Climate crisis: If all the ice melts…

The National Geographic has a really nice interactive graphic showing the world’s future shorelines if all the ice on the planet were to melt as a result of climate change. And unless we stop now, we will melt all the ice.

Becca Morn wrote about this earlier. I want to add to what she said and provide some context.

As the introduction states:

The maps here show the world as it is now, with only one difference: All the ice on land has melted and drained into the sea, raising it 216 feet and creating new shorelines for our continents and inland seas.

There are more than five million cubic miles of ice on Earth, and some scientists say it would take more than 5,000 years to melt it all. If we continue adding carbon to the atmosphere, we’ll very likely create an ice-free planet, with an average temperature of perhaps 80 degrees Fahrenheit instead of the current 58.

First, did you note that part above about “some scientists say it would take more than 5,000 years to melt it all”? That’s the National Geographic being … careful. With the data, you ask, or with the great and the powerful? I’m not in position to say.

What I will say is that a change of +22°F is +12°C, and many of us are predicting +7°C or more by 2100, and that’s going to melt some ice. I’ll bet “some scientists” are saying that global warming is a hoax and, even today, that tobacco is candy for the lungs. I’ll let you know what “other scientists” like James Hansen think of ice-melt rates later. (Hint: Five million years ago, when global warming was about +1°C warmer than the year 2000, sea level was 25 meters higher than now — that’s 75 feet.)

Could the earth have only Antarctic sea ice by 2100? Absolutely. Arctic summer ice has gone from about 10 million square kilometers in 1900 to about 6 million today, according to the IPCC AR5 (pdf), the latest released (see Fig. SPM.3b).

According to the IPCC, at current rates of loss the Arctic will be ice-free in about six decades, or by 2080. But rates of loss are rapidly accelerating, aren’t they. Just look at this, observed vs. modeled ice loss, published in 2009:

Arctic sea ice — projected vs. observed as of 2009

Arctic sea ice — modeled vs. observed as of 2009 (source, Figure 13)

As I’ve said, scientists are inherently conservative; in normal times it’s one of their virtues. But these aren’t normal times, and we seem always to be wrong to the slow side.

The National Geographic’s interactive maps

Whatever you think of the rate of decline in earth ice, the maps are instructive. Also conservative, since I don’t believe the predicted rise in 216 feet takes into account the fact that warmer water takes up more volume than colder water.

But that’s a quibble when the entire state of Florida is underwater; New York is offshore; San Francisco is a group of islands; and the Gulf of Mexico reaches to Pine Bluff and Little Rock, Arkansas. Here’s a taste:

North American seacoast if all ice melted (credit: National Geographic)

North American seacoast if all ice melted (credit: National Geographic)

The text for this map:

North America

The entire Atlantic seaboard would vanish, along with Florida and the Gulf Coast. In California, San Francisco’s hills would become a cluster of islands and the Central Valley a giant bay. The Gulf of California would stretch north past the latitude of San Diego — not that there’d be a San Diego.

Click around to see the fate of other favorite cities and coastlines. As near as I can guess now (I may revise this on further study) 45°N latitude is about the cutoff for livable weather in the latter half of the 21st century (this one). Paris is 48°N. Beijing is 39°N, and at the northeast end of the North China Plain, the traditional breadbasket of China.

The North China Plain is also only 50 meters — 160 feet — above sea level  (oops).

As you click around, here’s a fun exercise — Look for the places our masters and mistresses will try to build their new homes and palaces, after they capture the governments of those regions to do so. The 21st century will be a rich study for historians. Let’s hope we still have some (historians).

What about near-term sea-level problems?

The huge hurricane in the Philippines alerted some of us to the dangers present today. Why only some of us? Because others of us were tagging the scavenging survivors as “looters” — in print. When the victims are “them” — blacks, browns, poor — we don’t see the danger to ourselves. If we did, the victims would be “us.”

