Ice Sheets Melt: Academics Waking Up; New York Times In Denial

There has never been a more important moral, philosophical, military, civilizational, psychological, sociological and economic issue than the concerted holocaust of the biosphere by Homo Sapiens, presently passing one tipping point after another. Thus I will not present excuses for keeping abreast of any advance in understanding in the field. Even if it is just to confirm what I have long said.

The first scientific paper including computerized models of ice sheets melt predicts the obvious: if we burn all PROVEN fossil fuels reserves, ice will completely melt, all over Earth. Yet, it is a big surprise to most scientists.

This is humanity as a geologic force,” said Ken Caldeira, a researcher at the Carnegie Institution for Science in Stanford, California, an author of the paper. “We’re not a subtle influence on the climate system – we are really hitting it with a hammer.”

Nice to read. Nietzsche was doing philosophy with a hammer, we went further: we are doing climate with a hammer. Hopefully, it will crack soon: nothing like a great catastrophe to bring further fascism. Nihilism is bad thing, naivety, even worse. To please the powers that be, and thus to be taken seriously, serious climate scientists have made unwarranted, profoundly unscientific, over-optimistic declarations about the ice sheets. Now they time is up. In truth the GreenHouse emissions are completely out of control, and still increasing… At a geological scale, every year:

50 Gigatons Per Year: This GreenHouse Is Bigger Than CO2 Alone

50 Gigatons Per Year: This GreenHouse Is Bigger Than CO2 Alone

“I didn’t expect it would go so fast,” Dr. Caldeira said.To melt all of Antarctica, I thought it would take something like 10,000 years.” Didn’t they all. Why? Because only then would one be invited at the White House. Thinking correctly means, first, to think in a way that pleases those with power.

“Combustion of available fossil fuel resources sufficient to eliminate the Antarctic Ice Sheet” [Ricarda Winkelmann, Anders Levermann, Andy Ridgwell, Ken Caldeira]:

“The Antarctic Ice Sheet stores water equivalent to 58 meters in global sea-level rise. We show in simulations using the Parallel Ice Sheet Model that burning the currently attainable fossil fuel resources is sufficient to eliminate the ice sheet. With cumulative fossil fuel emissions of 10,000 gigatonnes of carbon (GtC), Antarctica is projected to become almost ice-free with an average contribution to sea-level rise exceeding 3 meters per century during the first millennium. Consistent with recent observations and simulations, the West Antarctic Ice Sheet becomes unstable with 600 to 800 GtC of additional carbon emissions. Beyond this additional carbon release, the destabilization of ice basins in both West and East Antarctica results in a threshold increase in global sea level. Unabated carbon emissions thus threaten the Antarctic Ice Sheet in its entirety with associated sea-level rise that far exceeds that of all other possible sources.”

The famous Doctor Hansen and his collaborators upset the establishment two months ago by predicting a rise of three meters within 85 years (they use the reasoning I have used before, namely that paleontological data show sea level rise of 5 to 9 meters, with a rise of just one degree Celsius; actually the reasoning was obvious since 2009, when I pointed out that “2C Is Too Much“). The new paper potentially confirms Hansen’s findings. As I said, the new paper tries to NOT upset the powers that be (differently from yours truly, who views most individuals and institutions in power more than suspiciously, and it shows).  Thus, one has to read between the lines to deduce that, from the paper itself, interpreting it optimistically is completely unwarranted.

The paper says: “Consistent with recent observations and simulations, the West Antarctic Ice Sheet becomes unstable with 600 to 800 GtC of additional carbon emissions.” Hmm… Let’s see, how long would that take, at the present increasing rate? Now emissions of CO2 itself are around 35 Gt, per year (35 billion tons of CO2, per year). That’s a number often brandished, but, left at that, it’s disinformation.  With other GreenHouse Gases, we are at 50 Gigatons of CO2 equivalent emission, per year. Sorry for taxing the mathematical capabilities of our great leaders:  12 x 50 = 600. This fits perfectly my “Ten Years To Catastrophe” essay. Thus, the West and EAST Antarctic Ice Sheet becomes unstable in TWELVE YEARS (according to this paper; I obtained the same rough estimate with a paleoclimatic approach).

