• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Antarctica's 'Doomsday Glacier' close to tipping point

Somerville

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 29, 2012
Messages
18,625
Reaction score
9,272
Location
On an island. Not that one!
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
No biggie - right? " Thwaites Glacier's collapse could potentially take the rest of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet with it, causing a 10-foot (3 meter) rise in global sea levels. "

Antarctica's 'Doomsday Glacier' close to tipping point, unmanned sub reveals

A robotic submarine has returned from the dark underbelly of one of Antarctica's largest glaciers with chilling news — it could be melting faster than we previously thought.

Thwaites Glacier, a gigantic ice shelf in West Antarctica, has been on climate scientists' radars for two decades now. But they didn't know just how fast the glacier was melting, and how close it was to complete collapse, until researchers sent an unmanned submarine below the ice shelf.

The first measurements ever performed in the dark waters under the 74,000 square mile (192,000 square kilometers) chunk of ice revealed a disquieting piece of information: A previously underestimated current of warm water is flowing from the east, whittling away at several vital "pinning points" that anchor the shelf to the land.
[ . . . ]
The findings aren't the only troubling recent news to come from West Antarctica. Exposure to warmer water could also push Thwaites' neighboring Pine Island Glacier past a tipping point, researchers showed in a study published March 25 in the Journal The Cryosphere. The Thwaites and Pine Island glaciers are currently responsible for 10% of the ongoing increase in global sea levels, according to the Cryosphere study.

No global warming - nope - not happening.
 
No biggie - right? " Thwaites Glacier's collapse could potentially take the rest of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet with it, causing a 10-foot (3 meter) rise in global sea levels. "



No global warming - nope - not happening.

"Thwaites Glacier, a gigantic ice shelf, ... warm water is ... whittling away at several vital "pinning points" that anchor the shelf to the land."

Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Ice_shelf
tells us:

An ice shelf is a large floating platform of ice

How many times do the alarmists have to be told that floating ice
whether it's attached to land or not, doesn't contribute to sea level?
 
"Thwaites Glacier, a gigantic ice shelf, ... warm water is ... whittling away at several vital "pinning points" that anchor the shelf to the land."

Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Ice_shelf
tells us:

An ice shelf is a large floating platform of ice

How many times do the alarmists have to be told that floating ice
whether it's attached to land or not, doesn't contribute to sea level?

What if that ice shelf than moves into warmer water and melts?
 
What if that ice shelf than moves into warmer water and melts?
The same thing happens when the ice cubes in you drink melt, the level stays the same!
 
The same thing happens when the ice cubes in you drink melt, the level stays the same!

“The common misconception that floating ice won’t increase sea level when it melts occurs because the difference in density between fresh water and salt water is not taken into consideration. Archimedes’ Principle states that an object immersed in a fluid is buoyed up by a force equal to the weight of the fluid it displaces. However, Noerdlinger notes that because freshwater is not as dense as saltwater, freshwater actually has greater volume than an equivalent weight of saltwater. Thus, when freshwater ice melts in the ocean, it contributes a greater volume of melt water than it originally displaced.”

 
“The common misconception that floating ice won’t increase sea level when it melts occurs because the difference in density between fresh water and salt water is not taken into consideration. Archimedes’ Principle states that an object immersed in a fluid is buoyed up by a force equal to the weight of the fluid it displaces. However, Noerdlinger notes that because freshwater is not as dense as saltwater, freshwater actually has greater volume than an equivalent weight of saltwater. Thus, when freshwater ice melts in the ocean, it contributes a greater volume of melt water than it originally displaced.”

Perhaps a few percent, but not the same as the entire volume of ice.
It should be an easy experiment, ice in a glass of saltwater, I suspect the glass still does not overflow, unless it was right
up to the meniscus line before.
 
“The common misconception that floating ice won’t increase sea level when it melts occurs because the difference in density between fresh water and salt water is not taken into consideration. Archimedes’ Principle states that an object immersed in a fluid is buoyed up by a force equal to the weight of the fluid it displaces. However, Noerdlinger notes that because freshwater is not as dense as saltwater, freshwater actually has greater volume than an equivalent weight of saltwater. Thus, when freshwater ice melts in the ocean, it contributes a greater volume of melt water than it originally displaced.”

