Historically, no Antarctic ice shelf when CO2 is above 400 ppm

[Crick]

Ha ha ha, you didn't address anything from MY link which is run by a GEOLOGIST who is an active researcher in plate Climatology.

Ha ha ha. I replied to you elsewhere with a lovely NASA article explaining why the volcanoes under Antarctica and those that used to be under Greenland, are not responsible for the current melt rate. Even you pointed out that of the 47 volcanoes under PIG and Thwaites, only one is active. Those volcanoes have been there for millions of years. They are background noise.

Meanwhile GRACE has been shown to be unreliable as it also claims ice loss in regions that never gets above 0 degrees F year around. It measures changes in GRAVITY in an active geological region!

I'm curious why you think it funny to be measuring gravity.

Amazing Grace​

LINK

I'm also curious why you're excited by an article from 2009.

Then again 7 years later more GRACE problems show up,

Another Smoking Gun That GRACE Data Is Garbage​

LINK

What is the temperature of the ocean water pressing against the outer edge of the ice sheet? And were you under the impression that glaciers require temperatures above 0C to flow?

And I suggest you check some other sources. The GRACE satellites were a complete success.

From NASA

Oct 30, 2015

NASA Study: Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses​

LINK

"The study analyzed changes in the surface height of the Antarctic ice sheet measured by radar altimeters on two European Space Agency European Remote Sensing (ERS) satellites, spanning from 1992 to 2001, and by the laser altimeter on NASA’s Ice, Cloud, and land Elevation Satellite (ICESat) from 2003 to 2008."

They used far more reliable satellite data.

No, these were simply results you preferred.

Here is what you missed when your prejudice kicked in that caused you to ignore my links and CONTENT:

I ignored you links because I didn't even notice them. I don't pay you a lot of attention. To be honest, I don't pay any of you a lot of attention.

Newsweek

NASA Discovers Mantle Plume Almost as Hot as Yellowstone Supervolcano That's Melting Antarctica From Below​

BY HANNAH OSBORNE ON 11/8/17

Excerpt:

mantle plume producing almost as much heat as Yellowstone supervolcano appears to be melting part of West Antarctica from beneath.

Researchers at NASA have discovered a huge upwelling of hot rock under Marie Byrd Land, which lies between the Ross Ice Shelf and the Ross Sea, is creating vast lakes and rivers under the ice sheet. The presence of a huge mantle plume could explain why the region is so unstable today, and why it collapsed so quickly at the end of the last Ice Age, 11,000 years ago.

LINK

and,

Nature

Evidence of an active volcanic heat source beneath the Pine Island Glacier​

LINK

and,

Geological Society Publications

A new volcanic province: an inventory of subglacial volcanoes in West Antarctica​

LINK

and,

Live Sciences

Hidden Volcanoes Melt Antarctic Glaciers from Below​

LINK

and,

ABC News

First Subglacial Eruption Found in Antarctica​

LINK

There is more available elsewhere in the forum.

=====

Last note:

Claimed losses versus total mass (this part MSM doesn't mention)

Since melting all the ice on the planet, which would have to happen to melt all the ice on Antarctica, would raise sea levels 240 feet and just about exterminate the human species, I'm glad we've only experienced a trivial portion of that melt so far. But just for easy figuring, you can go from (metric) gigatonnes of ice lost to millimeters sea level rise by dividing the mass loss by 361.8. So the, say, 2400 GT lost on your upper graph corresponds to 6.63 mm of sea level rise. That represents 8% of total sea level rise in that span. Calculating glacier ice volumes and sea level equivalents - AntarcticGlaciers.org

Sea level rise - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Sunsettommy]

LINK

 

[Crick]

LINK

That looks like other data I've seen.

Deciphering the rise and fall of Antarctic sea ice extent

This is a re-post from Carbon Brief by Dr Clare Eayrs and Prof David Holland

skepticalscience.com

The big drop in 2016 was due to weakening Westerlies though it seems to be slowly coming back.

 

[Crick]

That looks like other data I've seen.

Deciphering the rise and fall of Antarctic sea ice extent

This is a re-post from Carbon Brief by Dr Clare Eayrs and Prof David Holland

skepticalscience.com

The big drop in 2016 was due to weakening Westerlies though it seems to be slowly coming back.

One issue with Antarctic sea ice is that since almost all of it melts every summer, it is quite thin. It is capable, as that huge dip in 2016 shows, of dramatic reductions with relatively small changes in conditions.

 

[HikerGuy83]

I don't think either you or me have the faintest fuck of an idea what you might mean by "normal times"

 

[jc456]

Rising temperatures will cause CO2 to rise because increasing ocean temperatures reduce the amount of gas that can be dissolved there.

CO2 will rise because the oceans release CO2. Wish you would get one thing right

 

[jc456]

One issue with Antarctic sea ice is that since almost all of it melts every summer, it is quite thin. It is capable, as that huge dip in 2016 shows, of dramatic reductions with relatively small changes in conditions.

Huh? 20 hours of sunlight will melt sea ice. Why don’t you even know the earth tilts exposing both poles?

 

[Crick]

If that was unintentional, you missed your opportunity for repairs. If it was intentional, you're too subtle for my tired old brain.

 

[miketx]

Ha ha ha. I replied to you elsewhere with a lovely NASA article explaining why the volcanoes under Antarctica and those that used to be under Greenland, are not responsible for the current melt rate. Even you pointed out that of the 47 volcanoes under PIG and Thwaites, only one is active. Those volcanoes have been there for millions of years. They are background noise.

I'm curious why you think it funny to be measuring gravity.

I'm also curious why you're excited by an article from 2009.

What is the temperature of the ocean water pressing against the outer edge of the ice sheet? And were you under the impression that glaciers require temperatures above 0C to flow?

And I suggest you check some other sources. The GRACE satellites were a complete success.

No, these were simply results you preferred.

I ignored you links because I didn't even notice them. I don't pay you a lot of attention. To be honest, I don't pay any of you a lot of attention.

Since melting all the ice on the planet, which would have to happen to melt all the ice on Antarctica, would raise sea levels 240 feet and just about exterminate the human species, I'm glad we've only experienced a trivial portion of that melt so far. But just for easy figuring, you can go from (metric) gigatonnes of ice lost to millimeters sea level rise by dividing the mass loss by 361.8. So the, say, 2400 GT lost on your upper graph corresponds to 6.63 mm of sea level rise. That represents 8% of total sea level rise in that span. Calculating glacier ice volumes and sea level equivalents - AntarcticGlaciers.org

Sea level rise - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

This pos never shuts up. It's like the black racist scum on here. Yap yap yap yap spew spew spew, then post some bullshit graph as proof.

 

[Crick]

This pos never shuts up. It's like the black racist scum on here. Yap yap yap yap spew spew spew, then post some bullshit graph as proof.

Are you SunsetTommy? If not, then what the fuck do you care? Just sit back with some cheap, warm beer, tune in Fox News or WWE and practice your guffawing lessons. Stop worrying about the rest of the world cause they sure-as-shit aren't worried about you.

 

[miketx]

Are you SunsetTommy? If not, then what the fuck do you care? Just sit back with some cheap, warm beer, tune in Fox News or WWE and practice your guffawing lessons. Stop worrying about the rest of the world cause they sure-as-shit aren't worried about you.

The usual left babble, meaningless and stupid. Lol liar I don't watch Fox or wrasslin. Fail.

 

[ding]

Stop worrying about the rest of the world cause they sure-as-shit aren't worried about you.

That probably explains why they keep increasing their CO2 emissions by 1 billion tons per year.

 

[ReinyDays]

That probably explains why they keep increasing their CO2 emissions by 1 billion tons per year.

We're up to 117.9% of scientists worldwide contributing 75 GIGATONNES of carbon dioxide annually ... the sad part is the atmosphere is only increasing 17 gigatonnes per year ... ROLF ... the math is easy ...

Oh ... it's the oceans that are absorbing all this extra CO2 ...

 

[SeaMajor7]

There's always a CRISIS with these Marxist control FREAKS!!!!

 

[ding]

We're up to 117.9% of scientists worldwide contributing 75 GIGATONNES of carbon dioxide annually ... the sad part is the atmosphere is only increasing 17 gigatonnes per year ... ROLF ... the math is easy ...

Oh ... it's the oceans that are absorbing all this extra CO2 ...

And not one of them has ever said anything about how building concrete jungles affects the planet's climate. The horror of it all.

 

[ReinyDays]

And not one of them has ever said anything about how building concrete jungles affects the planet's climate. The horror of it all.

Makes ya wanna [hyperbole] ...

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

We're up to 117.9% of scientists worldwide contributing 75 GIGATONNES of carbon dioxide annually ... the sad part is the atmosphere is only increasing 17 gigatonnes per year ... ROLF ... the math is easy ...

Oh ... it's the oceans that are absorbing all this extra CO2 ...

Uhm. You do know that anything living that is green, is taking in that CO2? Why do the "Globull Scientists" factor that in their computer simulations? Oh yeah, because then the money would be cut off real quick.

 

[ReinyDays]

Uhm. You do know that anything living that is green, is taking in that CO2? Why do the "Globull Scientists" factor that in their computer simulations? Oh yeah, because then the money would be cut off real quick.

Why .. yes I do ... it's what's called "The Greening of Earth" ...

"Oh ... it's the oceans that are absorbing all this extra CO2 ..."

... and green algae is converting this into proteins, carbohydrates, unsaturated fatty acid and RNA/DNA ... and millions upon millions of different enzymes ... 8 billion filthy humans pissing the nitrogen back into the environment ... warmer, wetter climates are better for everyone ...

The mistake you've made is treating the IPCC as a scientific body ... it's not ... it's political ... and negative feedback mechanisms are bad politics ... so they're ignored and we have a boiling Earth in our future ... HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW ... funny how far stupid people can go with their imaginations ... Orson Wells discovered this in 1936 ...

 

[abu afak]

Uhm. You do know that anything living that is green, is taking in that CO2? Why do the "Globull Scientists" factor that in their computer simulations? Oh yeah, because then the money would be cut off real quick.

ReinyDays

You are Unaware the 'Green Things' are NOT taking in all we free/Burn every year.
Thus CO2 PPM goes up at unprecedented rate. 100x natural.
You didn't know?

`

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

ReinyDays

You are Unaware the 'Green Things' are NOT taking in all we free/Burn every year.
Thus CO2 PPM goes up at unprecedented rate. 100x natural.
You didn't know?

`

Yet, every time CO2 goes up, more green trees and such grow, but never ever get added into the computer models. Why is that?

It turns out the answer is Yes – in a big way. A new study published in the April 6 edition of the journal Nature concludes that as emissions of carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels have increased since the start of the 20th century, plants around the world are utilizing 30 percent more carbon dioxide (CO 2), spurring plant growth.

Study: Global plant growth surging alongside carbon dioxide​

www.noaa.gov/news/study-global-plant-growth-surging-alongside-carbon-di