Antarctic ice flow

[Old Rocks]

LOL. Well, we shall definately see who is correct concerning this. I expect to see that foot in my lifetime.

 

[gslack]

LOL. Well, we shall definately see who is correct concerning this. I expect to see that foot in my lifetime.

Down to just one now?

LOL what happened to the 7?

 

[Old Rocks]

Damn, do one have to explain everything to you, dumbass? I will be sixty eight this year. I will not be seeing the end of this century. In fact, it is doubtful that I will see the mid-century. A foot in my lifetime would be a foot by the mid 30's. That is a very large increase.

 

[gslack]

Damn, do one have to explain everything to you, dumbass? I will be sixty eight this year. I will not be seeing the end of this century. In fact, it is doubtful that I will see the mid-century. A foot in my lifetime would be a foot by the mid 30's. That is a very large increase.

Retard, if you really think I care how old you are, you haven't been paying attention. My point was from the claimed 7 meters you guys claimed before to now a foot by the mid 30's. More of your moving of goal post. Before it was 7 meters if Greenland melted, then it was if greenland melted and by the turn of the century, now if you get a foot by the 2030's its all good...

Way to hold them to a standard socks...

 

[Trakar]

LOL. Still playing the dumb ass, Ian, old boy? A one meter rise in sea level would be catastrophic in several respects. And we will almost certainly see at least that by the end of this century.

more than 10% of the century done and sea levels are lower than all of the models. it will be a push just to get a foot of sea rise let alone a meter.

A lot of very smart people studying this particular issue disagree with your poorly considered and unsupported opinion.

Acceleration of the contribution of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets to sea level rise

From the paper's conclusion:

...This study reconciles two totally independent methods
for estimating ice sheet mass balance, in Greenland and
Antarctica, for the first time: the MBM method comparing
influx and outflux of ice, and the GRACE method based on
time‐variable gravity data. The two records agree in terms of
mass, M(t), mass change, dM(t)/dt, and acceleration in mass
change, d2M/dt2. The results illustrate the major impact of
monthly‐to‐annual variations in SMB on ice sheet mass
balance. Using the two‐decade long MBM observation
record, we determine that ice sheet loss is accelerating by
36.3 ± 2 Gt/yr2, or 3 times larger than from mountain glaciers
and ice caps (GIC). The magnitude of the acceleration suggests
that ice sheets will be the dominant contributors to sea
level rise in forthcoming decades, and will likely exceed the
IPCC projections for the contribution of ice sheets to sea level
rise in the 21st century [Meehl et al., 2007].

 

[Old Rocks]

Damn, do one have to explain everything to you, dumbass? I will be sixty eight this year. I will not be seeing the end of this century. In fact, it is doubtful that I will see the mid-century. A foot in my lifetime would be a foot by the mid 30's. That is a very large increase.

Retard, if you really think I care how old you are, you haven't been paying attention. My point was from the claimed 7 meters you guys claimed before to now a foot by the mid 30's. More of your moving of goal post. Before it was 7 meters if Greenland melted, then it was if greenland melted and by the turn of the century, now if you get a foot by the 2030's its all good...

Way to hold them to a standard socks...

God, you closet liberal, you are an idiot! The figures were for 7 meters if all the ice in Greenland melts. And the time was not set, just stated as not anytime soon. The combined rise from both the Greenland Cap, and the Antarctic ice for the end of century has been estimated at 2 meters by the most 'alarmist' of the climatologists.

Someday, take some classes in comprehension.

 

[gslack]

Damn, do one have to explain everything to you, dumbass? I will be sixty eight this year. I will not be seeing the end of this century. In fact, it is doubtful that I will see the mid-century. A foot in my lifetime would be a foot by the mid 30's. That is a very large increase.

Retard, if you really think I care how old you are, you haven't been paying attention. My point was from the claimed 7 meters you guys claimed before to now a foot by the mid 30's. More of your moving of goal post. Before it was 7 meters if Greenland melted, then it was if greenland melted and by the turn of the century, now if you get a foot by the 2030's its all good...

Way to hold them to a standard socks...

God, you closet liberal, you are an idiot! The figures were for 7 meters if all the ice in Greenland melts. And the time was not set, just stated as not anytime soon. The combined rise from both the Greenland Cap, and the Antarctic ice for the end of century has been estimated at 2 meters by the most 'alarmist' of the climatologists.

Someday, take some classes in comprehension.

Really?

Funny then cause I found this... Future Climate Change - Future Sea Level Changes | Science | Climate Change | U.S. EPA

The Greenland ice sheet contains enough ice to raise sea level about 7 meters (23 feet). Although it is already contributing to sea level rise (from melting), it does not contain the same instabilities as Antarctica that could result in a rapid collapse. Most model projections suggest a gradual melting over millennia related to sustained climate warming (IPCC, 2007).

That was from the EPA website... Also found this... Sea level rise | Greenpeace International

Climate models indicate that the local warming over Greenland is likely to be one to three times th global average. Ice sheet models project that a local warming of larger than 3°C [5.4°F], if sustained for millennia, would lead to virtually a complete melting of the Greenland ice sheet with a resulting sea-level rise of about 7 m [23 ft].

