If warming exceeds 2 C, Antarctica's melting ice sheets could raise seas 20 meters in coming centuries

If warming exceeds 2°C, Antarctica's melting ice sheets could raise seas 20 metres in coming centuries
During the Pliocene, up to one third of Antarctica’s ice sheet melted, causing sea-level rise of 20 metres. Credit: www.shutterstock.com, CC BY-ND

We know that our planet has experienced warmer periods in the past, during the Pliocene geological epoch around three million years ago.

Our research, published today, shows that up to one third of Antarctica's melted during this period, causing sea levels to rise by as much as 20 meters above present levels in coming centuries.

We were able to measure past changes in sea level by drilling cores at a site in New Zealand, known as the Whanganui Basin, which contains shallow marine sediments of arguably the highest resolution in the world.

Using a new method we developed to predict the water level from the size of sand particle moved by waves, we constructed a record of global sea-level change with significantly more precision than previously possible.

The Pliocene was the last time atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations were above 400 parts per million and Earth's temperature was 2°C warmer than pre-industrial times. We show that warming of more than 2°C could set off widespread melting in Antarctica once again and our planet could be hurtling back to the future, towards a climate that existed three million years ago.

Overshooting the Paris climate target

Last week we saw unprecedented global protests under the banner of Greta Thunberg's #FridaysForFuture climate strikes, as the urgency of keeping below the Paris Agreement target of 2°C hit home. Thunberg captured collective frustration when she chastised the United Nations for not acting earlier on the scientific evidence. Her plea resonated as she reminded us that: "With today's emissions levels, that remaining CO₂ budget [1.5°C] will be entirely gone in less than eight and a half years."

At the current rate of global emissions we may be back in the Pliocene by 2030 and we will have exceeded the 2°C Paris target. One of the most critical questions facing humanity is how much and how fast global sea levels will rise.

According to the recent special report on the world's oceans and cryosphere by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), glaciers and polar ice sheets continue to lose mass at an accelerating rate, but the contribution of polar ice sheets, in particular the Antarctic ice sheet, to remains difficult to constrain.

If we continue to follow our current emissions trajectory, the median (66% probability) global sea level reached by the end of the century will be 1.2 meters higher than now, with two meters a plausible upper limit (5% probability). But of course climate change doesn't magically stop after the year 2100.

Drilling back to the future

To better predict what we are committing the world's future coastlines to we need to understand polar ice sheet sensitivity. If we want to know how much the oceans will rise at 400ppm CO₂, the Pliocene epoch is a good comparison.

Back in 2015, we drilled cores of sediment deposited during the Pliocene, preserved beneath the rugged hill country at the Whanganui Basin. One of us (Timothy Naish) has worked in this area for almost 30 years and identified more than 50 fluctuations in global sea level during the last 3.5 million years of Earth's history. Global sea levels had gone up and down in response to natural climate cycles, known as Milankovitch cycles, which are caused by long-term changes in Earths solar orbit every 20,000, 40,000 and 100,000 years. These changes in turn cause polar ice sheets to grow or melt.

While sea levels were thought to have fluctuated by several tens of meters, up until now efforts to reconstruct the precise amplitude had been thwarted by difficulties due to Earth deformation processes and the incomplete nature of many of the cycles.

Our research used a well-established theoretical relationship between the size of the particles transported by waves on the continental shelf and the depth to the seabed. We then applied this method to 800 meters of drill core and outcrop, representing continuous sediment sequences that span a time period from 2.5 to 3.3 million years ago.

We show that during the Pliocene, global sea levels regularly fluctuated between five to 25 meters. We accounted for local tectonic land movements and regional sea-level changes caused by gravitational and crustal changes to determine the sea-level estimates, known as the PlioSeaNZ sea-level record. This provides an approximation of changes in global mean sea level.

Antarctica's contribution to sea-level rise

Our study also shows that most of the sea-level rise during the Pliocene came from Antarctica's ice sheets. During the warm Pliocene, the geography of Earth's continents and oceans and the size of were similar to today, with only a small ice sheet on Greenland during the warmest period. The melting of the Greenland ice sheet would have contributed at most five meters to the maximum 25 meters of global sea-level rise recorded at Whanganui Basin.

Of critical concern is that over 90% of the heat from global warming to date has gone into the ocean. Much of it has gone into the Southern Ocean, which bathes the margins of Antarctica's ice sheet.

Already, we are observing warm circumpolar deep water upwelling and entering ice shelf cavities in several sites around Antarctica today. Along the Amundsen Sea coast of West Antarctica, where the ocean has been heating the most, the ice sheet is thinning and retreating the fastest. One third of Antarctica's ice sheet—the equivalent to up to 20 meters of sea-level rise—is grounded below and vulnerable to widespread collapse from ocean heating.

Our study has important implications for the stability and sensitivity of the Antarctic ice sheet and its potential to contribute to future sea levels. It supports the concept that a tipping point in the Antarctic ice sheet may be crossed if global temperatures are allowed to rise by more than 2℃. This could result in large parts of the ice sheet being committed to melt-down over the coming centuries, reshaping shorelines around the world.


Explore further

W. Antarctica's crumbling ice sheet to redraw global coastline

More information: G. R. Grant et al. The amplitude and origin of sea-level variability during the Pliocene epoch, Nature (2019). DOI: 10.1038/s41586-019-1619-z
Journal information: Nature

Provided by The Conversation

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.The Conversation

Citation: If warming exceeds 2 C, Antarctica's melting ice sheets could raise seas 20 meters in coming centuries (2019, October 3) retrieved 17 October 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2019-10-antarctica-ice-sheets-seas-meters.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
4379 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Oct 03, 2019
20k years ago, sea levels were 120 meters lower than they are today. That means, over the course of everything that we know about human civilization, sea levels have been rising, and have risen by as much as 120 meters. That process didn't stop just because we decided to build billion-dollar cities by coastlines. Likewise, we couldn't shut down all our fossil fuel emissions in the next decade if we tried. We simply have too many and our lives as we know it are too integrated into fossil fuels to make such a drastic change so quickly. The world also doesn't have the money nor manpower to make such a drastic change in such a short time. Better learn to speak Atlantean!

I'd like to know how the world's oceans are supposed to have stored 90% of global warming, when air is inefficient at transferring heat to water. Ocean heating has to come mostly from sunlight, and only its rate of cooling could have changed much.

Oct 03, 2019
So, why is the AGW Cult still wasting billions digging into the ground to "prove" their "settled" climate "science", when they got crying Greta with the superpowers to SEE CO2 and into the FUTURE?
The moment the Cult can scientifically explain screaming Greta's superpowers, I'll be first in line to join their blind, ignorant Chicken Littles.

Oct 03, 2019
So if cooling exceeded 2 degrees would the ocean level fall 20 meters?

Oct 03, 2019
There have been quite a few articles on a really good science website called phys.org about how AI is being used to solve excess CO2. By 2050 humans will likely be able to control the climate.

Oct 03, 2019
Degrees in Biochem and Env Sci from UC Berkeley; graduated with honors in 2000.

In our energy and resources 102 class in 2000, we did a back of the envelope calculation of how high water can rise on Earth if all the water melted.

It is only 18-21 feet.

The author seems to be off by an order of magnitude of 3 ... did they mean ft?

Because they are wrong, there is not physically enough water on Earth to do this.

Oct 03, 2019
Hi maschoff. Current estimates are that if Greenland melted, we would have sea level rise of 23 feet. If Antarctica melts, the rise is about 200 feet. There is also a significant sea level rise associated with the expansion of liquid water volume due to increased temperature - this effect adds about 30% of additional sea level rise.

There is additionally a poorly-measured amount of water ice locked up in frozen soils.

Finally, the archeological record indicates that at several times in Earth's history the sea level has been up to 800 feet higher than today.

So I assume you only calculated for Greenland and nothing else.

Oct 03, 2019
There have been quite a few articles on a really good science website called phys.org about how AI is being used to solve excess CO2. By 2050 humans will likely be able to control the climate.

I am currently in an AI research group and I find that very unlikely. If anything, AI is making things worse due to the immense energy consumption required to train it.

Oct 03, 2019
There's no mention of the impact of mastodon flatulence and its' impact on global CO2 during the Pliocene era. Complete garbage article. The average mastodon emitted enough CO2 per month to equal the CO2 output of 10 jumbo jet flights between New York and London. Yet the authors did not account for this significant source of CO2. I question all of the other assumptions made based on this elementary oversight.

Oct 03, 2019
Sea level will undoubtedly rise. Republicans predictably will do nothing to change the trajectory - and it is likely that basic organic food products will at some point be ill suited to support life. My prediction is this will open a new market, that republicans will embrace - Mega yachts stocked with SPAM and vaping supplies....

Oct 03, 2019
nsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/4-peer-reviewed-studies-find-no-observable-sea-level-effect-man?fbclid=IwAR0fQ0ylR40Uq4SXKsXHZDnCmQ-NsVH_fhbbnx4upWZDIZzh2vnHJAwjtt4

Oct 04, 2019
So what if the oceans rise over "hundreds of years." Do you have an idea of where humans will be technologically in 200 years? You won't recognize us. We'll be on other planets by then, and likely capable of massive land reclamation project we can't even imagine yet. Look at where were were in 1819 and where we are now.

Oct 04, 2019
Thumper boyyyyy antigoracle sockyyyy....did your Saudi masters give you good hiding after the last week of hilariously stupid posts you posted yes ?? and now.. you coming back for some more ??

Not to worry that is why we are here for...
Dummy here looks into the crystal ball the saudi's gave him which is actually just a propaganda projector that fooled him into believing we will not be on earth within 200 years. Those banana drolls he is smoking isn't helping him see any more clearer either.

Oct 04, 2019
Justifying anything the imagination can create... using the word "could".

You know it's an alarmist fake news science article when the prediction uses the word "could".

Oct 04, 2019
Justifying your dumb comments could unfortunately for you not make those old brain cells work like new ones, Climate Change is real. despite what the boogey man tells you at night ;)

Oct 04, 2019
Justifying your dumb comments could unfortunately for you not make those old brain cells work like new ones, Climate Change is real. despite what the boogey man tells you at night ;)


It's NOT an ALARM.
Bankers still selling 30 year mortgages in Miami. You clown.

Oct 04, 2019
Get a glass of water. Put ice cube in water.... Ice melts and level stays the same.... Now do this on a large scale. Sea level is sealevel for a reason. It's flat . When will the sheep wake up ........

Oct 04, 2019
Get a glass of water. Put ice cube in water. Notice how the water level increases when the ice cube is placed in the water and the increased water level doesn't go back down even after the ice cube melts. Now do this on a large scale. Sea level is increasing for a reason. When will the sheep wake up? ;)

(Sea level is also increasing due to the warming of the oceans, but melting land ice is the main cause of the increase: https://www.resea...rise.pdf )

Oct 05, 2019
Justifying your dumb comments could unfortunately for you not make those old brain cells work like new ones, Climate Change is real. despite what the boogey man tells you at night ;)


It's NOT an ALARM.
Bankers still selling 30 year mortgages in Miami. You clown.

