West Antarctic Ice Sheet Melt

[said]

As widely reported this week, a warming Antarctic is leading researchers to an unpalatable conclusion - sealevel rise of at least THREE metres (about ten feet! ) on the cards. Hard to see how the town will cope tbh, as the seawall only just holds back current storm surges.

Apparently, a large glacier (Thwaites Glacier) also known as the 'Doomsday Glacier', is weakening. At present, this holds back the massive West Antarctic ice sheet from sliding into the sea.....But no need to panic, it could be 100 years before the inundation.

Btw, if/when all our ice melts, the rise in sealevel would be around 80 metres (260 feet!).

Fortunately for future residents of Sefton/W lancs, the summit of Parbold Hill would remain dry (if rather crowded) ground.

You will not find any factual scientific descriptions of glaciation and melting in UK media, you need to read earlier scientific studies or Russian exploration reports This is due to much alteration and interference on facts on the internet now. I am using the internet less and less and reading more books for research. The computer will go the same way as my television - the bin!

[The PNP]

A) As land ice melts, it reduces the mass of the land area it is lying on - so the land starts to lift.

B) "Antarctica is a continent 98% covered by ice, surrounded by local ocean with much of its surface seasonally covered by sea ice. Reporting on Antarctic ice often fails to recognise the fundamental difference between sea ice and land ice.

A) In that case, Antarctica will gradually lift as the ice-cover on it melts.

B) Since the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is located on land, as is the greater part of Thwaites Glacier itself, that would explain why the melting is already adding to sealevel rise. Not only is warmer ocean water undercutting the leading edge of the glacier, but air temperatures are apparently also rising.....Antarctica recently recorded a peak air temperature of 18degs C, which is truly staggering!

[silver fox]

As land ice melts, it reduces the mass of the land area it is lying on - so the land starts to lift. This can be seen in Norway where the boat houses are now above the sea level after the last glaciation. During the last Ice Age, only just over half of the British Islands had land glaciers. Scotland in the UK is still rising after its glaciers melted, while Southern Ireland, Southern Wales, South and East of England are sinking slowly at about 0.4 - 7mm per year. This is due to Isostatic Adjustment. This land rebound occurred faster just after the melting of the glaciers than it does now. Further evidence is seen by tide lines high in rocks near beaches and by early settlements found under the sea.

When glaciation has its greatest effect, ocean levels fell by 120m - The UK was once part of the land mass of Europe shown by the area of Doggerland. South East UK - which is now under water.

"Antarctica is a continent 98% covered by ice, surrounded by local ocean with much of its surface seasonally covered by sea ice. Reporting on Antarctic ice often fails to recognise the fundamental difference between sea ice and land ice. Antarctic land ice is the ice which has accumulated over thousands of years on the Antarctica landmass through snowfall. This land ice therefore is actually stored ocean water that once evaporated and then fell as precipitation on the land, a fact with implications. Antarctic sea ice is entirely different as it is ice which forms in salt water during the winter and almost entirely melts again in the summer."

I think you will find that the rise and fall of land masses as more to do with the effect of tectonic plate activity than with glaciation, of course there is some rebound from the melting of ice masses, but rebound didn't create mountains.

Currently the obsession appears to be fixated on the melting of permanent ice, coupled with the rising CO2 levels, two and two don't always complete the picture.

I have no doubt whatsoever that human activity is not doing this old world any favours and certainly we are doing a good job of poisoning the world, with that quite clear we do most certainly need to clean up our act.

However when it comes to climate change, it is very clear that this planet has undergone major changes throughout it's life, varying from ice free to almost totally ice bound, all without the aid of pesky humans, often wonder just what is the normal climate for this planet rather than what we determine as the normal.

One thing absolutely certain, this world is still active and very much alive, changes will continue long after we humans have had our lot and followed the other millions of life forms into extinction.

[bensherman]

All these "It's happened thousands of years ago and we survived, so what's the fuss?" arguments don't stand up.
For a start, many DIDN'T survive.
But more importantly, now man over the last three centuries has established economic, social, political systems predicated on the geography and climate of the locations they operate in.
Change those and you unleash massive forces.
For example..we think refugees from Syria and Iraq are a problem now to say the least. Wait until entire populations abandon where they are, because they can't grow food, get water, etc, and try to establish themselves where others already are.
As they say, you ain't seen nothing yet.

[Alikado]

All these "It's happened thousands of years ago and we survived, so what's the fuss?" arguments don't stand up.
For a start, many DIDN'T survive.
But more importantly, now man over the last three centuries has established economic, social, political systems predicated on the geography and climate of the locations they operate in.
Change those and you unleash massive forces.
For example..we think refugees from Syria and Iraq are a problem now to say the least. Wait until entire populations abandon where they are, because they can't grow food, get water, etc, and try to establish themselves where others already are.
As they say, you ain't seen nothing yet.

