Last Interglacial Was Warmer Than Today

At least we can be certain this warming was not anthropogenic.

"A new paper published in Climate of the Past compares temperature reconstructions of the last interglacial period [131,000-114,000 years ago] to climate model simulations and finds climate models significantly underestimated global temperatures of the last interglacial by ~0.67C on an annual basis and by ~1.1C during the warmest month.


This implies that climate models are unable to fully simulate natural global warming, and the error of the underestimation is about the same as the 0.7C global warming since the end of the Little Ice Age in ~1850. Thus, the possibility that present-day temperatures could be entirely the result of natural processes cannot be ruled out in comparison to the last interglacial period.


Further, during the last interglacial, Greenland temperatures were naturally up to 8C higher and sea levels up to 43 feet higher than today. And, during another interglacial, all of Greenland and West Antarctica melted & sea levels were 79 feet higher. Since this low-CO2 global warming occurred entirely naturally, there is no evidence that global warming during the present interglacial is unnatural or man-made."



Paleoclimatology
Inconvenient: New paper finds the last interglacial was warmer than today – not simulated by climate models

[Reposted from the Hockey Schtick] A new paper published in Climate of the Past compares temperature reconstructions of the last interglacial period [131,000-114,000 years ago] to climate model simulations and finds climate models significantly underestimated global temperatures of the last interglacial by ~0.67C on an annual basis and by ~1.1C during the warmest month. This…

Humans need to blame something or someone for anything they perceive to be unusual.

Glowbull warming one of those.

Luckily, we no longer feel the need to offer human sacrifice to appease the gods, although I'm sure the climate catastrophists would try it if they were told it might work.

Earthling said:

Humans need to blame something or someone for anything they perceive to be unusual.

Glowbull warming one of those.

Luckily, we no longer feel the need to offer human sacrifice to appease the gods, although I'm sure the climate catastrophists would try it if they were told it might work.

Click to expand...

I am not sure they are not getting the alter ready.
If they can succeed is placing real restrictions on organic hydrocarbon fuels, before there
is a suitable replacement, millions will starve.

longview said:

I am not sure they are not getting the alter[sic] ready.
If they can succeed is[sic] placing real restrictions on organic hydrocarbon fuels, before there
is a suitable replacement, millions will starve.

Click to expand...

No problem, "they" will easily find something or someone else to blame when that happens.

Jack Hays said:

At least we can be certain this warming was not anthropogenic.

Click to expand...

Homo Erectus ate coal!!

And drank oil!

Jack Hays said:

At least we can be certain this warming was not anthropogenic.

"A new paper published in Climate of the Past compares temperature reconstructions of the last interglacial period [131,000-114,000 years ago] to climate model simulations and finds climate models significantly underestimated global temperatures of the last interglacial by ~0.67C on an annual basis and by ~1.1C during the warmest month.


This implies that climate models are unable to fully simulate natural global warming, and the error of the underestimation is about the same as the 0.7C global warming since the end of the Little Ice Age in ~1850. Thus, the possibility that present-day temperatures could be entirely the result of natural processes cannot be ruled out in comparison to the last interglacial period. . . ."

Click to expand...

Somehow, Watts has managed to read a paper (that is, if he even read it) and pull precisely the opposite meaning from it - and mess up his facts even beyond that! Either that, or he (like certain others 'round these parts) is simply blindly parrotting what other bloggers post without any regard for the accuracy of the information.

For starters, the 0.67 degree figure does not come from this paper at all, but from an earlier study whose results Bakker and Renssen are examining:

But more importantly, and more fundamentally, Bakker and Renssen are not saying that the models are wrong: On the contrary, they are explicitly highlighting and examining the questionable assumption (necessarily) used in widespread proxy comparisons from so long ago, that the Eemian thermal maximum temperatures occurred at the same time in all the regions represented:

Their study suggests that the model-data mismatch can be partially explained with reference to that assumption of synchronicity, and a possible bias towards summer temperatures of the reconstructions. Hence the title of the paper - Last interglacial model–data mismatch of thermal maximum temperatures partially explained - which Watts apparently missed. They conclude that:

longview said:

I am not sure they are not getting the alter ready.
If they can succeed is placing real restrictions on organic hydrocarbon fuels, before there
is a suitable replacement, millions will starve.

Click to expand...

The "altar" is firmly established; financial sacrifice has replaced human, paid to "scientists" who will save mankind.

