Greenland ice melt worse than previously believed

[EMH]

You slinging your melted brain all over the internet. Get psychiatric help NOW

No consequence outside of UHI warming the surface of growing urban areas...

NO BREAKOUT in CANES
NO OCEAN RISE
NO WARMING in the ATMOSPHERE
NO WARMING in the OCEANS
NO ONGOING NET ICE MELT

 

[elektra]

Morons, we gave billions to democrat researchers, which are professors and students. Now they tell us all that money was wasted cause they got something as easy as, "how much ice is in the cup" wrong!

They were wrong with all the money they spent but now they got it right.

Low life scum liars

 

[Crick]

Anything. If there is no hurry, why bother spending our tax dollars while China and India screw up the environment on our dime?

Because we are also screwing it up. And, as has been pointed out here on several occasions, not only are China and India emitting much less CO2 on a per capita basis than is the United States, China is spending four times as much as we are to reduce emissions.

 

[Crick]

Morons, we gave billions to democrat researchers, which are professors and students. Now they tell us all that money was wasted cause they got something as easy as, "how much ice is in the cup" wrong!

They were wrong with all the money they spent but now they got it right.

Low life scum liars

What the fuck are you talking about? "Democrat researchers"? Really? Can we see the evidence supporting that claim? And let's have another quick look at the text in the OP and see what you call "how much ice is in the cup".

Nearly every glacier in Greenland has thinned or retreated over the past few decades1,2,3,4, leading to glacier acceleration, increased rates of sea-level rise and climate impacts around the globe5,6,7,8,9. To understand how calving-front retreat has affected the ice-mass balance of Greenland, we combine 236,328 manually derived and AI-derived observations of glacier terminus positions collected from 1985 to 2022 and generate a 120-m-resolution mask defining the ice-sheet extent every month for nearly four decades. Here we show that, since 1985, the Greenland Ice Sheet (GrIS) has lost 5,091 ± 72 km2 of area, corresponding to 1,034 ± 120 Gt of ice lost to retreat. Our results indicate that, by neglecting calving-front retreat, current consensus estimates of ice-sheet mass balance4,9 have underestimated recent mass loss from Greenland by as much as 20%. The mass loss we report has had minimal direct impact on global sea level but is sufficient to affect ocean circulation and the distribution of heat energy around the globe10,11,12. On seasonal timescales, Greenland loses 193 ± 25 km2 (63 ± 6 Gt) of ice to retreat each year from a maximum extent in May to a minimum between September and October. We find that multidecadal retreat is highly correlated with the magnitude of seasonal advance and retreat of each glacier, meaning that terminus-position variability on seasonal timescales can serve as an indicator of glacier sensitivity to longer-term climate change.​

​

That looks just a bit more complicated than measuring the volume of a cup.

 

[elektra]

What the fuck are you talking about? "Democrat researchers"? Really? Can we see the evidence supporting that claim? And let's have another quick look at the text in the OP and see what you call "how much ice is in the cup".

Nearly every glacier in Greenland has thinned or retreated over the past few decades1,2,3,4, leading to glacier acceleration, increased rates of sea-level rise and climate impacts around the globe5,6,7,8,9. To understand how calving-front retreat has affected the ice-mass balance of Greenland, we combine 236,328 manually derived and AI-derived observations of glacier terminus positions collected from 1985 to 2022 and generate a 120-m-resolution mask defining the ice-sheet extent every month for nearly four decades. Here we show that, since 1985, the Greenland Ice Sheet (GrIS) has lost 5,091 ± 72 km2 of area, corresponding to 1,034 ± 120 Gt of ice lost to retreat. Our results indicate that, by neglecting calving-front retreat, current consensus estimates of ice-sheet mass balance4,9 have underestimated recent mass loss from Greenland by as much as 20%. The mass loss we report has had minimal direct impact on global sea level but is sufficient to affect ocean circulation and the distribution of heat energy around the globe10,11,12. On seasonal timescales, Greenland loses 193 ± 25 km2 (63 ± 6 Gt) of ice to retreat each year from a maximum extent in May to a minimum between September and October. We find that multidecadal retreat is highly correlated with the magnitude of seasonal advance and retreat of each glacier, meaning that terminus-position variability on seasonal timescales can serve as an indicator of glacier sensitivity to longer-term climate change.​

​

That looks just a bit more complicated than measuring the volume of a cup.

Yes, the universities are largelu democrat

they got all that research wrong, but now they are right, and only need billions more to show they are really right this time

 

[eagle1462010]

NASA Study: Rising Sea Level Could Exceed Estimates for U.S. Coasts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet.

Current fear mongering from NASA

 

[eagle1462010]

The Miami Flood We Thought About.

Parts of Florida underwater by 2025

 

[eagle1462010]

What are the 1990s news articles about the global sea level rising?

Shows a lot of articles over time that ended up wrong

 

[EMH]

Nearly every glacier in Greenland has thinned or retreated over the past few decades

BULLSHIT

Greenland continues to manufacture a new ice layer every year, what we find when we extract ICE CORES. How is Greenland "melting" if it is still growing ice, and it is still covering up the Viking dwellings used by the Vikings through 1400?

 

[Crick]

Yes, the universities are largelu democrat

they got all that research wrong, but now they are right, and only need billions more to show they are really right this time

And the evidence of that I asked for?

 

[eagle1462010]

New LITTLE ICE AGE LMAO

 

[eagle1462010]

1978

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Because we are also screwing it up. And, as has been pointed out here on several occasions, not only are China and India emitting much less CO2 on a per capita basis than is the United States, China is spending four times as much as we are to reduce emissions.

China is spending money on pollution because their cities have unbreathable air. CO2 is not their problem! Per capita means nothing when they are 2-3 times our population. You obviously failed statistics too.

 

[Crick]

China is spending money on pollution because their cities have unbreathable air. CO2 is not their problem! Per capita means nothing when they are 2-3 times our population. You obviously failed statistics too.

Actually, I aced statistics. And the fact that every denier here rejects the validity of per capita emissions is de facto proof that their comments re China are based on emotional hostility, not science.

Educate yourselves: The Relationship between National-Level Carbon Dioxide Emissions and Population Size: An Assessment of Regional and Temporal Variation, 1960–2005

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Actually, I aced statistics. And the fact that every denier here rejects the validity of per capita emissions is de facto proof that their comments re China are based on emotional hostility, not science.

Educate yourselves: The Relationship between National-Level Carbon Dioxide Emissions and Population Size: An Assessment of Regional and Temporal Variation, 1960–2005

You aced statistics but rely on per capita data in countries with billions of people? That's idiotic and anyone trying to say otherwise is gaslighting your dumb ass!