Giant cavity found eating away at Antarctic glacier from underneath

Sugarman

Making Sugar
Joined
Feb 24, 2016
Messages
23,541
#1
Glaciers are kind of an endangered species in our rapidly-warming world, and unfortunately scientists keep finding new threats to them. NASA's ongoing Operation IceBridge has now found a gigantic cavity underneath Thwaites Glacier in West Antarctica, which shows that the area has suffered even more drastic ice loss in recent years than previously thought – and it's accelerating.
More At: https://newatlas.com/giant-cavity-underneath-antarctic-glacier/58275/
 

garp

Executive Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2004
Messages
6,772
#11
Scientists concluded in the Journal of Glaciology that the loss of glacier mass in Antarctica’s western region is being offset by thickening of glaciers on the continent’s eastern interior, which has experienced increased snowfall. The result: A net gain of about 100 billion tons of ice per year, according to the report.

https://news.nationalgeographic.com...ce-growing-shrinking-glaciers-climate-change/

The IPCC AR5 report concluded that "it is very likely" that annual mean Antarctic sea ice extent increased 1.2 to 1.8% per decade, which is 0.13 to 0.20 million km2 per decade, during the period 1979 to 2012.[7]IPCC AR5 also concluded that due to the lack of data it is not possible to determine the trend in total volume or mass of the sea ice.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_sea_ice


One day there's more ice, the next there's less. Less ice is due to global warming, but so is more ice. So let's pretend that we even have such good handle on what's actually going on (despite the acknowledgement that we don't really) to the extent that we can then derive a solid link to CO2.
 

garp

Executive Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2004
Messages
6,772
#13
Suspect? Or maybe it was never there? Don’t they trust their instruments? An error/guestimate of 14b tons (+-) is huge, almost massive.
Beware of large sounding numbers - they sound scary but in context they may be barely significant. Considering they estimated that in some years there was a net gain of 100 billion tons in the antarctic, the mere fact that the total mass can apparently change by 100 billion tons each year, whether more or less, makes 14 billion tons fairly minor in the bigger picture.
 

Lord Farquart

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 27, 2012
Messages
4,240
#15
Beware of large sounding numbers - they sound scary but in context they may be barely significant. Considering they estimated that in some years there was a net gain of 100 billion tons in the antarctic, the mere fact that the total mass can apparently change by 100 billion tons each year, whether more or less, makes 14 billion tons fairly minor in the bigger picture.
Does not change the fact they are playing a guessing game. Even at 100bn gain, 14bn is 14%, a big error. And that is, according to your statement, the lower value.
 

scudsucker

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2006
Messages
4,595
#17
Good news. A warmer planet is good for plant life and agriculture, which is good for people.
For sure, Ethiopians, Somalis, and Sudanese will agree 100%. And no one from Syria has ever left their country due to drought; on the contrary, there's plenty of plant life and agriculture there! Also that warmer climate is doing GREAT things in the hurricane spawning part of the Atlantic.

I'm not entirely certain how your religious beliefs manage the insane levels of cognitive dissonance that allows you to ignore real human suffering caused by real human causes.
 

krycor

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
13,973
#18
Good news. A warmer planet is good for plant life and agriculture, which is good for people.

https://judithcurry.com/2018/09/19/the-most-amazing-greening-on-earth/
uh no.. most of those on the equator and surrounding areas will become desert(not 100% sure but i know humidity will kill humans) and unliveable. There is already talk about global responsibility vs environmental migrants in the next 2 decades and people saying US needs to bear the brunt given its environmental policies. fair is fair.

ironically it also means the winters are gonna get worse as we potentially force the globe into an ice age ahead of the normal cycle which is still hundreds of years away. Don't forget weather patterns in the tropics are becoming really bad particularly in the American Gulf due to sea water changes.. So yah.. this is like people who are anti-gay and then turn out to be gay..
 

eg2505

Honorary Master
Joined
Mar 12, 2008
Messages
14,610
#19
my question is this, if somebody was crazy enough to nuke the Arctic ice cap,
by how much would world sea levels rise?

so somewhere like clifton/venice beach/hong kong would be underwater?
 

garp

Executive Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2004
Messages
6,772
#20
uh no.. most of those on the equator and surrounding areas will become desert(not 100% sure but i know humidity will kill humans) and unliveable. There is already talk about global responsibility vs environmental migrants in the next 2 decades and people saying US needs to bear the brunt given its environmental policies. fair is fair.

ironically it also means the winters are gonna get worse as we potentially force the globe into an ice age ahead of the normal cycle which is still hundreds of years away. Don't forget weather patterns in the tropics are becoming really bad particularly in the American Gulf due to sea water changes.. So yah.. this is like people who are anti-gay and then turn out to be gay..
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamest...vents-are-becoming-less-extreme/#2a8797d455a4
Just about every type of extreme weather event is becoming less frequent and less severe in recent years as our planet continues its modest warming in the wake of the Little Ice Age.
https://www.omicsonline.org/open-ac...policy-advice-2167-0587-1000155.php?aid=69558
Journal of Geography & Natural Disasters
It is widely promulgated and believed that human-caused global warming comes with increases in both the intensity and frequency of extreme weather events. A survey of official weather sites and the scientific literature provides strong evidence that the first half of the 20th century had more extreme weather than the second half, when anthropogenic global warming is claimed to have been mainly responsible for observed climate change. The disconnect between real-world historical data on the 100 years’ time scale and the current predictions provides a real conundrum when any engineer tries to make a professional assessment of the real future value of any infrastructure project which aims to mitigate or adapt to climate change. What is the appropriate basis on which to make judgements when theory and data are in such disagreement?
 
Top