"West Antarctic Ice Sheet's Collapse Triggers Sea Level Warning"

[mamooth]

EDIT --- Had to go check where this came from.. UAH Satellite Temp Data -- Southern Ocean Only. 1979 to 2013....

Meaning it's not a measurement of ocean temperatures, it's a measurement of air temperatures over the ocean.

"Southern Ocean" is also not the area in question, so it's not even relevant. "The Antarctic Coast" is. Zhang 2007 has a graph of those temperatures, which are increasing. (sorry for tiny pics. Go to the pdf for big pics.)

http://psc.apl.washington.edu/zhang/Pubs/Zhang_Antarctic_20-11-2515.pdf

Boning 2008 uses the Argo floats to get actual ocean temps. Alas, paywalled, but there's the abstract. Others cite Boning 2008 as giving a +0.098C/decade temperature increase for Antarctic waters.

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v1/n12/full/ngeo362.html
---
Here we analyse the Argo network of profiling floats and historical oceanographic data to detect coherent hemispheric-scale warming and freshening trends that extend to depths of more than 1,000 m. The warming and freshening is partly related to changes in the properties of the water masses that make up the Antarctic Circumpolar Current, which are consistent with the anthropogenic changes in heat and freshwater fluxes suggested by climate models
---

Summary, both ocean and air temps around Antarctica are warming.

 

[Crick]

Oh nosies. Glaciers have never ever in the history of time ever retreated before.

Sound the alarums, sirrah!

You repeatedly tried to tell us that this issue was about the melting of the ice cap. I told you it wasn't and you called me stupid.

How's that feel now?

 

[IlarMeilyr]

They also have to explain how glaciers attached to SUB SEA bedrock end up INCREASING sea level when they melt.

Suppose I put a 1 meter square block of ice in a kiddie pool with a few inches of water in it.

According to flac here, water level won't rise after it melts, because the ice is resting on the bottom of the pool.

Deniers in general aren't good at problem setup. That's one of the things the scientific background drills into you.

So your premise is that the ice is so large and voluminous that the water it is in is too shallow to permit it to float?

If the allegedly warming waters melt enough of it, it will at some point become buoyant and start bobbing up and down in the ocean?

Is that your premise?

 

[mamooth]

So your premise is that the ice is so large and voluminous that the water it is in is too shallow to permit it to float?

Obviously yes. Ice doesn't float unless it can displace water equal to its weight.

Are you telling me that if I put a one meter square block of ice in a kiddie pool with an inch of water, it wouldn't rest on the bottom?

Are you telling me that if I put a one mile high glacier on bedrock 50 feet below see level, it won't rest on the bottom?

If the allegedly warming waters melt enough of it, it will at some point become buoyant and start bobbing up and down in the ocean?

Is that your premise?

Well, yes, though it won't be "bobbing" initially, given that a mile of ice won't bob even if there is ocean underneath. It's got to flow out to open ocean first and spread out, which it will do much faster with water underneath it.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

So your premise is that the ice is so large and voluminous that the water it is in is too shallow to permit it to float?

Obviously yes. Ice doesn't float unless it can displace water equal to its weight.

Are you telling me that if I put a one meter square block of ice in a kiddie pool with an inch of water, it wouldn't rest on the bottom?

Are you telling me that if I put a one mile high glacier on bedrock 50 feet below see level, it won't rest on the bottom?

If the allegedly warming waters melt enough of it, it will at some point become buoyant and start bobbing up and down in the ocean?

Is that your premise?

Well, yes, though it won't be "bobbing" initially, given that a mile of ice won't bob even if there is ocean underneath. It's got to flow out to open ocean first and spread out, which it will do much faster with water underneath it.

I am not in need of your lectures on displacement. I just want to pin you down. You can handle that, can't you?

What do you maintain is the weight size and volume of the ice that is anchored in the Antarctic? Your sources and a link would be appreciated. Let's just start there.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Oh nosies. Glaciers have never ever in the history of time ever retreated before.

Sound the alarums, sirrah!

You repeatedly tried to tell us that this issue was about the melting of the ice cap. I told you it wasn't and you called me stupid.

How's that feel now?

No Pricky. I did not tell you repeatedly that "the issue" was about the melting of the ice caps. You are pretty stupid.

I feel fine. Thanks for asking.

YOUR observation that glaciers recede is unrelated to the topic of melting icecaps or even the balance of the topic under discussion. You offer an uninteresting and not especially relevant factoid, you dimwit.

