At the current rate of retreat the vast glaciers, which extend deep into the heart of the ice sheet, could contribute as much as 3.4 metres to global sea level rise over the next several centuries.
Antarctica is covered by two huge ice masses: the East and West Antarctic Ice Sheets, which feed many individual glaciers. Because of the warming climate, the WAIS has been thinning at accelerated rates over the past few decades. Within the ice sheet, the Thwaites and Pine Island glaciers are particularly vulnerable to global warming and are already contributing to rises in sea level.
Now, a new study led by the University of Maine and the British Antarctic Survey, including academics from Imperial College London, has measured the rate of local sea level change – an indirect way to measure ice loss – around these particularly vulnerable glaciers.
They found that the glaciers have begun retreating at a rate not seen in the last 5,500 years. With areas of 192,000 km2 (nearly the size of the island of Great Britain) and 162,300 km2 respectively, the Thwaites and Pine Island glaciers have the potential to cause large rises in global sea level.
“These currently elevated rates of ice melting may signal that those vital arteries from the heart of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet have been ruptured, leading to accelerating flow into the ocean that is potentially disastrous for future global sea level in a warming world. Is it too late to stop the bleeding?”
During the mid-Holocene period, over 5,000 years ago, the climate was warmer than today and thus sea levels were higher and glaciers smaller. The researchers wanted to study fluctuations in sea level since the mid-Holocene, so studied the remnants of old Antarctic beaches, which are today elevated above modern sea level.
They examined seashells and penguin bones on these beaches using radiocarbon dating – a technique that uses the radioactive decay of carbon locked in the shells and bones as a clock to tell us how long they have sat above sea level.
When heavy glaciers sit on the land, they push down or ‘load’ the Earth’s surface. After the glaciers’ ice melts or ‘unloads’, the land ‘bounces back’ so that what once was a beach is now higher than sea level. This explains why the local sea level for this land fell, while globally the water from the melting ice caused global sea levels to rise.
By pinpointing the precise age of these beaches, they could tell when each beach appeared and therefore reconstruct changes in local, or ‘relative’, sea level over time.
The results showed a steady fall in relative sea level over the last 5,500 years, which the researchers interpret as a result of ice loss just prior to that time. This pattern is consistent with relatively stable glacier behaviour with no evidence of large-scale glacier loss or advance.
The paper is published in Nature Geoscience.
As soon as I see the wealthy beginning to sell their beachfront property, I remain little concerned
If UD becomes a Climate Alarmism organ, I’m gone.
Andrew
The demons seem to be returning to their old fave “climate” emergency. This is annoying but not NEARLY as torturous and holocaustal as the “virus” emergency. If this means no more lockdowns and distancing and muzzles and needles, I’m all for it.
ICESAT Data Shows Mass Gains of the Antarctic Ice Sheet Exceed Losses
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/10/icesat-data-shows-mass-gains-of-the-antarctic-ice-sheet-exceed-losses/
Antarctic Ice Mass — Alternate Sources
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/10/06/antarctic-ice-mass-alternate-sources/
etc.. etc..
https://wattsupwiththat.com/?s=antartic%20gains%20ice
Dirt and soot on glaciers cause them to melt even when the ambient temperature is below freezing. It’s part of the albedo effect.
I’m with you, Andrew.
To Andrew and Belfast- climate alarmists have the sea levels rising 3.4 meters in decades, not several centuries.
“decades, not several centuries”
ET,
Decades or centuries… it hardly matters. The headline and story is alarmist.
Andrew
It’s not alarmist if it’s true. And of course, decades or centuries matter. There isn’t any alarm over several centuries.
“It’s not alarmist if it’s true.”
ET,
What’s true? Some guesstimated rate over 5,500 ago? You cannot be serious, dude.
Andrew
No, Andrew. The 3.4-meter sea level rise in several centuries.
The last great ice age, which we are still in, started waning about 11,000 years ago. Great ice ages come and go leaving Earth free of ice when they are gone.
