Seas Rising 60 Percent Faster Than Projected, Study Shows

[canuckamuck]

temperatures have increased more than .7 of a degree in a century, and they're increasing at a sharper rate. There are people who make careers from studying glaciers - everything from time-lapse photos to dynamics of melt-water plunging down to the ice-rock level (which 'lubricates and hastens the creep of a glacier) to effects of warmer ocean water seeping in to replace colder melt water (which also hastens calving). .....and more. A consensus of those who study glaciar dynamics comes up with a figure of between 90 and 125 cm rise in sea levels by 100 years from now.

I recommend for anyone who wants to get apprised of the type of people and research going on with the mightiest glaciers, watch the video link below. It's cutting-edge research, fascinating and based on hard-science. If I was Education Minister, I would make the video mandatory in all schools.

source

How much have temperatures risen in the last hundred years then?

According to NOAA the global temperature rise since 1880 is 0,74 Celsius. Ok that is more than 100 years my bad. Temperatures are not increasing at a sharper rate, currently the global temperatures have remained consistent for the last 16 years, as has already been discussed.

Yes there is a lot people doing interesting and expensive research.

But proving that glaciers are receding is not proving why they are receding and that is the logical falicy that is so popularly promoted.

All that is ever put forward as proof of cause is actually just proof of an effect.

[lovetotravel]

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/01/15/us/2012-global-warming/index.html

The year 2012 was declared the globe's 10th warmest since record keeping began in 1880 and the warmest ever for the Lower 48 U.S. states, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Climatic Data Center.

Last year also marked the 36th consecutive year with a global temperature above the 20th century average, the federal agency said Tuesday.

"All 12 years to date in the 21st century (2001 to 2012) rank among the 14 warmest in the 133-year period of record (keeping). Only one year during the (20th) century — 1998 — was warmer than 2012," the center said.

[thaibeachlovers]

The relevent data is mostly around the prior century compared this one. In other words; 20th century averages vs this stage of 21st century. The 'Little Ice Age' is not a pressing issue in this discussion. If it were, then we could go back as far as you like, when there was a mile thick ice all over the planet, or further still when all rocks were liquified. If Antarctica is calving glaciers at increasing rates, that could be cause for serious interest ww, because it doesn't snow there, so ice won't be replaced there anytime in the next several millenia.

Well that is accommodating Let's decide that the 900 previous years of cool temperatures are irrelevant; then we can look at the last 100 years and be terrified that the temperature has increased 0.7 degrees in a century. Of course before that we had a substantial warming, but we must not pay any attention to that either. Because as you said it is not a pressing issue.

Yes if we only look at the statistics that fit our theory we will all come to the right conclusion. In fact if you create better statistics then you can prove any theory you like.

temperatures have increased more than .7 of a degree in a century, and they're increasing at a sharper rate. There are people who make careers from studying glaciers - everything from time-lapse photos to dynamics of melt-water plunging down to the ice-rock level (which 'lubricates and hastens the creep of a glacier) to effects of warmer ocean water seeping in to replace colder melt water (which also hastens calving). .....and more. A consensus of those who study glaciar dynamics comes up with a figure of between 90 and 125 cm rise in sea levels by 100 years from now.

I recommend for anyone who wants to get apprised of the type of people and research going on with the mightiest glaciers, watch the video link below. It's cutting-edge research, fascinating and based on hard-science. If I was Education Minister, I would make the video mandatory in all schools.

source

If temperatures rise sufficiently for it to start snowing in Antarctica, enough water might be deposited as snow in Antarctica to prevent sea level rise.

You can't only look at one factor in isolation to come to a proper conclusion.

[canuckamuck]

http://edition.cnn.c...ming/index.html

The year 2012 was declared the globe's 10th warmest since record keeping began in 1880 and the warmest ever for the Lower 48 U.S. states, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Climatic Data Center.

Last year also marked the 36th consecutive year with a global temperature above the 20th century average, the federal agency said Tuesday.

"All 12 years to date in the 21st century (2001 to 2012) rank among the 14 warmest in the 133-year period of record (keeping). Only one year during the (20th) century — 1998 — was warmer than 2012," the center said.

I would say Mr. Bradford already covered this quite eloquently. But let's try it again shall we. If temperature has been rising from about 80 years ago, but then stopped rising and remained fairly constant for the last 16. It is inescapable that most of the last 30 years or so, would have the highest temperatures.

That being said, as 2012 was only the 10th hottest year of the last 100, it is in agreement with the observation that currently, global temperatures have stopped rising?