Africa and south east Asia will suffer the most, denied the same power sources available to the European and American worlds they will become the slave-like labor like that of China.

The amount of electricity that will be needed to power everything from cars to factories without the use of hydro carbons will mean a 500% increase in nuclear plants, and a complete remake of the landscape to dam rivers and build power plants. Here we are and have been a net exporter of hydro-electricity, and the demands of the future have lad to approval of one of the most controversial projects this country has ever seen, the so called "site C" is going ahead without so much as whimper after being shut down by environmentalists 15 years ago. The reason for the approval? The government successfully argued that "global warming" required it.

It is designed to generate profits through export to the US, none of the power will be used here.

To understand the impact, Site "C", from spill way to turbine plant to the dam and lake will cover an area of land roughly the size of Rhode Island

Fearandloathing said:

The "altar" is firmly established; financial sacrifice has replaced human, paid to "scientists" who will save mankind.

Africa and south east Asia will suffer the most, denied the same power sources available to the European and American worlds they will become the slave-like labor like that of China.

The amount of electricity that will be needed to power everything from cars to factories without the use of hydro carbons will mean a 500% increase in nuclear plants, and a complete remake of the landscape to dam rivers and build power plants. Here we are and have been a net exporter of hydro-electricity, and the demands of the future have lad to approval of one of the most controversial projects this country has ever seen, the so called "site C" is going ahead without so much as whimper after being shut down by environmentalists 15 years ago. The reason for the approval? The government successfully argued that "global warming" required it.

It is designed to generate profits through export to the US, none of the power will be used here.

To understand the impact, Site "C", from spill way to turbine plant to the dam and lake will cover an area of land roughly the size of Rhode Island

Click to expand...

Greetings, F&L. :2wave:

I had never heard of Site "C". Odd how agendas change if they like what they hear, isn't it... by using their own words against them to accomplish it. :clap: I wonder if they even realize it.....:

Jack Hays said:

". . . . Since this low-CO2 global warming occurred entirely naturally, there is no evidence that global warming during the present interglacial is unnatural or man-made."

Click to expand...

Never mind the pathetically flawed 'reasoning' which this anonymous blogger uses ("since this person's death occurred entirely naturally, there is no evidence that Kennedy's death was unnatural or man-made"). Doesn't anyone else find it interesting how utterly devoid of basic scientific curiousity these so-called 'sceptics' are? There is apparently no interest whatsoever in why the last interglacial was warmer, nor in why (in Antarctica at least) there appears to be this cooler-warmer-cooler-warmer-cooler pattern of successive interglacials.

This looks very much like yet another indication that climate science 'scepticism' is in fact precisely the opposite - that its intentions are propagandistic, not inquisitive.

I certainly find it interesting, and while I haven't learned much about it yet there are at least two factors which seem to be fairly easy-to-understand contributors.

In the very long term, continental drift affects climate, for example by opening or closing different passages of oceanic flow, or perhaps most obviously in the case of Antarctica. Currently the south pole is covered by a large (and high) continent, which means that it accumulates a lot more ice than the north pole and would be permanently covered even in the warmer temperatures which once prevailed. Ice has a very high albedo, which means more sunlight reflected away from the earth, which in turn means cooler temperatures around Antarctica and some follow-on effect to nearby regions. But tens of millions of years ago, Antarctica did not cover the south pole. Over a 130,000 year time-frame the effects of continental drift would obviously be tiny, perhaps even negligable, but it's worth bearing in mind.

Much more important in this case is the precession of Earth's axial tilt. Currently when the Earth is closest to the sun (perihelion), the Southern Hemisphere is tilted towards it; but 125,000 years ago it was the Northern Hemisphere which was tilted towards the sun at perihelion. What difference would that make? Most of the world's land-mass is in the Northern Hemisphere and one of those in the south, as we've just discussed, has a very high albedo. The world's oceans have a higher thermal inertia than its land-masses (their surface temperatures respond less to increased forcing), and that means that we should expect higher average temperatures when it's the north which gets the perihelion summer.

Steve Brown (BSc.(Hons) in Geosciences from the Open University in the UK, studying part time for a Masters degree in Earth Science) at SkepticalScience.com summarizes a number of contributing factors which have been explored in the peer-reviewed literature. These are just the two which I find most obvious/easy to grasp.

polgara said:

Greetings, F&L. :2wave:

I had never heard of Site "C". Odd how agendas change if they like what they hear, isn't it... by using their own words against them to accomplish it. :clap: I wonder if they even realize it.....:

Click to expand...

Here it is love...

Site C dam - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is outdated, they have started the prelim work and the government has quietly been moving ahead.....

I was wrong as well, at more than 10, 800 hectares it is only 32 square miles, about the size of LA I guess

Mithrae said:

Never mind the pathetically flawed 'reasoning' which this anonymous blogger uses ("since some people have died without being shot, there is no evidence that Kennedy was shot"). Doesn't anyone else find it interesting how utterly devoid of basic scientific curiousity these so-called 'sceptics' are? There is apparently no interest whatsoever in why the last interglacial was warmer, nor in why (in Antarctica at least) there appears to be this cooler-warmer-cooler-warmer-cooler pattern of successive interglacials.

This looks very much like yet another indication that climate science 'scepticism' is in fact precisely the opposite - that its intentions are propagandistic, not inquisitive.


I certainly find it interesting, and while I haven't learned much about it yet there are at least two factors which seem to be fairly easy-to-understand contributors.

In the very long term, continental drift affects climate, for example by opening or closing different passages of oceanic flow, or perhaps most obviously in the case of Antarctica. Currently the south pole is covered by a large (and high) continent, which means that it accumulates a lot more ice than the north pole and would be permanently covered even in the warmer temperatures which once prevailed. Ice has a very high albedo, which means more sunlight reflected away from the earth, which in turn means cooler temperatures around Antarctica and some follow-on effect to nearby regions. But tens of millions of years ago, Antarctica did not cover the south pole. Over a 130,000 year time-frame the effects of continental drift would obviously be tiny, perhaps even negligable, but it's worth bearing in mind.

Much more important in this case is the precession of Earth's axial tilt. Currently when the Earth is closest to the sun (perihelion), the Southern Hemisphere is tilted towards it; but 125,000 years ago it was the Northern Hemisphere which was tilted towards the sun at perihelion. What difference would that make? Most of the world's land-mass is in the Northern Hemisphere and one of those in the south, as we've just discussed, has a very high albedo. The world's oceans have a higher thermal inertia than its land-masses (their surface temperatures respond less to increased forcing), and that means that we should expect higher average temperatures when it's the north which gets the perihelion summer.

Steve Brown (BSc.(Hons) in Geosciences from the Open University in the UK, studying part time for a Masters degree in Earth Science) at SkepticalScience.com ties together a number of contributing factors which have been explored in the peer-reviewed literature. These are just the two which I find most obvious/easy to grasp.

Click to expand...

For a guy who has just confirmed that global warming scientific reports are doctored by political forces, I suggest the accusation of propagandizing is kind of pathetic.

When you accept that a report has been issued three times unchanged except for higher and higher levels of hysterical verbiage, posting pure propaganda like that kind of debases your argument.....

I respect your candidness in that area too much to let this kind of sophomoric personalized argument pass as "science".

Jack Hays said:

At least we can be certain this warming was not anthropogenic.

"A new paper published in Climate of the Past compares temperature reconstructions of the last interglacial period [131,000-114,000 years ago] to climate model simulations and finds climate models significantly underestimated global temperatures of the last interglacial by ~0.67C on an annual basis and by ~1.1C during the warmest month.....
[..........]
Further, during the last interglacial, Greenland temperatures were naturally up to 8C higher and
sea levels up to 43 feet Higher than today.
And, during another interglacial, all of Greenland and West Antarctica melted & sea levels were 79 feet Higher....

Click to expand...

And how'd we be doing with Seal Levels 43' to 79' Higher than Today!
Did this not occur to anyone?

It would be Catastrophic.
The Coastlines would Devastated in Most of the most populous areas on the Planet. From the US Coasts (East coast especially) to Asia/China/UK/etc would be under water.
ie
http://paleo-florida.info/geo/floridashorelines/index.htm
Penholoway Terrace and Shoreline
The Penholoway is a Late Pleistocene terrace and shoreline
estimated at approximately 200,000—120,000 years ago.
The Penholoway is established at 70—42 feet above current sea level.

and
42'-25' at 120K yrs ago.



NYC, Shanghai, London, Etc would be Under water with only skyscrapers visible.

theresilientearth.com "4m-6m rise"
http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/why-are-sea-levels-so-low

NYC with an app 14'-20' Rise


That's only about one Third-one Quarter of the OP's last interglacial, 43'-79'.

mbig said:

NYC with an app 14'-20' Rise

Click to expand...

