'World's most dangerous glacier' could cause catastrophic sea level rise, study warns

Fox News ^ | July 9, 2019 | Chris Ciaccia

[SkyDancer]

Well actually the ice displaced the space and the water just filled in around it, when the ice melts it just fills in that space vacated.

[Henchster]

Let’s do some simple math to show these global alarmists that they are completely full of sh!t:

First off, it is “settled science” that there are about 326 million-trillion gallons of water in the world’s oceans. The average depth of the world’s oceans is about 12,000 feet.

Let’s say this glacier is 100 miles long, 100 miles wide, and a mile thick. At that size it represents about .000000007 of the ocean’s volume of water.

.000000007 of 12,000 means that if a glacier this size completely melted, and none of the water was absorbed by the ground, the ocean level would rise about 1/1000 of an inch.

In other words, this potential catastrophe would not even be measurable by even the most sophisticated instruments. Even if it was 100 times this size, it would still not be noticeable increase in sea level.

My question is: Do these idiots even take five minutes to figure out that all the BS they are spewing is so easily debunked?

[Gay State Conservative]

I specifically mentioned New York City a) because I visit often and b) because Central Park,in particular,has strong scientific evidence of having been covered by a glacier thousands of years ago. Google it if you have some free time...I've done so and find the story quite interesting.

Of course it seems very possible that many parts of North America were once covered by glaciers...including the Rockies!

[Tucker39]

Roger that.

[fieldmarshaldj]

Should nuke it from orbit, just to be sure.

[freedumb2003]

[VanShuyten]

“Nuttin’. Ice contains more air than liquid water does. That’s why it floats. ”

You goof. Ice floats because it’s less dense than water. It matters little if there is a little air trapped in it.

[TigersEye]

They were more than mere glaciers. At least as we know them today. They were vast ice sheets.

[Calamari]

So wait, are rising temperatures causing glaciers to retreat or grow? I'm confused.

Either is good for the cause. Glaciers that remain essentily the same is bad for the cause of climate change!

[<1/1,000,000th%]

The conclusion to the paper:

"To fully capture the complete range of possible Antarctic futures, we will need efficient methods for uncertainty quantification and model order reduction that captures the complexities of ice sheet dynamics."

The authors still need to develop methods to determine if the ice sheet is unstable. At least they've figured out how to get grant money.

Maybe fewer assistant professors in their study group?

[5th MEB]

But don’t forget, most of the glaciers in Antarctica are actually sitting on a LAND mass.
Your experiment only holds true when the ice is sitting in the water already.
I still think the article is full of BULL EXCREMENT, didn’t see any real reason the glacier should just all of a sudden let go.

[5th MEB]

Didn’t you know that the dinosaurs raced their four wheelers and SUV’s around your neck of the woods?

[5th MEB]

NAH, they just build dikes like in Holland.

[simpson96]

Run in circles!

Scream and shout!

[SkyDancer]

Yeah, I was thinking iceberg at the time. My guess, which is just as good as the evolutionists’ guess, is there was just a finite amount of water at the creation of the earth in either gaseous, liquid, or solid and it just moves around in those states neither losing or gaining “extra” water.

[Svartalfiar]

A glacier in West Antarctica, known as "the world's most dangerous," could completely melt away and cause a rapid and "catastrophic" sea-level rise, a new study warns.

Right.
Ocean area of the planet: 335MM km^2
Antartic ice volume, per Wikipedia: 26.5MM km^3

So, to make the math simple and assume all the ice is land ice, use all the ice, not just the West Antarctica glacier, and assume ice volume = water volume, we get 26.5 / 335 to give us a height is all of the ice is spread amongst the oceans: .079km, 79m, or 260ft.
The West Antarctic Ice Sheet is, per wikipedia, about 10% of the mass of antarctic ice. so now, we're down to a max 26ft sea rise.
Oh, and apparently a large portion of the WAIS has bedrock under sea level, and a bunch of it is free-floating sheet. That'll cut our potential sea rise to what, maybe ten feet? At most? Over how many years? 500? 2000?

But wait, there's more: the average temps in Antarctica vary from 14 degrees on the coast, to -76 degrees in the mountains. So to even get a decent amount of that to melt and actually give a sea level rise, we need the Earth to warm up by at least, what, 20+ degrees?

[Innovative]

The aeticle says:

“NASA JPL scientist Helene Seroussi, who worked on the study along with Robel, said that the glacier could lose all of its ice over the next 150 years. “That would make for a sea level rise of about half a meter (1.64 feet),” Seroussi added in the statement.”

[ro_dreaming]

Balding_Eagle wrote:
The glacier is on land, not in the water, so a melting glacier will cause a rise in water levels.

That’s *IF* all the melted water goes into the ocean. As you know, water finds its level - so any divot can become a pond or a lake, perhaps a stream or a river, too.

[ro_dreaming]

Water finds its level - so could be new ponds, streams, rivers, or even lakes. It may not reach the ocean.

[Svartalfiar]

Ah, so they’re even less catastrophic than my rough guess.

Either way, I’ll start believing all this crap when the elites stop buying ocean-front property...