*********************************************ERRATA******************************************* Hi folks. The eagle eyed among you will have spotted that at around 6:25 in the video there is an animation of the Thwaites Ice shelf which is labelled "Eastern Ice Sheet". This is INCORRECT. The label should read "Eastern Ice Shelf". I realise it looks like a small distinction but it is a very important one. Apologies for this error. All the best. Dave
"I realise it looks like a small distinction". Ice sheet 192,000 km**2, 435,000 billion tonnes (53% above sea level). It's TEIS ~1,500 km**2, quick compute ~600 billion tonnes, something like that. Reminds me of the arguments with the Missus about what''s big and what''s actually rather small. Instant edit: 483,000 billion km**3 == 435,000 billion tonnes.
Last year was the coldest year on record in Antarctica, did that help? Also perhaps you could do an update on the "dying" Great Barrier Reef that also just broke its record for the greatest extent of living coral ever recorded?
@@CandideSchmyles "Last year was the coldest year on record in Antarctica, did that help?" ABSOLUTELY FANTASTIC INSIGHTFUL QUESTION and the answer is DEFINITELY YES, it is utterly definite that Antarctica is shedding ice faster and will continue to shed it faster specifically because Antarctica is now too cold. Mister Think touched on part of it at 4:15 to 4:30 but with only a brief partial explanation. My full, perfect technical explanation (from expert scientists, not me) is in a comment down here. It's that Antarctica now has (hang onto you hat) Not-Wonky-Enough-And-Too-Strong-Tight-And-Steady-Jet-Stream. Antarctica needed its previous Wonkier Jet Stream to hang onto all of its previous ice. Simples !
Proves that the human modeling of vast environmental conditions are limited, not accurate, presumptive and beyond our current ability to correctly assess.
@@planetvegan7843 Hmm, I'm not sure that claiming all Scientists or previous Scientific interpretation of environmental variables are politically Conservative. I don't think David Suzuki with his 25 million dollar net worth and mansion of a house is a Republican. I think it's far more likely that humans just don't have a current understanding to how illimitable the titanic processes we have observed for less than a century really are.
I really enjoy your channel. The way you explain, the details you provide, your diagrams and animations, and even your tone of voice, make the videos a pleasure to watch. Thank you.
,2027 ?Lots of info on climatic changes ,theories and rhetoric. A Bright Day Is Done was written in the 80's,can't fathom how scientist could have written near accurate info on c/c, what's happening now. Aware the ice_capped regions would change, the first period in the US ,major disasters etc,in the first period. Second period,which seems to beginning, era of greatest destruction, they predict etc. If one research on what has been written,climatic changes has always happened ,every 700 mill yrs the poles changes,what,s now the South pole,was once the North pole etc Changes are no strangers to planet/E.
@@theoriginalkeepercreek. it’s the global annual average temperature trend that’s the problem though people and crops will suffer from extreme weather events. The cold records are short local events usually from things like the polar air being pushed south by warm weather from the other side and a wavier jet stream caused by the rapidly warming arctic being less different from the mid latitudes. There will be more extreme events of all kinds but fewer cold and more hot.
@@lrvogt1257 ru-vid.com Ben is the Person that has this channel. He is one of the most knowledgeable people when it comes to the Sun and effects on earth. The sun cycles are what control us. Have you been to his channel?
One concern I have not seen much if any debate about is the land we will have to leave behind is some of the most industrial wastelands we have - major cities, petrochemical plants etc.. High level of pollution to the ocean is almost impossible to avoid.. Would be nice to get some data on this part of the equation - especially held against the different scenarios as to how fast we have to clean up - if anyone take this responsibility - something I sadly think will not happen besides a few countries doing superficial attempts to satisfy some very small voter groups.
Yes indeed, and we may also consider that most nuclear power plants are situated at the waterfront of a sea. I have always complained that we won't do anything until we all stand in water up to the waist, but maybe flooded nuclear power plants will be enough to finally get us going.
@@upstream1942 Yes, that's a good point. I used to think that Japan was overreacting a bit after Fukushima (I don't deny it was a major environmental disaster and a financially colossal one) by turning its back on nuclear, but in the context of fairly rapid sea rise potentially happening far sooner than expected and to a greater degree, it might be a prudent move.
Some people may not know what latent heat is and that is a change of state not necessarily of temperature. And when it happens it happens very rapidly.
Absolutely correct. You only have to watch ice cubes melt rapidly on a hot summers day in your bourbon on the rocks to realise how quickly civilisation will be inundated by rising sea levels.
