[oldandtired]

As far as sea-level rises are concerned, the Arctic sea ice will probably be a net sea-level fall, except around the Equator. If all of the Greenland glaciers were to disappear, well then, we would see a sea-level rise, globally. But it would be distributed unevenly across the world. The higher levels would again be around the Equator with decreasing levels the further north or south of the Equator you go.

But to get even a 1/3 of the Greenland ice cover to melt requires an unimaginably large amount of energy to do so. I'd have more concerns about the devastation of that much energy on the atmosphere than I do about any trivial amount of ice melt and associated sea-level rise.

The planet is close to being a steady state system, that is the energy inflows from the day side is about equivalent to the energy outflows on the night side. This varies throughout the year due to various factors, including orbital position, solar energy output, climate factors like clouds, etc.

The required energy to get 1/3 of Greenland glacial melt is approximately about the amount of energy received by the Earth on a single day, without any of that energy being released on the night side. Due to the slow conductivity of water in both solid and liquid forms, the atmosphere would need to essentially hold all of that energy. Even over a hundred years, that would probably mean atmospheric temperatures that would probably kill most, if not all, life on the surface of the planet.

There has been one study (that I know of) that has looked at the retention of energy over a period of about 50 years and the conclusion was that only 2 to maybe 5% of the energy retained managed to get into ice-melt. So to get the required ice-melt energy needed, we would need, say, 20 to 25 days worth of solar input radiation to be fully retained within the atmosphere (no leakage back into space).

In addition, I somehow think that even a 5 or 10 degree Celsius temperature rise would lead quickly to a sharp fall in global temperatures and would the initiation of a global ice-age. Since the planet has an approximate coverage by oceans and sea ice of 70%, an average rise of 5 to 10 degrees would more than likely see a huge rise in cloud coverage and subsequent reflection of energy back out into space, followed by a subsequent rapid cooling of the globe.

Of course, these figures are dependent on common available information and could be wrong by some percentage. It's not hard to do your own calculations if you want to get some feel for what might be possible.

[jsilence]

Your reasoning omits that there is also a large amount of energy stored im the oceans. The greenlandic glaciers have already sped up and are calving into the oceans where there is plenty of energy to melt them.

[oldandtired]

That's the whole point of the study of energy storage over fifty years. The interesting point is that the amount of ice calving off from the Greenland glaciers is minute compared to the amount of ice on Greenland. It doesn't matter how spectacular these calves are and they are spectacular and from our point of view they are huge, you can think of them as flaking skin off an elephant.

The problem I see here is that the energy flows and pathways required are of such a magnitude and are so complex that the simplistic modelling being used basically ignores it.

For every kilotonne of ice being calved, it will require, at a minimum, the energy stored in 4 kilotonnes of sea water at 20 degrees Celcius. The resulting temperature of that sea water would be reduced to just above freezing point of water. If you, say, set the limit at a 1 degree Celsius drop, then we are looking extracting the energy of about 84 - 85 kilotonnes of sea water. You still need to take into account the energy conduction through water and also from water to the ice.

At this end of the globe, we see stories often enough of the end of small icebergs that have calved off the Antarctic ice mass. Many of these have been tracked from the initial calve to their final demise and it takes many years for even small ones to finally disappear.

To get any serious ice melt, you have to have serious amounts of energy flowing into that ice.

One question to ask is how the calving is occurring? There can be a variety of ways this can happen and they are not all caused by temperature increases. This, in itself, is a very interesting subject and there are some quite complex processes involved.

The world around us is extremely complex and we have very little understanding of how things work, irrespective of what is portrayed in popular media.

Historical records do indicate that the Arctic Polar ice mass has been of varying sizes. Some of these have essentially indicated that the ice mass was very small at some points in history and at other times very large. Some of these records and reports go back many hundreds of years.

[KayEss]

Once they fall into the sea the displacement occurs. It doesn't matter after that how long they take to melt, all that matters is that they fall off land and into the ocean.

