Study sees almost a foot of sea level rise locked in for Greenland

How long that takes to play out is unclear.

Read the whole story

 

[Deleted member 276317]

[SNIP]
Downvote and name call away. I think it's funny.

It's too early for a pony but I hope you feel better soon.

 

[IncorrigibleTroll]

Because we didn't have the internet back then genius, and even in the late 90's we barely had functioning search engines, nearly nothing of news was online and general purpose computers were over $2,000. Like I said, when your main form of global/international information keeps pounding into you about doomsday scenarios that turned out that never happened, you tend to ignore future doomsday scenarios.

Did you go to school back then? Were you even a sperm in your daddy's ballsack? If not, don't speak about the time that I grew up in and what I (and other people) personally went through.

Did I deny Climate Change? No.
Did I say it was probably a bad mindset? Yes.
Am I *for* a cleaner planet? Yes.

So instead of bashing someone literally trying to tell you *why* they think the way they do, but yet is still on board with a greener planet, maybe you should shut your mouth and think from their perspective instead of trying to alienate people that are on the fence about doomsday scenarios but still support green initiatives.

Child, the link you put up has the bullshit 1970 article about "ice ages are coming" and unless you are lying about your age that was debunked BEFORE YOU WERE BORN. I remember the articles debunking it and so does everybody else who was old enough to read and think critically at the time.

Idiot person that can't read. I'm referring specifically to doomsday scenarios, like I have in every one of my posts, not general climate change, which I agree with. Also it doesn't just have 1970's articles, but good job on looking at the whole post and looking for other doomsday scenarios that were predicted and never happened.

Idiot person who can't think. How about the references to the hole in the ozone layer in that article? The Montreal Protocol was passed in 1987, which you might be old enough to recall, which is the reason it stopped growing and is slowly shrinking (and the article shows that!) although we are still finding fugitive emissions of those gasses. If the Montreal Protocol had NOT been passed it WOULD have been a disaster. That's actually a great example of why we actually listen and think and act to avoid these "doomsday scenarios" when they are supported by science.

I think there was some tech/science publication that recently published an article about the common human tendency to believe that solved problems were never actually problems in the first place. Arse Techno, or something like that.

https://meincmagazine.com/science/2022/07 ... disappear/

 

[Wheels Of Confusion]

The inference on sea level rise over time from narrow data sets is likely inaccurate as C02 levels in 2022 are higher than 2012, yet significantly more ice was gained.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noisy_data
There is not a one-to-one relationship between atmospheric CO2 concentrations and any single year's ice mass/coverage/extent.
To put it another way, we're talking about climate. You're talking about weather. Your attempted argument is no more valid than saying "We had a big blizzard this year, I guess global warming is a big no-show!"

Over time, there is a clear SIGNAL emerging from the data as the year-to-year variations are averaged out and the long-term trends (climate, not "weather") become apparent.

Here's how Greenland's glaciers look on a climatic scale:

Downvote and name call away. I think it's funny.

Okay, since you invited it: Stop smirking like a know-it-all idiot and learn how to be a better person.

 

[iim]

I’m assuming that the extra water added to the oceans will increase the mass now fluid and free to move around and pool into itself as it’s gravity increases. So do they know how this is going to distribute? Because it won’t be even.

 

[IncorrigibleTroll]

Hopefully it's fast. I feel like the Boomer generation needs to take a few on the nose and chin like the rest of us in later generations. The added benefit of shocking some folks into action is a win-win.

The boomers are entering the old-age homes these days (and the White House).

It's millennials who are the greying-hair core of the population now.

Um, I think you a generation.

That's ok, everyone else does too.

Here, this will help.

And as usual, Gen X is totally skipped over.

We will not stand for this indignity!

We shall remain seated and do nothing. That'll show 'em, like it always does!

 

[Qyygle]

*nonsense drivel*

I dunno if you bothered to read the thread earlier, but a certain poster had already tried posting this data... which doesn't account for the actual ice loss to the ocean and has already been told off for it.

It is funny to see he's so proud of himself for 'knowing' this though. Cute

 

[ShortOrder]

I’m assuming that the extra water added to the oceans will increase the mass now fluid and free to move around and pool into itself as it’s gravity increases. So do they know how this is going to distribute? Because it won’t be even.

