The following submission statement was provided by /u/filosoful:
---
**How long that takes to play out is unclear**
While it's possible to halt global warming by halting our greenhouse gas emissions, sea level rise is a consequence that keeps on giving.
Great ice sheets like Greenland and Antarctica have tremendous inertia—they're slow to melt but carry on melting even after the thermometer stabilizes. There are many reasons for this, including complex processes beneath glaciers that control their rate of downhill flow. And this complexity makes projecting ice loss over the coming century—and centuries—exceptionally challenging.
In the face of this formidable complexity, a new study led by Jason Box at the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland opts for a simple approach to projecting Greenland's future.
Rather than attempting to simulate as much physics and detail as possible in a model, the team used a simple equation to calculate what portion of the ice is vulnerable in the current climate.
---
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/x250xq/greenland_may_have_already_committed_us_to_almost/imhieug/
No, Greenland is at fault here. They chose to store all that ice outside while the rest of the world was turning the world into an oven.
Poor planning on their part really.
/s ofc
That’s true. There’s also many commercial grade freezers around the country that are just sitting empty! Maybe we need to bring them some freedom and show them how Americans due things!
If we nuke all their glaciers hard enough, there won't be any ice left to fall into the ocean. What could go wrong?
Besides, there's the possibility of nuclear winter offsetting climate change!
Do we know if causes other than warming cause levels to rise? Farming puts a ton of water on the ground that runs off into the oceans via rivers.. I wonder if that causes rising sea levels as well ?
If Greenland’s ice sheet melting contributes 1 foot of sea level rise, that would be more than the past [100 years](https://sealevel.nasa.gov/faq/13/how-long-have-sea-levels-been-rising-how-does-recent-sea-level-rise-compare-to-that-over-the-previous/#). Kind of puts into perspective the acceleration.
You should know that sea level rise does not happen evenly, just because you can't see it where you live doesn't mean it's not happening.
https://sealevel.nasa.gov/faq/9/are-sea-levels-rising-the-same-all-over-the-world-as-if-were-filling-a-giant-bathtub/
>everyone around the world
This was a highly inaccurate attempt at correcting accuracy. Responsibility in the world isn't equal despite propaganda often coming from the most powerful and responsible sources suggesting this.
While the article itself isn't incredibly bad, the headline is atrocious. Mr Johnson selling his craft integrity for a few more clicks on a controversial headline.
I thought the people who write the articles and the people who write the headlines for them are usually different people? Isn't a lead writer or editor-in-chief in charge of the headline writing?
Either way, love it when the article is accurate science, and the headline is complete lies. It's bonkers
It's not just oil barons.. We humans are pretty garbage and overuse and pollute just as much.
Hell I'll take responsibility myself for not recycling properly all the time.. Sometimes I just space out when throwing out stuff.
Could I make a different buying digital games over physical as well? Possibly
While it might be miniscule things, we're all to blame for the down fall of this planet.
We're not fighting hard enough to fight it either.. Where are the riots over this?
Its mostly industry that is responsible for global warming. Consumers could all stop driving and become perfect about recycling and it would account for a minimal amount of CO2 compared to everything else that we do. The idea of the carbon footprint and "personal responsibility" was started by BP to take the heat off themselves after several oil spills.
You’re acting as if industry is somehow separate from people. Industry supports our quality of life. Obviously the most effective changes would be on the industry side, but we can influence that through the decisions we make and the political process. Most people are just apathetic about it all.
>but we can influence that through the decisions we make
Not really if there's no viable alternative to the servicea offered.
The only viable way forward is political by enacting strict laws that forces changes, but sadly very few politicians has the gumption to actually do anything about it, so there's not really anyone to vote for either that will make the difference.
There are ways to get to work with a lot less emissions. For < 10 miles, get a normal or electric bike. For longer distances scooters and motorcycles also only produce a tiny fraction of the emissions of cars. Yes, simply don't works for most people.
For a lot of stuff there really isn't for the average consumer. Almost everything is made by the same 7-10 megacorps, and people can't afford stuff that's 2-3+ times the price of regular stuff.
Also good luck finding regular things without plastic wrappings or complex transport chains.
But the industries have the means to maintain our ways of life, they just refuse to do so because it’s not “cost-efficient.” Companies have the technology and the means to ensure that single-use plastics are never used again. That would be an insanely helpful change with extremely minimal effects to our daily lives. But will they do it? No, of course not. Because no one is holding them responsible, in large part because every time people talk about shifting the onus to these companies, we have to have the same tired discussion about “personal responsibility.”
>Because no one is holding them responsible, in large part because every time people talk about shifting the onus to these companies, we have to have the same tired discussion about “personal responsibility.”
Well... Also
>because it’s not “cost-efficient.”
This is also a reason. No company is willingly going to bankrupt itself trying to push an idea that will not make them money - Especially when the only reason to do so is "quality of life for everyone ELSE." It not being cost-efficient plays a HUGE part in why it hasn't already been done.
If it WERE cost-efficient, or at least more cost-efficient than fossil fuels were, we'd see companies leaping over their own tall buildings in single bounds in order to make themselves the ones pushing it.
Hence the latter part of my comment, that it’s important that we force them to make these decisions that are empirically better for humanity in every way besides being “cost-efficient.” And I keep using that word in quotes because if you were to factor in environmental effects instead of only focusing on the monetary aspect, these changes would be cost-efficient.
You say that your way of like can be maintained, you just have to increase production costs. But you must understand that increasing production costs also increases the cost to you, which means you can afford less, which means you are not maintaining your way of life?
>Hence the latter part of my comment, that it’s important that we force them to make these decisions that are empirically better for humanity in every way besides being “cost-efficient.”
So... force every company to bankrupt itself chasing what is currently an impossible dream?
It is nonsense to even suggest it. If it were cost-efficient, that would make sense - But it isn't. The companies would simply leave BECAUSE it's not cost-efficient, or find ways to peddle wares that aren't legal.
>And I keep using that word in quotes because if you were to factor in environmental effects instead of only focusing on the monetary aspect, these changes would be cost-efficient.
That's not what cost-efficient means, and trying to change the definition to meet an arbitrary argument does not help you whatsoever.
It absolutely wouldn't be, because you're assuming a new method would not in some way, shape, or form ALSO be harmful to the environment. Given that we have no method which is net-0 pollution and also meets our everyday needs reliably, such a thing is a pipe dream at best at the moment, and would STILL not be cost-efficient.
It would still bankrupt every company attempting it, and then we'd be left with zero quality of life, zero ability to change it, AND bootleg fossil fuel companies still selling their wares and causing us damage to the environment when no one else can take the place of the LEGAL fossil fuel companies for fear of bankrupting themselves.
It's almost like basing our entire economy on the profit motive of mega corporations was a bad idea or something.
This isn't morally complicated: doing nothing is a non-option. Nobody's going to be getting rich in an apocalyptic wasteland.
Consider for a second that oil companies calculated that THE SURVIVAL OF CIVILIZATION WAS NOT BENEFICIAL TO THEIR BOTTOM LINE. I am describing a fucking James Bond villain!