Meanwhile, the IPCC's AR5 estimate of sea level rise by 2200 in the very high RCP8.5 scenario is 0.58 to 2.03 meters - about two to seven feet (WG1 Ch13 Table 13.8).

Alarmism doesn't do any good whether it's global warming alarmism, or the economic alarmism fostered by conservative 'sceptics.'

Mithrae said:

Meanwhile, the IPCC's AR5 estimate of sea level rise by 2200 in the very high RCP8.5 scenario is 0.58 to 2.03 meters - about two to seven feet (WG1 Ch13 Table 13.8).

Click to expand...

Correction.
That NYC pic is NOT just 14-20', it's NYC at app the last Interglacial of which the OP speaks.
It's more like 50'.

I previously made a string on this based on NOAA estimates published in the WSJ:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/envir...sing-sea-level-threatening-coastal-areas.html
and the estimates range from 8" to 6'7" by THIS Century's end.
Even Six feet would be Devastating to many coastal areas including NYC, Miami, London, Shanghai, etc.
By the end of the following Century, 22nd, we could be talking Multiples of 6' IMO.

BTW, thx for your Excellent posts in the section.

Mithrae said:

Somehow, Watts has managed to read a paper (that is, if he even read it) and pull precisely the opposite meaning from it - and mess up his facts even beyond that! Either that, or he (like certain others 'round these parts) is simply blindly parrotting what other bloggers post without any regard for the accuracy of the information.

For starters, the 0.67 degree figure does not come from this paper at all, but from an earlier study whose results Bakker and Renssen are examining:

Otto-Bliesner et al. (2013) recently performed a comparison between a large number of continental and oceanic records and a LIG (130 ka) time-slice simulation with the CCSM3 model. . . .

...the 0.67◦C model–data difference described by Otto-Bliesner et al. (2013).​

But more importantly, and more fundamentally, Bakker and Renssen are not saying that the models are wrong: On the contrary, they are explicitly highlighting and examining the questionable assumption (necessarily) used in widespread proxy comparisons from so long ago, that the Eemian thermal maximum temperatures occurred at the same time in all the regions represented:

However, because the LIG [last interglacial] lies outside the time span covered by 14C dating, absolute chronological uncertainties for this period can be up to 5000 yr (Waelbroeck et al., 2008) and a common temporal framework can often not be established. This reality has led a number of authors (e.g. Kaspar et al., 2005; CAPE Last Interglacial Project Members, 2006; Clark and Huybers, 2009; Turney and Jones, 2010; McKay et al., 2011) to present a snapshot reconstruction of warmest LIG conditions, with the assumption that LIG maximum warmth occurred synchronously across large parts of the globe. A general conclusion from subsequent evaluations of LIG climate simulations is that models do not capture the degree of LIG warming suggested by proxy-based reconstructions, whether using annual, or warmest month temperatures (Lunt et al., 2013; Otto-Bliesner et al., 2013). For example, Otto-Bliesner et al. (2013) recently performed a comparison between a large number of continental and oceanic records....

We use the results of transient LIG climate simulations performed by nine different climate models to (i) assess the magnitude and robustness of the possible overestimation of the LIG thermal maximum caused by the assumption of synchronicity in space and time, and (ii) investigate the importance of the geographical region and the season over which the average is made. These results enable us to discuss the degree to which the overestimation of the LIG thermal maximum resulting from the synchronicity assumption can explain the differences found in model–data comparison studies.​

Their study suggests that the model-data mismatch can be partially explained with reference to that assumption of synchronicity, and a possible bias towards summer temperatures of the reconstructions. Hence the title of the paper - Last interglacial model–data mismatch of thermal maximum temperatures partially explained - which Watts apparently missed. They conclude that:

For annual mean temperatures, the calculated overestimation is small, strongly model-dependent (global MMM of 0.4◦C with a ±0.3◦C inter-model spread) and cannot explain the 0.67◦C model–data difference described by Otto-Bliesner et al. (2013). However, if reconstructed LIG temperatures would prove to be partly biased towards the warm season, the calculated global and tropical overestimation of the LIG thermal maximum based on simulated warmest month temperatures (global MMM 1.1 ±0.4◦C; tropics MMM 0.8 ±0.2◦C) can potentially fully explain the global and tropical model–data differences described by Otto-Bliesner et al. (2013), 0.67◦C and 0.33◦C, respectively. For the extratropics, the overestimation can explain only part of the model–data differences, indicating that additional explanations are required. Notwithstanding that the exact magnitude of the calculated overestimation is depending on applied methodology and climate models, our findings suggest that global compilations of reconstructed the LIG thermal maximum overestimate the warming, therewith providing a partial explanation of the LIG thermal maximum model–data mismatch found in previous studies. Currently, new methodologies are being developed to provide a better age control for LIG temperature reconstructions, potentially decreasing the importance of the over-estimation discussed in this manuscript. Another aspect that could greatly improve current model–data comparisons of the LIG temperature evolution is a better understanding of the reconstructed changes in the SH mid-to-high latitude and its representation in climate simulations.​

Click to expand...

