It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The big melt: Antarctica's retreating ice may re-shape Earth

page: 1
17
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 11:21 AM
link   
Warmer water and warmer air are on the attack in Antarctica at a rate that is alarming scientists according to the article. The problem is more prevalent in West Antarctica than in East Antarctica and is actually growing in the East; however, more ice is being lost than what is gained so things don't look too good.



Water is eating away at the Antarctic ice, melting it where it hits the oceans. As the ice sheets slowly thaw, water pours into the sea — 130 billion tons of ice (118 billion metric tons) per year for the past decade, according to NASA satellite calculations. That's the weight of more than 356,000 Empire State Buildings, enough ice melt to fill more than 1.3 million Olympic swimming pools. And the melting is accelerating.

In the worst case scenario, Antarctica's melt could push sea levels up 10 feet (3 meters) worldwide in a century or two, recurving heavily populated coastlines.

Parts of Antarctica are melting so rapidly it has become "ground zero of global climate change without a doubt," said Harvard geophysicist Jerry Mitrovica.


The consensus from scientists in the aricle is that in 200 to 1000 years for the oceans to raise by 10ft. What says ATS?

news.yahoo.com...




posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 11:26 AM
link   
a reply to: lostbook

How much damage do you reckon ten feet would make?



posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 11:31 AM
link   
a reply to: lostbook

I do think it is funny that the Democrats seem to be so concerned with what life will be like in 1000 years but not what it will be like in 10.



posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 11:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes
a reply to: lostbook

How much damage do you reckon ten feet would make?


I think ten feet would do significant damage, albeit, water isn't spread evenly around the Earth. Some areas will get hit harder than others.



posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 11:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: lostbook

I do think it is funny that the Democrats seem to be so concerned with what life will be like in 1000 years but not what it will be like in 10.


Democrats? The article doesn't say a thing about Democrats.



posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 11:34 AM
link   
a reply to: greencmp

These are just scientist, where are you getting the political spin here?



posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 11:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: lostbook

I do think it is funny that the Democrats seem to be so concerned with what life will be like in 1000 years but not what it will be like in 10.


Meanwhile, my local weather man can't tell me with any degree of certainty if it is going to rain next week but yet, the same climate models and projections warrant taxing the hell out of economies to avert some catastrophic prediction several hundred years from now.



posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 11:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: lostbook

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: lostbook

I do think it is funny that the Democrats seem to be so concerned with what life will be like in 1000 years but not what it will be like in 10.


Democrats? The article doesn't say a thing about Democrats.


Well, who else is still jamming ecological catastrophism down our throats?

The greens are true believers but, the Democrats are using it as a blunt instrument merely for its convenient utility to implement their totalitarian agenda.

I see no constructive ideas on how to address these problems whenever they are raised, it is purely for the doom porn shock value.
edit on 27-2-2015 by greencmp because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 11:39 AM
link   
a reply to: greencmp

And what about the scientist in the article, you know their affiliation how?

You are just incredibly off topic as the article is absent of anything political.



posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 11:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: greencmp

And what about the scientist in the article, you know their affiliation how?

You are just incredibly off topic as the article is absent of anything political.


It is NASA, what do you think?



posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 11:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: greencmp

And what about the scientist in the article, you know their affiliation how?

You are just incredibly off topic as the article is absent of anything political.


Still, how can we believe anything these pinheads say ?

With humans relatively short time on this Planet.

We really have no idea what is normal and what is cyclical.



posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 11:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: lostbook

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: lostbook

I do think it is funny that the Democrats seem to be so concerned with what life will be like in 1000 years but not what it will be like in 10.


Democrats? The article doesn't say a thing about Democrats.


Well, who else is still jamming ecological catastrophism down our throats?

The greens are true believers but, the Democrats are using it as a blunt instrument merely for its convenient utility to implement their totalitarian agenda.

I see no constructive ideas on how to address these problems whenever they are raised, it is purely for the doom porn shock value.


Maybe the Democrats are taking advantage of the situation but that doesn't negate what's happening. Change is natural but mankind is accelerating that change.



posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 11:47 AM
link   
Just out of curiousity. It says that the ice is melting where the ocean is hitting it.
Meaning that the weight of the ice is already on the water, and the law of buoyancy is in effect correct? So as soon as the weight of the ice is on the water, it's already risen even before melting.
Only land based ice will raise the water level. Humans will adapt regardless



posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 11:49 AM
link   


From the ground in this extreme northern part of Antarctica



Can somebody please explain the "Northern" part of Antarctica?




posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 11:50 AM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Everything except the exact center?

Idk.. beats me. Good question.



posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 11:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: lostbook

Democrats? The article doesn't say a thing about Democrats.


But it's automatically implied.




edit on Feb-27-2015 by xuenchen because: [__O__]



posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 11:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: lostbook

The consensus from scientists in the aricle is that in 200 to 1000 years for the oceans to raise by 10ft. What says ATS?

news.yahoo.com...


With a rapid increase in the Arctic as well and global warming accelerating to, it isn't going to take 100 years.



posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 11:54 AM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

May have something to do with the tilt of the Earth actually.



posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 11:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes
a reply to: lostbook

How much damage do you reckon ten feet would make?


True and we're talking a couple hundred years. What is the estimate 200 to one thousand years?!?

Give me a break. I think too many people have too much free time.



posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 11:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: Rezlooper

originally posted by: lostbook

The consensus from scientists in the aricle is that in 200 to 1000 years for the oceans to raise by 10ft. What says ATS?

news.yahoo.com...


With a rapid increase in the Arctic as well and global warming accelerating to, it isn't going to take 100 years.


Our fellow ATSer RezLooper has been investing vast amounts of his personal time and efforts into this issue.

That I can respect whether I agree or not.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join