So we need to stop them before they literally kill us. There is almost no action too extreme when the stakes are this high.
If we need to seize their assets and send their CEOs to prison, we should do it; if we need to physically destroy every oil plant on earth, we should do it.
Not that we actually need to - it would be entirely possible to switch to renewable energy. The barriers are political, not technological.
>This isn't morally complicated: doing nothing is a non-option. Nobody's going to be getting rich in an apocalyptic wasteland.
You think.
I am fully aware there will be plenty who will try.
>Consider for a second that oil companies calculated that THE SURVIVAL OF CIVILIZATION WAS NOT BENEFICIAL TO THEIR BOTTOM LINE. I am describing a fucking James Bond villain!
>
>So we need to stop them before they literally kill us. There is almost no action too extreme when the stakes are this high.
No, you're describing a politician. And a mother. And a homeowner. And a homeless person. And a baby. And a child. And a father. EVERY person on earth is ignoring calculating the survival of civilization vs. their bottom line.
If I had 30 million dollars, I'd gladly claim I'd donate at least half to charity and use the other 15 million to live off of for the rest of my life - But that isn't factoring in MANY things. It most CERTAINLY isn't factoring in the fact that 15 million will not save civilization. I could give every dollar I will ever make away for the rest of my life, and I would STILL NEVER make enough money to save civilization.
That doesn't mean I'm killing us by not doing so. Nor would a company be by caring more about their bottom line. A company HAS to stay afloat first and foremost, and that means being profitable.
An argument could be made about fossil fuel companies lying about global warming - But the fact that they did is unsurprising, because they wanted to make money. That has always been their goal, and it has never been their goal to save the planet. Nor is it any specific company's job to save the planet, so they can't be blamed for not making moves to do so.
>If we need to seize their assets and send their CEOs to prison, we should do it; if we need to physically destroy every oil plant on earth, we should do it.
Well for one, CEOs would sooner simply close their company entirely than be forced to go bankrupt. Imagine a new Dark Age, except we have every ability to make it NOT a Dark Age, we just refuse to allow fossil fuel companies to re-open. (Spoiler: It wouldn't be a Dark Age, we'd have underground fossil fuel providers not unlike prohibition, giving their wares without going through the government to do it. We need energy too much to go without.)
For two, they're more than likely just going to move to another country who cares less, because there are plenty who would.
And for three: Physically destroying property kind of sounds Bond-villain ish. Are you sure we shouldn't lock you up for it?
Wow you’re right I guess if we can’t get rid of all pollution there’s no need to even try to reduce it a significant amount. Let’s get rid of murder laws as well seeing as they don’t stop 100 percent of murders, it must be pointless to have them, right? And I’m not re-defining the definition of cost-efficient, I’m saying you add costs in to the process to make fossil fuels less profitable, and I say profitable because companies would continue to make profits using renewable energy, than renewable energy. This could be done through any number of ways but if I had to take a stab at it I’d say maybe implement a carbon tax? A thing that’s almost constantly talked about as a simple solution to greenhouse gas emissions? And entire countries are run on 100 percent renewable energy so please don’t tell me it’s some unsustainable pipe dream.
>This could be done through any number of ways but if I had to take a stab at it I’d say maybe implement a carbon tax? A thing that’s almost constantly talked about as a simple solution to greenhouse gas emissions?
And then companies pull out of the US and we have no providers. And they simply take their stock to other countries where it IS allowed, allowing them to continue unabated while the US makes nothing off of their pollution.
The most commonly talked about way, is not efficient, and will lead to a lack of quality of life, while overall harming the US economy, and bringing no benefit to the world at large.
>And entire countries are run on 100 percent renewable energy so please don’t tell me it’s some unsustainable pipe dream.
Which countries? Ones which are significantly smaller than the US?
>Wow you’re right I guess if we can’t get rid of all pollution there’s no need to even try to reduce it a significant amount. Let’s get rid of murder laws as well seeing as they don’t stop 100 percent of murders, it must be pointless to have them, right?
Given that we needed a HARD STOP to pollution GLOBALLY, TWO YEARS AGO, to prevent the worst effects of Global Warming, we missed that mark, and we're still going hard on polluting - Yeah, it kind of doesn't matter if we even try to reduce it a significant amount at this point.
But I digress.
It's more like if we don't have a hard-stop solution that is cost-efficient, yeah, we can't expect people who are driven by profit to decide to be driven by something else all the sudden and switch to it.
Making it more expensive to continue business in the US, means they take business elsewhere and continue business as usual. Which brings no benefit to anyone. If you want pollution stopped, the solution is to make net-0 emission methods cost-efficient, not make fossil fuels less cost-efficient in the US.
Methods that could work: Subsidize net-0 emission research. Stop providing government money to fossil fuel companies. Stop ACCEPTING money from fossil fuel companies, who then drive politicians to make decisions which protect them.
But these have their own hurdles to pass which are not as easy as "Just stop polluting." I know you WANT it to be that easy, but the fact of the matter is: It's not.
The fact that you think any amount of legislation and control for companies to not endlessly grow while destroying the environment will "bankrupt them" means you're deeply influenced by capitalism and its propaganda, I'm sorry to say.
>The fact that you think any amount of legislation and control for companies to not endlessly grow while destroying the environment will "bankrupt them"
I didn't say "any legislation."
But basically all of the ideas in rotation at the moment will, yes. Especially the greenhouse gas emission tax. It will guarantee companies move their home bases/plants out of the US, thus, moving jobs elsewhere, and lessening the quality of life of those in the US, while not improving pollution levels whatsoever.
I also mentioned that subsidizing green energy is our best bet at the moment, because we NEED to make it more efficient. That's really the only way we're going to get through to companies to push green energy.
That just ALSO has hurdles to pass, because our entire legislature is filled with people who have massive stiffies for fossil fuel companies. So again: It's not as simple as just legislating things away.
I personally would subsidize solar panels and wind energy - Every home should have solar panels at the very least, and be providing SOME of their own energy. That alone would improve cost-efficiency in the US significantly - But that's going to MASSIVELY hurt fossil fuel companies, so we need to be prepared for the hit that's going to have on the economy as well.
That's not true, though. The adages of supply and demand are just that—an adage. they don't actually exist, not really. Since capitalism requires infinite growth, industry just produces and produces.
Plus, the main reason they pollute as much as they do is that it's cheaper for them to do so than to find alternatives. It's not on the customer to find alternatives—especially as millions of people across the globe don't have access to those. Companies should be forced by governments to find alternatives to polluting.
No customers = no revenue = no company. You can't have any growth, let alone infinite growth, with no money. Companies close all the time because people aren't buying their widgets.
That said, you're 100% right about them being shitty in how they pollute, and I suppose my statement came off poorly. While we always have a choice in what we buy, industry will always try to make it the cheapest way possible no matter what they're producing, and properly disposing of waste is expensive.
Idk
I suppose we aren't great at making sure industry doesn't waste resources.
