By P Gosselin
By KlimaNachrichten
We have carefully read the definition of a “tipping point” as conveyed by Potsdam Institute (PIK): “It’s like a pencil that you push further and further over the edge of a table with your finger. First nothing happens – then it falls.” That’s what the PIK website says.
Nothing can bring the pencil back to the table except a failure of gravity, which is not conceivable. Then PIK lists various “elements” that are supposed to exhibit such behavior. To the ice sheet of Greenland one finds there
There are indications that the tipping point, which leads to an almost complete loss of ice in the long term (about 10,000 years), could probably be reached at a global warming of just under 1.5°C (possible from 0.8°C global warming, at the latest at 3°C).“
Now there’s a paper on the subject has appeared in “Nature“, which paints a different picture. It finds that even after a possibly “critical warming threshold” has been crossed, “the pencil does not fall down:
We find several stable intermediate ice-sheet configurations … that return to the present-day state if the climate returns to present-day conditions.”
in addition, models often determine the warming in Greenland (the root of the evil) using the mean global warming rate and then apply an “Arctic amplification” factor to each warming to determine the temperature swing in Greenland. The paper states:
Recently, it has been shown that the Arctic warms four times faster than the global average and thus substantially exceeds previous estimates and projections from climate models. Arctic amplification of this magnitude would reduce the safe space for the GrIS substantially. However, surface temperatures around Greenland might not increase that severely in the future.”
Observations since 2000 now show that during this period the warming of the Arctic is far from uniform:
The warming trends (in °C / year) since 2000 of the Arctic region. The figure was generated with the KNMI Climate Explorer. The “Arctic amplification” in the Arctic strikes in large parts of its European part, but in Greenland, of all places, the observed trends are much lower, especially in the area in the south and center of the island, which is particularly vulnerable to “thawing”.
A constant factor, therefore, according to observations, is a further overestimation of the danger of the occurrence of “galloping ice melt” in Greenland. The “Last Generation – before the tipping points” has perhaps been misled not only with the characteristics of tipping points (the “falling pencil”) , but also with the real dangers of the tipping elements.
“Claims Of A Runaway Melt Are Overblown”
As so often here, whose claims are we talking about, and what did they say? It starts with PiK saying that 1.5C could cause loss of ice in 10000 years, which is not really runaway. Then it quotes someone saying that there might be intermediate stable points. Then someone who says that someone (PiK?) might have assumed higher Arctic amplification than is observed in 2000-2022. It’s all very vague.
Thank you for highlighting the tipping points – alarm, panic, sacrifices needed to save the world as we speed towards the doomsday 1.5°C barrier that everyone at the Paris accords and every COP since then, firmly holds with fanatical conviction – a tipping point that takes 10000 years, 100 centuries to unfold.
A tipping point that used to be 2°C, both numbers pulled out of some propagandist’s butt.
But Mr. J and other alarmists claim there are no tipping points–it’s a fabrication of us “deniers.”. It’s a very sloppy position these climate alarmists keep taking. The trouble with so-called tipping points, is that nothing untoward seems to happen when they are reached.
You are just highlighting the confusion you get into when you ignore the elementary requirement – who said what? Which real person or entity, and what exactly did they say?
A google search for “climate change + tipping point” yields about 13,200,000 results in 0.38 seconds.
That’s the structure of these arguments. It goes from”someone unspecified said something uncited” to “13,200,000 peole said something about something”.
What a totally COWARDLY cop-out.
You really are getting way past the PATHETIC stage, Nick !
You have to remember that Nick never actually bothers to read the articles that he criticizes. He already knows what it says, so why bother.
Absolutely cowardly troll behavior
“Who said tipping points??
Everyone everywhere
THANKS Nick.. 🙂
You have just told us that NOAA should be IGNORED COMPLETELY
Tipping Points and Indicators – NOAA Sea Grant
Guess what, putz.. But we already knew that !!
He must KNOW he is LYING his ass off since NASA and NOAA have been talking about “Tipping points” for years.
He is pathetic and has NO credibility when he has been caught LYING and misleading over and over.
He used to try covering over his evasions by declaring that even though all the leading figures in the climate warming scam are saying alarming things, no “respectable” scientist is saying such things. Therefore quoting leaders is completely irresponsible.
