• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Major paper shows massive loss of Antarctic ice over the last few decades.

Threegoofs

Sophisticated man-about-town
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 31, 2013
Messages
63,232
Reaction score
28,538
Location
The city Fox News viewers are afraid to travel to
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
BBC report:

Antarctica loses three trillion tonnes of ice in 25 years - BBC News

Nature paper referenced here:

Mass balance of the Antarctic Ice Sheet from 1992 to 2017 | Nature

Antarctica loses three trillion tonnes of ice in 25 years
By Jonathan Amos and Victoria Gill

Antarctica is shedding ice at an accelerating rate.

Satellites monitoring the state of the White Continent indicate some 200 billion tonnes a year are now being lost to the ocean as a result of melting.
This is pushing up global sea levels by 0.6mm annually - a three-fold increase since 2012 when the last such assessment was undertaken.
Scientists report the new numbers in the journal Nature.


Looks like if this massive reserve of ice is, indeed, melting faster than we thought, we are looking at even greater estimates of sea level rise by 2100.


I look forward to the denier outrage and flurry of uninformed denier blog posts to come.
 
Excuses and denialism incoming. Remember, Threegoofs, their ignorance is more valuable than scientists' expertise. /s
 
BBC report:

Antarctica loses three trillion tonnes of ice in 25 years - BBC News

Nature paper referenced here:

Mass balance of the Antarctic Ice Sheet from 1992 to 2017 | Nature




Looks like if this massive reserve of ice is, indeed, melting faster than we thought, we are looking at even greater estimates of sea level rise by 2100.


I look forward to the denier outrage and flurry of uninformed denier blog posts to come.

No they will just cherry pick the less than 5% of glaciers worldwide that are not currently in retreat.
 
Excuses and denialism incoming. Remember, Threegoofs, their ignorance is more valuable than scientists' expertise. /s

On a serious level, is pretty big stuff though.

There has been lots of equivocal data on just how much ice loss there has been in Antarctica, since portions seem to be gaining, and the breakup of the ice shelves seem to be accelerating glacial speed into the ocean.
 
BBC report:

Antarctica loses three trillion tonnes of ice in 25 years - BBC News

Nature paper referenced here:

Mass balance of the Antarctic Ice Sheet from 1992 to 2017 | Nature




Looks like if this massive reserve of ice is, indeed, melting faster than we thought, we are looking at even greater estimates of sea level rise by 2100.


I look forward to the denier outrage and flurry of uninformed denier blog posts to come.

So if Antarctica lost 3 X10^12 tonnes of ice in 25 years, just how does that work out .6mm annually of sea level rise?
https://www.sealevel.info/conversion_factors.html
The accepted conversion is 361.8 X 10^9 tonnes per mm.
3 X10^12/361.8 X 10^9=8.2918 mm
8.2918mm /25 years =.33 mm annually.
So just how does .33 mm annually magically transform into .6 mm annually?
 
So if Antarctica lost 3 X10^12 tonnes of ice in 25 years, just how does that work out .6mm annually of sea level rise?
https://www.sealevel.info/conversion_factors.html
The accepted conversion is 361.8 X 10^9 tonnes per mm.
3 X10^12/361.8 X 10^9=8.2918 mm
8.2918mm /25 years =.33 mm annually.
So just how does .33 mm annually magically transform into .6 mm annually?

I suggest you contact the authors.

Preferably after you complete your PhD in oceanography.

But I do respect the fact that you think you know more than them because you found a random equation on a website somewhere. Especially one that lists WUWT as the top climate blog to get your information from!
 
Last edited:
BBC report:

Antarctica loses three trillion tonnes of ice in 25 years - BBC News

Nature paper referenced here:

Mass balance of the Antarctic Ice Sheet from 1992 to 2017 | Nature




Looks like if this massive reserve of ice is, indeed, melting faster than we thought, we are looking at even greater estimates of sea level rise by 2100.


I look forward to the denier outrage and flurry of uninformed denier blog posts to come.

FAKE NEWS! Chinese Hoax!

But you won't believe what Trump's "top people" are finding about Obama's birth certificate. Just wait and see! :lamo
 
I suggest you contact the authors.

Preferably after you complete your PhD in oceanography.

But I do respect the fact that you think you know more than them because you found a random equation on a website somewhere. Especially one that lists WUWT as the top climate blog to get your information from!

Actually the number that matters is the area of the oceans.
Sea level info uses 3.618 × 10^8 km2
antarcticglaciers.org
Calculating glacier ice volumes and sea level equivalents - AntarcticGlaciers.org
uses the same 3.618 x 10^8 km2
Here is a paper for grade school from NASA,
https://pumas.nasa.gov/files/02_10_97_1.pdf
361,132,000 square kilometers
So again, simple math, where did the double the rate come from?
 
BBC report:

Antarctica loses three trillion tonnes of ice in 25 years - BBC News

Nature paper referenced here:

Mass balance of the Antarctic Ice Sheet from 1992 to 2017 | Nature




Looks like if this massive reserve of ice is, indeed, melting faster than we thought, we are looking at even greater estimates of sea level rise by 2100.


I look forward to the denier outrage and flurry of uninformed denier blog posts to come.

Cue the "it's the sun's fault" crowd in 3,2,1...
 
Actually the number that matters is the area of the oceans.
Sea level info uses 3.618 × 10^8 km2
antarcticglaciers.org
Calculating glacier ice volumes and sea level equivalents - AntarcticGlaciers.org
uses the same 3.618 x 10^8 km2
Here is a paper for grade school from NASA,
https://pumas.nasa.gov/files/02_10_97_1.pdf
361,132,000 square kilometers
So again, simple math, where did the double the rate come from?

I don’t know why they never pick you to do peer review for these articles.

I mean...all these experts not knowing simple math! And being totally unfamiliar with equations published on denier websites!
 
On the other hand, seeing as how Antarctica ice weighs about 27 million billion tons, a 3 trillion loss over 25 years (with a very big error margin at that) does appear to be yet another false alarm even if true.
Also considering the authors' estimate of loss offset by gain and the location of loss.

It's not the only research out there and boy, the warming elites don't like to be challenged one bit.
The study, led by Jay Zwally, a glaciologist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, contradicts findings from years of research concluding that there’s a net ice loss in the Antarctic. Such findings have come from NASA and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
The authors of the new study argue that rapid snow accumulation on the ice sheet between 1992 and 2008 offset the depletion from melting. The Antarctic ice sheet gathered mass at the rate of 112 billion tons of ice every year from 1992 to 2001, they said, which slowed to 82 billion tons of ice gain per year between 2003 and 2008.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-antarctica-losing-ice-or-gaining-it/
 
On the other hand, seeing as how Antarctica ice weighs about 27 million billion tons, a 3 trillion loss over 25 years (with a very big error margin at that) does appear to be yet another false alarm even if true.
Also considering the authors' estimate of loss offset by gain and the location of loss.

It's not the only research out there and boy, the warming elites don't like to be challenged one bit.
The study, led by Jay Zwally, a glaciologist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, contradicts findings from years of research concluding that there’s a net ice loss in the Antarctic. Such findings have come from NASA and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
The authors of the new study argue that rapid snow accumulation on the ice sheet between 1992 and 2008 offset the depletion from melting. The Antarctic ice sheet gathered mass at the rate of 112 billion tons of ice every year from 1992 to 2001, they said, which slowed to 82 billion tons of ice gain per year between 2003 and 2008.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-antarctica-losing-ice-or-gaining-it/

I guess just dismissing it outright was a tactic I didn’t think of.

But deniers gonna deny!
 
I don’t know why they never pick you to do peer review for these articles.

I mean...all these experts not knowing simple math! And being totally unfamiliar with equations published on denier websites!

Well go find your own source for ocean surface area, and tell us
how much 3 X10^12 cubic kilometers of water will raise the sea level.
 
Well go find your own source for ocean surface area, and tell us
how much 3 X10^12 cubic kilometers of water will raise the sea level.

Yes. That will certainly prove those know-nothings who published this data in Nature (and had it vetted no doubt by dozens of experts in the field before publication) are wrong!

I mean... don’t they even keep up with denier blogs that harvest their data and interpret it with the full arsenal of a solid high school education?!?! Jeez!


Maybe if you read the paper, you’d have a better understanding.

Oh, right. You can’t access the text, but you ‘know’ they can’t do simple math. :roll:
 
I guess just dismissing it outright was a tactic I didn’t think of.

But deniers gonna deny!

After several years it's pretty clear you don't do much thinking about this topic yourself.
But you do post what other people think without the slightest hint that you understand it or would ever bother to challenge it yourself.
We keep waiting.
Maybe some day.
 
I suggest you contact the authors.

Preferably after you complete your PhD in oceanography.

But I do respect the fact that you think you know more than them because you found a random equation on a website somewhere. Especially one that lists WUWT as the top climate blog to get your information from!

Anybody numerate can do that sum.

It is very easy.
 
Yes. That will certainly prove those know-nothings who published this data in Nature (and had it vetted no doubt by dozens of experts in the field before publication) are wrong!

I mean... don’t they even keep up with denier blogs that harvest their data and interpret it with the full arsenal of a solid high school education?!?! Jeez!


Maybe if you read the paper, you’d have a better understanding.

Oh, right. You can’t access the text, but you ‘know’ they can’t do simple math. :roll:
I am telling you to do your own math. Please do not believe me.
Your article cited two numbers that are very different, I am only asking why.
 
Yes. That will certainly prove those know-nothings who published this data in Nature (and had it vetted no doubt by dozens of experts in the field before publication) are wrong!

I mean... don’t they even keep up with denier blogs that harvest their data and interpret it with the full arsenal of a solid high school education?!?! Jeez!


Maybe if you read the paper, you’d have a better understanding.

Oh, right. You can’t access the text, but you ‘know’ they can’t do simple math. :roll:

You do realize those vetters are peers which means other AGW grant getters.
 
Actually the number that matters is the area of the oceans.
Sea level info uses 3.618 × 10^8 km2
antarcticglaciers.org
Calculating glacier ice volumes and sea level equivalents - AntarcticGlaciers.org
uses the same 3.618 x 10^8 km2
Here is a paper for grade school from NASA,
https://pumas.nasa.gov/files/02_10_97_1.pdf
361,132,000 square kilometers
So again, simple math, where did the double the rate come from?

300 million square K, plus. That's a huge area. A huge mass.
I wonder what the effects of a single degree rise in temperature would be in terms of thermal expansion in that kind of mass.
 
I think we are asking a bit much!

I would expect any decently intelligent 12 year old to be able to do it. ANybody who is at all destined to have the option of doing any science degree at any stage of life.

How hard does he think it is? Area of ocean in km2 x 1mm = volume of 1mm sea level rise = mass of water required to make it happen because water is density 1.
 
300 million square K, plus. That's a huge area. A huge mass.
I wonder what the effects of a single degree rise in temperature would be in terms of thermal expansion in that kind of mass.

Huge. However such a thing through the whole colum of the ocean cannot happen as 1, there would be a vast amoount of energy required, too much to get in there, and 2, the temperature of the deep oceans are controled by the circulation of water from the surface as it reaches 4c and decends due to this being the point of maximum dansity of water.
 
Back
Top Bottom