NASA/GRL/Science - Collapse Of West Antarctic Ice Sheet Appears To Be Under Way, Likely Unstoppable

I thought when huge chunks of ice dropped into the ocean tidal waves occurred. Big ones, like when they found all those tropical plants and animals over the northern mountain ranges to the northern circumfernce.
Whale bones in the mountains too and all that. That would be akin to Gilgamesh type thing.

So this is more minor than that.

Also we're in the tale end of an ice age. So it just warms up for a few years and back to ice age? Does that mean earth never really leaves an ice age?

And also, I believe radiation and a lot of stuff in the water, BP chemicals even, could do quite a lot to warm ice.

One thing is for sure, not noticing the levels rising for decades is a handy way out, so it could be a political move.

A ten foot rise in sea levels will be catastrophic.It would change the world's coastlines where many peoples live.

originally posted by: TDawg61
A ten foot rise in sea levels will be catastrophic.It would change the world's coastlines where many peoples live.

Good thing this supposed event will take place over 100 years.

It isn't like it is going to happen next Monday. If it ever happens. Which it may, or may not. Either way, people will have ample time to move. Or, like New Orleans, be foolish enough to build walls to keep their city even though it is below sea level. Anything is likely.

Who knows, as long as we are "doom and gloom"ing, we may all die from an asteroid in 2032, so no need to worry about ice shelves at that point.

Most likely you will have a fatal car accident way before then though. Just stating the odds.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Chronon

The sea does not warm by itself. Neither does the air.

Right. The ocean is primarily warmed by captured heat from solar radiation, just as the air is. Do you think there is enough volcanic activity to raise global temperatures?

These scientists are saying magma below the surface is doing the same thing, resulting in volcanoes.

No. They are not saying that is what is happening.

But even if anthropogenic, or human-caused, climate change impacts volcanic eruptions, people wouldn't see the effect in this lifetime, because the volcanic activity doesn't occur immediately after the climate change, Jegen said.

"We predict there's a time lag of about 2,500 years," Jegen said. "So even if we change the climate, you wouldn't really expect anything to happen in the next few thousand years."

www.livescience.com...

Glaciers have not been rapidly melting for 2,500 years.

Wow, so are you saying they are melting rapidly now as a result of climate change initiatives started 2,500+ years ago?

What were those cretins doing to our planet!!

Or is it just shifting as a part of a natural (un-natural some would say) calendrical course that is being carefully hidden from us STILL.

Flat out, if I was you, I would be more incredulous of your ever-changing science.....

BTW, it sure is funny the guys who deny chemtrails are the same ones claiming our climate is changing due to burning fuels, oddly the ones that are in the atmosphere the MOST, IE EVERYTHING FROM PLANES, is a total - non-starter it appears.

a reply to: AboveBoard
Omnipresent phenomena drives all of these changes irrespective of human activity.
Now, localized climate irregularities involving fossil fuel emissions are caused due to a combination of said emissions and unfavorable air displacement occurring naturally.

problems are not to be feared

This possibly can be the reason why there is such a push on colonizing mars. Or have we been there already and are patiently waiting...

a reply to: ParasuvO

I think chem trails are a joke....

It should be clear I am anti AGW.

a reply to: TDawg61

Wrong. Not sure why you think that. Use the sea level maps.

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: TDawg61

Wrong. Not sure why you think that. Use the sea level maps.

Remember what sea level is - the average level of the sea; high and low tides are above or below that. This range is called tidal range. In some places, that range is very big.

If the sea level was to rise on average 10 feet, it wouldn't be evenly distributed across the world. It would increase more near the equator and increase less near the poles due to the earth's rotation, but due to gravitational anomalies, this is rule is not a hard one.

a reply to: BobAthome

Been thinking of the same thing whilst reading here... Our tilted axis is not stationary, it just oscillates really slowly.
If memory serves, the tilt is moving in. Which forces me to consider that while human interaction is a concern, the melting and weather changes may have more to do with axial tilt and other things, than with the human acne alone. (still, recycle, mo-fo's! Use the same phone for more than a year. Buy from thrift stores. #.)

Axial tilt
Milankovich cycles
our position in space
all these jets and currents
volcanism
albedo
...

I heard the other day that warm water can freeze faster than 'cooler' water? (haven't researched that yet, it's a thinking thought )

a reply to: Blackmarketeer

They always say in 50 years or 100 years but if the sea rises by centimetres it will bring down the economy. In a storm surge all those centimetres will stack up on top of each other and become meters...

a reply to: bobs_uruncle

People should get ready. These climate changes have been happening for billions of years and they are nothing new, despite the claims from the AGW believers.

We shouldn't be "trying to help the Earth" by tampering with the climate. CO2 has never been the cause for climate changes. Atmospheric changes in CO2 levels have always lagged temperature changes by an average of 800 years. What this means is that normally temperatures increase, and then on an average 800 years, a few times much less than that, CO2 levels change.

Kind of ironic that the same people who claim that mankind's activities caused the ongoing Climate Change, which there is no proof for such a claim, are the same people who want to tamper even more with the global climate... But stupid is as stupid does I guess.

There are already programs, which have been ongoing for a few years, to sequester atmospheric CO2, and this is a big mistake. Atmospheric CO2 is food for all plant life, and when CO2 levels are too low plant growth stops altogether, which means less food. It has been also demonstrated that with higher levels of CO2 all plant life use water more efficiently, leaving more water for humans and animals.

What mankind should have been doing is preparing for these changes, not trying to tamper with the global climate.

BTW, I still see how the AGW believers still are using their pcs, and I can pretty much surmise they haven't changed their routines at all and are using all the advantages that technology has to offer... These people offer a lot of talk, by using the same technology they claim is the cause behind climate changes, but they are not doing the walk at all...

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Unfortunately carbon dioxide levels are now higher than they have been for hundreds of thousands of years. Here.

In support of Aboveboard, I will assist you with your queries and somehow try to understand your commentary.
First, may I clarify a few items.
1. At no point is there a reference to the end of humanity
2. It's the West Antarctic ice sheet
3. I am challenged by your reference to 'what makes you think...'. This is scientific evidence; knowledge, not opinion.
4. I fail to understand the reference to the Jurassic. Humans were not present in this period so we cannot evaluate whether we could survive without the Polar ice caps. Or the West Antarctic ice sheet.
5. Your choice of Geologic period was unfortunate. Maybe you won't choose that one again once you find out how that one ended. Real bad choice.

I am happy to enter serious discourse about the incontrovertible evidence regarding climate change and the causal human activity and would hope you will enlighten us with, maybe, a scientific paper published in a peer reviewed journal that refutes climate change.
Just one paper. Peer reviewed.
That's all. Google Scholar would be a starting point.

.a reply to: raymundoko

The volume of water expands by about ten percent when frozen, whilst maintaining the same mass. This reduces its specific gravity to around 0.9, causing ten percent or so to be above the water line, just like your ice cubes.
As the ice melts, its volume reduces as it returns to its water state - don't forget the 90% of the ice below water level that will reduce in volume by 10% as that visible above the drink - levels stay the same. Give it a try.
reply to: raymundoko

a reply to: Colbomoose

I was speaking about submerged ice and already made that clear.

Landsats have been measuring land height increases in West Anarctic for the past few years now, showing glacial rebound is already under way. Never mind any other indicator, this pretty clearly demonstrates that the ice is melting.

I will try to dig it out (can't remember where i read it) but i was reading a scientific paper last week (or one before) that showed some evidence of this happening in West Antarctic before, despite all the Climate Change advocates saying it hasn't.

Basically, it is happening and has happened before. The only real question is how much of an effect are we having on it. This is something that is never going to be easy to prove without an alternative test site somewhere else.......say decades down the line we find a planet undergoing similar changes. This is the thing the climate scientists always overlook and i genuinely can't see why. The basic rule of science is test and test and test, ad nauseum, in order to be able draw proper conclusions. As we only have results from this one planet and even that new knowledge (even if it is being added to all time), how can we conclusively prove one way or another that this is not natural and that we are to blame? Without other test subjects it is all conjecture and baseless conclusions.

a reply to: Colbomoose

www.populartechnology.net...

The Jurassic-Triassic extinction event was sudden resulting in simtaneous ocean and land die offs. The best theory was world wide volcanic eruptions. Are you saying if I dont subscribe to AGW it is going to trigger volcanic eruptions????

If you think humans can't live in 90-100% humidity with a global climate of 16.5 c (65 f) then you're delusional. Those areas exist on earth today and people love them.

a reply to: Flavian

I've never denied climate change isn't happening. I've said humans play a unsubstantial part to global temperatures, if any at all. We're still coming out of a glacial period just like has happened without us around many times before.

Humans are going to have to work around the new coast lines.

originally posted by: trollz
Please let it submerge all of Florida...

.....and DC.