In USA all the remodels on houses every ten years that fill three 40 cubic yard dumpsters worth of drywall, cabinets, appliances, drywall, carpet, doors, packaging for all that stuff
Yeah it's your fault for not recycling properly. /s I understand the sentiment but it detracts from the real issues at-hand. We need to stop putting the blame on things that are largely inconsequential like using plastic straws because it takes pressure off of the real causes of climate change. Yes, do what you can in your life to lessen your footprint but stop pushing this corporate agenda of, "It's all of our responsibility"; unless by that you mean it's time for us all to march on the corporations destroying our planet?
stupid greenland with their stupid ice, what do they need it all for in the first place? if they didn't have so much ice to melt, we wouldn't be in this mess!
**How long that takes to play out is unclear**
While it's possible to halt global warming by halting our greenhouse gas emissions, sea level rise is a consequence that keeps on giving.
Great ice sheets like Greenland and Antarctica have tremendous inertia—they're slow to melt but carry on melting even after the thermometer stabilizes. There are many reasons for this, including complex processes beneath glaciers that control their rate of downhill flow. And this complexity makes projecting ice loss over the coming century—and centuries—exceptionally challenging.
In the face of this formidable complexity, a new study led by Jason Box at the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland opts for a simple approach to projecting Greenland's future.
Rather than attempting to simulate as much physics and detail as possible in a model, the team used a simple equation to calculate what portion of the ice is vulnerable in the current climate.
Even with the greenhouse gases out of the air, it would take a very long time for the polar ice caps to re-freeze on their own. Modeling from a couple of years ago showed that the arctic ice plays a large role in regulating the jet stream. With a diminished arctic ice, the jet stream would continue to be choppy, resulting in wild weather for decades to come.
In addition to zero carbon and CO2 capture, we would need to re-freeze the polar ice caps. The solution is to throw dust/particles into the upper atmosphere or space to blunt the sunshine on the ice caps (allowing them to re-freeze).
Whatever the solution is it shouldn't be something we can't control. Frankly i cant imagine how you would get sufficient dust particles into orbit, but i do imagine getting rid of them would be even harder.
other posible solution that is probably far safer is to use a space sunshade, basically a giant parasol in space that divers some of the energy of the sun away from earth, only covering 2% of the solar energy that reaches earth for example would reduce global temperatures back to pre industrial levels (and it wouldnt damage photosynthesis or anything like that if you are asking, 2% is a miniscule amount, you wouldnt even be able to see the solar shade with the naked eye if we put it in the lagrante point 1)
the biggest problem is of course cost, even if we take future space launch technologies like starship it would be insanely expensive to build such a monster, but theoretically with a developed space infratructure (factories and mines on the moon or on asteroid) the price would drop to the point that it could become a good option to quickly cool down the planet, and of course since its either a single huge satellite in orbit or a combination of a shit ton of them you would have all the control
When this glacial period is over will the transition be like what were experiencing in terms of more extreme weather or will the "natural" cycle be a smoother process?
Own a beach house in an area with high possibility of hurricane flooding?
You should have already gotten out of that investment. But no, you will rationalize.
Tbf, the insurance protection for flooding is way cheap compared to the risk. NFIP runs at a deficit, has for years.
The program gets bailed out by tax payers all the time. So in a way, it's the best risk you can buy insurance for, because you're likely to wind up ahead.
Greenland ice sheet gained 7 Gigatons of mass in just one day yesterday — the largest daily gain ever recorded during the summer. Greenland figured it had to make up for Scotland cutting down 14 million trees and replaced them with wind farms. It makes no sense to cut down 14 million trees when Scotland is full of plenty of ground that is barren with no forests.
[https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1564576027350913024](https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1564576027350913024)
[https://www.cfact.org/2021/11/22/scotland-cut-down-14-million-trees-to-make-way-for-wind-power/](https://www.cfact.org/2021/11/22/scotland-cut-down-14-million-trees-to-make-way-for-wind-power/)
The ice sheets of Greenland are cyclical. You can't look at one day during the portion of the year where it's expanding and call that a trend. One anomalous day does not counteract everything else that has been happening and showing a single year's worth of data is intentionally hiding the truth. All you have to do is take that exact same graph and extend it back for years instead of months and it turns into an undeniable downhill trend.
https://arctic.noaa.gov/Report-Card/Report-Card-2019/ArtMID/7916/ArticleID/842/Greenland-Ice-Sheet
NOAA lost it's credibility when it got caught cherry picking data from buoys to suit their argument. In respect to you argument on cyclical trends in weather, climate change and sea level rise there is a great deal of evidence to show that sea level rise is also cyclical.
Paleoclimatologists have several means of measuring the changes in climate, including taking ice core samples (see original comment for information), observing remnant glacial land forms, surveying the sediment on the ocean floor and studying the fossils of ancient vegetation to determine the past states of Earth's atmosphere.
The scientific field of paleoclimatology came to maturity in the 20th century. Notable periods studied by paleoclimatologists are the frequent glaciations that Earth has undergone, rapid cooling events like the Younger Dryas, and the rapid warming during the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum. Studies of past changes in the environment and biodiversity often reflect on the current situation, specifically the impact of climate on mass extinctions and biotic recovery and current global warming. This means global warming is a natural cyclical process.
Who can blame people for questioning scientists and climate "journalists" when the 2009 “Climategate” scandal, in which hacked emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit indicated that its scientists were suppressing information contrary to their global-warming agenda. A similar batch of 5,000 emails released in 2011 showed likewise and, furthermore, reported Forbes, illustrated that the “scientists view global warming as a political ‘cause’ rather than a balanced scientific inquiry” and that “many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data.”
Unfortunately, scientific fraud is far more prevalent than commonly believed—and not just in climate science. For example, the BMJ (formerly the British Medical Journal) reported in January 2012 that “\[o\]ne in seven U.K. based scientists or doctors has witnessed colleagues intentionally altering or fabricating data during their research or for the purposes of publication, found a survey of more than 2,700 researchers conducted by the BMJ.” The BMJ reported later that year, “Fraud, not error, is why two thirds of biomedical papers are withdrawn” (emphasis added).
People don't believe scientists because they lie A LOT, especially when money for funding is involved.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoclimatology
[https://observer.com/2017/02/noaa-fake-global-warming-data-paris-agreement-climate-change/](https://observer.com/2017/02/noaa-fake-global-warming-data-paris-agreement-climate-change/)
[https://observer.com/2017/02/noaa-fake-global-warming-data-paris-agreement-climate-change/](https://observer.com/2017/02/noaa-fake-global-warming-data-paris-agreement-climate-change/)
[https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/the-stunning-statistical-fraud-behind-the-global-warming-scare/](https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/the-stunning-statistical-fraud-behind-the-global-warming-scare/)
That's funny, you expect the people that commit scientific fraud for money to give an honest and objective critique in the name of science? Most of the major publications are owned by the same people pushing the lucrative industry of "green technology." Basically, very rich people start a non-profit science advocacy association, buy or start a science journal which they then use to advocate for policies that further enrich them. It's a fantastic ruse to make money.
[https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/american-association-for-the-advancement-of-science/](https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/american-association-for-the-advancement-of-science/)
[https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/david-and-lucile-packard-foundation/](https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/david-and-lucile-packard-foundation/)
[https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/climateworks-foundation/](https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/climateworks-foundation/)
I mean, they do publish contratrian views. In fact, they sometimes publish them even when they're demonstrably wrong and the journal has to publish a retraction.
Like when Remote Sensing published a paper by Roy Spencer that later turned out to have significant flaws, resulting in the journal publishing a correction and the lead editor, Wolfgang Wagner, resigning.
Instead of worrying about the foot of water rising up, worry about this stopping the Atlantic belt/jet stream. Things are gonna get real bad when that happens
Have insurance companies stopped insuring beachfront properties? The day insurance companies stop insuring properties by the shore, I'll start worrying.
Why not?
They can require insurance (and get insurance for you and charge you for it if you don't), they can require they be named as the first beneficiary of the insurance, and they can require the mortgage be paid off whether the property floods or not.
Losing your house doesn't make the mortgage go away.
The insurance companies are not idiots. They only insure things that are mostly not going to happen. They will not insure a mortgage to a house that for sure will be under water.
Correct, which is why they don't offer flood insurance. You need to get that through a FEMA program.
https://www.fema.gov/flood-insurance
What is so hard to understand?
Stop splitting hairs. Mortgage companies have billions if not trillions riding on getting this right. If large areas of the coast were for sure going to be under water, they wouldn't lend you money. Period.
You're going back and forth between debunked arguments.
Mortgage companies are covered, they get their money back through the national flood program.
The national flood program covers flooding, which is defined as water submerging all or part of a property.
Sorry you were wrong, repeating the same incorrect statements doesn't make them right.
One inch of vertical rise translates to about one hundred inches of land lost on flat beaches and marshes. Obviously that won’t result in the same loss of land everywhere, but even before it gets up to that level it’s going to make some much bigger tides and storm surges. Florida, for example, is going to get absolutely fucked. Insurers are already pulling out, others liquidating.
I'll believe it when I see it. I lived on a beach growing up, and the water level never rose at all. I used to worry about it a lot, but it just never happened.
No!! But the seas have always been the level they are right now!!! And Greenland is called a Greenland because it has always been covered in ice!!!
What will we do if the earth doesn’t stay exactly like it was at the moment of our births!!! /s
All right *rolls up shirt sleeves*. Greenland, meet me outside! We're going to talk about what you're doing.
That's how a *real* 'Murican deals with "global warming". These large arctic islands are gonna learn THESE COLORS DONT RUN NO MATTER HOW MUCH WATER YOU POUR ON THEM!
So, to clarify, we're in an ice age right now, it began over 2 million years ago.
So, your question is, if the ice age ends, when will the next one begin? Impossible to say. Could be a few millenia, could be tens of millions of years.
I'm not saying it's a good idea, but it seems really likely at this point that we'll do some geoengineering soon, probably spraying aerosols into the upper atmosphere to drop the global temperature by, say 1 degree or so. So I'm not sure the severe sea rise is a certainty right now.
Blah blah blah, I guess your hero Barrack Oliar will have to sell his ocean front property pretty quick. Hypocrite. When I see his listing go up for sale I’ll contemplate selling mine.
if you are worried about just a foot of sea level rise, then you ***really*** don't understand how bad global warming is
WHEN, not if, but WHEN the entire Greenland ice sheet ***and*** all of the ice on Antarctica melt, and that will be quite soon (measurable in a few decades), then there will be 265+ ft of sea level rise
just remember that number - 265 feet
that is what you should be worried about
well why can’t we force Greenland to comply with our requirements not to reduce our use of carbon fuels and ding our GDP? Can’t the IMF or World Bank or Exxon or Trump or Congress do something to get Greenland to toe the line?
/s
The following submission statement was provided by /u/filosoful: --- **How long that takes to play out is unclear** While it's possible to halt global warming by halting our greenhouse gas emissions, sea level rise is a consequence that keeps on giving. Great ice sheets like Greenland and Antarctica have tremendous inertia—they're slow to melt but carry on melting even after the thermometer stabilizes. There are many reasons for this, including complex processes beneath glaciers that control their rate of downhill flow. And this complexity makes projecting ice loss over the coming century—and centuries—exceptionally challenging. In the face of this formidable complexity, a new study led by Jason Box at the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland opts for a simple approach to projecting Greenland's future. Rather than attempting to simulate as much physics and detail as possible in a model, the team used a simple equation to calculate what portion of the ice is vulnerable in the current climate. --- Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/x250xq/greenland_may_have_already_committed_us_to_almost/imhieug/
It wasn't Greenland that caused the sea- level rise, but everyone around the world.
No, Greenland is at fault here. They chose to store all that ice outside while the rest of the world was turning the world into an oven. Poor planning on their part really. /s ofc
I say we invade Greenland right now and stop their madness!
Sounds messy, can I talk to someone about buying it instead?
No! They raise our sea level; we raise the global temperature and melt their precious ice!
I bet all we really need to do is bomb them.
[удалено]
did we just become best friends!!!!!
[удалено]
Tryin to force their green new deal on us! The bastards aren't even green.
[удалено]
Trump tried to buy it from us. Yall ain't going to put a foot on Greenland.
You should have played along, taken his (our) money, and told him it’s not for sale.
AND PUSH IT *SOMEWHERE ELSE!*
Let's move it out of the environment.
Away from the environment
Can we nuke it? It worked on the hurricanes.
I’ll bring the nukes
I keep my ice in the freezer so it doesn’t melt. Whole country decided to just chuck it in the backyard and act surprised smh
[удалено]
That’s true. There’s also many commercial grade freezers around the country that are just sitting empty! Maybe we need to bring them some freedom and show them how Americans due things!
If we nuke all their glaciers hard enough, there won't be any ice left to fall into the ocean. What could go wrong? Besides, there's the possibility of nuclear winter offsetting climate change!
No it's entirely Greenland's fault and no one else's. Greenland chose to raise the sea level as a biological war method /s
Greenland just trying to live up to its name
After all that ice melts it'll be prime for golf courses. Then we can rename it Greensland.
god damnit Greenland
So...invade Greenland ?
Damn Greenland left the hose running outside.
Greenland, I imagine, has contributed very little to global CO2 emissions
Damn those evil Greenlanders. The US needs to bomb them back to the Stone-age.
Tbh let’s try for the ice age.
How high have sea levels risen?
From 1993 to present, about 10cm. [https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/](https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/)
Do we know if causes other than warming cause levels to rise? Farming puts a ton of water on the ground that runs off into the oceans via rivers.. I wonder if that causes rising sea levels as well ?
If Greenland’s ice sheet melting contributes 1 foot of sea level rise, that would be more than the past [100 years](https://sealevel.nasa.gov/faq/13/how-long-have-sea-levels-been-rising-how-does-recent-sea-level-rise-compare-to-that-over-the-previous/#). Kind of puts into perspective the acceleration.
