issues and the perception of potential devastation created if there's an accident in bouncing sea ice with sometimes-outrageous winds.
Most/many/all of them are aware that at ~$50/bbl for crude, and the current oil coming from the N. Slope being undesirably high in sulfur, the COST of extracting oil or gas from the ANWR is less than profitable by the various mega-bank fraudsters' standards on Wall St.
Either way, with a current oil glut, no hopes of any meaningful cleanup in the conditions that exist in the coastal/sea ice areas up that way, etc., I'm about pleased as punch to see them backing away form the projects at hand.
Of some serious humor (for me, anyway), having jousted with the Oilies up here for many years, seeing the Major Oil Producers get a firm "No" from the fraudster banks on Wall St., is like watching 2 real assholes in the 'hood pummeling on each other; more cause to crack a beer, pull up a camp chair, and watch the festivities for a while. ;^>)
Environmental Research Letters
Environmental Research Letters
Detailed quantification of glacier elevation and mass changes in South Georgia
Abstract
Most glaciers in South America and on the Antarctic Peninsula are retreating and thinning. They are considered strong contributors to global sea level rise. However, there is a lack of glacier mass balance studies in other areas of the Southern Hemisphere, such as the surrounding Antarctic Islands. Here, we present a detailed quantification of the 21st century glacier elevation and mass changes for the entire South Georgia Island using bi-static synthetic aperture radar interferometry between 2000 and 2013. The results suggest a significant mass loss since the beginning of the present century. We calculate an average glacier mass balance of −1.04 ± 0.09 m w.e.a−1 and a mass loss rate of 2.28 ± 0.19 Gt a−1 (2000–2013), contributing 0.006 ± 0.001 mm a−1 to sea-level rise.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ab6b32
Environmental Research Letters
Detailed quantification of glacier elevation and mass changes in South Georgia
Abstract
Most glaciers in South America and on the Antarctic Peninsula are retreating and thinning. They are considered strong contributors to global sea level rise. However, there is a lack of glacier mass balance studies in other areas of the Southern Hemisphere, such as the surrounding Antarctic Islands. Here, we present a detailed quantification of the 21st century glacier elevation and mass changes for the entire South Georgia Island using bi-static synthetic aperture radar interferometry between 2000 and 2013. The results suggest a significant mass loss since the beginning of the present century. We calculate an average glacier mass balance of −1.04 ± 0.09 m w.e.a−1 and a mass loss rate of 2.28 ± 0.19 Gt a−1 (2000–2013), contributing 0.006 ± 0.001 mm a−1 to sea-level rise.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ab6b32
He doesn't care.
He's mowing the lawn.
He's mowing the lawn.
Making Sense of Climate Science Denial
Making Sense of Climate Science Denial
Climate change is real, so why the controversy and debate? Learn to make sense of the science and to respond to climate change denial.
The University of Queensland
38,522 already enrolled!
Enroll
Starts Mar 10
About this course:
In public discussions, climate change is a highly controversial topic. However, in the scientific community, there is little controversy with 97% of climate scientists concluding humans are causing global warming.
Why the gap between the public and scientists?
What are the psychological and social drivers of the rejection of the scientific consensus?
How has climate denial influenced public perceptions and attitudes towards climate change?
This course examines the science of climate science denial.
We will look at the most common climate myths from "global warming stopped in 1998" to "global warming is caused by the sun" to "climate impacts are nothing to worry about."
We'll find out what lessons are to be learnt from past climate change as well as better understand how climate models predict future climate impacts. You'll learn both the science of climate change and the techniques used to distort the science.
With every myth we debunk, you'll learn the critical thinking needed to identify the fallacies associated with the myth. Finally, armed with all this knowledge, you'll learn the psychology of misinformation. This will equip you to effectively respond to climate misinformation and debunk myths.
This isn't just a climate MOOC; it's a MOOC about how people think about climate change.
More about this course:
What you'll learn
How to recognise the social and psychological drivers of climate science denial
How to better understand climate change: the evidence that it is happening, that humans are causing it and the potential impacts
How to identify the techniques and fallacies that climate myths employ to distort climate science
How to effectively debunk climate misinformation
Expand what you'll learn
Syllabus:
WEEK 1: Understanding The Climate Controversy
During the first week of the course, we introduce the course content, interact with each other and complete an introductory survey. The week continues with an exploration of political consensus, the drivers and psychology of climate science denial and an overview of the controversy surrounding this topic.
WEEK 2: Global Warming Is Happening
In week two, we will look at the indicators of global warming and myths related to temperature and glaciers.
WEEK 3: We Are Causing Gobal Warming
Week three focuses on the ways in which humans cause climate change and the myths associated with the greenhouse effect and the rise in carbon dioxide.
WEEK 4: The Past Tells Us About The Future
This week looks at the history of climate change in order to model future climate change. We also address myths related to models.
WEEK 5: We Are Feeling The Impacts Of Climate Change
Week five covers climate feedbacks and the impacts of climate change on the environment, society and the weather.
WEEK 6 and 7: Responding to Denial
The final weeks of the course look more closely at the psychology of science denial and debunking techniques. We also complete a peer assessment that asks students to practice debunking strategies on real myths that can be found in today's media.
Approach: mini-lectures, video interviews, quizzes, activities, a peer assessed writing assignment, and readings.
https://www.edx.org/course/making-sense-of-climate-science-denial
Making Sense of Climate Science Denial
Climate change is real, so why the controversy and debate? Learn to make sense of the science and to respond to climate change denial.
The University of Queensland
38,522 already enrolled!
Enroll
Starts Mar 10
About this course:
In public discussions, climate change is a highly controversial topic. However, in the scientific community, there is little controversy with 97% of climate scientists concluding humans are causing global warming.
Why the gap between the public and scientists?
What are the psychological and social drivers of the rejection of the scientific consensus?
How has climate denial influenced public perceptions and attitudes towards climate change?
This course examines the science of climate science denial.
We will look at the most common climate myths from "global warming stopped in 1998" to "global warming is caused by the sun" to "climate impacts are nothing to worry about."
We'll find out what lessons are to be learnt from past climate change as well as better understand how climate models predict future climate impacts. You'll learn both the science of climate change and the techniques used to distort the science.
With every myth we debunk, you'll learn the critical thinking needed to identify the fallacies associated with the myth. Finally, armed with all this knowledge, you'll learn the psychology of misinformation. This will equip you to effectively respond to climate misinformation and debunk myths.
This isn't just a climate MOOC; it's a MOOC about how people think about climate change.
More about this course:
What you'll learn
How to recognise the social and psychological drivers of climate science denial
How to better understand climate change: the evidence that it is happening, that humans are causing it and the potential impacts
How to identify the techniques and fallacies that climate myths employ to distort climate science
How to effectively debunk climate misinformation
Expand what you'll learn
Syllabus:
WEEK 1: Understanding The Climate Controversy
During the first week of the course, we introduce the course content, interact with each other and complete an introductory survey. The week continues with an exploration of political consensus, the drivers and psychology of climate science denial and an overview of the controversy surrounding this topic.
WEEK 2: Global Warming Is Happening
In week two, we will look at the indicators of global warming and myths related to temperature and glaciers.
WEEK 3: We Are Causing Gobal Warming
Week three focuses on the ways in which humans cause climate change and the myths associated with the greenhouse effect and the rise in carbon dioxide.
WEEK 4: The Past Tells Us About The Future
This week looks at the history of climate change in order to model future climate change. We also address myths related to models.
WEEK 5: We Are Feeling The Impacts Of Climate Change
Week five covers climate feedbacks and the impacts of climate change on the environment, society and the weather.
