Antarctic Ice Sheet Loss could trigger global flood

[LogicalFallacy]

No not THAT global flood - just one with a large rise of water in a short time geologically speaking.

 

http://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/world/ancient-antarctic-ice-sheet-collapse-could-happen-again-triggering-a-new-global-flood/ar-BBReHKy?li=BBqdk7Q

 

Source https://agu.confex.com/agu/fm18/meetingapp.cgi/Paper/421418 (Not full study - it appears it hasn't been released yet)

 

What is also interesting is that it appears the sheet also underwent a massive retreat around 10-20k years ago.... which would put that in the 'comet hitting the earth 12900 years ago' timeframe.

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2018/06/west-antarctic-ice-sheet-collapse-climate-change/

[pantheory]

Wow,

 

"The West Antarctic Ice Sheet underwent a major retreat between 10,000 and 12,000 years ago, at a time when the world was actually cooler than it is today. The collapse happened at the close of the last Ice Age, and it left the ice sheet 135,000 square miles smaller than it is today – a difference nearly as large as the state of Montana."

 

So if antarctic ice sheets got a lot smaller when the Earth was finishing the last ice age then maybe antarctic ice sheets will get much larger with increased glaciation in a period of global warming. This would cause sea levels to decrease by 11 feet , or maybe not. 

 

[LogicalFallacy]

55 minutes ago, pantheory said:

So if antarctic ice sheets got a lot smaller when the Earth was finishing the last ice age then maybe antarctic ice sheets will get much larger with increased glaciation in a period of global warming. This would cause sea levels to decrease by 11 feet , or maybe not. 

 

Satire?

 

Probably the effects will just be exaggerated - instead of say 135k sqm melting it might be say 200 or 300.

 

Of course if data showed that the ice sheets were in fact getting bigger, not smaller, then the hypothesis would hold. Sadly data shows Antarctica losing ice.

 

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/antarctica-is-losing-ice-twice-as-fast-as-anyone-thought

[LogicalFallacy]

Those fucking dirty scientists! An error was pointed out, they thanked the guy for pointing out the error, then corrected the error and updated the paper! HOW DARE THEY.

 

TLDR they messed up error margins so now are leas certain if the ocean is warming twice as fast, though still confidant it's warming faster than previously reported.

[LogicalFallacy]

28 minutes ago, Burnedout said:

 

Confirms my own minor conclusion which is....Peer review is a close minded loop that reinforces it's own institutional biases. 

 

Have you ever bothered to attend a forum where scientists discuss topics?

 

I have. There is not "reinforced institutional bias". They bicker and argue over the minute details of particular papers. They are also well aware that the peer review process has flaws, and they shred papers with faulty methodology or conclusions. You should have seen what biologists were saying about the 'adam & eve' paper.

 

You set up a scenario in which only you can win (Kinda like shooting a hole in a door, painting a bullseye around it, and claiming you hit the target). IF errors were never discovered, or never corrected you'd say there's an institutional bias, that they never correct. IF they do discover errors and correct them, as happens all the time, you say see, these people make errors and cannot be trusted. There is no possible way for any system, methodology or thought that can satisfy you that doesn't conform to your personal views.

 

The problem with peer review is that there is not enough incentive to encourage scientists to actually peer review. You don't get accolades for peer reviewing papers, or discovering mistakes. You get accolades for writing new papers with cool shit in them. We need to fund a proper review process to incentivise better standards.

 

Of course the current peer review is better than the policy of only agreeing with whatever view one holds.

[♦ nivek ♦]

Gents.....

 

TRY to keep Science humourless....

 

Geezzzeeeeeeeee.....

 

Phukkerz.

 

kL

[LogicalFallacy]

1 hour ago, Burnedout said:

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/environment/sd-me-climate-study-error-20181113-story.html 

 

Not that the MSM is reliable, but if this is even close to correct, either a lie or a HUGE error.  Watch excuses come. 

 

Also, the error was relatively MINOR. It was a simple math's calculation which did not change the result. Every time someone publishes a paper it comes with margins of uncertainty. If you underestimate the uncertainty (As they did in this case) then you end up more confident in a conclusion that is more extreme than would otherwise be the case. Correct the uncertainty margins and this will adjust your findings.

 

So neither lie, nor HUGE error, and even after correction it shows the Ocean warming at an increased rate. 

[LogicalFallacy]

4 minutes ago, SkipNChurch said:

Gents.....

 

TRY to keep Science humourless....

 

Geezzzeeeeeeeee.....

 

Phukkerz.

 

kL

 

Sorry Skip. Just feel that certain persons predicable "SCIENTSITS BAD HOAXY" mindset needs challenging for onlookers. I'm not sure why BO feels the need to come into the science section he hates so much. Perhaps his goal is to get any Climate change topic dumped into ToT? Who knows?

 

I'm actually grateful to BO for finding that article, and like him (Or maybe not) also wish for a more robust peer review process.

 

Chairs

[♦ nivek ♦]

LF,

 

/sarc=ON <1

 

/phunnie=ON <1

 

/sarc+ohshit= {most of my posts} DEV.off

 

<Added in:  goto=20>

 

kL

[pantheory]

3 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

Satire?

 

Probably the effects will just be exaggerated - instead of say 135k sqm melting it might be say 200 or 300.

 

Of course if data showed that the ice sheets were in fact getting bigger, not smaller, then the hypothesis would hold. Sadly data shows Antarctica losing ice.

 

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/antarctica-is-losing-ice-twice-as-fast-as-anyone-thought

 

Not all agree with your link below. NASA, for instance, came out with this report concerning antarctic gains in ice.

 

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/06/15/nasa-glaciologist-jay-zwally-puts-the-hammer-down-antarctica-is-gaining-ice/

 

[LogicalFallacy]

6 hours ago, pantheory said:

 

Not all agree with your link below. NASA, for instance, came out with this report concerning antarctic gains in ice.

 

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/06/15/nasa-glaciologist-jay-zwally-puts-the-hammer-down-antarctica-is-gaining-ice/

 

 

Hi Pan

 

The way I understand all of the 'conflicting' research is that yes Ice is growing... but the glaciers are melting. To put it way to simply. The relationship between warming, and ice gain and loss is a huge subject in itself.

 

Melting freshwater glaciers puts freshwater into the ocean diluting salt water. Freshwater freezes at 0 degrees, salt water considerably lower. Therefore the ice will 'grow' because that freshwater that's melted into the ocean now freezes first.

 

Another thing I read somewhere on the internets, is that warming causes an increase in evaporation resulting in bigger snow dumps, resulting in ice gain. As long as none of this net gain/loss goes into the ocean we are all fine and dandy. Problem is the sea level is rising. Has been for a while. Where is it coming from? Some from the arctic sure, but not enough to explain the rise. Is the deep ice melting? Who knows? I'm sure some well funded person (who has already written their paper on where the increase is coming from before doing the study) is attempting to answer this question.

 

Naturally this is all coming from the 11:35pm memory of a non expert who might have cooked a few too many cells while reading research papers. I might be wrong. Heck I might not even exist.  

[Joshpantera]

5 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

Melting freshwater glaciers puts freshwater into the ocean diluting salt water. Freshwater freezes at 0 degrees, salt water considerably lower. Therefore the ice will 'grow' because that freshwater that's melted into the ocean now freezes first.

 

32 degrees for freshwater, 28.4 degrees for saltwater. 

 

5 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

Another thing I read somewhere on the internets, is that warming causes an increase in evaporation resulting in bigger snow dumps, resulting in ice gain. As long as none of this net gain/loss goes into the ocean we are all fine and dandy. Problem is the sea level is rising. Has been for a while. Where is it coming from? Some from the arctic sure, but not enough to explain the rise. Is the deep ice melting? Who knows? I'm sure some well funded person (who has already written their paper on where the increase is coming from before doing the study) is attempting to answer this question.

 

Something not mentioned so far is fresh water river run off's. How many rivers, globally, constantly flow into the ocean? It's ongoing. The Mississippi, Rio Grande, Savannah, all of the fresh water springs in Florida flow out to the Gulf and Atlantic every year. Multiply that worldwide for every river and spring, year after year. Evaporation plays a role in rain fall, into aquifers, out of springs, down rivers and back to the sea of course. So there's a cycle and balance. But I haven't heard anyone get down to 'the devil in the details' about global freshwater dumping into all the worlds oceans annually verses the annual amounts of evaporation against the amount of gallons going into the oceans. Seems like that would be a contributing factor, though. 

 

 

[pantheory]

17 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

Hi Pan

 

The way I understand all of the 'conflicting' research is that yes Ice is growing... but the glaciers are melting. To put it way to simply. The relationship between warming, and ice gain and loss is a huge subject in itself.

 

Melting freshwater glaciers puts freshwater into the ocean diluting salt water. Freshwater freezes at 0 degrees, salt water considerably lower. Therefore the ice will 'grow' because that freshwater that's melted into the ocean now freezes first.

 

Another thing I read somewhere on the internets, is that warming causes an increase in evaporation resulting in bigger snow dumps, resulting in ice gain. As long as none of this net gain/loss goes into the ocean we are all fine and dandy. Problem is the sea level is rising. Has been for a while. Where is it coming from? Some from the arctic sure, but not enough to explain the rise. Is the deep ice melting? Who knows? I'm sure some well funded person (who has already written their paper on where the increase is coming from before doing the study) is attempting to answer this question.

 

Naturally this is all coming from the 11:35pm memory of a non expert who might have cooked a few too many cells while reading research papers. I might be wrong. Heck I might not even exist.  

 

Very Nice, I agree with most  of everything you said. Also, most agree with the conclusions of your link above but those apposing some of these conclusions point to the fact that glaciation volume  concerning quantities of ice in Antarctica compacted does not necessarily relate to the difference in altitude of glaciers measured from year to year. The contrarian papers, links also above, say that land of western Antarctica is sinking because of the very massive additions of ice and snow weight packed there in the last several decades and probably centuries. So they say that just to measure the increases or decreases of glacial height in Antarctic alone cannot determine the amount of ice compacted there or underneath. They say that far more sophisticated studies and analysis on the ground, and by satellites, are needed to make better and more accurate conclusions.

[mwc]

On 12/21/2018 at 7:49 AM, Joshpantera said:

 

32 degrees for freshwater, 28.4 degrees for saltwater. 

     I want to say he meant Celsius.  So 0 and -2 respectively.

 

          mwc