There is nothing in your long post that undercuts or contradicts the OP, but thank you for the background.

mbig said:

And how'd we be doing with Seal Levels 43' to 79' Higher than Today!
Did this not occur to anyone?

It would be Catastrophic.
The Coastlines would Devastated in Most of the most populous areas on the Planet. From the US Coasts (East coast especially) to Asia/China/UK/etc would be under water.
ie
Paleo-Florida: Florida Shorelines and Terraces
Penholoway Terrace and Shoreline
The Penholoway is a Late Pleistocene terrace and shoreline
estimated at approximately 200,000—120,000 years ago.
The Penholoway is established at 70—42 feet above current sea level.

and
42'-25' at 120K yrs ago.

NYC, Shanghai, London, Etc would be Under water with only skyscrapers visible.

theresilientearth.com "4m-6m rise"
Why Are Sea Levels So Low? | The Resilient Earth

NYC with an app 14'-20' Rise

That's only about one Third-one Quarter of the OP's last interglacial, 43'-79'.

Click to expand...

Yes. The point is not that sea level rise is not a problem, but that AGW was not the cause the last time.

Jack Hays said:

Yes. The point is not that sea level rise is not a problem, but that AGW was not the cause the last time.

Click to expand...

In addition, accelerated sea level rise would be predicated on the IPCC warming predictions hitting the mid to high range.
If the predicted warming doesn't happen, it can not cause any sea level rise.
So far the the empirical data shows the warming to be at the extreme low end of the scale.
Since the sea level rise is well recorded in places like New York, we can see how close the IPCC predictions are.
Sea Level Trends - The Battery, New York - NOAA Tides & Currents
NOAA shows an increase of .91 feet per century for the last 1.5 centuries, or about .78 feet by 2100.
Quite a bit less than the 1.9 feet (.58 m) minimum predicted by the IPCC.
Considering the trend predates the increase in CO2, tying the rise in sea level to the rise in CO2 is problematic at best.

Jack Hays said:

There is nothing in your long post that undercuts or contradicts the OP, but thank you for the background.

Click to expand...

According to the OP/Watts/Hockey Schtick, the paper referenced says that climate models underestimate the warmth of the last interglacial.

The reality is that the paper suggests the assumption of synchronicity in the thermal maxima of proxy comparisons overestimates the likely temperature.

The reality is not useful as propaganda of course, so the error is understandable, but not excusable.

Mithrae said:

According to the OP/Watts/Hockey Schtick, the paper referenced says that climate models underestimate the warmth of the last interglacial.

The reality is that the paper suggests the assumption of synchronicity in the thermal maxima of proxy comparisons overestimates the likely temperature.

The reality is not useful as propaganda of course, so the error is understandable, but not excusable.

Click to expand...

The key word is "assumption."

mbig said:

And how'd we be doing with Seal Levels 43' to 79' Higher than Today!
Did this not occur to anyone?

It would be Catastrophic.
The Coastlines would Devastated in Most of the most populous areas on the Planet. From the US Coasts (East coast especially) to Asia/China/UK/etc would be under water.
ie
Paleo-Florida: Florida Shorelines and Terraces
Penholoway Terrace and Shoreline
The Penholoway is a Late Pleistocene terrace and shoreline
estimated at approximately 200,000—120,000 years ago.
The Penholoway is established at 70—42 feet above current sea level.

and
42'-25' at 120K yrs ago.

NYC, Shanghai, London, Etc would be Under water with only skyscrapers visible.

theresilientearth.com "4m-6m rise"
Why Are Sea Levels So Low? | The Resilient Earth

NYC with an app 14'-20' Rise

That's only about one Third-one Quarter of the OP's last interglacial, 43'-79'.

Click to expand...

Do you have even half a clue as to how long (in thousands of years) it would take for that scenario to take place, in the highly unlikely event that it ever does take place?

No?

Thought not.

