I used to share the images from: National Snow and Ice Data Center | It is too depressing. Arctic - becoming a non-ice ocean Antarctica - the edges, the glaciers are slipping into the sea with vast ice flows Greenland - melting and glaciers racing to the sea Bob Wilson
New Arctic minimum record this year? Charctic Interactive Sea Ice Graph | Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis
Yep. Right up the depression scale with what is about to happen when the 50,000 or so morons who are riding their bad-assed loud bikes to Sturgis this weekend and they spread the Corona virus back with them to all corners of the country when they go back home. Sad. Very sad. And it pisses me off too.
'Just' 50,000 would be a great success, on a relative scale, when town officials are expecting closer to 250,000 visitors. (Last year they had nearly 500,000.) Absent a success, that IHME forecast of nearly 300k deaths by December 1, might end up on the low side.
I meant that many might actually contract the infection and take it back home with them. Might even be more.
Konrad Steffen falls in: A renowned climate scientist once compared to 'an icy Indiana Jones' has died after falling through ice thinned by melting
Close but record (low) arctic sea ice extent doesn’t look to happen this year: Charctic Interactive Sea Ice Graph | Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis
First off, I appreciate the article even though my previous understanding was 10s of meters ... a disaster for costal habitation. Bob Wilson
No one realistically calls for 10s meters this century. We shall I suppose limit [co2] to about 550, and water and ice, being slow, shall come along a century or few later.
Darwin found shells hundreds of meters above sea level in S. America during the voyage of the Beagle. My previous understanding is melting all polar ice, something neither of us is likely to witness, would be about 70 m. But 10 m would be enough to end the opposition. Bob Wilson
This century? Next century? I thought that much was a bit further out. Local crustal upthrusts can push such deposits far above any known sea level. 70 meters does sound right for the highest possible sea level, but that will take more than two centuries.
70 is about right. By geological uplift, marine shells are high in Himalayas. Once in a great while, things like Chicxulub meteor make mega tsunamis and throw stuff very high.
I don't think Darwin had to climb Himalaya heights. <grins> In spite of our limited, individual observation time, understandings can span a greater range. Bob Wilson
His diaries tell of highest climbs and what he experienced there. Hated it. Also was seasick most of time at sea, which was a lot of time. He chose for himself an interesting life.
My working career and family life has seldom been without occasional 'sea sickness.' <grins> Bob Wilson
The Oceans aren't static bodies. Between the Earth, Moon, and Sun, there is a lot of sloshing. Centimeters to the water level could be meters to tides in some locations.
