A new peer-reviewed scientific paper by multiple scientists from numerous research institutions in many countries summarizes the ice sheet mass balance at both poles (Greenland and Antarctica) from 1992 to 2020 using satellite data examining 3 different metrics (3 different ways), namely: 1) Ice loss versus ice gain to get net loss 2) Altimetry 3) Gravity Using these three independent methods, the study allows for the most accurate determination of climate change induced mass loss at the poles, and the uncertainty in the measurements. Basically, ice melt on the major ice sheets at the two poles has increased by an overall factor of six in the last 30 years. This represents a loss rate doubling period of about 11 years (a doubling period of 10 years for a time period of 30 years would give an overall factor of 2x2x2 = 8 times; we have 6 times). Of course this doubling period decreases as ice loss accelerates. I also discuss an important new paper looking at sea level rise impacts. It argues that the impacts on coastlines will be much more severe that we previously thought, since coastline height above present sea level has been measured incorrectly up to now, using radar data. Rather than detecting the ground above sea level, this radar detection has been erroneously measuring treetop and coastal roof heights above sea level. Pretty crazy mistake for the DEMs (Digital Elevation Models). Using the much better resolution and accurate method of LIDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) versus RADAR (Radio Detection and Ranging) the correct data has now been obtained, and it shows that 1 meter (3.3 feet) of SLR (sea level rise) will utterly swamp many low lying deltas and displace many more people than previously thought, and of course 2 meters of SLR will be even way more catastrophic to coastal regions around the planet. Please donate to PaulBeckwith.net to support my research and videos bringing you the latest climate system science in easily digestible chunks.
try to make your delivery sound less tedious - you always sound like you're reading a shopping list. appreciate your own work. this evidence could be very compelling for people to push back. link it to the pigs putting enormous emissions in the atmosphere. I see you might have done that a day ago
The real predicament is that with 8 billion humans and the degraded habitat everywhere, there is noehere to go. We thrived over the last 20,000 years as the ice sheets receded and the oceans rose. But there were very few of us and the world was pristine, clean and abundantly full of flora and fauna.
This is important information, but has just 3,000 views. Did it really need all the details about measuring techniques? And have you *still* not decided whether you want a beard or not? At present you just look scruffy. But thank you as always.
There's a much bigger time lag between updating assumptions, like the reality that we have known for 20 years that the continents are floating on low viscosity puddles of highly carbonated and hydrated Magma. And ten years since we learnt that it's not solid bedrock under these icesheets but porous Aquifers, and that Volcanic isotope proxies in basal outflows show it's not Atmosphere and ocean melting the Ice, but subglacial Volcanism and Hydrothermal Activity. But they are still basing sealevel and ice loss on these zombie assumptions. In fact uplift rates measured are 1000 times higher than the assumptions these gravity measurements are based on. It's hydraulic, not visco-elastic. The land rises as the Ice melts, nearby seafloor sinks. Net result is no sealevel rise from Ice melting from these continents. Sealevel rise is from oceanic thermal expansion, by Volcanic heating. And hydrothermal discharge from degassing magmatic bodies. We now also know for ten years that there have been 6 warming and cooling cycles in the last 1300 years, on ~230year periodicity. And also the ice core CO2 paleodata is deeply flawed. Fossil leaf stomata count proxy's show that atmospheric CO2 was as high as now in 1100AD. And we are past the peak of this warming cycle, which has been driven by tidal forcing of tectonic processes. And the next 20 years will show a rapid cooling that has already begun. Towards a minimum around 2100. And average global sealevels falling.
@7:32 21mm of sea level rise in 29 years due to melting ice, that sounds scary! By the year 2100 that rate would lead to almost 2.75" of sea level rise.
Yes, I was going to point this out also. Convert 12 miles cubed to cubic kms = approx 8000 cu/km which in cubic metres is 8 trillion, which is 8 trillion tonnes which is a whisker lower than the reported loss of ice of 8.3 trillion tonnes over the 30 year lifetime of this study. So the figure a cube of ice 12 miles high, with a base of 12x12 miles is correct. It's much easier sticking to metrics, really. I don't mind miles on the signpost in the UK, but in science journals, not so useful.