1998 seems a long time ago when we were all wondering how good Windows 98 would be. And Monica Lewinsky got a stain on her dress. It was a real hot summer though.

Edited January 17, 2013 by canuckamuck

[maidu]

But proving that glaciers are receding is not proving why they are receding and that is the logical falicy that is so popularly promoted. All that is ever put forward as proof of cause is actually just proof of an effect.

Besides garnering data, they are also surmising what may be causing such profound receding of glaciers. Just because you don't want to hear their theories on why glaciers are receding doesn't mean the theories are wrong. These are people at the vanguard of research on glaciers, so it would stand to reason that they're the best apprised of what phenomena are going on in that realm.

If a person is working closely with rabbits on a daily basis for years, you would assume that person knows a thing or two about rabbits, and is qualified to pontificate on that topic.

If temperatures rise sufficiently for it to start snowing in Antarctica, enough water might be deposited as snow in Antarctica to prevent sea level rise. You can't only look at one factor in isolation to come to a proper conclusion.

Interesting thought, though the Antarctic has been a polar desert for millenia, so it's a stretch to predict that snow might fall in such significant amounts as to offset the profound calving of ice sheets. A recent one was comparable in size to Luxembourg. ....and it's at the north pole and Greenland where most of the melting currently appears to be happening.

Edited January 17, 2013 by maidu

[cooked]

It's not about warming (although that is happening). It is about climate change. CO2 in the atmosphere as witnessed by the ice cores taken in the Antarctic has been increasing over many millenia at a steady, low rate in accordance with the expansion of human beings over the planet, slash and burn, etc. The rate goes up significantly at the start of the European industrial revolution and the need for charcoal (huge areas denuded of forests) and coal. The oceans have played a major part in absorbing CO2 but seem to be nearing their capacity for absorbing more. Already marine life is being confronted with challenges that threaten collapse. No more fish? I won't go on.

The point is that hardly any scientific journal or publication disputes the fact that climate change is taking place. Don't worry about it, enjoy life and don't deny a scientific fact.

There has been an ice age around (if I remember correctly) every 140 000 years or so. We are long overdue for the next one, it has been put off by the abnormal CO2 content in the atmosphere and oceans. One thing to be thankful for but please don't talk about data going back 100 years or so, scientists are looking at data that is much much older than that.

Embrace it and collect bottles for the bottle bank (like I do).

[utalkin2me]

Unless they're delusional...

Some are delusional, but my guess is not many.

Most of them know exactly what they're doing.

They're riding the gravy train of fame, power, influence, even a little fortune, feeding their egos, pushing their preferred ideologies, acting out their rage, taking an unearned jolly ... there are so many reasons why these people are at Doha, but looking after children -- their own or anyone else's -- simply doesn't come into it..

Let me go WAY out on a limb, and take a WILD WILD guess. You are not a scientist, and have never been trained as one.

[Scott]

Let's keep the discussion civil and the remarks directed at the topic and not at the person making the post.

[cooked]

Let's keep the discussion civil and the remarks directed at the topic and not at the person making the post.

I agree, but it is difficult when you are confronted with people that close their eyes, shake their heads and cry 't'ain't so, t'ain't so'. I can't imagine why they do this, maybe they associate the end of the world with their own unavoidable demise.

I am more worried about brewer's droop myself than the fact that the climate is changing. (PM me if you don't know know what BD syndrome is).

[maidu]

There are two ways to look at climate change; from the personal perscpective (how is it going to affect me and my closest people?) and there's viewing it in the broader perspective (how are seas rising by 1 meter going to affect the hundreds of millions of people who reside in cities near sea level, like Bangkok?

A person doesn't have to react to it in only one or the other way. It's ok to mix the personal perspective with the worldwide perspective.

I'm not worried about my personal situation. I'll be compost within 50 years, and I've picked a comparatively insulated part of the world to reside (northernmost Thailand). Indeed, this region has less potential climactic and geological drawbacks than just about any other region on the planet - regardless of whether GW happens quickly or slowly.

In the larger perspective, I'm just as concerned for other species as I am for this one species. Thailand has already done an abysmal job at animal and habitat husbandry. Indeed, Asia as a whole scores a solid F for environmental awareness and caring for other species, flora and fauna. I won't get depressed about it, but it is a major cause for concern.

