From the “we’ve heard it all before” department and the Dartmouth College Division of Modeled Unverifiable Predictions, comes this ho-hum scare story.
Dartmouth-led study compiles 16 models for refined projection of ice loss up to 2300
A Dartmouth-led study by more than 50 climate scientists worldwide provides the first clear projection of how carbon emissions may drive the loss of a large portion of Antarctica’s ice sheet over the next 300 years.
The future of Antarctica’s glaciers after 2100 becomes uncertain when looking at existing ice-sheet models individually, the researchers report in the journal Earth’s Future. They combined data from 16 ice-sheet models and found that, collectively, the projections agree that ice loss from Antarctica will increase, but gradually, through the 21st century, even under current carbon emissions.
But that consistency falls off a cliff after 2100, the researchers found. The models predict that under current emissions, ice in most of Antarctica’s western basins begins to retreat rapidly. By 2200, the melting glaciers could increase global sea levels by as much as 5.5 feet. Some of the team’s numerical experiments projected a near-total collapse of the West Antarctic ice sheet by 2300.
“When you talk to policymakers and stakeholders about sea-level rise, they mostly focus on what will happen up to 2100. There are very few studies beyond that,” says Hélène Seroussi, the study’s first author and an associate professor in Dartmouth’s Thayer School of Engineering.
“Our study provides the longer-term projections that have been lacking,” she says. “The results show that beyond 2100, the long-term impact for the regions most susceptible to sea-level rise become amplified.”
The researchers modeled how Antarctica’s ice sheet would fare under both high- and low-emission scenarios through 2300, says Mathieu Morlighem, a Dartmouth professor of earth sciences and a coauthor on the study. Dartmouth Engineering alumnus Jake Twarog ’24 also is a coauthor of the study and contributed as an undergraduate.
“While current carbon emissions have only a modest impact on model projections for this century, the difference between how high- and low-emission scenarios contribute to sea-level rise grows sharply after 2100,” Morlighem says. “These results confirm that it is critical to cut carbon emissions now to protect future generations.”
The timing of when Antarctica’s glaciers would start retreating varied with the ice-flow model the researchers used, Seroussi says. But the speed with which large retreats occurred once a rapid loss of ice began was consistent among the models.
“All the models agree that once these large changes are initiated, nothing can stop them or slow them down. Several basins in West Antarctica could experience a complete collapse before 2200,” Seroussi says. “The exact timing of such collapses remains unknown and depends on future greenhouse gas emissions, so we need to respond quickly enough to reduce emissions before the major basins are lost.”
The study could lead to further collaborative models that scientists can use to understand and resolve disparities in projections for regions with significant modeling uncertainties, or for the Greenland ice sheet, Seroussi says. Research and computing resources can then be focused on investigating outcomes that those multiple models predict as most likely.
“We’re learning from the community of scientists what is going to happen,” Seroussi says. “This collaboration means we have a better, more robust assessment of the uncertainty, and we can see where our models agree and where they disagree so that we know where to focus our future research.”
###
The paper:
Earth’s Future, DOI 10.1029/2024EF004561
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Models, I say, models! All the way down!!
Well, Antarctica is at the “bottom” of the planet. Just look at a map or a globe!
“All the models agree”
Well, that’s pretty conclusive <sarc>
Yeah!
And these clowns do not realize that models do NOT generate data! So if you combine “data” from 16 wrong models, it’s still wrong! And who is going to be around in 2300 to verify it? No one from today, so that makes this hocus pokus.
So what? Even if, in the unlikely event the models are correct, it does come to pass what will happen? For 75% of the life of the planet we have not had ice at the poles.
Do the models forecast or hindcast ice ages? Which is preferable, ice caps that are shrinking or growing?
I believe you understand that hindcasting is simple curve fitting. They tweak the “control knobs” until they get a match.
____________________________________________________________________________
Antarctica is well below freezing nearly everywhere nearly all the time. It can’t melt. That doesn’t mean it can’t lose ice, but that has everything to do with how much snow fell decades, centuries or longer ago, and how much ice calves into the sea today. It has nothing to do with temperature.
As Atticman posted earlier today:
‘Tis but perception resulting from ad nauseam repetition of a lie.