Well communicated with clear informative graphics. The previous related video is worth watching as well. The message I took was the quickening of the doomsday glacier to release and melt is happening, and the probability of significant rise of ~meter of sea level should worry coastal dwellers and insurance underwriting alike.
I guess we must presume that the tipping point for Thwaites Glacier has already been passed, with the evidence indicating that collapse is now irreversible because the sea temperature continues to rise as oceans absorb ever more heat from the greenhouse effect. So, faster sea level rise is inevitable & for places like the UK, coastal erosion could be severe with the question being - what can be done to prevent it? Even more severe, the UK East Coast which historically had its low lying fens/marshes drained for farming, now faces the sea (& coastal salinity encroachment) reclaiming what has become the UK's prime agricultural heartland of Lincolnshire/East Anglia. Even more scary is that scientists can no longer confidently predict the pace of sea level rise, because previous estimates of stability of ice sheets such as Thwaites are proving to be too optimistic !
We all know that this will end in a disaster. But the momentum of the driving forces in all our countries seem too strong. No clue how so many adults in the oil, gas, car, mining, energy sector as well as all the politicians are able to ignore the facts. It actually doesn't help me to watch the glacier melting.
Very true statement about people in the fossil fuel energy sector. But you need to add all their tentacles in Big Ag, Big Pharma, Big Packaging as well as Big Finance.
I suspect they are like 98% of the people I know...not willing to read about, watch or engage in discussion about this topic....let alone act upon it. Consciously or subconsciously they refuse to acknowledge that the reality we are currently living in is being destroyed by them/us and that they/we must change course (lower our expectations) if we have any hope of avoiding very unpleasant changes being imposed on us by nature and the chain of events that will unleash the truly unpleasant aspects of the human tendency to put them/ourselves first.
@@richardlangley90 And when the shit hits the fan, they tell you that they did not know and are terribly sorry. As if this would help others then themselves.
@@taoist32 I highly doubt we will prevent this (Thwaites Glacier melting). Does that mean we should continue to ignore what our behaviour is doing to the environment and every living thing on the planet? I'm not clear what the point of your question is. My point is that with such a large percentage of the people I know ignoring what is happening all around them my expectation is that changes will be imposed on us that will be extremely unpleasant and likely terminal. This is not necessary if we believe our environmental scientists but it does mean some very significant changes in what we consider normal and OK in the way we live...changes that many will see as simply too much to even consider. Since we seem determined to wait until every naysayer out there is convinced that there is absolutely no doubt about what we are in for, the likelihood is that there will be nothing we can do at that point. If through some miracle enough people wake up very soon then the changes we need to make will be less drastic, but still unpleasant. Part of the challenge is really understanding what the changes are that we need right now vs what will be needed if we wait a year or five to do anything substantial.
In Australia in the last fortnight there was an article that insurance companies are starting to refuse to insure seaside properties. They know what’s coming, like bookies during an election.
Based on the fracture of the Larsen C ice shelf first being noticed in November 2010, its extent and width at that time and its rate of growth the few years following, I suggest the possibility that the fracture of the Larsen C ice shelf might well have been caused by the Indian Ocean tsunami 26 December 2004 following sea bed earthquake. "The tsunami also reached Antarctica, where tidal gauges at Japan's Showa Base recorded oscillations of up to a metre with disturbances lasting a couple of days". ------------------------------ I see "the sea floor is estimated to have risen by several metres, displacing an estimated 30 of water". If I take the tsunami as radiating in a circle then the radius is 13,000 km at Larsen C ice shelf distance so the quantity of tsunami water per metre of impacted face is 30,000,000,000 / (26,000,000 * pi) = 367 m**3 (this assumes negligible settling of the water during travel). For 1 metre of SLR extending to 367m from the ice shelf face I compute 367 * 42,000 * 10,000 = 154,000,000,000 newton-metres of torque per metre of fracture run at the fracture point using a 42km width. If I assume 350m thick then the tensile pull at the bottom of the fracture from 1m SLR lifting at 42 km from the pivot point = 440,000,000 newtons per metre of fracture run. The tensile pull over 350m thick from 1m SLR lifting over 42 km = 1,260,000 newtons per metre of ice depth per metre of fracture run (i.e. per square metre) average throughout ice depth. However, (595-435)/595=27% so the lowest 50m of the ice shelf face is subjected to 27% of the