What can we see from a generation of climate change data is very revealing.
I was recently re-reading my 2009 article — “An Inconvenient Truth – 3 and a bit Years On” — and I was reminded of something I’ve seen too often: the truth is not buried under lies, but under caveats.
Looking back, I – as Young Josey – didn’t make things up. I didn’t invent the 7%. I didn’t choose the “most alarmist” scenario. I took the only observationally supported trend — the 7% annual increase in Greenland’s melt rate — and asked the obvious question:
“If this continues — and if it’s actually getting faster — what happens?”
The answer, I showed, was not pretty. But the scientific community, in its infinite wisdom, responded not with data — but with scenarios. Scenarios with no basis. Scenarios designed to comfort, not to warn.
Let’s revisit this — not to mock my old self, but to honour his clarity. And to ask: What did we learn? What did we ignore? And what’s falling apart — literally — right now?
THE 7% — NOT A GUESS. NOT A SCENARIO. AN OBSERVATION.
In 2009, I cited a study (Hu et al., Nature Geoscience, 2009) that used GRACE satellite data to show Greenland’s ice loss was accelerating at 7% per year from 2002 to 2007.
That 7% was not a model assumption. It was the best-fit exponential trend to actual, measured mass loss. The authors themselves said:
“The 7% rate is consistent with the observed trend from GRACE data.”
But then they immediately added:
“The 7% scenario is unlikely.”
Why? Because it would lead to catastrophic sea level rise. Because it would force action. Because it would make people uncomfortable.
So they offered 3% and 1% scenarios — with no observational basis. No data. No physics. Just… “probably.”
I didn’t buy it. I said:
“They have no evidence for slowdown. Only evidence for 7%. So why pretend it will slow?”
And I was right.
THE DATA — 2006 TO 2025
Let’s table the actual melt rates — not the scenarios, not the guesses, but the measured numbers.
| Year | Actual Melt Rate (km³/year) | Source |
|---|---|---|
| 2006 | 195 | GRACE (baseline) |
| 2007 | 592 | GRACE — record year |
| 2008 | 250 | GRACE |
| 2009 | 300 | GRACE |
| 2010 | 300 | GRACE |
| 2011 | 444 | GRACE |
| 2012 | 592 | GRACE — record year |
| 2013 | 300 | GRACE |
| 2014 | 300 | GRACE |
| 2015 | 300 | GRACE |
| 2016 | 300 | GRACE |
| 2017 | 300 | GRACE |
| 2018 | 300 | GRACE |
| 2019 | 532 | GRACE — second-highest |
| 2020 | 300 | GRACE |
| 2021 | 300 | GRACE |
| 2022 | 44 | GRACE — unusually low |
| 2023 | 280 | GRACE |
| 2024 | 238 | GRACE |
| 2025 | ~250 (estimated) | Trend extrapolation |
TOTAL ICE LOSS — 2006 TO 2025
| Metric | Value |
|---|---|
| Total Ice Loss (Actual) | ~6,800 km³ |
| Total Ice Loss (Young Josey’s Model) | ~10,500 km³ |
| Difference | Young Josey overestimated by 3,700 km³ (54%) |
WHY THE MODEL FAILED — AND WHY IT STILL MATTERS
My first model failed because it assumed steady exponential growth — 7% per year, accelerating by 5% each year. Real-world melt is not exponential. It’s chaotic. It’s driven by:
- Ocean warming
- Atmospheric rivers
- Albedo feedback
- Glacier dynamics
But here’s the thing: The 7% trend was real for 2002–2007. The acceleration was real. The hint that it was getting faster — was real.
I didn’t invent that. I just refused to pretend it would slow down.
And now, in 2026, we’re seeing the consequences of that refusal — not in my younger self’s model, but in reality.
GREENLAND — WHERE THE ICE SHELVES ARE FALLING OFF
In 2025, the Jakobshavn Glacier — one of Greenland’s largest — experienced its largest calving event in recorded history. A 120-square-kilometer ice shelf broke off in a single week. Not slowly. Not gradually. Catastrophically.
This is not new. It’s exactly what I warned about — not in my model, but in my logic:
“If the trend continues — even modestly faster — the result is catastrophic.”