WEEK 6 and 7: Responding to Denial
The final weeks of the course look more closely at the psychology of science denial and debunking techniques. We also complete a peer assessment that asks students to practice debunking strategies on real myths that can be found in today's media.
Approach: mini-lectures, video interviews, quizzes, activities, a peer assessed writing assignment, and readings.
https://www.edx.org/course/making-sense-of-climate-science-denial
Global Warming Alarmists: Not Only Wrong But Vicious
March 9, 2020
I&I Editorial
Christiana Figueres, at one time the United Nations’ climate director, says the coronavirus might be good for the climate “because there is less trade, there’s less travel, there’s less commerce.” She didn’t say it, but given her past statements, it’s not hard to imagine she’d be OK with any global or Western crisis that hurt the economy.
After all, Figueres is the woman, the former executive secretary of the U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, who admitted some years ago that the “fight” against global warming was a cover to crush capitalism.
“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution,” Figueres, considered “the world’s most important environmentalist,” said in 2015.
Those comments are similar to those of Rajendra Pachauri, a former chairman of the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, who said he was “not going to rest easy until” he had “articulated in every possible forum the need to bring about major structural changes in economic growth and development. That’s the real issue. Climate change is just a part of it.”
For these world “leaders” to militantly crusade against the only economic system — the free market — that has lifted hundreds of millions out of “grinding” poverty is beyond cruel.
Speaking on Britain’s Channel 4 Television last week, Figueres showed that her crusade against capitalism, which is simply basic human enterprise liberated from government controls, remains unchanged.
“You know one thing that I think is actually very positive, could be very positive” from the coronavirus outbreak, “is that if we really sustained several months of reduced travel, we may realize that we don’t have to travel as much,” she said.
“What is not helpful is just a help that would be here for a few months but then we jump back to bad traditions. So you know, can this have actually behavioral change impact, maybe, and let us hope.”
Of course she couldn’t resist telling us to stop enjoying ourselves at the dinner table, because “if we continue to eat animals, we will actually be poisoning ourselves and being the genesis of new diseases that we have not seen before.”
To her credit, Figueres did seem to lament the potential spread of disease rather than celebrate it as means to replace capitalism with socialism and cull the human herd. But there are many others in the alarmist community who are not so generous. At the extreme of the alarmist movement are cruel misanthropes who prefer a world without humans.
“Population control and reduction is a view shared by other leading AGW (anthropogenic global warming) supporters,” write warming skeptics Anthony Cox and Joanne Nova for Australia’s ABC News.
“Leading green commentators … see humanity as a threat to nature, and again their solution is for the population to be severely reduced to a few million living in a non-technological primitive state.
“This message, that humanity is bad and destructive, is one that is increasingly informing AGW philosophy and promotion.”
This view has become so acceptable that the Guardian not long ago gave space to the ideas of a man who said 50 years ago he “concluded that the best thing for the planet would be a peaceful phase-out of human existence.”
The global warming scare wasn’t around a half-century ago when Les Knight “dedicated his life to campaigning for the extinction of the human race,” in the words of writer Tom Whyman. Yet, continues Whyman, Knight “appears to be willing to claim as allies people who remain voluntarily childless as a result of concerns over climate change.”
Unlike Whyman, quite a few alarmists only recently adopted the misanthropic view and already have children they probably don’t want to get rid of. Instead, they poison their kids’ minds, and scare them for no reason.
“A growing number of children are being affected by eco-anxiety – concern about ecological disasters – new research suggests,” Britain’s Independent recently reported.
A poll showed the young “are feeling frustrated and anxious about the state of the planet.” Eight in 10 say “the problem of climate change was important to them, and more than a third saying it was very important.”
Almost one in five of the kids surveyed admitted they have had “a bad dream about the climate crisis, while 17% said they have had their sleeping and eating habits affected by their concerns.”
These kids are the victims of the sort of exploitation and parental fear-mongering that has made Greta Thunberg a global public figure. It’s child abuse.