13,200,000 RESULTS is not 13,200,000 PEOPLE
Isn’t that the same source as the 97% consensus? Some number of self proclaimed Climate Scientists said something about something and other Pseudo scientists parroted their words followed by liberal media parroting those catch phrases ad infinitum ad nauseam
Yet you NEVER argue against any of the alarmist clap-trap that come out in the press.
Always trying to find a way to slither around doing so.
Thanks so much for confirming that “tipping points” are just MSM nonsense (pushed from behind by the climate cabal).
We already knew that.. glad you were able to finally catch up.
The problem is that even when you were told who said what, even when I gave you the Pik reference and a link to their ‘tipping point’ work, you chose to completely ignore it. The confusiin is all yours, no-one else’s.
Confusion, sorry.
The article does not say what PiK said that they are on about (except the 1000 years). It should. In fact the PiKlink doesn’t seem to add much to that.
It’s characteristic of these arguments that they say, look in this link, you fool. Or google it, or whatever. No-one can actually put it into words.
“said that they are on about”
Rather like your comments, hey Nick !
Who knows what you are carrying-on about… not even you !
Why you have-your-cake-and-eat-it, cherry-picking nitpicker, you! If we do tell you what they’ve written you demand to know who has said it; you won’t rely on hearsay, you must have the original wording. We provide links and you throw that back as worthless – read the papers and research it yourself or not, either way is good but don’t complain that you don’t get spoon-fed as much as you’d like.
Touche!
What they say exactly is
So these clowns are saying the tipping point is their imaginary 1.5C, which someone pulled out of their nether region.
It really is quite delusional and scientifically it is totally baseless nonsense.
Wouldn’t you agree, Nick. !
Once again nick is focused on the politics and not the science because that is all the left has, a political narrative beach ball kept in the air with a corrupt propaganda press controlled by the Corporatocracy.
It reminds me of when the alarmists, as we had crossed that bridge to the 21st century with ALGORE starring in that horror flick passed off as a documentary, admonished those of us who dared question the alarm with observations about abnormally cold winters that we were not allowed to conflate weather with climate.
But wait! That was until the global surface temperatures flatlined and the Uni at East Anglia got caught out manipulating the data. Then every weather event received a name and Surprise, Surprise Gomer Pyle, weather became evidence of Global Warm…Aahhh we really meant Climate Change all along.
Clear and present proof that politicians can stop on a dime and change direction with 9 cents change in their pocket. And when the observant call them out they send in the clowns like Nick to disparage the bona fides of expert scientists and plant seeds of doubt with all the “Who shot John’s.”
Scientists.. (real ones) say global cooling comng
Arctic Scientist Warns “Global Cooling” Is Less Than A Decade Away; Insurance Companies Asking ‘Where’s The Climate Crisis?’; + Another Weak CME Opens A Crack In Earth’s Atmosphere – Electroverse
Much as I don’t like cold, and it would cause hardship in many countries.
It would be worth it to put AGW into the circular file where it belongs… or round the “S” bend.
Glaciation is almost certainly to occur within the next ten millennia. I wonder if there is anyone who says that AGW will prevent this.
Unbelievably, yes. Professor Chronis Tzedakis (UCL Geography) had a paper published in Nature about 10 years ago claiming that climate change will delay the next ice age. Pik then published a paper about 8 years abo by Andrey Ganopolski claiming that climate change will delay the next ice age by 50,000 to 100,000 years.
Ago, sorry. Why do I only notice these after posting?
I’m convinced that there is a filter that covers over mistakes until after the post comment button has been pressed.
That’s my story and I’m sticking to it.
Thank you. I suppose the good Dr. is devastated by his findings. 🙂
The Earth is currently in a 2.56 million-year ice age named the Quaternary Glaciation, in a cold interglacial period that alternates with very cold glacial periods.
The last glacial period ended 11,700 years ago and the interglacial periods last around 10,000 years.
The ice age won’t end until there is no natural ice. Currently, 20 percent of the land is either permafrost or covered by glaciers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternary_glaciation
Nick is DESPERATELY trying to back-petal from all the alarmist clap-trap…
And in doing so…
… he has just admitted that “tipping points” don’t actual exist…
… that they are a climate pseudo-science fantasy.
Hilarious 🙂
THe longer the scam lasts, the longer he gets to keep his paycheck.