Greenland will actually do surprisingly well as the loss of ice results in the land rising and less gravity to attract water.

 

[Veritas super omens]

We couldn't have just stayed in our villages where our biggest concern was whether to have berries or venison for lunch. We had to go and create "civilization."

Becoming someone else's lunch was probably a bigger concern.

Without societal constraints, your worst fear would be the other humans who want to take what you have, rape your women, enslave your children, torture your friends to death for entertainment and as a sacrifice, and then kill you. And shoot your dog.

And some of us would enjoy it for the duration of our short, sick little lives.

That’s the Hobbes view, but it’s not borne out by anthropological research.

But just enough of that happened that the fear of being a victim drove ever larger and more complex societies to evolve. The final straw (ha!) was the ability of farmers to support more people per man hour, allowing far more division of labor. Which could be used for defensive preparations and weapons production. Fast forward 10000 years, meet the enemy, it is us.

I’m not convinced by this argument that humans invented farming because they were afraid of other people.

Well, more likely it was beer, eh?

 

[Oldnoobguy]

"

Nonsense redacted

Downvote and name call away. I think it's funny.

Already downvoted. Others in this thread have already posted graphs and links to articles that provide lots of evidence and clear explanations of the existential crisis of our own collective making that we are facing. Your post clearly shows your inability to comprehend what was already posted. You obviously don't understand the difference between weather and climate or local and global. Clearly explaining such differences would go right over your head because you obviously don't comprehend a more fundamental concept, part vs whole. To assist you with acquiring knowledge of this basic concept I have found an educational video for you. Please find a preschooler to explain any elements in the video that are too advanced for you.

Edit: Fixed link

 

[Veritas super omens]

I’m assuming that the extra water added to the oceans will increase the mass now fluid and free to move around and pool into itself as it’s gravity increases. So do they know how this is going to distribute? Because it won’t be even.

Greenland will actually do surprisingly well as the loss of ice results in the land rising and less gravity to attract water.

So you are saying Greenland will find itself less attractive?

 

[IncorrigibleTroll]

I’m assuming that the extra water added to the oceans will increase the mass now fluid and free to move around and pool into itself as it’s gravity increases. So do they know how this is going to distribute? Because it won’t be even.

Greenland will actually do surprisingly well as the loss of ice results in the land rising and less gravity to attract water.

So you are saying Greenland will find itself less attractive?

It rejected Donald Trump's advances, so it's obviously a very ugly woman and probably also a lesbian.

 

[Wheels Of Confusion]

It's all about dat ice.

 

[Carewolf]

So Southpark had it wrong, its not "Blame Canada", but rather blame Greenland? Those fifty thousand odd Greenlanders must be spewing inordinate quantities of CO2 per capita.

It’s blame Greenland. Not blame Greenlanders. ‘sdifferent.

OK, ruin my joke if you must. The joke was weak. Naming that ice covered chunk of rock "Greenland" has to be one of the earliest examples of greenwashing. Or Orwelliian newspeak. Thank you, Erik the Red, used Longboat salesman...

Well, they had just seen Iceland be named, and then promptly ignored, so they tried to name this one better.

 

[Carewolf]

Greenland gained a Giga ton of ice only yesterday and gains for this year alone is far over the average, so what are you talking about?

Do you have a source?

The Danish observation sites are the authoritative sources for information about Greenland ice since this is Danish territory.

polarportal.dk is displaying a down message right now, so linking a couple of charts from a couple days back.

7 Gigaton net gain this day:

Average gain so far this year (2022)

What a complete and total waste of electrons. Look chucklefuck, posting a graph of a single year isn't "research", it's propaganda.

It wasnt even a single year, but a singular day they are taking and running with

 

[OrvGull]

We couldn't have just stayed in our villages where our biggest concern was whether to have berries or venison for lunch. We had to go and create "civilization."

While finding clean water, and not worry about animal attacks, or rampant diseases, or fresh food (and hunting for it). Being able to survive the winter and being able to have enough fire wood for it. Surviving the summers without air conditioning.

But yea, sure "berries or venison" lol.

Um...

Civilization for the most part has consistently had a very detrimental impact on humanity overall.

Consider this: Plagues didn't kill as many people before civilization came along. Warfare was usually limited to tribe on tribe, instead of nation on nation. The average life span of humans DROPPED from the neolithic high of about 45 years to an average of 35 years after civilization was invented, and REMAINED THERE until the invention of modern medicine.

