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.

 

Greenland Glaciers Are Speeding Up

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 4 2012 @ 08:04 AM
link   
www.livescience.com...


"A lot of the drive behind current Greenland ice sheet and Antarctica studies is to ask, 'What sea-level rise can we expect?'" Moon said. "Both of these areas hold vast amounts of ice and the potential for very large sea-level rises. We need to understand what's happening on them to see what potential scenario will be realized."


I recall having read that past melt did not result in a sea level rise anywhere near what it should have. So... where did the water go? I suspect maybe evaporation into the upper atmosphere resulting in micro ice crystals acting as a magnifying glass resulting in brighter skies, sun, stars.


Minute traces of moisture have been detected in an upper layer of the atmosphere normally 800 to 2000 times drier than the Sahara. Sorry no link as I read it years ago.




posted on May, 4 2012 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by oghamxx

I recall having read that past melt did not result in a sea level rise anywhere near what it should have. So... where did the water go?





Sea levels were hundreds of feet lower during the height of the last ice age, when continental glaciers locked up vast quantities of water. The disintegration of that ice beginning about 14,000 years ago released enough water to boost sea height to near the current levels over thousands of years.


www.tehrantimes.com...
edit on 4-5-2012 by stanguilles7 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 05:52 PM
link   
reply to post by stanguilles7
 


Sorry but by past I meant the past 15 to 20 years. The rise was reported to be less than expected but expected was IMO nothing astounding

Yes indeed the passing of the last ice age raised the oceans significantly.



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by oghamxx
The rise was reported to be less than expected but expected was IMO nothing astounding





I see now that you were referring to recent ocean rise. But the article you cite is referring to future predictions, not recent sea level rise, as you state above.



Originally posted by oghamxx
I recall having read that past melt did not result in a sea level rise anywhere near what it should have.


Your going to have to cite the article you are referring to. The one you cite makes no mention of that at all.
edit on 4-5-2012 by stanguilles7 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 06:10 PM
link   
reply to post by stanguilles7
 


I read it within the past year on some 'science' site. Will try to find it.



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 06:58 PM
link   
reply to post by stanguilles7
 

I searched newscientist, physorg.com and nsidc.org and while there are many glacial melt versus sea rise articles I did not encounter the one I recalled having read which almost as an aside made brief mention that past (recent) melt did not result in the expected rise. The 'expected' rise is no doubt derived from computer models in which I have little faith. Not only must one employ all and just the relevant factors but you must weight each properly. Good luck.

In my OP I made mention of the past (recent) not being as much as expected to call in to question the statement quoted in the link "Both of these areas hold vast amounts of ice and the potential for very large sea-level rises...." In other words I have heard the very large rise estimates before and it did not happen (according to the unfound article).

My interest in this stems from a belief that 'someday', be it 100 years or a million years, the earth will AGAIN be enveloped in a canopy of water.




top topics
 
0

log in

join