Polar ice sheets melting at an accelerating rate

[salbers]

Sounds like you both (especially Snowlover123) are coming to agree with me that there is melting going on, that is accelerating. And I agree there is some question about the cause of the warm ocean currents (as I suggested in two previous posts). However if the Arctic sea ice (and global SST data) are any indication, there is a long term trend of increasing Arctic ocean temperatures that might be starting to outweigh the decade to decade pattern changes. This is why the GRACE and other data will be fascinating to watch as we enter a new decade.

[BethesdaWX]

Sounds like you both (especially Snowlover123) mainly agree with me then that there is melting going on. And I agree there is some question about the cause of the warm ocean currents (as I suggested in two previous posts). However if the Arctic sea ice is any indication, there is a long term trend of increasing Arctic ocean temperatures that might be starting to outweigh the decade to decade pattern changes. This is why the GRACE and other data will be fascinating to watch as we enter a new decade.

I agree that there has been melting....just not for the same reasons as you. The arctic Sea Ice was pretty bad in the 1940's as well...even in the 1800's there were documentaries of the "exploding & melting glaciers in this heat"...ships have been all through there during that time as well......the cycle is largely due to PDO/AMO.

[salbers]

I agree that there has been melting....just not for the same reasons as you. The arctic Sea Ice was pretty bad in the 1940's as well...even in the 1800's there were documentaries of the "exploding & melting glaciers in this heat"...ships have been all through there during that time as well......the cycle is largely due to PDO/AMO.

We'll see - if the rate of sea level rise in the 21st century starts to exceed anything in the 20th then we'll further know that something is up. It's already a bit on the high side historically. The sea level itself is setting new records nearly every year, with about 2.5mm/yr being due to warming/expanding oceans, 0.5mm from Greenland ice sheet melt, and 0.5mm from Antarctic ice sheet melt.

[Snow_Miser]

We'll see - if the rate of sea level rise in the 21st century starts to exceed anything in the 20th then we'll further know that something is up. It's already a bit on the high side historically.

Where has this exceeded "historical levels?"

[salbers]

The rise of about 0.2m over the past century is more than the average rate of the past few thousand years:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Sea_Level.png

[skierinvermont]

Where has this exceeded "historical levels?"

Well first of all that graph is meaningless without units.

Second of all, 'historical levels' is a relative term. Sea level is higher than any time in the last few hundred years and is rising rapidly. So your snarky response to salbers is unwarranted since you just failed to understand what was meant by 'historical.' Thank god they have you on a 5 post per day limit.

Sea level rose and fell dozens of meters during the ice age cycles. Unless we want that to happen again, we had better hope the earth does not warm too much.

[Snow_Miser]

Well first of all that graph is meaningless without units.

Second of all, 'historical levels' is a relative term. Sea level is higher than any time in the last few hundred years and is rising rapidly. So your snarky response to salbers is unwarranted since you just failed to understand what was meant by 'historical.'

Sea level rose and fell dozens of meters during the ice age cycles. Unless we want that to happen again, we had better hope the earth does not warm too much.

The abscissa (x axis) is the number of years back. The ordinate (y axis) is the temperature in the Greenland ice cores.

Besides, I'm not sure why you're cherry picking in innocuous millimeters when you can look at legittimate Sea Level Rise.

I fail to realize what historical means? Perhaps a relevant context could have been given in order to help stifle confusion.

"Sea level rose dozens of meters during the Ice Ages"

Well, this warming is almost unoticeable, and if one were to just look at the Ice Core records, they would not think anything of the sort having to do with "unprecedented amounts of warming." Or "catastrohpic climate changes." You do realize that a warmer world is better than a cooler one? Why do you suppose so many animals live in warm climates but so few live in cold ones?

[salbers]

I think the point is that after being about constant the past 2000 years or so, sea level is starting to rise again. This suggests something unusual happened in the past century or two, perhaps human effects?

[BethesdaWX]

Yes something unusual did happen, the LIA. This rise has been occuring since then.

The rise in Global temps also correlates to after the LIA. If solar can Create a LIA with temps maybe reaching -0.8C or lower, solar can also do ther opposite, and the rise it global temps has correlated to the solar cycle trends (so far).