But there is danger to all-American “us” — in Florida. The same storm in Miami could instantly be the writing on the wall for all of south Florida, not just in terms of livability, but economically and developmentally as well. Who would build after such a storm? And if they did, who would insure? In that environment, what happens to real estate values the very next day (he asks rhetorically)? Gone of course, followed by the population.

In truth, that Florida writing is already on the wall, in invisible ink. But that’s a tale for another day.

Why say all this?

I say this because I don’t think we’ve hit the physical tipping point yet, and I’m reading more and more about global resistance, including in the U.S., against those I’m calling our “lords and masters.” If their iron rule fails — or is wrested from them — while there’s still time to stop the carbon train, good for us. Our job is to educate that resistance so we get the solution we need.

Of course, our masters and mistresses could also grow a conscience. But that would require some humanity, and these people are backing the “Catfood for Grannie” plan in times that are merely lean. Still, could happen, right? Consciences do grow, right?

Bottom line — It really isn’t over. Time to strap it up and play to the end of the game. There’s no way to win if we don’t, right?

Humbly submitted,


To follow or send links: @Gaius_Publius

Gaius Publius is a professional writer living on the West Coast of the United States.

Share This Post

66 Responses to “Climate crisis: If all the ice melts…”

  1. OtterQueen says:

    Interesting, but I take issue with the term “interactive.” It’s basically a slideshow showing the shorelines of different continents if the polar ice melted. My idea of interactive would involve a timeline showing the predicted polar ice decimation and how that would affect the coastlines. You know, by 2030, so much will be melted, the ocean will rise by this much, this is what will be under water. 2050, 2070, etc. What the hell is “interactive” about a slide show?

  2. The_Fixer says:

    I think you’re likely right. And we’re already seeing some crazy shit – Katrina, Sandy, Colorado Floods, drought, the Philippine Cyclone… and other episodes I’ve forgotten.

    The best we can hope for is to mitigate the damage and adapt the best we can.

  3. The_Fixer says:

    Think you got a few things wrong there, Sport. Let’s look at just a few of the things that you say.

    And melting ice in the Artic [sic] doesn’t raise the ocean level one inch.

    Well, anyone who knows basic elementary school science knows that warm water takes up more volume than cold water. Therefore, melted ice will raise sea levels.

    And CO2 emissions have historically followed not led increases in temperatures. As noted too, the Earth has been warmer than today (and CO2 levels higher) before today’s industrialization.

    Analysis of ice cores taken from the Chilean Andes mountain peaks, ice cores taken from permafrost snow that have been there for thousands of years, is in direct conflict with that statement. The analysis shows that the CO2 levels started to rise at the start of widespread industrialization. Temperature rises followed the CO2 increases, it did not lead it as you claim.

    The involvement of scientists in politics and using their profession to push a political agenda is corrupting science.

    Just what is that political agenda? I keep hearing that “big science” (Ha!) is involved in some sort of conspiracy, but the theory never states just what this conspiracy is.

    Sorry, but your series of statements can only be classified as tripe, and is unworthy of further examination.

  4. GaiusPublius says:

    Fixed. Thanks, Becca.


  5. Donuts says:

    Sometime in the next 10 years I’m betting we get a nice, fat clathrate burp. Then things will get even more exciting real fast.

  6. Donuts says:

    In 2007 the models predicted an ice-free arctic by 2100. Now many scientists are saying 2015. The Greenland ice cap is rapidly destabilizing. I’m betting that in 10 years we’re going to be seeing some seriously crazy shit. No later than 30 years for massive crop failures and subsequent lawlessness.

  7. heimaey says:

    I mean how soon more than how far I guess.

  8. karmanot says:

    And Miami will look like Water World.

  9. Monoceros Forth says:

    Let me put on my pedant glasses…the Sun can’t go nova. Classical novae as well as Type I supernovae only occur in binary systems, and the Sun isn’t massive enough to go up in a Type II supernova.

