Antarctic Ice Melting from Warm Water Below

You are completely missing my point. I have seen my parents buying presents and putting them under the tree. I have seen humans generating green house gases. Any explanation of Santa need to explain where the presents my parents bought went. Any explanation of global climate change (or not) needs to explain where all those green house gases have gone, and what they are doing to the climate. Anything else is yes, quite frankly, denial.

If you think you playing Santa a couple of times makes it MORE likely that he exists, we aren't in the same world of logic, I'm afraid.

 

I'm really surprised that you are admitting to be a santa clause denier. Your parent situation is easily explained, they knew you were being naughty. Santa only brings presents to nice christen boys and girls. Your parents got you presents because santa would not.

Please re-read it if you don't understand the analogy or sarcasm. To be explicit, I don't believe in a santa clause that live on the north pole and is suffering the effects of global warming. I do know about the fictional character, and those that play the roles and give the gifts.

You can watch a santa clause in a movie. He is bringing you a 20 foot sea level rise in the near future. That near future isn't really real, its just some guy telling you that in the movie.

The science says sea level will rise 20 feet with or without global warming. It just will take a long time. It likely will be less than 3 feet higher in 100 years with or without human ghg based warming. There is strong support for this since it happened in the last interglacial, and the temperature was only slightly warmer than it is today.

Here is the question, if i trust in the glaciologists estimates of ice melts and disagree with the alarmists am I a denier?

 

Except there isnt a long time before we return to Ice Age.
We are near the end of our current interglacial and temps are forecast by solar physicists to be dropping for the next 20 years or more.

The good news is that during the past interglacial warming periods ,the Earths temperature was warmer, yet Antarctica and Greenland did not melt.
How do I know this?
Because the ice cores are 800,000 years old .
If they melted during the previous interglacial periods we would only have a 100,000 year record.
800,000 years ago must have been a bitch though.Some say thats when the Earths magnetic field reversed.No ice survived.

But during the last interglacial, sea levels were much higher than today.
Hows that if Antarctica and Greenland remained frozen?

 

Mojo@23 "and temps are forecast by solar physicists to be dropping for the next 20 years or more"

How meaningful those words would be, if you were to bet your life, fortune and sacred honor on it.

Just in case you won't I shall bet all those above on the opposite. That in the next 20 years, temps will increase.

But here's the kicker. I get to define what "temps will increase" means. I get to define by how much, and where, and measured by what means.

Wanna play?

If not, I can certainly see why not and forgive. In no 20-yr period since 1950 have global surface temps been less than the previous. That alone would make your bet, well, iffy.

But maybe you've got some new stuff, and it's great, and nobody knows it but you, and it will turn around the upward.

It would please me more than you might imagine, given that the burners are, well, still burning. What can save us? Your magic? Might you perhaps disclose what that is?

 

Gawd we do bicker here, but here is why that is a good thing. I dig deeper into climate research as a result of PriusChat postings. Probably Mojo and AustinG and several others do as well. This does not make us experts, and only things taught that penetrate our personal filters will, um, penetrate.

But braodly speaking this can move us towards a better understanding. Maybe it will even be of some value to those who only read our noise, and have no interest to post more within.

So let us continue to strive here, without ever hoping that the other would drop dead. It's fun! It might just sharpen out thinking.

 

Yes, sharpen the minds, not the knives. Good point.

 

You are still not getting my point. Never mind.

 

ha ha! I answered you as a believer. I told you as much in the next paragraph. I only was having fun at the expense of the unscientifc out there. Your reply to hill was in the same vain.

Luckily for you the believer side of you is defending something that has a scientific basis. But no, someone talking about changes of solar radiation is absolutely right that that is why the sea levels are rising. They don't have to explain why it isn't because of human generated greenhouse gases. A good model though will look at the ice cores and other historical data from the last interglacials, and notice that natural ghg contributed to the melt. They should use this and model the human generated ones too to get an answer to how fast are sea levels rising. This include current temperature data, which will have a contribution from said greenhouse gasses. If you think its only because of man, you need to explain the ice record, and the genetic record of things like octopus, which seemed to show it has happened without his inputs.

But if you look at the research it takes decades for ghg to have an impact on sea level rise. When you say you have seen man create these gases and make the sea levels rise, you are misinformed. There is no way you can see the cause and effect unless you are pouring oil on the ice and lighting it on fire.

 

The end of the interglacial is related to the milankovitch cycle, and I have heard no predictions of that ending.

What you are talking about is changes in solar radiation, which may change on short cycles. This happened in the little ice age, but then warming began again. I have seen no predictions that radiation will decrease enough to end warming, or that it will last more than one cycle.

They melted partially, at least that is what we get from the ice cores and other proxies.
The Last Interglacial Part Three - Melting Ice and Rising Seas

You can see the estimated shrinking of ice in the link above.

 

Naw, racist remarks spin off all over AGW forums. There are many continuing & proud threats on some sites. Tracking down & stalking is probably going on some places.