Remind me — how many millennia did it take to melt the Laurentide ice sheet? If the earth ever got hot enough to melt the Antarctica ice in a mere 275 years there would be no life left on Earth to complain about it.
F**k me, not again…at least they’ve pushed the 5.5 feet of sea level rise back from 2100 to 2200.
No one living today will be alive in 2200 and certainly none of those spouting this bull.
Most of the retained heat this century is in the SH between 30 to 60S. The average increase in temperature of the oceans above 2000m is 0.0897C. The horror is in actually proposing it can be measured to this accuracy and that it is actually warming. It is bullshlt so thick that the only meaningful response is utter derision.
Wow! not 0.0897 and not 0.0898 or 0.0896 but precisely 0.0897C.
How ’bout less than 0.1C°?
Sorry to be pedantic, but claiming ocean temperature to within 0.0001 of a degree isn’t realistic.
Not only not realistic, it’s arrant nonsense.
But that’s what gets served up as “climate science” these days 🙁
They should, at the very least include error margins. Is it 0.0897C +/- 0.00005C, or is it 0.0897C +/- 15C? If they are honest in their “modelling”, then the projected error margin will be much closer to the latter example, i.e. the output of their model is meaningless and the only honest answer would be “we don’t know”.
That’s a relief, I don’t have to order new welly boots for 175 years; the ones I’ve got should last ’till then !!
What happened to the 200 feet (60 m)? Or Al Gores 20 m (65 ft)?
Or even Hansen’s 20 feet in New York (or whatever it was; not going to waste time looking it up).
https://youtu.be/WTRlSGKddJE?si=BpJE4iRLcGh1tTsP&t=1138
You actually take Potholder54 seriously, the man who believes causation can work backwards in time?
Here is a corrective to the lies in the video:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/22/a-little-known-but-failed-20-year-old-climate-change-prediction-by-dr-james-hansen/
Here are the facts.
. Hansen predicted that the West Side Hwy would be under water 40 years after CO2 doubled.
.Suzy Hansen (no relation to James Hansen) interviewed Bob Reiss in which he mistakenly said he asked about 20 years from that point.
.Bob Reiss corrected the gaff and reminded people that the correct prediction appears in his book.
.An article appeared on WUWT reporting that the West Side Hwy would be underwater by 2018.
.Tony Heller then reported that the prediction was for 30 years from that point.
Any prediction by Hansen is ARRANT NONSENSE, regardless.
You wouldn’t know a FACT if it bit on the ar*e.
That you link to a “Pot-taker54” video shows just how little regard you have for “fact”.
Go on then, just for sh!ts and giggles tell us how the climate criminals have debunked the slides of boiling oceans from Hansen’s own Powerpoint presentation that was on the internet before they disappeared it. Possibly the most incorrect calculation ever in the history of science. Not sure how it would stack up in the history of pseudoscience, where it firmly belonged.
What about “coal trains of death” too. He never said that?
You’re funny.
Also the original ‘Westside Highway’ no longer exists but it’s replacement has been flooded on several occasions.
https://www.facebook.com/watch/live/?ref=watch_permalink&v=10154723822959091
That’s a good point. The 40 year prediction clock hasn’t even started ticking yet since CO2 hasn’t doubled and we’re already seeing the West Side Hwy flooding.
There is a big difference between flooding during a storm and Hansen’s flooded indicating sea level rise! I liked the massive BS comment. HS and PS too.
Different yes, but it’s still related. The higher the background state the more likely individual events will result in flooding.
A slight rearrangement to the “Division of Unverifiable Modeled Predictions” and then you have the perfect acronym.
That should disqualify him from all future consideration for employment as an engineer or a scientist, but it won’t.
That gives us 180 years to build sea walls…we’d better get busy!
A journal called “Earth’s Future.”
Oh, the environment. Oh, the environment. Models. Models. Models. Oh, the scientists. Oh, the scientists. Quackery, charlatanry, buffoonery, academia.
The new clerisy.
…becomes uncertain when looking at existing ice-sheet models…
Was it really ever certain? I don’t think so.
The science is settled.
