Ice Caps Melting at HALF the predicted Rate.

Really?:lol::lol::lol: And here I thought you actually were well read. Oh dopey me! Climatologists have been attempting to REWRITE the history that they found inconvenient but if you read any legit geology website or paleoclimate site, or paleo geography site, or any archeology site, or...well I think you might get the idea. Try reading something other than the partisan nonsense you're stuck on.


All sciences dealing with the past will agree to the basics I outlined above. Now that is scientific consensus for you:lol::lol:

And you're correct if you can't discuss things with more than a middle school knowledge basis then yes you have no point in continuing here.

For sure you are one dopey asshole. It is not just climatologists that have been measuring the melt of glaciers, and the warming of the Arctic and Antarctic. How about geologists, geophysicists, and biologists, just to name a few.

One article claiming the isostatic rebound is creating a false signal concerning the rate of ice melt is not proof that is the case. The people that did the original work will reply in time.




So tell me this (and thanks for taking the bait, you really are predictable:lol:) How can the ground be rebounding if it weren't warmer in the past with less ice upon it? For it to still be rebounding means that IT HAD TO BE HIGHER in the past. The only way I know for it to be higher is for there to be LESS ICE sitting on the subcontinent.

Or do you have a different theory?

Ok wait, I am not an alarmist, but your therory makes no sense to me. It is rebounding as the weight of ice is removed. How you assume from that, that the ground must have been higher in the past is beyond me. Well I mean of course it must have been higher at least once as we know the earth was once molten and no ice could have been there.

it is simple. You have a continent, ICE builds up as it does the ground is forced down, and out. AS the ice melts it rebounds.

It could be rebounding for the first time since the earth was formed for all we know.

I personally don't think so, but the point is you can not assume because it is rebounding that the ice must have melted in the past. Not from that factor alone anyways.
 
Last edited:
For sure you are one dopey asshole. It is not just climatologists that have been measuring the melt of glaciers, and the warming of the Arctic and Antarctic. How about geologists, geophysicists, and biologists, just to name a few.

One article claiming the isostatic rebound is creating a false signal concerning the rate of ice melt is not proof that is the case. The people that did the original work will reply in time.




So tell me this (and thanks for taking the bait, you really are predictable:lol:) How can the ground be rebounding if it weren't warmer in the past with less ice upon it? For it to still be rebounding means that IT HAD TO BE HIGHER in the past. The only way I know for it to be higher is for there to be LESS ICE sitting on the subcontinent.

Or do you have a different theory?

Ok wait, I am not an alarmist, but your therory makes no sense to me. It is rebounding as the weight of ice is removed. How you assume from that, that the ground must have been higher in the past is beyond me. Well I mean of course it must have been higher at least once as we know the earth was once molten and no ice could have been there.

it is simple. You have a continent, ICE builds up as it does the ground is forced down, and out. AS the ice melts it rebounds.

It could be rebounding for the first time since the earth was formed for all we know.

I personally don't think so, but the point is you can not assume because it is rebounding that the ice must have melted in the past. Not from that factor alone anyways.

Dude- there have been many documented Ice Ages and Interglacials, and even a little ice age a few hundred years ago (denied by Mann in his first Hockey Stick graph), so I think we can be quite certain that the ground has compressed and rebounded many times in the past.
 
For sure you are one dopey asshole. It is not just climatologists that have been measuring the melt of glaciers, and the warming of the Arctic and Antarctic. How about geologists, geophysicists, and biologists, just to name a few.

One article claiming the isostatic rebound is creating a false signal concerning the rate of ice melt is not proof that is the case. The people that did the original work will reply in time.




So tell me this (and thanks for taking the bait, you really are predictable:lol:) How can the ground be rebounding if it weren't warmer in the past with less ice upon it? For it to still be rebounding means that IT HAD TO BE HIGHER in the past. The only way I know for it to be higher is for there to be LESS ICE sitting on the subcontinent.

Or do you have a different theory?

Ok wait, I am not an alarmist, but your therory makes no sense to me. It is rebounding as the weight of ice is removed. How you assume from that, that the ground must have been higher in the past is beyond me. Well I mean of course it must have been higher at least once as we know the earth was once molten and no ice could have been there.

it is simple. You have a continent, ICE builds up as it does the ground is forced down, and out. AS the ice melts it rebounds.

It could be rebounding for the first time since the earth was formed for all we know.

I personally don't think so, but the point is you can not assume because it is rebounding that the ice must have melted in the past. Not from that factor alone anyways.




Think about it for a minute. For ground to rebound (rise) means the ground must first have been higher in the first place. The only way we know of for ground to sink is catastrophically from earthquakes where the fault scarp causes one side of the block to drop, or through a process known as mass wasting (takes a real long time) where the rock is weathered down and turned to dirt, sand etc. and transported to the lowest elevation attainable which is usually the ocean bottoms.

The final way is to place a tremendous amount of weight on it. The only way we know how that occurs is continental ice sheets. What olfraud and all the others havn't mentioned is that the area of the Great Lakes is also rising at the rate of 1 inch per year also due to isostatic rebound and the last time I looked there are no ice sheets there. Those disappeared 10,000 years ago and the land IS STILL RISING.

So is that from GW as well?

So what about raising the land? Locally it occurs in great quakes where once again the land will rise along one edge of a fault scarp...you see this in thrust faults, and these are usually associated with mountain building areas like the Andes, or the Himalays and those are the product of continental plate collisions. They are known in geologic world as orogenies.

The Himalaya too are rising at the rate of an ince a year. The fastest rising piece of real estate I know of is in California between Ventura and Santa Barbara called the Red Mountain Thrust fault and it is rising at 7 inches per year. But the volcano that is growing where Krakatoa used to be (called Anak Krakatoa) is rising even faster at 5 inches per week!
 
Isostatic rebound contributes to sea level rise in two ways. The ice that melts adds water to the ocean, and the land that is rising displaces ocean water. So if the author is correct, that an acceleration of rise has lead to a skewed interpretation of the amount of ice melting, the rise in ocean level may still be about the same. Going to be interesting to see this properly instrumented to check out all the variables.
 

Forum List

Back
Top