[canuckamuck]

Nobody is doubting climate change. I don't think you will find a single publication saying there is no climate change. It may get way hotter, it may become way colder. The one thing we can be assured of is that it will not stay the same. If the seas rise, people will move. People move all the time. So far sea rise has been so minute that there is debate as to whether it has risen at all..

Will there be natural disasters? Of course there will be, there has always been disasters. Natural disasters will continue to occur regardless of the effort of men.

Can we stop climate change? Of course we can't. No matter what we throw at it, it is going to keep changing.

Can we modify climate change? Ah! there is a good question. And a more difficult question is; in which direction can we modify it - hot or cold?

And do we even know which way it is going right now? Has it stopped warming? Are we fortunate to be at the tail end of a gentle warming period? We don't know. The only thing certain, in this AGW debate, is that there is a ton of money available for climate science, and this is because there is an even greater amount to be made from carbon tax. We may not fully understand the mechanisms of climate change, but human greed is predictable and obvious.

I hate pollution and environmental destruction, but I propose we put our efforts towards things we know and can quantity. There is a lot we can do to protect our environment.

[canuckamuck]

^quantify

[maidu]

I recall seeing an American comedian doing a sketch about the wretchededly poor and depraved people in NE Africa. At the time, it was Somalia, but it could have been about Sudan or Ethiopia. He said something like (with a western elitist' perspective), "If those people are having a tough time in the deserts, where there is no water, no food, no houses, ......why don't they just put all their furniture in a U-Haul and drive to a motel or get a nice big house somewhere, where there's food, and shade, and swimming pools?!?!"

[RickBradford]

How deniers can keep insisting that the Earth is not warming - borders on the astonishing. It appears they simply just don't want to accept the facts,

and

you are confronted with people that close their eyes, shake their heads and cry 't'ain't so, t'ain't so'. I can't imagine why they do this

Statements like this are very common among the Green/Left community, and at the hard-core end of the spectrum are nearly universal.

But it actually says more about the person making the statement than the 'deniers' who they are attacking.

In the same way that a Syrian jihadi states flatly that it is "impossible" that any true Syrian citizen would oppose the introduction of sharia law, the Green/Left thinks it impossible that any right-thinking person could oppose the dogma of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming. There is, as the Green/Left says time and again, "no debate."

Those who disagree, they therefore argue, must be in the pay of Big Oil, dumb as rocks, evil greedy capitalists or so selfish as to not care about their own children's futures. They therefore must be punished accordingly (proposals so far include branding, imprisonment, gassing with carbon monoxide and other forms of summary execution).

Even if I didn't believe, on solid scientific grounds, that the climate scare was hugely overblown, I would hesitate to align myself with a movement which believes that the price of (climate) heresy should be death.

Skeptics are not a single group; there are many shades, from a tiny minority who don't think there is any warming, to those who believe that CO2 is a significant climate driver, but that mechanisms such as carbon taxes and emissions regulations are utterly futile, and that adaptation to climate change (whether natural or man-made) is a better option.

I think the climate debate would yield better results if the notion of gassing people because they are different from you was left in the past.

[maidu]

They therefore must be punished accordingly (proposals so far include branding, imprisonment, gassing with carbon monoxide and other forms of summary execution).

Even if I didn't believe, on solid scientific grounds, that the climate scare was hugely overblown, I would hesitate to align myself with a movement which believes that the price of (climate) heresy should be death.

Implying that GW believers propose 'summary execution' be handed out to 'deniers' is a stretch. I believe the Earth is increasingly warming, but I don't suggest the death penalty for anyone who disagrees. Indeed, I hope deniers live at least long enough to see the folly of their mistaken conclusions - perhaps when an increasing number of major cities are suffer flooding (yet, they will still be denying, no matter what evidence floats their way). When I say 'increasing numbers,' it's in reference to cities that are already flooding, such as Dakha, Bangkok, New Orleans, and NY. Venice, Amsterdam, and London would likely be suffering major floods, were it not for their tens of billions of Euro investments in forstalling the inevitable for a few decades, with fancy dikes and flood walls. Note: even with multi-billion dollar fixes in levies, much of New Orleans is still below sea level. Watch out: Mumbai, Shanghai, Miami, Guangzou, and dozens of other giant cities located at sea level. Major flooding is a'comin', and it won't be far in the future.

[RickBradford]

Implying that GW believers propose 'summary execution' be handed out to 'deniers' is a stretch

Quite the opposite - it's documented fact.