  10. Monoceros Forth says:

    The seas are where it’s going to get really bad because increasing concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide will tend to increase the solubility of calcium carbonate in water. Numerous marine organisms, from the huge to the tiny–corals, molluscs, microscopic foraminifera–build structures from calcium carbonate.

  11. Monoceros Forth says:

    Oh, yeah, our noses are pretty bad at smelling poisons in many ways. Take the case of hydrogen sulfide, one of the most toxic of common gases. Smells absolutely foul at very low concentrations, but at concentrations high enough to be dangerous the “rotten egg” odor goes away quickly. It’s even been reported to smell sweet.

  12. Thom Allen says:

    Sorry, hard to see your post. Kinda blurry. Let me see if Cheops can read it.

  13. Whitewitch says:

    Thank you – funny human defect – smells clean but is toxic…

    Guess I have to add that to my list of things to talk to God about when I die (in the event there is such a creature):

    1. Knees (bad bad engineering)
    2. Rectums (needs an easy flush system)
    3. Installation of a Zipper (easy organ access – clearly he created zippers so why so late in the game – would have been a great upgrade at least)

    and now
    4. Noses – detection faulty as to toxic fumes.

  14. Monoceros Forth says:

    The principle is sound enough. Basically it’s a small-scale version of the Cottrell precipitator that’s used in industry for scrubbing particles from exhausts, and also in semiconductor “clean rooms”: air containing suspended particles flows past a set of electrodes maintained at a high enough potential to cause a “corona discharge” around them. Particles passing through this intense electric field acquire a charge. Then they flow over a set of collector plates maintained a potential of opposite polarity so the charged particles are drawn to the plates and stick there.

    But just because the principle is sound doesn’t mean that commercial devices marketed for the ordinary consumer do an effective job. Another thing: ionization of air in a corona discharge creates small amounts of ozone, nitric oxide, and nitrogen dioxide. We perceive the smell of these gases in small quantity as sharp and somehow “clean”, as with the smell of air after a thunderstorm, but they are toxic.

  15. Thom Allen says:

    Hadn’t thought of that. Good point.

    Also, think about how the increased volume of water will change the marine ecosystems. Many people talk about how LAND animals, including us, will experience major changes. What about changes in the seas?

    Didn’t mean to get you all teary. Definitely don’t think about having to use scuba equipment to see the Pyramids . . .

  16. Whitewitch says:

    Ahhh yes…true true.

  17. Drew2u says:

    Maybe not, but it does speak to the consumer’s appetite to “buy” clean air is already there.

  18. Whitewitch says:

    Do ionizers work? No…eh?

  19. BeccaM says:

    Nah, he’s just a far, far right ultra-conservative who shows up here every few weeks to troll us with his unsourced nonsense.

  20. BeccaM says:

    Actually the ‘climate change and beer’ post was mine. But I’m glad you followed up on it, Gaius. I was hoping you’d give it your expert treatment. :-)

  21. Drew2u says:

    You just made me remember ice cores, all the data that is housed in them, and thought of all that knowledge being literally swept out to sea; you made me cry. :'(

  22. Drew2u says:

    Interesting point. I thought I read somewhere that the amount of shoreline underwater has already started to become varied; 8″ underwater in the Pacific while other places record 2″, so far.

  23. Thom Allen says:

    And your data for all of your specious claims is what, exactly? You’ve melted several million metric tons ice with your hot air BS .

  24. hydroursus says:

    One of my favorite scenes in the series from PBS a wile ago, “Planet Earth”, was the deep sea part of the film. And, one section in particular was of the methane sea below the deep ocean, which was astounding. In the deepest part of the H20 ocean, where pressures and temps make the below freezing water still a liquid water, a methane ocean shore laps gently where crabs feed near by. A fish tries to swim above the methane ocean, and then, starts to die. There is no oxygen in the H2O above the methane sea, just off gassed CH4 and probably H2S, which is poisonous, too.