Suppose it is true – so what? How does that serve the Intelligent Design Community?
Don’t answer that – I’m not up for a month of definitions and philosophical musing and pondering the Question of Evil; nor the spectre of warnings of famine and ‘environmental refugees’.
Let the cobbler stick to his last
Where today’s environmentalists go completely off the rails into ‘environmental radicalism’ is that they, as a primary premise in their arguments, view man, not as the pinnacle of God’s creative acts on earth, but instead view man as a accident of nature, even as a parasite on the earth, and also hold industry as being a very ‘unnatural’ act of man.
Yet, these primary presuppositions that environmental radicalists hold are simply not true.
When looking at the evidence objectively, we find that the earth gives every indication of being prepared in advance, i.e. ‘terraformed’, for billions of years by God for a technologically advanced civilization to appear.
Hugh Ross has done excellent work in this area of research.
As well, Michael Denton’s work in this area, i.e. “Defending the Anthropocentric Thesis”, also deserves a honorable mention.
Moreover, Darwinists simply have no clue why man is gifted, above all the other creatures on earth, with a unique ability to ‘master the planet’ simply by infusing ‘immaterial’ information into material substrates.
Leading evolutionary scientists themselves admit as much,
Thus basically, the atheistic belief behind the global warming hysteria, (i.e. the belief that man, or more particularly the technologically advanced civilization of man, is ‘unnatural’, even parasitic), is a fearful, fallacious, belief that simply has no real evidential basis in reality.
Moreover, the supposed scientific evidence for global warming itself, contrary to what the media constantly tries to claim, is very suspect.
In fact, it is no exaggeration to say, “Money Dictates Climate Science”
Thus in conclusion, contrary to what the far left believes, man is not a ‘accidental parasite’ on earth, but was intended by God to be here.
Moreover, only the Biblical view of creation gives us the proper and correct understanding of our place in nature and, while the Biblical view encourages us to be good stewards of the environment that God has given us,,,,
,,, while the Biblical view encourages us to be good stewards of the environment that God has given us,
the Biblical view of our place in nature does not fall victim to the radical environmentalism that threatens to impoverish, and literally starve to death, a very large percentage of humanity.
Though environmentalists may want to live in a utopian world where no industry, airplanes, and/or cars exist, I can assure you that if their utopian vision ever became a reality, and they themselves had to personally face the very real consequences of their utopian vision, they would be singing a VERY different tune!
The world would be a very different, and a much, much. harder place for man to live without ‘intelligently designed’ industry to help us along.
“The 3.4-meter sea level rise in several centuries.”
ET,
This is the kind of thing you hold to be true? Chicken Littleism for hundreds of years later? What a joke.
Andrew
For those interested, I highly recommend “Fossil Future” by Alex Epstein. It goes into detail all the implications of using/not using fossil fuels. And the actual details of climate change. Though the particular Antarctic ice sheet is not covered.
Some here will like it because it is by a philosopher who goes into epistemology and uses a non religious basis for morality.
Why a philosopher? Because he uses truth and it’s implications to evaluate the area of climate. This is his second book on the topic and shows how a smart person can evaluate anything. Especially the lies and the techniques used to distort what is really happening. Ring any bells on something else.
Essentially he is saying the climate change advocates are selfish and are deniers of the effects of what their recommendations will do especially to the poor.
Andrew- learn how to read.
Belfast:
The intelligent design community is interested in scientific findings that pertain to the Earth.
Jerry: “Some here will like it because it is by a philosopher who goes into epistemology and uses a non religious basis for morality.”
Since God actually is the basis of objective morality, exactly how is that ‘non-religious’, i.e. philosophical, basis for objective morality suppose to work?
As former atheist, turned christian, CS Lewis succinctly stated,
of note:
As Ms. Piggy would say, “all for moi?” Quite the extravaganza, but “miraculous efficiency?” Really?
