It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# Global Warming Much Much worse than predicted.

page: 1
14
share:

posted on Sep, 15 2013 @ 10:24 AM
I have been meaning to create a thread on this article for a while now, and so why not this morning.

www.smh.com.au...

Antarctic, Greenland ice melt accelerating: IPCC leak

And the article points out this critical information.

Greenland's ice added six times more to sea levels in the decade through 2011 than in the prior 10 years, according to a draft of the UN's most comprehensive study on climate change. Antarctica had a fivefold increase, and the UN is raising its forecast for how much the two ice sheets will add to Earth's oceans by 2100.
....
Greenland's contribution to rising sea levels “very likely” rose to an average of 0.59 millimeters a year from 2002 to 2011, from 0.09 millimeters a year in the prior decade, according to the draft. The rate in Antarctica “likely” rose to 0.4 millimeters a year from 0.08 millimeters, it said.

The report defines “very likely” as a probability of greater than 90 per cent and “likely” is at least 66 per cent.

Lets do the math.

Greenland ice melt contribution to ocean levels
.59/.09 = 6.56, but lets just stick with increasing6 times increase over a decade of yearly contribution to ocean level rise.

.59 x 6 = 3.54 millimeters contribution in 2021.
3.54 x 6 = 21.24 millimeters contribution in 2031.
21.24 x 6 = 127.44 millimeters contribution in 2041.

If Greenland's rate of contribution to ocean level continuous at this rate, in the decade of 2041 to 2051, if the rate stays the same, Greenland will add 1.24 meters to ocean level rise in.

I can't find my calculator to do the derivative on this, and it has been over a decade since I have, I will just keep the contributions flat for each decade.

2011 to 2021 .59 x 10 = 5.9
2021 to 2031 3.54 x 10 = 35.4
2031 to 2041 21.24 x 10 = 212.4
2041 to 2051 127.44 x 10 = 1,274
The total is then 1.527 millimeters added to ocean levels by Greenland, or 1.5 meters ocean level rise from Greenland alone, by 2051, and this is a lowball number.

Antarctica ice melt contribution to ocean levels
.4/.08 = 5 which means 5 times increase over a decade of yearly contribution to ocean level rise.

.4 x 5 = 2 millimeters contribution in 2021.
2 x 5 = 10 millimeters contribution in 20231.
10 x 5 = 50 millimeters contribution in 2041.

If Antarctica's rate of contribution continuous at this rate, in the decade of 2041 to 2051, if the rate of Antarctica's contribution stays the same, Antarctica will add .5 meters to ocean level rise.

Keeping the contributions flat for each decade.

2011 to 2021 .4 x 10 = 4
2021 to 2031 2 x 10 = 20
2031 to 2041 10 x 10 = 100
2041 to 2051 50 x 10 = 500
The total is then 624 millimeters added to ocean levels by Antarctica, or .624 meters ocean level rise added by Antarctica alone by 2051, and this is also a lowball number.

Total ocean level rise by melting ice on Greenland and Antarctica by 2051, 2.124 meters.

Scientists keep saying they expect the sea levels to rise by a meter by the end of the century, but being that global warming continues to accelerate, by these numbers, we will see 2 meter rise in ocean levels in the next 40 years.

And this doesn't take into account what happened in 2012.

+4 more
posted on Sep, 15 2013 @ 10:38 AM
I agree that the climate is changing but anything that the IPCC has to say is rather suspect IMHO.
The very fact that they were caught fudging numbers to substantiate their theories is proof of that.

posted on Sep, 15 2013 @ 10:40 AM
As I understand it they didn't fudge anything, they just used the most extreme set of data they had.

posted on Sep, 15 2013 @ 10:42 AM
Dude ... 'HIDE THE DECLINE' .... (Michael Mann)
Your 'global warming is much worse' ... not gonna' fly.

posted on Sep, 15 2013 @ 10:44 AM

Using the most extreme data points IS, "fudging the numbers."

posted on Sep, 15 2013 @ 10:46 AM

Ok, maybe they used extreme data and cherry picked that which fitted their assertions that AGW was causing Climate Change.
Cherry Picking = Fudging.
Case closed.

posted on Sep, 15 2013 @ 10:54 AM
I believe these folks would disagree with what has been presented in this post.

Global warming is just HALF what we said

posted on Sep, 15 2013 @ 11:08 AM
I thought i read something different the other day..

img198.imageshack.us...

www.dailymail.co.uk...
edit on 15-9-2013 by Fisherr because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 15 2013 @ 11:16 AM

That is really funny and not in a comical sense. The Ice cap at the North Pole has increased by 60% since 2011. Gotta have those carbon taxes to starve the world.

Ice Cap Increases by 60%

I'm all for cleaning up our act as far as pollution goes, but this Green Movement is pure BS. Guess what? Everything on the earth is composed of Carbon atoms. I guess from this viewpoint all life and the earth it's self should be destroyed, after all carbon is bad.

This in my opinion is complete drivel. Global warming? Global Cooling? Life is about change, nothing remains static, but in an atheistic world devoid of spirit everything should be controlled, because according to this viewpoint, we are gods and can do what we please. One day the lies will be revealed and all these pushers of misinformation will be brought to account whether alive or dead.

posted on Sep, 15 2013 @ 11:22 AM
The Daily Mail really is not a legitimate source for anything except celebrities in bikinis. They have a long and repellant history of making stuff up, and editorially the rag has been against Global Warming theories for years, they've been caught on more than one occasion just making up headlines like this to 'prove' global warming doesn't exist, when really all they've done is spoken to their mate Dave who said science is wrong.

TL
R; Don't believe anything you read in the Daily Fail.

posted on Sep, 15 2013 @ 11:32 AM
Meh, global warming, climate change at this point is governmental/UN sponsored doom porn at best. Designed from the ground up to fleece money from the lower/middle class to the upper classes and hand over massive power and control to the Governmental "elite".

posted on Sep, 15 2013 @ 11:35 AM
If anything, global warming scientists are fudging the numbers on the conservative side.

From this graph it is clear to see that loss of Arctic sea ice is accelerating. Denying global warming at this time, with sea lanes opening up through the Arctic ocean is like still believing the world is flat.

posted on Sep, 15 2013 @ 11:48 AM
this thread and it's source are nothing more than "human caused global warming" scare porn.

the article is apparently taken from ".bloomberg.com". that makes it more than a little suspect. a company/website founded by our favorite New York mayor/health NAZI Michael Bloomberg, can you say "agenda"? i knew you could. you know the same man who wants to limit the size of "sugary drinks" available for sale, among other things. the guy is a NUT CASE, i would want it double checked if he or any organization he is affiliated with (like .bloomberg.com) said "the sky is blue".

you are claiming over a two meter increase in the oceans by 2051, due to the melting of the "polar ice caps". now we all know that water when it freezes and becomes ice increases volume. now the worlds oceans cover 361 MILLION SQUARE KILOMETERS, so that means that the polar ice caps would have to have well OVER 722 BILLION cubic meters of ice on the polar caps all melted just to achieve UNDER a 2 meter rise in ocean depth, and that doesn't even take into account an expansion of the oceans surface volume due to flooding, or all the water needed to likewise raise all connected waterways running into the ocean (like the amazon river for example). or lets make it easier to visualize. in order to get a 2 meters rise in the oceans we would need OVER a 2 meter thick ice sheet covering all the oceans (since they are all interconnected), along with all connected waterways running into the oceans. that is a hell of a lot of ice, do the polar ice caps have anywhere near that amount of ice?

The area of the World Ocean is 361 million square kilometres (139 million square miles),[18]

en.wikipedia.org...

posted on Sep, 15 2013 @ 11:51 AM

poet1b
Denying global warming at this time, with sea lanes opening up through the Arctic ocean is like still believing the world is flat.

Believing the bunk pumped out by the far left 'green machine' (which is heavily invested in so-called 'green technologies' and carbon credit scams) is like still believing the world is flat. Sure ... recycling and taking care of the planet makes sense because resources are limited and we don't want to wallow in our filth ... but the church that worships at the feet of Al Gore are just plain wrong.

posted on Sep, 15 2013 @ 11:52 AM
Global warming, im more worried about Global cooling. Compare the Arctic ice sheet from 2012 to now in Sep 2013 and I think it may surprise you.

posted on Sep, 15 2013 @ 12:01 PM

OMG!!! Just think of how much we are contributing to "global warming" because of this thread??? Think about it! Take cover men and women!

posted on Sep, 15 2013 @ 12:25 PM

Actually the latest U.N. report says otherwise. Many of the models used to scare people have been off by as much as 100%...I know there will still be people who want to argue...but the U.N. and their Agenda 21 backers are getting cold feet with their projections so it might be worth noticing.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Since the last IPCC report in 2007, much has changed. It is now more than 15 years since global average temperature rose significantly. Indeed, the IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri has conceded that the "pause" already may have lasted for 17 years, depending on which data set you look at. A recent study in Nature Climate Change by Francis Zwiers and colleagues of the University of Victoria, British Columbia, found that models have overestimated warming by 100% over the past 20 years.

edit on 15-9-2013 by 727Sky because: ...

posted on Sep, 15 2013 @ 12:26 PM
I am old enough to remember when the call was "the next ice age is upon us" so call me just a bit skeptical. Look up Mt. Pinatubo and its ejecta of greenhouse gases and tell me man made GW is any comparison. I have no trouble with urban heat island effects and such but find hubris in thinking we are anything but a minor addition to natural processes such as the sun and volcanic activity for starters.

Its my opinion that this is a contrived problem in order to justify another method of taxation and control over general public.

posted on Sep, 15 2013 @ 12:29 PM

Phoenix
this is a contrived problem in order to justify another method of taxation and control over general public.

... and to sell Al Gores Carbon Credit Trading scam so he can get filthy rich off it.
Let's not forget that.

posted on Sep, 15 2013 @ 12:29 PM
From what I have studied, it doesn't appear the earth is experiencing anything out of the norm. We have always had periods of cooling and warming. When the Earth/atmosphere experiences a warming trend we have volcanic activity to cool it.

You have two sides to the coin. One side screams ice age and the other global warming.

We have and always will have "climate change". That's my conclusion anyway.

new topics

top topics

14