    There is another issue that is ignored in the Climate Change discussion. I met Dr. Barkley Kamb (Caltech glacier geophysicist, professor) on a trip to Greenland. He talked about the true shape of the earth; a bumpy spheroid where gravity is different in spots. He said that if all the ice melted, the land that was above the ocean would not be as if it were at a very high tide…. Predicting just how much and where land would be submerged by the sea would be difficult. Probably much of what could be arable land, or land that contains the nutrients necessary for vegetative growth, would be under the salty water. The best land for planting has been washed down by fresh water for thousands of years with the detritus from forests at higher elevations.

    People can live by themselves. However, they thrive with other people that work together.

  25. Drew2u says:

    To bring up an interesting factoid about orange-sized hail: in order to produce such hail, 3-4″ in diameteter, the updraft to keep it aloft would be over 100-mph. And when the hail falls, it’d fall at a speed of 95 mph. Any hail larger than a penny is considered severe.

  26. Drew2u says:

    Let’s not forget the commercial news media and their stenographic reporting.

    Also, paying for fresh air? like these?

  27. Whitewitch says:

    I think WE all do recognize it Drew….hear the voices that say they do….and yet the Corporate Masters will have none of it. They still and will always believe that it is all about profit…and my friend, I promise you when they realize that WE will pay for fresh air…they will bottle it and happily sell it to us…they will have scrubbers and factories and WE will work for them and gladly, thankfully pay for the bottled air…as WE do now for their water.

  28. Drew2u says:

    Call me fatalistic but I see a kind of beauty in the Great Stretch theory of the end of the Universe.
    Really, I think we’re going to go extinct via our own hubris. I think there are enough people on this planet that unless some mass extinction event such as the deccan traps takes place, the human species will survive any plague/disaster/aliens.

  29. Drew2u says:

    Oh by all means take a chuckle! :) I’m usually the one in the group with the odd sense of humor :p

    Your last line is the crux of it: We have to stop acting like everything done is to be done for profit. Those that extract everything for themselves conserve nothing for others. A problem like climate change (and natural disasters, accordingly) goes beyond the capitalistic model and we all need to recognize it. We need to start paying people in carbon-soaking environments like the Amazon to preserve in perpetuity for all mankind those regions that are the entire planet’s life-line.

  30. Whitewitch says:

    You don’t mind if I giggle do you Drew2u….I love your posts and your mind…however WE are not in charge and those in Charge could care less…they only feed the people the BS line that it isn’t true because they don’t like the hubbub it creates.

    They are not really in denial you know…they simply don’t see a profit in it Yet! When they do, and let us hope it is not too late, then they will do something about it.

  31. Whitewitch says:

    Excellent post Indigo. I think that we humans will be gone long before Mother Earth even misses us. And She will recover from this pestilence known as humans until the Sun nova’s and the process begins again.

    Sadly – we are wee and tiny in comparison to those who are “in charge”. Even if we all change the Corporate Titans will not and so the process will go…until even those whom thought their billions and trillions would save them arrive at destination of extinction – along with us.

    Until then – we are gifted with a beautiful ride and I plan on carrying for my part as best I can and being thankful while the water still runs.

  32. Indigo says:

    I understand that but I like the theater of the sun going nova, it’s so much more scientific than angels’ trumpets and the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse. What will we go extinct from, do you suppose? Exhaustion from old age, possibly? ;-)

  33. bandanajack says:

    you have a couple bad links it seems. if this is the map i have seen previously, they neglect to show hawaii, about which i am curious.

  34. UncleBucky says:

    The only solution that I see will be Soylent Green, in crispy and original recipe. “Tastes like tofu chicken!”

  35. Jim says:

    I smell a paid mole.

    If human caused co2 increases are irrelevant, then explain the ocean’s acidification, explain the average rise in temperatures, explain the stronger stronger storms. Clue: increased co2 leads to both increased acidification and rise in temperatures. What other cause can explain both acidification and increased temperature?

