ADVERTISEMENT

Why doesn't the media tell the real story (about climate change and just about anything else?)

thetruth

MegaPoke is insane
Gold Member
May 29, 2001
20,317
17,002
113

Greenland’s Melting Ice Is No Cause for Climate-Change Panic​

The annual loss has been decreasing in the past decade even as the globe continues to warm.​


By Steven E. Koonin
Feb. 17, 2022 6:21 pm ET

im-487610

The edge of the ice sheet near Kangerlussuaq, Greenland, September 2021.​


One of the most sacred tenets of climate alarmism is that Greenland’s vast ice sheet is shrinking ever more rapidly because of human-induced climate change. The media and politicians warn constantly of rising sea levels that would swamp coastlines from Florida to Bangladesh. A typical headline: “Greenland ice sheet on course to lose ice at fastest rate in 12,000 years.”
With an area of 660,000 square miles and a thickness up to 1.9 miles, Greenland’s ice sheet certainly deserves attention. Its shrinking has been a major cause of recent sea-level rise, but as is often the case in climate science, the data tell quite a different story from the media coverage and the political laments.
The chart nearby paints a bigger picture that is well known to experts but largely absent from the media and even from the most recent United Nations climate report. It shows the amount of ice that Greenland has lost every year since 1900, averaged over 10-year intervals; the annual loss averages about 110 gigatons. (A gigaton is one billion metric tons, or slightly over 2.2 trillion pounds.) That is a lot, but that water has caused the planet’s oceans to rise each year by only 0.01 inch, about one-fifth the thickness of a dime.
im-487423


In contrast, the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change projects that for the most likely course of greenhouse-gas emissions in the 21st century, the average annual ice loss would be somewhat larger than the peak values shown in the graph. That would cause sea level to rise by 3 inches by the end of this century, and if losses were to continue at that rate, it would take about 10,000 years for all the ice to disappear, causing sea level to rise more than 20 feet.

To assess the importance of human influences, we can look at how the rate of ice loss has changed over time.
In that regard, the graph belies the simplistic notion that humans are melting Greenland. Since human warming influences on the climate have grown steadily—they are now 10 times what they were in 1900— you might expect Greenland to lose more ice each year. Instead there are large swings in the annual ice loss and it is no larger today than it was in the 1930s, when human influences were much smaller. Moreover, the annual loss of ice has been decreasing in the past decade even as the globe continues to warm.
While a warming globe might eventually be the dominant cause of Greenland’s shrinking ice, natural cycles in temperatures and currents in the North Atlantic that extend for decades have been a much more important influence since 1900. Those cycles, together with the recent slowdown, make it plausible that the next few decades will see a further, perhaps dramatic slowing of ice loss. That would be inconsistent with the IPCC’s projection and wouldn’t at all support the media’s exaggerations.
Much climate reporting today highlights short-term changes when they fit the narrative of a broken climate but then ignores or plays down changes when they don’t, often dismissing them as “just weather.”
Climate unfolds over decades. Although short-term changes might be deemed news, they need to be considered in a many-decade context. Media coverage omitting that context misleadingly raises alarm. Greenland’s shrinking ice is a prime example of that practice.
If Greenland’s ice loss continues to slow, headline writers will have to find some other aspect of Greenland’s changes to grab our attention, and politicians will surely find some other reason to justify their favorite climate policies.
Mr. Koonin is a professor at New York University, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and author of “Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn’t, and Why It Matters.”
 

