1st it is 10 years, then 100 years, now it could be imminent....And this is settled science?

[Sunsettommy]

I have not gone quiet at all (though my several of my posts have disappeared). When I ask how you think the WAIS formed in the first place, I mean, in the face of all that volcanic heating, how did two miles of ice build up over millions of years?

It is an interesting question you bring up.

However the line of Volcanoes are mostly in West Antarctica section, that erupts intermittently, with all that ice cover help keep the heat in the water UNDERNEATH the ice a lot longer. Since most Volcanoes do not erupt for long at a time, there is plenty of time for snow and ice to accumulate. It is a big continent with 34 million years of time to build up.

Most of the continent have no visible Volcanoes in it, which is about 80% of the surface area, thus snow and ice accumulate.

 

[Crick]

WAIS' net ice volume is currently decreasing. Would you suggest this is an abnormal time, geologically? Hawaii and Yellowstone's Steamboat might suggest such a thing.

 

[Sunsettommy]

WAIS' net ice volume is currently decreasing. Would you suggest this is an abnormal time, geologically? Hawaii and Yellowstone's Steamboat might suggest such a thing.

Overall it is increasing as published papers say so:

WAIS' net ice volume is currently decreasing. Would you suggest this is an abnormal time, geologically? Hawaii and Yellowstone's Steamboat might suggest such a thing.

No it is NOT abnormal, it has melted back a number of times in the distant past without any serious problems to the planet.

Meanwhile:

Deep Bore Into Antarctica Finds Freezing Ice, Not Melting as Expected

By Douglas Fox
PUBLISHED February 16, 2018

Excerpt:

Scientists have peered into one of the least-explored swaths of ocean on Earth, a vast region located off the coast of West Antarctica. It is locked beneath a crust of ice larger than Spain and more than 1,000 feet thick, making its waters perpetually dark—and extremely difficult for humans to access. Now, a team of researchers has bored a hole through the ice and sampled the ocean beneath it. Their work could shed light on a poorly understood, but ominous episode in Antarctica’s recent past.

LINK

We have still a lot to learn about the region.

 

[Crick]

From your NatGeo article:

"But as the camera passed through the bottom of the hole, it showed the underside of the ice adorned with a glittering layer of flat ice crystals—like a jumble of snowflakes—evidence that in this particular place, sea water is actually freezing onto the base of the ice instead of melting it."
...
"... and this observation could help explain that: if a few inches of sea water periodically freezes onto the bottom of its ice, this could buffer it from thinning more rapidly."

So, the discovery of ice crystals on the bottom of the Ross shelf at that location did not indicate that the Ross is thickening; but that it may not be thinning as rapidly as formerly thought.

Keep in mind that the conclusion that these shelves are thinning is the result of direct measurements, not just theory.

 

[Sunsettommy]

From your NatGeo article:

"But as the camera passed through the bottom of the hole, it showed the underside of the ice adorned with a glittering layer of flat ice crystals—like a jumble of snowflakes—evidence that in this particular place, sea water is actually freezing onto the base of the ice instead of melting it."
...
"... and this observation could help explain that: if a few inches of sea water periodically freezes onto the bottom of its ice, this could buffer it from thinning more rapidly."

So, the discovery of ice crystals on the bottom of the Ross shelf at that location did not indicate that the Ross is thickening; but that it may not be thinning as rapidly as formerly thought.

Keep in mind that the conclusion that these shelves are thinning is the result of direct measurements, not just theory.

Keep in mind that it is simply too cold for much melting as shown many times before. The shelves are waaaay out over the ocean waters, an unstable situation, it is not surprising they are going to break up eventually. You need to stop worrying about natural events.

You and many warmists have NEVER looked at the whole picture of the region since what melting there is comes from irregular influx of warm water and infrequent volcanic eruptions. Air temperature simply too cold to be able to melt much of anything.

The scaremongering over the region needs to stop, or science research in the region will continue to suffer.

 

[Crick]

The influx of warm water, melting the underside of the sheet, is not sporadic.

 

[Old Rocks]

Ice and volcanoes coexist quite well. In the crater of the active volcano in Washington State, Mt. St. Helens, there is a large glacier.

Every once in a while, in Iceland, volcanoes under the ice erupt, and briefly, make a hole in the ice, melting quite a bit of water. Then they cease erupting and the ice forms over them again. They ice that they melt is not measured in gigatons, as is the ice that both Greenland and Antarctica is. No, the volcanoes are not responsible for the large ice loss in either icecap.

 

[SSDD]

Ice and volcanoes coexist quite well. In the crater of the active volcano in Washington State, Mt. St. Helens, there is a large glacier.

Every once in a while, in Iceland, volcanoes under the ice erupt, and briefly, make a hole in the ice, melting quite a bit of water. Then they cease erupting and the ice forms over them again. They ice that they melt is not measured in gigatons, as is the ice that both Greenland and Antarctica is. No, the volcanoes are not responsible for the large ice loss in either icecap.

Do you actually believe the bullshit you spew?

How much energy is released by that single volcano in washington vs the energy released under greenland and antarctica? Any idea? Any at all? Hello???

By the way rocks...the Arctic alone has gained enough ice in the past two years to provide every human being on earth with an ice cube weighing 250 tons. Two TRILLION cubic meters of growth in the Arctic ice since 2016...and you are worried about what exactly?

 

[Crick]

We are worried about the collapse of the ice shelves allowing that 2 trillion tons and the 2.65e16 cubic meters already there, to float out into the ocean and flood the world's coastlines to a depth of 20 or 30 feet.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Ice and volcanoes coexist quite well. In the crater of the active volcano in Washington State, Mt. St. Helens, there is a large glacier.

Every once in a while, in Iceland, volcanoes under the ice erupt, and briefly, make a hole in the ice, melting quite a bit of water. Then they cease erupting and the ice forms over them again. They ice that they melt is not measured in gigatons, as is the ice that both Greenland and Antarctica is. No, the volcanoes are not responsible for the large ice loss in either icecap.

Mt. St. Helens is no longer erupting explosively, has NOT for over 20 years. The 2004-2008 events was the last time it showed any eruptive phase and it was rather gentile. The region gets copious snowfall, which is why there is a small glacier forming that was split in two by the extruding lava dome which never surfaced.

 

[Sunsettommy]

We are worried about the collapse of the ice shelves allowing that 2 trillion tons and the 2.65e16 cubic meters already there, to float out into the ocean and flood the world's coastlines to a depth of 20 or 30 feet.

Yes only warmists get worried about very low possibilities that are highly speculative. You have forgotten the number of reported collapses in the last few decades, nothing horrible happened. Since a large portion of the Ice SHELVES are already in the ocean waters, there is little sea level to add since they are ALREADY displacing it with their mass.

Here is a simple report from Antarctic Glaciers website:

"Ice shelf collapse
Several of the ice shelves around Antarctica have recently collapsed dramatically, rather than retreating in a slow and steady manner. Larsen A collapsed in 1995[6], and Larsen B Ice Shelf famously collapsed in 2002. It has shrunk from 12,000 km2 in 1963 to 2400 km2 in 2010[4]. During February 2002, 3250 km2 were lost through iceberg calving and fragmentation. In the figure below, you can see the blue, mottled appearance of the ice shelf in the 2002 image, caused by the exposure of deeper blue glacier ice.

Several ice shelves have now collapsed around the Antarctic Peninsula (Table 1). Their collapse has made it possible to core the sub-shelf sediments to investigate whether these collapses are part of normal ice-shelf behaviour. It appears that the more northerly ice shelves, such as Prince Gustav Ice Shelf, have indeed previously collapsed, resulting in open-marine organisms living in Prince Gustav Channel for a short period 5000 years ago[7]. However, the more southerly Larsen B Ice Shelf appears to have remained a fixture throughout the Holocene[8]. This suggests that certain thresholds have been passed, with environmental changes throughout the Antarctic Peninsula now surpassing any that have occurred before."

Since we have so little documented geologic history of PAST Sea Ice shelves and their possible oscillatory nature, we can't say for sure what is "normal" for the region.

 

[Crick]

[

"Ice shelf collapse
Several of the ice shelves around Antarctica have recently collapsed dramatically, rather than retreating in a slow and steady manner. Larsen A collapsed in 1995[6], and Larsen B Ice Shelf famously collapsed in 2002. It has shrunk from 12,000 km2 in 1963 to 2400 km2 in 2010[4]. During February 2002, 3250 km2 were lost through iceberg calving and fragmentation. In the figure below, you can see the blue, mottled appearance of the ice shelf in the 2002 image, caused by the exposure of deeper blue glacier ice.

Several ice shelves have now collapsed around the Antarctic Peninsula (Table 1). Their collapse has made it possible to core the sub-shelf sediments to investigate whether these collapses are part of normal ice-shelf behaviour. It appears that the more northerly ice shelves, such as Prince Gustav Ice Shelf, have indeed previously collapsed, resulting in open-marine organisms living in Prince Gustav Channel for a short period 5000 years ago[7]. However, the more southerly Larsen B Ice Shelf appears to have remained a fixture throughout the Holocene[8]. This suggests that certain thresholds have been passed, with environmental changes throughout the Antarctic Peninsula now surpassing any that have occurred before."

I'm well aware that the ice shelves themselves will do nothing to sea level. The same cannot be said for the glaciers they bottle up ashore. Thus my figure of 2.65e16 cubic meters of ice. And since isostasy has pushed large areas of the Antarctic bedrock below sea level, the possibility exists that the unstoppable retreat of the WAIS grounding line could proceed catastrophically and put enough ice in the ocean to raise sea level globally by 16 feet. Suddenly.

But, of course, you're not worried. Because you're way smarter and infinitely more honest than all those scientists, aren't you?

 

[Sunsettommy]

[

"Ice shelf collapse
Several of the ice shelves around Antarctica have recently collapsed dramatically, rather than retreating in a slow and steady manner. Larsen A collapsed in 1995[6], and Larsen B Ice Shelf famously collapsed in 2002. It has shrunk from 12,000 km2 in 1963 to 2400 km2 in 2010[4]. During February 2002, 3250 km2 were lost through iceberg calving and fragmentation. In the figure below, you can see the blue, mottled appearance of the ice shelf in the 2002 image, caused by the exposure of deeper blue glacier ice.

Several ice shelves have now collapsed around the Antarctic Peninsula (Table 1). Their collapse has made it possible to core the sub-shelf sediments to investigate whether these collapses are part of normal ice-shelf behaviour. It appears that the more northerly ice shelves, such as Prince Gustav Ice Shelf, have indeed previously collapsed, resulting in open-marine organisms living in Prince Gustav Channel for a short period 5000 years ago[7]. However, the more southerly Larsen B Ice Shelf appears to have remained a fixture throughout the Holocene[8]. This suggests that certain thresholds have been passed, with environmental changes throughout the Antarctic Peninsula now surpassing any that have occurred before."

I'm well aware that the ice shelves themselves will do nothing to sea level. The same cannot be said for the glaciers they bottle up ashore. Thus my figure of 2.65e16 cubic meters of ice. And since isostasy has pushed large areas of the Antarctic bedrock below sea level, the possibility exists that the unstoppable retreat of the WAIS grounding line could proceed catastrophically and put enough ice in the ocean to raise sea level globally by 16 feet. Suddenly.

But, of course, you're not worried. Because you're way smarter and infinitely more honest than all those scientists, aren't you?

I gave you a hint, and you missed it completely.

Another hint: How much past history of the region do they have and has it happened before?

Here is another more obvious hint: How much cooler is it now than 8,000 years ago?

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

The locals are feeling the heat already..
South Florida’s Real Estate Reckoning Could Be Closer Than You Think
Rising sea levels and increased storm activity, both symptoms of GLOBAL WARMING, are causing headaches for the silvertails with waterfront properties.
They'll be crying out for Government help, any time now...

Rising sea levels and increased storm activity, both symptoms of GLOBAL WARMING,

After Hurricane Katrina, the prediction was rising sea levels and increased storm activity but that was over 10 years ago. You know, maybe 1 year your prediction might come true......Bwaaaahhhhaaahhhaaaaaa....

