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

It took me some time to understand that entire human CO2 emission stuff and why we are in fact responsible of the actual situation.

CO2 emission is something natural on our planet. During cooling periods CO2 gets sinked while during warming up periods the sinked CO2 reenters the atmosphere. It's something cyclic.

Human CO2 emission is only 7%-10% compared to Natural CO2 emissions and it started with the Industrial revolution, and so on and so on.

So this doesn't seem too bad, but
(going to keep it simple as it's a bit more complex but at least we'll all understand what's going on)

It would be fine if it was 93% natural CO2 emissions and 7% Human made CO2 emissions but that's not the case.

It's 100% natural CO2 emissions + 7% Human made CO2 emissions -> so 107% in total.

Also this 7% isn't some kind of one-shot, happening once, but a continue ongoing process with a potential growth if we don't tackle human CO2 emissions.

Just for your information of course if you didn't know it yet.

originally posted by: raymundoko
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.

That is kind of the point i was making. In reality, we have no way of knowing our impact on climate without other results from other climates with other humans. We may be wrecking the planet, we may be having as much impact as a gnat on a windshield - we just can't prove it from one set of results. We can postulate, extrapolate and theorise all we want but that is all it is - for both sides of the argument.

I do not understand how anyone cannot see the foolishness of the concept of man made global warming. As is stated already the earth went through a warming cycle a few thousand years ago. Since it has been proven that the earth goes through warming and cooling cycles regularly and every 400,000 years or so it warms a lot how does a "global warming advocate" possibly think we are responsible? Did the cavemen start too many fires? The simple fact is that one volcanic eruption spews more greenhouse gases than all humans combined over a ten year period. So until we find a way to plug those pesky volcanoes we are simply not going to stop nature from doing what it does.

Global warming is a money making scheme and nothing more, just ask Al Gore who is approaching a net worth of a billion dollars due to his lies.

originally posted by: ccross
Global warming is a money making scheme and nothing more, just ask Al Gore who is approaching a net worth of a billion dollars due to his lies.

This is a foolish notion.

Al Gore was a rich man when he became Vice President to Bill Clinton, with about $1.7 M in net worth. It's not like he suddenly got wealthy off of "An Inconvenient Truth" back in 2006. As a rich man, he was able to make investments that paid off quite well. For example, he helped start Current TV in 2004 and recently sold it for $500 M, of which his share was $70 M. He was a member of Apple's board of directors back in 2003, and the value of Apple shares has increased 5900% (from this article a year ago) since he joined the board. He sold a bunch of shares for a quick $30 M last year and was still estimated to have $45 M in Apple shares when this article was written.

The science is complete fake man. The antarctic grew a lot bigger during this winter.

Never believe anything these corporate UN stooges say.

www.infowars.com...

Alarmist Headlines on ‘Antarctic Ice Sheet Collapse’ Obscure Truth
The Alex Jones Channel Alex Jones Show podcast Prison Planet TV Infowars.com Twitter Alex Jones' Facebook Infowars store
Dubious prediction isn’t even expected for 1,000 years
Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
May 14, 2014
Scaremongering headlines about the “collapse” of the the Antarctic ice sheet omitted the fact that such an event isn’t predicted to happen for as much as 1,000 years, underscoring once again how the mass media grossly exaggerates the threat posed by global warming.
On Monday, the Guardian reported that the “Western Antarctic ice sheet collapse has already begun,” prompting the likes of NBC News, the New York Times, the LA Times and CNN to hastily regurgitate the alarmism.
It isn’t until the third paragraph of the Guardian article that the true context of the story becomes clear, when Suzanne Goldenberg acknowledges that the potential loss of the ice sheet along with a 13ft sea level rise “is still several centuries off, and potentially up to 1,000 years away.”
The article also failed to mention that Antarctic sea ice expanded to record levels for April, growing by more than 110,000sq km a day last month to nine million square kilometers.

Even New York Times environmental writer Andy Revkin, a proponent of the man-made global warming theory, slammed the “awful misuse” of the word “collapse” in the headline of the story.
Such predictions also routinely fail to include the proviso that climate models have proven to be spectacularly wrong on numerous occasions in the past.
In December 2008, Al Gore claimed that the “entire north polar ice cap will be gone in 5 years,” a forecast proven embarrassingly inept by reality.
In 2007 BBC News, citing climate scientists, also predicted that Arctic summers would be “ice free” by 2013. What actually happened was that Arctic ice grew by a mammoth 533,000 square miles in a year from August 2012 to August 2013.