So melting is an issue only for ice that melts on land and then flows into the oceans because that represents new water volume.

[oldandtired]

It's not that simple. You must take into consideration the amount of ice that is deposited onto the ice mass from snow and condensation of water vapour.

If the rate of deposit is greater than the rate of calving then there is a nett addition to the ice mass. If the rates are equal, then you have steady state. If the rate of calving is greater then you have a nett loss.

This has to be looked at over a longer period of time to see what the variation is in the data.

[KayEss]

Of course they don't need to actually melt to affect sea rises, they just have to fall into the ocean.

[yters]

It is interesting the other comments in this area are vague and emotional, whereas the only thought out comment is downvoted because it is critical of global warming. This constant dynamic is what makes me skeptical of the whole global warming thing.

[adrianN]

Comments criticizing evolution in favor of intelligent design will also be downvoted for the same reasons. The scientific consensus is that climate change is happening, and it's caused by us. The evidence in favor of the theory is overwhelming, so you'd have to publish a pretty substantial study, not a comment on an internet forum, if you would want to sensibly argue against anthropogenic climate change without being ridiculed.

[yters]

Well, I'm glad the consensus of scientists has never been wrong. It's also helpful the scientists can tell us who the true experts are, otherwise we'd never know.

[rtp]

Who else do you suggest should inform us if not scientists?

[oldandtired]

Maybe, you can look at the evidence presented and determine for yourself what conclusions you come to. It may be that you will determine that the evidence is for anthropogenic climate change. But then again, you might determine that the evidence is for natural processes and that anthropogenic climate change is extremely minor.

It's up to you to decide how and what you will believe.

[Afterthought edit]. Many years ago, I was given the following advice:

Surround yourself with experts, but make your own decisions as you see fit. Experts are just that, specialists in a narrow field and they do not see the bigger picture. It is up to you to do that for yourself.

[adrianN]

Maybe you don't have time to study a subject for 5+ years fulltime to become sufficiently qualified to read scientific papers and assess their results.

[oldandtired]

Which scientific consensus? The IPCC climate scientists with their models or the physicists, engineers, climate scientists and others who are raising the questions and the information that disputes these conclusions?

There are many who don't dispute that climate change occurs, what they say is that anthropogenic effects are, at this time, unknown and that any anthropogenic causes are minor compared to the various other causes.

Since I started taking an interest in this subject in the 1970's, the evidence of anthropogenic causes has been underwhelming.

As far as evolution and intelligent design are concerned, I have consigned both to the field of religious discussion and belief. I was an avid evolutionist until I started reading the actual results of experiments in the field. The results did not support any evolutionary model and still don't. As a result, I started to question why these scientists were pushing the wheelbarrow of the this model.

Just because someone is a scientist doesn't mean that they will completely logical and fair-minded about some model or another. Scientists are no different to any other group of people. They are people too and as such, have their own foibles and unsubstantiated beliefs.

If these scientists can demonstrate fair results then certainly we must look at those results. But the conclusions about what those results mean will depend on what an individual's starting point is. Just remember that old adage, to someone with a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

If you are standing on scientific consensus as your "authority" then you are not acting in a manner that says you are investigating the facts as they are.

It may well be that anthropogenic causes will disrupt the planets climate in dangerous and possibly even unalterable ways. But I have yet to see any such evidence presented, nor have I seen valid questions being answered by these same anthropogenic climate change scientists. From where I stand, it appears that money still speaks louder than the facts.

[b1daly]

I agree with your point that we should consider the evidence, and conclusions, presented to us as the work product of scientists. Especially as much of the information is shaped by innumerable cognitive biases.

However, I’m fascinated that someone could realistically doubt the “theory of evolution.” For one thing, it is very much an active area of research, with new discoveries all the time. (Reading about the epigenetic aspects of hereditary traits kind of blew my mind. It turns out that animals adaptions to specific environments can influence later generations.)

So how do consign a relatively young area of research, that is making concrete contributions to science as being akin to religious belief?