They are already abandoning The Horn of Africa where famine and disease are rife.

[sandGroundZero]

There are a few contentious remarks alluding to aspects of geology as well as climate change science, plus reporting and sources in this thread.

The initiating post alludes to reporting of worries by scientists on Thwaites glacier in western Antarctica. Some amusing comments follow.
Other comments apparently contest the implication that sea level rises are likely to follow. Or else, that the scientists' fears as reported are misguided owing to omissions either in the reporting, or in the completeness of the scientists' reasoning.

Clearly, we are into the realm of disputed truths. So, beware!

.

[The PNP]

All these "It's happened thousands of years ago and we survived, so what's the fuss?" arguments don't stand up.
For a start, many DIDN'T survive.

True enough.......A classic example just off UK shores is the disaster that happened to Doggerland etc, at end of last Ice Age. The wide plains between Britain and Europe, rich in game and vegetation were inundated by rising seas and lie now well submerged beneath the North Sea. As a result, the people and animals that had lived there, either drowned or were forced to migrate by the steadily rising waters.

[local]

True enough.......A classic example just off UK shores is the disaster that happened to Doggerland etc, at end of last Ice Age. The wide plains between Britain and Europe, rich in game and vegetation were inundated by rising seas and lie now well submerged beneath the North Sea. As a result, the people and animals that had lived there, either drowned or were forced to migrate by the steadily rising waters.

These faux green posts from you do grate perhaps if you weren't into destroying forests they might have some legitimacy.

[Alikado]

Everything is all about polluting the atmosphere causing the problems but nobody ever points the finger at the mining of Minerals, Oil and Gas extraction from the earth, perhaps these activities also have a bearing on climate change and weather patterns?

[The PNP]

These faux green posts from you do grate perhaps if you weren't into destroying forests they might have some legitimacy.

Total nonsense...My field of activity positively encourages new planting of trees. The more product we install, the greater the commercial incentive to create fresh plantations!

[Toodles McGinty]

'Doggerland' is a good example of how melting and freezing of ice changes the face of the planet. Certainly changes the amount of land we have to live on, or that can successfully support human life.

That the polar ice caps are seeing their highest temperatures since we've been measuring them, and that they are melting more than they are freezing seasonally, is beyond doubt. It is climate change. Whether you believe this has been accelerated by human activity is beside the point. You can take the word of the vast majority of experts on the subject, or you can believe the minority of deniers, who are usually in the pocket of fossil fuel companies, but there's no denying it is happening. The evidence is staring us in the face with extreme weather, low lying islands such as the Solomon Islands, losing land, extreme forest and bush fires etc.

I think one of the problems that people have when faced with the fact of rising seas is that it doesn't happen all over the world at the same time, so they just don't see the urgency.

[Nick2]

Total nonsense...My field of activity positively encourages new planting of trees.

To replace those mature trees that you've already logged to satisfy the wood burning fraternity. Now that is nonsense.

[Snig's foot]

Ice melting and sea levels rising is not that simple. There are a huge number of factors that have to be taken into account, apart from the basic calculations of areas and volumes - involving tides, coriolis effect, atmospheric effects, gravity, temperatures, solar, lunar effects, locations etc.,

So according to you, if all the ice melts it will benefit Southport, we will see a high tide constantly.

Seriously though, when one ice area grows the other diminishes, this is a regular cycle. Glaciers change all the time - they grow, they diminish, move at varying velocities, disappear, reappear etc., and have done for thousands of years. The one you refer to sits atop a volcano at present, but even if that volcano erupted it would not melt the glacier entirely and I doubt if many would notice much of a change. it happens to several large glaciers in Iceland constantly - I won't lose any sleep over them anyway. The means provides a need with volcanoes having now become a novel topic, and no doubt the media will leap on its usual dramatisation of effects that will surpass any ideas that the film industry ever had.

I'm not sure what point you're making here...would it reassure you to know that I've studied Oceanography?

[silver fox]

All these "It's happened thousands of years ago and we survived, so what's the fuss?" arguments don't stand up.
For a start, many DIDN'T survive.
But more importantly, now man over the last three centuries has established economic, social, political systems predicated on the geography and climate of the locations they operate in.
Change those and you unleash massive forces.
For example..we think refugees from Syria and Iraq are a problem now to say the least. Wait until entire populations abandon where they are, because they can't grow food, get water, etc, and try to establish themselves where others already are.
As they say, you ain't seen nothing yet.

Climate change, however brought about is probably the biggest factor in the extinction of various life forms throughout time, very clear that there currently is a shift in climate and human activity isn't helping.

[sandGroundZero]

Total nonsense...My field of activity positively encourages new planting of trees. The more product we install, the greater the commercial incentive to create fresh plantations!

What is your "field of activity"? Just curious; you did not appear to deny "destroying forests" …"to satisfy the wood burning fraternity".

.