More research is required
more than 50 climate scientists say …
“These results confirm that it is critical to cut carbon emissions”
So, yet another 50 stupid bastards that still don’t know the difference between Carbon (a solid element) & CO2 (a gaseous compound).
They know the difference, but they like to lie about it.
I wish you would stop beating around the bush with your comments. /sarc
.
Five eminent virologists wrote a paper to Nature, saying that a leak of a virus from a Wuhan lab was complete disinformation – it came from a nearby wet market. (See Proximal Origins, Nature Medicine.) Three years later, we find out they were all paid handsomely by Fauci, to say this (see their private correspondence). In reality, the virus did indeed escape from the lab, but this was covered up for political and financial reasons.
Likewise, 50 ex-FBI chiefs said that Hunter Biden’s laptop was fake and Russian disinformation (despite it containing a thousand images and videos of a naked Hunter banging prostitutes). And they all signed a formal letter saying the laptop was disinformation. More than three years later it was proven that the laptop was indeed Hunter’s, but this had been covered up for political and financial reasons.
When the establishment wants to spread disinformation, it does so very ruthlessly and effectively. The same happens in climate science, because each ‘scientist’s’ career and pay-packet depends upon their continued disinformation.
.
Proximal Origins.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0820-9
Ralph
Boring……all the glaciers and the Greenland Ice Cap will be gone long before becuz its hot…..and gettin’ hotter….and the water is deep….and gettin’ deeper
Models ^2. Must show some sort of maybe just perhaps a bit of truth. Nah, it’s just a money thing.
Until the oceans shift and transport more heat to the poles it’s not melting. CO2 has diddly squat to do with how warm the poles are. It’s basic physics.
“These results confirm that it is critical to cut carbon emissions now to protect future generations.”
The ‘results’ confirm no such thing.
Umm, protect them from what? Do we really think future generations won’t know how to move inland a bit to avoid the rising seas (assuming these scientists have finally made a prediction that actually comes true)?
When did we decide that cutting emissions is the best way to protect them? How do we know that there won’t be some other threat even worse than being slightly warmer in the future?
Maybe the best way to protect future generations is to ensure we can feed, educate and look after as many people as we can right now through the use of technology (powered by FF), not by impoverishing ourselves by covering the planet with panels and turbines.
Maybe those scientists should stick to drilling holes in the ice and not telling the rest of us how to live our lives.
Why move when dikes work and have for a long, long time.
The latest IPCC report, has stated that there has been no rise in global temperatures for 26 years.
As for sea levels, it’s nigh on impossible to measure. Many coastal areas are sinking, some are rising. The estimated level of rise is 1 to 2 mm per year. Go down to the seashore, and try and measure 2mm. The tides are constantly changing, weather affects the sea level, winds affect the sea level. Some experts say there is no measurable sea rise today.
Story Tip
Climate scientists call on Labour to pause £1bn plans for carbon captureLetter says technologies to produce blue hydrogen and capture CO2 are unproven and could hinder net zero efforts….
From the Guardian.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/sep/25/climate-scientists-call-on-labour-to-pause-1bn-investment-plans-carbon-capture-blue-hydrogen
Its gradually dawning on people how crazy this is.
They never thought that the government would take them seriously. 🙄
The US government did.
BTW, it’s the Guardian, so we know that, by definition, there’s an ulterior motive there.
……. and, why does Keir Starmer always look dazed and confused when he’s photographed?
50 climate scientists, 300 years, 16 ice-sheet models, 5.5 feet, high*– and low-emission scenarios, a marine-based ice sheet, and more …
What could go wrong?
*high – – – did they use RCP8.5? Color me unimpressed. 🤠
“50 climate scientists”
How many will ever visit the opposite Hemisphere?
How many climate scientists does it take to change a light bulb?
According to my model, 1 ± 3.7
Obviously your model is wrong since it lacks the required climate model precision.
The correct answer is 1.0001 + 3.7063.
And they call it accuracy instead of the correct term “precision.”
That is even funnier.
More likely, they’ll try changing a good light bulb and break it.
That is too funny!
From the paper, referring to the model runs:
“Most use a high-emission scenario (RCP8.5 or SSP5-8.5), while two experiments use a low-emission scenario (RCP2.6 or SSP1-2.6) for comparison.”