The specifics, and controversies, of evolutionary theory, and it’s scientific cousins, are quite complex, and it seems rather capricious to wave it all away as if it was some cartoon theory of reality.

My own, very limited, view of the weakness of evolution as a theory, is that it can seem like a “just so theory,” almost true by tautology.

But the mechanisms of natural selection, and hereditary transfer of traits are so well established that to dismiss the lot of it strikes me as irrational.

[oldandtired]

My view was cultivated by the evidence of the experiments. The experiments exhibited certain outcomes. The conclusions by those scientists did not match the results they obtained. For me, that was the start of questioning the model in the first place.

In relation to consigning both views to the realm of religious discussion, I have found that proponents of both sides tend to dogma. I especially find that evolutionists tend to the ad hominem mode very quickly. When this occurs, I tend to the position that that person is incapable of holding a sensible discussion about the subject and is relying solely on "authority".

When the proponents of a particular theory or model will not get involved in reasoning discussions and simply wave away the question raise then yes they are in some sort of cartoon theory of reality. This applies across the board to all discussions.

I don't have a problem with natural selection nor do I have a problem with transfer of traits. What I have a problem with is the model of evolution (or its variants). Those who are proponents of the theory and model do a lot of hand-waving that does not match the evidence at hand.

In terms of active research, if you look at anyone who demonstrates odd data or finding that oppose the general evolutionary theory, they are treated as pariahs and infidels. This is a characteristic of religious thinking and does not bode well for any science.

[yters]

Most intelligent design proponents merely think undirected evolution cannot work, due to a variety of mathematical and scientific reasons. This does mean things like common descent, natural selection and heredity are false.

[oldandtired]

Most evolutionists merely think undirected evolution will work. Yet when asked for the specific chemical pathways in a general environment cannot provide these nor are they willing to accept the current challenge to discuss this.

As an aside, I used to believe in all of the fanciful notions like "black holes" and "neutron stars". But after some specific questions and subsequent investigation into what was being proposed, I doubt the existence of these entities. I have very specific reasons for doubting these entities and after attempting to discuss these reasons with those more "knowledgeable" in the subject, I am left with the same impression that this is also a matter of dogma.

But hey, each to his own.

[bigbugbag]

Can you provide some sources of your claims ? For example of the people going against IPCC conclusions, as the people I know disputing their result are actually telling based on actual measurement IPCC underestimated the situation.

Same, it would be nice if you would source some of the "many" saying anthropogenic effects are minor to other causes. Why not explicting those other causes by the way ?

Same again for the actual results from field experiments not supporting evolution, please source them so we can read it ourselves and apply the principles of making our own min that you are putting forward.

I do agree that there is a religion of science or scientism increasing with time even among scientists themselves and undermining actual science, but this existing is not enough to dismiss the theory of evolution as a religious belief.

Can you also tell us what are the unanswered valid questions you're talking about ?

Right now you're talking in very vague affirmation that are unverifiable, which means your point will be dismissed as personal opinion.

[nyolfen]

i would think that greenland melting wouldn't happen all at once (if that's what you're saying), but rather that due to higher average ocean temperatures more of it would melt in the summer and less of it would freeze in the winter, and cumulatively over years and decades it has a net loss of ice, and perhaps eventually loses most of it. am i missing something in your argument?

[oldandtired]

It is more nuanced than that. In any relatively short time span, we may see specific effects (higher temperatures for example) and we may see other effects (increase atmospheric CO2), but this doesn't mean that over a longer term we will continue to see these effects.

The other aspect is that there are some very specific physics involved and I have yet to see any discussion over these specific effects.

We have seen, in some areas, what appears to be increasingly variable climate conditions. Yet, if one is willing to look into and take the time to investigate the appropriate historical records, these variations have occurred before and were, in fact, much stronger.

The affects from these conditions were not felt to the same extent as today because we have vastly different population distributions.

Let me give you an example.