The United Nations has said that the rise of the sea would not likely exceed three feet in this century. Some island nations will be wiped out (oops). Yet experts officially hope that major cities could be protected from it, in the richest countries that is (re-oops), though at a cost in the trillions of dollars (contemplate the enormous works to protect London or Venice).

The New York Times mentioned the paper above, which say the ice sheets will start melting irreversibly within a decade, to argue, in Politically Correct fashion, that ice sheets respond slowly enough to changes in the climate that it simply takes longer than a century for large-scale melting to begin. As if that notion was in the paper. It is not. Far from it. As I have argued before, that notion is ridiculous.

Indeed, warm water will rush below the ice sheets in West Antarctica, and East Antarctica’s immense Wilkes and Aurora subglacial basins.

Subglacial Basins Are The Achilles’ Heel Of The Biosphere

Subglacial Basins Are The Achilles’ Heel Of The Biosphere

{WAIS = West Antarctica Ice Shelf; WB = Wilkes Basin; AB = Aurora Basin.]

Yet from that (tipping) point on, the paper found that thereafter, the sea would rise at the rate at a foot per decade, ten times faster than now, the New York Times admitted.

However the real text is much more alarming. Here is an extract:

“The Antarctic Ice Sheet is severely affected by high carbon emissions through both the marine ice-sheet instability and surface elevation feedbacks. On the time scale of millennia, large parts of the ice sheet melt or drain into the ocean, raising global sea level by several tens of meters. Most of the ice loss occurs within the first millennium, leading to high rates of sea-level rise during this period (Fig. 3; for more details, see also fig. S6). Our simulations show that cumulative emissions of 500 GtC commit us to long-term sea-level rise from Antarctica of 1.15 m within the next millenium, which is consistent with the sensitivity of 1.2 m/°C derived with a different ice-sheet model (33, 34). Paleo data suggest that similar rates of sea-level rise have occurred during past warm periods (35). If the 2°C target, corresponding to about 600 GtC of additional carbon release compared to year 2010, were attained, the millennial sea-level rise from Antarctica could likely be restricted to 2 m. In our simulations, this would keep the ice sheet below the threshold for the collapse of the Wilkes Basin. However, if that threshold is crossed, the Antarctic ice cover is significantly reduced in thickness and area (Fig. 4). If we were to release all currently attainable fossil fuel resources, Antarctica would become almost ice-free. It is unclear whether this dynamic discharge would be reversible and, if so, on which time scales.”

As I already said, since 2010, we have added another 230 Gigatons. So we are within eight year of the Wilkes ice sheet, the largest in the world, to become unstable. The paper admitted that about half the Antarctic ice sheet would melt or fall into the sea in the first thousand years.”

The New York Times’ interpretation  that it will take nearly a century for dramatic melting to start was obviously tainted. It is just driven by political Machiavellianism: let’s admit there is climate “change” just as there is sea level “change”, and misinform about the unfolding catastrophe (although Main Stream Media had to recently admit the snow pack in California last April was the lowest in at least 500 years). How do I know this? The scientific paper used computerized models of the huge ice sheets covering Antarctica and Greenland. It is the first paper to do so. Yet, according to the biased New York Times, it would have found exactly what the UN found, during this century… Although the UN did not incorporate the ice sheet melt models.

Once the ice sheet melting is incorporated, faster melting ought to have been predicted, for THIS century. However that grim prediction would have upset the powers that be. We don’t want that to happen. Now that they have the drone habit, killing throngs of people they know nothing about, who knows what’s coming next if one disparages them? Beheading and crucifixion at the most esteemed Saudi plutocracy?

For plutocrats, the Saudis are a model of Human Rights: thus they elected them to head the UN panel on Human Rights. And ice sheet melting is perfect: all great catastrophes call onto lining up fanatically behind whom Obama celebrates as our “leaders” (our masters). If a bit of engineered inflation could bring Hitler, imagine what an inflating ocean can bring! A great future for the few who rule us, tax-free.

Patrice Ayme’


Tags: , , , , , , ,

22 Responses to “Ice Sheets Melt: Academics Waking Up; New York Times In Denial”

  1. gmax Says:

    Some Jews obsessed with themselves will disparage you for using the word “holocaust” regarding the biosphere. Yet, that’s what is going on.

    Funny how wrong the interpretation the Times made. They learned nothing since Judy Miller was presenting the “facts” in Iraq by repeating what the White House said. In 2003

  2. indravaruna Says:

    “He presents Sarkozy’s election as President of the Republic as a kind of replacement of vestigial Gaullist French elites, which had some concerns for independence from the United States and a balanced policy towards Israel, by significantly-Jewish neoconservative ones.”

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      I am not familiar enough with the ambiance in France or Paris to comment intelligently.

      I am still shocked though, by Attali explaining Muslim problems will be solved in due time, when they establish networks of influence just as the Jews have. And also the Mafias I guess? My point is that, although “networks”, that is Mafias, are a pollution in a meritocratic republic, Attali makes them into something that is good, and an intrinsic part of civilization. That’s fully insane: it was the core of the accusation of the Nazis against the Jews! So here we have somebody who presents himself as a master Jew and master Frenchman, basically saying that the Nazis’ core accusation was entirely correct, and he taunts them, Nazis, post-mortem, by saying they have to make their own networks (something Nazis did with such gusto, Jews and their networks got vaporized!)

      I say, post-mortem. Because Nazis are dead. However, flaunting Jewishness as a great, worthy conspiracy as all too many Jews are doing in France (and not just BHL!) is an extremely dangerous route: officially Islam is equalitarian (in truth it’s about as equalitarian as Nazism, which also claimed to be equalitarian, and… anti-“plutocratic”).

      The other day there was on TV this 39 year old, very pretty, very tall and very well connected French woman, a writer, a red head, completely obsessing about her alleged Jewishness (and the conflict between Ashkenazy and the other type of Jew, from which she claimed to be the savory union). Her name is Freche, she has had official French government jobs, and there she was on TV, for 2 hours, a monument of impudence… I had to pinch myself. Do these people realize they are taunting their alleged opponents (and alleged victimizers)?

      So Nazis are dead, but, if Attali and the like speak too much the way they do, they are going to resurrect Nazism soon. (I am not anti-Attali, BTW. I consider him very intelligent, just as BHL, or Freche. I analyze what they say. However, sado-masochism lead people on the path of impudence…)

      • EugenR Says:

        The Nazis are dead, but so are the European Jews, and their culture, that enriched fro 2000 years the European culture. From all those Jewish communities all is left are the stories of Bashevis Singer,
        If someone things that the “Jews” is all about networking, be it a Jew or a neo-nazi, like your commentator above is (somehow i tend to believe he is a Muslim neonazi), i would suggest him to try to understand what part of his identity originates from the Jewish cultural heritage. Then i would suggest him to tear it out, and look at himself in the mirror.

        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          That Muslims are would-be Jews is pretty obvious if one reads the Qur’an: it’s all about Muhammad teaching the Jews and Christians he knows better about their god (hence some resentment on both sides).

          The one talking about networking among Jews being the big advantage of Jews was Attali himself (confession: I had no idea Attali was a Jew, for decades, before there he was on TV explaining being a Jew was a big advantage because of the networks…) Attali talked about this extensively and calmly. One has to understand I view Attali as one of Frnace’s greatest intellectuals nowadays (OK, they all rather small, hahahaha)

          That European Jews were exterminated is a fact in Germany, and much of Eastern Europe. In a place such as France, it’s more complicated, as the history of the Jews is so ancient, there, that Jewish culture penetration is very deep (Charlemagne was called “David” by people intimate with him). And not just indirectly by Christianism.

      • dominique deux Says:

        let me suggest you have a look at Indra’s “source”.

        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          I looked, actually. It sounded all very fishy, but I have not time to hunt down sh…ness, bullsh…ness, and fishiness…
          Was surprised to learn Sarko was quarter “Jew”, thought he was half… Forgotten was just 1/4. Not that I care in any shape, or form. I struggled more with a German Jihadist, who tried his best, for a while, hiding his true nature…
          I really wonder if Sarko will pull it through, and put again his incompetence at the helm.

        • Kevin Berger Says:

          Aucun rapport, mais j’espère que vos ennuis de santé sont désormais derrière vous; au plaisir de vous lire ici ou là!