-- IPCC 3rd Assessment, Synthesis Report, Summary for Policy Makers

That was from your kind of place a Greenpeace website..

Al gore's film stated the same thing in his little film remember?
Oh I do and so do the rest of us asshole...

You can tap dance and lie all you want but you and I both know its BS. you moved the goalposts again... BUSTED AGAIN!

 

[Old Rocks]

Retard, if you really think I care how old you are, you haven't been paying attention. My point was from the claimed 7 meters you guys claimed before to now a foot by the mid 30's. More of your moving of goal post. Before it was 7 meters if Greenland melted, then it was if greenland melted and by the turn of the century, now if you get a foot by the 2030's its all good...

Way to hold them to a standard socks...

God, you closet liberal, you are an idiot! The figures were for 7 meters if all the ice in Greenland melts. And the time was not set, just stated as not anytime soon. The combined rise from both the Greenland Cap, and the Antarctic ice for the end of century has been estimated at 2 meters by the most 'alarmist' of the climatologists.

Someday, take some classes in comprehension.

Really?

Funny then cause I found this... Future Climate Change - Future Sea Level Changes | Science | Climate Change | U.S. EPA

The Greenland ice sheet contains enough ice to raise sea level about 7 meters (23 feet). Although it is already contributing to sea level rise (from melting), it does not contain the same instabilities as Antarctica that could result in a rapid collapse. Most model projections suggest a gradual melting over millennia related to sustained climate warming (IPCC, 2007).

That was from the EPA website... Also found this... Sea level rise | Greenpeace International

Climate models indicate that the local warming over Greenland is likely to be one to three times th global average. Ice sheet models project that a local warming of larger than 3°C [5.4°F], if sustained for millennia, would lead to virtually a complete melting of the Greenland ice sheet with a resulting sea-level rise of about 7 m [23 ft].

-- IPCC 3rd Assessment, Synthesis Report, Summary for Policy Makers

That was from your kind of place a Greenpeace website..

Al gore's film stated the same thing in his little film remember?
Oh I do and so do the rest of us asshole...

You can tap dance and lie all you want but you and I both know its BS. you moved the goalposts again... BUSTED AGAIN!

Lordy, lordy. Look up the meaning of millenia, idiot child

 

[gslack]

God, you closet liberal, you are an idiot! The figures were for 7 meters if all the ice in Greenland melts. And the time was not set, just stated as not anytime soon. The combined rise from both the Greenland Cap, and the Antarctic ice for the end of century has been estimated at 2 meters by the most 'alarmist' of the climatologists.

Someday, take some classes in comprehension.

Really?

Funny then cause I found this... Future Climate Change - Future Sea Level Changes | Science | Climate Change | U.S. EPA



That was from the EPA website... Also found this... Sea level rise | Greenpeace International

Climate models indicate that the local warming over Greenland is likely to be one to three times th global average. Ice sheet models project that a local warming of larger than 3°C [5.4°F], if sustained for millennia, would lead to virtually a complete melting of the Greenland ice sheet with a resulting sea-level rise of about 7 m [23 ft].

-- IPCC 3rd Assessment, Synthesis Report, Summary for Policy Makers

That was from your kind of place a Greenpeace website..

Al gore's film stated the same thing in his little film remember?
Oh I do and so do the rest of us asshole...

You can tap dance and lie all you want but you and I both know its BS. you moved the goalposts again... BUSTED AGAIN!

Lordy, lordy. Look up the meaning of millenia, idiot child

And now see, ya had to go and try to semantics your way out of it again... AL Gore's film did not specify a time.. And you said, "The combined rise from both the Greenland Cap, and the Antarctic ice for the end of century has been estimated at 2 meters by the most 'alarmist' of the climatologists. "

Really? Then Greenpeace is what exactly? I would call them alarmist and so would any non-alarmist... And the EPA is? They alarmist or non-alarmist? LOL... Dance bear dance...

The fact is they DID claim 7 meters, they all too often did not specify a time. A 100 years was implied in Al Gore's film, due to the way he put it. It was misleading and even the high court in England thought so. A foot in a hundred years is moving the goal posts from the 7 meters (about 23 feet) some time soon they claimed before. Gimme a break you know they pulled that shit so do I...

 

[bodecea]

Let me play Rightie for a moment....none of my friends or family live within 100 feet elevation so.....whatever.

 

[westwall]

LOL. Still playing the dumb ass, Ian, old boy? A one meter rise in sea level would be catastrophic in several respects. And we will almost certainly see at least that by the end of this century.

A one meter rise will have what effects? Exactly? Let's see those computer models you are so keen on. You know the ones that can't recreate the weather from yesterday. You don't have to be a dumb ass to see you're as full of crap as your religion old bean. We'll see it by the end of the century will we? How do you figure that with the recent drop of 1/4 of an inch in sea level reported by NASA?

As usual you've got a lot of esplaining to do Luceeeee!




"Weather cycles cause a drop in global sea level, scientists find


By Juliet Eilperin, Published: August 25

The global sea level this summer is a quarter of an inch lower than last summer, according to NASA scientists, in sharp contrast to the gradual rise the ocean has experienced in recent years.

The change stems from two strong weather cycles over the Pacific Ocean — El Niño and La Niña — which shifted precipitation patterns, according to scientists at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif. The two cycles brought heavy rains to Brazil and Amazon, along with drought to the southern United StatesResearchers monitored the ocean’s width, height, temperature and salinity through satellites and robot-operated floats, and presented their findings Aug. 8 and 9 at the annual Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) Science Team Meeting in Austin, Tex.

“This year the continents got an extra dose of rain, so much so that global sea levels actually fell over most of the last year,” said Carmen Boening, an oceanographer and climate scientist at the lab, in a statement.

Climate scientist Josh Willis, who also works at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, warned that this water will eventually return to the ocean, and the long-term trend of rising sea levels will continue.

“What this show is the impact La Niña and El Niño can have on global rainfall,” he said in an interview, adding scientists need to get a better sense of ice sheet dynamics before they can offer a more precise estimate of future sea level rise. “We really have a lot left to understand before we can do better.”

According to computer climate models, sea levels are expected to rise because water expands as it warms, and the melting of glaciers and ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica will contribute to global sea levels. The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change gave what it called a conservative estimate in 2007 that the ocean could rise between 7 and 23 inches by 2100. Recent research suggests it could rise by as much as 2.5 to 6.5 feet during this period.

The question of how much the ocean could rise due to warming is a topic of intense debate. In the past two decades global sea levels increased at a rate of roughly 0.12 inches a year, compared to 0.07 inches from 1961 to 2003, according to satellite data. A recent tide gauge study of sea levels in Australia and New Zealand, published in the Journal of Coastal Research, provided readings that suggested the rate of ocean rise has declined in the past decade.

Patrick J. Michaels, a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute, noted that recent satellite data shows a slight decline in the rate of sea-level rise, which casts doubt on whether the ocean will expand as some predict by the end of the century.

“I suspect it would have to start rising pretty rapidly in order to fulfill those projections,” Michaels said in an interview.

The findings came as the Government Accountability Office released a report Thursday examining proposed technological methods aimed at manipulating the climate, known as ”geoengineering.”

The GAO report, commissioned by former House Science Committee chairman Bart Gordon (D-Tenn.), concluded that “climate engineering technologies are not now an option for addressing global climate change” given their cost, potential effectiveness and possible consequences. But the report said that the majority of experts the GAO surveyed “supported starting significant climate engineering now” in case humans faced drastic climate change in future decades.

The report identified capturing carbon dioxide from the air and then storing it as the most promising climate engineering technique right now.

Carnegie Institution scientist Ken Caldeira, an expert on climate engineering, wrote in an e-mail that he welcomed the fact that the GAO made a distinction between carbon-capture technologies and ones aimed at deflecting solar radiation. But he questioned why the analysts focused on the need for coordinating geoengineering research, rather than a broader response to the problems climate change poses.

“We need broad coordination of activities to reduce climate risk,” Caldeira wrote. “I don’t think we need coordination only among the narrower, yet very heterogeneous set of activities commonly labeled as ‘geoengineering.’ ”




Weather cycles cause a drop in global sea level, scientists find - The Washington Post

 

[IanC]

LOL. Still playing the dumb ass, Ian, old boy? A one meter rise in sea level would be catastrophic in several respects. And we will almost certainly see at least that by the end of this century.

more than 10% of the century done and sea levels are lower than all of the models. it will be a push just to get a foot of sea rise let alone a meter.

A lot of very smart people studying this particular issue disagree with your poorly considered and unsupported opinion.

Acceleration of the contribution of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets to sea level rise

From the paper's conclusion:

...This study reconciles two totally independent methods
for estimating ice sheet mass balance, in Greenland and
Antarctica, for the first time: the MBM method comparing
influx and outflux of ice, and the GRACE method based on
time‐variable gravity data. The two records agree in terms of
mass, M(t), mass change, dM(t)/dt, and acceleration in mass
change, d2M/dt2. The results illustrate the major impact of
monthly‐to‐annual variations in SMB on ice sheet mass
balance. Using the two‐decade long MBM observation
record, we determine that ice sheet loss is accelerating by
36.3 ± 2 Gt/yr2, or 3 times larger than from mountain glaciers
and ice caps (GIC). The magnitude of the acceleration suggests
that ice sheets will be the dominant contributors to sea
level rise in forthcoming decades, and will likely exceed the
IPCC projections for the contribution of ice sheets to sea level
rise in the 21st century [Meehl et al., 2007].

36.3 +/- 2 Gt/yr2 !?! more BS. that reminds me of the news story of East Antarctica losing 57 Gt per year. except it wasnt 57, it was a model estimate of 5 to 109 GT. why do climate researchers always seem to get tangled up into completely overestimating the precision of their work? not to mention their accuracy.

its always 'this model prediction is right', nevermind last year's faulty one. or 'our new corrections have narrowed the uncertainty', until the next set supercedes them. or until reality shows them to be wrong.