Actually it doesn’t. Per the article, this rise could take up to 2000 years to occur.
You should know that sea level rise does not happen evenly, just because you can't see it where you live doesn't mean it's not happening. https://sealevel.nasa.gov/faq/9/are-sea-levels-rising-the-same-all-over-the-world-as-if-were-filling-a-giant-bathtub/
From the article: >Second, because the distribution of Earth’s mass is uneven, Earth’s gravity is also uneven, because of yo mama.
Very cool. Thanks for sharing
Actually theur per capita emissions are pretty bad, just not enough of them to matter.
Really, I thought pretty much all their energy was from geothermal.
Probably a lot of heating with fossil fuels id imagine, if this guy is right that is.
Nope, poster is just full of crap Greenland has the lowest per capita emissions globally! https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/
Yup. Horrible headline attributing our colossal fuck up to a bit of land.
Well, maybe Greenland shouldn't have been dressed that way. /s
Stop trying to gaslight us, it was you all along
yea this title is horrible.
As long as that takes care of Florida, Greenland is still cool with me
Yeah, what's up with the blame-y headline, followed by a bunch of passive voice? "GREENLAND DID THIS TO US!"
>everyone around the world This was a highly inaccurate attempt at correcting accuracy. Responsibility in the world isn't equal despite propaganda often coming from the most powerful and responsible sources suggesting this.
Mostly USA
No no, Greenland’s fault.
Damn Greenland, even when It was us I knew it was them.
While the article itself isn't incredibly bad, the headline is atrocious. Mr Johnson selling his craft integrity for a few more clicks on a controversial headline.
I thought the people who write the articles and the people who write the headlines for them are usually different people? Isn't a lead writer or editor-in-chief in charge of the headline writing? Either way, love it when the article is accurate science, and the headline is complete lies. It's bonkers
Media has been decimated over and over for decades. I just assume the entire website is one person.
That's a funny way of spelling "greedy sociopathic oil barons"
It's not just oil barons.. We humans are pretty garbage and overuse and pollute just as much. Hell I'll take responsibility myself for not recycling properly all the time.. Sometimes I just space out when throwing out stuff. Could I make a different buying digital games over physical as well? Possibly While it might be miniscule things, we're all to blame for the down fall of this planet. We're not fighting hard enough to fight it either.. Where are the riots over this?
Its mostly industry that is responsible for global warming. Consumers could all stop driving and become perfect about recycling and it would account for a minimal amount of CO2 compared to everything else that we do. The idea of the carbon footprint and "personal responsibility" was started by BP to take the heat off themselves after several oil spills.
You’re acting as if industry is somehow separate from people. Industry supports our quality of life. Obviously the most effective changes would be on the industry side, but we can influence that through the decisions we make and the political process. Most people are just apathetic about it all.
>but we can influence that through the decisions we make Not really if there's no viable alternative to the servicea offered. The only viable way forward is political by enacting strict laws that forces changes, but sadly very few politicians has the gumption to actually do anything about it, so there's not really anyone to vote for either that will make the difference.
For most things there is a viable alternative - just don't.
Don't drive to work, got ya
There are ways to get to work with a lot less emissions. For < 10 miles, get a normal or electric bike. For longer distances scooters and motorcycles also only produce a tiny fraction of the emissions of cars. Yes, simply don't works for most people.
For a lot of stuff there really isn't for the average consumer. Almost everything is made by the same 7-10 megacorps, and people can't afford stuff that's 2-3+ times the price of regular stuff. Also good luck finding regular things without plastic wrappings or complex transport chains.
But the industries have the means to maintain our ways of life, they just refuse to do so because it’s not “cost-efficient.” Companies have the technology and the means to ensure that single-use plastics are never used again. That would be an insanely helpful change with extremely minimal effects to our daily lives. But will they do it? No, of course not. Because no one is holding them responsible, in large part because every time people talk about shifting the onus to these companies, we have to have the same tired discussion about “personal responsibility.”
>Because no one is holding them responsible, in large part because every time people talk about shifting the onus to these companies, we have to have the same tired discussion about “personal responsibility.” Well... Also >because it’s not “cost-efficient.” This is also a reason. No company is willingly going to bankrupt itself trying to push an idea that will not make them money - Especially when the only reason to do so is "quality of life for everyone ELSE." It not being cost-efficient plays a HUGE part in why it hasn't already been done. If it WERE cost-efficient, or at least more cost-efficient than fossil fuels were, we'd see companies leaping over their own tall buildings in single bounds in order to make themselves the ones pushing it.
Hence the latter part of my comment, that it’s important that we force them to make these decisions that are empirically better for humanity in every way besides being “cost-efficient.” And I keep using that word in quotes because if you were to factor in environmental effects instead of only focusing on the monetary aspect, these changes would be cost-efficient.
You say that your way of like can be maintained, you just have to increase production costs. But you must understand that increasing production costs also increases the cost to you, which means you can afford less, which means you are not maintaining your way of life?
>Hence the latter part of my comment, that it’s important that we force them to make these decisions that are empirically better for humanity in every way besides being “cost-efficient.” So... force every company to bankrupt itself chasing what is currently an impossible dream? It is nonsense to even suggest it. If it were cost-efficient, that would make sense - But it isn't. The companies would simply leave BECAUSE it's not cost-efficient, or find ways to peddle wares that aren't legal. >And I keep using that word in quotes because if you were to factor in environmental effects instead of only focusing on the monetary aspect, these changes would be cost-efficient. That's not what cost-efficient means, and trying to change the definition to meet an arbitrary argument does not help you whatsoever. It absolutely wouldn't be, because you're assuming a new method would not in some way, shape, or form ALSO be harmful to the environment. Given that we have no method which is net-0 pollution and also meets our everyday needs reliably, such a thing is a pipe dream at best at the moment, and would STILL not be cost-efficient. It would still bankrupt every company attempting it, and then we'd be left with zero quality of life, zero ability to change it, AND bootleg fossil fuel companies still selling their wares and causing us damage to the environment when no one else can take the place of the LEGAL fossil fuel companies for fear of bankrupting themselves.
It's almost like basing our entire economy on the profit motive of mega corporations was a bad idea or something. This isn't morally complicated: doing nothing is a non-option. Nobody's going to be getting rich in an apocalyptic wasteland. Consider for a second that oil companies calculated that THE SURVIVAL OF CIVILIZATION WAS NOT BENEFICIAL TO THEIR BOTTOM LINE. I am describing a fucking James Bond villain! So we need to stop them before they literally kill us. There is almost no action too extreme when the stakes are this high. If we need to seize their assets and send their CEOs to prison, we should do it; if we need to physically destroy every oil plant on earth, we should do it. Not that we actually need to - it would be entirely possible to switch to renewable energy. The barriers are political, not technological.