 

The paper cited by zen@30 does not specify a sea level change that would result from this ice going to the ocean. The associated editorial in Nature Geoscience specifies 3.3 meters for the entire WAIS, which is much larger than Weddell.

I have offered opinion here before that serious global attempts to reduce fossil-C emissions will not proceed until there is some large event clearly linked to temperature increases.

In Crichton's (fictional) novel, the event was a nuclear detonation by eco-whackos, sending a large chunk of Antacrtic ice into the sea. Perhaps we would not need to await such fiction; that a warming ocean could do it unaided. Wait and see eh?

It might be good to recall that the IPCC +60 cm sea level rise during 21st century excluded any consideration of accelerated ice melt. They found it too uncertain to consider in 2007. Many studies have since followed, and maybe now we can put some (century) constraints in the 1 to 2 meter range.

So I pose the question would something like that be OK? Not enough reason to actively reduce fossil-C emissions?

I mean, if your mine canary dies, you can always buy a new canary.

 

2 meters?

Ask those in some island nations,, or coastal Florida, or the Caribean.

Icarus

 

I might be, if I ACTUALLY SAID THAT. But I DIDN'T. You completely misunderstood what I was saying.

 

In the mid 2000s there was a much higher consensus to do something in the US. This seemed to dry up because of some exagerations, and because when congress proposed to do something even many ghg crowd didn't like what they were doing.

Seems like Crichton's rather an idiot when it comes to global warming.

Since we have done more research that shows that 2meters extremely unlikely from ghg, I would think those advocating over 2 meters are on the fringe. The 0.6 meters is at the high end of temperature forecasts, the IPCC low end estimate was 0.18. Certainly there may be other contributions like black carbon, but maybe Europe doing something like encouraging more diesels to reduce ghg actually increases this.

Certainly if you are expecting 5 meters from watching a movie, or 2 meters from those scare advocates, if we come in at 0.5 meters which would represent a large human contribution will cause a lack in faith in those claiming 2 is likely

http://www.spiegel.de/international...g-to-pinpoint-rising-sea-levels-a-774706.html

Let's do the science and help figure out all these mechanisms for ice to melt to nail it down. Reducing ghg contribution is prudent to slow the human acceleration of ice melt. But reasonable models also say even if human sourced ghg dropped by 80% as 350.org wants, the ice would still melt.

I don't want to pay for that new canary, the government keeps wanting me to pay for stuff. The canary in the sea climate change is the dying coral.

btw: this is a good source of adjust sea level data CU Sea Level Research Group | University of Colorado

It says this about the recent drop

 

+1

I like that infant football analogy.

http://www3.geosc.psu.edu/Colloquia/joughin_alley(NatureGeosci).pdf

This seems to say some models have WAIS actually reducing sea level, but the authors think these are poor. They do support a 3 meter rise from melting ice over multiple centuries.

Looking at the next century, they find a paper that had estimates as a 5% chance of 10mm/yr, but it was done before recent changes. That does put that 4.4mm/yr as plausable. More recent work has it between 1.1mm/yr-3.9mm/yr for upper bounds, with the melt likely to raise sea levels substantially less than 1.1mm/yr.

 

As long as we have cheap canary factories providing cheap canaries, then Yes. (Humor!)

I feel that trying to make the larger population understand and react to the science directly is the wrong approach. The smart ones already understand the range of possibilities and know something needs to be done. The rest of the population will remain indifferent, not due to lack of science knowledge, but just because their focus is on tomorrow, not the next decades. Just like the Montreal Protocol, the heavy lifters will be solving the issues while the criticisers sit on the sidelines just making noise.

The staggeringly hard part is figuring out answers to the 100's of different issues of sustainability that need to be addressed. I'll start bitching about the governments lack of progress once I can figure out how to make my life sustainable. I've long since figured out that I'm smarter than the government (not saying much here). So my approach is figure out the effective lifestyle choices (Prius, EV, LED Bulbs, etc., etc.) Then use that as ammunition for changing just a few peoples habits and behaviors around me. (e.g. "Why are you giving your money away for gas and electricity doing 'xyz'?") It's not fast, but it's working!!! The world's culture has to change before the governments will.

 

The changes are easy to see through old satellite pictures and the temperature record. The thing is unlike the frog, we won't die, things will just change. If you are transporting goods from japan to europe, less sea ice will mean a shorter route over russia. If you are on a low lieing island, you will need to move or suffer a great deal. I still can't believe we rebuilt Galveston with federal insurance - low lying island that has been hit by two hurricanes. Maybe a $1/kwh coal tax would help pay to relocate people and help kill coal power plants.

But many think on this sea level thing the water is already boiling what ever we do. I don't think anyone agrees with hanson on how fast the ice will melt, but many agree with him on the amount of melt at various ghg levels.

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2011/20110118_MilankovicPaper.pdf

I left out the business as usual case, as we all know that is bad, but if we do the impossible, and leave all the coal and tar sand in the ground, he is still predicting meters of sea level rise.