Back in January, Obama science czar John P. Holdren dubiously claimed that the ‘polar vortex’ which caused record low temperatures across many areas of the United States this past winter was caused by global warming, contradicting the United Nations IPCC, which in its 2007 report stated there was, “likely to be a decline in the frequency of cold air outbreaks… in [northern hemisphere] winter in most areas.”
Last year, climate scientists were forced to admit that computer models of predicted temperature increases calculated in 2007 were off by 75%. Figures show that there has been no global warming for over 17 years.

As agenda-driven climate scientists continue to blame every weather pattern on man-made global warming for political purposes, the real climate threat is likely to emerge out of the fact that sunspot activity is at its lowest for 100 years, which researchers warn will lead to plunging temperatures and the onset of a new mini ice age.

originally posted by: amfirst1
The science is complete fake man. The antarctic grew a lot bigger during this winter.

Please, do explain why an increase in antarctic sea ice means anything in relation to climate change.

Of note, arctic sea ice extent was far below average (albeit larger than some recent years).

If you were to combine sea ice extents (arctic minimum + antarctic maximum or arctic maximum + antarctic minimum), we're way below average.

Ha ha

Reading the 'for' and 'against' posts and arguements on here really typifies the arrogance and uselessness of it all…….

Those who claim people become billionaires because of lies and those who say we could make a 'Difference''

ALL I KNOW (i think) is that whenMother Nature decides to change the blance and alter the 'Status Quo then there is NOTHING yep NOTHING we can do about it……..

Sorry but that 's my view nowadays

PDUK

Hopefully global warming will melt it before it gets to me... Otherwise bring it on ...

I came across this a couple hours before I had read about the inevitable ice sheet melting
theextinctionprotocol.wordpress.com... global-warming/
Apparently there's a volcano underneath the west Antarctic ice sheet. reply to: Danbones

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

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

That depends on which expert you want to believe. Something about towing the party line to get grants somehow interferes with their credibilry.

Cheers - Dave

In December 2008, Al Gore claimed that the “entire north polar ice cap will be gone in 5 years,” a forecast proven embarrassingly inept by reality.
In 2007 BBC News, citing climate scientists, also predicted that Arctic summers would be “ice free” by 2013. What actually happened was that Arctic ice grew by a mammoth 533,000 square miles in a year from August 2012 to August 2013.

This convinced me of a scam... now its may and some parts of the USA and the great lakes are still filed with ice....

I live at 8400 feet above sea level, so I can merrily go my life even if oceans go up or down 20 feet.... EARTH WILL DO WHAT IT HAS regardless of what Al (bear/man/pig) Gore says.

Not to detract from, but to add some to the OP information here?

Rapid melt of Antarctic Ice happened 8000yrs ago

I'd written this last month and included information about the belief there are multiple active volcanoes beneath the ice as well as other factors driving a melt from beneath as much as the Sea water temps changing in subtle ways to melt the underside of the existing ice 'run off', as the movement behind it on land increases.

It's something real and something to watch in my opinion. The scary thing is, it's also something which evidence now indicates has happened before and within reasonable periods of geologic history for being relevant. (Millions of years difference in landscapes it takes CGI to recreate never seem that way....less than 10,000 years however, is getting uncomfortable).

Whatever the causes, we'd best get to finding how much (if any) we can somehow mitigate OR mitigate the damage end. Antarctica IS a place very capable of raising Sea Levels by measurable degrees if something down there changes for balance. It's literally the only place on Earth with the ice pack that can, actually.

a reply to: kix
This again? If you well and truly believe that quote to be accurate, please link it. From what I can tell, Gore was supposed to have said this on video. I'd like the video.

originally posted by: Wrabbit2000
Whatever the causes, we'd best get to finding how much (if any) we can somehow mitigate OR mitigate the damage end. Antarctica IS a place very capable of raising Sea Levels by measurable degrees if something down there changes for balance. It's literally the only place on Earth with the ice pack that can, actually.

Antarctica is the only place that can do that?

If the ice sheets in Greenland all melt, that's something like 24 feet of sea level rise.

The bipol ar thermal see-saw is what we may be seeing with respect to the low ice on Arctic Circle and greater ice in the Antarctic. Evidence suggests it may be a natural cycle seen in the past.

The intense and abrupt climate swings characteristic of the last glacial period are believed to have arisen from iceberg discharges into the North Atlantic, disrupting the ocean circulation system transporting heat from low latitudes to the North Atlantic. The result was a sharp cooling in the North Atlantic and warming in the South Atlantic, slowly communicated to Antarctica via the Southern Ocean. This mechanism for asymmetrical climate change across the hemispheres has been called ‘the thermal bipolar see-saw’. Evidence from ice-core and marine records for the last glacial period and climate models has supported this bipolar seesaw process, but the extent to which its operation is affected by climate conditions and the hydrological cycle remains unclear. This new study, published in February’s Nature Geoscience, shows that the bipolar see-saw was a feature of the penultimate glacial period, but that its operation was also modified by the background climate state.

a reply to: Greven

Okay, lets consider what I said. Perhaps a poor choice of words between indicating what can do it in mechanics we understand for being capable of quickly changing vs. physical capability in theory. The scales are also radically different for potential and what would be required to cause serious damaging change.

The current area in motion is thought to be capable of producing 4 feet of global ocean sea rise. IF all that is currently being looked at did melt.

If the entire Western Ice sheet were to melt (which isn't what is being suggested here by anyone), it would raise global Sea levels by more than ALL ice in Greenland melting to bare ground, across the whole landmass would produce. (Assuming Greenland physically rose with the lifting of dead ice weight and didn't just form a giant inland lake.)

I found a graphic from the USGS that puts in in numbers...

Source: USGS Sea Level and Climate

My bad in the poor choice of words for what I'd been trying to communicate.

originally posted by: ccross
I do not understand how anyone cannot see the foolishness of the concept of man made global warming. As is stated already the earth went through a warming cycle a few thousand years ago. Since it has been proven that the earth goes through warming and cooling cycles regularly and every 400,000 years or so it warms a lot how does a "global warming advocate" possibly think we are responsible?

Because the physics says so and the observational results say so,.

The instigators for the past warming and cooling cycles are not present now, and there is a new instigator --- burning fossilized carbon which had previously been sequestered for 50+ million years.

Supopse you work in a hospital and see three men with a heart attack last week. Now, a new guy comes in with a bad heart problem. Do you say "oh must be another heart attack, natural causes" when there's a freaking bleeding bullet hole, gundpowder residue, a confession and a bullet, in his chest? That's not as strong as the evidence for man-made climate change.

Did the cavemen start too many fires?

Once we started digging up coal industrially---yes.

The simple fact is that one volcanic eruption spews more greenhouse gases than all humans combined over a ten year period. So until we find a way to plug those pesky volcanoes we are simply not going to stop nature from doing what it does.

That "simple fact" is simply a compete lie. These things have been measured. Look at the Keeling Curve, i.e. actual data. Volcanism is sporadic point events of widely separated magnitude, like earthquakes. Do you see any huge blips from volcanoes? No. You see a quadratic increase with a small seasonal variation superimposed.

keelingcurve.ucsd.edu...

en.wikipedia.org...



In fact, human emissions over a few years equal the entire magnitude of the planetary seasonal change, i.e. of a magnitude corresponding to the emissions of the entire hemispherical biosphere over a season.

Global warming is a money making scheme and nothing more, just ask Al Gore who is approaching a net worth of a billion dollars due to his lies.

Another lie. Fossil fuel burning is a trillion dollar scheme.

originally posted by: Flavian
That is kind of the point i was making. In reality, we have no way of knowing our impact on climate without other results from other climates with other humans. We may be wrecking the planet, we may be having as much impact as a gnat on a windshield - we just can't prove it from one set of results. We can postulate, extrapolate and theorise all we want but that is all it is - for both sides of the argument.

And we can measure. We know the increase in CO2 and other greenhouse gases is from man. We know the physics in the infrared emissivity and the effect of that (this is not just theory any more it is comprehensive experimental fact), and we can calibrate that magnitude effect vs past effects on climate from natural causes.

a reply to: Nidwin

That's good. Except that the pre-industrial CO2 level is estimated at 280 ppm, and now we're at 400 and screaming higher to 550 easily within a century.

So it's like 100% natural + 80% extra man-made.

a reply to: mbkennel

Link your source to those figures... (The ones if humans being 80%) Even the IPCC says 3.8%...

I live on Lake Michigan the water level is last I recall about 580 feet above the ocean level and you think I care that we won't have 15 feet of snow again next winter. BAHHH how many people really care.