“This explains why the local sea level for this land fell, while globally the water from the melting ice caused global sea levels to rise.”
It doesn’t explain jack squat.
Andrew
CD: “but “miraculous efficiency?” Really?”
Well CD, if you disagree, prove Dr. Ross wrong and go ‘intelligently’ create a planet, ‘one richly layered with the biodeposits necessary for civilized intelligent life’, more efficiently.
Of note:
“This explains why the local sea level for this land fell, while globally the water from the melting ice caused global sea levels to rise.”
The more I think about this stupid statement, the stupider it becomes. So the local sea level fell, but rose everywhere else?
Andrew
So maybe next time Eric can post something about what’s missing from the story in the OP. You know, actually investigate coulda woulda shoulda claims.
Andrew
Actually make logical sense.
Land rose so apparent coast line fell. The weight of glacier/ice sheet suppressed the land. The weight is gone so land rose up some.
Maybe opposite effect is happening to Manhattan. All the buildings are pushing land down so it might appear the water is rising.
“Land rose so apparent coast line fell.”
Jerry,
How much did it rise? Does the story say?
Andrew
I have no idea.
The OP just said it did rise.
“I have no idea.”
Jerry,
Well, the story doesn’t say. It doesn’t say how it was measured. Apparently, that bit of info isn’t important to the story, if you know what I mean.
Andrew
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-glacial_rebound
It’s a well known and well studied phenomena. Why didn’t you just look it up?
“It’s a well known and well studied phenomena.”
Well-measured?
Andrew
Asuaber: Well-measured?
You could actually read the article and find out for yourself, make up your own mind.
But if you’d rather have me tell you what to think I can do that.
“You could actually read the article and find out for yourself, make up your own mind.”
Read through it. It’s not well-measured.
Andrew
Asauber: Read through it. It’s not well-measured.
So, why did you ask me?
“So, why did you ask me?”
JVL,
I kind of asked it rhetorically. Wasn’t expecting a reasonable dialog with you.
Andrew
Asauber: I kind of asked it rhetorically. Wasn’t expecting a reasonable dialog with you.
Thanks for the vote of confidence.
BA77/23
I don’t think Ross is necessarily wrong in his rendition as far as it goes, I just don’t see it as “miraculous efficiency.” Rather, it seems like an awfully circuitous route just to create a couple people…..
CD, so you don’t want to ‘intelligently’ create a planet capable of supporting ‘advanced’ life more efficiently than God did? 🙂
Please don’t be so modest. 🙂
,,, The ‘anthropic principle inequality’ originally comes from Brandon Carter,
Moreover, Dr. Ross’s main point is that the ‘anthropic principle inequality’ strongly indicates that the universe had us in mind all along,,, as the end goal as it were.
This ‘miraculous efficiency’ for the universe in producing a planet capable of supporting an ‘advanced civilization’ is simply not to be expected under naturalistic presuppositions. Specifically, it smacks of teleological, i.e. end directed, purpose which is strictly forbidden under naturalistic presuppositions.
And Dr. Ross is not alone in his observation that this is a very ‘lucky’ coincidence
Supplemental notes falsifying the Copernican principle and/or the ‘principle of mediocrity’,
Verse:
So, where did all this ice come from anyway?
And what happened 5,500 years ago to cause the same thing to happen?
And what would be the effect if all Arctic ice melted?
Is climate stasis even a reasonable goal?
FWIW, I think that the number three threat after a nuclear exchange by insane dictators, the largest threat to the earth’s biome continues to be massive rates of deforestation and desertification.
The number two threat is climate scientists intervening with the the earth’s climate and accidentally wiping out life on earth. Remember that some of them in the 1960s proposed to forestall a predicted ice age by setting off nuclear weapons at the poles . . .
-Q
ET@19
“ The intelligent design community is interested in scientific findings that pertain to the Earth.”
You’re joking, of course, or reaching way out to find a hook.
If you are not, then it it to be supposed that we will have meteorite collision scares, earthquake news, volcano warnings, drought, floods – the potential list of topics is gargantuan.
Intelligent design, generally speaking, deals with evidence of design found in life, primarily, and just behind, evidence of design in the formation of the universe. This necessarily deals with aspects of materialism, cause, evolution, and consciousness. Other topics can find a place in the fringes but theoretical predictions of sea-level rises is not one of them.
Belfast @40,
Let me assure you that ET understands ID and is not joking.
ID does not, generally speaking, have a mission of finding evidence of design in life or the origin of the universe.
ID is simply the presumption of design in contrast to the presumption of random materialistic interactions out of which life “musta” come about.
That ID is superior to materialism is based solely on pragmatism, namely that the presumption that all living things and their components have a designed purpose advances science faster than assuming everything is “junk” until proven otherwise. So-called “junk” DNA and “vestigial” organs are two excellent examples.
From the start, ID has not taken a position on the source of that design. If it makes you happy, you can assume it’s Gaia or a class project at some extraterrestrial university.
-Q
BA77/38
Like KF, you seem bent on reading more into my comments than is there. I’m not contrasting “design” with naturalism or materialism. Rather, I’m saying that your omnipotent God is surely capable of creating an Eden for a couple human beings without the elaborate and wasteful runup…..
CD: “you seem bent on reading more into my comments than is there. I’m not contrasting “design” with naturalism or materialism.”
And then in the very next sentence he states,,,
CD: “Rather, I’m saying that your omnipotent God is surely capable of creating an Eden for a couple human beings without the elaborate and wasteful runup…..”
To point out the blatantly obvious, to argue against Judeo-Christian Theism is to, by default, to argue for some other worldview, whether it be naturalism or materialism, (and/or Deism, Pantheism).
Yet, the scientific evidence simply does not support any of those worldviews, but rather supports the Judeo-Christian worldview which holds that God created the earth and everything on it, not instantaneously as CD is trying to hold, but over a period of time, i.e. ‘six days’.
Thus for CD to ‘theologically’ presuppose that God should have created Eden, basically, instantaneously, (without a ‘wasteful runup’ as he termed it), is for CD to argue against a position that Judeo-Christian Theism never held.
In short, CD is employing what is known as a straw man fallacy in that he is arguing against a position that I never held.
Of related note:
Podcast:
First three parts of the interview with Dr. Denton are here
Book
A couple relevant facts about glacier formation.
First: Glaciers are formed sometimes hundreds of miles from the calving that is the most visible part of a glacier. Snow fall is what forms glaciers and the snow levels at the accumulation area of a glacier have more to do with how big the glacier is than anything else.
Second: The Antarctic is one of the driest areas on earth. There is little snow fall each year and considered the largest desert on earth. So the accumulation is extremely slow.
I spent about 2 months in Antartica and there was a movie available about it called I “Desert without Sand.” However, there are some interesting areas that are extremely barren with little ice called the Dry Valleys.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_Hh0q6KsmE
belfast- ID is about the detection and study of design in nature. Accordingly, the Earth is intelligently designed. So, we study it so we can understand it. Pretty simple, actually.
The article focuses on the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS), which is indeed melting/shrinking. However, the Eastern one is apparently growing, as BA-77 alludes to. Articles at wattsupwiththat.com suggest that the WAIS melting is at least partly caused by increased volcanic activity in that area – a purely natural effect – rather than human produced CO2 and “climate change”.
However, when every storm, flood, drought, hot spell, or unusual weather is blindly attributed to “climate change”, which itself is assumed to be entirely caused by human CO2 emissions, it is no wonder that this article makes the same assumption.
For any climate change “alarmist”, I have two questions:
– when has the climate not been changing?
– when was the climate ideal and how do you know?
If you cannot answer these questions then how can you say that “climate change” is a bad thing?
For more, see: https://thopid.blogspot.com/2020/11/climate-change-revisited.html
per post 44: