It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
I don't need lessons on comprehension. And I'm not "pissed" about anything that Al Gore does,
No, see, this is a form of fear mongering and toying with people's emotions.
There is zero--ZERO--proof that what he is using as an example will happen...he's playing in hypotheticals and presenting them in a factual manner.
THE cracks are beginning to show. Greenland's ice sheets slid into the sea 400,000 years ago, when Earth was only a little warmer than it is today. That could mean we are set for a repeat performance.
The finding, along with data from Antarctica, suggests both of Earth's big ice sheets may have already passed a crucial tipping point, condemning them to collapse – either melting, or sliding into the ocean. That will mean sea levels rising by as much as 13 metres, leading to massive coastal flooding. So how fast will the ice collapse, and can we stop it?
Ice sheets may have already passed point of no return
They didn’t know it then, but Domack and his expedition colleagues would be some of the last people to see the ice sheet intact in person. By the time they got home to the U.S. about two months later, the ice shelf had nearly completely disintegrated. A plateau of ice measuring 1,250 square miles — an area bigger than Rhode Island — had just collapsed into pieces, shattering like the safety glass of a car’s windshield. Warming Air Was Trigger for Antarctic Ice Shelf Collapse
By Tom Yulsman | December 5, 2014 2:30 pm
Earlier this year, new research offered strong evidence that melting of the massive West Antarctic Ice Sheet has passed the point of no return. If true, this means it is now in irreversible retreat and will “collapse,” as scientists put it, over the course of 200 years, give or take.
As the ice tumbled into the sea and melted, such a scenario would eventually raise sea level by 16 feet. That’s enough to swamp coastal areas where many tens of millions of people live worldwide. Luckily, however, the time frame is long — if not from a geologic perspective, certainly from a societal one.
This week new research has suggested that the melt rate of glaciers in West Antarctica has tripled during the last decade. And another study attempts to show why: According to the research, over the past 40 years, a deep mass of water ringing Antarctica called the Circumpolar Deep Water appears to have warmed. The research also shows that warming CDW waters are intruding more and more to the undersides of glaciers that drain the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, causing them to melt from below, and speeding their passage toward the sea. The West Antarctic Ice Sheet Has Not Collapsed, But New Findings are Concerning. Do they Indicate a ‘Climate Crisis’?
Antarctica is gaining land ice and sea ice.
Science says: Satellites measure Antarctica is gaining sea ice but losing land ice at an accelerating rate, which has implications for sea level rise.
Skeptic arguments that Antarctica is gaining ice frequently hinge on an error of omission, namely ignoring the difference between land ice and sea ice.Why is Antarctica gaining sea ice?
Northeastern Canada has been seeing dramatic increases in ice accumulation
Increased Ice Loading In The Antarctic Peninsula Since The 1850s And Its Effect On Glacial Isostatic Adjustment
 Antarctic Peninsula (AP) ice core records indicate significant accumulation increase since 1855, and any resultant ice mass increase has the potential to contribute substantially to present-day glacial isostatic adjustment (GIA). We derive empirical orthogonal functions from climate model output to infer typical spatial patterns of accumulation over the AP and, by combining with ice core records, estimate annual accumulation for the period 1855–2010. In response to this accumulation history, high resolution ice-sheet modeling predicts ice thickness increases of up to 45 m, with the greatest thickening in the northern and western AP. ...
 In the AP, ice core records suggest an increase in annual accumulation since the 1850s, e.g. the Gomez ice core in Palmer Land (see Figure 1a) indicates a doubling of accumulation during this period [Thomas et al., 2008]. Other ice cores [e.g., Peel, 1992] indicate that increases also occur elsewhere but the rate and magnitude is not uniform across the AP, with more increase seen in the west and north than in the east. ...
 We hypothesize that recent accumulation along the AP causes a viscoelastic response of sufficient magnitude that the resulting subsidence could be observed at the surface. This would counteract the predicted uplift due to deglaciation since the LGM, potentially explaining the low rates of present-day uplift observed by GPS [Bevis et al., 2009; Thomas et al., 2011]. This accumulation-related mass increase has not been included in recently reconstructed AP loading histories [e.g., Ivins et al., 2011].
Mass Gains of the Antarctic Ice Sheet Exceed Losses
During 2003 to 2008, the mass gain of the Antarctic ice sheet from snow accumulation exceeded the mass loss from ice discharge by 49 Gtlyr (2.5% of input), as derived from ICESat laser measurements of elevation change. The net gain (86 Gtlyr) over the West Antarctic (WA) and East Antarctic ice sheets (W A and EA) is essentially unchanged from revised results for 1992 to 2001 from ERS radar altimetry. Imbalances in individual drainage systems (DS) are large (-68% to +103% of input), as are temporal changes (-39% to +44%). The recent 90 Gtlyr loss from three DS (Pine Island, Thwaites-Smith, and Marie-Bryd Coast) of WA exceeds the earlier 61 Gtlyr loss, consistent with reports of accelerating ice flow and dynamic thinning. Similarly, the recent 24 Gtlyr loss from three DS in the Antarctic Peninsula (AP) is consistent with glacier accelerations following breakup of the Larsen B and other ice shelves. In contrast, net increases in the five other DS ofWA and AP and three of the 16 DS in East Antarctica (EA) exceed the increased losses.
Are you aware of what net gain and net loss mean?
originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: SlapMonkey
There's no proof the ice caps are melting? No proof that sea levels are rising and none that if land ice melts into the oceans that it won't raise sea levels?
No, see, this is a form of fear mongering and toying with people's emotions. There is zero--ZERO--proof that what he is using as an example will happen...he's playing in hypotheticals and presenting them in a factual manner. Actually, Antarctica is gaining land ice and sea ice. And while Greenland is losing ice, Northeastern Canada has been seeing dramatic increases in ice accumulation, offsetting the loss of Greenland.
But to be completely honest, we're still apparently on the rebound from the Little Ice Age, so maybe those who built their resorts and homes and businesses next to the ocean (and still continue to do so) should have researched a little better about sea-level fluctuations and natural warming/cooling cycles of the globe.
originally posted by: mc_squared
You need to get the story straight. Maybe then you'll come to understand what's really going on here.
originally posted by: SlapMonkey
You can ramble on all you want about 'understanding what's really going on here,' but the truth that you're obviously either too narcisitic or willfully ignorant to admit is that no one has an understand as to what's really going on here, and it'd be best for everyone if you don't play make-believe as if you do.
originally posted by: SlapMonkey
Your little tantrum test about resident time calculations for CO2 is meaningless. Don't tell me that " if (I) can not [show you a resident time calculation for CO2] in a timely manner it is proof (I am) no expert and the research (I) have done means nothing." In doing so, you come across both as narcissistic and ignorant. The entire internet could give me that information in a split second (and has, many times in the past), so that proves nothing about what I am and am not an expert in.
This discussion with you is about as fruitful as a petrified fig tree. Best regards, but I'm done spending my time on this thread, which just simply regurgitates the same talking points from 1998, over and over again, and where the commentators use language like they're first-year college kids.