Hi Nick, as far as I can see there were links in the mean text. I clicked and found that the PIK website (not someone) claims a “tipping point” of the Greenland ice sheet , which means in their context: a “threshold with no return” and I also found that the cited paper (not someone) found stable points. And the paper itself (not someone) elaborated the arctic amplification as an important player. Did you overlook the links?
best Frank
Why can’t anyone quote, in ordinary complete language, what PiK said?
Nick agrees… “tipping points” are a fantasy. !!
Ah the climate enthusiasts’ spoon-fed privileged behaviour again. Why can’t you go and read it for yourself, little Nicky?
Or perhaps they mean that if Greenland keeps GAINING so much ice.. it will tip over. !!
No, the population of Guam is more than three times the population of Greenland, so unless those Greenlanders all run to one side at once, they will avoid the tipping point.
Sheep and propagandists would call it Arctic amplification. Whereas others would call it maybe the climate shift of 1997.
“It’s all very vague.”
A great summary of “climate science”.
Yes. In real science, advances are reflected in the development and uses of more precise words and terms. That’s not the case with climate science. Cooling gave way to warming which gave way to change.
The mass of a proton is 1.007276 amu. I doubt there’s much debate over it. But climate “science” so far tells us that the ECS is between 2.5 and 4? And that’s a big maybe. When they can provide proof of the number to 4 or 5 decimal places, it can finally arrive at being a real science. As of now it’s climastrology.
Not only is it 2.5 to 4. It’s been that way for 40 years. Despite spending billions to study the climate.
Here is what the climate twerps at the Potty Institute have to say..
Tipping Elements – big risks in the Earth System — Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (pik-potsdam.de)
It is all UTTER and COMPLETE BALDERDASH !
Wouldn’t you agree, Nick !!
He going to whine that you didn’t post quotes when your link is FULL of narrative of various tipping points might as well quote the entire link to show him up and expose that he doesn’t read links you provide.
That’s a pattern I’ve noticed with most of the alarmists, they demand links. Then when the links are provided, the invent one excuse after another as to why they shouldn’t have to read the links provided.
Or they ignore your links.
It’s all really vague…
As are the spurious claims that everything will be really bad and scary in a century (which is a claim that can’t be disproven) so we must destroy the economy and prosperity of today…for the sake of people we will never know and who might not even be harmed.
1.5C could cause loss of ice in 10000 years…
Yep 10,000 years will give you such a crick in the neck
How could we ever hope to adapt???
Isn’t 10,000 years from now the next nadir in the Milankovitch Glaciation Cycle?
Not much likelihood of a total melt down then is there?
He is NORMALLY vague and demands to be spoon fed when the evidence is already well presented.
He probably doesn’t think Glaciation will show up within 2,000 years which is likely going commence thus he believes Greenland will melt down in he he… ha ha… 10,000 years.
Does this fool really have a PHD in his back pocket?
Climate Science DuJour.
What happens today will only continue in the future to the extreme
If a change supports the narrative, it will continue into the future and get worse.
If a change doesn’t support the narrative, it’s just weather and must be ignored.
Potsdam Hilarity Diploma!
Nick, you say “Whose claims are we talking about, and what do they say”?
You could start with these:
[PDF] Warming of SE Greenland shelf waters in 2016 primes large glacier for runaway retreat
SL Bevan, AJ Luckman, DI Benn… – … Discuss., https://doi …, 2019 – tc.copernicus.org
… The synchronous retreat of southeast Greenland glaciers in the early 2000s suggested that
… elevation change will leave the glacier vulnerable to basal melt and further rapid retreat. …
[PDF] iop.org
The fate of the Greenland Ice Sheet in a geoengineered, high CO2 world
PJ Irvine, DJ Lunt, EJ Stone… – Environmental Research …, 2009 – iopscience.iop.org
… difference in input climates and causes a run–away melting. Without further simulations it is
… melting of the GrIS and stop the resultant ice-induced sea-level rise. At 4×CO2 the melting …
[PDF] nature.com
To melt Greenland
A Newton – Nature Climate Change, 2008 – nature.com
… However, above 3,000 GtC, melting is rapid and complete, and persists for tens of … unless emissions are curbed, runaway melting of Greenland may be triggered in the coming centuries. …
[PDF] copernicus.org
A topographically-controlled tipping point for complete Greenland ice-sheet melt
M Petrini, M Scherrenberg, L Muntjewerf… – The Cryosphere …, 2023 – tc.copernicus.org
… The ice-sheet response to sustained melt is highly non-linear, and … to surface melt and Glacial Isostatic Adjustment (GIA). While the former process increases melt and promote runaway …
[PDF] open.ac.uk
Future sea-level rise from Greenland’s main outlet glaciers in a warming climate
FM Nick, A Vieli, ML Andersen, I Joughin, A Payne… – Nature, 2013 – nature.com
… from the Greenland Ice Sheet increased as a result of both increased surface melting and …
Ice Sheet has raised concerns about the possibility of runaway ice loss and consequent sea-…
[HTML] biologicaldiversity.org
[HTML] … Atmospheric Carbon Target Falls Far Short of 350 ppm; Will Not Save the Polar Bear, Reverse Arctic Melting Trend, or Prevent Catastrophic Runaway Global …
K Suckling, B Snape – biologicaldiversity.org
… acidification, and Arctic melting that exceed those predicted by … The acceleration of Arctic sea-ice melt is of special concern … Greenland ice sheet may be put on an irreversible melting …
[PDF] countercurrents.org
[PDF] The world at 4oC: last call on climate
A Glikson – countercurrents.org
… drop of temperatures, attributed to the cooling effects of melting ice on the oceans. … Greenland and western Antarctica are shrinking and in some places are already in a runaway melting …
[PDF] nature.com
Migratory mismatch
A Armstrong – Nature Climate Change, 2008 – nature.com
… However, above 3,000 GtC, melting is rapid and complete, and persists for tens of … unless emissions are curbed, runaway melting of Greenland may be triggered in the coming centuries. …
Get back to me if you need more …
w.
CO2-driven ”climate tipping points” seem to be claptrap from climate scientists who have passed the tipping point of reason.
As far as I can see there are 3 quite separate classes of ice in the Greenland/Arctic neighbourhood.
The first of these is represented by the deep ice cores bottoming out on the basement at up to 1,000,000 years (Camp Century), representing a stable environment; the glaciers (dynamic) that are active while reaching the Ocean and finally the sea ice at the Arctic (which comes and goes by varying amounts on an annual basis).
The ice represented by the Camp Century cores shows constant ice accumulation with none of the various cycles being reflected in the physical core but certainly measurable in their respective chemical and microbiological makeup.
By the same token, the modern active glaciers exhibit both advance and retreat on a very short-term basis. The Arctic ice distribution behaves in the same manner.
In summary, there is no diminution of the main Greenland static ice sheet. There are year-to-year variations in today’s active glaciers onshore Greenland and also on the Arctic sea ice.
Nothing to see here.
I would be extremely shocked to discover that they’ve cored 1,000,000 year old ice on Greenland. As far as I was aware the oldest ice they’ve cored is from the previous interglacial with bedrock under it.
Yeah, there’s evidence that a large fraction of Greenland had no ice sheet 400,000 years ago. Who’s to blame?
It’s probably Neanderthals. Might as well blame climate change on them too.
It’s aliens with blowtorches again – the UFO sightings confirm it! (sarc, oh you’d guessed that already had you?)
It’s more likely that far more powerful factor/s than CO2 will put the planet into a deep glaciation before then.
Or it’s already started. It would be somewhat ironic if the mild warming of the 80’s, labeled as AGW by climate enthusiasts, was the last hurrah before hurtling into a deep freeze. Painful but ironic.
We have been heading towards Glaciation phase for around 3,500 years now which means we are currently in the late Autumn part of the 100,000-year cycle.
Glaciers that didn’t exist during the Roman and Medieval times now exist today starting with Northern Greenland going south to Argentina which is only 2,500 years old.
It’s like playing Whack-a-Mole. The BBC has also decided it’s time to melt Antarctica again.
“Sea-level rise: West Antarctic ice shelf melt ‘unavoidable'”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-67171231
I must have seen half a dozen stories on the same subject yesterday in my newsfeeds.
Some major newspaper writes an article like that, and then other newspapers and bloggers pick it up and write a slightly different version of the original story, so we get multiple stories saying essentially the same thing. It’s climate change propaganda at its finest. What they say must be true since it is coming from so many different sources, they would have us believe.
