Does the addition of H2O to Antarctica explain why sea levels have remained so relatively stable in spite of all the melting off the land based glaciers worldwide as well as off the land based Greenland Ice Pack? If this statistic is true..... then would these numbers affect how logic would dicTate that we should actually deal with climate change? I believe that we should invest in mega - scale desalination of ocean water because every cubic meter of sea water that is desalinated and added to the water table of Algeria, Israel, Jordan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, California, Australia, Mexico, India.... or any nation with a lot of desert.... is great news for those twenty to eighty million probable climate change refugees who may leave Bangladesh to go to India... in the event that average ocean levels were to rise by one meter..... not to mention New Orleans and The Maldive Islands! My two somewhat humorous submissions for $25 million Virgin Earth Challenge.
The answer is IDK. I don't assume that all melt-off reaches the oceans. I would assume some remains inland or under land in aquifers. My general impression is that the north and south poles have always worked relatively independent of each other throughout climate history. Your conclusion could be construed to suggest that they are somewhat interdependent, or at least more so than I have read. There is an awful lot we don't know. I believe climate is changing; I am skeptical that it is exclusively due to fossil fuels and human activity. And of all the AGW numbers out there, the sea stuff (other than salinity) seems the most speculative of all the data because it wasn't like Columbus was out there with a thermometer logging even surface sea temperatures and recording them for us. At least with salinity, there are some indirect ways to observe it over time due to chemical reactions that can be measured in walls of undersea caverns and the like.
Exactly....... now that I have been given these numbers...... I do believe that the South Pole is working very differently than the north pole....... I believe that a high amount of warming is happening in the Arctic and I believe that we will soon see even more cracking and sliding of ice off the land based Greenland Ice Pack...... but the melting of the Arctic Ice does not cause ocean levels to increase...... because it is simply ice floating in the Arctic Ocean........ as it melts it will NOT cause ocean levels to rise. Those number those for the Antarctic have off the scale huge implications for how we should look at the threat of rising ocean levels as the West Antarctic Ice Sheet probably begins to rapidly crack and slide into the ocean.... because the W.A.I. S. is below sea level..... and extremely vulnerable to cracking and sliding rapidly. https://www.antarcticglaciers.org/antarctica-2/west-antarctic-ice-sheet-2/west-antarctic-ice-sheet/ in my opinion..... I think that this should cause us to be much more interested in...... ...... ...... https://www.water-technology.net/projects/sorek-desalination-plant/
I have never seen an analysis of it over time, but there is about an 8 inch difference between sea levels at the poles and at the equator due to centrifugal force of the earth spinning. I think it would be interesting to see data sets over time that hone in on just those three areas.
"Antarctica is losing ice mass (melting) at an average rate of about 150 billion tons per year, and Greenland is losing about 270 billion tons per year, adding to sea level rise." https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-sign...a is losing ice mass,adding to sea level rise. "Sea ice surface area has been relatively constant in the Antarctic." (NASA) But, surface area is not a way of measuring mass loss. "Summer Arctic sea ice extent is shrinking by 12.2% per decade due to warmer temperatures." (NASA) Any ice surface area lose is unfortunate, as ice reflects solar radiance rather than allowing it to heat Earth. So, as ice extent shrinks, Earth heats more rapidly. This goes for sea ice, land ice, tundra, etc.,
You are correct that the land based Greenland Ice Sheet is losing ice mass...... and some melting of ice around the edges of Antartica does occur but...... central Antartica is growing in mass at a rate that has been essentially equal to the amount of ice that has cracked and slid off the land based Greenland Ice Sheet and the world's land based glaciers combined....... THUS.... ocean levels have remained relatively stable!!!!!!! This is actually extremely simple physics!!!! Antarctica is so cold that when H2O lands on Antarctica... it is still there thousands of years later on. You can actually see how many years you have drilled down through the ice sheets much like the growth rings of a tree. When H2O from deep down in Antarctica is put in a fish tank... .the fish grow huge rather quickly. It also has health benefits for humans.
Site that, please. I posted a link to my information source - a well respected source of natural science throughout the world.
What I am stating goes against the narrative that BigMedia and BigOil want promoted...... ..... I have an interesting documentary for you to view. In this video you will find out that Mr. Al Gore's professor was influenced by a group of people who wanted to link the supply of oil...... and the price of oil... with the fiat currencies of the world. A Carbon Tax accomplishes that in a way that makes it appear as if BigOil is being defeated.... this is actually brilliant marketing! But..... although this is astonishingly intelligent marketing... this is not fully honest and truthful! http://www.politicalforum.com/index...l-conquered-the-world.581777/#post-1072247318 Why Big Oil conquered the world All of this sets the stage for....... .....
This is TOTAL nonsense. It just doesn't include the answers you claimed on ice melt, ocean rise, etc. You entirely switched the subject, without siting ANY science source!! You switched to the press and keep pumping this garbage about Gore and about Bill Gates (who made seriously strong points in his full speech). Science is MASSIVELY larger than two people who are actually NOT SCIENTISTS!!! You need to get OUT of your PR attitude and start considering this an issue of science, regardless of what the press says about it. Once again, I ask that you site your source of science on ice melt and ocean rise.
Simple physics is that if a massive amount of H2O has melted and cracked and slid off the land based Greenland Ice Pack..... and off the world's land based glaciers..... then it must have went somewhere or ocean levels would have risen considerably. They did not..... so the idea that they are adding ice to central Antarctica is the best and most logical explanation that I have ever seen. Look at the Sahara Desert each afternoon...... it is over one hundred degrees Fahrenheit....... but the following morning the desert is cool.... where did the heat go...... into the atmosphere....... Greening the deserts will stabilize the climate.... but those who support Depopulation do not want this fact known. Carbon dioxide is necessary for life..... certain people exaggerate because of their longer term plans. The lecture "Innovating to zero" by Bill Gates back in 2010 depends on a Carbon Tax to work...... and the Carbon Tax is used to give the governments total control over the movement of people. New Mexico biologist Carl Cantrell. ... Israel now has the technology to do this...... .... [/quote][/quote]
NOAA states that sea levels are rising. https://sealevel.nasa.gov/faq/8/is-the-rate-of-sea-level-rise-increasing/#:~:text=Yes.,(3.4 millimeters) per year. Where are you finding data that suggests this is NOT happening? You have claimed this over and over. However, you have NEVER given a plan that includes costs and impacts, or suggested who would pay for this. There is no possibility of running us out of carbon dioxide. Governments already have control over people movement. Gaining tax dollars to pay for our common needs by taxing carbon seems better to me than taxing people's property. To many people can no longer pay their rising property tax bills and thus find it necessary to look elsewhere to find shelter. There is other taxation that could be ended if we want - without even considering federal income tax. In other words, there is no reason to suggest that taxing carbon would necessarily add total revenue. Of course, the USA does need additional revenue, as we buy stuff and then don't pay for it. But, that's a different topic. Your nonsense about Bill Gates is totally ridiculous. The concern that there might be no such technology is not the problem. In fact, many countries have the technical knowledge necessary. In fact, California has desalinization plants to supplement public water in at least one southern location.
Add a few drops of water onto an ice cube which is at -20C and the ice volume will increase however the temperature of the new ice block will increase The average temperature of the Antarctic ice mass is increasing
YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ... and the implications are huge!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! All of this can even be translated into momentum toward Shalom in the Middle East!!!!!!!!!! http://www.politicalforum.com/index...the-middle-east.614114/page-2#post-1074526230 The Tate Plan for Shalom in the Middle East! and to give readers the full context here..... http://www.politicalforum.com/index...limate-deniers.595892/page-91#post-1074522604
Thank you for this truly helpful image....... I agree with you that ocean levels are up by a little bit...... ... but if it were not for the colossal amount of H2O being ADDED to the central region of Antarctica...... ocean levels WOULD HAVE BEEN UP BY A LOT!!!!!! Now I have certain biases..... and the fact that I lived in Nova Scotia, Canada until December of 2021 gives me a certain way of looking at the topic of rising ocean levels...... Here is another forum from which I was Banned..... Ostracized..... Shunned.... Disfellowshipped........ and Kicked out!!!!!!?????? http://www.sciforums.com/threads/ph...-to-the-geography-of-the-bay-of-fundy.164103/ "If average ocean levels were to rise by ten centimeters.... .would the multiplier effect of the geography of the Bay of Fundy continue? The fact that the Bay of Fundy funnels tidal waters plus...... it is over 170 miles long, (274 kms), it produces high tide level that are tenX to fifteenX over the difference in tidal waters where I live. So... could high tide levels near TRuro, N. S. to Moncton, N. B. be up by a meter or more if average ocean levels were to rise by ten centimeters?" [Dennis Tate, March 7, 2021]
Have you ever heard this theory by Mr. Allan Savoury? I personally cannot argue with him on any of his major points! How to green the world's deserts and reverse climate change | Allan Savory
Please cite the source of this idea. The Antarctic is a source of ocean water, not a sink. The changing surface area of floating Antarctic sea ice does not change ocean level.You can test this at home. Put an ice cube in a glass of water and mark the water level. Wait for the ice to melt and notice the water level. Antarctic glaciers are supported by land. When they move into the water, they raise the ocean level. This is NOT a way to measure average sea level of Earth. Also, one must be careful with land adjacent to oceans, as that land may itself be rising or falling due to human or natural change. NOLA is an example of land adjacent to oceans that is itself sinking due to compaction of the delta and pumping of oil and water. There are other places where land adjacent to oceans is rising. Is New Brunswick experiencing lifting due to the retreat of glaciers? This is one reason for lifting. Where are you getting your info that caused you to be ignored on the science site? Where did you get the idea that expanse of sea ice impacts sea level?
Actually, the answer is rather simple if you think about it. This is according to your own reference.... Now that may sound like some to be a lot of ice, but it really is insignificant. Especially when one considers the area of the oceans is over 139 million square miles. That means that in total, that is around 0.1 inch per year. That in total is around 650 million tons. And at this time most estimate that around 750 billion tons of ice is melting every year. So that is reducing the amount of rise by a small fraction. Of course, the oceans are also rising nowhere near as fast as they once did, as almost all of the ice that had been sequestered during the ice age has already melted.
The end of the ice age was significant, of course. As I've read, homo sapiens were the only human species to have survived. Now we have 8 billion people, with changes in climate becoming increasingly expensive. Plus, we're majorly interdependent. The solutions we have aren't the same as those of the ice age. For example, post ice age peoples could solve problems by simply moving. Or, they could become extinct. Today, there is major resistance to these "solutions".
Once again, your lack of scientific understanding and facts is showing. Neanderthal did not die out at "the end of the last ice age", they died off at the start of it. And according to most genetic information today, we replaced them by breeding more than anything else. That is why Europeans have more Neanderthal DNA than any other group of humans on the planet. In other words, we met them and they became us. But it was more than anything else the ice age itself that likely killed them. We know that they were gone even before the Glacial Maximum was reached around 30 kya. H. Neanderthal was already gone by around 42,000 years ago. Oh, the other species were already long extinct. H. heidelbergensis did not even survive into the start of the last ice age before they were gone. H. denisovan did live longer, but in isolated pockets in East Asia. And likely suffered the same fate as H. neanderthal. Breeding with modern humans until as a distinct species they vanished, but some of their DNA lived on. You really do not understand what I guess we can call "deep time" at all, do you? If you think that the end of the ice age killed off the other of the hominid species. The Glacial Maximum was around 30 kya, but H neanderthal was already gone by that time for over 12,000 years. They did not even make it to the glacial maximum, let alone through to the other side when it ended. You really need to stop simply making things up based on your own silly beliefs that are completely wrong. Oh, and we were not the "only species to have survived". H. denisovan survived until at least around 15 kya as a distinct species, That is significantly after the glacial maximum, and is roughly contemporary with the domestication of sheep. The last archaeological evidence we have only slightly predates the Younger Dryas, which might well have been what actually killed them. Not warming as you seem to be trying to imply, but a period of cooling.
All that is quite irrelevant, and thus did not warrant a recapitulation of history. The point is that the situation then is nothing like the situation of today, when we have huge and vital investment in systems that are susceptible of being interrupted, to great cost for the 8B humans of today. Again, they could move or die - the two primary methods of biological resilience of hominids. And we do not like either of those choices. Ancient history is certainly interesting, but so is our current situation today as can be seen by the contrast.
Here is an image that gives us a good idea of how vulnerable the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is to rapidly cracking and sliding....... this could happen if an active volcano erupted near it or under it..... http://www.geology.um.maine.edu/geo...ts2010/BrittanyGilman/Pages/Introduction.html https://johncarlosbaez.wordpress.com/2014/05/16/west-antarctic-ice-sheet-news/
Here is another good image.... and article on this topic.... We are not yet prepared for the rapidity of what could happen to the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-collapse-west-antarctic-ice-sheet-inevitable/ Guest post: Is the collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet inevitable?
Ice can accumulate in Antartica while it recedes in the Arctic, Greenland, etc, and vise versa. What's telling is the total global ice accumulation/loss in a given period. And good luck finding that stat. I've tried. The GW alarmists will use one regions ice loss as proof, and the GW deniers will use another regions ice gain as proof, neither will ever cite total global ice differences, and I havn't even been able to find total global ice recorded anywhere. It seems likely to me that total global ice isn't changing much in the macro, and doesn't serve either 'sides' narrative, and so is ignored.
EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I BELIEVE that you are absolutely correct..... and the best theory that I have seen so far actually fits with a theory put forward by a friend of Dr. Albert Einstein that..... the earth's magnetic poles may have had one hundred and seventy one major flips over the past.... certain number of millions of years...... to my mind I am thinking over the past five million years...... but it is a long time since I read his book so my mind could be playing tricks on me. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Velikovsky
I just now found these youtube videos's about Velikovsky..... "Worlds In Collision: The Theories Of Immanuel Velikovsky" At The Noble Planetarium - September 1972 his content is copyrighted and may be used for research and educational purposes only. Transcript Follow along using the transcript.
