Posted on 09/24/2004 12:01:10 PM PDT by TChris
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Some of Antarctica's glaciers are melting faster than snow can replace them, enough to raise sea levels measurably, scientists reported on Friday.
Measurements of glaciers flowing into the Amundsen Sea, on the Pacific Ocean side of Antarctica, show they are melting much faster than in recent years and could break up.
And they contain more ice than was previously estimated, meaning they could raise sea level by more than predicted, the international team of researchers writes in the journal Science.
"The ... Amundsen Sea glaciers contain enough ice to raise sea level by 1.3 meters (4 feet)," the researchers wrote in their report.
"Our measurements show them collectively to be 60 percent out of balance, sufficient to raise sea level by 0.24 mm (nearly 0.01 inch) per year," they added.
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
Why let the facts get in the way of a good story.
Even with that, the water level still wouldn't rise, but level out to the lower land area.
It would not be great, because it would almost certainly mean widespread human death. Global warming, by contrast, would make the Earth generally more hospitable to life than it is now, as evidenced by the fossil record.
It has long been my opinion that the observed changes in Earth's climate are due to changes in the sun.
think of the ocean like a glass of coke with ice. if they ice melts does the glass overflow? neither will the atlantic.
True, but another ice age would shut the global warming fanatics up.
Especially the really strident greens here in NY that claim that SUV's are evil and no-one should own one, and then drive home in their SUVs..
*chuckle*
D'oh!
You notice that the climate 'norms' seem to shift eastward, like the monsoon rains that used to hit certain parts of Africa in historic past are no longer hitting there?
Wonder why exactly that would seem to be.
Probably all driven by the sun, since it's output isn't constant.
And Earth's orbit itself varies slightly, sometimes more circular than other times.
(Supposedly according to mid 80's science classes.)
With variables such as solar output and Earth's natural cycles, how can anyone seriously say that mankind can effect climate?
(Short of destroying most of the planet in nuclear conflict?)
Measurements of glaciers flowing into the Amundsen Sea, on the Pacific Ocean side of Antarctica, show they are melting much faster than in recent years and could break up.
Ah, more of the usual crap from journalists who know squat about any of the physical sciences. Someone correct me if I'm wrong here, but the continental landmass of Antarctica is below freezing all year - it's just even nastier in the winter. Now, the ice does flow and it's possible that it's flowing faster than it is accumulating, which would say more about patterns of moisture and precipitation than it would about temperature.
If they continue to flow into the ocean faster than they're accumulating, then that would represent a net gain of water volume to the ocean, which would could increase sea levels if not balanced out somewhere else. Call me skeptical, though, but these appear to be pretty short-term observations, there may be cycles in play that we don't know about, and it has yet to be proven that there is any such thing as global warming caused by a "greenhouse effect" - a colourfull metaphor which doesn't accurately describe the physical processes at work.
For the land-based ice the land under the glacier would rebound. However, land is about 3X the density of water so it would rebound about 1/2 as much as the volume of ice melted and the bed of the oceans would subside 1/2 as much as the water would rise. This would increase the volume of water in the oceans more than the ocean bed would equally accomodate. So the ocean will rise, not to the full volume of the ice, but to about 1/2 the volume of the ice. Floating ice when it melted would not have an effect on ocean level, as you noted.
"the once hot and fiery caldera on MT St, Helens is now covered in 600 feet of ice"
pepperdog wrote:
Really? Are you joking or is it really snow cover now??
yes ice....
From: USFS Volcano Review, Summer 2002, contribution by Charlie Anderson, Director of the International Glaciospeleological Survey
In the unique laboratory of Mount St. Helens, scientists that study glaciers and glacier caves are observing and documenting a newly formed glacier. Over the last 21 years, snow, ice and rock debris have accumulated behind the Lava Dome to an average depth of 100 meters (325 feet) thick. The snow has been stacking higher each year compressing the past years' snow into a dense crystalline ice body, as deep as 190 meters (600 feet). Giant cracks in the ice, called crevasses, and other flow features, indicate that the ice body is transforming into a glacier. Scientists, known as Glaciospeleologists, have been studying the movement and growth of the glacier as it creeps around both sides of the Lava Dome, flowing north.
http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/Volcanoes/MSH/Glaciers/description_msh_glaciers.html
>>by 0.24 mm (nearly 0.01 inch) per year," they added.<<
1/100th of an inch! Wow that's drastic!
Except for bismuth.
BenchMark Glaciers (US)
Wolverine, Alaska 1966-2003 .2 meter net loss
Gulkana, Alaska 1966-2003 .02 " " "
South Cascade, 1953-2002 .55 " " GAIN
Washington State
3 Glacier Mass Balance Summary, USGS
s
BTTT!!!!!!!
/sarcasm
SOS..."same old ...er...'stuff'..."
Yes, but that doesn't work for Antartica because the ice there is allready sitting on mountain tops.
P.S. But you are correct, floating ice will not raise the level of the water. If anything, it will decrease because water takes up more volume when it is frozen.
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.