Massive Antarctica ice sheet is cracking due to warming oceans

[Wry Catcher]

Being that this is what America would look like with much fewer whiny people, would a rise in sea level be that bad?:

No, not bad - EVIL. Of course censorship and hanging in effigy of American Citizens is evil incarnate and practiced by callous conservatives and those who have evolved into neo fascists all the time. Which one defines meathead? Though I doubt if either iteration so noted would allow him in their tent.

 

[Old Rocks]

Now why should anyone freak out about it? After all, if we see 10 feet of sea level rise before 2050, what possible harm can it do?

Name one prediction that the global warming demi-gods made that came true. Science doesn't involve ifs - those are conjecture. Science involves facts.

Good God, another ******* dummy chimes in.

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hansen_ha04600x.pdf

Climate Impact of Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide

J. Hansen, D. Johnson, A. Lacis, S. Lebedeff P. Lee, D. Rind, G. Russell

Summary.
The global temperature rose by 0.20C between the middle 1960's and 1980, yielding a warming of 0.4°C in the past century. This temperature increase is consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect due to measured increases of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar luminosity appear to be primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean trend of increasing temperature. It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980's. Potential effects on climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the fabled Northwest Passage.

The Northwest Passage opened for the first time in 2007. The West Antarctic Ice Shelf is breaking up, and that will add significant sea level rise. We just had our third year in a row of record temperatures. The Great Barrier Reef has had a bleaching event caused by warming water that has affected the majority of the reef. And dumb asses like you repeat this dead meme.

That paper was published in 1981. The predictions have already happened.

 

[Old Rocks]

Now why should anyone freak out about it? After all, if we see 10 feet of sea level rise before 2050, what possible harm can it do?

Name one prediction that the global warming demi-gods made that came true. Science doesn't involve ifs - those are conjecture. Science involves facts.

Obviously the Scientific Method is alien to the ZZ; being a good liberal I am always willing to help the ignorant, not so much interested in helping the helpless, i.e. the Willfully Ignorant.

• A hypothesis is a limited explanation of a phenomenon;
• a scientific theory is an in-depth explanation of the observed phenomenon.
• A law is a statement about an observed phenomenon or a unifying concept

The seminal moment in the development of the hypothesis began with the killer fogs in London, due to coal burning,

[ The Killer Fog That Blanketed London - History in the Headlines ]

and as observations of changes in the temperature of the oceans, glacial changes photographed from space and other biological and physical anomalies were noted, such as acid rain, the hypothesis of human activity having an impact on the air people and animals breath, the water they consume and the food eaten opened up the theory that coal and oil - which had replaced wood as energy sources - might have a larger and more egregious effect on the planet than ever before considered; thus the theory replaced the hypothesis.

No Scientific law has been reported that I'm aware of in Scientific Journals stating the human activity is the sole source of such anomilies. That said, the general reason for objecting to these facts was generated because the purveyors of coal and oil felt such a theory might impact the golden goose they owned. A full on propaganda effort went into producing the type of skepticism of crazy right wingers who simply echo such propaganda.

Yet you bloviate about nothing remotely germane to my post you quoted. YOU claim global warming to be fact, which constitutes Scientific Law. My challenge was to provide a prediction based upon that law that has been achieved. You failed to do so.

That is fact not conjecture.

Again, hello dumb ass. Obviously you know nothing of science. The initial observation was made by Joseph Fourier in the 1820's when he observed that by the albedo of the Earth, we should be much colder. He stated that something in the atmosphere had to be intercepting the radiated heat from the Earth in the atmosphere. In 1859, John Tyndall measured the absorption spectra of various gases in out atmosphere. In 1896 Svante Arrhenius did the numbers, and stated that doubling of the CO2, the primary GHG, would increase the temperture by 3 C.

Hypothesis
Fact
Scientific Theory

 

[ZZ PUPPS]

Then explain Ice Age theory since it is sans man and his effect on the environment, you leftist self aggrandizing blowhard.

 

[Old Rocks]

Then explain Ice Age theory since it is sans man and his effect on the environment, you leftist self aggrandizing blowhard.

Like I said, another ******* dummy. Did you not take the third grade?

Milankovitch Cycles and Glaciation

The episodic nature of the Earth's glacial and interglacial periods within the present Ice Age (the last couple of million years) have been caused primarily by cyclical changes in the Earth's circumnavigation of the Sun. Variations in the Earth's eccentricity, axial tilt, and precession comprise the three dominant cycles, collectively known as the Milankovitch Cycles for Milutin Milankovitch, the Serbian astronomer and mathematician who is generally credited with calculating their magnitude. Taken in unison, variations in these three cycles creates alterations in the seasonality of solar radiation reaching the Earth's surface. These times of increased or decreased solar radiation directly influence the Earth's climate system, thus impacting the advance and retreat of Earth's glaciers.

It is of primary importance to explain that climate change, and subsequent periods of glaciation, resulting from the following three variables is not due to the total amount of solar energy reaching Earth. The three Milankovitch Cycles impact the seasonality and location of solar energy around the Earth, thus impacting contrasts between the seasons.

Milankovitch Cycles and Glaciation

 

[Old Rocks]

Milankovitch Cycles and Glaciation

Eccentricity

The first of the three Milankovitch Cycles is the Earth's eccentricity. Eccentricity is, simply, the shape of the Earth's orbit around the Sun. This constantly fluctuating, orbital shape ranges between more and less elliptical (0 to 5% ellipticity) on a cycle of about 100,000 years. These oscillations, from more elliptic to less elliptic, are of prime importance to glaciation in that it alters the distance from the Earth to the Sun, thus changing the distance the Sun's short wave radiation must travel to reach Earth, subsequently reducing or increasing the amount of radiation received at the Earth's surface in different seasons.

Today a difference of only about 3 percent occurs between aphelion (farthest point) and perihelion (closest point). This 3 percent difference in distance means that Earth experiences a 6 percent increase in received solar energy in January than in July. This 6 percent range of variability is not always the case, however. When the Earth's orbit is most elliptical the amount of solar energy received at the perihelion would be in the range of 20 to 30 percent more than at aphelion. Most certainly these continually altering amounts of received solar energy around the globe result in prominent changes in the Earth's climate and glacial regimes. At present the orbital eccentricity is nearly at the minimum of its cycle.

#1

 

[Old Rocks]

Milankovitch Cycles and Glaciation

Axial Tilt

Axial tilt, the second of the three Milankovitch Cycles, is the inclination of the Earth's axis in relation to its plane of orbit around the Sun. Oscillations in the degree of Earth's axial tilt occur on a periodicity of 41,000 years from 21.5 to 24.5 degrees.

Today the Earth's axial tilt is about 23.5 degrees, which largely accounts for our seasons. Because of the periodic variations of this angle the severity of the Earth's seasons changes. With less axial tilt the Sun's solar radiation is more evenly distributed between winter and summer. However, less tilt also increases the difference in radiation receipts between the equatorial and polar regions.

One hypothesis for Earth's reaction to a smaller degree of axial tilt is that it would promote the growth of ice sheets. This response would be due to a warmer winter, in which warmer air would be able to hold more moisture, and subsequently produce a greater amount of snowfall. In addition, summer temperatures would be cooler, resulting in less melting of the winter's accumulation. At present, axial tilt is in the middle of its range.

#2

 

[Old Rocks]

Milankovitch Cycles and Glaciation

Precession

The third and final of the Milankovitch Cycles is Earth's precession. Precession is the Earth's slow wobble as it spins on axis. This wobbling of the Earth on its axis can be likened to a top running down, and beginning to wobble back and forth on its axis. The precession of Earth wobbles from pointing at Polaris (North Star) to pointing at the star Vega. When this shift to the axis pointing at Vega occurs, Vega would then be considered the North Star. This top-like wobble, or precession, has a periodicity of 23,000 years.

Due to this wobble a climatically significant alteration must take place. When the axis is tilted towards Vega the positions of the Northern Hemisphere winter and summer solstices will coincide with the aphelion and perihelion, respectively. This means that the Northern Hemisphere will experience winter when the Earth is furthest from the Sun and summer when the Earth is closest to the Sun. This coincidence will result in greater seasonal contrasts. At present, the Earth is at perihelion very close to the winter solstice.

#3 See how quick and easy that was? Just use that thing setting right in front of you, and learn something. And stop posting your ignorance for all to see.

 

[flacaltenn]

OMG -- If those 3 Milankovich indicators are ALL at their coolest minimums --- why dafuck ain't there 2 mile deep ice sheets over Cleveland???


I don't think we KNOW the periods or repeatibilities of these cycles. That's what I think.. They are certainly SUSPECTED to be there. But unless you have the SOURCE of these eccentricities, it's a THEORY as to where we are in those cycles.

 

[Old Rocks]

OMG -- If those 3 Milankovich indicators are ALL at their coolest minimums --- why dafuck ain't there 2 mile deep ice sheets over Cleveland???


I don't think we KNOW the periods or repeatibilities of these cycles. That's what I think.. They are certainly SUSPECTED to be there. But unless you have the SOURCE of these eccentricities, it's a THEORY as to where we are in those cycles.

Global Warming Natural Cycle — OSS Foundation

Where are we currently in the natural cycle (Milankovitch cycle)? The warmest point of the last cycle was around 10,000 years ago, at the peak of the Holocene. Since then, there has been an overall cooling trend, consistent with a continuation of the natural cycle, and this cooling would continue for thousands of years into the future if all else remained the same. But since 1750 however, the CO2 content of the atmosphere has deviated from the natural cycle. Instead of decreasing, it has increased because of the fossil-fuel burning. Methane and nitrous oxide have also increased unnaturally because of agricultural practices and other factors. The world has also warmed unnaturally. We are now deviating from the natural cycle.

Minimal research, Mr. Flacaltenn, minimal research.

 

[flacaltenn]

When our resident OldRocks geologist in training hears hoofbeats -- he thinks immediately of ZEBRAS..
You would THINK he'd remember all the press that confounds his theory of a 0.5degC atmos change causing that giant ice fracturing. But he doesn't. . And it's groundhog day EVERYDAY in this forum..

What are the chances that the ONE SPOT on the West coast of AntArctica has other issues???



Buried Volcano Discovered in Antarctica

A volcano beneath Antarctica’s icy surface has been detected for the first time.

Under the frozen continent's western-most ice sheet, the volcano erupted about 2,300 years ago yet remains active, according to a study published Sunday in an online issue of the journal Nature Geosciences.

"We believe this was the biggest eruption in Antarctica during the last 10,000 years," said study co-author Hugh Corr, a glaciologist for the British Antarctic Survey (BAS). "It blew a substantial hole in the ice sheet, and generated a plume of ash and gas that rose around 12 kilometers (7.5 miles) into [the] air."

“This eruption occurred close to Pine Island Glacier on the West Antarctic Ice Sheet," Vaughan said. "The flow of this glacier towards the coast has speeded up in recent decades, and it may be possible that heat from the volcano has caused some of that acceleration."

The effect is similar to a person gliding down a Slip 'n Slide: Volcanically melted water beneath the colossal ice sheet lubricates its movement, assisting its gravity-powered journey toward the Antarctic Ocean.

Corr and Vaughan used ice-penetrating radar to locate the volcano just west of the expansive Pine Island Glacier. Specifically, they detected a New Jersey-sized plot of ash at more than 8,000 square miles (20,700 square kilometers) beneath the ice.

The debris is a hallmark of an ancient eruption.

“The discovery of a ‘subglacial’ volcanic eruption from beneath the Antarctic ice sheet is unique in itself," Corr said. "But our techniques also allow us to put a date on the eruption, determine how powerful it was and map out the area where ash fell."

 

[flacaltenn]

From your OP --- -

Looks as if the scientists have been a bit conservative once again.

Hell no.. They just got the source of "WARM WATERS" wrong. This is NOT likely the ocean running UPHILL for 50 miles. It's likely that "WARM WATER" is running DOWNHILL -- towards the footing. Just the direction that Newton predicted it would travel..

 

[Old Rocks]

We have in Washington state an active volcano with a glacier in the crater. Seems ice and volcanoes are compatible. So I call bullshit on your hypothesis that the volcano is creating this breakup.

The Mount St. Helens' Crater Glacierhas been growing for decades in a horseshoe-shaped crater that was left on the mountain after the volcano erupted in May 1980

Read more: Mount St Helens in Washington is home to world's newest glacier The Crater Glacier | Daily Mail Online
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

• SHARE PICTURE

+5
The Skamania County mountain's summit dropped 1,314 ft to a total 8,363ft, forming the hollowed-out crater that would become the perfect growing environment for the world's newest glacier



Read more: Mount St Helens in Washington is home to world's newest glacier The Crater Glacier | Daily Mail Online
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

 

[Old Rocks]

From your OP --- -

Looks as if the scientists have been a bit conservative once again.

Hell no.. They just got the source of "WARM WATERS" wrong. This is NOT likely the ocean running UPHILL for 50 miles. It's likely that "WARM WATER" is running DOWNHILL -- towards the footing. Just the direction that Newton predicted it would travel..

More bullshit. The water beneath the glacier is saltwater because the bottom of the glacier is below sea level.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Odd that this warm water decided to localize itself in West Antarctica, is it smart water making a surgical strike?

 

[Old Rocks]

Odd that this warm water decided to localize itself in West Antarctica, is it smart water making a surgical strike?

Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis | Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag

Now that hardly looks localized. Just the weakest area responding first. The rest will follow.

 

[skookerasbil]

More folklore..........ice sheets have been snapping long before anybody ever knew the MWP was coming!! duh

 

[Billy_Bob]

Now why should anyone freak out about it? After all, if we see 10 feet of sea level rise before 2050, what possible harm can it do?

Name one prediction that the global warming demi-gods made that came true. Science doesn't involve ifs - those are conjecture. Science involves facts.

Obviously the Scientific Method is alien to the ZZ; being a good liberal I am always willing to help the ignorant, not so much interested in helping the helpless, i.e. the Willfully Ignorant.

• A hypothesis is a limited explanation of a phenomenon;
• a scientific theory is an in-depth explanation of the observed phenomenon.
• A law is a statement about an observed phenomenon or a unifying concept

The seminal moment in the development of the hypothesis began with the killer fogs in London, due to coal burning,

[ The Killer Fog That Blanketed London - History in the Headlines ]

and as observations of changes in the temperature of the oceans, glacial changes photographed from space and other biological and physical anomalies were noted, such as acid rain, the hypothesis of human activity having an impact on the air people and animals breath, the water they consume and the food eaten opened up the theory that coal and oil - which had replaced wood as energy sources - might have a larger and more egregious effect on the planet than ever before considered; thus the theory replaced the hypothesis.

No Scientific law has been reported that I'm aware of in Scientific Journals stating the human activity is the sole source of such anomilies. That said, the general reason for objecting to these facts was generated because the purveyors of coal and oil felt such a theory might impact the golden goose they owned. A full on propaganda effort went into producing the type of skepticism of crazy right wingers who simply echo such propaganda.

We keep posting the same things and keep asking for any of the repeatable lab experiments demonstrating the "link" between a few PPM of CO2 and "Warming" and we never get any experiments back, just predictions and models

All of their models and predictions have failed with 100% certainty..

All they have are lies at this point...

 

[Old Rocks]

Now Silly Billy, all you ever offer is unsupported blurbs, with little meaning and no facts. The Arctic and Antarctic are both responding this year in a major way to the present warming.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Now why should anyone freak out about it? After all, if we see 10 feet of sea level rise before 2050, what possible harm can it do?

Name one prediction that the global warming demi-gods made that came true. Science doesn't involve ifs - those are conjecture. Science involves facts.

Obviously the Scientific Method is alien to the ZZ; being a good liberal I am always willing to help the ignorant, not so much interested in helping the helpless, i.e. the Willfully Ignorant.

• A hypothesis is a limited explanation of a phenomenon;
• a scientific theory is an in-depth explanation of the observed phenomenon.
• A law is a statement about an observed phenomenon or a unifying concept

The seminal moment in the development of the hypothesis began with the killer fogs in London, due to coal burning,

[ The Killer Fog That Blanketed London - History in the Headlines ]

and as observations of changes in the temperature of the oceans, glacial changes photographed from space and other biological and physical anomalies were noted, such as acid rain, the hypothesis of human activity having an impact on the air people and animals breath, the water they consume and the food eaten opened up the theory that coal and oil - which had replaced wood as energy sources - might have a larger and more egregious effect on the planet than ever before considered; thus the theory replaced the hypothesis.

No Scientific law has been reported that I'm aware of in Scientific Journals stating the human activity is the sole source of such anomilies. That said, the general reason for objecting to these facts was generated because the purveyors of coal and oil felt such a theory might impact the golden goose they owned. A full on propaganda effort went into producing the type of skepticism of crazy right wingers who simply echo such propaganda.

We keep posting the same things and keep asking for any of the repeatable lab experiments demonstrating the "link" between a few PPM of CO2 and "Warming" and we never get any experiments back, just predictions and models

All of their models and predictions have failed with 100% certainty..

All they have are lies at this point...

Would you like to offer evidence that the models are absolutely wrong? Do so, since every nation, state and city with coastal areas are preparing for a rise in the sea level and inundation of populated areas. What do you know that all of them do not? Post your resume (be sure to include the card given you when you joined the bureau of the crazy right wing's agency (i.e. the Echo Chamber).