torque force, so tensile pull over the lowest 50m of the ice shelf face = 2,380,000 newtons per metre of ice depth per metre of fracture run (i.e. per square metre). The tensile strength of ice varies from 0.7-3.1 MPa so the fracturing force exerted on the ice shelf at the fracture location from 1 metre of SLR would be anywhere between 0.8x and 3.4x that required to fracture it (if ice were infinitely brittle) so it is definitely of the order of magnitude to be very possible based on the 367 m**3 simultaneously per metre of impacted face. ------------------------------ Of course, ice has some ductility & malleability (not perfectly brittle) and tides there are of order 1m to 1.7m, same as that tsunami or somewhat higher, so the ice shelf could not survive tides if it was perfectly brittle. Davis tide table indicates typically 14 hours for the tide to rise 1m to 1.7m but likely the far more rapid impact force of a tsunami SLR (over a few minutes I assume) would not give the ice shelf sufficient time to respond elastically throughout its length and it fractured along its weakest line on the lower face due to the torque exerted. This would open a fracture 7 mm wide at 42 km back from the face if the ice did not yield anywhere except at the fracture so, for example, if the ice bent 90% of the required amount to relieve stress throughout its length then it would open a fracture 0.7 mm wide. This would need structural analysis to figure it out properly. ------------------------------ The line from the centre of the tsunami origin to the centre of the Larsen C ice shelf is at an angle close to perpendicular at Larsen C so SLR would have been applied across a large width of the face simultaneously. The only significant contraindication is that it appears that a straight line across the ocean from the centre of the tsunami origin to the centre of the Larsen C ice shelf might be interrupted by the western edge of Queen Maude Land, in which case there would be no direct wave front across all of the centre of the Larsen C ice shelf but only the portion of the original wave that spreads southwards. Update: Looks like a southern diversion of only 20 degrees of arc from Queen Maude Land coast, so not much, and that diversion looks to make the arriving ripple even more perpendicular at Larsen C. ------------------------------ Extrapolating back in time from the fracture distance increase between 2010-11 and 2015-10 indicates a fracture date of 2002-05 which is 2.5 years before the tsunami so it doesn't support the December 2004 date strongly but given the uncertainty in that method it doesn't rule it out (perhaps there was some initial length of fracture before it started increasing).
Nice explanation of a topic which is both, interesting and shocking. This video helps everyone understand how all these developments are connected to each other, without having to be a glaciologist ;)
The West Antarctic Rift System (WARS) is one of the major active continental rifts on Earth. In 2017, geologists from Edinburgh University discovered 91 volcanoes located two kilometres below the icy surface, making it the largest volcanic region on Earth.
I have put a reminder on my calendar 5 years from now to remind me to check where the ice shelf is. If this is as good as the last many times we had this kind of sea level rising predictions in the past I would not put too much money on this being correct. I was a kid in the 80s, I have been through 3 cycles of "the earth will burn in 10 years, cities will be swallowed by the sea by year 2000" etc. then after 2000 it was we have to do something before 2012 sea levels will rise, the world will burn, etc. still we are very close to whatever normal we had before. No end of the world for another 10 years or so! Otherwise this is a great video, keep the good work!
Same here, still remember the fear porn of the 70's and 80's about global cooling and the coming ice age. Almost overnight it changed to global warming.
I am reminded of the scene in the 1st Star Wars movie where Luke says he is not afraid of the Dark Side and Yoda says "You will be!" We aren't afraid yet either, not really. But we will be.
I think that's why Johnson was getting pissed up every day during Christmas. He just thinks that it's all too feckin late to reverse or stop this process. I tend to agree.
Well done diving into this area of active and practical research Dave... this was an excellent presentation. There was also a good one at COP26 of the same topic, not in the economics and business section WG3 area of the COP, the politically motivated zone, but the youth, indigenous, scientific and activist XR zone; you know it, it's the one where the real future lies. Thanks for an excellent unpicking of the subject
Common sense says that since the Thwaites glacier is melting and breaking up as fast as it is, it's only sensible to believe that ALL of the Earth's Ice is melting and breaking up as fast as well. So don't be surprised if we're in a state of abrupt sea level rise quite soon. God be with you all.
Actually the sea ice extent in the Arctic was the highest in 18 years in 2021. 2 dozen ships had to be rescued in November with ice breakers. There are subglacial volcanoes now active near the Thwaites glacier. My guess a big contributor. Perhaps the gentleman presenting here is not aware of that.
To be clear, the "grounding line" of Thwaites in pictorial at 0:19 is 10.4% of the way back from the bottom of that pinkish outline and the scale is way off because instead of the widest part inland being the 2.0x the TEIS ice shelf+tongue+melange width shown there it's actually 6.7x as wide (800 km vs 120 km for the TEIS ice shelf+tongue+melange width). The distance back inland is scaled correctly. Also its thickness varies from 100 m at the ocean where the cliff bits break off to 500 m at the grounding line to ~3,500 m thick (just very approximately) at its centre part. It thickens super massively as it moves inland and the minuscule 0.13% of it that's the floating ice shelf is simply the outlet from the valley 120 km that Thwaites is trying to flow & push through. Thwaites is highly constrained in a deep inland bowl behind the ridge, pushing through the valley, and cannot "slide into the ocean" or "collapse into the ocean" as some ignorant idiots have babbled, and must steadily flow (just like thick toothpaste) and crumble away over time, maybe a couple hundred years, that sort of thing, and probably will. Anyway, the ocean is only ~500 m deep (it's a shelf) so the ice averaging 2,550 m can't slide up onto it and if it instantly collapsed onto it then it's just sit there melting away for more than century as a little island of ice next to Antarctica. Morons everywhere you look.
Quicker, faster, rapid, accelerating… Who knew change could happen so quickly? Evidently anyone who bothered to comprehend the data freely available. Excellent summary, as per usual.
Thanks for a clear view on what's coming, as we still are far too slow in stopping CO2 emissions. Still seen by too many as a super longtime issue, disrupting their profit ideas. Even the moving-Jakarta message does not open many eyes. We could but we choose not to because ......... Is what we all voted for due to short-term ....... = Me, me, let's deny and forgetting we, we help and care and ... Please do not give up to grow understanding we all need to change much faster
Eric Rignot's recently is waaaaaay better. In this one I see no naked mermaids at all and hear no Rock acoustic guitar music. There's "sufficient" and then there's "superb".
This illustrates how volatile the climate situation is. When there is talk of emission targets for 2030 and the like, we may be missing what could be disruptive events on a shorter time scale. This is concerning and frightening. We need to keep working toward our ecological goals, but it looks like we need to work harder, and make some tough decisions.
Are these animations original? If so, wow your channel quality is great (and it's great even if they weren't). I'm a researcher and have toyed with the idea of giving science videos a go (not too seriously mind you). But it's videos of this quality that make me realise there's no need!
LOL.I decided already in 90's NOT to buy coastal real estates just because of this. And when Middle Finland started having similar winters than South Germany 20 years ago it just enforced this feeling.
Very interesting - many thanks. At this rate, I might live long enough to see the things I've been warning about for decades actually happening! Rather mixed emotions on that though...
Anyone who has grown up in a country that has winter ,has worked out doors ,relied on winter for part of their "work year" fully understands just how quick ice can disappear. While the science is complicated the basics are not. Ice disappears fast ,even when temps hover around the freezing point. Good video again thank you
It's not the first time it's been open ground and ice free, I think it's important to remember that before people get excited. The earth isn't in trouble, we are. That's also important to remember. If you are genuinely concerned about the climate 'crisis' maybe you should have a word with all the volcano around the planet and tell them to stop, I suggest going to Tonga first. But wait! If we have a big volcanic eruption that throws up enough dust to block the sun for a couple of years (it's happened plenty of times) then all the ice will return and people can rejoice!! FYI human artifacts are being recovered from the ground where ice has receded so let's not get carried away just yet... 👍
I feel like we need a "climate apocalypse survival guide" and I feel like you should write it. Where are the safest places to live, what are the best crops to grow... I've already moved my family to England, smack in the center in West Yorkshire, but what do I do when Tesco runs out of food? When millions upon millions of refugees flee the flooding and fires and there's not enough for everyone? It really feels like the time for prevention has passed. If the imbeciles in government we're going to do something they would have decades ago. It is time for preparation and I don't know what to do. Please make a series on the subject.
It's (the floating shelf) 514 metres thick at its grounding line tapering back to ~300 metres thick at its face (52 km further out to sea). I suppose the reason it thins towards the face is because it's been sitting on the melty (special scientific word) water 30 years or so longer than the bit that only left the grounding line 3 years ago or so, rather than being thinner because it flows like toothpaste (like the huge thick glacier behind it does).
