Rapid disintegration and weakening of ice shelves in North Greenland. Millan, R., Jager, E., Mouginot, J. et al. Nat Commun 14, 6914 (2023).

submitted by ActuallyNot from nature.com

all 12 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]Threesrwild 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Climate pimps. The earth is cooling and it is going to get much colder and none of it has anything to do with man.

[–]ActuallyNot[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The earth isn't cooling.

See how the surface temperatures are increasing?

That's called warming.

[–]zyxzevn 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Is Greenland ready for harvesting again? No.

[–]ActuallyNot[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

The glaciers of North Greenland are hosting enough ice to raise sea level by 2.1 m

[–]zyxzevn 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Don't get fooled by propaganda and map projections.
The oceans are far far bigger than that.

[–]ActuallyNot[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I'm not guessing. It's in the first sentence of the paper.

"The glaciers of North Greenland are hosting enough ice to raise sea level by 2.1 m, and have long considered to be stable. "

They haven't used a map projection. The height of the glaciers are far far bigger than you realize. They haven't miscalculated the volume.

[–]ActuallyNot[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

The ice shelves in North Greenland have been faking global warming by rapidly disintegrating, losing 35% of their total volume over the last 45 years.

It must be that the big wind lobby has got to them.

[–]monkeymagic 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

who caused climates everywhere on earth to gradually and regularly change before the industrial revolution?

[–]Questionable 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

It was me. Sorry about that.

[–]StillLessons 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Not always gradually, either. Rapid climate change events exist in the record pre-industrialization. Our world has always existed in flux.

[–]ActuallyNot[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The current one is more rapid than anything not associated with a mass extinction event.

When the flux is rapid warming like the current state, it's economic to avoid it and stop burning fossil fuels.

This is also a better way to stop using fossil fuels, rather than a sudden jarring halt when they run out.

[–]ActuallyNot[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Milankovitch cycles?

We believe that those were driven by orbital cycles. Combined with the positive feedback of CO2- forcing as the oceans warmed, it threw the planet in to periodic rapid warming phases followed by much slower cooling phases.

And it's good to know how important CO2 warming can be, but it's not what we're seeing now. We're warming more rapidly than the rapid warming at the end of a glaciation period. They took about 7,000 years to warm about 8°C, which is close to 0.1°C per century. We're going at 20 times that pace. (And accelerating).

And we're warming from the warm part of the glaciation cycle, which means that we're putting the planet in a climate that current species have never coexisted with.

You can see how rapidly we've increased the temperature near the start of a cooling cycle that would have continued for 90,000 years.