It has been the conventional wisdom that people living in the rural areas are heartier and tend to live longer than those in urban zones (which only happen in a civilization).

So, yeah, civilization has had some pretty shitty impacts on humanity. I'd not poo-poo the OP until you've checked it out for yourself. It may seem like civilization is a slam-dunk good thing for people in general, but if you more closely examine history, and what the "average person" experienced in a civilization, I'm inclined to side with the "civilization is bad for us" crowd.

What was the average lifespan before modern civilization?

35, according to multiple sources depending on what you define as "modern" civilization.

Civilization began 12000 years or so ago (it varies from region to region) and the average life expectancy dropped ten years from 45 to 35 once it was ubiquitous. The proximity to people and poor water sources killed off a very high percentage of children before they made it to adulthood.

If they made it to adulthood, they typically lived to their 60's or more like most of us do today, too.

The lack of sanitation and hygiene back then was deadly. We only ever hear about how the upper class lived, and even THEY were often very sick by modern standards.

Once water regulation and sanitation became a thing, the life expectancy rates went up. But that didn't happen globally until about the beginning of the 20th century.

I hope that satisfies your curiosity, but if not, you can always google this stuff.

That seems like a flaw in your "civilization is bad for people" argument.

 

[DarthSlack]

Greenland gained a Giga ton of ice only yesterday and gains for this year alone is far over the average, so what are you talking about?

Do you have a source?

The Danish observation sites are the authoritative sources for information about Greenland ice since this is Danish territory.

polarportal.dk is displaying a down message right now, so linking a couple of charts from a couple days back.

7 Gigaton net gain this day:

Average gain so far this year (2022)

What a complete and total waste of electrons. Look chucklefuck, posting a graph of a single year isn't "research", it's propaganda.

It wasnt even a single year, but a singular day they are taking and running with

Yeah, after that post Wheels replied to, it seems that this one day is the latest climate denier talking point. Some floating turd found a graph with pretty colors and a portion that points in a direction they largely approve of so therefore it's "science".

I didn't think that deniers could get any dumber, but they have absolutely proven me wrong.

 

[Oldnoobguy]

Greenland gained a Giga ton of ice only yesterday and gains for this year alone is far over the average, so what are you talking about?

Do you have a source?

The Danish observation sites are the authoritative sources for information about Greenland ice since this is Danish territory.

polarportal.dk is displaying a down message right now, so linking a couple of charts from a couple days back.

7 Gigaton net gain this day:

Average gain so far this year (2022)

What a complete and total waste of electrons. Look chucklefuck, posting a graph of a single year isn't "research", it's propaganda.

It wasnt even a single year, but a singular day they are taking and running with

Yeah, after that post Wheels replied to, it seems that this one day is the latest climate denier talking point. Some floating turd found a graph with pretty colors and a portion that points in a direction they largely approve of so therefore it's "science".

I didn't think that deniers could get any dumber, but they have absolutely proven me wrong.

Based on decades of responding to climate denier shit, I have developed this rule.

Just like entropy, climate change denier stupidity will always increase with time.

 

[adespoton]

Greenland gained a Giga ton of ice only yesterday and gains for this year alone is far over the average, so what are you talking about?

Do you have a source?

The Danish observation sites are the authoritative sources for information about Greenland ice since this is Danish territory.

polarportal.dk is displaying a down message right now, so linking a couple of charts from a couple days back.

7 Gigaton net gain this day:

Average gain so far this year (2022)

What a complete and total waste of electrons. Look chucklefuck, posting a graph of a single year isn't "research", it's propaganda.

It wasnt even a single year, but a singular day they are taking and running with

For some reason, it reminds me of the following TPB quote:

“Am I going mad or did the word 'think' escape your lips? You were not hired for your brains, you hippopotamic land mass!” - Vizzini

“And you! Friendless. Brainless. Helpless! Hopeless! Do you want me to send you back to where you were? Unemployed? In Greenland!” - Vizzini

Inigo Montoya: "That Vizzini, he can fuss."
Fezzik: "Fuss, fuss. I think he like to scream at us."
Montoya: "Probably he means no harm."
Fezzik: "He’s really really short on charm!"
Montoya: "You have a great gift for rhyme."
Fezzik: "Yes. Yes. Some other time."

