- Nov 11, 2019
It appears that deep water up-welling is driving most of the melting of basal Antarctic ice. The ocean temperature there is much warmer than expected. Here is something that sounds rather alarming from the "Intro" (in the below article) :After all the global climate has warmed less than one degree C overall. Or is this just a model of what might happen?
Your persistence has paid off. And it has provided me with information not previously known. Below is a quote from my favorite source of information (that Nature article was found on one of their sites. Wiki is an excellent source for references to original papers.)My quesation was this: The climate has warmed in the past. From ~1880 to ~1940. Did these Antarctic ice shelves start to collapse back then? Or at any time in the past?
Yes, you read that correctly: "at least 1 mm of sea-level rise over a few decades." Batten the hatches, we're all gonna drown!"Loss of buttressing offsetting half of the tendency for ice‐stream/ice‐shelf spreading for an ice stream similar to Pine Island Glacier, West Antarctica is modeled to contribute at least 1 mm of sea‐level rise over a few decades." https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2004GL022024
90 % of the sea ice shelves breaks off yearly never a boost to sea level. Think on it put some ice in a glass with some water mark the level. When the ice melts does the water in the glass rise, does it over flow. Displacement, it stays the same. Give me something tangible to believe in on man made climate change, other than we need a tax administered by the UN who backs this climate change hocus pocus
You surely know this but to review:A response to Chem721. It is important to distinguish between glacial ice and polar ice shelves as Mogoso pointed out. The back and forth growth and retreat of glaciers is well known. My question was about the polar ice caps, not glaciers.
Broadlands, you have a distinct advantage over me from my lack of knowledge of existing technologies and capabilities. So it is my challenge to see if you are aware of other evaluations that might lead to an actual reduction in CO2, or at least neutrality."To capture and permanently remove and bury just one part-per-million of oxidized carbon (at the source or directly from the air) means the safe burial of 7.8 Gt, or 7,800 million metric tons. At today's burial rates that ONE ppm would take about 200 years."
There is no imminent danger of island countries or shorelines being inundated that are not otherwise subsiding.