10,000-year-old Antarctic ice shelf will disappear by 2020

[orogenicman]

Changes are coming fast, less them 5 years. What warming?


One of the last remaining sections of Antarctica's Larsen B Ice Shelf is dramatically weakening, according to a new NASA study.

The study predicts that what remains of the once-prominent ice shelf, a thick floating platform of ice, most likely will "disintegrate completely" before the end of this decade

NASA Antarctica s Larsen B Ice Shelf to disappear - CNN.com

Yeah, we heard about that. It's because of a volcano underneath.

Don't you feel stupid now?

What volcano, where?

here from Live Science:

Active Volcano Discovered Under Antarctic Ice Sheet

Perhaps you should go back and review the poss, because it has already been covered. The volcano is under the Thwaites glacier, not the Larson ice sheet. They are 1,000 miles apart. Next.

1000 miles for a volcano is just down the road

According to that argument, the eruption of Mt. St Helens melted the glaciers in Montana. Except - it didn't, of course.

 

[westwall]

Changes are coming fast, less them 5 years. What warming?


One of the last remaining sections of Antarctica's Larsen B Ice Shelf is dramatically weakening, according to a new NASA study.

The study predicts that what remains of the once-prominent ice shelf, a thick floating platform of ice, most likely will "disintegrate completely" before the end of this decade

NASA Antarctica s Larsen B Ice Shelf to disappear - CNN.com

So, the fact that the shelf is only 10,000 years old escaped your attention did it? If the shelf is only 10,000 years old, that means that it was a whole bunch warmer before that. Then it got cold. What "magic" is responsible for that?

The age of the shelf is unimportant. What is important is what it's disintegration is going to do to global sea levels, how it will impact coastlines full of people.

Umm, probably nothing much. Ice shelves are already in the water and as any geologist can tell you, when an ice cube melts in a glass the water level remains the same. Course, you're not a scientist so you can be excused for not understanding simple concepts like that.

 

[westwall]

Changes are coming fast, less them 5 years. What warming?


One of the last remaining sections of Antarctica's Larsen B Ice Shelf is dramatically weakening, according to a new NASA study.

The study predicts that what remains of the once-prominent ice shelf, a thick floating platform of ice, most likely will "disintegrate completely" before the end of this decade

NASA Antarctica s Larsen B Ice Shelf to disappear - CNN.com

So, the fact that the shelf is only 10,000 years old escaped your attention did it? If the shelf is only 10,000 years old, that means that it was a whole bunch warmer before that. Then it got cold. What "magic" is responsible for that?

The age of the shelf is unimportant.

BWAHAHAHAHA!

Only a warmist cult member would even consider making such a claim.

The shelf could be 10,000 year old, or a million years old. It is still ice, and ice melts when it gets too warm.

Yes, but the ice didn't exist, in that area 10,000 years ago. We know that sea levels were about what they are today so clearly YOU don't understand how sea ice works.

 

[guno]

Changes are coming fast, less them 5 years. What warming?


One of the last remaining sections of Antarctica's Larsen B Ice Shelf is dramatically weakening, according to a new NASA study.

The study predicts that what remains of the once-prominent ice shelf, a thick floating platform of ice, most likely will "disintegrate completely" before the end of this decade

NASA Antarctica s Larsen B Ice Shelf to disappear - CNN.com

So, the fact that the shelf is only 10,000 years old escaped your attention did it? If the shelf is only 10,000 years old, that means that it was a whole bunch warmer before that. Then it got cold. What "magic" is responsible for that?

The age of the shelf is unimportant. What is important is what it's disintegration is going to do to global sea levels, how it will impact coastlines full of people.

Umm, probably nothing much. Ice shelves are already in the water and as any geologist can tell you, when an ice cube melts in a glass the water level remains the same. Course, you're not a scientist so you can be excused for not understanding simple concepts like that.

yea you know all about science LOL

You know nothing about me, my science background or education

 

[orogenicman]

Changes are coming fast, less them 5 years. What warming?


One of the last remaining sections of Antarctica's Larsen B Ice Shelf is dramatically weakening, according to a new NASA study.

The study predicts that what remains of the once-prominent ice shelf, a thick floating platform of ice, most likely will "disintegrate completely" before the end of this decade

NASA Antarctica s Larsen B Ice Shelf to disappear - CNN.com

So, the fact that the shelf is only 10,000 years old escaped your attention did it? If the shelf is only 10,000 years old, that means that it was a whole bunch warmer before that. Then it got cold. What "magic" is responsible for that?

The age of the shelf is unimportant.

BWAHAHAHAHA!

Only a warmist cult member would even consider making such a claim.

The shelf could be 10,000 year old, or a million years old. It is still ice, and ice melts when it gets too warm.

Yes, but the ice didn't exist, in that area 10,000 years ago. We know that sea levels were about what they are today so clearly YOU don't understand how sea ice works.

10,000 years ago, seal level was as much as 40 meters lower than it is today. So I guess you don't know as much as you think you do.

 

[Leweman]

So, the fact that the shelf is only 10,000 years old escaped your attention did it? If the shelf is only 10,000 years old, that means that it was a whole bunch warmer before that. Then it got cold. What "magic" is responsible for that?

The age of the shelf is unimportant.

BWAHAHAHAHA!

Only a warmist cult member would even consider making such a claim.

The shelf could be 10,000 year old, or a million years old. It is still ice, and ice melts when it gets too warm.

Yes, but the ice didn't exist, in that area 10,000 years ago. We know that sea levels were about what they are today so clearly YOU don't understand how sea ice works.

10,000 years ago, seal level was as much as 40 meters lower than it is today. So I guess you don't know as much as you think you do.

Sea levels have been rising for 10,000 years? How is that possible?

 

[westwall]

Changes are coming fast, less them 5 years. What warming?


One of the last remaining sections of Antarctica's Larsen B Ice Shelf is dramatically weakening, according to a new NASA study.

The study predicts that what remains of the once-prominent ice shelf, a thick floating platform of ice, most likely will "disintegrate completely" before the end of this decade

NASA Antarctica s Larsen B Ice Shelf to disappear - CNN.com

So, the fact that the shelf is only 10,000 years old escaped your attention did it? If the shelf is only 10,000 years old, that means that it was a whole bunch warmer before that. Then it got cold. What "magic" is responsible for that?

The age of the shelf is unimportant. What is important is what it's disintegration is going to do to global sea levels, how it will impact coastlines full of people.

Umm, probably nothing much. Ice shelves are already in the water and as any geologist can tell you, when an ice cube melts in a glass the water level remains the same. Course, you're not a scientist so you can be excused for not understanding simple concepts like that.

yea you know all about science LOL

You know nothing about me, my science background or education

Yes, with a PhD in geology I know more about "science" than you ever will. I never made the slightest assumption on your scientific knowledge, or lack thereof. I asked what was the cause of the shelf NOT existing 10,000 years ago. The problem with most people who have no, or little, scientific literacy is they think that correlation equals causation, which, as any good scientist will tell you, is not factual.

In point of fact, MOST correlations are merely coincidental. The fact that shelf is weakening could be due to global warming, or it could actually be thinning from warmer waters thanks to current circulation changes based on changes in the sea floor. You see when you only assume one cause you then must ignore all other possible causes and then you are no longer practicing science, you are advocating for a religion.

 

[orogenicman]

The age of the shelf is unimportant.

BWAHAHAHAHA!

Only a warmist cult member would even consider making such a claim.

The shelf could be 10,000 year old, or a million years old. It is still ice, and ice melts when it gets too warm.

Yes, but the ice didn't exist, in that area 10,000 years ago. We know that sea levels were about what they are today so clearly YOU don't understand how sea ice works.

10,000 years ago, seal level was as much as 40 meters lower than it is today. So I guess you don't know as much as you think you do.

Sea levels have been rising for 10,000 years? How is that possible?

Melting continental and other ice sheets.

 

[westwall]

So, the fact that the shelf is only 10,000 years old escaped your attention did it? If the shelf is only 10,000 years old, that means that it was a whole bunch warmer before that. Then it got cold. What "magic" is responsible for that?

The age of the shelf is unimportant.

BWAHAHAHAHA!

Only a warmist cult member would even consider making such a claim.

The shelf could be 10,000 year old, or a million years old. It is still ice, and ice melts when it gets too warm.

Yes, but the ice didn't exist, in that area 10,000 years ago. We know that sea levels were about what they are today so clearly YOU don't understand how sea ice works.

10,000 years ago, seal level was as much as 40 meters lower than it is today. So I guess you don't know as much as you think you do.

Umm, no, 12,000 years ago you would be correct. 10,000 years ago the Med probably flowed into the Sea of Marmara and flooded the Black sea, that would have been a huge influx, 95 meters or so, but the rest of the world was within a couple of meters of what it is today. The big flood occurred at the 14,000-12,000 year ago mark. Since then the increase has been vastly reduced to where today it is nearly un-measurable.

 

[orogenicman]

The age of the shelf is unimportant.

BWAHAHAHAHA!

Only a warmist cult member would even consider making such a claim.

The shelf could be 10,000 year old, or a million years old. It is still ice, and ice melts when it gets too warm.

Yes, but the ice didn't exist, in that area 10,000 years ago. We know that sea levels were about what they are today so clearly YOU don't understand how sea ice works.

10,000 years ago, seal level was as much as 40 meters lower than it is today. So I guess you don't know as much as you think you do.

Umm, no, 12,000 years ago you would be correct. 10,000 years ago the Med probably flowed into the Sea of Marmara and flooded the Black sea, that would have been a huge influx, 95 meters or so, but the rest of the world was within a couple of meters of what it is today. The big flood occurred at the 14,000-12,000 year ago mark. Since then the increase has been vastly reduced to where today it is nearly un-measurable.

Not true.

 

[westwall]

BWAHAHAHAHA!

Only a warmist cult member would even consider making such a claim.

The shelf could be 10,000 year old, or a million years old. It is still ice, and ice melts when it gets too warm.

Yes, but the ice didn't exist, in that area 10,000 years ago. We know that sea levels were about what they are today so clearly YOU don't understand how sea ice works.

10,000 years ago, seal level was as much as 40 meters lower than it is today. So I guess you don't know as much as you think you do.

Umm, no, 12,000 years ago you would be correct. 10,000 years ago the Med probably flowed into the Sea of Marmara and flooded the Black sea, that would have been a huge influx, 95 meters or so, but the rest of the world was within a couple of meters of what it is today. The big flood occurred at the 14,000-12,000 year ago mark. Since then the increase has been vastly reduced to where today it is nearly un-measurable.

Not true.

It's possible. I'm going from memory so it's possible that further data has changed the times when sea levels reached their current level. Either way, it's 2,000 years difference, which geologically is nothing.

 

[orogenicman]

The shelf could be 10,000 year old, or a million years old. It is still ice, and ice melts when it gets too warm.

Yes, but the ice didn't exist, in that area 10,000 years ago. We know that sea levels were about what they are today so clearly YOU don't understand how sea ice works.

10,000 years ago, seal level was as much as 40 meters lower than it is today. So I guess you don't know as much as you think you do.

Umm, no, 12,000 years ago you would be correct. 10,000 years ago the Med probably flowed into the Sea of Marmara and flooded the Black sea, that would have been a huge influx, 95 meters or so, but the rest of the world was within a couple of meters of what it is today. The big flood occurred at the 14,000-12,000 year ago mark. Since then the increase has been vastly reduced to where today it is nearly un-measurable.

Not true.

It's possible. I'm going from memory so it's possible that further data has changed the times when sea levels reached their current level. Either way, it's 2,000 years difference, which geologically is nothing.

Either way, you were wrong.

 

[westwall]

Yes, but the ice didn't exist, in that area 10,000 years ago. We know that sea levels were about what they are today so clearly YOU don't understand how sea ice works.

10,000 years ago, seal level was as much as 40 meters lower than it is today. So I guess you don't know as much as you think you do.

Umm, no, 12,000 years ago you would be correct. 10,000 years ago the Med probably flowed into the Sea of Marmara and flooded the Black sea, that would have been a huge influx, 95 meters or so, but the rest of the world was within a couple of meters of what it is today. The big flood occurred at the 14,000-12,000 year ago mark. Since then the increase has been vastly reduced to where today it is nearly un-measurable.

Not true.

It's possible. I'm going from memory so it's possible that further data has changed the times when sea levels reached their current level. Either way, it's 2,000 years difference, which geologically is nothing.

Either way, you were wrong.

Possibly. The graph you posted is from a AGW group so their info is a tad biased don't you think?

 

[orogenicman]

10,000 years ago, seal level was as much as 40 meters lower than it is today. So I guess you don't know as much as you think you do.

Umm, no, 12,000 years ago you would be correct. 10,000 years ago the Med probably flowed into the Sea of Marmara and flooded the Black sea, that would have been a huge influx, 95 meters or so, but the rest of the world was within a couple of meters of what it is today. The big flood occurred at the 14,000-12,000 year ago mark. Since then the increase has been vastly reduced to where today it is nearly un-measurable.

Not true.

It's possible. I'm going from memory so it's possible that further data has changed the times when sea levels reached their current level. Either way, it's 2,000 years difference, which geologically is nothing.

Either way, you were wrong.

Possibly. The graph you posted is from a AGW group so their info is a tad biased don't you think?

If you have evidence that it is wrong, by all means, put it up. Otherwise, admit that you were mistaken and move on.

 

[westwall]

Umm, no, 12,000 years ago you would be correct. 10,000 years ago the Med probably flowed into the Sea of Marmara and flooded the Black sea, that would have been a huge influx, 95 meters or so, but the rest of the world was within a couple of meters of what it is today. The big flood occurred at the 14,000-12,000 year ago mark. Since then the increase has been vastly reduced to where today it is nearly un-measurable.

Not true.

It's possible. I'm going from memory so it's possible that further data has changed the times when sea levels reached their current level. Either way, it's 2,000 years difference, which geologically is nothing.

Either way, you were wrong.

Possibly. The graph you posted is from a AGW group so their info is a tad biased don't you think?

If you have evidence that it is wrong, by all means, put it up. Otherwise, admit that you were mistaken and move on.

I already did. I said I could be 2000 years off. I haven't kept track of sea level research in 30 years. I am sure that they have refined their figures. I am having a hard time coming up with the original studies that generated that graph though.

Do you have a link to one of them?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Changes are coming fast, less them 5 years. What warming?


One of the last remaining sections of Antarctica's Larsen B Ice Shelf is dramatically weakening, according to a new NASA study.

The study predicts that what remains of the once-prominent ice shelf, a thick floating platform of ice, most likely will "disintegrate completely" before the end of this decade

NASA Antarctica s Larsen B Ice Shelf to disappear - CNN.com

Yeah, we heard about that. It's because of a volcano underneath.

Don't you feel stupid now?

What volcano, where?

It is actually a series or chain of volcano's. But hey, lets not let a few facts derail an alarmist false attribution of cause..

Now, a new study finds that these subglacial volcanoes and other geothermal "hotspots" are contributing to the melting of Thwaites Glacier, a major river of ice that flows into Antarctica's Pine Island Bay. Areas of the glacier that sit near geologic features thought to be volcanic are melting faster than regions farther away from hotspots, said Dustin Schroeder, the study's lead author and a geophysicist at the University of Texas at Austin.

This melting could significantly affect ice loss in the West Antarctic, an area that is losing ice quickly.

Source

Ahem. Thwaites glacier is not the Larson ice sheet. In fact, the two are about 1,000 miles apart.

Once again I need to school someone who is clueless..

It is a CHAIN OF VOLCANIC activity... and yes they are all active right now.. The chain is about 2100 miles long and has fissures up and down valleys in the area where warmed sea water is circulated by the warming water.

But dont mind the facts..Or water circulations.. just like the atmosphere you got wrong in your claims about CAGW.

 

[orogenicman]

Not true.

It's possible. I'm going from memory so it's possible that further data has changed the times when sea levels reached their current level. Either way, it's 2,000 years difference, which geologically is nothing.

Either way, you were wrong.

Possibly. The graph you posted is from a AGW group so their info is a tad biased don't you think?

If you have evidence that it is wrong, by all means, put it up. Otherwise, admit that you were mistaken and move on.

I already did. I said I could be 2000 years off. I haven't kept track of sea level research in 30 years. I am sure that they have refined their figures. I am having a hard time coming up with the original studies that generated that graph though.

Do you have a link to one of them?

Sure. Five bucks:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDAQFjAE&url=http://www.fws.gov/slamm/Changes%20in%20Sea%20Level_expanded%20version_template.pdf&ei=KeJbVaCkNIWiNvKwgPAF&usg=AFQjCNFCHpJhJTaueY33FnYvo2nd1Qjo2w&sig2=D14qwj8D0YpH4I7JOp3lpA

By the way, even 8,000 years ago sea levels was 20 meters lower than they are today. So you weren't just off, you were completely wrong.