Has anyone considered the big time lag between data collection and papers published and peer review and government officials getting the message and how we are running out of time?
@@A-aron-iy6zz Well, you could always use the capital gains to reinvest in carbon capture & storage and uranium futures if you're into that sort of thing, but if I were you, I would cash out and go on a long vacation. 😉
There's a much bigger time lag between updating assumptions, like the reality that we have known for 20 years that the continents are floating on low viscosity puddles of highly carbonated and hydrated Magma. And ten years since we learnt that it's not solid bedrock under these icesheets but porous Aquifers, and that Volcanic isotope proxies in basal outflows show it's not Atmosphere and ocean melting the Ice, but subglacial Volcanism and Hydrothermal Activity. But they are still basing sealevel and ice loss on these zombie assumptions. In fact uplift rates measured are 1000 times higher than the assumptions these gravity measurements are based on. It's hydraulic, not visco-elastic. The land rises as the Ice melts, nearby seafloor sinks. Net result is no sealevel rise from Ice melting from these continents. Sealevel rise is from oceanic thermal expansion, by Volcanic heating. And hydrothermal discharge from degassing magmatic bodies. We now also know for ten years that there have been 6 warming and cooling cycles in the last 1300 years, on ~230year periodicity. And also the ice core CO2 paleodata is deeply flawed. Fossil leaf stomata count proxy's show that atmospheric CO2 was as high as now in 1100AD. And we are past the peak of this warming cycle, which has been driven by tidal forcing of tectonic processes. And the next 20 years will show a rapid cooling. And sealevels falling.
While the sea level rise is alarming and has the potential to displace billions of people. The implications are massive sea life die off from changes in the ocean environment. Changes in weather (already happening) patterns impacting land based flora & fauna, more mass die offs...the displaced population migration will just be another aspect of global loss of life (already happening)
Shallow seas warm the fastest. In a seasonal sense, more than 600 nautical miles north of the Equator severe tropical cyclones will be more prevalent in July and August once 4 meters of sea level rise happens. Also, there will be more occurrences of what was until recently often semi-formally referred to as the "Phillipine Sea effect", in which a tropical cyclone reaches peak intensity just before or at about the time of landfall. Sanibel Island in Florida experienced that effect about two years ago. Warm water was pushed by winds against the Florida coast, preventing upwelling of cooler water. One more feature peculiar to western Florida not present in the Philippines Sea is that the continental shelf is very broad and shallow, meaning that even 60 nautical miles offshore to the west in July and August, there is no cold water that can unwell to cool a severe tropical cyclone. As it turns out from a point of view of hindsight, western Florida when facing a tropical cyclone coming from the southwest can now experience a just before landfall intensification about as rapidly as has often happened in the last 10 years in the eastern Philippines when a tropical cyclone approaches the Philippines from the east, from the Phillipine Sea. With additional shallow sea regions coming into existence in many portions of the Northern Hemisphere in the next 100 years, repeats of the Sanabel Island disaster can more likely happen in coastal regions of the Arabian Sea and the Bay of Bengal and the South China Sea and the East China Sea and the Yellow Sea. Even the Persian Gulf could theoretically suffer a similar disaster in a coastal region, due to expansion of sea surface area in the Persian Gulf that would result from a sea level rise of 4 meters.
Paul, A cube has 6 faces, 12 edges, 8 vertices. The width height and length are the same, ie 12 x 12 x 12. The angles between any 2 faces must be 90º. - Twinkl NZ The result is a crazy big number, I know
I recently tried my hand at trying to discern how long til all the ice melted... I only took statistics 101... But using the combined satellite data from NASA, the very rough value for acceleration i got was +30%, meaning it looks like all the ice will finish melting 200 years from now. There is some suggestion from the data that acceleration was softening, so maybe longer than 200 years.
Hi Paul, thank you for the summary of uncomfortable truths… Exponentials are a bitch! The paper does say cube of 12 km high. So I would expect that to be 12 x 12 x 12 km! That’s 1728 cubic kilometres of ice returned to the ocean!… and the process has only just began with a possible transition to the next steady state in only 500 years or so. That would make Britain an archipelago with 40+ meters of sea level rise and 60+ meters would be small island chains!
I am really curious what will happen to Florida. Imagine if the entirety of Florida was covered with water, and then the water didnt receed. Truly "Biblical"
When I say this people look at me like I have three heads, but most of the energy from anthropogenic warming goes into heating the ocean, the land, and the air. Only a small amount goes into melting ice, and because of the latent heat of fusion, ice takes a lot of heat to melt. Certainly destabilization of ice sheets and collapse of ice masses will increase ice melt as the ice slides into the ocean. And certainly Miami, New Orleans, Kolkata, the North China Plain are in imminent danger. But by the time that enough heat has been released to raise sea level more than a couple of meters I think that enough atmospheric heating will have occurred to cause serial failure of cereal crops. I think that less than three billion people will see sea levels two meters higher than today.
when that happens Florida will be the least of your concerns. You need to look at The Global picture more. And you might be dead before you get to see it.
that "cube" contains over 254 TRILLION cubic feet of water - at 8.5 gallons per cu. ft. = 2,162,043, 518, 976, 000 more or less- many eople are saying . . is that quadrillion - what is that number- other than HUGE? compared to the total volume of the oceans- how does that rate?
The whole of East and West Antarctica is cooling, and has been for 40 years. East Antarctica has cooled by an impressive 0.7°C per decade. Resulting in an overall substantial and statistically significant decline of 2.8°C since 1980. So much for "Global" warming. I am referring to a paper by Zhu et al (2021) that looked at the reanalysed ERA5 satellite dataset. Doesn't it have to get warmer for the ice to melt?
I call him Guy JJ McPherson. The JJ is for Jimmy Jones. To claim extinction by 2026 is bonkers. Cultish. Nuts. Idiotic. Other than his farcical dates that are always rolling, he is a great guy with lots of sense. I don’t think he believes his own dates like 2026; he just says this to energize the cult.
Great video, however, I do not think you can make the statement that the doubling period will shorten. 12years or so is way bad enough. Remember the Hansen Paper Ice melt sea level rise and super storms (...). I10years was the worst case they looked at.and they reached 3-5m til 2070
Honestly, ..do you think the US Military's Climate Change Risk Assessment made these same errors as well? Do you think these recent findings made by "us civilians" will cause the almighty to reassess their findings/ Im really starting to think that things are going to spiral out of control faster than anyone ever imagined. Truly , the MOST exciting time to be alive on Earth, ...ever.
Most won’t have the means to relocate. Mass die-offs due to sea level rise, storms and heat are coming to a continent close to you sooner or later. Likely sooner.
@Paul I have two national geographic maps of Greenland's and Antarctica' ice sheets that I would love to see your update on where we are now! Do you have a P.O.box?
What about evaporation? ? A larger surface will give more evaporation. If deserts get this increased rain then we get a different picture. And there is old forrest and rivers under many deserts.
How many million cubic kilometers of ice in Greenland, Antarctica. Oh Millions. How many million cubic miles of ice melted since the last ice age peak? Oh enough to raise the ocean 400 feet. ?????
That 400 of so of sea level rise in the last 21,000 years does not take into account something that mostly has not taken effect yet: the law of thermal expansion. For about as long as Antarctica keeps the Ross ice shelf, the deep sea will strongly resist heating. Once that strong resistance to heating goes away, the deep sea will gradually get warmer. The law of thermal expansion applied to seawater states that warmer seawater takes up more volume than colder seawater. It might take 80,000 years or so for the process of deep ocean warming to complete, but a higher ocean will be a result. In the meantime, post-glacial erosion and other post-glacial geological processes will further add to sea level rise in many locations. The end result will be that some parts of the world, especially parts of the world near the Equator, the median high tide will be about 500 feet higher than now in the year 2023. Short version: Long term reasons exist such that sea level rise can be much more than how much mass of water would get added to the ocean from a future melting of almost all ice on Antarctica and Greenland.
Funny stuff. Multiple claims about accelerated ice loss yet it is obvious from both tide gauge data and satellite data that sea level rise has remained linear - since the inception of satellite data in 1993 wrt satellites and for more than 150 years for the tide gauge record around the world. (3.1 mm/yr for satellites and 1.8 mm/yr for tide gauge compilation data).