When I was a child, we had a family regime every spring to prepare for the cyclones that would regularly hit the region in summer. As I moved into my latter teens and forward into my twenties, the regularity changed and we saw quite a diminished number and size of these events. Further time passed and the events grew less frequent but were significantly stronger.

The general consensus was that climate variation was getting worse. I dug into the available historical records for the mid 19th century to the early 20th century for the same region. I found that the events during that time were significantly stronger. We talk about category 5 cyclones today and, honestly, I rather have a category 5 than the monster cyclones from 19th century.

As far as Greenland is concerned, even with higher global temperatures (as specified by the IPCC), the amount of ice melt is still to be expected in the range of dead skin cells being rubbed off the back of an elephant. The energy requirements are just so unimaginable that if you were to put the entire world's nuclear arsenal to the task, it would barely be a pin prick.

[bigbugbag]

When you take time to investigate the historical meteorological records you find out that almost all the highest temperature records since we started recording data are concentrated after 2010.

If you have a basic scientific education you know that any example starting by "when I was a child" is anecdotal evidence and have very limited value because it is akin to confirmation bias and cherry picking.

I'm curious as why you don't apply the principles you were bradishing to the 19th century meteorological data: http://www.isws.illinois.edu/pubdoc/CR/iswscr2011-02.pdf

About Greenland ice sheet disappearing your thinking is oversimplified by looking only at energy required to melt ice. There are several other mechanisms to take into account, for example the increase in cloud cover preventing refreeze at night, or the melted cover snow and ice running into moulins to the ground which then flow under the glacier lubricating it and acceleratiing its motion and thus glacial calving, etc.

When studying a system you need to have basic understanding of second order cybernetics and feedback loops. In climate change positive feedback loop are the reasons past a tipping point there's no stopping it.

[oldandtired]

I wasn't talking about temperature rises, I was talking about extreme climate conditions. Since all the who-ha is about the rising level of extreme climate events, it is significant that older historical records record more extreme events.

The problem of confirmation bias and cherry picking is not a problem with "anecdotal evidence". Anecdotal evidence is an opportunity to further look into the events related to the evidence to see what its veracity is. I have been involved in various experimental activities and I have found that in some of those activities that the results obtained were deemed unacceptable because they did not match the expectation of the reviewers. Even when the experiments were repeated (under further supervision) and were similar to the original results, they were not accepted.

With regards to the 19th century data, this information was supplied by the National Bureau of Meteorology. Since these records were not recorded in a time of Political Correctness for climate change, I don't expect them to have been manipulated either way. So at face value and for a first approximation we can regards them as accurate.

You additional mechanisms are all involved in the energy transfers and requirements. What you forget is that to have the phase change from solid to liquid requires a set amount of energy given a set atmospheric pressure. Irrespective of how much calving occurs, we have to consider what is the accumulation rate of ice to the back end and the total amount of calving at the front end. In addition, the required calving on a daily basis still needs to be measured in the cubic kilometres or in the gigatonne range.

The problem with feedback loops in climate is that we do not know, we only think we know. With very simple systems, we can and do get to a position of understanding the various feedback loops. With complex system, we do not. We often see unexpected results. Climate is a global phenomenon and is so complex that we will not understand it for the forseeable future. That does not mean we shouldn't try, but to rely on the current models as if they are "truth" is good way to end up in a blind alley with no way out.

I don't have a problem with cleaning up the environment and finding more efficient ways to run transport and waste handling, mining and manufacturing. But to take the position of climate change being mainly or only anthropogenic is foolishness at best and utter stupidity at worst.

We have no idea (that includes every climate scientists who pushes the anthropogenic climate change agenda) as to the real relationships being natural and anthropogenic causes for climate change.

If you were to put every one of those who believe such in the position of having to bet their life on it, how many would do so? I mean putting gun against the head and testing with that wonderfully reliable device called a polygraph and pulling the trigger if any doubt was shown at all. Since the polygraph is an unreliable piece of equipment, I don't think we would see too many takers, would you?

The above, I know, is a bit ridiculous, but think about it.