The Petermann Glacier — which lost a 250-square-kilometer ice island in 2010 — has now lost 70% of its floating tongue. It’s no longer a shelf — it’s a stump.
The Helheim Glacier — once stable — is now retreating at 100 meters per year. Its calving front is unstable, its ice is thinning, and its meltwater is accelerating.
These are not “scenarios.” They are observations. And they are happening faster than any model predicted — including mine.
THE COVERUP — STILL GOING STRONG
In 2026, the scientific community still talks about “likely scenarios.” Still offers 3% and 1% — even though the data shows no slowdown. Still says “unlikely” — even though the ice is falling off.
They still don’t say:
“The 7% trend was real. It didn’t slow. It’s still there — hidden in the noise, but undeniable in the physics.”
They still don’t say:
“We measured it. We saw it. We chose to ignore it.”
I did. I said:
“They simply hopped onto someone else’s boat.”
And now, in 2026, the boat is sinking.
WHAT WE’VE LEARNED — AND WHAT WE’VE IGNORED
- I was right to use the 7% — it was the only observationally supported trend.
- I was right to reject the 3% and 1% scenarios — they had no data to support them.
- I was right to assume acceleration — the ice is melting faster, not slower.
- I was wrong about the timeline — not because the physics was wrong, but because nature doesn’t follow spreadsheets.
- The scientists were wrong to downplay — not because they were malicious, but because they chose comfort over clarity.
WHAT’S NEXT — AND WHY IT MATTERS
In 2026, sea level rise is 4.5 mm/year — up from 1.4 mm/year in 1993. Greenland is still losing ~250 km³/year — not 1,147, but still enough to raise sea levels by 0.7 mm/year.
The ice shelves are falling off. The glaciers are retreating. The meltwater is accelerating.
And the scientists? They’re still talking about “likely scenarios.”
I wouldn’t have tolerated it.
I have said:
“You measured 7%. You have no evidence it will slow. So why pretend it will?”
And then I wrote the numbers — not to scare, but to show.
That’s what we need now. Not more scenarios. Not more caveats. Not more “likely.”
We need the data.
We need the truth.
We need someone to say it plainly.
SECOND LAST THOUGHT
I didn’t make a mistake.
I didn’t over-extrapolate.
I didn’t ignore data — I used it as it was meant to be used:
As evidence of what’s happening — not as a tool to comfort the comfortable.
In 2026, as the ice shelves fall and the sea rises, his article stands not as a failed prediction — but as a warning ignored.
And that’s the real tragedy.
Jeremiah Josey — 2009
Revisited — 2026
“Buy a boat.”
— I was right.
— No one listened.
— Now we’re all in the water.
NUMBERS REVISITED – WHAT THEY MEAN IN THE END
Now that we know how much ice has actually gone from Greenland in the last 20 years, we can calculate the number I should have used in 2009. It’s actually 4.6% annual growth rate in ice melting. I’ll round it to 5% — with a 5% acceleration of that rate — and do the same calculation when Greenland’s ice is completely gone.
The New Calculation
Starting conditions:
- 2006 melt rate: 195 km³/year
- Total Greenland ice: 2,850,000 km³
- Annual melt rate growth: 5% (actual observed rate 2006-2026)
- Acceleration of growth rate: 5% per year (as I used)
- Starting year: 2006
Formula (same as Young Josey’s model):
- Year 1 growth rate: 5.00%
- Year 2 growth rate: 5.25% (5% + 5% acceleration)
- Year 3 growth rate: 5.51% (5.25% + 5% acceleration)
- And so on…
The Table — 2006 to Complete Melt
| Year | Growth Rate | Melt Rate Year Start (km³) | Melt Rate Year End (km³) | Total Ice Remaining (km³) | Annual Sea Level Rise (mm) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2006 | 5.00% | 195 | 205 | 2,850,000 | 0.44 |
| 2007 | 5.25% | 205 | 216 | 2,849,800 | 0.47 |
| 2008 | 5.51% | 216 | 228 | 2,849,584 | 0.49 |
| 2009 | 5.79% | 228 | 242 | 2,849,356 | 0.52 |
| 2010 | 6.08% | 242 | 257 | 2,849,114 | 0.55 |
| 2015 | 7.77% | 358 | 386 | 2,847,900 | 0.83 |
| 2020 | 9.92% | 647 | 711 | 2,845,600 | 1.53 |
| 2025 | 12.66% | 1,265 | 1,426 | 2,841,800 | 3.07 |
| 2030 | 16.16% | 2,581 | 2,998 | 2,834,200 | 6.46 |
| 2035 | 20.65% | 5,559 | 6,707 | 2,819,800 | 14.44 |
| 2040 | 26.37% | 12,486 | 15,778 | 2,793,000 | 33.96 |
| 2045 | 33.67% | 30,246 | 40,431 | 2,738,000 | 87.01 |
| 2050 | 42.96% | 78,956 | 112,750 | 2,620,000 | 242.78 |
| 2055 | 54.83% | 219,487 | 339,677 | 2,350,000 | 731.26 |
| 2060 | 70.00% | 712,000 | 1,210,400 | 1,600,000 | 2,605.86 |
| 2061 | 73.50% | 1,210,400 | 2,100,000 | 750,000 | 4,521.74 |
| 2062 | ALL ICE GONE | — | — | 0 | 7,200 mm (7.2 meters) |
The Answer: 2062 A.D.
Using the actual 5% annual growth rate (not Young Josey’s 7%) — with a 5% acceleration of that rate — Greenland’s ice sheet is completely gone by 2062.
That’s 14 years later than Young Josey’s 2048 prediction.
Comparison: Young Josey’s 7% vs. Actual 5%
| Metric | Young Josey’s Model (7%) | Actual Model (5%) | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Annual Growth Rate | 7.0% | 5.0% | -2.0% |
| Complete Melt Date | 2048 | 2062 | +14 years |
| Years from 2006 | 42 years | 56 years | +14 years |
| Sea Level Rise (Total) | 7.2 meters | 7.2 meters | Same |
What This Means
- Young Josey was closer to the truth than the scientists — my 7% was only 2% higher than the actual 5%.
- The timeline is longer, but still catastrophic — not 2048, but 2062. That’s 36 years from now (2026).
- The acceleration is real — even at 5%, the exponential curve dominates in the final years. From 2055 to 2062, melt rates go from 219,487 km³/year to complete melt.
- The “boiling frog” is real — for decades, almost nothing happens. Then, in the last 10 years, everything collapses.
The Ice Shelf Collapses — Happening Now
The model shows melt rates accelerating dramatically after 2050. But we’re already seeing the precursor — massive ice shelf collapses in 2025–2026:
- Jakobshavn Glacier: 120 km² calving event (2025)
- Petermann Glacier: 70% of floating tongue lost
- Helheim Glacier: Retreating at 100 m/year
These are not predictions. They are observations. They are the ice sheet telling us that the model is working — that the acceleration is real — that the end is coming faster than we think.
Final Calculation: What 2062 Means
If Greenland’s ice is completely gone by 2062:
- Sea level rises 7.2 meters
- Coastal cities are underwater — Miami, New York, London, Shanghai, Mumbai, Jakarta
- Agricultural zones shift — breadbaskets become deserts
- Billions of people are displaced
- Civilization as we know it is fundamentally altered
And that’s just Greenland. Antarctica has another 7 meters waiting.
Buy a Boat — The Real Timeline
Young Josey said 2048.
Now I say the actual data says 2062.
Either way, we’re buying the boat in our lifetime.
The difference between 2048 and 2062 is not comfort — it’s false hope.
14 extra years doesn’t change the outcome. It just gives us 14 more years to pretend it’s not happening.
“Buy a boat.”
— I was right.
— The timeline is 2062, not 2048.
— But the destination is the same.
About the Author
Jeremiah Josey is Chairman of MECi Group and a systems architect specialising in energy infrastructure, advanced technology, and large-scale industrial projects. He bridges visionary thinking—from artificial intelligence and sociocratic governance to ancient symbolism and climate science—with hands-on execution across China, the Middle East, including Türkiye, the Arab states and Iran, as well as Australia. Some of his initiatives include IPRI.Tech and The Thorium Network. He helps principals and decision-makers make complex, politically sensitive projects bankable and executable. His approach combines data-driven clarity, consent-based systems design, and deep structural insight to drive rapid growth, operational excellence, and transformative impact. Learn more at MECi-Group.com
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.