Yes it IS a BIG ALARM DUMB DUMB, YES only 30 years ?? When did they kick you out the Circus ?

Oct 05, 2019
Yes it IS a BIG ALARM DUMB DUMB, YES only 30 years ?? When did they kick you out the Circus ?


Fool, it's not an ALARM you're a numb skull.

Yes, 30 year mortgages in Miami you child, never heard of a 30 year mortgage? LOL

Oct 05, 2019
Yes it IS a BIG ALARM DUMB DUMB, YES only 30 years ?? When did they kick you out the Circus ?


Fool, it's not an ALARM you're a numb skull.

Yes, 30 year mortgages in Miami you child, never heard of a 30 year mortgage? LOL
Idiot yes it is BIG ALARM 30 years is nothing you Clown. Clearly make sense why they extended it by so little. Dumb Dumb you better get back to mommies basement and try focus those peas... ;) LMAO

Oct 05, 2019
Idiot yes it is BIG ALARM 30 years


30 years is nothing to an unaccomplished fool who knows basically nothing.

If you only used your brain for a living you might think straight.

Sea level is increasing for a reason.


At a very small rate, surely not an alarm. Why Miami is not a FEMA site.

Only ignoramuses claim an emergency, like that nova fool.

Oct 06, 2019
Idiot yes it is BIG ALARM 30 years


30 years is nothing to an unaccomplished fool who knows basically nothing.

If you only used your brain for a living you might think straight.
You Still trying to accomplish understanding any science, After so many decades yes ? If by now you can't understand it, i'd say its a definite lost cause, can't make 3 peas out of those 2 unfortunately for you ;) LOL

At a very small rate, surely not an alarm.


No at a BIG rate you incompetent old fool, 30 years is not even a blink of an eye, and by then it will be even worse. Focus those peas, i know it's hard but at least try.

Oct 06, 2019
You Still trying to accomplish understanding any science, After so many decades yes ?


You're a young meat head who's done nothing in life. No one should listen to you.

Oct 06, 2019
Fact is, things are better then ever before in human history.

But as for these readers, misery loves company.

, 30 years is not even a blink of an eye,


Plenty of time to WALK away from the shoreline.

Oct 06, 2019
@Old_C_Code

"Walk away from the shoreline"

It's not just the shoreline. Changing weather patterns affect everyone on earth: flooding, heat deaths, reduction in crop yields, scarcity of water, disease, increased energy demand.

Are you really that stupid to think 7.53 billion human beings can just walk away?

These are issues that always need to be addressed. When the overall temperature of the earth increases they will become far worse. And they will affect you as well.

What's your real goal here posting on phys.org?
What drives your passion to rally against science?

Are you simply misanthropic? If so don't rally against the science. Just simply say "I don't care if humans die or not"

Oct 06, 2019
@Old apparently has never owned property.

Oct 06, 2019
@Anonym322100
I have trouble believing a conscious human being actually wrote this:

"Get a glass of water. Put ice cube in water.... Ice melts and level stays the same.... Now do this on a large scale. Sea level is sealevel for a reason. It's flat . When will the sheep wake up ........"

Go pour yourself a glass of water. Go to your freezer and take out a bunch of ice cubes. Put one ice cube at a time in the glass of water. Come back and tell us what happened to the water level every time you put an ice cube in your glass of water.


Oct 06, 2019
"If warming exceeds 2 C, Antarctica's melting ice sheets could raise seas 20 meters in coming centuries"

-Or not.

Acadeemies are so hopelessly politicized, you cant believe a word they say.

Oct 06, 2019
"The Antarctic ice sheet is one of the two polar ice caps of the Earth. It covers about 98% of the Antarctic continent and is the largest single mass of ice on Earth. It covers an area of almost 14 million square kilometres (5.4 million square miles) and contains 26.5 million cubic kilometres (6,400,000 cubic miles) of ice.[2] A cubic kilometer of ice weighs approximately one metric gigaton, meaning that the ice sheet weighs 26,500,000 gigatons. Approximately 61 percent of all fresh water on the Earth is held in the Antarctic ice sheet, an amount equivalent to about 58 m of sea-level rise.[3] In East Antarctica, the ice sheet rests on a major land mass, while in West Antarctica the bed can extend to more than 2,500 m below sea level."
https://en.wikipe...ce_sheet

Is this politicized?

Oct 06, 2019
yes the antarctic will melt when its temp goes from - 49 to - 47 so hot !!

Oct 06, 2019
@Old apparently has never owned property.


I've bought two properties with cash in the past 20 years. Fool.

Oct 06, 2019
You Still trying to accomplish understanding any science, After so many decades yes ?


You're a young meat head who's done nothing in life. No one should listen to you.
I have done much more than you could ever do in 3 lifetimes, you cannot even understand the basics of science LOL... btw... no one listens to you here everyone just laughs at your foolish posts) ;)

Oct 06, 2019
Fact is, things are better then ever before in human history.

But as for these readers, misery loves company.

, 30 years is not even a blink of an eye,


Plenty of time to WALK away from the shoreline.
No it as an absolute a waste of time and money, invest elsewhere ASAP ! All Because of Human Induce Climate Change you Dimwit.

Oct 06, 2019
@Old apparently has never owned property.

Clearly so
I've bought two properties with cash in the past 20 years. Fool.

a.a...aaaa..The 2 trailers at the park does not count as properties ;)

Oct 06, 2019
yes the antarctic will melt when its temp goes from - 49 to - 47 so hot !!

O my word did i actually just read this utterly dumb reply...monke goreacle socky, your brain has finally melted LOL

Oct 06, 2019
@Old_C_Code

"Walk away from the shoreline"

It's not just the shoreline. Changing weather patterns affect everyone on earth: flooding, heat deaths, reduction in crop yields, scarcity of water, disease, increased energy demand.

Are you really that stupid to think 7.53 billion human beings can just walk away?

These are issues that always need to be addressed. When the overall temperature of the earth increases they will become far worse. And they will affect you as well.

What's your real goal here posting on phys.org?
What drives your passion to rally against science?

Are you simply misanthropic? If so don't rally against the science. Just simply say "I don't care if humans die or not"
Old Code an utter Idiot

Oct 06, 2019
"The Antarctic ice sheet is one of the two polar ice caps of the Earth. It covers about 98% of the Antarctic continent and is the largest single mass of ice on Earth. It covers an area of almost 14 million square kilometres (5.4 million square miles) and contains 26.5 million cubic kilometres (6,400,000 cubic miles) of ice.[2] A cubic kilometer of ice weighs approximately one metric gigaton, meaning that the ice sheet weighs 26,500,000 gigatons. Approximately 61 blah[3] In East Antarctica, the ice sheet rests on a major land mass, while in West Antarctica the bed can extend to more than 2,500 m below sea level."
https://en.wikipe...ce_sheet

Is this politicized?
What makes you think any of that has anything to do with climate change? You think that random facts mean that climate change CAN'T be politicized??

Looks like at least 5 upvoters share your thinking processes. 'The sun will rise tomorrow and so AGW is real.'

Unbelievable.

Oct 06, 2019
@Otto

You are unbelievable.

It's definitely politicized but that doesn't change the facts.
Your just using that as an excuse to deny it all.

It's obvious to me that you actually politicize it.


Oct 06, 2019
Oh, jimmybabbler, ain't yer da SMRTun, runnin' to yer wiki, blindly cuttin' and a pastin' without readin', far less comprehendin'.

Well, babblin' jimmy, here's a cuttins for yer, from yer own link -
The icing of Antarctica began in the middle Eocene about 45.5 million years ago[7] and escalated during the Eocene–Oligocene extinction event about 34 million years ago.


And, here's a purty graph fer yer appreciatin' - https://upload.wi...emps.png

Now, babblin' jimmy, if yer cud just wipe dem grimes outta yer baby blues, you might just be able to see that from 45 to 15 million years ago, when Antarctica started formin' and a growin' the planet was over 4 to 8 degrees HOTTER than it is today.
Now, I ain't expectin' no answer from yer, but, babblin' jimmy, Is this PO.LIT.ICIZED?


Oct 06, 2019
Why are you talking strange like that antigoracle?
Are you ok?

And how many people were on the earth 45 to 15 million years ago?

Oct 06, 2019
@antigoracle

Climate change is an issue for mankind right now in the present and the future.
Not 45 million years ago.

Oct 06, 2019
But, jimmy are you telling me what I posted is irrelevant to climate change?
Is what I said politicized?

Oct 06, 2019
The graph you linked is certainly not irrelevant at all.
What you actually wrote in your post. Yes that is irrelevant.

I'm curious however.
What conclusions are you drawing from this graph?

You appear to believe this graph disproves AGW.
How so?

I cannot tell if your anti-climate change stance stems from a political ideology.
You would have to tell me that.


Oct 06, 2019
Oh jimmy, go back and read otto's response to your ignorant cut and paste about Antarctica and then your further ignorant response to his.

Now, read that headline on this page, again, then my post. And, tell me if the Antarctic ice sheet formed when the planet was over 4 to 8 degrees hotter than today, how is 2 degrees warming going to melt it all?

Oct 06, 2019
Nobody said the whole ice sheet was going to melt with 2 degrees warming!
You said that!

Title of article:

"If warming exceeds 2 C, Antarctica's melting ice sheets could raise seas 20 meters in coming centuries"


Oct 06, 2019
Ok, how is 2 degrees going to result in the melting described in this article, since the Antarctic ice sheet formed when the planet was over 4 to 8 degrees hotter than today?
Further, in this article they are claiming we are headed back to the Pliocene. Well, look at the graph again, the planet was even colder then than when the ice sheets formed.

Oct 06, 2019
I'm flabbergasted you actually wrote:

"how is 2 degrees warming going to melt it all"

Quote anywhere on this page where someone said that or the article stated that.


Oct 06, 2019
Ok, do you want to be put on ignore again, or do you want to read my post after?
I said all, because I was thinking of the West Antarctic where it's the only place they can find any significant melting now, and most probably ALL melted during the Pliocene.

Oct 06, 2019
Furthermore the graph you linked shows the temperature of the earth warmer 3 million years ago.

I don't care if you ignore me. That just means you realized your wrong.


Oct 06, 2019
Well jimmy, use that grey matter of yours a bit for a change.
The ice-sheet formed when the planet was 4 to 8 degrees hotter and according to this article, when it further cooled to just 2 degrees hotter, some of it melted. How could that be?

Oct 06, 2019
It's up to you whether you want to accept it or not

"The icing of Antarctica began in the middle Eocene about 45.5 million years ago[7] and escalated during the Eocene–Oligocene extinction event about 34 million years ago. CO2 levels were then about 760 ppm[8] and had been decreasing from earlier levels in the thousands of ppm. Carbon dioxide decrease, with a tipping point of 600 ppm, was the primary agent forcing Antarctic glaciation.[9] The glaciation was favored by an interval when the Earth's orbit favored cool summers but oxygen isotope ratio cycle marker changes were too large to be explained by Antarctic ice-sheet growth alone indicating an ice age of some size.[10] The opening of the Drake Passage may have played a role as well[11] though models of the changes suggest declining CO2 levels to have been more important.[12]"

https://en.wikipe...ce_sheet


Oct 06, 2019
No jimmy, there is understanding and there is accepting. You have obviously made your choice. Enjoy being ignorant while you are on IGNORE.

But, if you do want to understand this conundrum, you might want to research the formation of volcanoes in Antarctica during the Pliocene. Good luck.

Oct 06, 2019

How often does a troll actually ignore someone on this site?

It's a minor miracle.


Oct 06, 2019
I'd like to point out. Not once has antigoracle addressed the formation of volcanoes in Antarctica during the Pliocene until he decided to ignore me. I'm curious as to why.


Oct 06, 2019
I'm flabbergasted you actually wrote:

"how is 2 degrees warming going to melt it all"

Quote anywhere on this page where someone said that or the article stated that.

LOL antigoracle monkey fumbling to undertsand what he read even 2 sentences ago LOL

Oct 06, 2019
No jimmy, there is understanding and there is accepting. You have obviously made your choice. Enjoy being ignorant while you are on IGNORE.

But, if you do want to understand this conundrum, you might want to research the formation of volcanoes in Antarctica during the Pliocene. Good luck.

But monkey goracle cannot even discern between understanding nor accepting, Actually thinking anyone cares at all if he ignores anyone, perhaps that is why his rating stands at -1286 yes LOL... ;)


Oct 07, 2019
No Dummy antigoracle sockpuppet, earths orbital change is not what is changing climate today, it is human induced climate change. Focus those peas ;)

Oct 07, 2019
@jimmybobber
How often does a troll actually ignore someone on this site?
never
LOL
I'd like to point out. Not once has antigoracle addressed the formation of volcanoes in Antarctica during the Pliocene until he decided to ignore me. I'm curious as to why
1- if he talks about the science with you, he'll be a proven idiot

2- as a denier, he can only answer you with talking points provided by the denier sites

3- his purpose is to troll, not discuss the science (proven in multiple threads where he was given just enough information to make a complete idiot out of himself and validated above)

Oct 07, 2019
There you go again StumPid.
Not only did you REPEATEDLY post those links here, pretending to UNDERSTAND them, you TROLLED me to other articles and posted them there too.
So, you can either confess to your LI.ES or prove otherwise by answering my Bertrand Russell question, which any high school student could if they read those links.

Above is the post that was removed by the moderator, IMMEDIATELY after posting. Never seen that before, and this is on a weekend.
When did physorg start paying moderators to watch a thread where Cap'n StumPid happened to be so that they can delete posts that exposed him?

It's all here -
https://phys.org/...ive.html

Oct 07, 2019
Scientists believe more and more in faith. The common person could not possibly know all the intricacies of the science of carbon dioxide. Therefore scientists are encouraging a religion of belief in science without evidence, but by faith. Greta Thunberg could not possibly understand the science of global climate change, therefore we are supposed to believe, by faith, that the world will overheat. We have new priests, rabbis, and shamans. They are the scientists. Who want a government by scientists. Where are the statisticians that can tell us that it is statistically impossible for science to improve the world. Only evolution can do this because it takes into trillions of trillions of trillions of inputs and decisions.

Oct 07, 2019
Dummy goracle have posted so many lies and BS links, even shown exactly why he is wrong 100s of times but still those peas doesn't take, then still coming back to make more of a clown of himself... lol those asylum walls must be quite a bummer eh ? lol

Oct 07, 2019
Monkeyyyyy i see you are hiding behind your coper moron sockpuppy.
Still banging your head against those big lonely walls thumbs sucking as hard as you can do prove to the world how utterly dumb you have become ? Thats why the common person is not common dummy, they are scientists, over 10 000 peer rievewed evidence points to Human Induced Climate change, and what have you to counter that ? ? a ramble about fairy tales and unicorns ? ? LMAO... ;)

Oct 07, 2019
@jimmybobber
How often does a troll actually ignore someone on this site?
never
LOL
I'd like to point out. Not once has antigoracle addressed the formation of volcanoes in Antarctica during the Pliocene until he decided to ignore me. I'm curious as to why
1- if he talks about the science with you, he'll be a proven idiot

2- as a denier, he can only answer you with talking points provided by the denier sites

3- his purpose is to troll, not discuss the science (proven in multiple threads where he was given just enough information to make a complete idiot out of himself and validated above)

Spot on Stumpy, antigoracle boony chest thumping like there's no tomorrow LOL

Oct 07, 2019
How often does a troll actually ignore someone on this site?
let's ask Antigoracle
oh, wait... he put me on "ignore"
...so is now off to IGNORE land
and yet now follows me around posting in all my threads!

point demonstrated (yet again)

.

@antig
It's all here -
yes. yes it is

you were given just enough information to allow you to make a decision to either troll with your political or ideological beliefs or stick to the science

you chose poorly

Ya can't keep blaming us just because you're not capable of comprehending the science
these links will help you, though - and they're free
enjoy
http://www.readingbear.org/

https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/

https://skepticalscience.com/


Oct 07, 2019
LMAO.
Cap'n StumPid, again, tossing out links that I have CONCLUSIVELY PROVEN he can neither READ nor COMPREHEND. Hey StumPid, here's one for you.
Show us a single post of yours that was scientifically relevant to the article?

Oct 07, 2019
Monkeyyy so glad you finally posted in your original self and not in one of your 376 sockpuppets
Now.... before you can learn any science you have to start with the basics, not being able to understand the peer reviewed case studies for human induced climate change seems to be very hard for you, so try primary school science first, then we see from there (good luck to the teacher)LMAO

Oct 07, 2019
Knock...knock....HELLO...Cap'n StumPid. Is the ILLITERATE TROLL home? Still waiting for you to show us a SINGLE post of yours that was SCIENTIFICALLY relevant to any article?

Oct 07, 2019
Doh..What a fruitcake...

Oct 07, 2019
COO COO does the birdies fly and sing inside the hollowness of that empty skull. DUMMY GORACLE you can jump, chest thump, bark and swing those trees as hard as you like. YOU are irrelevant, your utterly dumb straw man arguments fuels your reputation as an absolute idiot.

And It really takes a special kind of stupid to ignore 10 000 peer reviewed case studies for Human Induced Climate Change.

Oct 07, 2019
Antigoracle

plus/minus = -1378


Oct 07, 2019
LOL

But more seriously, I don't see what is the problem Antigoracle has with this article. They are predicting a partial (roughly 20%) melt of Antarctica with 2C of warming. I don't find that implausible considering the amount of melt we see happening right now.

Frankly, we are lucky the Arctic was mostly floating ice, because otherwise we would have lost cities already (just look at the orbital photos).

As for antigoracle's complaints about Antarctica having ice in the distant, much warmer past, let me point out a few issues:

- During the time period of roughly 50-100 million years ago, Antarctica was a jungle, with the fossilized remains to prove it. In other words the ice DID melt.

- The physical layout of Earth's continents and ocean currents was quite different 60 million years ago - so we can't make direct temperature=ice quantity comparisons with the historical record. The temperature dependence of ice cover in the present must be determined by computer modelling.

Oct 07, 2019
..what is the problem Antigoracle has with this article. They are predicting a partial (roughly 20%) melt of Antarctica with 2C of warming.

The AGW Cult's cesspool of ignorance, is overflowing today. So, I must repeat SCIENTIFIC facts to another of their turds.

"The icing of Antarctica began in the middle Eocene about 45.5 million years ago and escalated during the Eocene–Oligocene .. 34 million years ago. CO2 levels were then about 760 ppm"
https://en.wikipe...ce_sheet

And, here are the Earth's temperatures going back to that time - https://upload.wi...emps.png

Now, see that from 45 to 15 million years ago, when the ICE SHEET STARTED FORMING AND GROWING the planet was over 4 to 8 C WARMER with CO2 at 760. Then, during the Pliocene, when it COOLED to 2 degrees warmer, some of the ice melted.
Now, if the ice formed when it was 4 to 8 C warmer, how could CO2 cause 20% melting when it is only 2 C warmer?

Oct 07, 2019
If the ignorant Chicken Littles are interested in the SCIENTIFIC explanation for the above conundrum.
Antarctica is the largest glaciovolcanic province in the world. There are many volcanoes and they occur all the way from the SUB-ANTARCTIC SOUTH SANDWICH ISLANDS, THROUGH THE ANTARCTIC PENINSULA AND MARIE BYRD LAND, AND INTO EAST ANTARCTICA, A DISTANCE OF ABOUT 5000 KM. ERUPTIONS COINCIDED WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE ANTARCTIC ICE SHEET. The volcanoes are overwhelmingly basaltic and there are few examples of more evolved magmatic compositions [6,7]. They range from very large stratovolcanoes with summit elevations up to 4000 m above sea level and basal diameters of 40 to 60 km, to volcanic fields composed multiple small centres

http://www.antarc...ECTION_4

Oct 07, 2019
Antigoracle... I don't want to cast aspersions here, but you seem deliberately deceptive in how you are quoting that article, and in the way you lay out your argument.

First off, there is no actual conflict between these 2 statements:

1) "They are predicting a partial (roughly 20%) melt of Antarctica with 2C of warming"

2) "when the ICE SHEET STARTED FORMING AND GROWING the planet was over 4 to 8 C WARMER with CO2 at 760"

So increasing the temperature by +2C will melt about 20% of the ice, and there will be no ice left when it reaches +4-8C.

Moreover, you deceptively edited that quote:

The icing of Antarctica began in the middle Eocene about 45.5 million years ago and escalated during the Eocene–Oligocene extinction event about 34 million years ago. CO2 levels were then about 760 ppm and had been decreasing from earlier levels in the thousands of ppm. Carbon dioxide decrease, with a tipping point of 600 ppm, was the primary agent forcing Antarctic glaciation.

Oct 07, 2019
I'm pretty disappointed to see you engaging in these kinds of tactics. The Wikipedia quote you used, which is linked here...

https://en.wikipe...ce_sheet

... clearly is saying the exact opposite of what you claimed it was saying. Which is why I copied the full text in my above quote.

If your argument was correct, you wouldn't need to use such shameless methods.

I guess it makes sense that you call everybody else "idiots" / "ignorant" / "turds" etc... You must truly believe we are stupid, if you expect us to fall for such things.

Believe it or not, on a scientific website people will actually look at the sources you cite.

Oct 07, 2019
Yes, I knew you were so stupid, I thought I would fool you by conveniently putting that link to the information. I left that out because the post got too long. Now idiot, how does that additional sentence change anything?
As the planet cooled from 8 C to 4 C ABOVE CURRENT TEMPS, CO2 levels dropped [AS IT DOES] and the Antarctic Ice Sheet formed. Then, when it cooled further down, during the Pliocene, to 2 C above current temps, some of the ice sheet melted. And, if you look at the temp graph, you would see that it continued to cool even more during the melt.
So, how could CO2 melt the ice as its level was dropping and temperatures were dropping especially since the ice formed when CO2 levels were higher ?
http://www.antarc...ECTION_4

Oct 07, 2019
@Antigoracle, I know I'm on ignore but I'm not posting this for you.

Antigoracle quote:

"As the planet cooled from 8 C to 4 C ABOVE CURRENT TEMPS, CO2 levels dropped [AS IT DOES] and the Antarctic Ice Sheet formed."

You are literally saying that CO2 levels dropped because the planet cooled from 8 C to 4 C.

I'll continue this later.


Oct 07, 2019
Next Antigoracle quote:

"Then, when it cooled further down, during the Pliocene, to 2 C above current temps, some of the ice sheet melted. And, if you look at the temp graph, you would see that it continued to cool even more during the melt."

First off this is global average temperature. You seem to think the whole planet earth was the same temperature.

I highly recommend you read this link https://en.wikipe..._climate


Oct 07, 2019
Final Antigoracle quote:

"So, how could CO2 melt the ice as its level was dropping and temperatures were dropping especially since the ice formed when CO2 levels were higher ?"

This one is easy. CO2 doesn't actually melt ice.


Oct 07, 2019
First off this is global average temperature. You seem to think the whole planet earth was the same temperature.

Well jackass they are claiming that the ice is melting now, so what is the temperature at the Antarctic and what is the global temperature now?
I highly recommend you GET SOMEONE WITH A BRAIN TO READ AND EXPLAIN TO YOU this link http://https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pliocene_climate

Oct 07, 2019
Final Antigoracle quote:

"So, how could CO2 melt the ice as its level was dropping and temperatures were dropping especially since the ice formed when CO2 levels were higher ?"

This one is easy. CO2 doesn't actually melt ice.


Uh huh, but your stupidity can sure melt the shit between your ears it's splattering all over the forum.

Oct 07, 2019
@antigoracle

I thought you had me on ignore. How embarrassing for me!
Next time you tell me I'm on ignore please actually ignore me.

What are they actually claiming in that article?

I can only imagine it's something you don't like because you called me a "JACKASS"

What exactly is a "JACKASS" antigoracle?



Oct 07, 2019
Well, jackass you thought I had you on ignore, yet you brayed at me and I pitied the fool.
So, to answer your last question, the JACKASS is you.

"What are they actually claiming in that article?"
I have told you once, I've told you a million times. Go find someone you trust who has a brain and speaks JACKASS, to read and explain it to you.

Now, go bray at the sky, perhaps it will really fall for you.

I first put you on ignore for LYING and now STUPIDITY. IGNORE.

Oct 07, 2019
This "argument" is elevating into pure comedy. XD

Oct 07, 2019
I thought i was on ignore!

Damn antigoracle you are getting really mean now. That's not nice.

Oct 07, 2019
You know antigoracle. I didn't actually think you had me on ignore.
How could a troll ignore anyone?


Oct 07, 2019
Actually the Walrus is Paul. The Jackass is you.


Oct 07, 2019
Well, jackass you thought I had you on ignore, yet you brayed at me and I pitied the fool.
So, to answer your last question, the JACKASS is you.

"What are they actually claiming in that article?"
I have told you once, I've told you a million times. Go find someone you trust who has a brain and speaks JACKASS, to read and explain it to you.

Now, go bray at the sky, perhaps it will really fall for you.

I first put you on ignore for LYING and now STUPIDITY. IGNORE.
Monkey Goracle is barking and chest thumping at those 4 walls in the asylum again, he just cannot focus those peas LOL...

Oct 07, 2019
As for antigoracle's complaints about Antarctica having ice in the distant, much warmer past, let me point out a few issues:

- During the time period of roughly 50-100 million years ago, Antarctica was a jungle, with the fossilized remains to prove it. In other words the ice DID melt.

- The physical layout of Earth's continents and ocean currents was quite different 60 million years ago - so we can't make direct temperature=ice quantity comparisons with the historical record. The temperature dependence of ice cover in the present must be determined by computer modelling.
says axe master

The Earth is presently undergoing a slow, steady shift of its poles where the True North is now moving towards the vicinity of Russia and Mongolia. And the Earth's Magnetic Field is also moving as is the Earth's iron core. It is these natural planetary events that will make the actual changes in the coming years. AGW caused by Fossil fuel use is only in the short term.

Oct 07, 2019
i see Anti sockpuppets all over the show lol... really hilarious to see his stupidity.
While the Earth's magnetic field is weakening a bit and its magnetic axis is shifting somewhat, magnetic field polarity changes have no effects on climate on the timescale of human lifetimes because air isn't ferrous. The effects on hand-held compasses are insignificant. For purposes of electronic navigation, changes in the position of the magnetic poles are constantly updated in navigational databases.
https://www.ncei....ic-poles

The last time that Earth's poles flipped in a major reversal was about 780,000 years ago, in what scientists call the Brunhes-Matuyama reversal. The fossil record shows no drastic changes in plant or animal life. Deep ocean sediment cores from this period. Fossil Fuel use is the dominant and long term Climate Change force today unless it's use is decreased the consequence will be devestating.

Oct 07, 2019
Then perhaps you won't mind too much if there are more than the usual earthquakes and sliding earth that will cause more tsunamis when it hits the oceans?
Perhaps you also won't mind too much if the magnetic field disappears, causing solar and cosmic radiation to give you skin cancer just being outdoors, right?