An assortment of other examples of the alarmists’ malevolence is their repeated silencing and crushing dissenting voices; their appetite to prosecute and imprison oil executives who provide the fuel that drives the world’s economy; their hypocritical conduct, flying the globe in private jets and buying expensive homes, as the Obamas reportedly have, in neighborhoods they tell us will be under water due to warming, yet demanding the little people make do with less under a climate-saving regime imposed by them; and the primitive and indefensible mob behavior of the Extinction Rebellion.
The latter is a “doomsday cult,” a “criminal enterprise” that would “recreate that old, unforgiving world in which we all ‘ate locally,’ never traveled, danced around maypoles for fun, and died of cholera when we were 38,” writes British columnist Brendan O’Neill.
In other words, the near-perfect representative organization for global warming hysteria.
Not everyone who believes in the global warming narrative is reprehensible. Many decent, well-meaning people have been sucked into the alarmist orbit. We suggest they take a hard look at the characters leading the climate crusade. If they do it with open minds, they’re likely to reconsider their premises.
https://issuesinsights.com/2020/03/09/global-warming-alarmists-not-only-wrong-but-vicious/
March 9, 2020
I&I Editorial
Christiana Figueres, at one time the United Nations’ climate director, says the coronavirus might be good for the climate “because there is less trade, there’s less travel, there’s less commerce.” She didn’t say it, but given her past statements, it’s not hard to imagine she’d be OK with any global or Western crisis that hurt the economy.
After all, Figueres is the woman, the former executive secretary of the U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, who admitted some years ago that the “fight” against global warming was a cover to crush capitalism.
“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution,” Figueres, considered “the world’s most important environmentalist,” said in 2015.
Those comments are similar to those of Rajendra Pachauri, a former chairman of the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, who said he was “not going to rest easy until” he had “articulated in every possible forum the need to bring about major structural changes in economic growth and development. That’s the real issue. Climate change is just a part of it.”
For these world “leaders” to militantly crusade against the only economic system — the free market — that has lifted hundreds of millions out of “grinding” poverty is beyond cruel.
Speaking on Britain’s Channel 4 Television last week, Figueres showed that her crusade against capitalism, which is simply basic human enterprise liberated from government controls, remains unchanged.
“You know one thing that I think is actually very positive, could be very positive” from the coronavirus outbreak, “is that if we really sustained several months of reduced travel, we may realize that we don’t have to travel as much,” she said.
“What is not helpful is just a help that would be here for a few months but then we jump back to bad traditions. So you know, can this have actually behavioral change impact, maybe, and let us hope.”
Of course she couldn’t resist telling us to stop enjoying ourselves at the dinner table, because “if we continue to eat animals, we will actually be poisoning ourselves and being the genesis of new diseases that we have not seen before.”
To her credit, Figueres did seem to lament the potential spread of disease rather than celebrate it as means to replace capitalism with socialism and cull the human herd. But there are many others in the alarmist community who are not so generous. At the extreme of the alarmist movement are cruel misanthropes who prefer a world without humans.
“Population control and reduction is a view shared by other leading AGW (anthropogenic global warming) supporters,” write warming skeptics Anthony Cox and Joanne Nova for Australia’s ABC News.
“Leading green commentators … see humanity as a threat to nature, and again their solution is for the population to be severely reduced to a few million living in a non-technological primitive state.
“This message, that humanity is bad and destructive, is one that is increasingly informing AGW philosophy and promotion.”
This view has become so acceptable that the Guardian not long ago gave space to the ideas of a man who said 50 years ago he “concluded that the best thing for the planet would be a peaceful phase-out of human existence.”
The global warming scare wasn’t around a half-century ago when Les Knight “dedicated his life to campaigning for the extinction of the human race,” in the words of writer Tom Whyman. Yet, continues Whyman, Knight “appears to be willing to claim as allies people who remain voluntarily childless as a result of concerns over climate change.”
