Posted on 07/09/2019 4:02:03 PM PDT by Innovative
Not only that, it’s going to COMPLETELY melt (according to the article), and yet dump a “never ending” flow of ice into the ocean. Neat trick!
Whatever might happen, it is a sure thing that the writing here is almost on the same level as the local TV news reporter who just told us “ *xyz* has rode into town.”
Now as to what might actually happen, I’m going to guess that the ice would soften at higher temperatures and might flow more quickly from land into the sea, where it would then cause a sea level rise initially by displacing seawater (much like adding ice cubes to a glass of water raises the level in the glass). Eventually, or maybe fairly quickly - the rapidity depends on several variables - the ice breaks off (”calves” in the more dramatic versions) and forms icebergs, or just melts. In this scenario it eventually all melts, but I suppose new ice would still be forming on land and flowing down to the sea. I suppose that’s the “never ending flow of ice”: It’s still a bit of a stretch to call it that, though!
It should also be pointed out that if the glacier is at the tipping point now, well, the last interglacial period peaked at significantly higher temperatures than THIS trigger. Ditto for most (but not all) previous interglacials. That is, this is most likely a normally recurring natural event. Worst case, according to the scientists, we accelerate it, and have “only” 200 - 600 years to prepare / adjust. I suspect the situation will be less dire, but, even if there is a 1-1/2 meter sea level rise in 200 years (worst of the worst case), if mankind can’t handle that, I submit that we don’t deserve to be running the place!
Quick-we need a picture of Goebbels wearing a parka…
Glaciers calve icebergs because their mass growing from more snow. If it warms up, they retreat and stop calving.
Glacier 101
If I’m not mistaken, didn’t there used to be a mile of ice over Chicago?
Could...not will.
I could win the lottery is a lot different than will win the lottery.
The level of certainty is what is at issue.
See Post #4
I’m personally way more concerned about the Guam capsizing.
Too bad the part of the glacier over Chicago had to melt.
This is so absurd. The volume of ice is greater than the water that is frozen. The volume of ice needed to raise the water level on a global scale doesn’t exist.
They have claimed that there was 2-3 miles thickness of ice in the CO Rockies ... right over where I am currently sitting enjoying 78 degree temps.
It melted. A long time ago. Before the wheel.
Yes glaciers are on land. Why won’t the land absorb some of the water? And 70% of earth is covered by water. Are we talking about water displacement by floating ice, or are we talking about melting ice? How many feet of ocean rise and over what period of time.
And aren’t glaciers also always moving, anyway?
In any case, the earth’s history is filled with calamities. The tectonic plates are constantly shifting. Seas rise. Mountains form. The last big quake in Japan moved the whole country 8 feet west. The Mediterranean sea was once very small then it flooded - and took many primitive coastal communities with it that are still being discovered by researchers underwater.
Whether glaciers melting, which I gather happens after every ice age, has anything to do with human development I have no clue. Nor am I sure it matters. We are far better off as a species with our development than we were before it. And we’ll figure out more efficient and cleaner ways to make things.
Damn, so called “scientists” these days think they’re living in some kind of Hollywood disaster film.
We can hope.
So people on the coasts move inland a few miles - big deal.
When water freezes, it expands. So, by definition, a 1 ton glacier has more mass than 1 ton of water - they may weigh the same, but the physical size is different. So, if 1 ton or even 100 ton iceberg melts, it’s not going to raise the sea-level anything. The sea-level has already accounted for that mass.
The glacier is on land, not in the water, so a melting glacier will cause a rise in water levels.
Not that I believe this crazy theory.
Only if the ice is already in the water.
They are saying that this ice is on dry land and as it melts it will flow into the ocean, so there will be more water in the ocean and the water levels will rise.
Those in the middle of the country will have oceanside property, those on the beach will have underwater property.
Of course this may never happen or it may not be as severe as the predictions.
Nuttin’. Ice contains more air than liquid water does. That’s why it floats. As ice melts, that air is released into the atmosphere. Technically, glaciers are not even pure ice. They are compressed snow. So they contain even more air than ice does. Melting glaciers do not have a one for one effect on sea levels.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.