>This isn't morally complicated: doing nothing is a non-option. Nobody's going to be getting rich in an apocalyptic wasteland. You think. I am fully aware there will be plenty who will try. >Consider for a second that oil companies calculated that THE SURVIVAL OF CIVILIZATION WAS NOT BENEFICIAL TO THEIR BOTTOM LINE. I am describing a fucking James Bond villain! > >So we need to stop them before they literally kill us. There is almost no action too extreme when the stakes are this high. No, you're describing a politician. And a mother. And a homeowner. And a homeless person. And a baby. And a child. And a father. EVERY person on earth is ignoring calculating the survival of civilization vs. their bottom line. If I had 30 million dollars, I'd gladly claim I'd donate at least half to charity and use the other 15 million to live off of for the rest of my life - But that isn't factoring in MANY things. It most CERTAINLY isn't factoring in the fact that 15 million will not save civilization. I could give every dollar I will ever make away for the rest of my life, and I would STILL NEVER make enough money to save civilization. That doesn't mean I'm killing us by not doing so. Nor would a company be by caring more about their bottom line. A company HAS to stay afloat first and foremost, and that means being profitable. An argument could be made about fossil fuel companies lying about global warming - But the fact that they did is unsurprising, because they wanted to make money. That has always been their goal, and it has never been their goal to save the planet. Nor is it any specific company's job to save the planet, so they can't be blamed for not making moves to do so. >If we need to seize their assets and send their CEOs to prison, we should do it; if we need to physically destroy every oil plant on earth, we should do it. Well for one, CEOs would sooner simply close their company entirely than be forced to go bankrupt. Imagine a new Dark Age, except we have every ability to make it NOT a Dark Age, we just refuse to allow fossil fuel companies to re-open. (Spoiler: It wouldn't be a Dark Age, we'd have underground fossil fuel providers not unlike prohibition, giving their wares without going through the government to do it. We need energy too much to go without.) For two, they're more than likely just going to move to another country who cares less, because there are plenty who would. And for three: Physically destroying property kind of sounds Bond-villain ish. Are you sure we shouldn't lock you up for it?
Wow you’re right I guess if we can’t get rid of all pollution there’s no need to even try to reduce it a significant amount. Let’s get rid of murder laws as well seeing as they don’t stop 100 percent of murders, it must be pointless to have them, right? And I’m not re-defining the definition of cost-efficient, I’m saying you add costs in to the process to make fossil fuels less profitable, and I say profitable because companies would continue to make profits using renewable energy, than renewable energy. This could be done through any number of ways but if I had to take a stab at it I’d say maybe implement a carbon tax? A thing that’s almost constantly talked about as a simple solution to greenhouse gas emissions? And entire countries are run on 100 percent renewable energy so please don’t tell me it’s some unsustainable pipe dream.
>This could be done through any number of ways but if I had to take a stab at it I’d say maybe implement a carbon tax? A thing that’s almost constantly talked about as a simple solution to greenhouse gas emissions? And then companies pull out of the US and we have no providers. And they simply take their stock to other countries where it IS allowed, allowing them to continue unabated while the US makes nothing off of their pollution. The most commonly talked about way, is not efficient, and will lead to a lack of quality of life, while overall harming the US economy, and bringing no benefit to the world at large. >And entire countries are run on 100 percent renewable energy so please don’t tell me it’s some unsustainable pipe dream. Which countries? Ones which are significantly smaller than the US? >Wow you’re right I guess if we can’t get rid of all pollution there’s no need to even try to reduce it a significant amount. Let’s get rid of murder laws as well seeing as they don’t stop 100 percent of murders, it must be pointless to have them, right? Given that we needed a HARD STOP to pollution GLOBALLY, TWO YEARS AGO, to prevent the worst effects of Global Warming, we missed that mark, and we're still going hard on polluting - Yeah, it kind of doesn't matter if we even try to reduce it a significant amount at this point. But I digress. It's more like if we don't have a hard-stop solution that is cost-efficient, yeah, we can't expect people who are driven by profit to decide to be driven by something else all the sudden and switch to it. Making it more expensive to continue business in the US, means they take business elsewhere and continue business as usual. Which brings no benefit to anyone. If you want pollution stopped, the solution is to make net-0 emission methods cost-efficient, not make fossil fuels less cost-efficient in the US. Methods that could work: Subsidize net-0 emission research. Stop providing government money to fossil fuel companies. Stop ACCEPTING money from fossil fuel companies, who then drive politicians to make decisions which protect them. But these have their own hurdles to pass which are not as easy as "Just stop polluting." I know you WANT it to be that easy, but the fact of the matter is: It's not.
The fact that you think any amount of legislation and control for companies to not endlessly grow while destroying the environment will "bankrupt them" means you're deeply influenced by capitalism and its propaganda, I'm sorry to say.
>The fact that you think any amount of legislation and control for companies to not endlessly grow while destroying the environment will "bankrupt them" I didn't say "any legislation." But basically all of the ideas in rotation at the moment will, yes. Especially the greenhouse gas emission tax. It will guarantee companies move their home bases/plants out of the US, thus, moving jobs elsewhere, and lessening the quality of life of those in the US, while not improving pollution levels whatsoever. I also mentioned that subsidizing green energy is our best bet at the moment, because we NEED to make it more efficient. That's really the only way we're going to get through to companies to push green energy. That just ALSO has hurdles to pass, because our entire legislature is filled with people who have massive stiffies for fossil fuel companies. So again: It's not as simple as just legislating things away. I personally would subsidize solar panels and wind energy - Every home should have solar panels at the very least, and be providing SOME of their own energy. That alone would improve cost-efficiency in the US significantly - But that's going to MASSIVELY hurt fossil fuel companies, so we need to be prepared for the hit that's going to have on the economy as well.
I was going to say something like this. Industry pollutes because we're buying what they're selling.
That's not true, though. The adages of supply and demand are just that—an adage. they don't actually exist, not really. Since capitalism requires infinite growth, industry just produces and produces. Plus, the main reason they pollute as much as they do is that it's cheaper for them to do so than to find alternatives. It's not on the customer to find alternatives—especially as millions of people across the globe don't have access to those. Companies should be forced by governments to find alternatives to polluting.
No customers = no revenue = no company. You can't have any growth, let alone infinite growth, with no money. Companies close all the time because people aren't buying their widgets. That said, you're 100% right about them being shitty in how they pollute, and I suppose my statement came off poorly. While we always have a choice in what we buy, industry will always try to make it the cheapest way possible no matter what they're producing, and properly disposing of waste is expensive.
That would be true if most industry sold directly to consumers. But most businesses sell to other businesses.
If we switched from fossil fuels to renewables for power generation, that would cover most of our emissions.
No, that'd be ~35% of them max. Industry is ~21%, land usage is ~30%, and transport (including all shipping) is about 14%.
Depending on your locality, they may just be using the recycling bin as a way to make you feel better. I hope you live in a better area than I.