Earthling said:

Do you have even half a clue as to how long (in thousands of years) it would take for that scenario to take place, in the highly unlikely event that it ever does take place?

No?

Thought not.

Click to expand...

Actually, I Already Both Documented, AND Commented on that in my post following the one you responded to... STILL on the same page as your Empty post.

AGAIN
...

mbig # 14 said:

....

I previously made a string on this based on NOAA estimates published in the WSJ:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/envir...sing-sea-level-threatening-coastal-areas.html

and the estimates range from 8" to 6'7" by THIS Century's end.

Even Six feet would be Devastating to many coastal areas including NYC, Miami, London, Shanghai, etc.

By the end of the following Century, 22nd, we could be talking Multiples of 6' IMO.
.....

Click to expand...

So Yeah, I have "some idea", (based on NOAA Esimates), UNLIKE YOU.
Have a nice day!

Oooh get you saying I'm hostile, mbig.

8" to 6'7" is hilarious, a bit like saying you might die next week or live to be 150. :lamo

PS: What does "Empgily" mean?

mbig said:

And how'd we be doing with Seal Levels 43' to 79' Higher than Today!
Did this not occur to anyone?

It would be Catastrophic.
The Coastlines would Devastated in Most of the most populous areas on the Planet. From the US Coasts (East coast especially) to Asia/China/UK/etc would be under water.
ie
Paleo-Florida: Florida Shorelines and Terraces
Penholoway Terrace and Shoreline
The Penholoway is a Late Pleistocene terrace and shoreline
estimated at approximately 200,000—120,000 years ago.
The Penholoway is established at 70—42 feet above current sea level.

and
42'-25' at 120K yrs ago.

NYC, Shanghai, London, Etc would be Under water with only skyscrapers visible.

theresilientearth.com "4m-6m rise"
Why Are Sea Levels So Low? | The Resilient Earth

NYC with an app 14'-20' Rise

That's only about one Third-one Quarter of the OP's last interglacial, 43'-79'.

Click to expand...

Good hype for an end of the world film maybe but as any sort of fact related thing this is plain false.

There is no serious science which suggests at all that the Greenland ice cap is at all vulnerable to melting.

You post FALSEHOOD!!!

Tim the plumber said:

Good hype for an end of the world film maybe but as any sort of fact related thing this is plain false.

There is no serious science which suggests at all that the Greenland ice cap is at all vulnerable to melting.

You post FALSEHOOD!!!

Click to expand...

The posts were a Response to the OP's postulate that it was warmer during the Last Interglacial.
SO... I pointed out what Sea levels during THAT period Looked Like. Because the intimation is that that warmer temp was Innocuous.
We see this goofy claim often. ("Dinosaurs did fine", etc)

In the OP in fact, HE cites sea levels of the period at 43'-79' Higher.

The additional BLOWBACK for the OP, however, Did come from my citing of my previous posting of the NOAA estimates.

As to you assertion about Greenland.. I suggest you do some Googling of the proposition.. because it's already happening Significantly. Only debate is how fast:

https://www.google.com/webhp?source...espv=2&es_th=1&ie=UTF-8#q=greenlan icemelting
First 10 entries:



OUCHER!
and Hundreds more
YOU "Post Falsehoods", Ridiculous ones, and show utter lack of knowledge of the Topic.

The Guardian ‎- 6 days ago
Climate News Network: Scientists reveal Greenland and Antarctica losing 500 cubic kms of ice annually.
Greenland and Antarctica Are Losing Ice at “Unprecedented ...

Click to expand...

Well the figure 5 years ago was 660 km3 but they had to drop that as it was clearly silly.

The temperature has not increased in the last 17 years so why would there be any increase in ice melt? In fact surely all the ice which was vulnerable to melting by today's climate would have melted by now I would have expected.

Still even this amount of ice melt is wrong. The melting is all done in the 4 weeks of summer that Greenland gets. That's 100km3 plus a week. That's bigger than the Amazon. That would show up on the satellite images on google earth. It is not there. That's not including the snowfall that Greenland gets as well.

Even allowing for the obvious fact that this figure is a clear lie the amount of 500km3 per year will never melt all of Greenland's ice cap in the next thousand years.

So whilst you have shown your inability to think about the numbers which are fed to you and the fact that the impact of those numbers will not be what you want it to be you still have not shown any science which shows that Greenland's ice cap is in danger of melting to any significant degree which could cause the sea level rises your picture shows.

Epic.