Oct 07, 2019
No you are suggesting things i never implied, climate change could actually trigger even more of those events.

The low-pressure centers of typhoons can prompt vibrations of earthquake faults.

When an earthquake fault is primed and ready to go like a coiled spring, climate change could provide that last bit of power of, as geophysicist John McCloskey of the University of Ulster called it, "the pressure of a handshake," that sets off the quake.

Oct 07, 2019
Climate change causing earthquakes. Never heard of that one yet. Could you provide links to the evidence for such an occurrence? Or is it just conjecture? Thanks.

Oct 07, 2019
No its not Conjecture.
Now provide me the links that counters this evidence:
https://www.acade...typhoons
http://rsta.royal...full.pdf

Oct 07, 2019
I looked up John McCloskey:
Earthquake prediction sparks debate over worth of forecasts

The World Today - Tuesday, 29 March , 2005 12:17:36
Reporter: Rachel Carbonell
ELEANOR HALL: A world-renowned geophysicist warned Indonesia only last week that another earthquake was likely.

Professor John McCloskey, accurately predicted the location and force of the earthquake, but not the time.

And this prediction has sparked international debate about the worth of such forecasts.

Some experts say the current warning system is seriously inadequate, while others say having an idea of where earthquakes might hit could well be enough to save lives.

This report from Rachel Carbonell.

RACHEL CARBONELL: Professor John McCloskey, is a geophysicist from the University of Ulster in Ireland. He published his earthquake prediction in the journal Nature less than two weeks ago.

JOHN MCCLOSKEY: What we did was, we have used the information about exactly what happened in the e

Oct 07, 2019
That is not evidence.I ask again. Show me the evidence that counters the evidence i have given

Oct 07, 2019
I don't see much value in predicting an earthquake in Indonesia where such movements of earth are quite common as it is. I believe Indonesia is one of the nations that is within the "Ring of Fire". so that the explosion of Anak Krakatoa was hardly unexpected.
But Climate change causing earthquakes and thence tsunamis is pretty farfetched IMO. Movements of the upper and lower mantle is part of the Earth's dynamics - not of climate change.

Oct 07, 2019
Don't worry There is a lot you do not see we know that ;) clearly you have no clue about the dynamics and mechanics involved your opinions are hot air as all of your low rated opinions.

Oct 07, 2019
I'm not saying that humans should continue their shoddy stewardship of the Earth. It stands to reason that big improvements should be made in the care and love that should be provided to the only planet that humans are able to live on.
But to imply that it is CO2 and fossil fuel emissions that are also causing earthquakes is just far out, IMO.

Oct 07, 2019
It can trigger it as stated, not form one on its own.

Oct 07, 2019
Don't worry There is a lot you do not see we know that ;) clearly you have no clue about the dynamics and mechanics involved your opinions are hot air as all of your low rated opinions.


Oh of course, you and your socks are one of my favourite downvoters, along with Otto who thinks that I'm one of his 'friends' from the past. I'm not, but who can convince a crazy person of the truth. You and Otto seem to require a 'victim' to hang your hangups on -- and in your case, it is my disagreement with AGW in all its inglorious hatred of modern human activity.

Oct 07, 2019
It can trigger it as stated, not form one on its own.


But that's the whole point of AGW -- to blame changes in the weather on fossil fuel use, when in the long run, it is obvious that humans CANNOT get along without heat, hot water, hot food, and travel by car, etc.
If you managed to stop all human required sources of heat, etc. billions would die without those necessities.

Oct 07, 2019
Earthquakes are simply the earth shifting under its own weight - like Atlas shrugged.
This is what happens as a result of living on this fine planet; things don't always go your way.
But aside from being good stewards and being gentle to the land and sea, it's important to understand that you are here only for a little while, but the Earth will be here until it's decided to whatever. The fossil fuels are here for a reason. It is for human use.

Oct 08, 2019
But that's the whole point of AGW -- to blame changes in the weather on fossil fuel use, when in the long run, it is obvious that humans CANNOT get along without heat, hot water, hot food, and travel by car, etc.


1. AGW doesn't have a "point". It's just an observed scientific fact.

2. I agree that people need energy. But your implication that fossil fuels are the only source of that energy is way off base.

The fossil fuels are here for a reason. It is for human use.


This comes off as quasi-religious, but to directly address it - we are already running out of fossil fuels. Peak oil has already come and gone. It's easy to tell that this has happened because global prices continue to rise pretty steadily despite VASTLY advanced technology for harvesting it - and increasingly extreme sources being tapped (i.e. shale, etc.). So we are going to be forced off fossil fuels one way or another, regardless of how we feel about it.

Oct 08, 2019
Don't worry There is a lot you do not see we know that ;) clearly you have no clue about the dynamics and mechanics involved your opinions are hot air as all of your low rated opinions.


Oh of course, you and your socks are one of my favorite downvoters, along with Otto who thinks that I'm one of his 'friends' from the past. I'm not, but who can convince a crazy person of the truth. You and Otto seem to require a 'victim' to hang your hangups on -- and in your case, it is my disagreement with AGW in all its inglorious hatred of modern human activity.


No the asylum has has been playing tricks on your mind ;). The truth is not thumb sucking BS and posting it as evidence, the truth is 10 000 peer reviewed case studies for human induced climate change.

Oct 08, 2019
it is my disagreement with AGW

We know that don't worry, You and your sockpuppets which is YOU clearly disregarding the case studies looking for every bit of thinly stretched straw to spout BS about, and with that showing how idiotic the deniers are and their utter disregard for humans on this planet and the planet itself, Deniers is a direct insult to the planet.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more