We have all heard that one before. And when 5 years comes and goes and the ice shelf is still there, this video will be long forgotten and most likely removed from RU-vid.
I'd thought that at first until I thought about it a bit properly and it looks to be too thick to let the ocean get under it more than a trickle. The reason it flows much faster is that the flow the flow is proportional to thickness**3 at its edge so as the ice thickens from 500 m to 2,500 m as its front retreats its flow will increase by a factor of 5**3 = 125 times as fast. I think there's something missing though because glaciologists keep talking about 3x as fast or 6-7x as fast or 10x as fast but never any more than that so I think what happens is the height lowering at the face as it flows means the face never ends up more than say 1,000 m high so then it's flowing 2**3 = 8x as fast with that example. It's that sort of thing anyway. Remember that the ice near the face is always "float higher" like you said because that what the floating ice shelf is, it's just the glacier end bit (the final 50 km out of 500 km total length for Thwaites) that's lost its grip on the sea bed at the grounding line and is floating from there out. I suppose it'll always have a floating ice shelf but it'll widen out and flow much faster, also crumble faster.
@@grindupBaker the fact that it’s an ice shelf means there is ocean under it. Also melt water bores Cryoconite holes in land ice too and runs in rivers underneath.
Not for nothing! but 1 day ago a volcano/earthquake happen in Tonga, in about 11 hours later waves were hitting the west coast of N/S America's causing a lot of damage, to me it shows what a small world we live in. so that the cause-and-effect 1/2 way around can happen in less than 1/2 day
Funny that a continent that lies on the pole can have east and west parts. I would have thought there was only North-Antarctica and South-Antarctica, not East- and West-Antarctica.
Yes, it is a strange thing isn't it. I think it's just to keep things simple. The west side is broadly pointing towards South America, while the east is on the Indian Ocean side.
Martin Stent, I had to chuckle when I read your post, an interesting viewpoint you have. Since everything is basically North of the South Pole I suspect that it's just a work-around to divide the continent with the International Dateline and divide it into East and West so we can talk about the differences between the two sides/pieces of it. I don't actually know if the Dateline was used to divide it, probably the obvious dividing line would be the split between the two geologically disparate, though unequal, halves of the continent. Thanks for the chuckle.
Military budgets worldwide must be vastly reduced, and redirected towards the survival of the species. Plant a victory garden for yourself and the local wildlife. Peace, happiness to all beings everywhere.
The basin of the Thwaites glacier is more great than what has been displayed. But the Thwaites glacier is dwarfed by other ice-streams like the Denman glacier (1,5 m sea level rise equivalent), the Totten glacier (5 m sea level rise equivalent) or by the Lambert glacier. 2) The ITGC is doing a great job in monitoring and characterising Thwaites glacier. But their studies lack a crucial element : what happened in the past? The team THOR drilled sediments cores, is analysing and interpreting them. At this time, there is no preliminary results except that the message displayed by the cores is puzzling and confusing. The goal of their work is to establish the chronology and the spatial extent of the retreat of Thwaites during the Holocene following the deglaciation of Antarctica, the sediments beneath a glacier, an ice-shelf and in open sea having different properties. But the picture, according to one of THOR team principle investigators, Julia Wellner, is complex. Apparently, the vision of a Thwaites glacier gently retreating to its current position is no longer viable. What is interesting is what happened to the other side of WAIS, I mean the ice-streams of WAIS feeding Ross Ice-shelf. Indeed, for a long time, glaciologists have felt that these ice-streams had had a complex story. A serie of drillings in the ice and in the sediments beneath the ice, which were carried out 200 or 300 km behind the current grounding lines, have shown that at some stage of Holocene, these places were not under ice but under an Ice-shelf. A recent publication in The Cryosphere (Neuhaus et al. The Cryosphere 2021, 15, 4655) revisited the datations and asserts that the ice-streams from WAIS retreated relatively recently during the Holocene and readvanced afterwards, with some apparently readvancing during Christian era. As the Ross ice-shelf didn't break, the authors are attributing the retreat to the circulation of relatively hot water masses under Ross ice-shelf. But if these ice-streams retreated while being some hundred of kilometers from open ocean, what happened to the Pine Island and the Thwaites glacier which are directly exposed to the ocean? Logically, they must have responded to the oceanic stimulus at least in the same manner. The team GHOST of ITGC is sampling rocks on nunataks at various altitudes and is evaluting the duration of exposure of these rocks to cosmic rays, this giving the date at which the rocks were outside ice (i.e, Johnson et al. The Cryosphere, 2021, doi :10.5194/tc-2021-360) due to the retreat of the ice-streams. Now they are drilling in ice to sample rocks on the nunataks in order to see if these rocks were exposed during past before being covered again. The big problem with this methodology is that for Thwaites glacier the nunataks which are sampled are 200 km across on either side of the Thwaites glacier. So, it's going to be difficult to get meaningfull results. The only way to answer this question properly would be to drill in the ice behind the grounding line of Thwaites glacier and sample sediments as it has been done for the ice-streams feeding Ross Ice-shelf. One problem would be to have enough financial means to drill through something like 2000 m of ice. As there are also some subglacial lakes under Thwaites glacier, it would be interesting to get samples of water and sediments to establish the philotype of these lakes and measure in this way the time since they are under ice. These drillings and the results associated would be usefull to constrain (i.e. Rignot et al, The Cryosphere 2018, 112, 3861) the modelisation of Thwaites glacier retreat. As a matter of fact, glaciologists and other members of ITGC are no more considering the retreat of the glacier as ‘‘irreversible’’. Which opens the possibility of slowing down the processus of retreat, or even reversing it.
