If the glacier is flowing off of the continent into the sea, then sea ice is in an equilibrium between melting at the edges and bottom and being replenished at the middle.
demands huge melting we don’t see
“See” how? It seems to me that you don’t have an involved understanding of the melting of glaciers. If we could measure the mass of the Antarctic glacier straightforwardly, then I’m sure we’d agree on the meaning of changes in that mass. But if we don’t see the particular melting process you expect, perhaps you’re just expectung the wrong process, and haven’t uncovered a conspiracy among all the experts.
Much smaller numbers, popular now
In my experience, actually reading the ipcc review has never been popular and still isn’t. I’m sure you could still find someone in the press claiming larger sea level rise, if you tried. But why pick the easiest opponent?
Across the frozen sea around most of Antartica even in the summertime?
I’m not sure if you’re actually curious, or if you think this is a “gotcha” question.
Here’s a picture. As the glacier flows outward (here’s measured flow rates), it begins floating on the sea and becomes an ice shelf, which then loses mass to the ocean through melting and breaking up into pieces, which then melt. This ice shelf is thick (100m − 1 km scale), because it’s a really thick sheet of ice being pushed out into the water by gravity. It then encounters the sea ice, which is ~1-4 meters thick. The sea ice gets pushed out, or piled up, because there are no particular forces holding the sea ice in place.
At this point I’m tapping out of the conversation. Either you’re ignorant but curious and there’s no point to me typing up things you could look up, or you want to feel superior while remaining ignorant and there’s no point to me typing up things you don’t care about.
That picture is silly. The deep-cold freshwater continental ice flowing into the ocean and melting there in the icy waters, but the 1-4 meters thick salty ice survives the Antarctic summer?
Actually, there are a few places on Antarctica, where glaciers flow into the ocean, but not very fast at all. And where is the heat to melt −40 degrees cold ice, 2000 cubic kilometers per summer? It is not only the question of the heat but the question of the heat transfer.
I think, most people still believe that picture anyway. Most people here, I guess, too.
Much smaller numbers, popular now, still demands huge melting we don’t see really
Perhaps, but:
If the global temperature continues to rise over the next century, then the rate of melting will be higher at the end of the 100 year period than it is now
In addition to Antarctica, Greenland has a significant (~ 2,850,000 km3) ice sheet. Melting of the Greenland ice sheet will also contribute to sea level increases
If the global temperature continues to rise over the next century
If. Then we might see something spectacular. But we need A LOT of warming, to actually warm up and melt that ice.
In addition to Antarctica, Greenland has a significant (~ 2,850,000 km3) ice sheet.
Fine, you’d need one Amazon on Greenland and only two Amazons for Antarctica. Doesn’t compute as well.
Imagine a summertime Greenland Amazon! It should be 3 Amazons really in that 1⁄3 of the year. The melting season is short.
We most certainly DO NOT see anything like that. By far!
Physics (or arithmetic) is almost boring here. The mass psychology of “the 97% percent of the scientific community” and of a large part of the public is very interesting. They keep seeing sea rising. Magically, since there are no such rivers to provide all that water. The number of icebergs around Greenland is at least 100 times too small to substitute one Amazon during the whole year or 3 Amazons in the summertime.
How many liters per meter per second in icy waters? After the sea ice has already melted away? Which never does in most places?
Told you, The Inconvenient Truth by Al Gore.
Much smaller numbers, popular now, still demands huge melting we don’t see really.
If the glacier is flowing off of the continent into the sea, then sea ice is in an equilibrium between melting at the edges and bottom and being replenished at the middle.
“See” how? It seems to me that you don’t have an involved understanding of the melting of glaciers. If we could measure the mass of the Antarctic glacier straightforwardly, then I’m sure we’d agree on the meaning of changes in that mass. But if we don’t see the particular melting process you expect, perhaps you’re just expectung the wrong process, and haven’t uncovered a conspiracy among all the experts.
In my experience, actually reading the ipcc review has never been popular and still isn’t. I’m sure you could still find someone in the press claiming larger sea level rise, if you tried. But why pick the easiest opponent?
Across the frozen sea around most of Antartica even in the summertime?
No conspiracy, I agree. Some lack of basic arithmetic skills only.
I’m not sure if you’re actually curious, or if you think this is a “gotcha” question.
Here’s a picture. As the glacier flows outward (here’s measured flow rates), it begins floating on the sea and becomes an ice shelf, which then loses mass to the ocean through melting and breaking up into pieces, which then melt. This ice shelf is thick (100m − 1 km scale), because it’s a really thick sheet of ice being pushed out into the water by gravity. It then encounters the sea ice, which is ~1-4 meters thick. The sea ice gets pushed out, or piled up, because there are no particular forces holding the sea ice in place.
At this point I’m tapping out of the conversation. Either you’re ignorant but curious and there’s no point to me typing up things you could look up, or you want to feel superior while remaining ignorant and there’s no point to me typing up things you don’t care about.
That picture is silly. The deep-cold freshwater continental ice flowing into the ocean and melting there in the icy waters, but the 1-4 meters thick salty ice survives the Antarctic summer?
Actually, there are a few places on Antarctica, where glaciers flow into the ocean, but not very fast at all. And where is the heat to melt −40 degrees cold ice, 2000 cubic kilometers per summer? It is not only the question of the heat but the question of the heat transfer.
I think, most people still believe that picture anyway. Most people here, I guess, too.
Perhaps, but:
If the global temperature continues to rise over the next century, then the rate of melting will be higher at the end of the 100 year period than it is now
In addition to Antarctica, Greenland has a significant (~ 2,850,000 km3) ice sheet. Melting of the Greenland ice sheet will also contribute to sea level increases
If. Then we might see something spectacular. But we need A LOT of warming, to actually warm up and melt that ice.
Fine, you’d need one Amazon on Greenland and only two Amazons for Antarctica. Doesn’t compute as well.
Imagine a summertime Greenland Amazon! It should be 3 Amazons really in that 1⁄3 of the year. The melting season is short.
We most certainly DO NOT see anything like that. By far!
Physics (or arithmetic) is almost boring here. The mass psychology of “the 97% percent of the scientific community” and of a large part of the public is very interesting. They keep seeing sea rising. Magically, since there are no such rivers to provide all that water. The number of icebergs around Greenland is at least 100 times too small to substitute one Amazon during the whole year or 3 Amazons in the summertime.
I am sorry, the arithmetic is just crucial.