Unlike Whyman, quite a few alarmists only recently adopted the misanthropic view and already have children they probably don’t want to get rid of. Instead, they poison their kids’ minds, and scare them for no reason.
“A growing number of children are being affected by eco-anxiety – concern about ecological disasters – new research suggests,” Britain’s Independent recently reported.
A poll showed the young “are feeling frustrated and anxious about the state of the planet.” Eight in 10 say “the problem of climate change was important to them, and more than a third saying it was very important.”
Almost one in five of the kids surveyed admitted they have had “a bad dream about the climate crisis, while 17% said they have had their sleeping and eating habits affected by their concerns.”
These kids are the victims of the sort of exploitation and parental fear-mongering that has made Greta Thunberg a global public figure. It’s child abuse.
An assortment of other examples of the alarmists’ malevolence is their repeated silencing and crushing dissenting voices; their appetite to prosecute and imprison oil executives who provide the fuel that drives the world’s economy; their hypocritical conduct, flying the globe in private jets and buying expensive homes, as the Obamas reportedly have, in neighborhoods they tell us will be under water due to warming, yet demanding the little people make do with less under a climate-saving regime imposed by them; and the primitive and indefensible mob behavior of the Extinction Rebellion.
The latter is a “doomsday cult,” a “criminal enterprise” that would “recreate that old, unforgiving world in which we all ‘ate locally,’ never traveled, danced around maypoles for fun, and died of cholera when we were 38,” writes British columnist Brendan O’Neill.
In other words, the near-perfect representative organization for global warming hysteria.
Not everyone who believes in the global warming narrative is reprehensible. Many decent, well-meaning people have been sucked into the alarmist orbit. We suggest they take a hard look at the characters leading the climate crusade. If they do it with open minds, they’re likely to reconsider their premises.
https://issuesinsights.com/2020/03/09/global-warming-alarmists-not-only-wrong-but-vicious/
kickarse
Active member
The highest temp this month was 41.7 c in 1940
we are - 2.1 c under the long term average for the month so far
I'm having a bit of trouble believing the "global warming" bullshit, when its not happening.
Its all good tho, got a heap of firewood, the extra Co2 it produces should warm me up a bit over winter
we are - 2.1 c under the long term average for the month so far
I'm having a bit of trouble believing the "global warming" bullshit, when its not happening.
Its all good tho, got a heap of firewood, the extra Co2 it produces should warm me up a bit over winter
Six-fold jump in polar ice loss lifts global oceans
Six-fold jump in polar ice loss lifts global oceans
Paris (AFP) - Greenland and Antarctica are shedding six times more ice than during the 1990s, driving sea level rise that could see annual flooding by 2100 in regions home today to some 400 million people, scientists have warned.
The kilometres-thick ice sheets atop land masses at the planet's extremities sloughed off 6.4 trillion tonnes of mass from 1992 through 2017, adding nearly two centimetres (an inch) to the global watermark, according to an assessment by 89 researchers, the most comprehensive to date.
Last summer's Arctic heatwave will likely top the 2011 record for polar ice sheet loss of 552 billion tonnes, they reported in a pair of studies, published Wednesday in Nature.
That is roughly the equivalent of eight Olympic pools draining into the ocean every second.
While less visible than climate-enhanced hurricanes, sea level rise may ultimately prove the most devastating of global warming impacts.
Indeed, it is the added centimetres -- perhaps added metres by the 22nd century -- that make storm surges from climate-enhanced tropical cyclones so much more deadly and destructive, experts say.
"Every centimetre of sea level rise leads to coastal flooding and coastal erosion, disrupting lives around the planet," said University of Leeds professor Andrew Shepherd, who led the analysis along with Erik Ivins from NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory.
"If Antarctica and Greenland continue to track worst-case climate warming scenarios, they will cause an extra 17 centimetres of sea level rise by the end of the century," he said in a statement.
- 'Irrefutable evidence' -
That's about a third of the rise forecast for 2100 by the UN's climate science advisory panel (IPCC) under a scenario midway between a rapid drawdown of global greenhouse gases -- seen by many as overly optimistic -- and the unbridled expansion of fossil fuel use, also seen as unlikely.
Melting glaciers and the expansion of ocean water as it warms accounted for most sea level rise through the 20th century, but ice sheet melt-off has become a major driver over the last decade.
Six-fold jump in polar ice loss lifts global oceans
Paris (AFP) - Greenland and Antarctica are shedding six times more ice than during the 1990s, driving sea level rise that could see annual flooding by 2100 in regions home today to some 400 million people, scientists have warned.
The kilometres-thick ice sheets atop land masses at the planet's extremities sloughed off 6.4 trillion tonnes of mass from 1992 through 2017, adding nearly two centimetres (an inch) to the global watermark, according to an assessment by 89 researchers, the most comprehensive to date.
Last summer's Arctic heatwave will likely top the 2011 record for polar ice sheet loss of 552 billion tonnes, they reported in a pair of studies, published Wednesday in Nature.
That is roughly the equivalent of eight Olympic pools draining into the ocean every second.
While less visible than climate-enhanced hurricanes, sea level rise may ultimately prove the most devastating of global warming impacts.
Indeed, it is the added centimetres -- perhaps added metres by the 22nd century -- that make storm surges from climate-enhanced tropical cyclones so much more deadly and destructive, experts say.
"Every centimetre of sea level rise leads to coastal flooding and coastal erosion, disrupting lives around the planet," said University of Leeds professor Andrew Shepherd, who led the analysis along with Erik Ivins from NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory.
"If Antarctica and Greenland continue to track worst-case climate warming scenarios, they will cause an extra 17 centimetres of sea level rise by the end of the century," he said in a statement.
- 'Irrefutable evidence' -
That's about a third of the rise forecast for 2100 by the UN's climate science advisory panel (IPCC) under a scenario midway between a rapid drawdown of global greenhouse gases -- seen by many as overly optimistic -- and the unbridled expansion of fossil fuel use, also seen as unlikely.
Melting glaciers and the expansion of ocean water as it warms accounted for most sea level rise through the 20th century, but ice sheet melt-off has become a major driver over the last decade.
kickarse
Active member
HKU Paleontologists Discover Solid Evidence of Formerly Elusive Abrupt Sea-level Jump
10 Mar 2020
Download All Photos
Meltwater pulses (MWPs) known as abrupt sea-level rise due to injection of melt water are of particular interests to scientists to investigate the interactions between climatic, oceanic and glacial systems. Eustatic sea-level rise will inevitably affect cities especially those on coastal plains of low elevation like Hong Kong.
A recent study published in Quaternary Science Reviews presented evidence of abrupt sea level change between 11,300–11,000 years ago in the Arctic Ocean. The study was conducted by Ms Skye Yunshu Tian, PhD student of School of Biological Sciences and Swire Institute of Marine Science, the University of Hong Kong (HKU) during her undergraduate final year project in the Ecology & Biodiversity Major, solving the puzzle of second largest meltwater pulse (labelled as “MWP-1B” next to the largest and already well understood MWP-1A).
During the last deglaciation, melting of large ice sheets in the Northern hemisphere had contributed to profound global sea level changes. However, even the second largest MWP-1B is not well understood. Its timing and magnitude remain actively debated due to the lack of clear evidence not only from tropical areas recording near-eustatic sea-level change, but also from high-latitude areas where the ice sheets melted.
The research study, led by Ms Tian under the supervision of Dr Moriaki Yasuhara, Associate Professor of School of Biological Sciences, HKU and Dr Yuanyuan Hong, Postdoctoral Fellow of School of Biological Sciences, HKU, and in collaboration with scientists in HKU and UiT The Arctic University of Norway, discovered a robust evidence of formerly elusive abrupt sea-level jump event during the climatic warming from the last ice age to the current climate state. The study presented evidence of abrupt sea level change between 11,300–11,000 years ago of 40m–80m in Svalbard, the Arctic Ocean. High time-resolution fossil records indicate a sudden temperature rise due to the incursion of warm Atlantic waters and consequent melting of the covering ice sheets.
Because of the rebound of formerly suppressed lands underneath great ice load, the sedimentary environment changed from a bathyal setting (having deep-sea species shown in Image 1) to an upper-middle neritic setting (having shallow-marine species shown in Image 2) at the study sites. This is the first solid evidence of relative sea-level change of MWP-1B discovered in ice-proximal areas.
The research group used fossil Ostracoda preserved in two marine sediment cores as a model organism to quantitatively reconstruct the water depth changes in Svalbard in the past 14,000 years, as this small (usually <1 mm) aquatic crustacean is very sensitive to water conditions. Faunal turnovers also reveal temperature and salinity changes associated with the MWP-1B. All ostracode shells in the samples were picked and identified under the microscope, and then the faunal assemblage and species diversity were computed. More than 5,000 specimens and 50 species were recorded in two sediment cores from Storfjorden, Svalbard, where the environment is sensitive to both Arctic and North Atlantic influences.
Abrupt sea level event caused by ice-sheet melting is crucial for us to understand Earth climate system influencing and being influenced by glacial conditions. "Future eustatic sea-level rise may be discontinuous and abrupt, and different from smooth and continuous global warming projected, known as "hockey stick" curve. This has serious implications for our society, especially for cities on coastal plains of low elevation, like our Great Bay area on the Pearl River Delta. Even small sea-level rise can substantially increase damages from typhoons, for example," Dr Yasuhara said.
The paper ‘Deglacial–Holocene Svalbard paleoceanography and evidence of Melt Water Pulse 1B” is published in Quaternary Science Reviews.
URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379119309485?dgcid=coauthor
https://www.hku.hk/press/news_detail_20750.html
...
Sea-level rise and vertical land motion on the Islands of Oahu and Hawaii, Hawaii
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asr.2019.08.028Get rights and content
Abstract
Sea-level rise is a highly publicized issue in the Hawaiian Islands because it is one of the main drivers for coastal hazards. In our study, multiple geodetic and in situ datasets are integrated to investigate the sea-level rise and vertical land motion on the islands of Oahu and Hawaii, Hawaii. The rates of relative sea-level changes are derived from the tide-gauge stations in the Hawaiian Islands, however the station located at Kawaihae, Hawaii presents a much higher trend than other stations. Our analysis shows that the questionable trend results from the sudden movement of the equipment on land, which is caused by a pair of earthquakes. After adjustment, we arrive at a revised and more consistent relative sea-level trend at this station. Our study shows that Oahu is vertically ‘stable’ (i.e., near-zero vertical land movement within uncertainties), and the relative sea-level change is dominated by the absolute sea-level change. However, the island of Hawaii was subsiding at −3.3 ± 0.9 mm/year before 1973 and changed to −1.2 ± 0.2 mm/year after 1975, which may relate to seismic activities and where relative sea-level change is attributed to both absolute sea-level change and vertical land motion. The difference in relative sea-level change between the islands of Oahu and Hawaii is due to the difference in vertical land motion rather than steric sea-level change. In addition, the ocean-mass components are the predominant factors that influence the long-term trends of absolute sea level on the islands of Oahu and Hawaii.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273117719306118
...
*Rapid ICE growth* Arctic sea ice reaches the largest early February ice area in the past 11 years! It even exceeds the 2001-2010 average size
By Andrej Flis | Global weather | 12 February 2020
Overall, winter was rather mild across much of Eurasia and North America, with the exception of Alaska and parts of Canada. But, that means that a lot of cold air has stayed in the polar circle, helping to freeze more of the Arctic ocean and the surrounding areas.
