West Antarctic glacier melt threat
Harry Hope
http://www.greenleft.org.au/2010/823/42320
23 January 2010
West Antarctic glacier melt threat
By Simon Butler
A new study has revealed that a major glacier in Antarctica could
collapse because of warmer seas caused by climate change,
ScienceDaily.com said on January 18.
Even worse, the glacial melt could destabilise the West Antarctic ice
sheet � a three kilometre thick block of ice the size of Texas.
The research team, led by the University of Oxford�s Richard Katz,
concluded the Pine Island glacier could lose half its ice in a
century.
This would add about 24 centimetres to world sea levels.
The nearby Thwaites glacier is also thinning rapidly.
A January 13 NewScientist.com article said the melting of the two
glaciers combined could raise sea levels by half a metre or more.
The team found warmer water had found its way under the glaciers,
meaning the rate of melting is predicted to rapidly increase.
The team also warned their model is probably over-optimistic and the
glaciers could vanish even faster that projected, NewScientist.com
said.
The Pine Island and Thwaites glaciers drain about 20% of the huge West
Antarctic ice sheet.
The collapse of the glaciers could cause the ice sheet to change
rapidly.
Katz told ScienceDaily.com:
�Our model shows how instability in the [glaciers] grounding line,
caused by gradual climatic changes, has the potential to reach a
'tipping point' where disintegration of the [West Antarctic] ice sheet
could occur.�
In his 2009 book Storms of my Grandchildren, NASA climate scientist
James Hansen said loss of the entire West Antarctic ice sheet could
lead to sea-level rises of between six and seven metres.
�The West Antarctic ice sheet is especially vulnerable to removal of
its ice shelves, because much of that ice sheet rests on bedrock
several hundred metres below sea level.�
Hansen said:
�Once the ice sheets� collapse begins, global coastal devastations and
their economic reverberations may make it impractical for humanity to
take actions to rapidly reverse [climate change].
�Thus if we trigger the collapse of the West Antarctic ice sheet, sea
level rise may continue to even much higher levels via contributions
from the Greenland and East Antarctica ice sheets.�
Estimates of ice sheet loss in Antarctica were absent from the 2007
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report.
Instead, the report assumed climate change would not affect the
Antarctic.
As a result, the IPCC�s median prediction for sea-level rise by 2050
was only 44 centimetres.
In a Geology.com article, the University of Texas� Marc Airhart said:
�[T]he IPCC�s restrained estimate about the ice flow, and its possible
contribution to sea level rise, was not, however, a heartening sign.
�Rather, it reflected the consensus view that changes in the Antarctic
have been so rapid, science can not yet account for them.�
However, a group of 26 climate scientists issued a report in December
to update the IPCC report�s science.
In the 2009 The Copenhagen Diagnosis report, the scientists said world
sea-level rises has been �about 80% higher than IPCC projections from
2001.�
�Accounting for ice-sheets and glaciers, global sea-level rise may
exceed 1 meter by 2100, with a rise of up to 2 meters considered an
upper limit by this time. This is much higher than previously
projected by the IPCC.�
The scientists concluded:
�[G]lobal emissions must peak then decline rapidly within the next
five to ten years for the world to have a reasonable chance of
avoiding the very worst impacts of climate change.�
______________________________________________________
Harry
matt sykes
"possible" "could" "model" "collapse" "devestation"
ie alarmist guesswork
leona...@gmail.com
> On 24 Jan, 16:00, Harry Hopeless <riv...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > A new study has revealed that a major glacier in Antarctica could
> > collapse because of warmer seas caused by climate change,
> > ScienceDaily.com said on January 18.
øø ScienceDaily ignores everything that does not
promote/blame global warming
>
> > Even worse, the glacial melt could destabilise the West Antarctic ice
> > sheet — a three kilometre thick block of ice the size of Texas.
øø Nonsense
> > The research team, led by the University of Oxford’s Richard Katz,
> > concluded the Pine Island glacier could lose half its ice in a
> > century.
øø Katzen Kopf probably has never seen the
Pine Island glacier. He must spend his time
jerking off on his computer monitor
>
> > This would add about 24 centimetres to world sea levels.
øø Not going to happen. By 2110 the Polar ice
will be advancing toward the Equator
>
> > The nearby Thwaites glacier is also thinning rapidly.
øø Bullshit
> > A January 13 NewScientist.com article said the melting of the two
> > glaciers combined could raise sea levels by half a metre or more.
øø "NewScientist.com" another AGW alarmist site
>
> "possible" "could" "model" "collapse" "devestation"
>
> ie alarmist guesswork
øø Right on! Matt.
— —
| In real science the burden of proof is always
| on the proposer, never on the sceptics. So far
| neither IPCC nor anyone else has provided one
| iota of valid data for global warming nor have
| they provided data that climate change is being
| effected by commerce and industry, and not by
| natural phenomena
T. Keating
When the event happens... it won't be a guess anymore.
by then, it will be too late to save humanity from it's fate.
All predictions, projections involve some sort of guesswork.