    Yes, the planet has been warmer: the early Triassic was extremely warm and all mega-fauna perished. It was one of the great extinctions linked to climate. The late Cretaceous was also warming due to a constant input of excess co2 from volcanic activity. This rise in temperature led to declines in Cretaceous mega fauna. The dinosaurs were slowly going extinct before the meteor ended their existence.

    Question for you: which oil company is paying you to write such obvious bullshit?

  36. Donuts says:

    I live in Montana, maybe the capitol of “survival tactics.” We’ve got everything from people living the Grizzly Adams subsistence lifestyle way out in the bush, green eco people fantasizing about sustainable this and that, and 1-percenters building multimillion $ bunkers. IMHO, the only ones that have a chance are the 1%, but to make it I think the house needs to be in northern Canada or Alaska.

  37. Whitewitch says:

    In addition, we the “little” people have so little effect or power to change anything in re such large issues where Corporations and the Movers and Shakers of this world care so little, if at all. I do my part, best as I can, I support the Earth to do hers…and should she decide that we are bothersome ticks upon her back – she will indeed shake us free. The Earth will recover from us….long before we recover from Her!

  38. Donuts says:

    How far? Lol! Clathrates + permafrost methane + forest carbon + albedo changes + human carbon + … = Too hot for you and 99.9% of all other species. No Star Trek future for us. Oops.

  39. heimaey says:

    What a nice fantasy. Sort of like believing in god. Sometimes I wish I was this ignorant.

  40. dula says:

    Because it makes them feel powerful for being able to live in an area where the vast majority are priced out of.

  41. Monoceros Forth says:

    If he isn’t a literal bot he effectively is one. But then this tired repetition of the same few talking points as if their mere assertion puts an end to all argument has been observed before. The term “doubleplusgood duckspeaker” comes to mind.

  42. Monoceros Forth says:

    Yeah, yeah, the only reason atmospheric scientists all over the world talk about global warming is because they’re all dirty commies or something, and the fact that climate has changed in the past without our help is proof that human activity has no effect. Similarly, the fact that ships sink all the time without the intervention of icebergs proves that an iceberg didn’t cause Titanic to sink.

    Can’t you come up with something new at least other than the usual pile of right-wing shibboleths and undistributed middles?

  43. heimaey says:

    Yeah it’s already too late I think. We have to learn how to live best in the new climate that is coming/partly here. I’m pretty sure we’ve passed the tipping point, so now it’s just a matter of how far…

  44. Drew2u says:

    Your post sounds very similar, if not a fluffed up version of your post 2 months ago in which you chose not to go forth with a discussion by any of the half-dozen people who wanted to engage you. Do you plan on engaging in conversations, dialogues, (arguably debates, but I’d rather not use that term as debates eventually turn into flame wars), or any constructive back-and-forth or is your modus operandi to make a statement and refuse any analysis thereof?

    http://americablog. com/2013/09/climate-change-deniers-full-cry-anticipation-new-un-report.html#comment-1059761592

  45. Drew2u says:

    For an example of muddying the waters, check out pogden297 ‘s post above.
    No scientist is disputing that climate models show changes throughout the 4.2b years of planet earth, what’s alarming is the rate of change – as pointed out in this article and subsequently ignored by pog. I hesitate to call him a bot, but he certainly has all of the talking points down-pat.

  46. Drew2u says:

    Humans are going to be extinct billions of years before the sun goes nova ;p

  47. pogden297 says:

    Of. course the Artic ice grew this year and substantially so. And melting ice in the Artic doesn’t raise the ocean level one inch. Only a very small percent of the CO2 emissions every year are the result of man, a fact that is not disputed. And CO2 emissions have historically followed not led increases in temperatures. As noted too, the Earth has been warmer than today (and CO2 levels higher) before today’s industrialization. The notion of “climate change” is a convenient change in terminology. This is about whether man is causing dangerous global warming. The climate is always changing…has been for 4.5 billion years and it will continue to do so. Ironically man has historically done much better in warmer climates and struggled during downturns in the temperatures. We have much, much more to fear from another ice age than rising temperatures. History says that.
    Instead of engaging in honest science, looking at what has happened in the past to predict the future, here we use scary computer projections in which selective data is inputted to get the desired scary scenarios. It is not honest science. The involvement of scientists in politics and using their profession to push a political agenda is corrupting science.

