Climate and Weather

Delingpole: Greenland Ice Melt Shock – The Terrifying Truth!
Greenland-640x480.jpg

Mario Tama/Getty
JAMES DELINGPOLE4 Aug 2019271
3:17
Greenland just lost 11 billion tons of ice melted in one day because of this shocking weather event known as ‘summer’.

CBS News‘s resident climate expert Ted Scambos [loving the poetry of that first syllable in his surname!] thinks this is worrying and unusual; so does the Washington Post, which declares it “one of its greatest melting events ever recorded”; so too does renowned Canadian alarmist Bill McKibben.
If you’re not scared yet, you really should be.

Do you not realise that if the Greenland ice sheet goes on melting at this extraordinary rate, then within 12,500 years HALF of it will be gone?

Yes, you read that right. In 12,500 years – that’s about twice as far ahead into the future as we are now from the world’s earliest civilisation, Sumer, in 4500 BC – the Greenland ice sheet could be half gone, with almost incalculable consequences for those of us who are still alive.

We have Willis Eschenbach to thank for this timely warning. He has been doing the math at Watts Up With That? and thisis his finding:

Here’s one way of looking at that. We can ask, IF Greenland were to continue losing ice mass at a rate of 103 billion tonnes per year, how long would it take to melt say half of the ice sheet? Not all of it, mind you, but half of it. (Note that I am NOT saying that extending a current trend is a way to estimate the future evolution of the ice sheet—I’m merely using it as a way to compare large numbers.)

To answer our question if 103 billion tonnes lost per year is a big number, we have to compare the annual ice mass loss to the amount of ice in the Greenland ice sheet. The Greenland ice sheet contains about 2.6E+15 (2,600,000,000,000,000) tonnes of water in the form of snow and ice.

So IF the Greenland ice sheet were to lose 103 billion tonnes per year into the indefinite future, it would take about twelve thousand five hundred years to lose half of it …

And even if the loss were to jump to ten times the long-term average, it would still take twelve hundred years to melt half the ice on the Greenland ice sheet. Even my great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandchildren won’t live long enough to see that.

Paul Homewood isn’t much impressedwith the panic-mongering either.

The ice sheet surface mass balance is running well above that of 2012:



http://polarportal.dk/en/greenland/surface-conditions/



And there is no mention of the fact that the ice sheet grew substantially last year, and also the year before:



The simple fact is that the Greenland ice sheet melts every summer, particularly when the sun shines. That’s what it does. And it grows back again in winter as the snow falls. Indeed, if it did not melt, it would carry on growing year after year.
 
drilling.jpg

Berkeley somehow bans natural gas

JAZZ SHAW Posted at 12:31 pm on August 04, 2019

The day may come when we run out of stories about the municipal government in Berkeley, California doing hilariously inane things, but today is not that day. Their latest “green” initiative to save the planet involves a ban on natural gas lines or appliances using natural gas in any new construction starting next year. Instead, everyone will need to employ electrical appliances. (CBS San Francisco)









Berkeley’s mayor signed a new city ordinance banning natural gas in new construction projects starting next year.

For years, consumers were told that the desirable fuel was clean burning natural gas.

“Gas is the clean energy relative to coal and diesel, but California has committed to the environmental requirement, in that is all gas has to be gone by mid-century,” Dan Kammen – Professor of Energy, U.C. Berkeley.

And the city of Berkeley is leading the charge with the law that covers new construction.

Furnaces, stoves, water heaters… if they run on natural gas, they all have to go. (This is only for new construction. Existing structures will be grandfathered.)
This is all part of a longer-term plan that will see all natural gas usage in California eliminated by 2050. I wonder how that’s going to work?

California has already pretty much wiped out coal plants and they’ve pretty much maxed out their hydro capacity (much of it is a desert, after all). They’re not allowing any new nuclear plant construction. So how do they propose to take the next step and shut down all natural gas use? They can’t produce anywhere near enough solar and wind energy to replace basically half the juice on the grid.






Well done, Berkeley. (And really all of California.) Have fun sitting in the dark with no air conditioning.

Meanwhile, San Francisco airport has banned plastic bottles of water. I have at least a bit more sympathy for the drive to stop flooding the oceans and landfills with plastics, but it needs to be done intelligently. If you can’t buy a plastic bottle of water in the boarding area and they won’t let you bring your own containers of water through TSA (even if they are glass or metal), what are you supposed to do? This state is regulating its way into the dark ages.
 

What is this about?

<Sorry about the double hit, but the post to which I was trying to respond is badly mangled and does not quote properly>
 
Thirty seven states set their record highs over 75 years ago.... NY city had more 100 degree days in the 80/90s then they have in the 21st Century.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top