Leftwing billionaires are passing out a lot of money for people who promote climate change. They have essentially bought the MSPrintM on this subject.
They’ll go very quiet when we do, inevitably, avoid it.
What does the BBC have more than hubris?
Our money?
I saw that Kaitlin Naughten of BAS story in a few places, and looked at the actual study. It’s based on GHG emissions, and IPCC RCP8.5 models.
– – – – – – – – –
Humans have ‘lost control’ of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet melting – and it could cause global sea levels to rise by 3.2 FEET by 2100, study warns
If it melts completely, the ice sheet will raise sea levels worldwide by 17ft
Scientists say that it is ‘only’ likely to make them rise by 3.2ft by end of century
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-12662515/Humans-lost-control-West-Antarctic-Ice-Sheet-melting-cause-global-sea-levels-rise-3-2-FEET-2100-study-warns.html
Rapid ice melt in west Antarctica now inevitable, research shows
Sea level will be driven up no matter how much carbon emissions are cut, putting coastal cities in danger
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/oct/23/rapid-ice-melt-in-west-antarctica-now-inevitable-research-shows
Unavoidable future increase in West Antarctic ice shelf melting over the twenty-first century (By Kaitlin Naughten of BAS)
Ocean-driven melting of floating ice-shelves in the Amundsen Sea is currently the main process controlling Antarctica’s contribution to sea level rise. Using a regional ocean model, we
present a comprehensive suite of future projections of ice shelf melting in the Amundsen Sea.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-023-01818-x
And of course GISS is rabid alarmist nonsense.
Let’s look at UAH since 2000..
It is pretty obvious that there has been basically no warming apart from the 2015 El Nino spike, now gone.
Oh look, some red thumb doesn’t like actual data.
Little child prefers faked bright red colours.
I tend to disagree. GISS observes the temperatures on the ground, UAH observes the lower troposphere. And the “arctic amplification” is foremost a matter of the ground temperatures. Therefore UAH has only a warming of 1K in 65-90N and GISS has 2.5K as average there. Both is likely true. Best Frank
So the ground gets warmer, but the atmosphere above it does nothing !
LOL
And no, there is no warming in the Arctic atmosphere.
Same temp now as it was in 2000.
Please don’t put a “linear trend” through the data above, that would not be a good look for you.
Would also be interested in seeing where GISS gets its data from for the fake chart with all the bright red on it. :-).
For Greenland there’s this.
PROMICE
Launched by The Danish Energy Agency DANCEA programme and operated by GEUS in collaboration with DTU Space and Asiaq.
https://promice.org/weather-stations/
Basically none of which are in the bright red area! 😉
The article is about Greenland, or at least the headline is.
I was referring to the chart in the main article.
Only a tiny part of the bright red region is in Greenland.
So where does GISS get their data from for that bright red part?
You can find the involved stations on the website of GISS. I made a screenshot for you:
Claims…. and no trust.
https://www.spiked-online.com/2023/10/23/the-uk-terror-attack-we-cant-talk-about/
It’s worse than we thought
You thinking Luton?
No, this is something else
But we don’t know what. the old D Notice I remember publications saying that they couldn’t publish details because of a D Notice.
Now a DSMA Notice from D(efence and) S(ecurity) M(edia) A(dvisory) notice, which appears to ban publishing anything at all.
A prominent member of a Detroit synagogue and vocal defender of Israel was murdered in her home last week. As of this morning, Detroit police don’t have any suspects, but they want to assure the public that this was not a hate crime.
It doesn’t take a genius, Google UK hostel double stabbing being investigated by terror police, widely reported, only thing missing is stated motive.
Seems to have been a running fight across about 4 locations between 2 groups culminating in this incident.
Politicians are worried that if the public knew the truth about what was happening in their midst, there might be pressure placed on certain politicians to expel certain minories, who have been supporters of these same politicians.
This ‘Arctic warming at four times the whatever’? Take a look at https://ocean.dmi.dk>Arctic and you will see that EVERY YEAR SINCE 1958 the Arctic (defined as 80N upward) has topped out at about one point five degsC for a couple of weeks in July freezing before and after . Currently minus 15. OK one sees erratic climbs and falls in other months but all MINUS. So where’s this heating?
That chart has not been automatically updating three times this year. Today is the first update since 8th October. It also failed to update for a week in September also data is missing from April-May.
As a regular watcher, almost daily, this in unprecedented in my lifetime!
The arctic is defined north of 65°N, not 80°N. Northward of 80°N is almost only sea ice. This melts during summer and holds the temperatures there at a nearly constant level as long as there is sea ice that melts. In so far this is NOT an argument against the arctic amplification. Best Frank
Not my 80N for the Arctic – it’s Danish. Do take a look at the reference and be amazed at the 65 year consistency. If the temperature goes up and down from minus this to minus that in the months other than July, colour me unimpressed and
and??? Don’t leave us hanging.
In my experience, tipping points are deployed by folk who want to get their way without having to go through the tiresome processes of carrying out research and presenting the evidence.
Yup – show me the proof or get out.
There are two seasons in Greenland.. melt and accumulation. Both have a lot to do with where the highs and lows setup during summer and winter. If you get a lot of clear days in the summer, you get a lot of melting. If you get a lot of clear days in the winter, you don’t get much accumulation.
And the opposite is true. As just demonstrated, one good snowstorm can dump 12 gt of snow (12 km3 of water) on the island and in the winter it stays there. If the storm tracks this winter move over Greenland it will be a stellar accumulation season. If a blocking high sets up, not so much.
So in a way, temperatures are important but the real determiner is jet streams, blocking highs and lows and weather patterns. It doesn’t matter if the winter temp is -10F or -30F, the snow doesn’t melt regardless. And in the summer melting is more centered around incoming sunlight and to a lesser degree albedo changes due to pollution and other factors. It takes a lot of energy to melt ice and if a cloud deck is present, most of it is reflected back to space.
“So in a way, temperatures are important but the real determiner is jet streams, blocking highs and lows and weather patterns.”
Yes, that’s what controls our weather.
Now we just need to figure out why the jet stream does what it does.
Stopped there. I bet Einstein never used the word “could” in any of his science work. And the word “indications” is almost meaningless. So as a result of a meaningless possibility- something COULD happen!
The whole “Tipping Points” page at the Potty Institue is linked somewhere up above.
It is all the same sort of gormless anti-science gibberish.
I’m sympathetic to the use of “could” in the sense that a hypothesis cannot be proven to be true. It can only be disproven.
And certainly predictions of what will happen in a decade, let alone ten thousand years, concern conjecture that is uncertain. So, all of their gibberish is not necessarily anti-science, just much of it is.
Unfortunately, the use of “could” tends to lead to the use of “should”.
And then unfortunately over a period of time the use of “should” tends to lead to the use of “shall” and “denier”.
I think you’ll find that Einstein wasn’t absolutely certain about GR. I think his exact words were along the lines that only one experiment was necessary to disprove his theory (refreshing isn’t it). So far, none has shown his theory wrong.
Perfect! He chewed on problems until he could develop a functional relationship, i.e., “the math” that showed how something worked. What was the last paper you saw that dealt with the math versus correlations and trends.
Right now all we have are jobs programs for wanna be statisticians whose job is to find trends but not how things work.
hmmm… interesting… so instead of a climate science- at best- it’s only climate statistics/trends- so when someone says “the science says”- he really means “the trends sort of kind of maybe imply that….”. Not much to go on.
Nature doesn’t identify with tipping points since it has infinity of time, no end of possibilities or new happenings, original sensations and so everything is unique, previously untried and with an unknown value that will go on forever and ever if not on Earth then some places else.
That is why in ‘human think’ butterflies in the Amazon (and anywhere else for that matter) are just as precious as violent storms each and every moment of each and every day whether seen by humans or not. It all counts whether we think so or not because there is not a damn thing we can do about most of it and the bits we do try seldom work out as planned. We get big things right very seldom and CAGW isn’t one of them but it is the worse ‘predictions’ I have ever come across. Astrology does much better in history than the climate alarm mob will ever achieve according to our short history on the planet.
Tipping points should be reserved for describing rubbish disposal – another thing we don’t do very well which will come back to haunt us when the wind and solar failures begin on a scale much, much bigger than imagined on day one. Nature wins every time but humans learn from maybe one in a billion or even less – nature knows but we don’t listen to her.
We are all originals even if the differences may seem imperceptible among the woke.
If I am understanding the Nature paper, the author are not saying that there might not be tipping thresholds in Greenland Ice Sheet loss, they’re saying that there are scenarios under which a rapid return to < 1.5 degree conditions can potentially prevent total ice sheet loss even if a tipping threshold is breached. Basically if we return GMT to less than 1.5 degrees over a couple of centuries it is possible to limit ice sheet loss even if we pass a critical threshold in GMT.
No, the paper sais, that there are (some) possibilities to return after passing some threshold. This contradicts the definition of a tipping point as the PIK usues this feature, comparing it with a falling pencil from a table. It won’t return on the table after falling down.
PIK is not suggesting the pencil analogy extends to every aspect of the system, they’re just illustrating the concept of a forcing driving only a little change in a system until a threshold is reached, and then a lot of change resulting after. Nowhere do they say, “you can never get the pencil back on the table ever again.”
“Nowhere do they say, “you can never get the pencil back on the table ever again.” But this is simple physics of gravity! If you use the “pencil” analogy this is implied, you must not say!!
An interesting thing about analogies is that you don’t have to extend the analogy to every single thing for it to be useful.
“extend to every single thing…” What “thing” is implied in the analogy of a falling pencil except gravity? I’ll stop the conversation because I think you are unable to accept that the analogy is completely wrong in this case.
So they admit that the pencil analogy is invalid, but they use it anyway, because it’s good for scaring the proles.
Nope, you catch it as it falls and put it back up on the table.
So the whole analogy is meaningless twaddle… just like the rest of so-called “climate science”
So you are admitting it is complete and absolute nonsense, meaningless and devoid of science.
Why try to defend such garbage?
The alarmists’ problem is that the observations don’t match what their CO2 based models tell them. The observed temperatures are real, and the models are not. The models are inaccurate. As time goes on, the propaganda pushed by the alarmists becomes more and more ridiculous. Lke a ponzi scheme, you run out of people to fool.
A Modern Warm Period, instead of being an existential threat, is good for civilizations and helps them flourish. The existential threat would be a return to an Ice Age. Like so many things, the power hungry are telling people that their lies are truth and that observed reality cannot be true because it does not fit their narrative. It will end badly for them.
The Earth is still in an ice age as long as there is natural ice.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternary_glaciation
Right. Hold my beer and fetch me a flamethrower.
Most of the fastest warming (>0.1 C/yr) is above 80 degrees North latitude (mostly over water) and at lower latitudes over a wide area of north-central Russia (at low elevation and normally ice-free in summer). This may be beneficial for Russia, with longer growing seasons there, but would have little effect on sea levels.
There are numerous graphs of “average temperatures” above 80 degrees North as a function of Julian date, with the lines for various years superimposed over each other. Although there is wide variation from year to year for October to April (when temperatures for all years are well below freezing), the temperatures from Julian date 140 to 260 (late May through early September) always plateau around 275 – 277 K (2 to 4 C) throughout the summer.
As sea ice melts in late spring around the coasts of Russia, Alaska, and the north Canadian archipelago, this causes evaporation, which results in cloud cover and rain / snow near the North Pole throughout most of the summer, which limits solar heating and melting of sea ice. In early autumn, the Arctic region loses solar heating, and this moisture freezes out as heavy snow along the coasts, especially in Greenland.
Most of the Greenland ice cap is over 2000 m above sea level, so that surface temperatures there are likely about 10 C lower than similar latitudes at sea level, so that a very large warming would be needed to reach the freezing point on top of the ice cap.
“Recently, it has been shown that the Arctic warms four times faster than the global average and thus substantially exceeds previous estimates and projections from climate models. Arctic amplification of this magnitude would reduce the safe space for the GrIS substantially. However, surface temperatures around Greenland might not increase that severely in the future”
Who has shown that the Arctic warms four times faster?
No-one! Like the
2C1.5C meme.. it is a climate fantasy.The mere fact that the Greenland Ice Sheet survived the Holocene Optimum should be enough to convince someone with even a passing familiarity with science and logic, that even if there is a “tipping point”, we are nowhere close to it.
PS: The belief that there exist “tipping points” for ice sheets in the first place is so ludicrous that only a climate scientist could believe it.
All we are seeing here is the battle of whose computer modeling do you believe. None of them are reliable. Nor accurate. These scientists are not arguing over science but who can come up with the best scenario.