The POINT -- which a dolt like you STILL cannot grasp -- is that "ice" has grown and receded long before humans even lit their first furnaces or drove their first cars. If it happened WITHOUT human causation THEN, that might serve as a clue to some open minded rational people (thereby excluding you, sadly) that it could happen again, and again without human causation.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

EDIT --- Had to go check where this came from.. UAH Satellite Temp Data -- Southern Ocean Only. 1979 to 2013....

Meaning it's not a measurement of ocean temperatures, it's a measurement of air temperatures over the ocean.

"Southern Ocean" is also not the area in question, so it's not even relevant. "The Antarctic Coast" is. Zhang 2007 has a graph of those temperatures, which are increasing. (sorry for tiny pics. Go to the pdf for big pics.)

http://psc.apl.washington.edu/zhang/Pubs/Zhang_Antarctic_20-11-2515.pdf

Boning 2008 uses the Argo floats to get actual ocean temps. Alas, paywalled, but there's the abstract. Others cite Boning 2008 as giving a +0.098C/decade temperature increase for Antarctic waters.

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v1/n12/full/ngeo362.html
---
Here we analyse the Argo network of profiling floats and historical oceanographic data to detect coherent hemispheric-scale warming and freshening trends that extend to depths of more than 1,000 m. The warming and freshening is partly related to changes in the properties of the water masses that make up the Antarctic Circumpolar Current, which are consistent with the anthropogenic changes in heat and freshwater fluxes suggested by climate models
---

Summary, both ocean and air temps around Antarctica are warming.

I thought the warmer air was warming the depths of the Pacific ocean?

 

[mamooth]

What do you maintain is the weight size and volume of the ice that is anchored in the Antarctic? Your sources and a link would be appreciated. Let's just start there.

Lose the games and directly state the point you're trying to get to.

If you're not willing to state a point and back it up, you're not worth anyone's time.

 

[westwall]

What do you maintain is the weight size and volume of the ice that is anchored in the Antarctic? Your sources and a link would be appreciated. Let's just start there.

Lose the games and directly state the point you're trying to get to.

If you're not willing to state a point and back it up, you're not worth anyone's time.

He just did. Are you blind as well as stupid?

 

[Crick]

What do you maintain is the weight size and volume of the ice that is anchored in the Antarctic? Your sources and a link would be appreciated. Let's just start there.

Lose the games and directly state the point you're trying to get to.

If you're not willing to state a point and back it up, you're not worth anyone's time.

He just did. Are you blind as well as stupid?

He did not and you're just as worthless as he is.

 

[Crick]

Oh nosies. Glaciers have never ever in the history of time ever retreated before.

Sound the alarums, sirrah!

You repeatedly tried to tell us that this issue was about the melting of the ice cap. I told you it wasn't and you called me stupid.

How's that feel now?

No Pricky. I did not tell you repeatedly that "the issue" was about the melting of the ice caps. You are pretty stupid.

I feel fine. Thanks for asking.

YOUR observation that glaciers recede is unrelated to the topic of melting icecaps or even the balance of the topic under discussion. You offer an uninteresting and not especially relevant factoid, you dimwit.

The POINT -- which a dolt like you STILL cannot grasp -- is that "ice" has grown and receded long before humans even lit their first furnaces or drove their first cars. If it happened WITHOUT human causation THEN, that might serve as a clue to some open minded rational people (thereby excluding you, sadly) that it could happen again, and again without human causation.

You would seem to be the poster child for that Dunning-Kreuger effect. Enjoy your notoriety while it lasts.

 

[flacaltenn]

They also have to explain how glaciers attached to SUB SEA bedrock end up INCREASING sea level when they melt.

Suppose I put a 1 meter square block of ice in a kiddie pool with a few inches of water in it.

According to flac here, water level won't rise after it melts, because the ice is resting on the bottom of the pool.

Deniers in general aren't good at problem setup. That's one of the things the scientific background drills into you.

So you know for a fact that 95% of the ice is ABOVE the waterline eh? You're so fos -- your eyes are brown..

If that glacier is bonded to bedrock below the sea surface and 95% of it is ABOVE the waterline -- in most places -- that would make it 39000 ft tall !!!!!!

<<Edited to add>>> I noticed the pseudocolor chart didn't come with the image. But the AVG depth in that chart is about 600M !!!!!!!

 

[flacaltenn]

EDIT --- Had to go check where this came from.. UAH Satellite Temp Data -- Southern Ocean Only. 1979 to 2013....

Meaning it's not a measurement of ocean temperatures, it's a measurement of air temperatures over the ocean.

"Southern Ocean" is also not the area in question, so it's not even relevant. "The Antarctic Coast" is. Zhang 2007 has a graph of those temperatures, which are increasing. (sorry for tiny pics. Go to the pdf for big pics.)

http://psc.apl.washington.edu/zhang/Pubs/Zhang_Antarctic_20-11-2515.pdf

Boning 2008 uses the Argo floats to get actual ocean temps. Alas, paywalled, but there's the abstract. Others cite Boning 2008 as giving a +0.098C/decade temperature increase for Antarctic waters.