[salbers]

Yes, but I think sea level is rising faster now than either the rises or falls from the LIA, so there is something unusual happening now in terms of rate of sea level change.

http://www.cmar.csir...hist_intro.html

The last few thousand years

Sea level rose much more slowly over the past 7,000 years. The sea level 2,000 years ago can be deduced by (for example) examining fish tanks built by the ancient Romans. Because the tanks had to be at sea level for the sluice gates to function, we can precisely estimate sea level during the period of their use. Comparison of this level with historical records indicates that there has been little net change in sea level from 2000 years ago until the start of the 19th century.

And here is some perspective on both sea level rising and Greenland ice melting from around 110000 years ago:

http://www.skeptical...print.php?n=294

Figure 2: Modeled configuration of the Greenland Ice Sheet today (left) and in MIS 5e (right), from Otto-Bliesner (2006). Alley (2010) conclude that it is probable that the loss of ice from Greenland during this time period contributed approximately 3–4 m to global sea levels, in response to a local warming of around 3°–4 °C in Greenland. This nicely fits with our understanding that sea levels were at least 6 m higher that today; the remainder of that rise would have come from the loss of ice in West Antarctica, mountain glaciers, and thermal expansion of seawater.

[BethesdaWX]

Yes, but I think sea level is rising faster now than either the rises or falls from the LIA, so there is something unusual happening now in terms of rate of sea level change.

http://www.cmar.csir...hist_intro.html

The last few thousand years

Sea level rose much more slowly over the past 7,000 years. The sea level 2,000 years ago can be deduced by (for example) examining fish tanks built by the ancient Romans. Because the tanks had to be at sea level for the sluice gates to function, we can precisely estimate sea level during the period of their use. Comparison of this level with historical records indicates that there has been little net change in sea level from 2000 years ago until the start of the 19th century.

And here is some perspective on both sea level rising and Greenland ice melting from around 110000 years ago:

http://www.skeptical...print.php?n=294

Figure 2: Modeled configuration of the Greenland Ice Sheet today (left) and in MIS 5e (right), from Otto-Bliesner (2006). Alley (2010) conclude that it is probable that the loss of ice from Greenland during this time period contributed approximately 3–4 m to global sea levels, in response to a local warming of around 3°–4 °C in Greenland. This nicely fits with our understanding that sea levels were at least 6 m higher that today; the remainder of that rise would have come from the loss of ice in West Antarctica, mountain glaciers, and thermal expansion of seawater.

DONT USE SMOOTHED DATA.

This is where I claim fraud.

Do you know how they measure sea level rise? Theres no raw #'s available to the public, the original codes are not there.

So.....how about measured data?

Can't blame co2 warming on that as a cause, could be solar, multi century ocean cyclinical changes....anything.

Example....... WLP in San Fran

Problem has been the same.....No data, No Code, only OBS are available to the public.......the models & orignal gridboxes used by NOAA for their models, need to FOI for them. NASA has refused the FOI's......why?

Yeah, call me a conspiracy theorist

[salbers]

In the article I linked to earlier they showed how they measured sea levels 2000 years ago (e.g. Roman ponds). Here is more info about the intervening period (including both smoothed and unsmoothed data):

http://www.cmar.csir...ew_hundred.html

I showed you the GRACE data are available (for Greenland ice sheet) from NASA - do you have the time to look at it?

I'm really talking about tide gauge and related measurement here, so where is the refusal on that? You might consider trying to stay on topic on data availability.

What you're showing here are shorter term data for an apparently limited number of stations - and even though I see a net rise in the 20th century in this it is a bit irrelevant to what I'm presently pointing out. I'm talking about the comparison of 20th century to the preceding 2000 years - where there is a probable recent spike upwards. Smoothing (e.g. quadratic fit during 20th century) is reasonable if you want to look at things in a centennial to millenial time scale.The decadal flucutations are averaging out in this context. Since you're not fully convinced by the GRACE data looking at a decade - perhaps this look at centennial and millenial changes is more telling?

Thus changes on both decadal and centennial scales are showing sea level rise and/or ice sheet melting.

[BethesdaWX]

In the article I linked to earlier they showed how they measured sea levels 2000 years ago (e.g. Roman ponds). Here is more info about the intervening period (including both smoothed and unsmoothed data):

http://www.cmar.csir...ew_hundred.html

I showed you the GRACE data are available (for Greenland ice sheet) from NASA - do you have the time to look at it?

I'm really talking about tide gauge and related measurement here, so where is the refusal on that? You might consider trying to stay on topic on data availability.

