Sleeping giant' glacier may lift seas two metres: study

[Hossfly]

Anyone living in those low-lying areas and worried about the meltdown needs to move their butts to higher ground. Problem solved. ****Information provided as a public service at no charge.****.

 

[Weatherman2020]

What is the volume of Totten Glacier in liquid state?
What is the volume of the oceans?
What is the volume of undersea volcanic land mass gained annually?
What is the annual undersea land mass change due to plate tectonics?

If you can't answer any of these questions without looking them up, you're just an unscientific lemming stooge who parrots BS.

Then please answer them for us. That is, if you're not a lemming stooge.

Dumb tactic on your part. Nobody knows every detail of every bit of science from memory. Everyone relies on experts. You do, on every topic but this one. Hence, it's hypocritical to demand a standard you won't apply to yourself.

So why that knee-jerk? Obviously, because your political party has deemed this topic to be un-PC, and wants to shut down all discussion on it. That's why all the righties here constantly try to shut down rational conversation by piling on with their hysterical red-herrings. Those who can talk about science, do. Righties don't. All they can do is spam and whine.

Nice meaningless rant. Parroting things you don't understand is a trademark of the Gorebal Warmers.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

States one of our board idiots. Now a sane person would find something that indicated that the scientists interpretations of the data was erroneous.

Eeeeeeeek! tipping point dead ahead!

This time it's for real!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

If you want to stop the ice from melting, surrender your property and freedom!

Sure, that won't stop the ice, but that was never the point

 

[Weatherman2020]

Anyone living in those low-lying areas and worried about the meltdown needs to move their butts to higher ground. Problem solved. ****Information provided as a public service at no charge.****.

What we need to do is put a tax on everyone living in coastal areas.
The fact most of these are heavily blue areas is just a bonus.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Sleeping giant' glacier may lift seas two metres: study

Source: yahoo new

Paris (AFP) - A rapidly melting glacier atop East Antarctica is on track to lift oceans at least two metres, and could soon pass a "tipping point" of no return, researchers said Wednesday.

To date, scientists have mostly worried about the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets as dangerous drivers of sea level rise.

But the new study, following up on earlier work by the same team, has identified a third major threat to hundreds of millions of people living in coastal areas around the world.

"I predict that before the end of the century the great global cities of our planet near the sea will have two- or three-metre (6.5 - 10 feet) high sea defences all around them," said Martin Siegert, co-director of the Grantham Institute and Department of Earth Science and Engineering at Imperial College London, and the study's senior author.

From the air, the contours of Totten Glacier -- roughly the size of France -- are invisible because the entire Antarctic continent is covered by a seamless, kilometres-thick blanket of snow and ice.

Geologically, however, it is a distinct -- and volatile -- beast.

- Disintegration accelerating -

Read more: 'Sleeping giant' glacier may lift seas two metres: study

Say good bye to southern Florida, LA and Boston. This is quite concerning.

So the Sky is falling then?

 

[Uncensored2008]

I predict before the end of the century.......blah blah blah. This is science?

In the same way Scientology is....

 

[Uncensored2008]

States one of our board idiots. Now a sane person would find something that indicated that the scientists interpretations of the data was erroneous.

A sane person would point and laugh at you fucking retards.

Which we do...

 

[mamooth]

When I point out that deniers are intellectual cowards who always try to derail intelligence discussions by way of hysterical drama queen acts, it's probably wasn't a good choice for so many of them to immediately do their best confirm that point. Deniers, if you have nothing intelligent to say, consider not saying it. I know that would usually leave you with nothing to say at all, but understand the damage that you're doing to your side. Normal people see what crybabies you are, and they don't want to be associated in any way with such a pack of whiners.

Now, who would like to discuss the paper under discussion here?

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v533/n7603/full/nature17447.html

Does anyone disagree Antarctic ocean temperatures are rising? That sea levels are rising? I hope not, being such things are measured directly, so only the looniest of conspiracy theorists would try to deny it.

So, let's move on from there. The water is warmer and higher. It's eating away at the glaciers, at their terminus, from below. Being those glaciers rest on bedrock that's below sea level, that means it can melt hundreds of miles inwards, releasing one serious assload of ice, and raising sea levels.

If I need to dumb that down for you more, let me know. I'll give it a try. Please, however, don't just scream hysterically at me again because I dared talk about science, no matter how traumatized such a thing leaves you. If talk about science gets you that upset, just stop reading the thread.

 

[Uncensored2008]

When I point out that deniers are intellectual cowards who always try to derail intelligence discussions by way of hysterical drama queen acts, it's probably wasn't a good choice for so many of them to immediately do their best confirm that point. Deniers, if you have nothing intelligent to say, consider not saying it. I know that would usually leave you with nothing to say at all, but understand the damage that you're doing to your side. Normal people see what crybabies you are, and they don't want to be associated in any way with such a pack of whiners.

Now, who would like to discuss the paper under discussion here?

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v533/n7603/full/nature17447.html

Does anyone disagree Antarctic ocean temperatures are rising? That sea levels are rising? I hope not, being such things are measured directly, so only the looniest of conspiracy theorists would try to deny it.

So, let's move on from there. The water is warmer and higher. It's eating away at the glaciers, at their terminus, from below. Being those glaciers rest on bedrock that's below sea level, that means it can melt hundreds of miles inwards, releasing one serious assload of ice, and raising sea levels.

If I need to dumb that down for you more, let me know. I'll give it a try. Please, however, don't just scream hysterically at me again because I dared talk about science, no matter how traumatized such a thing leaves you. If talk about science gets you that upset, just stop reading the thread.

"Discussion" with followers of Scientology, Astrology, or AGW is not possible. You truly believe that the ignorant superstition you follow is "scientific." The fact that you cannot grasp the concept of falsification, null hypothesis, and rejection criteria means that you cannot discuss things in rational terms.


Hence:

A sane person would point and laugh at you fucking retards.

Which we do...

 

[Vandalshandle]

Deniers have never lost an argument about global warming.

"Your data is fake".
"You don't know what you are talking about"
"Global warming is a natural phenomena"
"Al Gore is a _____________ "(fill in the blanks)
" Just present any conclusion and call it 'science'"
"your evidence is flawed"

What nobody has been able to explain to me is why they think that we can burn and emit millions of tons of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere and still think that it should have no effect on world temperatures. That, and just who is behind this evil plot to spread this false information, and why.

I gave up long ago. I also moved out of New Orleans.

 

[mamooth]

"Discussion" with followers of Scientology, Astrology, or AGW is not possible. You truly believe that the ignorant superstition you follow is "scientific." The fact that you cannot grasp the concept of falsification, null hypothesis, and rejection criteria means that you cannot discuss things in rational terms.

Nice projection, cultist. Climate science obeys all those principles. Your cult rejects them all. And you don't know that. Your cult taught you a few buzzwords to say about science, but you have no idea of what they actually mean. I'm going to make you cry and flail about now, and laugh as I do it. Let's start out talking about falsification.

Many directly measurable things could falsify global warming theory. I'll list some.

A lack of rising temperatures over the long term
A lack of rising sea levels
A lack of stratospheric cooling
A lack of increase in backradiation
A lack of increase in specific humidity
Outgoing long wave radiation not decreasing in the GHG bands
A lack of atmospheric CO2 increase
Showing CO2 doesn't really absorb IR
Demonstrating a source for the added heat that wasn't known before
Demonstrating climate has changed the same way in the past

Needless to say, none of those disproofs has happened. The point is that global warming theory can be falsified in many ways, because it's real science, and all the evidence backs it up.

Your turn now. List the things that would falsify the denialist theory. If you can't or won't, you're admitting to being a pseudoscience-spouting religious cultist. And no, screaming "The burden of proof is not on me!" doesn't get you off the hook, because the burden of proof clearly is on you. The null hypothesis, that the warming is natural, has been conclusively disproved, being that no form of natural warming could cause stratospheric cooling, an increase in backradiation, or a decrease in OLR in the GHG bands. Now the burden of proof is on you. Meet it, or revel in your permanent status as a cult dupe.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Nice projection, cultist. Climate science obeys all those principles. Your cult rejects them all. And you don't know that. Your cult taught you a few buzzwords to say about science, but you have no idea of what they actually mean. I'm going to make you cry and flail about now, and laugh as I do it. Let's start out talking about falsification.

Many directly measurable things could falsify global warming theory. I'll list some.

A lack of rising temperatures over the long term
A lack of rising sea levels
A lack of stratospheric cooling
A lack of increase in backradiation
A lack of increase in specific humidity
Outgoing long wave radiation not decreasing in the GHG bands
A lack of atmospheric CO2 increase
Showing CO2 doesn't really absorb IR
Demonstrating a source for the added heat that wasn't known before
Demonstrating climate has changed the same way in the past

Needless to say, none of those disproofs has happened. The point is that global warming theory can be falsified in many ways, because it's real science, and all the evidence backs it up.

Your turn now. List the things that would falsify the denialist theory. If you can't or won't, you're admitting to being a pseudoscience-spouting religious cultist. And no, screaming "The burden of proof is not on me!" doesn't get you off the hook, because the burden of proof clearly is on you. The null hypothesis, that the warming is natural, has been conclusively disproved, being that no form of natural warming could cause stratospheric cooling, an increase in backradiation, or a decrease in OLR in the GHG bands. Now the burden of proof is on you. Meet it, or revel in your permanent status as a cult dupe.

A Scientologist such as yourself has no grasp of the principles of legitimate science, but here is a clue cult boi, correlation != causation.

Not that there is even correlation between CO2 levels and temperature increases.

We have been warming since the end of the little ice age.

Welcome to planet Earth, where the climate changes incessantly. Your voodoo gods have nothing to do with it. The anger of Gaea is just a fantasy you primitive fucks have.

 

[jc456]

States one of our board idiots. Now a sane person would find something that indicated that the scientists interpretations of the data was erroneous.

crock, how does refute stupid? I mean there was absolutely nothing within the OP that said anything as to why he had his opinion. I won't ever say someone's opinion is wrong, it is there. The fact is there aren't enough facts to determine what the ice-sheet will do or any other glacier or sea ice melt will do. Vostok station is -71 today oh boy I bet snow is a melting there. And can you find the temperature in West Antarctica today? I can't seem to get it.

 

[jc456]

Man, you idiots just hate science.

How does a scientist observing a ice sheet = hating science? You're the one that hates science that wants it all to be defunded and won't Publish a fucking paper in a journal to show where or how this is wrong to begin with.

so is an ice sheet considered land based?

 

[Shrimpbox]

Is the whole of Antarctica warming?
No.
The Antarctic Peninsula, particularly the West coast of the Peninsula is warming at a rate about 10 times faster than the global average. This has received a great deal of publicity in recent years and is where the Larsen B ice shelf (see above) is situated. The average annual temperature of this region has increased by nearly 3°C in the last 50 years.

Data on temperatures in Antarctica only really go back about 50 years, anything beyond that is surmised from ice cores or other sources and so we don't accurately know how the temperatures vary over even the medium term in Antarctica. The reason that the Peninsula region appears to be so dramatically warming is that it has a large amount of snow and ice, glaciers, ice shelves and other features, It also has an annual average temperature not far off the freezing point of water. A small increase in the average annual temperature can mean that a few more weeks or even just a few more days per year when melting can occur can result in very visible results of ice features reducing or disappearing.

The vast majority of Antarctica is so cold that even if the temperature was to rise by the same amount as the Peninsula, there still wouldn't be any melting going on at all. The average surface temperature of continental Antarctica is about -37°C as opposed to -5°C for the warmest places on the peninsula.

• 
  Scenario 1 - A warmer day in most of Antarctica still gives a temperature well below freezing, say -30°C to -20°C
  = Nothing much to see.
  
  Scenario 2 - A warmer day in the Peninsula takes temperatures from say -5C to +5C
  = Lots of melting and potential ice break up, lots to see.
  

This is no reason to become complacent however as part of the reason that the Antarctic ice sheet is so cold is that it's so high, due to the thickness of the ice. The melting and flow of the glaciers removing ice from the continent is also slowed by the ice shelves around the continent edge.

Small rises in temperature that start to nibble away a little faster at the edges could eventually speed up the loss of ice from the interior and cause greater temperature rises to take place further inland. Ice shelves seem to act as "corks" in Antarctic "ice-bottles", remove the ice shelf and a huge amount of ice from the interior could start to flow towards the sea where it will melt even though the temperature in the interior may be stable. The "corks" are currently keeping the ice at the coldest places.

The problem with trying to predict the future in these matters is that firstly there is not enough data available to base predictions on and secondly, the way things work is not fully understood. Most models from different researchers and teams tend to agree however that there will be some small changes in temperature over the next 50 years. It is also expected that the rise in global temperature will put more moisture into the atmosphere and more of this will reach Antarctica so giving a greater snowfall to offset the melting ice. Despite all the snow and ice there Antarctica is actually classed as a desert as there is so little snow-fall, it's just that what does fall stays there so it builds up over a long time period.


................"Thus, the present loss of ice shelves cannot be assumed to be a consequence of Man-made climate change,
unless and until a cause can be identified"
British Antarctic Survey......................

There is no unusual significant loss of ice of any kind from the larger 96% of Antarctica that is not the Peninsula.
.........................

Antarctica, the Effects of Global Warming

People like mamooth are not interested in science, he is an absolutist, and if you don't agree with him you are just ignorant. I guess he slept through the class about the scientific method, let me help you out.

What is the ``scientific method''?

The beginning of the thread included a quote that this scientist predicted that sea levels would rise two meters in a hundred years. This cannot be proven, period. This is not science but a guy in his cubby hole who is not getting enough attention and has been shooting up man made global warming for so long he is an addict. I could just as easily say all the evidence points to mamooth being a flaming moron and I predict he will be admitted to the looney bin in the next 30 years. Mamooth can't hold his own in a debate so he descends to insults and ad hominems. He will just be another lib booking passage on the boat leaving our shores in search of a socialist utopia on the day Donald trump is sworn in as president. Stuff it.

 

[jc456]

Is the whole of Antarctica warming?
No.
The Antarctic Peninsula, particularly the West coast of the Peninsula is warming at a rate about 10 times faster than the global average. This has received a great deal of publicity in recent years and is where the Larsen B ice shelf (see above) is situated. The average annual temperature of this region has increased by nearly 3°C in the last 50 years.

Data on temperatures in Antarctica only really go back about 50 years, anything beyond that is surmised from ice cores or other sources and so we don't accurately know how the temperatures vary over even the medium term in Antarctica. The reason that the Peninsula region appears to be so dramatically warming is that it has a large amount of snow and ice, glaciers, ice shelves and other features, It also has an annual average temperature not far off the freezing point of water. A small increase in the average annual temperature can mean that a few more weeks or even just a few more days per year when melting can occur can result in very visible results of ice features reducing or disappearing.

The vast majority of Antarctica is so cold that even if the temperature was to rise by the same amount as the Peninsula, there still wouldn't be any melting going on at all. The average surface temperature of continental Antarctica is about -37°C as opposed to -5°C for the warmest places on the peninsula.

• 
  Scenario 1 - A warmer day in most of Antarctica still gives a temperature well below freezing, say -30°C to -20°C
  = Nothing much to see.
  
  Scenario 2 - A warmer day in the Peninsula takes temperatures from say -5C to +5C
  = Lots of melting and potential ice break up, lots to see.

This is no reason to become complacent however as part of the reason that the Antarctic ice sheet is so cold is that it's so high, due to the thickness of the ice. The melting and flow of the glaciers removing ice from the continent is also slowed by the ice shelves around the continent edge.

Small rises in temperature that start to nibble away a little faster at the edges could eventually speed up the loss of ice from the interior and cause greater temperature rises to take place further inland. Ice shelves seem to act as "corks" in Antarctic "ice-bottles", remove the ice shelf and a huge amount of ice from the interior could start to flow towards the sea where it will melt even though the temperature in the interior may be stable. The "corks" are currently keeping the ice at the coldest places.

The problem with trying to predict the future in these matters is that firstly there is not enough data available to base predictions on and secondly, the way things work is not fully understood. Most models from different researchers and teams tend to agree however that there will be some small changes in temperature over the next 50 years. It is also expected that the rise in global temperature will put more moisture into the atmosphere and more of this will reach Antarctica so giving a greater snowfall to offset the melting ice. Despite all the snow and ice there Antarctica is actually classed as a desert as there is so little snow-fall, it's just that what does fall stays there so it builds up over a long time period.


................"Thus, the present loss of ice shelves cannot be assumed to be a consequence of Man-made climate change,
unless and until a cause can be identified"
British Antarctic Survey......................

There is no unusual significant loss of ice of any kind from the larger 96% of Antarctica that is not the Peninsula.
.........................

Antarctica, the Effects of Global Warming

People like mamooth are not interested in science, he is an absolutist, and if you don't agree with him you are just ignorant. I guess he slept through the class about the scientific method, let me help you out.

What is the ``scientific method''?

The beginning of the thread included a quote that this scientist predicted that sea levels would rise two meters in a hundred years. This cannot be proven, period. This is not science but a guy in his cubby hole who is not getting enough attention and has been shooting up man made global warming for so long he is an addict. I could just as easily say all the evidence points to mamooth being a flaming moron and I predict he will be admitted to the looney bin in the next 30 years. Mamooth can't hold his own in a debate so he descends to insults and ad hominems. He will just be another lib booking passage on the boat leaving our shores in search of a socialist utopia on the day Donald trump is sworn in as president. Stuff it.

what is the temperature there today?

Vostok station is -71 F and Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station is -58 F.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Evacuate NY, NJ and CA

 

[jc456]

Evacuate NY, NJ and CA

Frank, they act like whatever melted doesn't refreeze. I am splitting a gut with this crap. I guess water doesn't freeze when it is below zero.

 

[mamooth]

A Scientologist

Oh look. I've made another denier cultist run. It must be a day ending in "y".

If you ever manage to locate your gonads, answer the question about what data could falsify your theory. Since you're unwilling to do so, it's clear that nothing could falsify your theory, which puts your theory squarely in the category of "religious pseudoscience."

such as yourself has no grasp of the principles of legitimate science, but here is a clue cult boi, correlation != causation.

Current correlation between CO2 and temperature is necessary to prove global warming theory, but it's certainly not sufficient. And since nobody ever said otherwise, you now look even more stupid and dishonest.

Not that there is even correlation between CO2 levels and temperature increases.

Of course there is. CO2 and temperature have both risen steadily, hence there is obviously a positive correlation. And I do hope you're not about to attempt a "but CO2 lags temperature!" logical faceplant now.

We have been warming since the end of the little ice age.

The LIA had 3 main causes.

1. Cooler sun. Well, the sun cooled recently. And it got warmer.

2. Higher volcanic activity. Also seen now. And it got warmer.

3. Lower CO2 levels. Well, we certainly fixed that.

Cycles have causes. The same natural factors that made it cool in the LIA are happening now. And instead of getting cooler, it's getting warmer, because of that third factor, the CO2.

Welcome to planet Earth, where the climate changes incessantly. Your voodoo gods have nothing to do with it. The anger of Gaea is just a fantasy you primitive fucks have.

You deniers are the only ones openly embracing a Gaian "The earth does what it will, and cycles in and out of the Age of Aquarius, and we can't change that!" religion. We rational modern humans reject such touchy-feely crap, and instead we follow the hard data.

Now, some of you denier hippies are even demanding that everyone move into caves and give up electricity. If that's what you want, by all means, do it, but don't expect anyone else to come join your unshaven smelly commune.