  48. Drew2u says:

    This is what I’ve preliminarily recorded so far for the past year or so. I haven’t updated it since October 15. Edit: looks like the links didn’t copy over, but I can provide them.

    Oct 15, 2013
    Typhoon Wipha is a once-in-a-decade storm, hitting all of Japan while Jellyfish blooms increase 62% all over the world.

    Oct 12, 2013
    Cyclone Phailin, category 4, hits India with fastest winds on record for the area, displacing up to 12 million people

    Oct 2013
    Uncommon event of three cyclones striking Asia at the same time, Wipha, Pailin, and Nari.
    and Super Typhoon Usagi hits China as the strongest storm on earth 2013,

    Oct 3, 2013
    Texas under worst drought in its history.
    Australia’s cattle farmers also face drought.

    Sept 29, 2013
    gets drenched with wettest September since records started in the
    1800s; 10 inches from a climatological normal of 2 inches.

    Sept 21, 2013
    Nearly 1 million people in Namibia face worst drought in 23 years.

    Sept 16 2013
    100-pmh gusts hit Scotland caused by twice-as-usual jetstream winds.

    Sept 11, 2013
    Hurricane Humberto (pretty much) ties with latest-forming hurricane on record with one 11 years ago.

    Sept 2013
    Colorado experiences once-in-a-millennium flooding.

    August 23, 2013
    Record-breaking deluge of up to 42-inches of rain hits the Philippines.

    June 30, 2013
    Las Vegas sizzles under hottest temperature in its history.

    March 2013
    Extreme snow in Scotland kills hundred of thousands of livestock
    Severe plague of locusts, greatest since the 1950s hits Madagascar.

    February 2013
    Massive Winter Storm Nemo was historic nor’easter in New England (I think).

    (additional note: two 7.1 earthquakes each hit Papua New Guinea
    and the Philippines in the past couple of days. Pakistan’s earthquake in
    Sept was 7.7, )

  49. Drew2u says:

    Depends on how many human sacrifices they make to their god before they die?

  50. Drew2u says:

    It’s less about facts and more about muddying the waters with false conclusions or analogies. Both methane and carbon are equally bad, just as kids in Chicago being gunned down is equally as bad as the kids who were killed in Sandy Hook. Social Security is not a hunger-games fight for a scrap of money between two factions – the young and the old – no matter how much the RWers decry it as such.
    It’s the “What-Aboutism” game they love so much more than facts. Cast doubt then do nothing.

  51. Indigo says:

    “Hopium.” I like that, it’s emblematic of the widespread reluctance to take a hold and study survival tactics in the face of inevitable climate changes. We can no more “stop” climate change than we can “stop” all wars.

  52. Donuts says:

    It’s kinda funny that the giant mountain of facts, otherwise known as reality, that right wingers have chosen to dismiss, will kill them.

  53. Indigo says:

    Realistically, the only end to this “game” is individual. That is to say, nobody gets out of here alive. Fair enough, that’s not really the problem but it points to an overlooked factor, that when it comes to dealing with the realities of Mother Earth, the shifting plates of the planet are always in motion, the waves are always washing away and the tides are always rebuilding. That Florida and the Atlantic coast will disappear is not the “end” of the game but just one more phase. Individuals don’t usually live long enough to see such vast changes but as they happen, we can trust humanity to adjust, whether compassionately or as horribly as in the Hunger Games. Regardless of how it all works out in the medium run of, say, 50 years or so, there is no end to this “game” until, at last, the angels blow their trumpets or, more likely, the sun goes nova.