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v1/n12/full/ngeo362.html
---
Here we analyse the Argo network of profiling floats and historical oceanographic data to detect coherent hemispheric-scale warming and freshening trends that extend to depths of more than 1,000 m. The warming and freshening is partly related to changes in the properties of the water masses that make up the Antarctic Circumpolar Current, which are consistent with the anthropogenic changes in heat and freshwater fluxes suggested by climate models
---

Summary, both ocean and air temps around Antarctica are warming.

Point 1 -- You're a moron when you try to actually discuss science stuff.

Point 2 -- I used Southern Ocean because that's the accepted term for the general area in question as VALIDATED by your cite which refers to Southern Ocean over 20 times.

Point 3 -- The study you cite is from 2007 and they are interested in modeling ice growth in "warming waters" and as such -- totally ignore general ocean temps and focus only on "ice-covered" waters. The first chart you showed is the ONLY temp chart they consider and on that -- the rate is about 0.03degC/yr. Lord knows where that comes from, since the Southern OCEAN from SATELLITE is not warming. So can the BS about back radiation increases..

Point 4 -- ALL of their conclusions on why Antarctic ice is INCREASING is based on model results.

Point 5 -- You are still a moron.

 

[westwall]

From BBCNews

Antarctica's mighty Pine Island Glacier (PIG) is now very probably in a headlong, self-sustaining retreat.

This is the conclusion of three teams that have modelled its behaviour.

Even if the region were to experience much colder conditions, the retreat would continue, the teams tell the journal Nature Climate Change.

This means PIG is set to become an even more significant contributor to global sea level rise - on the order of perhaps 3.5-10mm in the next 20 years.

"You can think of PIG like a ball. It's been kicked and it's just going to keep on rolling for the foreseeable future," said Dr Hilmar Gudmundsson from the British Antarctic Survey (BAS).

PIG is a colossal feature. Covering more than 160,000 sq km (two-thirds the size of the UK), it drains something like 20% of all the ice flowing off the west of the White Continent.

Satellite and airborne measurements have recorded a marked thinning and a surge in velocity in recent decades.

Its grounding line - the zone where the glacier enters the sea and lifts up and floats - has reversed tens of km over the same period.

[For FCT]Much of this behaviour is driven not by higher air temperatures in the cold south but by warm ocean bottom-waters getting under and eroding the floating ice shelf at the head of the glacier.

Key to PIG's observed behaviour is that a large section of it sits below sea level, with the rock bed sloping back towards the continent.

Thinning rate The very latest satellite data details the thinning occurring in this region of West Antarctica
This can produce what scientists refer to as a "marine ice sheet instability" - an inherently unstable architecture, which, once knocked, can go into an irreversible decline.

Dr Gudmundsson's group, together with colleagues in the UK, France, Finland and China, have used numerical models to describe PIG's current and future behaviour, and they argue that it has now entered just such a mode.

[For Mylar]"Even if you were to reduce melt rates, you would not stop the retreat," Dr Gudmundsson told BBC News.

"We did a number of model runs where we allowed PIG to retreat some distance back, and then we lowered the melt rates in our models. And despite doing that, the grounding line continued to retreat.

"You can talk about external forcing factors, such climate and ocean effects, and then there are internal factors which are the flow dynamics. What we find is that the internal dynamics of flow are such that the retreat is now self-sustaining."

This has major implications for sea level rise.

The Amundsen Bay, the area of West Antarctica containing PIG and other large glaciers, is currently dumping more than 150 cu km of ice a year into the ocean.

If the forecasts of Dr Gudmundsson and colleagues are correct, PIG could now lead an accelerating trend.

The teams write in their journal paper: "The [PIG's] associated mass loss increases substantially over the course of our simulations from the average value of 20 billion tonnes a year observed for the 1992-2011 period, up to and above 100 billion tonnes a year, equivalent to 3.5-10mm eustatic sea-level rise over the following 20 years." By way of comparison, the most recent satellite data suggested West Antarctica as a whole was contributing about one-third of one millimetre per year to sea level rise.

A recent study, from a different research group at BAS, indicated that year-to-year variability in the melting of the glacier was very sensitive to the amount of warm ocean-bottom water reaching the ice shelf's underside.

This group noted that a high ridge on the sea floor could at times block the action of the warm water, resulting in a slowdown in the rate of melting.

Dr Andy Shepherd from Leeds University is connected with neither study but follows PIG's progress closely via satellite observations. He suspects the perspective taken in the new Nature Climate Change paper properly describes the long-term outcome.

"Although there have been reports that PIG is sensitive to short-term changes in climate, this latest simulation of the glacier response to long-term forcing matches closely with satellite observations of continued retreat, and provides compelling evidence that increased ice losses are inevitable in the future," he said.

Dr Gudmundsson cautions that computer models are simulations that carry uncertainties, and must be constrained and improved by the further infusion of real-world data.

BAS is engaged in a big project, known as iStar, which is trying to do just this.

Why oh why have you yet to address this paper? Inquiring minds wish to know.... C'mon [MENTION=48966]Crick[/MENTION].... or whoevers sock you are...you proliferate so quickly it's hard to keep up...


Global characterization of the Holocene Thermal Maximum
H. Renssena, Corresponding author contact information, E-mail the corresponding author, E-mail the corresponding author,
H. Seppäb,
X. Crostac,
H. Goossed,
D.M. Rochea, e


http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2012.05.022
Get rights and content


Abstract

We analyze the global variations in the timing and magnitude of the Holocene Thermal Maximum (HTM) and their dependence on various forcings in transient simulations covering the last 9000 years (9 ka), performed with a global atmosphere-ocean-vegetation model. In these experiments, we consider the influence of variations in orbital parameters and atmospheric greenhouse gases and the early-Holocene deglaciation of the Laurentide Ice sheet (LIS). Considering the LIS deglaciation, we quantify separately the impacts of the background melt-water fluxes and the changes in topography and surface albedo.

In the analysis we focus on the intensity of the maximum temperature deviation relative to the preindustrial level, its timing in the Holocene, and the seasonal expression. In the model, the warmest HTM conditions are found at high latitudes in both hemispheres, reaching 5 °C above the preindustrial level, while the smallest HTM signal is seen over tropical oceans (less than 0.5 °C). This latitudinal contrast is mostly related to the nature of the orbitally-forced insolation forcing, which is also largest at high latitudes, and further enhanced by the polar amplification. The Holocene timing of the HTM is earliest (before 8 ka BP) in regions not affected by the remnant LIS, particularly NW North America, E Asia, N Africa, N South America, the Middle East, NE Siberia and Australia. Compared to the early Holocene insolation maximum, the HTM was delayed by 2&#8211;3 ka over NE North America, and regions directly downwind from the LIS. A similar delay is simulated over the Southern Ocean, while an intermediate lag of about 1 ka is found over most other continents and oceans. The seasonal timing of the HTM over continents generally occurs in the same month as the maximum insolation anomaly, whereas over oceans the HTM is delayed by 2&#8211;3 months. Exceptions are the oceans covered by sea ice and North Africa, were additional feedbacks results in a different seasonal timing. The simulated timing and magnitude of the HTM are generally consistent with global proxy evidence, with some notable exceptions in the Mediterranean region, SW North America and eastern Eurasia.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379112002168

 

[MikeK]

4 feet is enough to put cities like New York in great danger.

I understand New York City already is planning for the construction of an expandable sea wall similar to those in place in The Netherlands. And if New York can do it I don't know why other coastal cities cannot if it's a simple matter of survival.

 

[flacaltenn]

4 feet is enough to put cities like New York in great danger.

I understand New York City already is planning for the construction of an expandable sea wall similar to those in place in The Netherlands. And if New York can do it I don't know why other coastal cities cannot if it's a simple matter of survival.

Worst case -- you've got a couple hundred years to that. Why not wait for robotic construction and gravitational levitation equipment and save a few bucks. When this "story" or "fairy tale" first broke a year ago -- it was centimeters.. NOW it's meters. When you look at the map and realize that 90% of those glaciers are well inland and NOT influenced by ocean water, I'll bet on millimeters..

 

[Crick]

All water drains to the sea.

 

[mamooth]

So you know for a fact that 95% of the ice is ABOVE the waterline eh?

That's your crazy claim, not mine. Therefore, I have no interest in discussing it. But feel free to defend it yourself, since you seem so keen on it.

 

[westwall]

All water drains to the sea.

Care to make a be on that?

 

[flacaltenn]

So you know for a fact that 95% of the ice is ABOVE the waterline eh?

That's your crazy claim, not mine. Therefore, I have no interest in discussing it. But feel free to defend it yourself, since you seem so keen on it.

No sir.. It was YOUR claim.. 2" inches of water in a kiddie pool and a meter cubed block of ice.. Regardless of the careless and whacky mixed units -- the kinda stuff that crashes Mars missions -- that would be 95% above the waterline. Even in the 7th grade..

How sad..