 

[MTSkibum]

My mad scientist idea would be to use explosives to blow off a giant chunk of the glacier while it is still ice and then tow it with a nuclear powered aircraft carrier to northern africa where it could be used to water crops.

This way we could get fresh water where it needed to go and we could help prevent a foot of sea level rise.

Win Win



They used to ship ice before, this is not that crazy of an idea.

 

[Wheels Of Confusion]

My mad scientist idea would be to use explosives to blow off a giant chunk of the glacier while it is still ice and then tow it with a nuclear powered aircraft carrier to northern africa where it could be used to water crops.

This way we could get fresh water where it needed to go and we could help prevent a foot of sea level rise.

Win Win

Just make sure you only harvest public domain icebergs.

 

[IncorrigibleTroll]

Do you have a source?

The Danish observation sites are the authoritative sources for information about Greenland ice since this is Danish territory.

polarportal.dk is displaying a down message right now, so linking a couple of charts from a couple days back.

7 Gigaton net gain this day:

Average gain so far this year (2022)

What a complete and total waste of electrons. Look chucklefuck, posting a graph of a single year isn't "research", it's propaganda.

It wasnt even a single year, but a singular day they are taking and running with

Yeah, after that post Wheels replied to, it seems that this one day is the latest climate denier talking point. Some floating turd found a graph with pretty colors and a portion that points in a direction they largely approve of so therefore it's "science".

I didn't think that deniers could get any dumber, but they have absolutely proven me wrong.

Based on decades of responding to climate denier shit, I have developed this rule.

Just like entropy, climate change denier stupidity will always increase with time.

It's inevitable with any form of denialism of an actual phenomenon: over time, evidence for the phenomenon will continue to accrue, so the denialists are forced to grow increasingly deranged in order to maintain denial. See also: flat earthers in the space age.

 

[adespoton]

My mad scientist idea would be to use explosives to blow off a giant chunk of the glacier while it is still ice and then tow it with a nuclear powered aircraft carrier to northern africa where it could be used to water crops.

This way we could get fresh water where it needed to go and we could help prevent a foot of sea level rise.

Win Win



They used to ship ice before, this is not that crazy of an idea.

The water idea is good. It's not going to help with sea level rise though. Any ice removed from the surface of Greenland will allow Greenland to float higher in the water, but the eventual runoff in Africa will still go into the oceans.

 

[sakete]

I guess Greenland will finally turn green.

 

[numerobis]

There was a record day for ice gain this month (Aug 2022).

And warming ended yesterday afternoon when it rained.

 

[Snark218]

There was a record day for ice gain this month (Aug 2022).

And warming ended yesterday afternoon when it rained.

It also bears mention that while Arctic sea ice extent tends to vary year by year, there are very clear trends in the extent of permanent sea ice, in the thickness of that sea ice, and the date when seasonal sea ice melts out every summer.

 

[Oldnoobguy]

Based on decades of responding to climate denier shit, I have developed this rule.

Just like entropy, climate change denier stupidity will always increase with time.

It's inevitable with any form of denialism of an actual phenomenon: over time, evidence for the phenomenon will continue to accrue, so the denialists are forced to grow increasingly deranged in order to maintain denial. See also: flat earthers in the space age.

Another even more depressing example is those who even as they lay dying in the ICU from COVID insisting that COVID was a liberal hoax. I really believe that the next frontier for health science is to be able to analyze and treat the complex social, psychological, cultural, and economic factors that underlie the current epidemic of conspiracy theory based denialism. This is an epidemic even more pernicious than COVID-19 that stands a good chance of destroying not just liberal advanced societies, but also human civilization and perhaps even the species itself.

 

[numerobis]

There was a record day for ice gain this month (Aug 2022).

And warming ended yesterday afternoon when it rained.

It also bears mention that while Arctic sea ice extent tends to vary year by year, there are very clear trends in the extent of permanent sea ice, in the thickness of that sea ice, and the date when seasonal sea ice melts out every summer.

Yeah, no year in the past 5 years has reached the -2 sigma mark relative to the 1980-2010 average. And average that already includes a lot of retreat. (NSIDC doesn't put them all on its graph but I think no year in the past *ten* years has reached the -2 sigma mark, and perhaps none since 2007.)