The latest sea ice analysis shows that during this rather mild winter in the mid-latitudes, the trapping of the colder air in the polar circle was beneficial to the growth and recovery of the polar icecap. Every winter the Arctic ocean freezes, reaching a maximum sea ice extent around March. below is the graphic from NSIDC, showing the ice growth progress and a comparison with 2012, which had the lowest sea ice extent on record in September. We can see that the freezing season began at rather low levels, lower than 2012, but the stronger than normal polar vortex has helped to keep more cold air in the polar regions, promoting ice growth. The second graphic is a temperature anomaly analysis for the polar circle, showing the colder than normal phases during winter, and especially currently, greatly aiding in the sea ice growth process.
charts and graphs here (for those truly interested):
https://www.severe-weather.eu/global-weather/arctic-sea-ice-extent-largest-february-fa/
Earth just had its 2nd-hottest February on record
Earth just had its 2nd-hottest February on record
The planet sweated it out again last month, as February 2020 ranked as the second-hottest February in the 141-year global climate record, according to scientists at NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information.
In addition, meteorological winter hardly made an appearance in large parts of the Northern Hemisphere, as both Europe and Asia recorded their warmest winters ever.
Globally, both the season (December through February) and the year to date (January through February) ranked second hottest in recorded history.
Here’s more from NOAA’s latest monthly global climate report:
Climate by the numbers
February 2020
The average global land and ocean surface temperature for February 2020 was 2.11 degrees F (1.17 degrees C) above the 20th-century average and the second-highest on record behind 2016.
Earth’s 10 warmest Februarys have all occurred since 1998.
In addition, the global temperature departure from average for February was the highest monthly temperature departure without an El Niño present in the tropical Pacific Ocean, surpassing the previous record set in January.
Seasonal statistics and the year to date
For the season (December through February), it was the second-warmest winter on record for the Northern Hemisphere and the second-hottest summer ever recorded in the Southern Hemisphere. For both hemispheres, only the period of December 2015 through February 2016 was warmer.
The year to date (January and February 2020) global land and ocean surface temperature was 2.09 degrees F (1.16 degrees C) above the 20th-century average, which made it the second-warmest such period in the 141-year record behind the same period in 2016.
https://www.noaa.gov/news/earth-just-had-its-2nd-hottest-february-on-record
Earth just had its 2nd-hottest February on record
The planet sweated it out again last month, as February 2020 ranked as the second-hottest February in the 141-year global climate record, according to scientists at NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information.
In addition, meteorological winter hardly made an appearance in large parts of the Northern Hemisphere, as both Europe and Asia recorded their warmest winters ever.
Globally, both the season (December through February) and the year to date (January through February) ranked second hottest in recorded history.
Here’s more from NOAA’s latest monthly global climate report:
Climate by the numbers
February 2020
The average global land and ocean surface temperature for February 2020 was 2.11 degrees F (1.17 degrees C) above the 20th-century average and the second-highest on record behind 2016.
Earth’s 10 warmest Februarys have all occurred since 1998.
In addition, the global temperature departure from average for February was the highest monthly temperature departure without an El Niño present in the tropical Pacific Ocean, surpassing the previous record set in January.
Seasonal statistics and the year to date
For the season (December through February), it was the second-warmest winter on record for the Northern Hemisphere and the second-hottest summer ever recorded in the Southern Hemisphere. For both hemispheres, only the period of December 2015 through February 2016 was warmer.
The year to date (January and February 2020) global land and ocean surface temperature was 2.09 degrees F (1.16 degrees C) above the 20th-century average, which made it the second-warmest such period in the 141-year record behind the same period in 2016.
https://www.noaa.gov/news/earth-just-had-its-2nd-hottest-february-on-record
