4 ms·
How much had it already lost before those two years? If the same rate of loss continues, how long will it take to reach 100%?
by irrational 3y ago
How much had it already lost before those two years? If the same rate of loss continues, how long will it take to reach 100%?
- hyperhello 3y agoInfinity if it’s a decay series, or 18 years if it’s a constant.
- civilitty 3y agoIt wouldn't be an infinite decay even in a world with spherical cows because the ice mass is the value decaying and eventually the ice is no longer heavy enough to be called a glacier.
- TeMPOraL 3y agoWhich makes estimating this particularly tricky (and pointless) because there's no obvious point at which a mass of ice turns from "glacier" to "not glacier". Better to pick something erring far towards "totally obviously not glacier" as a reference point.
- mrpopo 3y agoSorry to break it up to you, but the warming is accelerating, as the amount of GHGs is increasing year-by-year. So it may take even less.
- landemva 3y agoClimate and weather are cyclic, not linear.
- Daishiman 3y agoThe increase in CO2 is linear and as long as that continues to be the changes will be linear or higher.
- landemva 3y agoWhat increase? EPA says USA has reduced CO2 emissions over past quarter century. https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indica...
- unforeseen9991 3y agoThe USA offshored it. And the USA is not the entire world.
- landemva 3y agoTheir prices are artificially low due to their manufacturing pollution which negatively affects the entire world. Maybe consider environmental parity tariffs against those polluting countries. Or is The West too addicted to cheap stuff?
- karaterobot 3y agoWould it ever reach 100% in anything short of a runaway greenhouse scenario?
- mrpopo 3y agoWhy wouldn't it? The glaciers on the Kilimanjaro are expected to melt completely in the next few years.
- irrational 3y agoI guess that depends on the definition of a glacier. If the ice/snow completely melts then I assume that would count as 100%. Even if it is replenished the following winter, if it all melts again the following summer then I don't think anyone would call that a glacier.
- tastyfreeze 3y agoThe last time we think Earth was completely ice free was 35 million years ago.
- olalonde 3y agoIt's not a "dramatic acceleration", unlike the article claims. It's a fairly linear long term trend: https://doi.glamos.ch/figures/volume_evolution.pdf https://doi.glamos.ch/figures/volume_evolution.pdf. The past two years are slight outliers.
- greedo 3y agoIf this is a tipping point, then the way things charted in the past don't really matter...
- olalonde 3y agoYes, but there's no reason to think so. Weather is highly variable in the short term, that's why climate analysis is done on multi-decade scales.
- Daishiman 3y agoIt is a continuing trend from the increase of CO2 since pre-industrial levels.