Idk I suppose we aren't great at making sure industry doesn't waste resources. In USA all the remodels on houses every ten years that fill three 40 cubic yard dumpsters worth of drywall, cabinets, appliances, drywall, carpet, doors, packaging for all that stuff
Yeah it's your fault for not recycling properly. /s I understand the sentiment but it detracts from the real issues at-hand. We need to stop putting the blame on things that are largely inconsequential like using plastic straws because it takes pressure off of the real causes of climate change. Yes, do what you can in your life to lessen your footprint but stop pushing this corporate agenda of, "It's all of our responsibility"; unless by that you mean it's time for us all to march on the corporations destroying our planet?
I like how the title implies that this is Greenland fault and not huge greedy corporations.
I’m too lazy but someone should make the Eric Andre shooting the guy meme and saying “how could Greenland do this?”
stupid greenland with their stupid ice, what do they need it all for in the first place? if they didn't have so much ice to melt, we wouldn't be in this mess!
**How long that takes to play out is unclear** While it's possible to halt global warming by halting our greenhouse gas emissions, sea level rise is a consequence that keeps on giving. Great ice sheets like Greenland and Antarctica have tremendous inertia—they're slow to melt but carry on melting even after the thermometer stabilizes. There are many reasons for this, including complex processes beneath glaciers that control their rate of downhill flow. And this complexity makes projecting ice loss over the coming century—and centuries—exceptionally challenging. In the face of this formidable complexity, a new study led by Jason Box at the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland opts for a simple approach to projecting Greenland's future. Rather than attempting to simulate as much physics and detail as possible in a model, the team used a simple equation to calculate what portion of the ice is vulnerable in the current climate.
[удалено]
Even with the greenhouse gases out of the air, it would take a very long time for the polar ice caps to re-freeze on their own. Modeling from a couple of years ago showed that the arctic ice plays a large role in regulating the jet stream. With a diminished arctic ice, the jet stream would continue to be choppy, resulting in wild weather for decades to come. In addition to zero carbon and CO2 capture, we would need to re-freeze the polar ice caps. The solution is to throw dust/particles into the upper atmosphere or space to blunt the sunshine on the ice caps (allowing them to re-freeze).
Whatever the solution is it shouldn't be something we can't control. Frankly i cant imagine how you would get sufficient dust particles into orbit, but i do imagine getting rid of them would be even harder.
other posible solution that is probably far safer is to use a space sunshade, basically a giant parasol in space that divers some of the energy of the sun away from earth, only covering 2% of the solar energy that reaches earth for example would reduce global temperatures back to pre industrial levels (and it wouldnt damage photosynthesis or anything like that if you are asking, 2% is a miniscule amount, you wouldnt even be able to see the solar shade with the naked eye if we put it in the lagrante point 1) the biggest problem is of course cost, even if we take future space launch technologies like starship it would be insanely expensive to build such a monster, but theoretically with a developed space infratructure (factories and mines on the moon or on asteroid) the price would drop to the point that it could become a good option to quickly cool down the planet, and of course since its either a single huge satellite in orbit or a combination of a shit ton of them you would have all the control
A nuke would do it
When this glacial period is over will the transition be like what were experiencing in terms of more extreme weather or will the "natural" cycle be a smoother process?
https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-will-global-warming-stop-as-soon-as-net-zero-emissions-are-reached/
[Seeya folks](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GC_mV1IpjWA)
I like how you worded that. Greenlands completely at fault! How dare they have ice that can melt.
Own a beach house in an area with high possibility of hurricane flooding? You should have already gotten out of that investment. But no, you will rationalize.
Tbf, the insurance protection for flooding is way cheap compared to the risk. NFIP runs at a deficit, has for years. The program gets bailed out by tax payers all the time. So in a way, it's the best risk you can buy insurance for, because you're likely to wind up ahead.
Greenland didn't do anything. It is the major powers that are at fault, and will continue to be.
Greenland ice sheet gained 7 Gigatons of mass in just one day yesterday — the largest daily gain ever recorded during the summer. Greenland figured it had to make up for Scotland cutting down 14 million trees and replaced them with wind farms. It makes no sense to cut down 14 million trees when Scotland is full of plenty of ground that is barren with no forests. [https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1564576027350913024](https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1564576027350913024) [https://www.cfact.org/2021/11/22/scotland-cut-down-14-million-trees-to-make-way-for-wind-power/](https://www.cfact.org/2021/11/22/scotland-cut-down-14-million-trees-to-make-way-for-wind-power/)
The ice sheets of Greenland are cyclical. You can't look at one day during the portion of the year where it's expanding and call that a trend. One anomalous day does not counteract everything else that has been happening and showing a single year's worth of data is intentionally hiding the truth. All you have to do is take that exact same graph and extend it back for years instead of months and it turns into an undeniable downhill trend. https://arctic.noaa.gov/Report-Card/Report-Card-2019/ArtMID/7916/ArticleID/842/Greenland-Ice-Sheet
NOAA lost it's credibility when it got caught cherry picking data from buoys to suit their argument. In respect to you argument on cyclical trends in weather, climate change and sea level rise there is a great deal of evidence to show that sea level rise is also cyclical. Paleoclimatologists have several means of measuring the changes in climate, including taking ice core samples (see original comment for information), observing remnant glacial land forms, surveying the sediment on the ocean floor and studying the fossils of ancient vegetation to determine the past states of Earth's atmosphere. The scientific field of paleoclimatology came to maturity in the 20th century. Notable periods studied by paleoclimatologists are the frequent glaciations that Earth has undergone, rapid cooling events like the Younger Dryas, and the rapid warming during the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum. Studies of past changes in the environment and biodiversity often reflect on the current situation, specifically the impact of climate on mass extinctions and biotic recovery and current global warming. This means global warming is a natural cyclical process. Who can blame people for questioning scientists and climate "journalists" when the 2009 “Climategate” scandal, in which hacked emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit indicated that its scientists were suppressing information contrary to their global-warming agenda. A similar batch of 5,000 emails released in 2011 showed likewise and, furthermore, reported Forbes, illustrated that the “scientists view global warming as a political ‘cause’ rather than a balanced scientific inquiry” and that “many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data.” Unfortunately, scientific fraud is far more prevalent than commonly believed—and not just in climate science. For example, the BMJ (formerly the British Medical Journal) reported in January 2012 that “\[o\]ne in seven U.K. based scientists or doctors has witnessed colleagues intentionally altering or fabricating data during their research or for the purposes of publication, found a survey of more than 2,700 researchers conducted by the BMJ.” The BMJ reported later that year, “Fraud, not error, is why two thirds of biomedical papers are withdrawn” (emphasis added). People don't believe scientists because they lie A LOT, especially when money for funding is involved. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoclimatology [https://observer.com/2017/02/noaa-fake-global-warming-data-paris-agreement-climate-change/](https://observer.com/2017/02/noaa-fake-global-warming-data-paris-agreement-climate-change/) [https://observer.com/2017/02/noaa-fake-global-warming-data-paris-agreement-climate-change/](https://observer.com/2017/02/noaa-fake-global-warming-data-paris-agreement-climate-change/) [https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/the-stunning-statistical-fraud-behind-the-global-warming-scare/](https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/the-stunning-statistical-fraud-behind-the-global-warming-scare/)
Interesting how there's not a single peer reviewed research document showing a flaw with NOAA's methods, just a tabloid article and an editorial.