I'm interested in "glaciologists and other members of ITGC are no more considering the retreat of the glacier as ‘‘irreversible’’". Do you just mean high ground further inland to be studied or something else ?
I already knew this but you've astonished my curiosity and theory's. So 10-15ft sealevel rise all around the worlds populated coastal line's.🖖 Great video
The way the planet is increasing volcanic activity its a new ice age i worry about,13000 years ago there was 2 miles of ice where my house is. But it is a sign and a big one that the planet is getting too warm and its no coincidence we are seeing all these volcanoes erupt.
My wife worked in an environmental agency and they said coastal areas will start suffering those effects in 2035, miami is already having flood issues do to it.. for 2050 most coastal cities will have serious flood issues if they are lively at all...
Maybe you should add to your content that seawater is densest at 4C degrees. This physical fact forces warmer water to occur at the deepest sections, hence the reason why the water is warmer under the glacier than it is on the surface. The under glacier temperatures should be compared to previous historical temperatures, but not to the surface due to the temperature gradient difference. That's like comparing apples to oranges. On the other hand, historically, the temperatures under the glacier were colder due to to the fact that the overall water temperature of the oceans was colder than it is now. Cheers.
Are you sure about the "physical fact" that "seawater is densest at 4C degrees"? That 4C value is for pure water, but the salt that is part of seawater shifts the temperature of maximum density down to lower temperatures.
@@helmutwalle2105 Yes you're correct. Seawater can be colder than fresh water, and will freeze only below zero temperatures. Freezing point of seawater varies with salinity concentration, and pressure. But the fact remains that densest seawater is warmer than its freezing point temperature. Therefore I am not surprised the water under the glacier is warmer than the frozen water on the surface. That is why it is crucial to compare the temperatures under the glacier to historical values. Unfortunately this is not possible since the drilled test hole was done recently. I am sure the water is getting warmer due to warming of the climate, and the advancement of climate change is faster and greater than the optimistic and myopic views of mainstream media.
So solving for the root cause of climate change is critical - and I am seeing that it is possible it could happen quickly…but we definitely need a plan to handle some of these symptoms as I’m pretty sure the change will take a lot more than 5 years. i see a conga line of tugboats harvesting these calving glaciers and towing to their eventual destination - land-locked empty aquifers and dry lake beds in the driest areas of the world - probably completely crazy due to the scale of the problem - but that’s all I’ve got for now 😂
And that would take a massive amount of logistics to carry out. Almost every country would have to provide boats, equipment, people, etc. that would cost billions.
Geology tells me that where I am sitting right now was once under around 60' of water- as the seagull flies I am about 45kms in land from Botany Bay. Go for a walk in the Simpson Desert or the Tanami Desert and you can collect sea shells. It was late 2014 or early 2015 that active underwater volcanoes were discovered at the edge of Antarctica warming the water around them and melting the under sides of the ice sheets. Combine all of that with the alteration of the ocean flow created by the man-made islands in the China Sea, the ocean flow controls the winds around the Globe. So it is no surprise to me that the ice sheets and the glaciers within the Antarctic are melting.
It was 2014, I remember when it came out. Quite surprising a report could be done on any glacier on the southwest coast of Antarctica and not mention the subglacial volcanoes that are warming the warming??? I'm just a casual observer and have known about this for almost 8 years. Sea level has risen 400 feet in the last 20,000 years, the earth routinely undergoes massive changes.