What you're showing here are shorter term data for an apparently limited number of stations - and even though I see a net rise in the 20th century in this it is a bit irrelevant to what I'm presently pointing out. I'm talking about the comparison of 20th century to the preceding 2000 years - where there is a probable recent spike upwards. Smoothing (e.g. quadratic fit during 20th century) is reasonable if you want to look at things in a centennial to millenial time scale.The decadal flucutations are averaging out in this context. Since you're not fully convinced by the GRACE data looking at a decade - perhaps this look at centennial and millenial changes is more telling?

Thus changes on both decadal and centennial scales are showing sea level rise and/or ice sheet melting.

No no no, you missed everything I stated.

1)

GRACE has come to physically impossible conslusions...

For example, GRACE showing melting on the Antarctic ice sheet..........Do you realize that some of the places GRACE shows melting in antarctica NEVER get above -15C in summer??? They avg about -25C) Theres no way that Ice can melt. The same goes for Greenland............Where are the cold surface SST anoms near Greenland? if there waqs the amount of melting we're seeing, we'd see the cold anoms on the surface......you cannot avoid it, theres no ulterior solution. It makes no frickin sense.

melting sea ice cannot raise sea level.......... The antarctic continent has been COOLING for 30 years, so melting of the land ice down there is minimal. The greenland melting cannot account for the sea level rise..............it is suspicious.

2) Again, I was speaking of how we measure sea level Today. The raw data coming from the measures is not avaliable, and I hate the smoothed data that we're using today.

Either way,

[skierinvermont]

No no no, you missed everything I stated.

1)

GRACE has come to physically impossible conslusions...

For example, GRACE showing melting on the Antarctic ice sheet..........Do you realize that some of the places GRACE shows melting in antarctica NEVER get above -15C in summer??? They avg about -25C) Theres no way that Ice can melt. The same goes for Greenland............Where are the cold surface SST anoms near Greenland? if there waqs the amount of melting we're seeing, we'd see the cold anoms on the surface......you cannot avoid it, theres no ulterior solution. It makes no frickin sense.

melting sea ice cannot raise sea level.......... The antarctic continent has been COOLING for 30 years, so melting of the land ice down there is minimal. The greenland melting cannot account for the sea level rise..............it is suspicious.

2) Again, I was speaking of how we measure sea level Today. The raw data coming from the measures is not avaliable, and I hate the smoothed data that we're using today.

Either way,

GRACE doesn't measure melting. It measures mass loss. That could mean a number of things besides melting. For example, less precipitation or increased glacial flow rate could both cause ice mass. I guess that is impossible too huh? This is why we leave science to scientists and not 18 YOs at their computers.

The raw data for sea levels is available and so is the formulas for calculating it globally.. you just need to look.

[BethesdaWX]

GRACE doesn't measure melting. It measures mass loss. That could mean a number of things besides melting. For example, less precipitation or increased glacial flow rate could both cause ice mass. I guess that is impossible too huh? This is why we leave science to scientists and not 18 YOs at their computers.

The raw data for sea levels is available and so is the formulas for calculating it globally.. you just need to look.

You just made a laughing stock of yourself.

Mass Loss....obviously its ICE MELT that would cause the mass loss

Mass loss....lets see....what would cause mass loss in Ice where temperatures never get above -15C.......NOTHING. Perhaps you should check how much Precip the heart of the antarctic Ice sheet gets....and if a difference in the little amout recieved would cause ice loss at -25C...

Glacial flow rate.....at -15C...either way, no ice loss...the ice will always be there.

Now lets see your evidence behind this.

Maybe we should say thaats why we keep people in 3 groups....Scientists......Common folk hobbyists..........and Skier(s).

[skierinvermont]

You just made a laughing stock of yourself.

Mass Loss....obviously its ICE MELT that would cause the mass loss

Mass loss....lets see....what would cause mass loss in Ice where temperatures never get above -15C.......NOTHING. Perhaps you should check how much Precip the heart of the antarctic Ice sheet gets....and if a difference in the little amout recieved would cause ice loss at -25C...

Glacial flow rate.....at -15C...either way, no ice loss...the ice will always be there.

Now lets see your evidence behind this.

Maybe we should say thaats why we keep people in 3 groups....Scientists......Common folk hobbyists..........and Skier(s).

Oh so when glaciars flow into the ocean they don't lose any mass?

[BethesdaWX]

Oh so when glaciars flow into the ocean they don't lose any mass?

Do you know what causes Glaciers to flow? And, why would Glaciers be emptying into the ocean reducing ice mass......when there has been no evidence of such, & much of the area in question is non mountainous/Land based (The ice is several miles deep my friend).