As for trends in permanent ice: that trend is slowing down a lot. There's almost none left.

 

[Snark218]

Based on decades of responding to climate denier shit, I have developed this rule.

Just like entropy, climate change denier stupidity will always increase with time.

It's inevitable with any form of denialism of an actual phenomenon: over time, evidence for the phenomenon will continue to accrue, so the denialists are forced to grow increasingly deranged in order to maintain denial. See also: flat earthers in the space age.

Another even more depressing example is those who even as they lay dying in the ICU from COVID insisting that COVID was a liberal hoax. I really believe that the next frontier for health science is to be able to analyze and treat the complex social, psychological, cultural, and economic factors that underlie the current epidemic of conspiracy theory based denialism. This is an epidemic even more pernicious than COVID-19 that stands a good chance of destroying not just liberal advanced societies, but also human civilization and perhaps even the species itself.

No anthropologist here, but 50 years of conservative media, influencers, and politicians bombarding people who are already reactive to perceived threats and moral hazards with the message that the government wants to steal from them, deceive them, and do them harm can't have been terribly helpful.

 

[ScottJohnson]

My mad scientist idea would be to use explosives to blow off a giant chunk of the glacier while it is still ice and then tow it with a nuclear powered aircraft carrier to northern africa where it could be used to water crops.

This way we could get fresh water where it needed to go and we could help prevent a foot of sea level rise.

Win Win



They used to ship ice before, this is not that crazy of an idea.

The water idea is good. It's not going to help with sea level rise though. Any ice removed from the surface of Greenland will allow Greenland to float higher in the water, but the eventual runoff in Africa will still go into the oceans.

I hope the OP suggestion was tongue-in-cheek, but FYI Greenland is an island and is not floating in water. It does, however, float in the mantle.

 

[ScottJohnson]

I’m assuming that the extra water added to the oceans will increase the mass now fluid and free to move around and pool into itself as it’s gravity increases. So do they know how this is going to distribute? Because it won’t be even.

Mentioned already, but the gravitational effect of ice sheets on ocean water is pretty wild, and that's the relevant process. For example, melting Greenland ice causes a bit more sea level far away than it does nearby. We included this in a video a while back: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XvEGkNih-ig

 

[Snark218]

The inference on sea level rise over time from narrow data sets is likely inaccurate as C02 levels in 2022 are higher than 2012, yet significantly more ice was gained.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noisy_data
There is not a one-to-one relationship between atmospheric CO2 concentrations and any single year's ice mass/coverage/extent.
To put it another way, we're talking about climate. You're talking about weather. Your attempted argument is no more valid than saying "We had a big blizzard this year, I guess global warming is a big no-show!"

Over time, there is a clear SIGNAL emerging from the data as the year-to-year variations are averaged out and the long-term trends (climate, not "weather") become apparent.

Here's how Greenland's glaciers look on a climatic scale:

Downvote and name call away. I think it's funny.

Okay, since you invited it: Stop smirking like a know-it-all idiot and learn how to be a better person.

Do you think there is a possibility of biased and unassumed error in the reconstruction of the data in section 5.4 of the paper you cited to create that graph? They use the 2011-2012 outlier year as the endpoint of their basis for data reconstruction outside of that time frame. Also, don't link from Wikipedia... For a glacier system that has been around for thousands of years, 50 year segment is "weather".

If you think there's a possibility of biased and unassumed error in that reconstruction, I invite you to download the data yourself, analyze it, and post your results here. Please include all relevant assumptions, your R code, and estimates of significance.

 

[Bernardo Verda]

*nonsense drivel*

I dunno if you bothered to read the thread earlier, but a certain poster had already tried posting this data... which doesn't account for the actual ice loss to the ocean and has already been told off for it.

It is funny to see he's so proud of himself for 'knowing' this though. Cute

I thought that the bit on how "The inference... from narrow data sets is likely inaccurate..." was just so precious (as in, comically ironic).

I continue to maintain that typical science deniers don't understand their own comments, let alone the science they're commenting on..

 

[Sjoerd Verweij]

The inference on sea level rise over time from narrow data sets is likely inaccurate as C02 levels in 2022 are higher than 2012, yet significantly more ice was gained.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noisy_data
There is not a one-to-one relationship between atmospheric CO2 concentrations and any single year's ice mass/coverage/extent.
To put it another way, we're talking about climate. You're talking about weather. Your attempted argument is no more valid than saying "We had a big blizzard this year, I guess global warming is a big no-show!"

Over time, there is a clear SIGNAL emerging from the data as the year-to-year variations are averaged out and the long-term trends (climate, not "weather") become apparent.

Here's how Greenland's glaciers look on a climatic scale:

Downvote and name call away. I think it's funny.

Okay, since you invited it: Stop smirking like a know-it-all idiot and learn how to be a better person.

Do you think there is a possibility of biased and unassumed error in the reconstruction of the data in section 5.4 of the paper you cited to create that graph? They use the 2011-2012 outlier year as the endpoint of their basis for data reconstruction outside of that time frame. Also, don't link from Wikipedia... For a glacier system that has been around for thousands of years, 50 year segment is "weather".

If you think there's a possibility of biased and unassumed error in that reconstruction, I invite you to download the data yourself, analyze it, and post your results here. Please include all relevant assumptions, your R code, and estimates of significance.

We're all holding our breath.

 

[Wheels Of Confusion]

Also, don't link from Wikipedia... For a glacier system that has been around for thousands of years, 50 year segment is "weather".

Read my link from NASA in that same post, then.

In most places, weather can change from minute-to-minute, hour-to-hour, day-to-day, and season-to-season. Climate, however, is the average of weather over time and space. An easy way to remember the difference is that climate is what you expect, like a very hot summer, and weather is what you get, like a hot day with pop-up thunderstorms.

Aren't you the guy who appealed to a record single day this year as proof that Greenland isn't losing ice?

In short, climate is the description of the long-term pattern of weather in a particular area.
Some scientists define climate as the average weather for a particular region and time period, usually taken over 30-years. It's really an average pattern of weather for a particular region.

Gosh, we usually talk about "climate" at 30 years and not just 50! Looks like 50 years of data qualifies as "climate" as far as NASA's concerned! Maybe I should take Motherfucking NASA at their word and not the Internet Rando who thinks he's so much more S-M-R-T than them.

And since your prior invitation* hasn't been rescinded: Maybe fuck right off until you can be less of an incompetent, waffling hypocrite. In fact, just reconsider your whole life at the moment; usually people don't post such dire anti-science as you without being horribly wrong about other things, too.

*"Downvote and name call away. I think it's funny." - you

 

[bog_walker]

On another note, this sound strikingly similar to other alarmist posts like they had back in the early 2000's where climate scientists figured New York City would be under water by something like 2015. I'd like to believe it there's been way too many wolves being cried for in regards to this particular doomsday scenario.

Easy to call bullshit on claims you barely remember and lie about anyway.

https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-yea ... edictions/

There's been plenty of them, a lot of coming from respected scientists. I'm not saying it's not going to happen, I'm saying if you're near your 40's like I am, it's been pounded into you so many times it's easy to write it off.

As long as you apply considerable energy to the project of refusing to understand them and actively seek out bullshit propaganda sources to reassure yourself, maybe.

It's not propaganda when it comes with receipts man. Listen, I'm not arguing whether it's going to happen or not, it's just easy to dismiss when back in the late 90's and early 2000's they were all saying it's basically going to be waterworld by 2015. Climate Science isn't easy and there's literally hundreds of times they've been wrong about things and right about others.

I'm for green energy and electric cars, I have solar panels myself. I'm just giving you the reason why a lot of millenial/xennial people like myself roll our eyes over apocalyptic climate science articles now. Is it bad? Probably. But you can only take so much before you dismiss a lot of the doomsday shit.

I took a look at your nonsense link. Funny thing about the articles there. I didn't see much in the way of scientific journals. I saw a bunch of headlines predicting disaster. I did see an occasional quote from a reputable scientist. All of the quotes were brief and none of them actually supported the headlines. Why? All the scientists' statements were nuanced using words like, "could".

In summary all your link proves is that you really need to take a class or two in critical thinking.

