Antarctic thaw quickens, trillions of tonnes of ice raise sea levels

[RickBradford]

Quote

Personally, destroying our planet for greed is very close to evil 'in my book'.

 

And who, precisely, is doing that? Who should we blame that on? CEOs of oil companies? All capitalists? Anyone who drives a car? All Western societies? Hard-core climate deniers? Anyone who has ever used a plastic bag? Everybody except the Yanomamo peoples?

 

Judge this case. Environmentalists decided that in order to wean ourselves off fossil fuels, we should subsidise biofuels, which were regarded as much more sustainable. Result: corporations in Indonesia burnt down Borneo in order to cash in on the massive subsidies offered to them. The same happened in other parts of the world.

 

Now, who's guilty? The environmentalists who proposed the scheme? The governments who listened to them? The corporations who were invited to increase biofuel production? All of them?

 

It's just not that simple to decide who is "destroying our planet for greed". It's a nice phrase, but essentially meaningless.

 

Even more contentious is the issue of who decides that someone is destroying our planet for greed. Generally, it will be the last people you would ever want to be taking decisions like that.

[dick dasterdly]

Just now, RickBradford said:

 

And who, precisely, is doing that? Who should we blame that on? CEOs of oil companies? All capitalists? Anyone who drives a car? All Western societies? Hard-core climate deniers? Anyone who has ever used a plastic bag? Everybody except the Yanomamo peoples?

 

Judge this case. Environmentalists decided that in order to wean ourselves off fossil fuels, we should subsidise biofuels, which were regarded as much more sustainable. Result: corporations in Indonesia burnt down Borneo in order to cash in on the massive subsidies offered to them. The same happened in other parts of the world.

 

Now, who's guilty? The environmentalists who proposed the scheme? The governments who listened to them? The corporations who were invited to increase biofuel production? All of them?

 

It's just not that simple to decide who is "destroying our planet for greed". It's a nice phrase, but essentially meaningless.

 

Even more contentious is the issue of who decides that someone is destroying our planet for greed. Generally, it will be the last people you would ever want to be taking decisions like that.

"Judge this case. Environmentalists decided that in order to wean ourselves off fossil fuels, we should subsidise biofuels, which were regarded as much more sustainable. Result: corporations in Indonesia burnt down Borneo in order to cash in on the massive subsidies offered to them. The same happened in other parts of the world."

 

As you point out, it's not that difficult to recognise that big business (and politicians allowing this to happen) are largely responsible - i.e.  "corporations in Indonesia burnt down Borneo in order to cash in on the massive subsidies offered to them. The same happened in other parts of the world."

 

Destroying our planet for greed is easy to acknowledge and recognise, even if you prefer to blame others for trying to introduce planet-friendly alternatives that were overtaken by the greedy industrialists - and politicians....

[RickBradford]

1 minute ago, dick dasterdly said:

Destroying our planet for greed is easy to acknowledge and recognise, even if you prefer to blame others for trying to introduce planet-friendly alternatives that were overtaken by the greedy industrialists - and politicians....

As I said, a contentious issue would be who exactly decides where the guilt lies.

 

Your concept of noble environmentalists bravely battling greedy industrialists and politicians is rather unoriginal and simplistic, in my estimation, though the Walt Disney Company would love it.

[owl sees all]

6 hours ago, webfact said:

The frozen continent lost almost three trillion tonnes of ice between 1992 and 2017

Three trillion tonnes is an irrelevance in the big picture.

 

The weight of water in a big swimming pool is about 1200 tonnes. A fooball pitch covered in ice to a depth of 1000 metres would weigh about 10 million tonnes. Only want a few of those to get a trillion tonnes.

 

The Antartic is a big place; could fit half of Africa into it.

 

For Bangkok to get flooded, to the point where it could not be inhabited (except in house boats), would take at least 6000 trillion tonnes to melt; rather than just fall into the sea.

 

Interestingly The Antarctic holds most of the world's fresh water.  Years ago I can recall talk of harpooning one of the biggies and towing it somewhere. Can't remember where. I'll do some research on that one.

[soalbundy]

2 hours ago, canuckamuck said:

In the future the oceans are certain to breach shorelines and cause great damage to expensive footwear unless science can find a way to build barriers over 3 inches high.

3 inches doesn't sound much but it will increase cliff and therefore land erosion and the storm floods will be more violent, there is a German saying, 'continual drips erodes the stone.' All that fresh water could damage or stop the Gulf stream entirely and then Europe would have weather like Iceland.

[soalbundy]

6 minutes ago, owl sees all said:

Three trillion tonnes is an irrelevance in the big picture.

 

The weight of water in a big swimming pool is about 1200 tonnes. A fooball pitch covered in ice to a depth of 1000 metres would weigh about 10 million tonnes. Only want a few of those to get a trillion tonnes.

 

The Antartic is a big place; could fit half of Africa into it.

 

For Bangkok to get flooded, to the point where it could not be inhabited (except in house boats), would take at least 6000 trillion tonnes to melt; rather than just fall into the sea.

 

Interestingly The Antarctic holds most of the world's fresh water.  Years ago I can recall talk of harpooning one of the biggies and towing it somewhere. Can't remember where. I'll do some research on that one.

but it isn't a one off, it is continuing and accelerating and ice doesn't just fall off, it melts, diluting the saltwater upon which the functioning of the Gulf stream depends and upon which Northern Europe depends for its mild climate.

[bristolboy]

6 minutes ago, soalbundy said:

but it isn't a one off, it is continuing and accelerating and ice doesn't just fall off, it melts, diluting the saltwater upon which the functioning of the Gulf stream depends and upon which Northern Europe depends for its mild climate.

Actually, that's the Greenland glacial melt that could disrupt the Gulf Stream.

[puipuitom]

When correct, cities like Bangkok will pay the prize….

[soalbundy]

9 minutes ago, puipuitom said:

When correct, cities like Bangkok will pay the prize….

and London or Paris, in fact any city built on a river bank or the sea, I think Isaan is 400 meters above sea level so my son has some valuable land in the future, if it doesn't get to hot.

[owl sees all]

42 minutes ago, soalbundy said:

but it isn't a one off, it is continuing and accelerating and ice doesn't just fall off, it melts, diluting the saltwater upon which the functioning of the Gulf stream depends and upon which Northern Europe depends for its mild climate.

Absolutely correct SB.

 

But the world has cycles. Long-term, middle-term and short-term. Difficult to know what stages these cycles are in.

 

The Sahara was once fertile. Mammoths used to walk about where there now the North Sea.

 

I think Dagenham is in danger as well as Bangkok.  Real shame about Holland. I'm in Isaan so I'm OK.

 

 

 

 

Edited June 14, 2018 by owl sees all

[ballpoint]

Whatever your views on man made climate change, it's just a sideshow to the real threat, which is over population.  As long as there are sufficient resources, the population of any organism will grow until those resources are depleted, following which severe population reduction, if not extinction, occurs due to conflict, disease and / or starvation.  This isn't unique to humans, or even animals, as plant life will do the same, however humans are the first species to collectively be aware of it and, in theory, do something about it.  The fact that we don't, shows we aren't really as smart as we like to credit ourselves as being, or maybe we have "evolved" beyond Homo sapiens sapiens to Homo sapiens procrastinatus, if not Homo sapiens nolonger?  Sea level rise may accelerate the final conclusion, by flooding large areas of arable land and shrinking the liveable area for the remaining population, but, if nothing is done globally to address the population problem, that conclusion will still eventuate sooner or later.  I'm not advocating a mass cull of the population, but, unless some form of compulsory birth control is introduced world wide, an involuntary mass cull by war, pestilence and / or famine is where we are headed, and it won't be pleasant.  Until then, calls for reduced emissions / pollution control / carbon taxes etc are addressing the symptoms while the root cause literally grows unabated, and arguments over the rights and wrongs of global warming are rather like half the passengers and the driver of a bus fighting with the other half to try and get them to stop smoking, while the bus heads towards a cliff with no one at the wheel.

[tropo]

6 hours ago, edwinchester said:

Climate change has increased sea level by 20 cm over the last century. Since 1992 the melting of the Antarctic ice has increased that figure an extra 0.76 cm. 

Yes, upon reviewing the article again it appears you are correct. Thank you! I'll have to read more slowly at 5 am.

[rudi49jr]

6 hours ago, kannot said:

u could say the same with religions though....see where ive gone with that

That's utter nonsense and you know it: religions are based on nothing but belief, whereas climate change is based on pretty overwhelming scientific evidence.

[Jonah Tenner]

7 hours ago, hyku1147 said:

We are between ice ages.https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjA8KPrj9LbAhWJeisKHVQtBN0QFggnMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FIce_age&usg=AOvVaw2duL96XGPe7NNNUaSePZyP

https://www.livescience.com/28219-holocene-epoch.html

We are not between Ice Ages. We are in an interglacial period in the Ice Age that started 2.6 million years ago, and it is not ended because the Greenland, Arctic, and Antarctic ice sheets still exist. During this interglacial period the sea has already risen by 125 m or more, flooding amongst other places Doggerland...

Those areas that was beneath the ice 10 to 15 thousand years ago are still rising, the Scandinavian Peninsula has been rising steadily in this period, and faster than the sea rises.

Edited June 14, 2018 by Jonah Tenner

[overherebc]

4 hours ago, owl sees all said:

Three trillion tonnes is an irrelevance in the big picture.

 

The weight of water in a big swimming pool is about 1200 tonnes. A fooball pitch covered in ice to a depth of 1000 metres would weigh about 10 million tonnes. Only want a few of those to get a trillion tonnes.

 

The Antartic is a big place; could fit half of Africa into it.

 

For Bangkok to get flooded, to the point where it could not be inhabited (except in house boats), would take at least 6000 trillion tonnes to melt; rather than just fall into the sea.

 

Interestingly The Antarctic holds most of the world's fresh water.  Years ago I can recall talk of harpooning one of the biggies and towing it somewhere. Can't remember where. I'll do some research on that one.

I can remember the talk about that and I think it was about finding one big enough to tow to somewhere in the middle east. I think the biggest problem was the fact that bergs roll and break up faster than they knew at the time.

[edwinchester]

2 hours ago, tropo said:

Yes, upon reviewing the article again it appears you are correct. Thank you! I'll have to read more slowly at 5 am.

Or get up later ?

[tropo]

1 hour ago, edwinchester said:

Or get up later ?

I hadn't gone to bed yet.?

[Jerry Cornelius]

If the thaw is primarily of sea ice, it makes zero difference.

 

Eureka.

 

Jerry

[bristolboy]

8 minutes ago, Jerry Cornelius said:

If the thaw is primarily of sea ice, it makes zero difference.

 

Eureka.

 

Jerry

And do you really believe you've caught the scientists out?

[Jerry Cornelius]

8 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

And do you really believe you've caught the scientists out?

Seems Archimedes did just that in 270 B.C.

 

Jerry

[bristolboy]

7 minutes ago, Jerry Cornelius said:

Seems Archimedes did just that in 270 B.C.

 

Jerry

He caught scientists out in 270 B.C.?

[Khun Jean]

4 hours ago, rudi49jr said:

That's utter nonsense and you know it: religions are based on nothing but belief, whereas climate change is based on pretty overwhelming scientific evidence.

'pretty overwhelming scientific theories' based on computer models.

 

[bristolboy]

12 minutes ago, Khun Jean said:

'pretty overwhelming scientific theories' based on computer models.

 

Damned lying computer modeling!

