Comments on: The Science of Melting Ice Sheets: New review in Nature

By: Charlie

Charlie — Mon, 14 Sep 2015 09:12:57 +0000

Here a video how these pulses might happen => https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71l9lzLsBRc

Also see James Hansen’s new meta study, “Ice melt, sea level rise and superstorms: evidence from paleoclimate data, climate modeling, and modern observations that 2 °C global warming is highly dangerous”, available here (open access) => http://csas.ei.columbia.edu/2015/07/23/ice-melt-sea-level-rise-and-superstorms/

And here his blog post on the issue => “Disastrous Sea Level Rise Is an Issue for Today’s Public — Not Next Millennium’s”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-james-hansen/multi-meter-sea-level-rise-is-an-issue-for-todays-public_b_7875828.html

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Thu, 06 Jun 2013 21:43:30 +0000

Socalpa, you might enjoy the book “rising seas” (see right side bar near the top for a link to it).

Sandy’s would not have flooded the subways had it not been for prior sea level rise.

And yes, again, sea level rise rate doubled. There is not a “background” rate of sea level rise. We might expect the rate to increase further, and no current study effectively addresses some of the most likely cause of large scale quick melting of continental glaciers or explains the quasi-periodic sudden melting and sea level rise events we’ve seen in the past.

By: socalpa

socalpa — Thu, 06 Jun 2013 21:36:51 +0000

Wait a minute, Greg, I thought I asked a legitimate question about Ice melt Predictions and sea level rise. I came to this part of your blog because I thought you said sea levels are rising at twice the rate from ten years ago. Sea levels are supposed to have risen seven inches in more than a century .This predicts a foot in another century or five inches past background if I read it correctly. As far as Sandy goes in the tunnel flooding, It also came in at high tide with Lunar Perigee,did it not? If I have to have a PhD to understand all this Fine. I had hoped you could answer questions being asked all over.

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Thu, 06 Jun 2013 21:13:16 +0000

Ice2sea is not a study. This paper is not a study. They therefore can not say two different things. In any event, the Ice2Sea report is cited in this paper, and incorporated in it. It is not in conflict with it. Specifically, “Analytical solutions are now available to test and verify marine ice-sheet models, so that the numerical error associated with predicting grounding-line motion can be reduced significantly to the level of parameter uncertainties39: models that attempt to account for grounding-line dynamics should incorporate horizontal stress transmission across the grounding line, so that the grounded ice sheet realistically feels the influence of floating ice (Box 2). Furthermore, the grounding line needs to be resolved at a sufficiently high spatial resolution.”

You need to start paying more attention.

Your comments about wheat and rice are out of the blue and hardly relevant to the science we are discussion.

Where this is all going is that you are getting annoying.

(“I’m about to be censored because I speak the truth” in 3 … 2… 1…)

By: socalpa

socalpa — Thu, 06 Jun 2013 20:03:29 +0000

Wow, Which one is correct? Ice 2sea or this one? Big Difference! I have already been told quite bluntly that most people care a lot more about Wheat and Rice yields apparently enhanced by additional Co2 concentration (Greening Desert Implication #1 as deserts would be last and least affected) than melting sea ice and snail shell thickness! Where is this all going?