It was an interesting link, I'll say that. Some of it was Paul Ehrlich talking about possible famine, right before the Green Revolution happened. He obviously didn't predict the widespread adoption of artificial fertilizer (made from natural gas from oil and gas rigs). There was one or two articles on the ozone layer, which was a real thing and we passed comprehensive legislation to avoid that problem. Same thing with acid rain, output of coal plants was cleaned up to some degree, and coal went into a slow decline because of economics.
Several examples of global cooling predicted (like you say these are newspaper & popular magazine articles, not science journals, so I'm not sure how close they stayed to the actual science). Much of that was because in the early 70's there was some question if soot (from smokestacks and exhaust pipes) would overwhelm the warming caused by CO2. It was always known that CO2 had a warming effect. The Clean Air Act did a good job of removing soot (otherwise the air in U.S. cities would look like Beijing now). But CO2 has increased unabated. Also, the science has become much clearer on that issue.

Regarding beheaded's claim that we were inundated with claims that NYC would be underwater by 2015, I'm older than he is, have always followed science & environment articles, and I don't remember anything like that.

 

[Snark218]

It was an interesting link, I'll say that. Some of it was Paul Ehrlich talking about possible famine, right before the Green Revolution happened. He obviously didn't predict the widespread adoption of artificial fertilizer (made from natural gas from oil and gas rigs). There was one or two articles on the ozone layer, which was a real thing and we passed comprehensive legislation to avoid that problem. Same thing with acid rain, output of coal plants was cleaned up to some degree, and coal went into a slow decline because of economics.
Several examples of global cooling predicted (like you say these are newspaper & popular magazine articles, not science journals, so I'm not sure how close they stayed to the actual science). Much of that was because in the early 70's there was some question if soot (from smokestacks and exhaust pipes) would overwhelm the warming caused by CO2. It was always known that CO2 had a warming effect. The Clean Air Act did a good job of removing soot (otherwise the air in U.S. cities would look like Beijing now). But CO2 has increased unabated. Also, the science has become much clearer on that issue.

Regarding beheaded's claim that we were inundated with claims that NYC would be underwater by 2015, I'm older than he is, have always followed science & environment articles, and I don't remember anything like that.

It's so wild to me that deniers can point to environmental issues from 50 years ago like acid rain, ozone, and particulates, and smugly claim that because they never became a crisis, that's evidence that the issue was overhyped and lied about - while comfortably ignoring the 50 years of international treaty agreements, legislation, the standup of entire regulatory agencies, and entire fields worth of new technology that went into mitigating those impacts before they became crises.

 

[OrvGull]

It was an interesting link, I'll say that. Some of it was Paul Ehrlich talking about possible famine, right before the Green Revolution happened. He obviously didn't predict the widespread adoption of artificial fertilizer (made from natural gas from oil and gas rigs). There was one or two articles on the ozone layer, which was a real thing and we passed comprehensive legislation to avoid that problem. Same thing with acid rain, output of coal plants was cleaned up to some degree, and coal went into a slow decline because of economics.
Several examples of global cooling predicted (like you say these are newspaper & popular magazine articles, not science journals, so I'm not sure how close they stayed to the actual science). Much of that was because in the early 70's there was some question if soot (from smokestacks and exhaust pipes) would overwhelm the warming caused by CO2. It was always known that CO2 had a warming effect. The Clean Air Act did a good job of removing soot (otherwise the air in U.S. cities would look like Beijing now). But CO2 has increased unabated. Also, the science has become much clearer on that issue.

Regarding beheaded's claim that we were inundated with claims that NYC would be underwater by 2015, I'm older than he is, have always followed science & environment articles, and I don't remember anything like that.

It's so wild to me that deniers can point to environmental issues from 50 years ago like acid rain, ozone, and particulates, and smugly claim that because they never became a crisis, that's evidence that the issue was overhyped and lied about - while comfortably ignoring the 50 years of international treaty agreements, legislation, the standup of entire regulatory agencies, and entire fields worth of new technology that went into mitigating those impacts.

Much like how, as a person whose IT career extends back to the late 90s, I get extremely tired of people talking about Y2K being a hoax.

 

[bog_walker]

"the study can give no time frame for its predicted ice loss" ... "Some authors of the new study have been quoted saying that they suspect their estimated sea level contribution could manifest by 2100 or 2150, but that is their personal judgment and not a conclusion of this particular study."

I saw a headline after reading this article that flat-out said Greenland can raise sea level by a foot in the next century. I really wish headline writers would stick to the science, this behavior gives the scientists a bad rep when others loudly point out the discrepancy and by association blame the science.