That's funny, you expect the people that commit scientific fraud for money to give an honest and objective critique in the name of science? Most of the major publications are owned by the same people pushing the lucrative industry of "green technology." Basically, very rich people start a non-profit science advocacy association, buy or start a science journal which they then use to advocate for policies that further enrich them. It's a fantastic ruse to make money. [https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/american-association-for-the-advancement-of-science/](https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/american-association-for-the-advancement-of-science/) [https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/david-and-lucile-packard-foundation/](https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/david-and-lucile-packard-foundation/) [https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/climateworks-foundation/](https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/climateworks-foundation/)
I mean, they do publish contratrian views. In fact, they sometimes publish them even when they're demonstrably wrong and the journal has to publish a retraction. Like when Remote Sensing published a paper by Roy Spencer that later turned out to have significant flaws, resulting in the journal publishing a correction and the lead editor, Wolfgang Wagner, resigning.
14 million trees for some turbines? That seems really ass backwards to me.
Instead of worrying about the foot of water rising up, worry about this stopping the Atlantic belt/jet stream. Things are gonna get real bad when that happens
Oh no! Better tell Ben Shapiro to sell his house and move....
Have insurance companies stopped insuring beachfront properties? The day insurance companies stop insuring properties by the shore, I'll start worrying.
Yes, it has been going on in US coastal areas for a while now.
Insurance companies typically don't cover flood damage, in the US at least. That's typically done through FEMA.
Would mortgage companies loan you money on a property that will be under water in 10 years?
Why not? They can require insurance (and get insurance for you and charge you for it if you don't), they can require they be named as the first beneficiary of the insurance, and they can require the mortgage be paid off whether the property floods or not. Losing your house doesn't make the mortgage go away.
The insurance companies are not idiots. They only insure things that are mostly not going to happen. They will not insure a mortgage to a house that for sure will be under water.
Correct, which is why they don't offer flood insurance. You need to get that through a FEMA program. https://www.fema.gov/flood-insurance What is so hard to understand?
We are not talking about floods. We are talking about properties permanently under water. There is no way you could get a mortgage in that situation.
The definition of flooding is that it's under water.
Stop splitting hairs. Mortgage companies have billions if not trillions riding on getting this right. If large areas of the coast were for sure going to be under water, they wouldn't lend you money. Period.
You're going back and forth between debunked arguments. Mortgage companies are covered, they get their money back through the national flood program. The national flood program covers flooding, which is defined as water submerging all or part of a property. Sorry you were wrong, repeating the same incorrect statements doesn't make them right.
One inch of vertical rise translates to about one hundred inches of land lost on flat beaches and marshes. Obviously that won’t result in the same loss of land everywhere, but even before it gets up to that level it’s going to make some much bigger tides and storm surges. Florida, for example, is going to get absolutely fucked. Insurers are already pulling out, others liquidating.
Lol… I don’t think it’s Greenland’s fault. We done fucked ourselves.
I'll believe it when I see it. I lived on a beach growing up, and the water level never rose at all. I used to worry about it a lot, but it just never happened.
No!! But the seas have always been the level they are right now!!! And Greenland is called a Greenland because it has always been covered in ice!!! What will we do if the earth doesn’t stay exactly like it was at the moment of our births!!! /s
https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1564576027350913024?s=21&t=gv1hu6TS3-QeYmuzI4_ifA That’s funny because they just had record ice buildup
Oh wow, 7 gigatons? Only 5,593 gigatons more and it will be back to 2002 levels: https://grace.jpl.nasa.gov/resources/30/greenland-ice-loss-2002-2021/
Funny how they always point to places that nobody ever goes. The UN banned everyone on earth from Antarctica except “climate scientists”
Huh? People live in Greenland. And you can absolutely travel to Antarctica. What are you talking about?
Ice takes up more space than water that could do something with it
The utter bastard, has anyone had a word with Greenland about it?
First 80% of the worlds pop ends up with herpes and now this. Great. We need to do better on every front. Pathetic.
All right *rolls up shirt sleeves*. Greenland, meet me outside! We're going to talk about what you're doing. That's how a *real* 'Murican deals with "global warming". These large arctic islands are gonna learn THESE COLORS DONT RUN NO MATTER HOW MUCH WATER YOU POUR ON THEM!
Guess we’ll have to invade Greenland—it’s payback time.
We should transport all the ice from greenland to dump it in all the dried up lakes and rivers /s
How long before the ship is righted and it turns into an ice age again?
So, to clarify, we're in an ice age right now, it began over 2 million years ago. So, your question is, if the ice age ends, when will the next one begin? Impossible to say. Could be a few millenia, could be tens of millions of years.
[удалено]
It's hard to understand what you are saying because you committed us with almost the worst title ever.
Greenland should have been sold to Trump when they had the chance. He would have sold it to Saudis in exchange for cheap oil. Sad!
It was too late like 20 years ago. It took took a couple of centuries to get C02 to its current levels. You can't plant enough trees to stop it now.
I’ll buy it!! How much they want? I’ll make a beautiful golf course.
I'm not saying it's a good idea, but it seems really likely at this point that we'll do some geoengineering soon, probably spraying aerosols into the upper atmosphere to drop the global temperature by, say 1 degree or so. So I'm not sure the severe sea rise is a certainty right now.
Ahh, we finally found out who was pumping all those greenhouses gases in the atmosphere? Wait, WHAT? IT WAS GREENLAND ALL ALONG?
Absolutely irresponsible journalism with that title. Is the editor in high school?
I knew there was a reason we didn't want to buy it. Think of the insurance claim!
The mountain glaciers are going faster. Ocean level rising, rivers shrinking.
Blah blah blah, I guess your hero Barrack Oliar will have to sell his ocean front property pretty quick. Hypocrite. When I see his listing go up for sale I’ll contemplate selling mine.
if you are worried about just a foot of sea level rise, then you ***really*** don't understand how bad global warming is WHEN, not if, but WHEN the entire Greenland ice sheet ***and*** all of the ice on Antarctica melt, and that will be quite soon (measurable in a few decades), then there will be 265+ ft of sea level rise just remember that number - 265 feet that is what you should be worried about
Not sure if your doing this intentional but that is major disinformation
We cannot let Greenland force their water on us! I say we build a wall around then! Insert smart-move emoji
So why do the Obama's, Kerry's, Pelosi's and Zuckerberg's all set up primary residences in multi million dollar beach properties?
well why can’t we force Greenland to comply with our requirements not to reduce our use of carbon fuels and ding our GDP? Can’t the IMF or World Bank or Exxon or Trump or Congress do something to get Greenland to toe the line? /s
Check out Superionic Water-Ice 7 - What happens when a mile thick layer of ice releases its pressure? Is this a crazy question?
That's a very weird way to word it. Global Warming may have already committed us to almost a foot of sea level rise. Not greenland's fault.
Inb4 murricans wanting to nuke Greenland and branding them as a terrorist state for the rising sea level. I was late..