West Antarctic Ice Sheet Is Doomed

[♪alt13]

https://news.sciencemag.org/climate/2014/05/west-antarctic-ice-sheet-collapsing

A disaster may be unfolding—in slow motion. Earlier this week, two teams of scientists reported that the Thwaites Glacier, a keystone holding the massive West Antarctic Ice Sheet together, is starting to collapse. In the long run, they say, the entire ice sheet is doomed, which would release enough meltwater to raise sea levels by more than 3 meters....

...a glacial collapse has already started and will accelerate rapidly once the glacier’s “grounding line”—the point at which the ice begins to float—retreats past the ridge.

At that point, the glacier’s face will become taller and, like a towering sand pile, more prone to collapse. The retreat will then accelerate to more than 5 kilometers per year, the team says. “On a glacial timescale, 200 to 500 years is the blink of an eye,” Joughin says.

And once Thwaites is gone, the rest of West Antarctica would be at risk.

Eric Rignot, a climate scientist at the University of California, Irvine, and the lead author of the GRL radar mapping study, is skeptical of Joughin’s timeline because the computer model used estimates of future melting rates instead of calculations based on physical processes such as changing sea temperatures. “These simulations ought to go to the next stage and include realistic ocean forcing,” he says. If they do, he says, they might predict an even more rapid retreat.

discuss/?

 

[LogGrad98]

I am not convinced this is necessarily a bad thing anyway. They need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this is a species ending catastrophe to justify their panic-mongering.

Besides doesn't this theoretically mean more fresh water as well. As in oceans warm up > ice melts > warmer atmosphere evaporates more water > more rain > more fresh water. So much for droughts, right? Sounds like a good thing to me.

 

[One Brow]

I am not convinced this is necessarily a bad thing anyway. They need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this is a species ending catastrophe to justify their panic-mongering.

What would such proof consist of to you, personally? Or, if you are not relying on your own expertise, whom would have to be convinced for you to accept this secondarily?

Besides doesn't this theoretically mean more fresh water as well. As in oceans warm up > ice melts > warmer atmosphere evaporates more water > more rain > more fresh water. So much for droughts, right? Sounds like a good thing to me.

The disruption of weather patterns means that some places which were previously fertile will be arid, and some will be even wetter than they currently are. Also, a lot of that extra moisture will fall as snow, not rain.

 

[Maktub]

Also, a lot of that extra moisture will fall as snow, not rain.

Cooling the earth, right?

 

[mellow]

The ice is changing, dang we ought to do something about that. Can we also stop me from getting older, make it so the roads don't develop pot holes, make an everlasting gobstopper that is really everlasting, make the Simpsons funny again and bring back the roaring 80s with yuppies? There was once an inland sea covering Delta Utah, at least the geologists say that's why there are fossils there. Think of the tourism a shallow inland sea full of trilobites would bring to Utah. Can we get that back too?

 

[One Brow]

Cooling the earth, right?

Unfortunately, no.

 

[One Brow]

The ice is changing, dang we ought to do something about that.

We already have. Are we going to keep on doing things like this?

 

[♪alt13]

I am not convinced this is necessarily a bad thing anyway. They need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this is a species ending catastrophe to justify their panic-mongering.

Besides doesn't this theoretically mean more fresh water as well. As in oceans warm up > ice melts > warmer atmosphere evaporates more water > more rain > more fresh water. So much for droughts, right? Sounds like a good thing to me.

Think Katrina. IF we experience a 3 meter rise New Orleans is history.(along with many other places) How much land can we defend from the sea? What places are even worth it?

^That's just the most straight forward consequence.

The ice is changing, dang we ought to do something about that. Can we also stop me from getting older, make it so the roads don't develop pot holes, make an everlasting gobstopper that is really everlasting, make the Simpsons funny again and bring back the roaring 80s with yuppies? There was once an inland sea covering Delta Utah, at least the geologists say that's why there are fossils there. Think of the tourism a shallow inland sea full of trilobites would bring to Utah. Can we get that back too?

You must not have read the article, or the title for that matter. It can't be stopped. It's going to melt. It's too late. The question isn't should we curb co2(we should but we won't) the question is what changes are going to happen. This is going to happen.

 

[The Thriller]

Because of recent SC decisions on freedom of speech, it's darn near impossible to stop the bribery of big industry.

I think the only way we change is if things become so sucky that the costs finally begin to weigh down on the economy. If places like the San Jacquin valley are left desolate. If places like LA, Phx, NO, Miami, and NY must be abandoned. Then finally we will listen.

I always get a kick out of repubs who deny that humans can have any influence on the climate. Apparently they never studied the Dust Bowl of the 1930s. Of maybe that was another EPA conspiracy, right? Since the EPA was around back then....

 

[LogGrad98]

Well if we go back to the same levels of CO2 from the heaviest known geological period, which was still several times the CO2 levels in the atmosphere now, we will see explosions in the development of life forms. At least that is what the fossil record says. I suppose they could be wrong and really what we are experiencing will be nothing like other known geologic time periods with similar and much higher levels of CO2 than we have now or are projected to have for even the next several hundred years assuming our CO2 release increases at the same rate as it has since the dawn of the industrial revolution.

We may have to redefine our coastlines, and some cities will go under while others are built. Still not seeing a species-destroying event here.

Rapid cooling was likely among the factors that brought about the demise of the dinosaurs, not excessive heat. Excessive heat and more humid atmosphere resulted in huge booms of animal and plant life. I have a hard time seeing how covering more coastal cities with water, even if it means every single coast in the world would shrink by 100 miles, will bring about our complete extinction as a species, unless everyone is afraid of this breeding kaiju for real, which then take over the planet.

 

[The Thriller]

Well, we can't do anything about it until china and India actually establish standards so why should the USA even try?

 

[LogGrad98]

I refuse to be afraid of melting polar ice because I am one of the smart ones who chose NOT to live in a city adjacent to the ocean, yet built BELOW SEA LEVEL. Gonna need a lot of fingers in a lot of dykes to hold that place together, not to mention plugging the holes in the sea walls.

 

[Deleted member 848]

I refuse to be afraid of melting polar ice because I am one of the smart ones who chose NOT to live in a city adjacent to the ocean, yet built BELOW SEA LEVEL. Gonna need a lot of fingers in a lot of dykes to hold that place together, not to mention plugging the holes in the sea walls.

What about locations in the 3rd world? Are you as an American prepared to take in the 100 million Environmental refugees from Bangladesh once their country gets flooded? If you say no, then what will you tell these 'not-smart' people to do, o smart one?



Ironically, the influx of environmental refugees has way more economically crippling potential than staving off the consumption of fossil fuels

 

[LogGrad98]

Sure. We got tons of space in the middle of Nevada. The government can finally pay farmers to grow crops instead of not grow them. And all the extra rain will irrigate the desert quite nicely.

Also, it's not like this is going to happen in 3 weeks like some bad hollywood movie. There is a fairly large time frame for anything along these lines to occur. It would probably be a good idea to start moving people earlier rather than later.

Canada has lots of open space too, with lots of trees and stuff. Plenty of room for everyone.

 

[Deleted member 848]

Sure. We got tons of space in the middle of Nevada. The government can finally pay farmers to grow crops instead of not grow them. And all the extra rain will irrigate the desert quite nicely.

Also, it's not like this is going to happen in 3 weeks like some bad hollywood movie. There is a fairly large time frame for anything along these lines to occur. It would probably be a good idea to start moving people earlier rather than later.

Canada has lots of open space too, with lots of trees and stuff. Plenty of room for everyone.

I'm pretty sure none of the countries that you've mentioned have eveer exclaimed being prepared to take in environmental refugees in the magntiude of realism.

You are also conveniently ignoring the fact that we are holding several cultures hostage around the world, and basically telling them "well you can abandon your identity and come embrace ours" after we the West single-handedly destroy their habitat

 

[fishonjazz]

I want some of what loggrad is smoking please

 

[LogGrad98]

I'm pretty sure none of the countries that you've mentioned have eveer exclaimed being prepared to take in environmental refugees in the magntiude of realism.

You are also conveniently ignoring the fact that we are holding several cultures hostage around the world, and basically telling them "well you can abandon your identity and come embrace ours" after we the West single-handedly destroy their habitat

So, first, you do realize that several of "those" cultures are contributing to the CO2 issue at close to and even more than the rate the "western" countries do, right? China and India are huge CO2 polluters, and other 3rd world countries are on their own scale. Also, when the world is supposedly going to collapse over this whole thing, which I am still not buying by the way, we are not holding a gun to anyone's head, but you better believe we will be the ones to step in and do something about it in the end. Don't fool yourself into thinking that those cultures are doing nothing to contribute to the problem or that they are somehow saint like because they don't have the same economic strength that western cultures do.

Also, if we really do end up facing an end of the world catastrophe do you really think the biggest concern will be over preserving each individual's historical culture? If we are witnessing unprecedented flooding and destruction like in the doomsdays movies I am pretty sure that having a plot of land in an American desert or Canadian forest will be a happy thing for people that are faced with simply being wiped off the face of the planet. Pretty sure at some point survival trumps historical monuments and favorite dishes your grandma cooked.

 

[LogGrad98]

I want some of what loggrad is smoking please

The funny thing is I was just being facetious to begin with because this topic has been hashed and rehashed so much, yet people still took it seriously. Shows you how dogmatic the climate change fanatics can be.

 

[Deleted member 848]

So, first, you do realize that several of "those" cultures are contributing to the CO2 issue at close to and even more than the rate the "western" countries do, right?

China is not at risk of flooding to the same extent as Bangladesh, Papua New Guinea, Micronesia, and other islands spread throughout the Pacific. This isn't about India and China-- this is about the West casting a blind eye, as the West pioneered these technologies, the countries from the West are the ones abandoning the Kyoto protocol, and countries like Canada and the US are some of the biggest impediments to halting climate change. Every climate scientist is on my side.

China and India are huge CO2 polluters, and other 3rd world countries are on their own scale.

You're speaking out of your ***-- pls show me the CO2 pollution rates of all of the countries most vulnerable to flooding. I'll give you a suggestion: don't bother, cuz it rears an ugly truth

Also, when the world is supposedly going to collapse over this whole thing, which I am still not buying by the way, we are not holding a gun to anyone's head, but you better believe we will be the ones to step in and do something about it in the end. Don't fool yourself into thinking that those cultures are doing nothing to contribute to the problem or that they are somehow saint like because they don't have the same economic strength that western cultures do.

I think you are underestimating how detrimental your nation's energy-using culture is, to third world nations around the world. I would highly recommend that you look into this.

Also, if we really do end up facing an end of the world catastrophe do you really think the biggest concern will be over preserving each individual's historical culture? If we are witnessing unprecedented flooding and destruction like in the doomsdays movies I am pretty sure that having a plot of land in an American desert or Canadian forest will be a happy thing for people that are faced with simply being wiped off the face of the planet. Pretty sure at some point survival trumps historical monuments and favorite dishes your grandma cooked.

You have an extremely narrow perception of the importance of an individual's culture.

 

[Deleted member 848]

The funny thing is I was just being facetious to begin with because this topic has been hashed and rehashed so much, yet people still took it seriously. Shows you how dogmatic the climate change fanatics can be.

Is disagreeing with somebody the mere requirement of labelling someone as dogmatic?