 

[abu afak]

Here is a simple report from Antarctic Glaciers website:

"Ice shelf collapse
Several of the ice shelves around Antarctica have Recently collapsed Dramatically, Rather than retreating in a slow and steady manner. Larsen A collapsed in 1995, and Larsen B Ice Shelf famously collapsed in 2002. It has Shrunk from 12,000 km2 in 1963 to 2400 km2 in 2010. During February 2002, 3250 km2 were lost through iceberg calving and fragmentation....Several ice shelves have now Collapsed around the Antarctic Peninsula (Table 1). ....

And you think this helps your Denier side! It's downright justified alarmism.
`

I gave you a hint, and you missed it completely.

Another hint: How much past history of the region do they have and has it happened before?

Here is another more obvious hint: How much cooler is it now than 8,000 years ago?

Of Course, Sea Level was near 200' Higher 8000 years ago.
One Quarter (even 1/10th) that means devastation now.

The early Holocene sea level rise - ScienceDirect
The early Holocene sea level rise - ScienceDirect
by DE Smith - ‎2011 - ‎Cited by 127 - ‎Related articles
The causes, anatomy and consequences of the early Holocene sea level rise (EHSLR) are reviewed. The rise, of ca 60m, took place over most of the Earth as ...​

Ooops!
`

 

[Crick]

Another hint: How much past history of the region do they have and has it happened before?

Here is another more obvious hint: How much cooler is it now than 8,000 years ago?

I don't particularly care whether or not it has happened before. It's happening now and it is a risk to human culture that now exists. In the next 80 years or so, 650 million people - them and all the infrastructure on which their lives depend, are going to have to be moved.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Another hint: How much past history of the region do they have and has it happened before?

Here is another more obvious hint: How much cooler is it now than 8,000 years ago?

I don't particularly care whether or not it has happened before. It's happening now and it is a risk to human culture that now exists. In the next 80 years or so, 650 million people - them and all the infrastructure on which their lives depend, are going to have to be moved.

What you really mean is that past geologic history of the region is not relevant to you because you are into chicken little bullcrap..

You just told us that you have no credible basis for concern or the interest in the geologic history of the region.

It is clear that what is happening now and into the past are all the same, it NATURAL and you know it!

 

[Crick]

It is clear that what is happening now and into the past are all the same, it NATURAL and you know it!

Bullshit.

1) There is no natural forcing with sufficinet magnitude to have caused the observed warming

2) The net sum of all natural forcing would produce cooling, were it not being overwhelmed by the greenhouse effect driven by human CO2 emissions and deforestation

 

[Sunsettommy]

It is clear that what is happening now and into the past are all the same, it NATURAL and you know it!

Bullshit.

1) There is no natural forcing with sufficinet magnitude to have caused the observed warming

2) The net sum of all natural forcing would produce cooling, were it not being overwhelmed by the greenhouse effect driven by human CO2 emissions and deforestation

Why do you try so hard to make a fool of yourself?

Your comment completely fails to address my central point that YOU failed to show that what is going on in todays Antarctic region is different from the past history of the region, you stated your indifference clearly here:

"I don't particularly care whether or not it has happened before...."

That was your reply to what I posted:

"I gave you a hint, and you missed it completely.

Another hint: How much past history of the region do they have and has it happened before?

Here is another more obvious hint: How much cooler is it now than 8,000 years ago? "

I stated that it appears to be natural, you come back with an old IPCC chart that doesn't address the Antarctic Region sea ice and sea shelves history at all.

It was my credible point that you tried your stupid chart reply with, that completely ignored the history of the region:

"What you really mean is that past geologic history of the region is not relevant to you because you are into chicken little bullcrap..

You just told us that you have no credible basis for concern or the interest in the geologic history of the region.

It is clear that what is happening now and into the past are all the same, it NATURAL and you know it!"

You tried a bad deflection, you lost right there!

 

[Crick]

Do you think the forcing factors illustrated in that graphic do NOT apply to the Arctic?

What NATURAL factor do you believe has caused the warming, globally or in the Arctic? Saying it has happened before doesn't explain a fucking thing.