So yes, they did use RCP8.5.
Thanks, Dave.
So, the exercise is junk.
From the report in Earth’s journal:
”eight 2300-forcing experiments based on high-emission scenarios: four with ice-shelf collapse and four without collapse;
They have now bastardized the word “experiments” to mean computer run scenarios. These folks are not engineers or scientists.
Ooh, are you late to the party. they bastardized the word “experiments” a long time ago. And they bastardized the word “data” on top of that just for sh*ts and giggles.
And someone who claimed to be a scientist said I was, “Just an engineer.” I thought the antagonism between scientists and engineers went out with the Romans. I was told as a student that today engineers and scientists are friendly and cooperate–apparently not.
We call those scenarios “use cases.”
“falls off a cliff after 2100”
“grows sharply after 2100”
“complete collapse before 2200″
Presenter should be required to wear a paisley turban and wave hands over a crystal ball while they speak.
Well that would at least give them more perceived credibility.
Isn’t that the volcanic bit ?
Well, in Europe, rising CO2 causes warmer air which holds more water vapor that results in deluges flooding everything.
If it rains in Europe due to CO2, they why would it not snow in Antarctica replacing the melting ice?
Curious minds want to know how CO2 causes increased precipitation in one part of the world and drought in another…
I know! The rising CO2 will cause the earth axis to shift so Antarctica is pointed straight at the sun.
Model that!
Non curious minds trust the dogma. They say it’s settled.
The “settled” bit is that the modern warming has been caused by anthro emission of GHGs.
That is beyond scientific despute (despite the likes of yourself requiring 100% proof – which is of course impossible ).
The rest is not settled.
You do NOT know that all or even most of the warming is due to GHGs. Maybe some, but nobody knows how much. So to say what you said proves you are ignorant.
So now you are redefining settled.
Wrong.
The settled bit is the climate is changing. It always has. It always will.
Climate: 30 year average of weather in an area or region.
Climate change: long term change in weather patterns.
Given climate is an average, if it rains today and did not rain exactly 30 years ago today, then climate has changed.
What is not settled is CO2 is the climate control knob.
What is not settled is CO2 is a forcing function (defies the definition).
What is not settled is CO2 is the only contributor to our modest global warming.
It is not beyond scientific despute (dispute?).
Science is all about skepticism. Skepticism is all about asking questions, challenging, debating, working to uplift our knowledge.
So, if 100% proof is of course impossible (concur), then it can not be settled.
“If it rains in Europe due to CO2, they why would it not snow in Antarctica replacing the melting ice?”
It does and it will for a long time yet.
The glacier ice is being melted at the tips where grounded in the sea – by warmer waters.
It is a matter of balance, and when the replacement no longer exceeds the melt (if it ever does).
I thought the /sarc code would have been obvious.
The western ice sheet is losing a bit of ice, primarily due to undersea volcanism. The eastern ice sheet is growing at a rate faster that the loss in the west.
Skeptical science – the fake science website, posted an article on the melting of the west anartica ice sheet melting a few months ago and blaming it on GW.
I posted a comment about the geothermal activity underneath. My post was seriously attacked as a climate denier, etc. Not withstanding the fact that the vast majority of the melting was due to the geothermal activity along with the near impossibility of the water underneath the glacier and sea ice to be warmed via global warming.
Skeptical science – one of the biggest purveyors of disinformation.
Their motto is that it’s best to be skeptical of climate skeptics. Some years ago I asked there if it’s OK to be skeptical of those who are skeptical of climate skeptics. They warned me- any more questions/comments like that and I’d be locked out. I left.
Their sole purpose in life is to silence anyone who questions the dogma.
What do you call the average of sixteen unproven models? News, if you’re from Dartmouth.
story tip
Hey, folks, it’s “climate week” in Wokeachusetts.
https://myemail.constantcontact.com/EEA-Climate-Team-Newsletter.html?soid=1139883582211&aid=5ja_5QUHpC4
This state has gone climate bonkers- at least as bad as Kalifornia and NY, and Germany. Probably far worse.
So the average of 16 models that don’t agree with each other provides a clear projection? Only in climate science…