Here's Jill Singer, writing in the Herald-Sun (Australia) newspaper:

I'm prepared to keep an open mind and propose another stunt for climate sceptics - put your strong views to the test by exposing yourselves to high concentrations of either carbon dioxide or some other colourless, odourless gas - say, carbon monoxide.

You wouldn't see or smell anything. Nor would your anti-science nonsense be heard of again. How very refreshing.

and Professor Richard Parncutt of the University of Graz

"I have always been opposed to the death penalty in all cases…"

"Even mass murderers [like Breivik] should not be executed, in my opinion."

"GW deniers fall into a completely different category from Behring Breivik. They are already causing the deaths of hundreds of millions of future people. We could be speaking of billions, but I am making a conservative estimate."

"If a jury of suitably qualified scientists estimated that a given GW denier had already, with high probability (say 95%), caused the deaths of over one million future people, then s/he would be sentenced to death."

And from a US website called the Talking Points Memo, an article whose subject (and headline) is:

At what point do we jail or execute global warming deniers?

Clear enough?

Edited January 18, 2013 by RickBradford

[Scott]

I think the current discussion can cease. We have an OP and a topic. If you have nothing further to add to the topic, then feel free to stop posting.

[RickBradford]

Fair enough.

Here's a graph of sea-level rise from the University of Colorado, one of the main data collection centers on this subject.

How you get a "60% faster" sea-level rise out of that beats me.

(Blue is sea-level; the red line is the ENSO index, a natural cyclic phenomenon which gives rise to El Nino and La Nina events.)

[thaibeachlovers]

But proving that glaciers are receding is not proving why they are receding and that is the logical falicy that is so popularly promoted. All that is ever put forward as proof of cause is actually just proof of an effect.

Besides garnering data, they are also surmising what may be causing such profound receding of glaciers. Just because you don't want to hear their theories on why glaciers are receding doesn't mean the theories are wrong. These are people at the vanguard of research on glaciers, so it would stand to reason that they're the best apprised of what phenomena are going on in that realm.

If a person is working closely with rabbits on a daily basis for years, you would assume that person knows a thing or two about rabbits, and is qualified to pontificate on that topic.

If temperatures rise sufficiently for it to start snowing in Antarctica, enough water might be deposited as snow in Antarctica to prevent sea level rise. You can't only look at one factor in isolation to come to a proper conclusion.

Interesting thought, though the Antarctic has been a polar desert for millenia, so it's a stretch to predict that snow might fall in such significant amounts as to offset the profound calving of ice sheets. A recent one was comparable in size to Luxembourg. ....and it's at the north pole and Greenland where most of the melting currently appears to be happening.

Perhaps you aren't aware of it, but Antarctic ice shelves act as a "stopper" that prevent the glaciers rushing into the sea.

Even if the ice shelf melts it won't raise sea levels, but if the glaciers are free to rush into the sea it will.

BTW, the ice in the Arctic is sea ice and as such doesn't raise sea levels when it melts. However, if the Greenland ice cap melted it would be a calamitous disaster for humans.

[maidu]

If you look at a photo of a large ice sheet which has broken off from Antarctica, you'll see it is quite high off the water, sometimes dozens of meters. Granted, roughly the 70% of the mass is under the water, so that lower part, when it melts, will not raise sea level, but the bulk above sea level, some as big as Manhatten (Larsen B, for example), will contribute to sea level rise. There have been an increase in such large ice break-offs in recent years, and the incidence could increase further.

[utalkin2me]

How you get a "60% faster" sea-level rise out of that beats me.

That is probably because you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

In all seriousness, much of this isn't understandable to the general public. It is very esoteric. If eye doctors do decades of research, it isn't really necessary that we understand it all (we can't). It is good to question, but you have to be realistic. You aren't going to understand decades of research and data analysis techniques after reading a website (and probably a biased one at that).

What we have here is people who somehow think they understand all this data compiled, and how it should have been analyzed, yet the same people can't even tell you what a p-value is. I mean it is rather ridiculous. It would be like the Virgin Mary giving others advice on how to best perform fellatio.

Edited January 19, 2013 by utalkin2me

[canuckamuck]

How you get a "60% faster" sea-level rise out of that beats me.

That is probably because you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

In all seriousness, much of this isn't understandable to the general public. It is very esoteric. If eye doctors do decades of research, it isn't really necessary that we understand it all (we can't). It is good to question, but you have to be realistic. You aren't going to understand decades of research and data analysis techniques after reading a website (and probably a biased one at that).

What we have here is people who somehow think they understand all this data compiled, and how it should have been analyzed, yet the same people can't even tell you what a p-value is. I mean it is rather ridiculous. It would be like the Virgin Mary giving others advice on how to best perform fellatio.

Fascinating that you bring religion into this.

It occurs to me that there are great similarities to medieval times; when the lay people were being abused and swindled by a corrupt clergy. When people complained the priests would respond that ordinary men couldn't possibly comprehend the ways of God. Even the governments were pressured and corrupted by the church. The esoteric nature of God was the domain of the select, coincidental wealthy, few.

Today many people revere all science with such piety, they have no room in their heart for disbelief. And like in medieval times, this faith is being abused. Dissent is cowed and mocked as heresy. You lay people can't possibly interpret our data. Interpretation must remain in the hands of the priests, I mean scientists. And dissenting scientists find themselves excommunicated from the church of meaningful leading edge science.

There was a time, I believe, when science was conducted with integrity and a dedication to the method. In fact, at the laboratory/field level, it probably still is. It is hard to make things happen without solid scientific methods. But science is no longer about individual breakthroughs. Science is now the result of massive teams of scientists. Each responsible for their own tasks. But what is done with the data and the results - that is now in the hands of large organizations. And these corporations and government panels have both agendas and responsibilities to their shareholders or power brokers. Many influential people in scientific circles achieved their positions politically.

Corporations, governments, and big money interests have the ability and all the motive; to do what they wish with the real data they have bought and paid for. Historically there is no greater game changer than fear. A perceived common threat has been the motivator to all of history's most expensive endeavors including the moon landing and all wars. A common threat is the key to unlimited taxation, control,subsidies, and a fattened bureaucracy. Not to mention the rewards for industrious solutions. Conversely, there is very little money available for the evidence that we are not facing a catastrophe. No products to sell, no tax to create, and no freedoms to curtail. No catastrophe, is exceptionally bad for business.

Science on its own is unbiased and accountable, but we can no more believe that it is utilized exclusively with righteous integrity; any more than we expect popular media to be neutral. Science may indeed be a holy tool, but beware the heads of the church.

Edited January 19, 2013 by canuckamuck

[thaibeachlovers]

If you look at a photo of a large ice sheet which has broken off from Antarctica, you'll see it is quite high off the water, sometimes dozens of meters. Granted, roughly the 70% of the mass is under the water, so that lower part, when it melts, will not raise sea level, but the bulk above sea level, some as big as Manhatten (Larsen B, for example), will contribute to sea level rise. There have been an increase in such large ice break-offs in recent years, and the incidence could increase further.

Sea ice melting does not raise the sea levels, just as the melting of an ice cube in a glass of liquid doesn’t raise the overall level of liquid.

Plenty of supporting evidence if you google "does melting sea ice raise sea levels".

[maidu]

Ice sheets coming to water do contribute to sea level rise. The word 'iceberg' wasn't mentioned in my earlier statement.

Here's a quote from a yahoo blog : "Antarctica is about 14 mill sq km. and is more or less covered in ice. The average thickness of this ice is 2 km. That's 28 million cubic kilometres of ice that is NOT floating or about 25 million cubic kilometres of water that, if it melts, will enter the oceans."

Currently, there appears to be more dynamic activity regarding ice calving in to the oceans at the north pole than at Antarctica, though much of what is happening (re; melting) could be out of sight. So, Antarctica's ice is the 900 lb gorilla in the equation, but Greenland is no slouch.

Deniers should try to find a way to look at the data objectively, instead of fixing their thinking so steadfastly opposed to evidence of severe melting, record-setting warming trends, and rising seas. The conservative consensus among many climate scientists is a rise of about 1 meter in the next 100 years. From what I've seen and heard, the actual rise will be closer to 2 meters. None of us on this forum will be around in 100 years, but there should be eye-opening precursers in each of the years leading up to 2113.

2012 was the unprecedented flooding of NY City's subway system. We're less than a month in to 2013 and we've already had record-busting heat waves in Australia. The ensuing months and years will have a plethora of record-breaking heat waves and glacier calvings and gargantuan Antarctic ice-sheet break-offs ...but deniers will nonchalantly continue to deny anything is untoward.

Edited January 19, 2013 by maidu

[RickBradford]

You readily point to the Australian heat wave as evidence of global warming, while ignoring simultaneous extreme and even record cold in places as diverse as Bangladesh, Israel, China and Alaska.

As you point out, 91% of the world's glacial ice is in Antarctica, yet you prefer to deny the reality that the average temperature of Antarctica is around minus 40 degrees Celsius. To save you looking it up, the melting point of ice is 0 degrees Celsius, so there is no way this mass of ice can melt in anything less than geological time.

And even at the fringes of the continent, where it is easy to find dramatic pictures of glacier calving, you deny the observational data from the Norwegian Polar Institute and the American Geophysical Union:

"Twenty-year-old models which have suggested serious ice loss in the eastern Antarctic have been compared with reality for the first time - and found to be wrong, so much so that it now appears that no ice is being lost at all.

"Previous ocean models ... have predicted temperatures and melt rates that are too high, suggesting a significant mass loss in this region that is actually not taking place."

It seems to me that on sea levels and temperatures, it is you who best fits the description of a 'denier'.

[maidu]

As you point out, 91% of the world's glacial ice is in Antarctica, yet you prefer to deny the reality that the average temperature of Antarctica is around minus 40 degrees Celsius. To save you looking it up, the melting point of ice is 0 degrees Celsius, so there is no way this mass of ice can melt in anything less than geological time.

And even at the fringes of the continent, where it is easy to find dramatic pictures of glacier calving, you deny the observational data from the Norwegian Polar Institute and the American Geophysical Union:

since the AGU is mentioned, I took a look at their site, and here's a quote from there:

"This summer (2012) has seen an extraordinary melt season in the Arctic, which has led to a catastrophic and unprecedented loss of sea ice. The rate at which the Arctic Ocean has lost ice volume is illustrated brilliantly by a series of graphs on Jim Pettit’s website. These graphs make depressing viewing – there can be no clearer illustration of the environmental impacts that our reckless global-scale atmospheric chemistry experiment is having."

source

Yes, I'm aware ice won't melt if kept cooler than 0 degrees C. However, the ice that calves from glaciers and the poles winds up in sea water which is warm enough for the ice to melt. Also, how well will 'the ice in the glass' showcase work, if the ice is a hundred feet above the glass, and then melts? Water overflowing profusely, I would imagine. The ice shelves which are breaking off from Antarctica at significant degrees, and ever-larger masses, are not floating with their tops at sea level (as the ice cube in the glass) - and neither did they all start as floating masses displacing sea water.

Edited January 20, 2013 by maidu

[canuckamuck]

The ice cube in the glass description is discussing floating ice. So to test your 100+ foot tall ice cube, you would first have to find a glass you can float it in. If ice is floating, it is already displacing as much water as it can. It is a gravity thing.

At least you seem to be understanding now that the Arctic and and the Antarctic are two different places with entirely different geography, weather, and currents . You could say they are poles apart . They are reacting differently to warming, but so far they are having very little impact on sea level. The majority of the ice in the Arctic ocean is floating and therefore more susceptible to warmer water currents. It is a different matter to melt the ice that is grounded and above sea level. This occurs much more slowly. A slight cooling will replace much of that Arctic ice in a few seasons.

[maidu]

Yes there are some differences in the 2 poles, but there are many similarities also. They're both cold, surrounded by water, and are being affected by unprecedented melting - particularly ice at the north pole. Not all ice in the water is floating. A significant portion could be upon sand bars or other firmnament. That would dash the 'ice cube in a glass' comparison. Much of the ice in the Arctic is from glaciers which are calving at increasing degrees. Same for glaciers in the north Atlantic and north Pacific regions. That's ice which comes off of glacier beds (land), so it's a moot point whether they're floating - they will melt, in weeks or months, it hardly matters - but that's all added water.

A slight cooling will replace much of that Arctic ice in a few seasons.

Glad to see your crytal ball is working well. Perhaps there's a possibility of 'slight cooling' in a few seasons, but the overwhelming scientific data from those taking measurements on glaciers and ice packs indicate otherwise.

[craigt3365]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/01/11/climate-change-altering-usa/1827501/

Climate change is already affecting how Americans live and work, and evidence is mounting that the burning of fossil fuels has roughly doubled the probability of extreme heat waves, the Obama administration said Friday.

"Sea level is rising, oceans are becoming more acidic, and glacier and Arctic Sea ice are melting," says a draft of the third federal Climate Assessment Report, compiled by more than 240 scientists for a federal advisory committee. "These changes are part of the pattern of global climate change, which is primarily driven by human activity."

Continued....

[craigt3365]

Here's the draft. Interesting reading...

http://ncadac.globalchange.gov/download/NCAJan11-2013-publicreviewdraft-chap1-execsum.pdf