Greenland’s Melting Ice Is No Cause for Climate-Change Panic​

The annual loss has been decreasing in the past decade even as the globe continues to warm.​


By Steven E. Koonin
Feb. 17, 2022 6:21 pm ET

im-487610

The edge of the ice sheet near Kangerlussuaq, Greenland, September 2021.​


One of the most sacred tenets of climate alarmism is that Greenland’s vast ice sheet is shrinking ever more rapidly because of human-induced climate change. The media and politicians warn constantly of rising sea levels that would swamp coastlines from Florida to Bangladesh. A typical headline: “Greenland ice sheet on course to lose ice at fastest rate in 12,000 years.”
With an area of 660,000 square miles and a thickness up to 1.9 miles, Greenland’s ice sheet certainly deserves attention. Its shrinking has been a major cause of recent sea-level rise, but as is often the case in climate science, the data tell quite a different story from the media coverage and the political laments.
The chart nearby paints a bigger picture that is well known to experts but largely absent from the media and even from the most recent United Nations climate report. It shows the amount of ice that Greenland has lost every year since 1900, averaged over 10-year intervals; the annual loss averages about 110 gigatons. (A gigaton is one billion metric tons, or slightly over 2.2 trillion pounds.) That is a lot, but that water has caused the planet’s oceans to rise each year by only 0.01 inch, about one-fifth the thickness of a dime.
im-487423


In contrast, the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change projects that for the most likely course of greenhouse-gas emissions in the 21st century, the average annual ice loss would be somewhat larger than the peak values shown in the graph. That would cause sea level to rise by 3 inches by the end of this century, and if losses were to continue at that rate, it would take about 10,000 years for all the ice to disappear, causing sea level to rise more than 20 feet.

To assess the importance of human influences, we can look at how the rate of ice loss has changed over time.
In that regard, the graph belies the simplistic notion that humans are melting Greenland. Since human warming influences on the climate have grown steadily—they are now 10 times what they were in 1900— you might expect Greenland to lose more ice each year. Instead there are large swings in the annual ice loss and it is no larger today than it was in the 1930s, when human influences were much smaller. Moreover, the annual loss of ice has been decreasing in the past decade even as the globe continues to warm.
While a warming globe might eventually be the dominant cause of Greenland’s shrinking ice, natural cycles in temperatures and currents in the North Atlantic that extend for decades have been a much more important influence since 1900. Those cycles, together with the recent slowdown, make it plausible that the next few decades will see a further, perhaps dramatic slowing of ice loss. That would be inconsistent with the IPCC’s projection and wouldn’t at all support the media’s exaggerations.
Much climate reporting today highlights short-term changes when they fit the narrative of a broken climate but then ignores or plays down changes when they don’t, often dismissing them as “just weather.”
Climate unfolds over decades. Although short-term changes might be deemed news, they need to be considered in a many-decade context. Media coverage omitting that context misleadingly raises alarm. Greenland’s shrinking ice is a prime example of that practice.
If Greenland’s ice loss continues to slow, headline writers will have to find some other aspect of Greenland’s changes to grab our attention, and politicians will surely find some other reason to justify their favorite climate policies.
Mr. Koonin is a professor at New York University, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and author of “Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn’t, and Why It Matters.”
The annual loss is slowing. Though the graph you present shows it fluctuates fairly significantly. If you simply turn that into a cumulative graph you get a view more like this:
image_original


Should we perhaps feel some warm and fuzzies that the rate of change is slowing? Maybe. I would be interested to see this normalized for overall mass (meaning, what % of existing ice is being lost annually). I don't think I would feel fuzzy about that, though certainly maybe a bit warm.
 
The annual loss is slowing. Though the graph you present shows it fluctuates fairly significantly. If you simply turn that into a cumulative graph you get a view more like this:
image_original


Should we perhaps feel some warm and fuzzies that the rate of change is slowing? Maybe. I would be interested to see this normalized for overall mass (meaning, what % of existing ice is being lost annually). I don't think I would feel fuzzy about that, though certainly maybe a bit warm.
Are you aware that Earth has never had a static climate?
 
Projections are just that, right? We could certainly have a period at some point over the next 500 years where the earth cools, correct? I mean the earth has done that consistently forever.
Of course. And if we saw a cooling trend that was threatening humans' viability we would likely want to take some kind of action to address that concern as well. Anyone who is thoughtful isn't saying the current increase in temperatures is exclusively a result of humans, but if our actions ameliorate the situation maybe we should to avoid the economic and political consequences of doing nothing.
 
Last edited:
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT