Large portions of Earth's ice melting faster than expected.

Mar 2015
31,485
16,941
Mad Prophet
In the 1990s, contrary to popular opinion, scientist believed that the Earth's ice sheets in area's such as Greenland, Antarctica and Iceland would not melt very much within the next one hundred years.

They were wrong.

Article:

....(If) the ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica to melt, sea levels would rise by an estimated 225 feet worldwide. Few expect that to happen anytime soon. But those ice sheets now look a lot more fragile than they did to the climate change panel in 1995, when it said that little change was expected over the next hundred years.

In the years since, data has shown that both Greenland and Antarctica have been shedding ice far more rapidly than anticipated. Ice shelves, which are floating extensions of land ice, hold back glaciers from sliding into the sea and eventually melting. In the early 2000s, ice shelves began disintegrating in several parts of Antarctica, and scientists realized that process could greatly accelerate the demise of the vastly larger ice sheets themselves. And some major glaciers are dumping ice directly into the ocean.

By 2014, a number of scientists had concluded that an irreversible collapse of the West Antarctic ice sheet had already begun, and computer modeling in 2016 indicated that its disintegration in concert with other melting could raise sea levels up to six feet by 2100, about twice the increase described as a possible worst-case scenario just three years earlier. At that pace, some of the world’s great coastal cities, including New York, London and Hong Kong, would become inundated. Then this year, a review of 40 years of satellite images suggested that the East Antarctic ice sheet, which was thought to be relatively stable, may also be shedding vast amounts of ice...

 
Mar 2015
31,485
16,941
Mad Prophet
The premise is flawed, in the 90's, the ice caps were predicted to be GONE by 2010.
Who, specifically, predicted that? Because I am speaking about The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change who convened in 1995 and they made no such claim.

"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change suggested in its 1995 report that Antarctica as a whole was stable."


You may download the 1995 study in its entirety via the link provided.

If you are going to disparage my entire premise, you need to do better that to flippantly dismiss it out of hand by siteing some dubious, unproven claim.
 
Last edited:
Oct 2019
657
216
Earth
Who, specifically, predicted that? Because I am speaking about The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change who convened in 1995 and they made no such claim.

"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change suggested in its 1995 report that Antarctica as a whole was stable."


You may download the 1995 study in its entirety via the link provided.

If you are going to disparage my entire premise, you need to do better that to flippantly dismiss it out of hand by siteing some dubious, unproven claim.
Al Gore was using IPCC and NOAA sources primarily..
 
Oct 2019
657
216
Earth
Guy, i posted a link to what their research was. You obviously didn't read it.

Al Gore has his own opinion, so does every other layman.
No, you linked to a massive report that would take to read. Give a real citation with a quote / graph or specific pages if you want me to address.

Al Gore was highlighting the major scientific consensus, combining everything that was available at the time.

The discussion is irrelevant regardless, those reports do no reflect science (observable, testable, repeatable), but reflect the proprietary modeling software those organizations use. Hell, independent groups are not even able to audit their systems for inconsistencies.

The real science, as in objective and repeatable science, does not show anything to warrant any concern.

Edit - unless you are explicitly talking about pollution (pollution minus co2, because co2 acts as a nutrient)
 
Mar 2015
31,485
16,941
Mad Prophet
No, you linked to a massive report that would take to read. Give a real citation with a quote / graph or specific pages if you want me to address.

Al Gore was highlighting the major scientific consensus, combining everything that was available at the time.

The discussion is irrelevant regardless, those reports do no reflect science (observable, testable, repeatable), but reflect the proprietary modeling software those organizations use. Hell, independent groups are not even able to audit their systems for inconsistencies.

The real science, as in objective and repeatable science, does not show anything to warrant any concern.

Edit - unless you are explicitly talking about pollution (pollution minus co2, because co2 acts as a nutrient)
I already posted it. You're not only lazy, you are also dishonest.