Melting ice in Antarctica and the problem for sea level rise worldwide.
 

Potentially very bad news.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/e...ust-got-worse/

Melting ice in Antarctica and the problem for sea level rise worldwide.
 

On Tuesday, March 17, 2015 at 4:38:34 PM UTC, Dawlish wrote:
Potentially very bad news.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/e...ust-got-worse/

The idea that sea levels are higher in the Antarctic due to the gravitational pull of the ice is an interesting one. I've not come across that before.

Col

Melting ice in Antarctica and the problem for sea level rise worldwide.
 

On Tuesday, 17 March 2015 18:17:19 UTC, wrote:
On Tuesday, March 17, 2015 at 4:38:34 PM UTC, Dawlish wrote:
Potentially very bad news.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/e...ust-got-worse/

The idea that sea levels are higher in the Antarctic due to the gravitational pull of the ice is an interesting one. I've not come across that before.

Col

Its the mass Col and if that's true we should see higher sea levels on the south west coast as the sea is drawn towards the Dawlish Ego.

Otherwise the ice mass loss on Antarctica is just another load of piffle from the prancing purveyors of so called doom. Co2 represent 5% of apparent greenhouse cases and has never in known climate history shown a correlation between increase and warming as it always lags behind atmospheric pressure..

The funny thing with Antarctica is that these people told us the Antarctic peninsula was melting fast, it was the canary in the AGW coal -mine (that bloody coal again) and was doomed but this actually shows the cold canary is chirping away and has brought some mates in to help with the chorus

http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/GLBhy...sstnowcast.gif

Melting ice in Antarctica and the problem for sea level rise worldwide.
 

On Tuesday, March 17, 2015 at 8:36:01 PM UTC, Lawrence Jenkins wrote:
On Tuesday, 17 March 2015 18:17:19 UTC, wrote:

The idea that sea levels are higher in the Antarctic due to the gravitational pull of the ice is an interesting one. I've not come across that before.

Col

Its the mass Col and if that's true we should see higher sea levels on the south west coast as the sea is drawn towards the Dawlish Ego.

It doesn't sound unreasonable though. The oceans do not of course form a level surface equidistant from the centre of the earth,rather it can vary by many 10s of metres dependent on the underlying density and thus gravitational pull of the underlying rocks. Likewise I imagine the pull of major land masses such as the Himalayas/Tibetan plateau also play a part. But of couse the Himalayas aren't going away any time soon, the Antarctic ice may disappear far quicker, well geologically speaking at least.

Col

Melting ice in Antarctica and the problem for sea level rise worldwide.
 

On Tuesday, March 17, 2015 at 8:59:48 PM UTC, wrote:
On Tuesday, March 17, 2015 at 8:36:01 PM UTC, Lawrence Jenkins wrote:
On Tuesday, 17 March 2015 18:17:19 UTC, wrote:

The idea that sea levels are higher in the Antarctic due to the gravitational pull of the ice is an interesting one. I've not come across that before.

Col

Its the mass Col and if that's true we should see higher sea levels on the south west coast as the sea is drawn towards the Dawlish Ego.

It doesn't sound unreasonable though. The oceans do not of course form a level surface equidistant from the centre of the earth,rather it can vary by many 10s of metres dependent on the underlying density and thus gravitational pull of the underlying rocks. Likewise I imagine the pull of major land masses such as the Himalayas/Tibetan plateau also play a part. But of couse the Himalayas aren't going away any time soon, the Antarctic ice may disappear far quicker, well geologically speaking at least.

Col

Very true. Sea level is not the same at different locations worldwide. And the loss of Antarctic ice is almost certian to accelerate further.

Melting ice in Antarctica and the problem for sea level rise worldwide.
 

On Tuesday, March 17, 2015 at 8:36:01 PM UTC, Lawrence Jenkins wrote:
On Tuesday, 17 March 2015 18:17:19 UTC, wrote:
On Tuesday, March 17, 2015 at 4:38:34 PM UTC, Dawlish wrote:
Potentially very bad news.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/e...ust-got-worse/

The idea that sea levels are higher in the Antarctic due to the gravitational pull of the ice is an interesting one. I've not come across that before.

Col

Its the mass Col and if that's true we should see higher sea levels on the south west coast as the sea is drawn towards the Dawlish Ego.

Otherwise the ice mass loss on Antarctica is just another load of piffle from the prancing purveyors of so called doom. Co2 represent 5% of apparent greenhouse cases and has never in known climate history shown a correlation between increase and warming as it always lags behind atmospheric pressure.

The funny thing with Antarctica is that these people told us the Antarctic peninsula was melting fast, it was the canary in the AGW coal -mine (that bloody coal again) and was doomed but this actually shows the cold canary is chirping away and has brought some mates in to help with the chorus

http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/GLBhy...sstnowcast.gif

Again and as always, you show your ignorance about Antarctic ice. This is **sea ice** Larry, not overall ice in Antarctica. Geddit?? (nah, you believe what you want and get repeatedly laughed at for doing so).

Melting ice in Antarctica and the problem for sea level riseworldwide.
 

On 17/03/15 20:36, Lawrence Jenkins wrote:
On Tuesday, 17 March 2015 18:17:19 UTC,
wrote:
On Tuesday, March 17, 2015 at 4:38:34 PM UTC, Dawlish wrote:
Potentially very bad news.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/e...ust-got-worse/



The idea that sea levels are higher in the Antarctic due to the
gravitational pull of the ice is an interesting one. I've not come
across that before.

Col

Its the mass Col and if that's true we should see higher sea levels
on the south west coast as the sea is drawn towards the Dawlish Ego.

Otherwise the ice mass loss on Antarctica is just another load of
piffle from the prancing purveyors of so called doom. Co2 represent
5% of apparent greenhouse cases and has never in known climate
history shown a correlation between increase and warming as it
always lags behind atmospheric pressure.

The concentration of CO2 lags behind atmospheric pressure? Can you explain?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect

Melting ice in Antarctica and the problem for sea level riseworldwide.
 

On 18/03/2015 11:43, RedAcer wrote:
On 17/03/15 20:36, Lawrence Jenkins wrote:
On Tuesday, 17 March 2015 18:17:19 UTC,
wrote:
On Tuesday, March 17, 2015 at 4:38:34 PM UTC, Dawlish wrote:
Potentially very bad news.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/e...ust-got-worse/

The idea that sea levels are higher in the Antarctic due to the
gravitational pull of the ice is an interesting one. I've not come
across that before.

It is true enough. A few km depth of ice over a larger area.

Col

Its the mass Col and if that's true we should see higher sea levels
on the south west coast as the sea is drawn towards the Dawlish Ego.

Otherwise the ice mass loss on Antarctica is just another load of
piffle from the prancing purveyors of so called doom. Co2 represent
5% of apparent greenhouse cases and has never in known climate
history shown a correlation between increase and warming as it
always lags behind atmospheric pressure.

The concentration of CO2 lags behind atmospheric pressure? Can you explain?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect

I think the clueless denier is trying to say that warming happens first
and then the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere rises in response to
the decreased solubility of gasses in the warmer ocean. This is true
historically when the forcing came from changes in insolation (and it
remains true when the forcing comes from GHG). IOW a positive feedback.

What is true is that CO2 concentrations at in the Southern hemisphere
and especially at the South Pole lag those in the Northern hemisphere
and are considerably smoother than in the northern hemisphere where
there is a lot of high latitude arctic tundra. eg.

http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/sites/def...ta_records.png


High latitude summers may be very short duration but they are also
productive with long daylight hours. Makes the 71N curve very spiky.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

Melting ice in Antarctica and the problem for sea level rise worldwide.
 

On Wednesday, 18 March 2015 12:59:08 UTC, Martin Brown wrote:
On 18/03/2015 11:43, RedAcer wrote:
On 17/03/15 20:36, Lawrence Jenkins wrote:
On Tuesday, 17 March 2015 18:17:19 UTC,
wrote:
On Tuesday, March 17, 2015 at 4:38:34 PM UTC, Dawlish wrote:
Potentially very bad news.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/e...ust-got-worse/

The idea that sea levels are higher in the Antarctic due to the
gravitational pull of the ice is an interesting one. I've not come
across that before.

It is true enough. A few km depth of ice over a larger area.

Col

Its the mass Col and if that's true we should see higher sea levels
on the south west coast as the sea is drawn towards the Dawlish Ego.

Otherwise the ice mass loss on Antarctica is just another load of
piffle from the prancing purveyors of so called doom. Co2 represent
5% of apparent greenhouse cases and has never in known climate
history shown a correlation between increase and warming as it
always lags behind atmospheric pressure.

The concentration of CO2 lags behind atmospheric pressure? Can you explain?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect

I think the clueless denier is trying to say that warming happens first
and then the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere rises in response to
the decreased solubility of gasses in the warmer ocean. This is true
historically when the forcing came from changes in insolation (and it
remains true when the forcing comes from GHG). IOW a positive feedback.

What is true is that CO2 concentrations at in the Southern hemisphere
and especially at the South Pole lag those in the Northern hemisphere
and are considerably smoother than in the northern hemisphere where
there is a lot of high latitude arctic tundra. eg.

http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/sites/def...ta_records.png


High latitude summers may be very short duration but they are also
productive with long daylight hours. Makes the 71N curve very spiky.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown



I think what the hopeless AGW believer is trying to say is:

"How can I be wrong, me, the most intelligent man using this NG and some ignoramus like that person who I don't even want to mention his name, comes here and has the bald face cheek to say that none of the metrics for AGW are actually manifesting themselves. Why that idiot wouldn't be allowed to serve drinks at my club let alone be a member. Oh the riff raff, the lower classes, this is what happens when people do not obey their clearly superior masters and have the free speech to do so . They should be banned, nay flogged, twice nay, they should be burnt at the co2 free stake.

Oh I have no more to say to this grubby serf , he is beneath my station. I need a stiff brandy now, Garvey would you please pour me a glass and bring it to me in the library, at room temperature mind you or I'll dock your wages."

Melting ice in Antarctica and the problem for sea level rise worldwide.
 

On Wednesday, 18 March 2015 11:43:23 UTC, RedAcer wrote:
On 17/03/15 20:36, Lawrence Jenkins wrote:
On Tuesday, 17 March 2015 18:17:19 UTC,
wrote:
On Tuesday, March 17, 2015 at 4:38:34 PM UTC, Dawlish wrote:
Potentially very bad news.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/e...ust-got-worse/



The idea that sea levels are higher in the Antarctic due to the
gravitational pull of the ice is an interesting one. I've not come
across that before.

Col

Its the mass Col and if that's true we should see higher sea levels
on the south west coast as the sea is drawn towards the Dawlish Ego.

Otherwise the ice mass loss on Antarctica is just another load of
piffle from the prancing purveyors of so called doom. Co2 represent
5% of apparent greenhouse cases and has never in known climate
history shown a correlation between increase and warming as it
always lags behind atmospheric pressure.

The concentration of CO2 lags behind atmospheric pressure? Can you explain?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect

Of course the of ice core record could be wrong but it clearly shows co2 increases lagging behind the actual temperature rise and the same when cooling.


But the ice core record can't be wrong as its part of the 'settled science'.