[late]

"Scientists have discovered a series of worrying weaknesses in the ice shelf holding back one of Antarctica’s most dangerous glaciers, suggesting that this important buttress against sea level rise could shatter within the next three to five years.Until recently, the ice shelf was seen as the most stable part of Thwaites Glacier, a Florida-sized frozen expanse that already contributes about 4 percent of annual global sea level rise. Because of this brace, the eastern portion of Thwaites flowed more slowly than the rest of the notorious “doomsday glacier.”

Satellite images taken as recently as last month and presented Monday at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union show several large, diagonal cracks extending across the floating ice wedge. “This eastern ice shelf is likely to shatter into hundreds of ice bergs,” she said. “Suddenly the whole thing would collapse.”

...when the shelf fails, the eastern third of Thwaites Glacier will triple in speed, spitting formerly landlocked ice into the sea. Total collapse of Thwaites could result in several feet of sea level rise, scientists say, endangering millions of people in coastal areas."

[url]"Scientists have discovered a series of worrying weaknesses in the ice shelf holding back one of Antarctica’s most dangerous glaciers, suggesting that this important buttress against sea level rise could shatter within the next three to five years.Until recently, the ice shelf was seen as the most stable part of Thwaites Glacier, a Florida-sized frozen expanse that already contributes about 4 percent of annual global sea level rise. Because of this brace, the eastern portion of Thwaites flowed more slowly than the rest of the notorious “doomsday glacier.” Satellite images taken as recently as last month and presented Monday at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union show several large, diagonal cracks extending across the floating ice wedge. “This eastern ice shelf is likely to shatter into hundreds of ice bergs,” she said. “Suddenly the whole thing would collapse.” ...when the shelf fails, the eastern third of Thwaites Glacier will triple in speed, spitting formerly landlocked ice into the sea. Total collapse of Thwaites could result in several feet of sea level rise, scientists say, endangering millions of people in coastal areas."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/clima...lt-antarctica/ I did try to tell ya.. [/url]

I did try to tell ya..

[Unthinking Majority]

There's trees and land under all the ice in Antarctica. Because the earth used to be far warmer than now.

But i would think if the ice melts that it should be of natural processes and the warming come slower.

What will be interesting is if we were heading into another natural ice age. I don't think we'd want to live in an age of glaciers frozen across north america and europe.

[Godstud]

No, @Unthinking Majority, there were never trees in Antarctica because it was warmer at the South Pole. At one time Antarctica was in a warmer zone, due to Continental Drift.


https://www.nationalgeographic.org/ency ... tal-drift/

The earth is NOT the same place it was even 50 million years ago.

Changes are happening far too fast. It's not a natural progression but one that man has sped up.

[Potemkin]

No, @Unthinking Majority, there were never trees in Antarctica because it was warmer at the South Pole. At one time Antarctica was in a warmer zone, due to Continental Drift.


https://www.nationalgeographic.org/ency ... tal-drift/

The earth is NOT the same place it was even 50 million years ago.

Changes are happening far too fast. It's not a natural progression but one that man has sped up.

No, actually there was a time when the South Pole was ice-free and was covered in forests and inhabited by dinosaurs and other temperate-climate animals. This is when Antarctica was located more or less where it still is now. It is the Earth’s present climate which is highly unusual, with ice caps over both poles. This is because we are currently in the grip of an Ice Age right now.

[Steve_American]

No, actually there was a time when the South Pole was ice-free and was covered in forests and inhabited by dinosaurs and other temperate-climate animals. This is when Antarctica was located more or less where it still is now. It is the Earth’s present climate which is highly unusual, with ice caps over both poles. This is because we are currently in the grip of an Ice Age right now.

I have heard that this is so, also.

To your last point ---
1] In the large sense, yes, the Ice Age may continue.
2] In a narrow sense, we have been in an interstadial for about 10K years.

OTOH, we may not be in an Ice Age anymore.
1] According to Dr. Britt, humans have been slowly warming the planet for the last about 7K years.
. . . We did this by adding CO2 to the air with herding sheep, goats, & cattle, and farming most crops; and by adding Methane to the air by farming rice. [The water in the rice paddies keeps O2 out of the mud under the paddy, so microbes make CH4 instead of CO2.]
2] However, since 1820, we have added so much CO2 to the air that the ice will not return until the CO2 level drops down a lot. This has ended the Ice Age. IMO, CO2 can't drop enough as long as civilization survives. Humans, IMHO, need to grok the necessity to keep the CO2 level just right.
. . . Too little CO2 and the Ice Age returns as the ice advances. And, too much CO2 and we trigger tipping points so the uncontrollable rising CO2 level heats the Earth so much civilization fails to survive.
.

[Igor Antunov]

Antarctica is mostly frozen salt water ice. This means if the ice perishes it won't raise global sea levels significantly.

Also the ice is so heavy it pushes the continent down by hundreds of meters. If it were to melt the continent would rise, presenting us with swathes of the best, most fertile land on earth for millennia to come.

[ingliz]

it won't raise global sea levels significantly

Melted the Antarctic Ice Sheet would raise sea levels by 57.9 m.

[Igor Antunov]

Melted the Antarctic Ice Sheet would raise sea levels by 57.9 m.

In about 1,000 years, which is irrelevant. We could easily go full dutch by then with all our coastal cities. The faster melting western ice sheet will only raise levels by 20cm: https://vividmaps.com/the-world-with-a- ... evel-rise/

[Steve_American]

Antarctica is mostly frozen salt water ice. This means if the ice perishes it won't raise global sea levels significantly.

Also the ice is so heavy it pushes the continent down by hundreds of meters. If it were to melt the continent would rise, presenting us with swathes of the best, most fertile land on earth for millennia to come.

You provided an image of Antarctica at sea level if no ice, and claimed that if all the ice melted it would not raise sea level enough to matter.
1] This totally wrong.
2] The ice there is not mostly frozen salt water, it is 99.999% fresh water. And, this is not relevant, it is water, which is all that matters.
3] When ice that is sitting on the sea bottom somehow becomes floating and floats away as an iceberg, it is already displacing all the water that it will after it soon melts.
4] Antarctica will not be land for a very, very long time.
5] 20 cm of sea level rise is very significant for coastal cities. You seem to forget the effect of storms. It is even worse for coasts that are not cities.
.

[Igor Antunov]

Due to the pace of melt and sea rise, it's irrelevant. If sea levels are rising by a couple cm's every decade, we can easily modify each and every coastline to avoid or work with the sea rise. Every city could be rebuild in that time. It's a nothingburger even if all the ice on both poles melted. A sea level rise of over 100m is nothing. We would adjust infrastructure and cities accordingly over a long period of time.

I want my antarctic homesteading plot now.

[Pants-of-dog]

The Thwaites glacier will probably end up raising sea level approximately 60 cm, or 2 feet.

It could end up melting within the next three years.

So that gives you an idea when the great migration from coastal areas will begin.

If you think there is too much immigration now, this is just the tip of the iceberg.

[ingliz]

It could end up melting within the next three years.

The 200-metre-thick Larsen B ice shelf took just one month to completely disintegrate.

[Patrickov]

I am sorry but I don't think it's that high on my priority list.

I mean, I and many around me are already facing existential threat without the climate change shit.

The world is already so fucked up that an apocalypse is probably just karma.

Let it roll and let God decide what is to rise afterwards.

The 200-metre-thick Larsen B ice shelf in the Arctic took just one month to completely disintegrate.

Tell it to stellar mass black holes which got around as a star for a few million years but only collapsed for a few moments.

There are many ways how nature works and even what you guys believe to be man-made is not as surprising as you wish others to believe.

Leave your green propaganda to those in power (not just politicians but also entrepreneurs). If anything they should be the one who should be lectured or even punished.

[Rancid]

Climate change has become too political, which means it can never be solved or addressed in any meaningful way. All we can hope, is that market conditions somehow make it profitable to deal with it. That, or perhaps it's ok and humanity will survive, and beach vacations to antarctica will become popular?

[late]

Leave your green propaganda to those in power...

It's a fight.

[late]

Climate change has become too political, which means it can never be solved or addressed in any meaningful way. All we can hope, is that market conditions somehow make it profitable to deal with it. That, or perhaps it's ok and humanity will survive, and beach vacations to antarctica will become popular?

You won't say that after we start losing cities.

[ingliz]

@Rancid

Wrong Pole

Larsen B was in the Weddell Sea, Antarctic.

I've edited my last post and given a link to the story here.

[Rancid]

You won't say that after we start losing cities.

Those that will suffer the most are the poor. Historically speaking, humanity doesn't care about poor people.

@Rancid

Wrong Pole

Larsen B was in the Weddell Sea, Antarctic.

I've edited my last post and given a link to the story here.

oh.....

[late]

Those that will suffer the most are the poor. Historically speaking, humanity doesn't care about poor people.

If NYC gets whacked hard enough, we won't be able to serve as the reserve currency for a while. The world won't wait, and that loss will be a major economic crisis.

People make the natural assumption we can adjust. Look at the West, how long can you go without water?

The president ought to be declaring an emergency.

[Rancid]

If NYC gets whacked hard enough, we won't be able to serve as the reserve currency for a while. The world won't wait, and that loss will be a major economic crisis.

People make the natural assumption we can adjust. Look at the West, how long can you go without water?

The president ought to be declaring an emergency.

All good. I'll just immigrate.