  3. Kevin Berger Says:

    FYI, there’s a paragraph repeating twice (“As I said”). In other news, to add insult to injury :

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Kevin: Thanks for telling me that. For reasons not explained, the text was contaminated with hidden code, and I struggled with that for 24 hours: it would modify itself when I copied it from the master I had. When I tried to modify it on WordPress, it would refuse to obey: a contaminated picture could not be removed, etc. Finally it succeeded to duplicate itself a bit at some point (not necessarily when I looked at it).

      The attitude of the New York Times is clear: manipulate towards denial as far as they think they can get away with from its pseudo-astute readership. The particular case of the interpretation of that scientific article was transparent: nowhere in the original paper it is said nothing much will happen for a century. Quite the opposite. Then we will have all people reading the New York Times including lots of American leaders, believing the climate problem is a future problem… Whereas arguably the 11 million Syrian refugees are part of it (desiccation played a role in the dissatisfaction…)

  4. Paul Handover Says:

    Powerful post and one that I would like to republish over on Learning from Dogs, with your permission.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Absolutely Paul! Please republish it! Glad to hear from you! I had lots of problem with the text from hidden code hiding in the master, and which would show only when I tried to publish on WP. But now it’s fixed. If you see any typo or stuff you don’t like, please tell me. Reader feedback, or, I should say, collaborator feedback, as you know, is paramount. It has been a bit crazy here, and I kick myself once a day when I fail to go to LfD!

      • Paul Handover Says:

        Thanks Patrice and, hey, don’t beat yourself up about not visiting LfD!! I’m just as bad in return! Anyway, going to republish it next week once I am clear about how it should be introduced – conscious of a range of emotions floating around my mind. Thank you, once again.

        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          Waiting for your emotions to float my way, they are always very interesting. Including your sympathy for the monarchy, which baffles me, as it does not remind me of the rest of you! ;-)! And I guess you are not familiar with Lord Ridley.

          Lord Ridley came up with a book on “generalized evolution” (he has not just a coal mine, but a PhD in biology). An analogy with Relativity/General Relativity (which he explicitly makes). I guess he feels he, and his fellow Lords, evolved, in his eyes, as a superior species… Funny until one realizes he gets a full page in the Wall Street Journal ( by elite most read newspaper) every six months…

  5. The most beautiful dagger of them all! | Learning from Dogs Says:

    […] this in mind, let me turn now to a recent post from Patrice Ayme in which he spells out very clearly the metaphorical dagger hanging above all our […]

  6. Patrice Ayme Says:

    [Sent to Learning From Dogs.]

    The most galling aspect of it all is that, thanks to the growth in capability of wind, and, mostly solar PV, the clean solution is at hand. If only banks stopped financing “derivatives”, they could finance massively the PV industry (it does require reservoirs and power lines; as the latter are unsightly, they can be put underground, but that’s more expensive… Hence the need for banks).

    China has been able to develop massively clean energy in the last few years, because the banks there are forced to invest in the real economy. In particular, Chinese Photo Voltaic has conquered the world, thanks to this huge investment.

    • Paul Handover Says:

      That’s an important point about the banks that I hadn’t thought of before. But surely, the reduction in CO2 emissions from transportation alone is impossible in the sort of timescale facing us?
      Paul Handover

      • Patrice Ayme Says:

        September 29, 2015 at 04:43


        There are plenty of alternatives for transportation. Some nearly developed (hydrogen fuel cells) some in existence (Tesla is bringing out its six person SUV today; its range is 240 miles). Diesel produces much less CO2. With urea catalysis, it makes little NO2 and other pollutants. VW stopped deliberately to use it, for marketing reasons, it says, but that’s their problem. More fundamental research on batteries and capacitors would help. Even though Airbus is on track to produce a large hybrid electric plane (and will sell its small electric plane next year).
        If alternative motorization got as much subsidies as one tenth of what fossil fuels get, alternatives would be deployed quickly…

  7. Under Water | Patrice Ayme's Thoughts Says:

    […] melting of Antarctica just got a timid support in the first official academic study of the subject. They admit that, instead of taking 10,000 years, catastrophic melting is only a few decades away. (I persist, and sign, that this is a ridiculous […]

What do you think? Please join the debate! The simplest questions are often the deepest!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: