Thwaites glacier

duncan61 wrote:What happens is it snows on the glacier which turns to ice then the weight and gravity push the glacier down the hill its parked on.Simple stuff

duncan61 wrote:Watched an interesting show on the Thwaites Glacier which has raised a few questions.

duncan61 wrote:There are a group of people who are determined to prove were all F%^&*d.They have given up on The Arctic as it just refuses to melt away like it is supposed to so lets spend a pile of money down the other end

duncan61 wrote:There are a group of people who are determined to prove were all F%^&*d.They have given up on The Arctic as it just refuses to melt away like it is supposed to so lets spend a pile of money down the other end

HarveyH55 wrote:
Welcome back... I still don't get the whole save the ice thing. Ice melts, no big deal, since there will be new ice in the winter. Not real sure that glaciers perform some vital function, other than as a sign the end is near.

gfm7175 wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
Welcome back... I still don't get the whole save the ice thing. Ice melts, no big deal, since there will be new ice in the winter. Not real sure that glaciers perform some vital function, other than as a sign the end is near.

It's almost as if these people cherry pick the "melting" instances and ignore (or otherwise dismiss) the "freezing" instances.

gfm7175 wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
Welcome back... I still don't get the whole save the ice thing. Ice melts, no big deal, since there will be new ice in the winter. Not real sure that glaciers perform some vital function, other than as a sign the end is near.

It's almost as if these people cherry pick the "melting" instances and ignore (or otherwise dismiss) the "freezing" instances.

IBdaMann wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
Welcome back... I still don't get the whole save the ice thing. Ice melts, no big deal, since there will be new ice in the winter. Not real sure that glaciers perform some vital function, other than as a sign the end is near.

It's almost as if these people cherry pick the "melting" instances and ignore (or otherwise dismiss) the "freezing" instances.

What I find strange is that in this case the issue is not that ice is melting but rather the opposite. Yes, the Thwaites glacier is a concern because there is way too much ice growing. Can you believe it?

Global Warming is causing the Thwaites glacier to have astronomially way too much ice. You just know the Climate schytt is about to hit the fan.

Yes, we are supposed to freak out ... because a glacier has a lot of ice.

gfm7175 wrote:Wow... so it's a bad thing when "too much" ice melts, but now it's also a bad thing if "too much" ice forms? Jeeze... WTH is the ice content "supposed to be" according to these twits...?

"Of course, there are challenges that come with studying unstable ice at the bottom of the world, and sometimes you must address them by blowing up things in Texas."

"Researchers at Sweden's University of Gothenburg are now saying that fears related to Thwaites's melting are worse than previously thought, owing to the supply of warm water flowing underneath at a rate underestimated in the past.

"The 21st century serves as an inflection point of acceleration of climate instability caused by human-generated greenhouse gases, as CO2 emissions increase well beyond the rate of the prior century.

Antarctica's Thwaites Glacier (100 miles across by 4,000 feet deep), aka: The Doomsday Glacier, labeled "A Climate Time Bomb" by research scientists is an ice shelf in West Antarctica that's nestled next door to the equally notorious Pine Island Glacier.

A new discovery at Thwaites is bone-chilling and nearly impossible to fathom. Thwaites is melting at key points that anchor it to land. The consequences of total release would be/will likely be earth-shattering as, and when, the 74,000 square mile ice block breaks lose, but even more earth-shattering yet, it could take down the entire West Antarctica Ice Sheet. That's 10+ feet of sea level rise!"

IBdaMann wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:Wow... so it's a bad thing when "too much" ice melts, but now it's also a bad thing if "too much" ice forms? Jeeze... WTH is the ice content "supposed to be" according to these twits...?

Just to be clear, I really don't know what the exact danger is because, as we both know, nothing is happening worth writing home about. All that matters is that we are expected to panic and fear. The details are irrelevant.

All the fear-mongers refer to the glacier's imminent "collapse." What is that supposed to mean? Never has a glacier collapsed. Glaciers don't collapse. They are born, they grow, they flow, they decline and they disappear ... all over a long period of time. However, all I can glean from perusing warmizombie paraphernalia is that this catastrophic collapse at Thwaites could have alarming effects on sea level rise worldwide.

On this exact point, I read this:

"Of course, there are challenges that come with studying unstable ice at the bottom of the world, and sometimes you must address them by blowing up things in Texas."

I can find no explanation of "unstable ice." What does that mean?

I can find no explanation of any relationship to Antarctic ice and Texas.

What (I merely believe is what) is being described is just one of the many geothermal vents deep under Antarctic ice that, believe it or not, melts the ice above and creates a big hole at the bottom of the ice. So, yes, there is ice that is melting. Yes, that hole can be the size of Manhattan. Yes, it still has a lot of ice atop that won't be going anywhere anytime soon.

Nonetheless, the Thwaites glacier has now been dubbed "The Doomsday Glacier." Doomsday. I think we're supposed to panic. The end of days is upon us. I just can't figure out how the world is going to somehow end except that this glacier will cause the ocean to rise and swallow us up ... I think.

I would be remiss to not mention this item:

"Researchers at Sweden's University of Gothenburg are now saying that fears related to Thwaites's melting are worse than previously thought, owing to the supply of warm water flowing underneath at a rate underestimated in the past.

So a previous math error is why fears are worse ... not that they are justified, just that they are worse.

I would be remiss to omit the following items from another key warmizombie newsletter:

"The 21st century serves as an inflection point of acceleration of climate instability caused by human-generated greenhouse gases, as CO2 emissions increase well beyond the rate of the prior century.

Antarctica's Thwaites Glacier (100 miles across by 4,000 feet deep), aka: The Doomsday Glacier, labeled "A Climate Time Bomb" by research scientists is an ice shelf in West Antarctica that's nestled next door to the equally notorious Pine Island Glacier.

A new discovery at Thwaites is bone-chilling and nearly impossible to fathom. Thwaites is melting at key points that anchor it to land. The consequences of total release would be/will likely be earth-shattering as, and when, the 74,000 square mile ice block breaks lose, but even more earth-shattering yet, it could take down the entire West Antarctica Ice Sheet. That's 10+ feet of sea level rise!"

So the amazing growth of the Thwaites glacier is what makes it such a threat because it is so vast that when it all melts next week, really bad math indicates that we are all doomed.

Correct me if I am somehow mistaken but I am pretty sure that gravity is what "anchors" Antarctic ice to the land, and I don't think gravity is going away anytime soon.

I'm not going to pretend to know what they are implying. It's all gibber-babble.

IBdaMann wrote:
All the fear-mongers refer to the glacier's imminent "collapse." What is that supposed to mean? Never has a glacier collapsed. Glaciers don't collapse.

duncan61 wrote:The new terminology covers all bases."ITS MELTING 6 TIMES FASTER THAN IN 1960"As we have no idea of the melt rate in 1960 its 6x0 which is zero.A lot of people believe its all true and use it in conversations.

IBdaMann wrote:

duncan61 wrote:The new terminology covers all bases."ITS MELTING 6 TIMES FASTER THAN IN 1960"As we have no idea of the melt rate in 1960 its 6x0 which is zero.A lot of people believe its all true and use it in conversations.

My problem is figuring out how the Thwaites glacier managed to grow so large and increase so much in ice mass all the while it was melting 6-times faster than in the 1960s.

The Thwaites glacier is the ominous threat that it is simply because of its sheer magnitude/size, having grown at an accelerated rate over the past few decades. How did this happen if it was actually melting so amazingly fast?

... or is it, as you say, the case that there is no melting (6 x 0 = 0) and that there is really no threat of any kind?

James___ wrote:Quit sounding like a Republican.

James___ wrote:This might be the daily double of climate change.

Alex Trebek (from the grave): It's time for the DAILY DOUBLE!
IBDaMann: I'll take Climate Change for $500, Alex.
Alex Trebek: It might have flown through the Ozone Hole and gained more mass by cooling, allowing for increased geological activity beneath the supporting tectonic plate as amplified by the Van Allen belt.
IBDaMann: What is the Norwegian Jet Stream?
Alex Trebek: That is correct!
IBDaMann: It's pretty basic, Alex. It's all right there in Almanac of South American Seismic Trivia.