"@Monique Kova You typed "The study authors calculated that the volcano buried underneath the Pine Island Glacier released at least 2,500 megawatts of heat to the glacier in 2014, which is about 60% of the heat released annually by Iceland’s most active volcano and roughly 25 times greater than the annual heating caused by any one of over 100 dormant Antarctic volcanoes" and that is (FINALLY, AFTER CONTINUED SENSIBLE COUNTER-ARGUMENT & PRODDING BY THE EXCELLENT SCIENCE-INTERESTED "Decimus Rex") a statement that, as I keep posting all over the place to you socio-political-only-wealth-interested-only-with-ZERO-science-interest clowns, a clear FINALLY-QUANTIFIED statement that volcanic heat (all geothermal heat in fact) is so utterly negligible regarding both the full millennial historical ice loss (balancing snow) and the increase started a couple of decades ago that's making Antarctica lose ice mass. You shot yourself in the foot by finally coming out with the heat that you were incorrectly considering "significant". Here's the numbers with yours that you approve of included verbatim. I'll assume 150 Antarctica volcanoes for your quoted "over 100 dormant Antarctic volcanoes". You have that 2.5 GW for Pine Island Glacier is "roughly 25 times greater than the annual heating caused by any one of over 100 dormant Antarctic volcanoes" so for the 150 volcanoes plus the Pine Island one it's 17.5 GW total for Antarctica, and that is negligible heat as I've been telling you army of clowns clearly for 9 years now. That UTTERLY-MEASLY 17.5 GW melts only 1.68 billion tonnes of ice per year. It's an absolute pittance. Since that's the FULL volcanic heat and not the increase (the "anomaly") there's no such thing as a direct comparison with the huge total solar input nor with the large Earth heating anomaly caused entirely by the human-caused increase in IR-active gases (because there hasn't been any INCREASE at all in the volcanic heat) but here's an idea of just how picayune is volcanic heat for the benefit of any impartial science-interested person browsing past (since my comments over 9 years are, obviously, never ever actually to whichever random wealth-only-no-science-interested troll-parrot I'm nominally responding to simply because there would be no point whatsoever ever because not even a single one of them will ever have any ACTUAL interest whatsoever ever in the science that they PRETENDED they were interested in. I totally permanently gave up actual debate attempts with you utterly-worthless bunch 7 years ago after 24 months of a few thousand hours of study and actual debate). Here are the quantities: Full regular Increase since amount 1980 ----------------- ------------------------ 503 +1.14 w/m**2 of heat into the ocean (all but the Increase goes straight out again) 0.0013 Zero w/m**2 of volcanic heat averaged over Antarctica 14,000,000 km**2 0.073 Zero w/m**2 of regular geothermal non-volcanic heat for Antarctica using an average crust+lithosphere thickness of 34 km to the 1,300 degrees base. 1.9 * 1,300 / 34,000 = 0.073 0.0743 Zero w/m**2 of total geothermal + volcanic heat for Antarctica 2,200 +200 Billion tonnes of annual ice (almost entirely) & water discharge from Antarctica 1.68 Zero Billion tonnes of annual ice melt from volcanoes + geothermal non-volcanic heat in Antarctica, very little of which gets to the ocean and causes mass loss (stays as water on Antarctica). As any impartial science-interested person who might browse past one day clearly sees from the indisputable quantities above, including the approved & hralded quantities of the standard troll-parrot "Monique Kova" the TOTAL volcanic heat effect is utterly negligible at only 0.84% of the INCREASE in ice loss over the last couple of decades and, since a full steady historical geothermal heat source shouldn't be compared with an INCREASE in ice loss over a eye blink of time, the volcanic heating contribution is a jaw-droppingly minuscule 0.076% of the causes of ice loss (which is entirely faster winds & warmer ocean water and is absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with volcanoes). (Aside: My comments assigning 0.1% not 0.076% to volcanoes are around the GooglesTubes on the topic like Potholer54 and other science ones and did the 0.1% in my head in 5 minutes without using a calculator)".
Fortunate, then, that the Antarctic has just had its coldest 6 months ever and its sea ice has continued to grow as it has done over the last 40 years or so.
That is weather. And warmer water makes for faster glaciers and hence more sea ice, as already explained. The real worry is those warming ocean waters. But hey if it's all going to be fine you should publish, there's probably a Nobel in it for you.
Its always a good thing to keep informed of these happenings. The downside is only a certain political demographic partakes. While the other group just ignores it.
They say theres a huge movement coming to revert things to a certain extent... you can be part of it somehow if you want ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-hyT-6qiubd0.html
20k earth wobble we don’t understand , sun cycles we don’t understand, places on earth switching from jungle to desert before we even were here , glaciers growing, literally just coastal cities will have to change . We were dumb for building there anyway . Point is we don’t know and our planet is always changing . If it had an ice age it probably had a heat phase too .
Something I see over human history: 1. We don't come together until an event has happened, and now we MUST do something about it. It has to be both things. 2. We will all but ignore it when it is predicted to happen. 3. We will not respond immediately when it does happen, but rather we seem to wait for a test of 'how bad is this ...exactly' 4. Even when we do begin to move to deal with the problem, we are met with resistance from competing idealistic groups a. Those that don't believe in the problem due to scientific illiteracy, abject stupidity, willful ignorance, faith-based contradictions in world view b. Those that don't benefit from a solution c. Those that reject human interference of any form (e.g. utilitarian pacifists) d. Those that see solutions as causing to many harmful side-effects. "The solution is worse than the problem" e. Other The point is, we won't act until it is too late. We won't attempt to fix the mistake. We will live in this severe weather laden, high oceanic level having, total ecosystem collapsed world as best we can until we get sick of dealing with the consequences, and begin to put forth effort to make things right again. So I'd guess, we will deal with global warming in about 200 to 300 years.
That much freshwater dump into the sea could trigger snowball earth too. I seen a study how too much freshwater and salt water can cause a climate affect that can cause the earth to eventually go into a freeze and even wiping out all sea life that relies on Saltwater
Highlighting the importance of fresh water management everywhere else on Earth and the economic prosperity that will result from the rapid expansion of the agricultural base
Economic prosperity that will result from the rapid expansion of the agricultural base ? I don't study human stuff, I find the supposed mechanics of that fascinating.
As a child in Northern Ontario, each spring i would play 'sail boat' on a temporary lake in the empty blocks behind our house. Each morning the 'lake' would get bigger and bigger until at a certain point......I would wake up to see the whole lake gone! The ice dam that was golding it back for weeks was gone and no more sail boating! Could a sudden shift in Antarctica cause rapid ice loss and sea level rise over a few months or years??? -Concerned.
No. It doesn't work like that. There are 2 formulae for the ice loss (1) The flowing like toothpaste formula (2) The crumbling formula. The flowing like toothpaste formula has 4 metres rise each century (so 1.6 inches each year) after all ice shelves have gone from the 50 or so glaciers that have ice shelves (only 3 of 50 have collapsed so far in the last few decades). The crumbling formula is only fast for a very few glaciers that slope down into bowls and in the worst case it would destroy Thwaites & Pine Island Glaciers entirely over 500 years, not in your "a few months or years". This is the proper science rather than the inane babble everywhere and the actual scientists know this general time range perfectly well but they communicate it to the public very poorly indeed.
I love it when scientists perform some new spectacular measurement, and then shout "melting much faster than normal." No baseline. Only a claim that fits an alarm narrative.
In 2007 Noble Laureate Al Gore predicted the artic to be ice free by 2014. What happened? How many Jets at the climate conference in Scotland ? P.T. Barnum had it right "There's a sucker born every minute".
Clear and concise as usual. Perhaps more information on how the pinning point stabilises the ice. This shelf will fragment to the grounding line within 12 mths. in my opinion, then we get massive ongoing ice-cliff collapse.
It's a high point in the sea bed, jams the ice so pushes back against its flowing. Trivially simple. The blancmange doesn't push back at all, too wobbly, but is waaaaaay tastier.
A Truth - Professor Of Physics Al Barlett, Univ of Colorado, Boulder - "The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function”
The cold surface of Antarctica is leading to more ice melt as clearly explained correctly in this video which you couldn't even be bothered to see/hear before trolling it.
@@grindupBaker I watched all of it. Sure enough, the need to mention a warm previous summer, but not even a mention of last year's record cold. I know when I've won an argument, as the losers always reply with insults. 🤣
Dooms Day glacier indeed.... To use the Aussie vernacular 'We're all rooted'! Seems like all the past information, the miss information and the inaction has brought us to a point where the brakes have worn out, the handbrake is ineffective and we are now just in for the ride to see what happens. Not much we can do now...