"It may sound like the stuff of fairy tales, but in the 1950s two numerical models initially developed as a pet project by physicists led to the birth of an entirely new field of physics: computational statistical mechanics.. . The article outlines the long journey leading to the acceptance of such models -- namely Monte Carlo and Molecular Dynamics simulations -- as reliable evidence for describing matter...Today, these techniques are used by thousands of researchers to model the behaviour of materials, in contexts ranging from fusion to biological systems."

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/05/180522123258.htm

[tifino]

luckily the imminence for NK nuke missiles has been averted!

Imagine if they managed to land one in the Antarctic... and melt it all in one foul swoop! 

[overherebc]

1 hour ago, Jerry Cornelius said:

If the thaw is primarily of sea ice, it makes zero difference.

 

Eureka.

 

Jerry

True but glaciers aren't made of sea ice. Ice that forms glaciers is made from fresh water snow on land and the faster that can get to the sea means it's adding water that was previously not in the sea as sea ice. Antartica is not a great big sea ice sheet it's land covered in fresh frozen water. As more of that melts faster than it's replaced with snow falls then sea levels will rise.

[gregk0543]

Ok concerning towing an iceberg from antartica this was an Australian proposal. It was calculated that we could tow one to South Australia and then pump the fresh water into the interior of Australia to fill lake eyre. The main proponent in Australia was Dick smith.

 

You have to read these articles carefully and separate the different pieces of inputs that are effecting sea level rise.

 

The rate of the component that is coming from Antartica has tripled over recent years and is accelerating.

 

This means in effect that sea levels over all will rise with increasing annual rates and it is getting more and more serious.  Sea level is rising at .6 mm per year over the whole world but that rate is increasing.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-44470208

 

The rate of change in world temperature is also increasing.

 

The rate of changes in so many things are increasing and this is an important point. It isnt a linear line change and it makes it harder and harder to see where it is going and all how far it is before it has spiralled out of control.

 

The effects mean that in the future crops especially rice growing will be effected. In Myanmar where I live we will have a rising water table which contains salt in the delta area which produces 25% of the rice in this area. Areas growing rice now will not be able to grow rice in the future and yields are reduced by soil salinity. So even though they are not going to go under water it has detrimental effects and humans will suffer the consequences.

 

[bristolboy]

1 minute ago, gregk0543 said:

Ok concerning towing an iceberg from antartica this was an Australian proposal. It was calculated that we could tow one to South Australia and then pump the fresh water into the interior of Australia to fill lake eyre. The main proponent in Australia was Dick smith.

 

You have to read these articles carefully and separate the different pieces of inputs that are effecting sea level rise.

 

The rate of the component that is coming from Antartica has tripled over recent years and is accelerating.

 

This means in effect that sea levels over all will rise with increasing annual rates and it is getting more and more serious.  Sea level is rising at .6 mm per year over the whole world but that rate is increasing.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-44470208

 

The rate of change in world temperature is also increasing.

 

The rate of changes in so many things are increasing and this is an important point. It isnt a linear line change and it makes it harder and harder to see where it is going and all how far it is before it has spiralled out of control.

 

The effects mean that in the future crops especially rice growing will be effected. In Myanmar where I live we will have a rising water table which contains salt in the delta area which produces 25% of the rice in this area. Areas growing rice now will not be able to grow rice in the future and yields are reduced by soil salinity. So even though they are not going to go under water it has detrimental effects and humans will suffer the consequences.

 

And of course there's thermal expansion, too. As the oceans get warmer, they're going to rise.

Also, the gravitational pull of the glaciers will lessen as they melt which means lower sea levels in Antarctica and higher mostly everywhere else.

[mercman24]

and for those that say there is not such thing as global warming, you listening TRUMP, take an ice cube out of your fridge, see how long that lasts, not rocket science but to some scientists it is..

[gregk0543]

Also theres a new iceberg plan.....  https://www.businessinsider.com.au/plan-to-solve-cape-town-drought-by-dragging-icebergs-from-antarctica-2018-5

 

[Rigby40]

You'd have to be cuckoo for cocopuffs to think humans are even remotely capable of destroying the planet, let alone doing so right now.