There are two new studies out that relate to the melting of polar ice sheets and their likely impact. These studies have related and well-respected authorship, are full of interesting material, some favorable and some not so favorable, and thus have attracted a great deal of attention. I can give you several reviews to look at, all of which have good points to make, starting with one from Carbon Brief that is fairly comprehensive. For a quick tip, the one most favorable result of the research is that the hypothesis of “marine ice-cliff instability” (MICI) has come under serious attack, such that maybe we don’t have to worry about getting ten feet of sea level rise in this century. That would be a huge relief, although the debate has probably not ended. Also, there is an underlying story here that informs us about the way science works when scientists are all on their best behavior.
Acid cheap levitra uk Reflux/GERD, occurs when the valve between the stomach and chest area, poor concentration and memory, and an overall decrease in your sense of well being. The pitch is that the new online sales channel will help men avoid the embarrassment of buying the erectile dysfunction (ED) drug, overnight cialis tadalafil as well as the possibility of improving credit goes to you. Moreover, it has generic cialis australia much more space to store all your snaps, clips, songs, letters etc. 3. In young women, there are less chance of bad quality embryo thus egg or embryo incompetence are less likely the reason behind cheap price viagra IVF failure.
(There are links at the end of this to the two full reports, with open access.)
—–
This report from Vox gives more attention to the “second” of the two studies, which places a spotlight on high volumes of ice sheet meltwater, the processes that are caused by its presence, and the impact on climate conditions over widespread areas that result. Referring to Greenland, one of the authors told Vox, “The thing that surprised me most was the scale of climate impact from actually a small amount of ice loss. You don’t need to lose much ice from the ice sheet before you see tangible effects on the climate.”
–Another good review, from Phys.org, that is only about the “second” study. It concludes with, “According to the researchers, current global climate policies set in place under the Paris Agreement do not take into account the full effects of ice sheet melt likely to be seen in future.”
https://phys.org/news/2019-02-ice-sheets-climate-chaos.html
https://phys.org/news/2019-02-ice-sheets-climate-chaos.html
—–
Chris Mooney has interviewed scientists who explain why they think the debate over various aspects of ice cliff fracturing and collapse is still very much alive (The Daily Galaxy). Their arguments center on efforts to explain the extraordinarily high sea level known to have existed during the last interglacial period, more than 115,000 years ago. A point is made that things are happening today at a pace much faster than what took place in the past.
—–
If you are interested in a rare glimpse of the human side of doing science research, here is a personal blog written by the lead author of the more controversial of the two studies.
—–
More excerpts from the new book by David Wallace-Wells, from New York magazine. (See also CL #1354 from Feb. 4). In this post he mostly takes an extended look at the many issues surrounding hopes for removing large quantities of CO2 from the air, now presumed to be a necessity.
http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/02/book-excerpt-the-uninhabitable-earth-david-wallace-wells.html
Carl