"There are huge non climate effects of carbon dioxide which are overwhelmingly favorable which are not taken into account. To me that's the main issue that the earth is actually growing greener. This has been actually measured from satellites the whole earth is growing greener as a result of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. So it's increasing agricultural yields, it's increasing the forests, it's increasing all kinds of growth in the biological world and that's more important and more certain than the effects on climate." ~Freeman Dyson, Institute of Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey.
A new peer-reviewed scientific paper by multiple scientists from numerous research institutions in many countries summarizes the ice sheet mass balance at both poles (Greenland and Antarctica) from 1992 to 2020 using satellite data examining 3 different metrics (3 different ways), namely:
1) Ice loss versus ice gain to get net loss
2) Altimetry
3) Gravity
Using these three independent methods, the study allows for the most accurate determination of climate change induced mass loss at the poles, and the uncertainty in the measurements.
Basically, ice melt on the major ice sheets at the two poles has increased by an overall factor of six in the last 30 years. This represents a loss rate doubling period of about 11 years (a doubling period of 10 years for a time period of 30 years would give an overall factor of 2x2x2 = 8 times; we have 6 times). Of course this doubling period decreases as ice loss accelerates.
I also discuss an important new paper looking at sea level rise impacts. It argues that the impacts on coastlines will be much more severe that we previously thought, since coastline height above present sea level has been measured incorrectly up to now, using radar data. Rather than detecting the ground above sea level, this radar detection has been erroneously measuring treetop and coastal roof heights above sea level. Pretty crazy mistake for the DEMs (Digital Elevation Models).
Using the much better resolution and accurate method of LIDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) versus RADAR (Radio Detection and Ranging) the correct data has now been obtained, and it shows that 1 meter (3.3 feet) of SLR (sea level rise) will utterly swamp many low lying deltas and displace many more people than previously thought, and of course 2 meters of SLR will be even way more catastrophic to coastal regions around the planet.
Please donate to PaulBeckwith.net to support my research and videos bringing you the latest climate system science in easily digestible chunks.
try to make your delivery sound less tedious - you always sound like you're reading a shopping list. appreciate your own work. this evidence could be very compelling for people to push back. link it to the pigs putting enormous emissions in the atmosphere. I see you might have done that a day ago
The real predicament is that with 8 billion humans and the degraded habitat everywhere, there is noehere to go. We thrived over the last 20,000 years as the ice sheets receded and the oceans rose. But there were very few of us and the world was pristine, clean and abundantly full of flora and fauna.
This is important information, but has just 3,000 views. Did it really need all the details about measuring techniques? And have you *still* not decided whether you want a beard or not? At present you just look scruffy. But thank you as always.
There's a much bigger time lag between updating assumptions, like the reality that we have known for 20 years that the continents are floating on low viscosity puddles of highly carbonated and hydrated Magma.
And ten years since we learnt that it's not solid bedrock under these icesheets but porous Aquifers, and that Volcanic isotope proxies in basal outflows show it's not Atmosphere and ocean melting the Ice, but subglacial Volcanism and Hydrothermal Activity.
But they are still basing sealevel and ice loss on these zombie assumptions.
In fact uplift rates measured are 1000 times higher than the assumptions these gravity measurements are based on.
It's hydraulic, not visco-elastic. The land rises as the Ice melts, nearby seafloor sinks.
Net result is no sealevel rise from Ice melting from these continents.
Sealevel rise is from oceanic thermal expansion, by Volcanic heating. And hydrothermal discharge from degassing magmatic bodies.
We now also know for ten years that there have been 6 warming and cooling cycles in the last 1300 years, on ~230year periodicity.
And also the ice core CO2 paleodata is deeply flawed.
Fossil leaf stomata count proxy's show that atmospheric CO2 was as high as now in 1100AD.
And we are past the peak of this warming cycle, which has been driven by tidal forcing of tectonic processes.
And the next 20 years will show a rapid cooling that has already begun. Towards a minimum around 2100.
And average global sealevels falling.
Thanks for all the work you do to keep us informed Paul.
@7:32 21mm of sea level rise in 29 years due to melting ice, that sounds scary! By the year 2100 that rate would lead to almost 2.75" of sea level rise.
Thanks for the report. However, a 12 mile high cube has to be 12 miles width and height as well. :) A cube is a cube.
Yes, that's what i thought. So a volume of 12x12x12 = 1728 cubic miles
Yes, I was going to point this out also. Convert 12 miles cubed to cubic kms = approx 8000 cu/km which in cubic metres is 8 trillion, which is 8 trillion tonnes which is a whisker lower than the reported loss of ice of 8.3 trillion tonnes over the 30 year lifetime of this study. So the figure a cube of ice 12 miles high, with a base of 12x12 miles is correct. It's much easier sticking to metrics, really. I don't mind miles on the signpost in the UK, but in science journals, not so useful.
Yes, of course:)
Has anyone considered the big time lag between data collection and papers published and peer review and government officials getting the message and how we are running out of time?
Running out of time or have we run out of time already?
Time ran out 4,436 days ago.
@@obsoleteoptics So we can't buy more time? What of my stonk portfolios.
@@A-aron-iy6zz Well, you could always use the capital gains to reinvest in carbon capture & storage and uranium futures if you're into that sort of thing, but if I were you, I would cash out and go on a long vacation. 😉
There's a much bigger time lag between updating assumptions, like the reality that we have known for 20 years that the continents are floating on low viscosity puddles of highly carbonated and hydrated Magma.
And ten years since we learnt that it's not solid bedrock under these icesheets but porous Aquifers, and that Volcanic isotope proxies in basal outflows show it's not Atmosphere and ocean melting the Ice, but subglacial Volcanism and Hydrothermal Activity.
But they are still basing sealevel and ice loss on these zombie assumptions.
In fact uplift rates measured are 1000 times higher than the assumptions these gravity measurements are based on.
It's hydraulic, not visco-elastic. The land rises as the Ice melts, nearby seafloor sinks.
Net result is no sealevel rise from Ice melting from these continents.
Sealevel rise is from oceanic thermal expansion, by Volcanic heating. And hydrothermal discharge from degassing magmatic bodies.
We now also know for ten years that there have been 6 warming and cooling cycles in the last 1300 years, on ~230year periodicity.
And also the ice core CO2 paleodata is deeply flawed.
Fossil leaf stomata count proxy's show that atmospheric CO2 was as high as now in 1100AD.
And we are past the peak of this warming cycle, which has been driven by tidal forcing of tectonic processes.
And the next 20 years will show a rapid cooling. And sealevels falling.
If it's a 12ml high "cube" then it's 12 ml x 12ml x12ml not 12ml high and 1 ml wide. Just shows how scientists can get it wrong.
The ice hitting the fan....
I think you meant, The Sh'ice is hitting the fan...
I no longer like exponentials
While the sea level rise is alarming and has the potential to displace billions of people. The implications are massive sea life die off from changes in the ocean environment. Changes in weather (already happening) patterns impacting land based flora & fauna, more mass die offs...the displaced population migration will just be another aspect of global loss of life (already happening)
Shallow seas warm the fastest.
In a seasonal sense, more than 600 nautical miles north of the Equator severe tropical cyclones will be more prevalent in July and August once 4 meters of sea level rise happens. Also, there will be more occurrences of what was until recently often semi-formally referred to as the "Phillipine Sea effect", in which a tropical cyclone reaches peak intensity just before or at about the time of landfall.
Sanibel Island in Florida experienced that effect about two years ago. Warm water was pushed by winds against the Florida coast, preventing upwelling of cooler water. One more feature peculiar to western Florida not present in the Philippines Sea is that the continental shelf is very broad and shallow, meaning that even 60 nautical miles offshore to the west in July and August, there is no cold water that can unwell to cool a severe tropical cyclone. As it turns out from a point of view of hindsight, western Florida when facing a tropical cyclone coming from the southwest can now experience a just before landfall intensification about as rapidly as has often happened in the last 10 years in the eastern Philippines when a tropical cyclone approaches the Philippines from the east, from the Phillipine Sea.
With additional shallow sea regions coming into existence in many portions of the Northern Hemisphere in the next 100 years, repeats of the Sanabel Island disaster can more likely happen in coastal regions of the Arabian Sea and the Bay of Bengal and the South China Sea and the East China Sea and the Yellow Sea. Even the Persian Gulf could theoretically suffer a similar disaster in a coastal region, due to expansion of sea surface area in the Persian Gulf that would result from a sea level rise of 4 meters.
Paul, A cube has 6 faces, 12 edges, 8 vertices. The width height and length are the same, ie 12 x 12 x 12. The angles between any 2 faces must be 90º. - Twinkl NZ The result is a crazy big number, I know
I recently tried my hand at trying to discern how long til all the ice melted... I only took statistics 101... But using the combined satellite data from NASA, the very rough value for acceleration i got was +30%, meaning it looks like all the ice will finish melting 200 years from now. There is some suggestion from the data that acceleration was softening, so maybe longer than 200 years.
Hi Paul, thank you for the summary of uncomfortable truths… Exponentials are a bitch!
The paper does say cube of 12 km high. So I would expect that to be 12 x 12 x 12 km!
That’s 1728 cubic kilometres of ice returned to the ocean!… and the process has only just began with a possible transition to the next steady state in only 500 years or so. That would make Britain an archipelago with 40+ meters of sea level rise and 60+ meters would be small island chains!
See my comment above. The 12 mile cube is correct. Just a confusion of measuring systems.
I am really curious what will happen to Florida. Imagine if the entirety of Florida was covered with water, and then the water didnt receed.
Truly "Biblical"
One can only hope
When I say this people look at me like I have three heads, but most of the energy from anthropogenic warming goes into heating the ocean, the land, and the air. Only a small amount goes into melting ice, and because of the latent heat of fusion, ice takes a lot of heat to melt. Certainly destabilization of ice sheets and collapse of ice masses will increase ice melt as the ice slides into the ocean. And certainly Miami, New Orleans, Kolkata, the North China Plain are in imminent danger. But by the time that enough heat has been released to raise sea level more than a couple of meters I think that enough atmospheric heating will have occurred to cause serial failure of cereal crops. I think that less than three billion people will see sea levels two meters higher than today.
when that happens Florida will be the least of your concerns. You need to look at The Global picture more. And you might be dead before you get to see it.
On the west coast of Éire, What do you think we'll see more of, Floridan's floaters (carried on the Gulf stream) or Greenland ice floes ??
that "cube" contains over 254 TRILLION cubic feet of water - at 8.5 gallons per cu. ft. = 2,162,043, 518, 976, 000
more or less- many eople are saying . .
is that quadrillion - what is that number- other than HUGE?
compared to the total volume of the oceans- how does that rate?
@4:40 Yes! All cubes, by definition, measure 1 unit X 1 unit X 12 units. Basic Geometry 101.
Thanks Paul. You are my rock. Keep up the great work!
We have to rename some of our cities. For instance Egmond aan Zee will become Egmond in Zee. Zee = Sea, as you probably already understood.
Think about how polluted the ocean is going to get when these areas get flooded. That might speed up ocean warming also?
The whole of East and West Antarctica is cooling, and has been for 40 years. East Antarctica has cooled by an impressive 0.7°C per decade. Resulting in an overall substantial and statistically significant decline of 2.8°C since 1980. So much for "Global" warming. I am referring to a paper by Zhu et al (2021) that looked at the reanalysed ERA5 satellite dataset. Doesn't it have to get warmer for the ice to melt?
Do you think I'm right to say that melting won't reach it's maximum rate until we lose most terrestrial water?
I do not understand the part of the question with the words "until we lose most terrestrial water".
What do you think about Guy Mcpherson’s ideas about abrupt climate change and aerosol masking?
I call him Guy JJ McPherson. The JJ is for Jimmy Jones. To claim extinction by 2026 is bonkers. Cultish. Nuts. Idiotic. Other than his farcical dates that are always rolling, he is a great guy with lots of sense. I don’t think he believes his own dates like 2026; he just says this to energize the cult.
Paul love your talks... although sometimes a bit slow... but could you please learn to Screencast. Then we have a clear view on what you are showing
Great video, however, I do not think you can make the statement that the doubling period will shorten. 12years or so is way bad enough. Remember the Hansen Paper Ice melt sea level rise and super storms (...). I10years was the worst case they looked at.and they reached 3-5m til 2070
Paul, would it be possible to add in your videos and understanding of where the funding of each paper comes from?
Honestly, ..do you think the US Military's Climate Change Risk Assessment made these same errors as well?
Do you think these recent findings made by "us civilians" will cause the almighty to reassess their findings/
Im really starting to think that things are going to spiral out of control faster than anyone ever imagined.
Truly , the MOST exciting time to be alive on Earth, ...ever.
So, 1 Meter in less than 20 years, then 6 more Meters in the following 30 years.
Where will millions of people relocate to?
Most won’t have the means to relocate. Mass die-offs due to sea level rise, storms and heat are coming to a continent close to you sooner or later. Likely sooner.
heaven, or Canada and New Zealand
Houseboats. Made from their huts. I guess they would be hut boats.
Mass graves.
no one place or space (Musk-ers, Bezo-ers, Isherwell)
@Paul I have two national geographic maps of Greenland's and Antarctica' ice sheets that I would love to see your update on where we are now! Do you have a P.O.box?
Greenland from January 1990 and Antarctica's from 2002.
the screen is wishy -washy or I lost vision
You’re having vision issues. Possible stroke?!
Did your retinas detach again?
If it's a cube, it's a 12 mile wide and high square
What about evaporation? ? A larger surface will give more evaporation. If deserts get this increased rain then we get a different picture. And there is old forrest and rivers under many deserts.
Don’t breed more humans
Are you crazy! Were talking about capitalism here,got to have more consumers 😱
@@fishinghuntingfool 2035 owner-class: "what so you're too good to eat these healthy delicious crickets and oat mash that we've blessed you with?"
How many million cubic kilometers of ice in Greenland, Antarctica. Oh Millions. How many million cubic miles of ice melted since the last ice age peak? Oh enough to raise the ocean 400 feet. ?????
That 400 of so of sea level rise in the last 21,000 years does not take into account something that mostly has not taken effect yet: the law of thermal expansion.
For about as long as Antarctica keeps the Ross ice shelf, the deep sea will strongly resist heating. Once that strong resistance to heating goes away, the deep sea will gradually get warmer.
The law of thermal expansion applied to seawater states that warmer seawater takes up more volume than colder seawater. It might take 80,000 years or so for the process of deep ocean warming to complete, but a higher ocean will be a result. In the meantime, post-glacial erosion and other post-glacial geological processes will further add to sea level rise in many locations. The end result will be that some parts of the world, especially parts of the world near the Equator, the median high tide will be about 500 feet higher than now in the year 2023.
Short version: Long term reasons exist such that sea level rise can be much more than how much mass of water would get added to the ocean from a future melting of almost all ice on Antarctica and Greenland.
Right we know that where we are going to be in 10 years very bad don’t buy water front property 5 meters Above water or less
Funny stuff. Multiple claims about accelerated ice loss yet it is obvious from both tide gauge data and satellite data that sea level rise has remained linear - since the inception of satellite data in 1993 wrt satellites and for more than 150 years for the tide gauge record around the world. (3.1 mm/yr for satellites and 1.8 mm/yr for tide gauge compilation data).
Good to see that emotional socialism has been dumped, and proper science has returned.
"There are huge non climate effects of carbon dioxide which are overwhelmingly favorable which are not taken into account. To me that's the main issue that the earth is actually growing greener. This has been actually measured from satellites the whole earth is growing greener as a result of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. So it's increasing agricultural yields, it's increasing the forests, it's increasing all kinds of growth in the biological world and that's more important and more certain than the effects on climate." ~Freeman Dyson, Institute of Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey.
But is it enough to even keep up with, let alone outpace, deforestation?
Please show the papers that back these claims up. This is what Paul does here and I greatly appreciate it.
A cube would be 12X12.
a cube is 12x12x12. 12x12 is an area.