  54. Monoceros Forth says:

    I dunno, I’ve heard a bit of right-wing cavilling (reminiscent of Ronzo Reagan’s old line about trees causing air pollution) about how methane from cows far outweighs the contribution of carbon dioxide from fossil fuels. It’s one of Jeremy Clarkson’s pet lines, for example.

  55. Drew2u says:

    If you follow any RW blogs, they talk about the methane, but mention it as less of a greenhouse gas than carbon (monoxide? dioxide? does it matter?).

  56. Donuts says:

    It wasn’t so much an argument, as it was a regurgitation of the mainstream enviro talking points. We often hear about “zero emissions.” Rarely do we hear about what you mentioned. Rarer still do we hear that the methane bomb is detonating now. Seems we both understand the cloth we’re cut from.

  57. Drew2u says:

    I just stated what we need to do, past your initial argument of “bringing emissions to zero”.
    I know what I posted is untenable due to human fallibility and arrogance, but simply stating “stopping at zero” is like saying the astronauts of Apollo 13 could solve their oxygen problem by stopping breathing.

  58. Donuts says:

    More hopium. Take a nice, long look at humanity and see what we really are: a bunch of narcissistic, murderous thugs that will kill anything and everything for nothing more than a blow job and a pat on the back. You think we’re going to geo-engineer the planet? Sure, Monsanto would be happy to do it. Just as soon as they figure out how much is in it for them.

    There are great people out there, true. People who understand the human experience deeply and directly, and are no longer slaves to the shapeshifting illusion of oneself. Just not enough of them.

  59. heimaey says:

    So why are people investing in NYC Real Estate so much right now?

  60. Drew2u says:

    We need a massive global project to not just reach zero, but to start creating scrubbers to get methane and carbon out of the atmosphere and sequestered in a solid state form, be it a plastic or ice or whatever, and put somewhere where it cannot be released into the air again.
    The problem with science is that it’s not always 100%, that it accepts new evidence and new findings so it has an open mind. Those who are in denial point to that as uncertainty and an unwillingness to stand up for what the findings are showing us; therefore it MUST be fake.
    It’s like looking at Fermat’s last theorem and saying, “close enough isn’t 100% therefore it isn’t true! (and I feel dirty comparing denialists to Fermat)

  61. Drew2u says:

    Sardinia was deluged with 17 inches of rain in an hour and a half; Colorado’s millenial flood was 8-10 inches in 24 hours.
    http://thinkprogress .org/climate/2013/11/20/2972831/sardinia-flooding/

    “the vast majority of the emitting firms were in the energy business, including Chevron, Exxon, BP, and state-owned and government-run firms.

    According to the research, 90 companies on the list of top emitters produced 63 percent of the cumulative global emissions of industrial carbon dioxide and methane between 1751 to 2010, amounting to about 914 gigatons of CO2 emissions. Aside from seven cement manufacturers, the rest of the emitters were energy companies producing oil, gas, and coal.”

    http://thinkprogress .org/climate/2013/11/21/2977001/companies-responsible-thirds-greenhouse-gas-emissions/

  62. Donuts says:

    It’s debatable whether we’ve hit the tipping point or not. When I look at the data, I see runaway greenhouse already underway. What if that’s the case? What if bringing human emissions to zero would accomplish nothing? Is it possible for most activists to continue working, even when the hopium crack pipe is empty? Can we carry out the Prime Directive of alleviating suffering, even in the face of a mass extinction? Because I think that’s where we are now.

  63. Donuts says:

    Here’s a brand new hour-long climate change film that focuses on the Arctic and the numerous feedback loops operating there. It features computer animations unlike anything I had ever seen. Very well done.

    The Arctic Death Spiral

  64. cole3244 says:

    if you look at the pathetic excuses for leaders we have here and most in the rest of the world the game is over and people will be killing and maiming each other to survive within decades, luckily i won’t be here to experience that but it will happen its only a matter of time.

© 2021 AMERICAblog Media, LLC. All rights reserved. · Entries RSS