"Antarctica Melting Three Times as Fast as a Decade Ago " Topic

"A new study from the journal Nature makes a terrifying observation — the rate at which Antarctic ice is melting has tripled from only a decade ago. This is significant as more than 60 percent of the freshwater on Earth is locked in Antarctica's ice sheets. The continent has lost nearly three trillion tons of ice since 1992.

The New York Times reports that the continent is now melting so fast, scientists say, that it will contribute six inches (15 centimeters) to sea-level rise by 2100. That is at the upper end of what the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has estimated Antarctica alone could contribute to sea level rise this century…."
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

More fear-mongering from an "unbiased" source. I wonder which of the doctored data they are using for this "crisis".

link

The Antarctic Ice Sheet is an important indicator of climate change and driver of sea-level rise. Here we combine satellite observations of its changing volume, flow and gravitational attraction with modelling of its surface mass balance to show that it lost 2,720 ± 1,390 billion tonnes of ice between 1992 and 2017, which corresponds to an increase in mean sea level of 7.6 ± 3.9 millimetres (errors are one standard deviation). Over this period, ocean-driven melting has caused rates of ice loss from West Antarctica to increase from 53 ± 29 billion to 159 ± 26 billion tonnes per year; ice-shelf collapse has increased the rate of ice loss from the Antarctic Peninsula from 7 ± 13 billion to 33 ± 16 billion tonnes per year. We find large variations in and among model estimates of surface mass balance and glacial isostatic adjustment for East Antarctica, with its average rate of mass gain over the period 1992–2017 (5 ± 46 billion tonnes per year) being the least certain.

Might want to check out the reference section, if it's a conspiracy it's a very poor one since they make their methodology public

How about you ask the people of Miami if regular king tide flooding is BS or not?

"How about you ask the people of Miami if regular king tide flooding is BS or not?"

Not to mention the Louisiana Mississippi Delta and coastline and Island nations in the Pacific… but since I am 537 feet(163M) above sea level why should I care.

Terry

And let's not even mention when in 2005 we had to abandon New York City when it sank beneath the waves.

And let's not even mention when in 2005 we had to abandon New York City when it sank beneath the waves.

Well, we're at the point where 1 in 500y flooding events (calibrated at the pre-industrial era) are now happening at about 1 in 25 years, and 1 in 5 by 2050.

link

In other words, higher mean sea level and stronger winds (from more energy in the atmosphere) will cause stronger storm surge.

More fear-mongering from an "unbiased" source. I wonder which of the doctored data they are using for this "crisis".

Hyperbole aside, here is the paper, just published this month. It's from Nature and is very well referenced (which can be accessed by clicking at the top).

link

Feel free to show us the bias and data doctoring. You seem to be very good at recognizing it.

And let's not even mention when in 2005 we had to abandon New York City when it sank beneath the waves.

Seems like the New Yorkers are taking it more seriously than you do. Same with FEMA which does the risk assessment for the National Flood Insurance Program.

PDF link

And the New York State Dept. of Environmental Conservation

link

Add these to the conspiracy.

Sorry I'm just a heretic at heart.

Ya but you pick and choose your heresies, right?

When NASA says anthropogenic global warming exists and their satellites have been monitoring these changes they are full of crap!

climate.nasa.gov

When they land men on the Moon, launch the Hubble and bounce Curiosity onto the surface of Mars, they are awesome.

Got it.

This NASA??? -

1999: A disaster investigation board reports that NASA's Mars Climate Orbiter burned up in the Martian atmosphere because engineers failed to convert units from English to metric.

I need it to rise 100 feet, so that I can really make a killing. That still leaves me about 40 feet to spare.

Well do what we've always done as the ice melted, move. Maybe Greenland will finally be green again. :)

Dan

This NASA??? -

Wow, three question marks. And yet you miss the point. The point isn't that they are flawless. The Hubble needing contacts is ample proof of their mistakes. (I'll leave out some incidents involving Shuttles)

The point is when an agency confirms ones preexisting biases they are good. When they contravene preexisting biases then one is a skeptic, or a heretic.

See the distinction?

Hyperbole aside, here is the paper, just published this month. It's from Nature and is very well referenced (which can be accessed by clicking at the top).

Sure it is but they are going for the shock factor just like a recent earthquake study done for the Pacific NW.

Where a 9.0 earthquake would bring a huge wall of water crashing into several cities.

Shock gets those who don't have a clue attention.

But to those who have a clue we know that the chances of a 9.0 or higher earthquake is very unlikely.

link

So I doubt that the ice caps are melting at three times the rate.

Shock gets those who don't have a clue attention.

Can't argue with that comment!

Why did you quote my comment and then not address anything I said? What's with the volcano dodge? Can you stick to the OP?

So I doubt that the ice caps are melting at three times the rate.

I don't doubt that you doubt it. Of course, the people who study the Arctic and Antarctic ice wouldn't know anything about ice caps melting. Do you have a specific example of what they are doing wrong, that would give credence to your doubt?