 

[orogenicman]

Changes are coming fast, less them 5 years. What warming?


One of the last remaining sections of Antarctica's Larsen B Ice Shelf is dramatically weakening, according to a new NASA study.

The study predicts that what remains of the once-prominent ice shelf, a thick floating platform of ice, most likely will "disintegrate completely" before the end of this decade

NASA Antarctica s Larsen B Ice Shelf to disappear - CNN.com

Yeah, we heard about that. It's because of a volcano underneath.

Don't you feel stupid now?

What volcano, where?

It is actually a series or chain of volcano's. But hey, lets not let a few facts derail an alarmist false attribution of cause..

Now, a new study finds that these subglacial volcanoes and other geothermal "hotspots" are contributing to the melting of Thwaites Glacier, a major river of ice that flows into Antarctica's Pine Island Bay. Areas of the glacier that sit near geologic features thought to be volcanic are melting faster than regions farther away from hotspots, said Dustin Schroeder, the study's lead author and a geophysicist at the University of Texas at Austin.

This melting could significantly affect ice loss in the West Antarctic, an area that is losing ice quickly.

Source

Ahem. Thwaites glacier is not the Larson ice sheet. In fact, the two are about 1,000 miles apart.

Once again I need to school someone who is clueless..

It is a CHAIN OF VOLCANIC activity... and yes they are all active right now.. The chain is about 2100 miles long and has fissures up and down valleys in the area where warmed sea water is circulated by the warming water.

But dont mind the facts..Or water circulations.. just like the atmosphere you got wrong in your claims about CAGW.

The volcanic field in question is entirely under Thwaites. There are no volcanoes beneath the Larson ice sheet. None. Nada. Zero.

 

[bripat9643]

Yeah, we heard about that. It's because of a volcano underneath.

Don't you feel stupid now?

What volcano, where?

It is actually a series or chain of volcano's. But hey, lets not let a few facts derail an alarmist false attribution of cause..

Now, a new study finds that these subglacial volcanoes and other geothermal "hotspots" are contributing to the melting of Thwaites Glacier, a major river of ice that flows into Antarctica's Pine Island Bay. Areas of the glacier that sit near geologic features thought to be volcanic are melting faster than regions farther away from hotspots, said Dustin Schroeder, the study's lead author and a geophysicist at the University of Texas at Austin.

This melting could significantly affect ice loss in the West Antarctic, an area that is losing ice quickly.

Source

Ahem. Thwaites glacier is not the Larson ice sheet. In fact, the two are about 1,000 miles apart.

Once again I need to school someone who is clueless..

It is a CHAIN OF VOLCANIC activity... and yes they are all active right now.. The chain is about 2100 miles long and has fissures up and down valleys in the area where warmed sea water is circulated by the warming water.

But dont mind the facts..Or water circulations.. just like the atmosphere you got wrong in your claims about CAGW.

The volcanic field in question is entirely under Thwaites. There are no volcanoes beneath the Larson ice sheet. None. Nada. Zero.

"Seal Nunataks" are volcanoes.

 

[orogenicman]

What volcano, where?

It is actually a series or chain of volcano's. But hey, lets not let a few facts derail an alarmist false attribution of cause..

Now, a new study finds that these subglacial volcanoes and other geothermal "hotspots" are contributing to the melting of Thwaites Glacier, a major river of ice that flows into Antarctica's Pine Island Bay. Areas of the glacier that sit near geologic features thought to be volcanic are melting faster than regions farther away from hotspots, said Dustin Schroeder, the study's lead author and a geophysicist at the University of Texas at Austin.

This melting could significantly affect ice loss in the West Antarctic, an area that is losing ice quickly.

Source

Ahem. Thwaites glacier is not the Larson ice sheet. In fact, the two are about 1,000 miles apart.

Once again I need to school someone who is clueless..

It is a CHAIN OF VOLCANIC activity... and yes they are all active right now.. The chain is about 2100 miles long and has fissures up and down valleys in the area where warmed sea water is circulated by the warming water.

But dont mind the facts..Or water circulations.. just like the atmosphere you got wrong in your claims about CAGW.

The volcanic field in question is entirely under Thwaites. There are no volcanoes beneath the Larson ice sheet. None. Nada. Zero.

"Seal Nunataks" are volcanoes.

Those small volcanoes are exposed at the surface, and are not melting the ices sheet. Next.