Posted on 11/20/2015 7:16:25 AM PST by BenLurkin
Their new study models how the polar south will react if greenhouse gases rise at a medium to high rate.
The most likely outcome is an input of about 10cm to global waters by 2100.
But the prospect of a 30cm-or-more contribution - claimed by some previous research - has just a one-in-20 chance.
The latest work, which appears in the journal Nature, was led by Catherine Ritz from the Universite Grenoble Alpes, France, and Tamsin Edwards, from the Open University, UK.
...
"With our model we have done some 3,000 simulations," explained Dr Edwards.
"People have done multiple simulations before, but what they haven't then done is see how well they compare with the present day, and put that into re-weighting the predictions.
"So, we take those 3,000 runs and compare them to what's happening now in the Amundsen Sea, and if any look as though they are going too fast or too slow, we give them a lower weight in the future.
"We're constraining the model with the observations. Nobody has really done this sort of formal scoring before." ...
Where the new study really differs, however, is in its marking down of the high impact, low probability outcomes - the possibility that runaway collapse from an unstable Antarctica could add half a metre, even a metre, to sea-level rise by the end of this century.
(Excerpt) Read more at bbc.com ...
I wonder if someone could devise a computer model showing what will happen if we let 200,000 foreign Muslims into this country. I bet the left would dismiss it out of hand.
The big question is, will the depth of BS on Western Lands be in the 10-20cm range, or will it go much higher? What will it be like for Westerners, trying to walk around on ground covered with up to 100cm of BS in all directions?
here that boom? that’s bernie sanders hitting the ground after having a stroke.
From 1975...
The "Grim Realities" of Global COOLING
"The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth's climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic."
The Cooling World
Newsweek, April 28, 1975
There are ominous signs that the Earth's weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production- with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self- sufficient tropical areas - parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia - where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.
The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree - a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars' worth of damage in 13 U.S. states.
To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world's weather. The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth's climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic.
"A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale," warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, "because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century."
A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3 percent between 1964 and 1972.
To the layman, the relatively small changes in temperature and sunshine can be highly misleading. Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin points out that the Earth's average temperature during the great Ice Ages was only about seven degrees lower than during its warmest eras - and that the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age average. Others regard the cooling as a reversion to the "little ice age" conditions that brought bitter winters to much of Europe and northern America between 1600 and 1900 - years when the Thames used to freeze so solidly that Londoners roasted oxen on the ice and when iceboats sailed the Hudson River almost as far south as New York City.
Just what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages remains a mystery. "Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic change is at least as fragmentary as our data," concedes the National Academy of Sciences report. "Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions."
Meteorologists think that they can forecast the short-term results of the return to the norm of the last century. They begin by noting the slight drop in overall temperature that produces large numbers of pressure centers in the upper atmosphere. These break up the smooth flow of westerly winds over temperate areas. The stagnant air produced in this way causes an increase in extremes of local weather such as droughts, floods, extended dry spells, long freezes, delayed monsoons and even local temperature increases - all of which have a direct impact on food supplies.
"The world's food-producing system," warns Dr. James D. McQuigg of NOAA's Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment, "is much more sensitive to the weather variable than it was even five years ago." Furthermore, the growth of world population and creation of new national boundaries make it impossible for starving peoples to migrate from their devastated fields, as they did during past famines.
Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.
The Cooling World:
http://denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm
Original Newsweek article with scary maps and graphs:
http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf
Various hydrodynamic models already exist. You need to input initial conditions, yield and height of detonation.
Why does it take 3,000 simulations to reach a conclusion? If the model is valid (most are not) one should be sufficient.
Could be — but then the dollar costs stipulated in their grant request might have been a lot slimmer.
LOL! His statement is so non-scientific it boggles the mind. Who cares how many simulations? Has he ever done one that predicted anything accurately and is repeatable? That is science. All else is hogwash. I’m sick of these frauds who pretend that computer models are themselves science.
MELTDOWN MYTH: Antarctic ice growing is just the first EVIDENCE global warming is NOT REAL
http://www.express.co.uk/news/nature/617144/Antarctica-not-shrinking-growing-ice-caps-melting
Hard to believe.
It occurs to me that computer modeling belongs more to the realm of statistics and probability than it does to climatology. We may as well as well be trying to predict this weekend’s NFL games.
Antarctic warming and greenhouse gas connection: ‘we lack sufficient evidence’; but the ice sheet will collapse anyway
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/11/02/antarctic-warming-and-greenhouse-gas-connection-we-lack-sufficient-evidence-but-the-ice-sheet-will-collapse-anyway/
Yet another study shows Antarctica gaining ice mass – snowfall accumulation ‘highest we have seen in the last 300 years’
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/11/05/yet-another-study-shows-antarctica-gaining-ice-mass-accumulation-highest-we-have-seen-in-the-last-300-years/
Ooops! New NASA study: Antarctica isn’t losing ice mass after all !
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/31/ooops-new-nasa-study-antarctica-isnt-losing-ice-mass-after-all/
2015 Antarctic Maximum Sea Ice Extent Breaks Streak of Record Highs
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/16/2015-antarctic-maximum-sea-ice-extent-breaks-streak-of-record-highs/
Manufactured PANIC: projected Antarctic ice shelf melting “may surpass intensities associated with ice shelf collapseâ€
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/13/manufactured-panic-projected-antarctic-ice-shelf-melting-may-surpass-intensities-associated-with-ice-shelf-collapse/
If Ice melts at the Poles then more water at the Equator will evaporate putting moisture into the air causing cooling and causing Ice to form at the poles ,D’oh
What does Poland have to do with this?
I spoke to a relative (works for US Government in DC) a couple weeks ago who is a wildlife biologist and who attended a polar bear international summit “up North” about a month ago on the effects of climate change on such bear. He was very disappointed as he and about 50 other scientists from around the world who attended, essentially sat around and did nothing. He expected to discuss published “scientific” studies made about this “problem”. Never happened. The decision was made BEFORE the summit that climate change IS affecting the polar bear. Thus, no discussion was needed at the summit. Essentially, the ice caps will continue to melt, the oceans will rise (purportedly 5-8 feet), and the polar bears will be forced inland to scavenge for food that no longer exists in the quantities once seen on the ice packs. The polar bear will decrease in numbers and become endangered.
So there you have it! There is no scientific exchange. You vill march according to the tyranny of countries pushing this global warming crap, or else you vill be added to the “endangered scientist” list.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.