But we do know that the thermal aspects of Earth's biosphere has yet
to reach a stable equilibrium. And the amount of the accumulating
thermal imbalance is more than enough to melt the icecaps and increase
sea levels by over a foot a year.
I.E. The oceans are storing that extra thermal energy. Sooner or
later, a rapid melting event will happen.
tunderbar
Give us one prediction of catastrophe that has actually occurred.
There isn't a single one.
T. Keating
Hmm.. techno disasters.. Hindinberg, Titanic, Chernobyl are good
starts.
We're at the beginning phases of this slow motion global disaster.
We've dealt with a number of them in the past before they hit maximum
effect.
Acid rain.. (pollution controls+unleaded gasoline)..
(Most of the world is behind the US on this one.)
Ozone hole.. (phase out CFC usage. )
Kevin Cunningham
What the above drooler wants is for scientists to stop worrying about
the future. The whole point of science is to figure out what we did
in the past. Historians should be the head of all science
departments.
The other point is this idiot still hasn't come up with a single
reason to write a paper denouncing global warming. No paper, no facts
but lots of drool going down his triple chins.
Roger Coppock
[ . . . ]
> In his 2009 book Storms of my Grandchildren, NASA climate scientist
> James Hansen said loss of the entire West Antarctic ice sheet could
> lead to sea-level rises of between six and seven metres.
> Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report.
> Instead, the report assumed climate change would not affect the
> Antarctic.
In places, the IPCC documents are still stuck on the classic
Arrhenius, pre-computer model, which said that the Southern
Hemisphere would warn slower than the Northern. While the
114-year old statement is correct, it is a huge generalization
to divide the entire globe into just two parts.
Hairy Grope
They werent predicted!
>
> We're at the beginning phases of this slow motion global disaster.
>
> We've dealt with a number of them in the past before they hit maximum
> effect.
>
> Acid rain.. (pollution controls+unleaded gasoline)..
So you are saying lead tetra ethyl caused acid rain?
Fool. Its caused by SO2 which forms sulphurous acid in the
atmosphere, which in conjunction with ozone and UV forms sulphuric
acid.
> (Most of the world is behind the US on this one.)
> Ozone hole.. (phase out CFC usage. )- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Hairy Grope
You still here?
I thought you had run away and hid!
Roger Coppock
[ . . . ]
> On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 10:12:54 -0800 (PST), tunderbar
>
> >There isn't a single one.
>
> Hmm.. techno disasters.. Hindinberg, Titanic, Chernobyl are good
> starts.
The explosion in Texas City, Texas; the Johnstown flood;
New Orleans durning Hurricane Katrina; and the space
shuttle Challenger loss are four more from many
techno-disasters with well documented predictions which
were ignored. Dunderbar needs to read some history.
Roger Coppock
[ . . . ]
> You still here?
>
> I thought you had run away and hid!
I have a life outside the Net and this forum.
T. Keating
>> Hmm.. techno disasters.. Hindenburg, Titanic, �Chernobyl are good
>> starts.
>
>They werent predicted!
Eventual Meltdown of nuclear plant, that was predicted. (just one of
many up to that point in time.)
Hindenburg, they did their best to avoid it.. but failed..
Titanic.. So obvious.. too much forward velocity+limited visibility+
massive Iceberg.. Iceberg wins every time !!
Add to that list, Space shuttle disasters..
Engineers warned, but were ignored.
>>
>> We're at the beginning phases of this slow motion global disaster.
>>
>> We've dealt with a number of them in the past before they hit maximum
>> effect. �
>>
>> Acid rain.. (pollution controls+unleaded gasoline)..
>
>So you are saying lead tetra ethyl caused acid rain?
No, the lead was removed from gasoline because it poisoned, (formed a
strong chemical bond), the catalyst inside the catalytic converter.
The Catalytic converter in the presence of spare O2 helped transform
NOx, CO, and unburned HC's into CO2 and H2O..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalytic_converter
Once a catalyst is poisoned it no longer can perform it's function.
>
>Fool. Its caused by SO2 which forms sulphurous acid in the
>atmosphere, which in conjunction with ozone and UV forms sulphuric
>acid.
Wrong chemistry.. Sulfur in gasoline is/was being removed during the
refining phase.
http://dnr.wi.gov/air/mobile/lowsulfurfuelfaq.html
"Frequently Asked Questions
Low Sulfur Gasoline"
"The Environmental Protection Agency's national low sulfur gasoline
program began on January 1, 2004. This program will reduce the amount
of sulfur in gasoline in steps and will be phased in over 4 years.."
P.S.. NOx emitted into atmosphere combines with H20 to form Nitric
acid, (which is stronger than sulfuric acid.).
>
>> � � (Most of the world is behind the US on this one.)
T. Keating
<zze...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Hmm.. techno disasters.. Hindenburg, Titanic, �Chernobyl are good
>> starts.
>
>They werent predicted!
Eventual Meltdown of nuclear plant, that was predicted. (just one of
many up to that point in time.)
Hindenburg, they did their best to avoid it.. but failed..
Titanic.. So obvious.. too much forward velocity+limited visibility+
massive Iceberg.. Iceberg wins every time !!
Add to that list, Space shuttle disasters..
Engineers warned, but were ignored.
>>
>> We're at the beginning phases of this slow motion global disaster.
>>
>> We've dealt with a number of them in the past before they hit maximum
>> effect. �
>>
>> Acid rain.. (pollution controls+unleaded gasoline)..
>
>So you are saying lead tetra ethyl caused acid rain?
No, the lead was removed from gasoline because it poisoned, (formed a
strong chemical bond), the catalyst inside the catalytic converter.
The Catalytic converter in the presence of spare O2 helped transform
NOx, CO, and unburned HC's into N2, CO2, and H2O..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalytic_converter
Once a catalyst is poisoned it no longer can perform it's function.
>
>Fool. Its caused by SO2 which forms sulphurous acid in the
>atmosphere, which in conjunction with ozone and UV forms sulphuric
>acid.
Wrong chemistry.. Sulfur in gasoline is/was being removed during the
refining phase.
http://dnr.wi.gov/air/mobile/lowsulfurfuelfaq.html
"Frequently Asked Questions
Low Sulfur Gasoline"
"The Environmental Protection Agency's national low sulfur gasoline
program began on January 1, 2004. This program will reduce the amount
of sulfur in gasoline in steps and will be phased in over 4 years.."
P.S.. NOx emitted into atmosphere combines with H20 to form Nitric
acid, (which is stronger than sulfuric acid.).
>
>> � � (Most of the world is behind the US on this one.)
Bawana
> [snip]
> >Give us one prediction of catastrophe that has actually occurred.
> >There isn't a single one.
>
> Hmm.. techno disasters.. Hindinberg, Titanic, Chernobyl are good
> starts.
LOL!!! Keeerst, you're delusional, kunting.
>[delusional lies flushed]
Bawana
No.
what he wants is for scientists to stop making shit up.
quit a concept, eh retard?
Last Post
> On Jan 24, 10:26 am, T. Keating <tkuse...@ktcnslt.com> wrote:
> [ . . . ]
>
> > On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 10:12:54 -0800 (PST), tunderbar
>
> > >Give us one prediction of catastrophe that has actually occurred.
> > >There isn't a single one.
>
> > Hmm.. techno disasters.. Hindinberg, Titanic, Chernobyl are good
> > starts.
>
> The explosion in Texas City, Texas; the Johnstown flood;
> New Orleans durning Hurricane Katrina; and the space
> shuttle Challenger loss are four more from many
> techno-disasters with well documented predictions which
> were ignored. Dunderbar needs to read some history.
øø Bullshit
None were forecast.
Copppock and Keating — two AGW numbskulls
I M @ good guy
During the last ice age, the Southern Hemisphere
had hardly no build up of ice at all.
Does that mean it doesn't cool as fast?
Last Post
> On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 11:25:32 -0800 (PST), Hairy Grope
>
>
>
øø Neither Coppock nor Keating have a single
clue between them. Ask them for cites, they
play dodge ball
zno 0b
"Harry Hope" <riv...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:arnol5hf8akfmqbrt...@4ax.com...
>
> http://www.greenleft.org.au/2010/823/42320
>
> 23 January 2010
>
> West Antarctic glacier melt threat
>
> By Simon Butler
>
>
> A new study has revealed that a major glacier in Antarctica could
> collapse because of warmer seas caused by climate change,
> ScienceDaily.com said on January 18.
>
> Even worse, the glacial melt could destabilise the West Antarctic ice
>
But,but, but .....
Disclaimer
The projections are based on results from computer models that involve
simplifications of real physical processes that are not fully understood.
Accordingly, no responsibility will be accepted for the accuracy of the
projections inferred from this brochure or for any person's interpretations,
deductions, conclusions or actions in reliance on this information.
And further:
Climate model responses are most uncertain in how they represent feedback
effects, particularly those dealing with changes to cloud regimes,
biological effects and ocean-atmosphere interactions.
The coarse spatial resolution of climate models also remains a limitation on
their ability to simulate the details of regional climate change.
Future climate change will also be influenced by other, largely
unpredictable, factors such as changes in solar radiation, volcanic
eruptions and chaotic variations within the climate system itself.
Rapid climate change, or a step-like climate response to the enhanced
greenhouse effect, is possible but its likelihood cannot be defined.
Because changes outside the ranges given here cannot be ruled out, these
projections should be considered with caution.
Warmest Regards
Bon_0
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps
US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists
worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct
from natural variation."
Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
I M @ good guy
Glad to hear that, now to seek therapy for
AGWitis.
Roger Coppock
NOPE! All 4 I listed were forecast.
Last Post
øø Bullshit!!
Of course none were climate related
I M @ good guy
You are a loon, what could possibly be the basis
for predicting a dam failure, a ship explosion, ice
damage to mounting hardware, or a hurricane path?
Oh, woger's 600 line BASIC program?
Bawana
prove it, you delusional liar.
Obumble-istas are cracking up
cult of Obama-ism is finished