The Greenland Ice Sheet, the Arctic winter that wasn't and Sea Level Rise.

[repoman]

I thought of putting this in Science, but the policy implications of this are too important to delay talking about politically.

Greenland's ice has the potential to rather quickly turn coastlines into wastelands and salty swamps, and this current winter is very weak - completely off the charts in fact. There are about 7 meters of SLR locked up in Greenland's ice now.

http://robertscribbler.com/2016/02/18/no-winter-for-the-arctic-in-2016-nasa-marks-hottest-january-ever-recorded/

I like this comment in regards to NASA's map using the 1951-1980 baseline instead of the 1880 one which knocks off 0.25 C from temperature anomaly:

The goal posts need to stay at 1880. People unconsciously try to move them. It’s human nature to react in that way. But we need to keep a clear picture of what’s going on. My view is that we should all use 1880 as the base line. The global monitors should do the same.

This is one of the articles it cites.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/02/18/scientists-are-floored-by-whats-happening-in-the-arctic-right-now/

Greenland's melting is about to go nonlinear. Seaport based trade is going to be crippled.

 

[bilby]

I thought of putting this in Science, but the policy implications of this are too important to delay talking about politically.

Greenland's ice has the potential to rather quickly turn coastlines into wastelands and salty swamps, and this current winter is very weak - completely off the charts in fact. There are about 7 meters of SLR locked up in Greenland's ice now.

http://robertscribbler.com/2016/02/18/no-winter-for-the-arctic-in-2016-nasa-marks-hottest-january-ever-recorded/

I like this comment in regards to NASA's map using the 1951-1980 baseline instead of the 1880 one which knocks off 0.25 C from temperature anomaly:

The goal posts need to stay at 1880. People unconsciously try to move them. It’s human nature to react in that way. But we need to keep a clear picture of what’s going on. My view is that we should all use 1880 as the base line. The global monitors should do the same.

This is one of the articles it cites.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/02/18/scientists-are-floored-by-whats-happening-in-the-arctic-right-now/

Greenland's melting is about to go nonlinear. Seaport based trade is going to be crippled.

So what? How many seaports are there in Greenland anyway?

 

[maxparrish]

I thought of putting this in Science, but the policy implications of this are too important to delay talking about politically.

Greenland's ice has the potential to rather quickly turn coastlines into wastelands and salty swamps, and this current winter is very weak - completely off the charts in fact. There are about 7 meters of SLR locked up in Greenland's ice now.

http://robertscribbler.com/2016/02/18/no-winter-for-the-arctic-in-2016-nasa-marks-hottest-january-ever-recorded/

I like this comment in regards to NASA's map using the 1951-1980 baseline instead of the 1880 one which knocks off 0.25 C from temperature anomaly:


This is one of the articles it cites.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/02/18/scientists-are-floored-by-whats-happening-in-the-arctic-right-now/

Greenland's melting is about to go nonlinear. Seaport based trade is going to be crippled.

So what? How many seaports are there in Greenland anyway?

Hey...any excuse for hysteria.

 

[Valjean]

People are in deep denial of the staggering implications of global warming.
http://phys.org/news/2010-06-humans-extinct-years-eminent-scientist.html

 

[bilby]

People are in deep denial of the staggering implications of global warming.
http://phys.org/news/2010-06-humans-extinct-years-eminent-scientist.html

And others have a 40 year out of date view of demographics.

Overpopulation isn't going to cause extinction; indeed, it is the definitional opposite of extinction.

But it's irrelevant anyway, in part because of the general increase in wealth and education, particularly for women; and in part because of the invention of the oral contraceptive pill - perhaps the most important invention in human history.

Of course, both of these things were only just beginning to have an effect in the 70s, so those who learned about ecology back then frequently make the mistake of continuing their well-intentioned crusade. But they are, like all crusaders, trying to impose a belief; and like all crusaders, the mission has long since been more important to them than whether its basis is fact or myth.

Global warming is a problem; and we need to fix it. But extinction isn't on the cards. And overpopulation isn't even a problem, much less a route to extinction. The population bomb was defused in the 70s and 80s. Population is now only growing through demographic lag; the world population will level off this century - and probably before the middle of the century - without any reduction in life expectancy (indeed that will continue to rise).