[nzucker]

Do you know what causes Glaciers to flow? And, why would Glaciers be emptying into the ocean reducing ice mass......when there has been no evidence of such, & much of the area in question is non mountainous/Land based (The ice is several miles deep my friend).

Glaciers are defined as moving sheets of ice...basically think of them as a river of ice, moving slowly over time. I agree we'd be seeing an SST reduction in some areas if this process were accelerating rapidly, but that doesn't mean we can't have ice loss in places that have cooled like Antarctica.

[BethesdaWX]

Glaciers are defined as moving sheets of ice...basically think of them as a river of ice, moving slowly over time. I agree we'd be seeing an SST reduction in some areas if this process were accelerating rapidly, but that doesn't mean we can't have ice loss in places that have cooled like Antarctica.

True, but "Glaciers" on a 5 mile thick sheet of ice, with all land mass buried, there would be a very noticable effect, and It would be well documented. Even NASA uses the term "Antarctic Ice Melt" From the same areas that never get above -15C. The "mass loss" being measured by GRACE just defies the laws of physics.

I'm not claiming Fraud, there are huge dangers in using mass for measurement...

[beneficii]

No no no, you missed everything I stated.

Did he?

[skierinvermont]

Glaciers are defined as moving sheets of ice...basically think of them as a river of ice, moving slowly over time. I agree we'd be seeing an SST reduction in some areas if this process were accelerating rapidly, but that doesn't mean we can't have ice loss in places that have cooled like Antarctica.

Oh so you have bothered to do the calculations of mass of the glaciers relative to the masses of the bodies of water they are flowing into? Multiply by their respective heat contents. Then subtract the heat content of the ice from that of the body of water. Then divide by the heat content for the new temperature. And then somehow factor in the fact that the surrounding air is much warmer in places like Baffin Bay which is heating up the ocean anyways.

I don't think you have.

The amount of ice melting is tiny compared to the large bodies of water they are melting into, especially when the air warm air that is causing the melt is heating these bodies of water up dramatically anyways.

Are we to conclude from your statements that Greenland is not melting because it is surrounded by above average temperature water? What a joke. This is why we leave science to scientists who do thorough research and not the whimsical fantasies of bloggers.

[skierinvermont]

Do you know what causes Glaciers to flow? And, why would Glaciers be emptying into the ocean reducing ice mass......when there has been no evidence of such, & much of the area in question is non mountainous/Land based (The ice is several miles deep my friend).

Yes, I have made several detailed post on glacial physics. You should read them.

[salbers]

True, but "Glaciers" on a 5 mile thick sheet of ice, with all land mass buried, there would be a very noticable effect, and It would be well documented. Even NASA uses the term "Antarctic Ice Melt" From the same areas that never get above -15C. The "mass loss" being measured by GRACE just defies the laws of physics.

I'm not claiming Fraud, there are huge dangers in using mass for measurement...

Let's keep in mind that GRACE shows convincing evidence of melting (mass loss) in Antarctica. These data are confirmed by IceSat laser altimeter and other measurements. So even if you have questions about gravity models the other types of measurements show the same thing.

The warm ocean is probably playing a role in the melting. I think skier is right in that the ocean heat reservoir is large enough to dilute the effect of melting ice.

More info is here: http://www.nasa.gov/...ca_Melting.html

[BethesdaWX]

Let's keep in mind that GRACE shows convincing evidence of melting (mass loss) in Antarctica. These data are confirmed by IceSat laser altimeter and other measurements. So even if you have questions about gravity models the other types of measurements show the same thing.

The warm ocean is probably playing a role in the melting. I think skier is right in that the ocean heat reservoir is large enough to dilute the effect of melting ice.

More info is here: http://www.nasa.gov/...ca_Melting.html

Bingo. Ice cannot melt where temperatures never get above -15C at the heart of the antarctic, and sees no sun or low sun angle for the entire year. The model shows mass loss in these very areas.

Not only has the antarctic been cooling for the past 30 years, but leave it to the models to show ice loss where summer temps avg -30C, and never surpass -15C

[salbers]

Which model? I'm unsure how your assertions relate to or contradict in any way my points about ice loss being observed. Remember that if glaciers melt at the coastlines (due to the ocean and maybe warm coastal temps) it can speed up the glacier flow from the interior, leading to a net mass loss.

Even the Earth's heat can warm the interior depths of the ice sheet - recall Lake Vostok, though I'm unsure if any warming in the interior surface connects with that.

Bottom line is that the observations show melting and it's incumbent upon you to accept my explanation or otherwise come up with a mechanism to explain this reality. I doubt you can come up with a good way to rationally refute the multiple lines of observational evidence.

[skierinvermont]

Bingo. Ice cannot melt where temperatures never get above -15C at the heart of the antarctic, and sees no sun or low sun angle for the entire year. The model shows mass loss in these very areas.

Not only has the antarctic been cooling for the past 30 years, but leave it to the models to show ice loss where summer temps avg -30C, and never surpass -15C

lol did you even read what he wrote? He said that multiple sources all show ice loss on portions of Antarctica and you said "bingo'

It's amazing how terribly biased you are.

First you say that Greenland can't be melting because otherwise we would see the cold mel****er cool off the surrounding ocean. Nevermind the fact that the amount of mel****er in such a short time period is nearly irrelevant to the heat content of the surrounding ocean.

Then you claim Antarctica cannot have lost ice because it is too cold to lose ice. Nevermind the fact that most ice loss is through flow and not physical melting. Maybe the glaciers have sped up due to something happening at their terminus.

Your posts lack basic logic or thorough thought.

[Snow_Miser]

Let's keep in mind that GRACE shows convincing evidence of melting (mass loss) in Antarctica. These data are confirmed by IceSat laser altimeter and other measurements. So even if you have questions about gravity models the other types of measurements show the same thing.

The warm ocean is probably playing a role in the melting. I think skier is right in that the ocean heat reservoir is large enough to dilute the effect of melting ice.

More info is here: http://www.nasa.gov/...ca_Melting.html

“…non-ocean signals, such as in the Indian Ocean due to the 2004 Sumatran-Andean earthquake, and near Greenland and West Antarctica due to land signal leakage, can also corrupt the ocean trend estimates.”

Ocean Mass Trends (and Sea Level Estimates) from GRACE Reference

Quinn, K.J. and Ponte, R.M. 2010. Uncertainty in ocean mass trends from GRACE. Geophysical Journal International 181: 762-768.

Background

The authors write that “ocean mass, together with steric sea level, are the key components of total observed sea level change,” and that “monthly observations from the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) can provide estimates of the ocean mass component of the sea level budget, but full use of the data requires a detailed understanding of its errors and biases.”

What was done

In an effort designed to provide some of that “detailed understanding” of GRACE’s “errors and biases,” Quinn and Ponte conducted what they describe as “a detailed analysis of processing and post-processing factors affecting GRACE estimates of ocean mass trends,” by “comparing results from different data centers and exploring a range of post-processing filtering and modeling parameters, including the effects of geocenter motion, PGR [postglacial rebound], and atmospheric pressure.”

What was learned

The two researchers report that the mean ocean mass trends they calculated “vary quite dramatically depending on which GRACE product is used, which adjustments are applied, and how the data are processed.” More specifically, they state that “the PGR adjustment ranges from 1 to 2 mm/year, the geocenter adjustment may have biases on the order of 0.2 mm/year, and the atmospheric mass correction may have errors of up to 0.1 mm/year,” while “differences between GRACE data centers are quite large, up to 1 mm/year, and differences due to variations in the processing may be up to 0.5 mm/year.”

What it means

In light of the fact that Quinn and Ponte indicate that “over the last century, the rate of sea level rise has been only 1.7 ± 0.5 mm/year, based on tide gauge reconstructions (Church and White, 2006),” it seems a bit strange that one would ever question that result on the basis of a GRACE-derived assessment, with its many and potentially very large “errors and biases.” In addition, as Ramillien et al. (2006) have noted, “the GRACE data time series is still very short,” and results obtained from it “must be considered as preliminary since we cannot exclude that apparent trends [derived from it] only reflect inter-annual fluctuations.” And as Quinn and Ponte also add, “non-ocean signals, such as in the Indian Ocean due to the 2004 Sumatran-Andean earthquake, and near Greenland and West Antarctica due to land signal leakage, can also corrupt the ocean trend estimates.”

Clearly, the GRACE approach to evaluating ocean mass and sea level trends still has a long way to go — and must develop a long history of data acquisition — before it can ever be considered a reliable means of providing assessments of ocean mass and sea level change that are accurate enough to detect an anthropogenic signal that could be confidently distinguished from natural variability.

References

Church, J.A. and White, N.J. 2006. A 20th-century acceleration in global sea-level rise. Geophysical Research Letters 33: 10.1029/2005GL024826.

Ramillien, G., Lombard, A., Cazenave, A., Ivins, E.R., Llubes, M., Remy, F. and Biancale, R. 2006. Interannual variations of the mass balance of the Antarctica and Greenland ice sheets from GRACE. Global and Planetary Change 53: 198-208.

reviews this new paper,

[BethesdaWX]

lol did you even read what he wrote? He said that multiple sources all show ice loss on portions of Antarctica and you said "bingo'

It's amazing how terribly biased you are.

First you say that Greenland can't be melting because otherwise we would see the cold mel****er cool off the surrounding ocean. Nevermind the fact that the amount of mel****er in such a short time period is nearly irrelevant to the heat content of the surrounding ocean.

Then you claim Antarctica cannot have lost ice because it is too cold to lose ice. Nevermind the fact that most ice loss is through flow and not physical melting. Maybe the glaciers have sped up due to something happening at their terminus.

Your posts lack basic logic or thorough thought.

You're being a bunch of Bullsh*t.

Let me repeat this for you.

1) Theres no way around it....if the greenland ice sheet was melting "rapidly".....we'd see cold surface anoms surrounding the area....FRESHWATER FLOATS......Due to its less dense composite, so it would sit on top of the sal****er. This is what causes the gulf stream to shut down.

2) Why Hasn't Satellite Imaging captured ANY shrinking of the greenland Ice? The claims are based upon loss of mass, true, but.....if thatsw due to warming, the thin ice should be long gone, and we'd see noticable shrinking of the ice cap.....we have not, and we have the SST's to prove that the melting has been insignificant, and under realms of expectation.

3) There has been NO documented "ass ice loss" through glacier flow....wheres your proof? NASA Uses the term "Antarctic ice Melt" in the fomentioned areas!!! NASA claims melting of the Sheets....Ice cannot melt on most of the main Antarctic land ice sheet. Summer temperatures avg -30C in the coldest parts, & never get above -15C.

Again....It aint happening. Why would we be loosing ice instead of gaining. Cliaming MASS ICE LOSS..........in a cooling trend...its the same sh*t.

Learn...

[skierinvermont]

You're being a bunch of Bullsh*t.

Let me repeat this for you.

1) Theres no way around it....if the greenland ice sheet was melting "rapidly".....we'd see cold surface anoms surrounding the area....FRESHWATER FLOATS......Due to its less dense composite, so it would sit on top of the sal****er. This is what causes the gulf stream to shut down.

2) Why Hasn't Satellite Imaging captured ANY shrinking of the greenland Ice? The claims are based upon loss of mass, true, but.....if thatsw due to warming, the thin ice should be long gone, and we'd see noticable shrinking of the ice cap.....we have not, and we have the SST's to prove that the melting has been insignificant, and under realms of expectation.

3) There has been NO documented "ass ice loss" through glacier flow....wheres your proof? NASA Uses the term "Antarctic ice Melt" in the fomentioned areas!!! NASA claims melting of the Sheets....Ice cannot melt on most of the main Antarctic land ice sheet. Summer temperatures avg -30C in the coldest parts, & never get above -15C.

Again....It aint happening. Why would we be loosing ice instead of gaining. Cliaming MASS ICE LOSS..........in a cooling trend...its the same sh*t.

Learn...

as has been explained to you many times, the amount of water is too small to cool the whole ****ing ocean.

also cold water sinks. I guess you didn't think of that in your little 8th grade science project.

And satellites have captured areal shrinkage of the greengland ice sheets. **** you can see it with a camera. LOL

Wake up from your fantasy land. PLEASE.

[BethesdaWX]

as has been explained to you many times, the amount of water is too small to cool the whole ****ing ocean.

also cold water sinks. I guess you didn't think of that in your little 8th grade science project.

And satellites have captured areal shrinkage of the greengland ice sheets. **** you can see it with a camera. LOL

Wake up from your fantasy land. PLEASE.

You're full of bullsh*t.

DO YOU KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FRESHWATER & SALT WATER DENSITIES????? HOLY MOFO!!! :arrowhead:

not only are your statements false, with no backup/proof/sources, but you Don't understand what in the heck you're talking about!

How does the Gulf Stream Shut down again? Oh yes, the melt water that is fresh floats & disrupts the cycle. Last time I checked, it didn't happen all that long ago. Wheres your evidence? If Sea Level is rising at 3mm per year, and the Antarctic is cooling, where is this supposed sea level rise coming from? alot of it apparently.