From your citation,
"In a paper titled "The Melting of Floating Ice will Raise the Ocean Level" submitted to Geophysical Journal International,
Noerdlinger demonstrates that melt water from sea ice and floating ice shelves could add 2.6% more water to the ocean
than the water displaced by the ice,
or the equivalent of approximately 4 centimeters (1.57 inches) of sea-level rise. "
So if the floating ice shelve breaks off and melts, the sea level rise will be inches not meters.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PoS
From your citation,
"In a paper titled "The Melting of Floating Ice will Raise the Ocean Level" submitted to Geophysical Journal International,
Noerdlinger demonstrates that melt water from sea ice and floating ice shelves could add 2.6% more water to the ocean
than the water displaced by the ice,
or the equivalent of approximately 4 centimeters (1.57 inches) of sea-level rise. "
So if the floating ice shelve breaks off and melts, the sea level rise will be inches not meters.

So you admit that you didn’t know enough science to know that the melting of sea ice would cause a rise in the level of the oceans (see your post #4). Okay then.
 
No biggie - right? " Thwaites Glacier's collapse could potentially take the rest of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet with it, causing a 10-foot (3 meter) rise in global sea levels. "



No global warming - nope - not happening.
I agree with the gist of what the paper says. They correctly model the possible tipping point using a hysteresis curve. This however is a perfectly natural cyclical event. Temperature does play a role, but not as much as ice mass changes. This event has almost certainly started already and accelerating.

The cycle involves glacier growth. As the mass of the glacier increases, so does the pressure on the lower slopes and sea entry resisting the flow. At some point the pressure accumulates enough to compromise the blocking ice holding it back. Then the rate of the glacier flow significantly increases until the mass of the ice is reduced enough that a blockage can occur again.

AGW forcing is likely insignificant compared to the natural cycles in play.

Keep in mind there are powerful natural forces in play here. Celestial mechanics has the solar insolation of the southern hemisphere is about 7% greater then the isolation of the northern hemisphere due to the earth's eccentricity and precession combination. These factors are slowly reducing the southern insolation over time, but we are speaking of thousands of years.

Besides Celestial Mechanics, we have the volcanic activity at the ocean floor which has it's own cycles. This area is within the "ring of fire."
 
  • Like
Reactions: PoS
What if that ice shelf than moves into warmer water and melts?
Does the water height in your glass increase in height when the ice cubes melt?
 
“The common misconception that floating ice won’t increase sea level when it melts occurs because the difference in density between fresh water and salt water is not taken into consideration. Archimedes’ Principle states that an object immersed in a fluid is buoyed up by a force equal to the weight of the fluid it displaces. However, Noerdlinger notes that because freshwater is not as dense as saltwater, freshwater actually has greater volume than an equivalent weight of saltwater. Thus, when freshwater ice melts in the ocean, it contributes a greater volume of melt water than it originally displaced.”

The effect is very insignificant.

How about doing the math, and you will see just how insignificant it is.
 
The effect is very insignificant.

How about doing the math, and you will see just how insignificant it is.

So you admit that you didn’t know enough about science to know that the melting of sea ice would cause a rise in the ocean level (see your post #10). Well okay then.
 
Perhaps a few percent, but not the same as the entire volume of ice.
It should be an easy experiment, ice in a glass of saltwater, I suspect the glass still does not overflow, unless it was right
up to the meniscus line before.
Assuming they are correct, if I take a 361 gigaton block of ice, and put it in the ocean, it increases the ocean height by 1 mm. When that block of ice melts, it increases the ocean height an additional 0.026 mm. This is based on an extreme variance to what sea water really is. They uses an extreme percentage of salt in the water to show there was a effect. The problem is, with the comparatively low salt concentration in the oceans to what they used, where would be no observable effect has the used the concentrations of salt found in the oceans. They used only about three times as much saltwater as ice, and the saltwater density was 1.197 gm/ml. Sea water density is only 1.0273 gm/ml.

A serious problem with their extreme example is when they do this, their 3:1 ratio of salt water to ice dramatically changes the salinity to about 75% of the original when melted. I can melt thousands of gigatons of ice in the ocean, I see no measurable change in salinity.

This experiment is a flop from the beginning.

 
So you admit that you didn’t know enough science to know that the melting of sea ice would cause a rise in the level of the oceans (see your post #4). Okay then.
Actually you cited article supported the idea that the change in sea level would be minimal,
I question the two photos in the experiment
Because it did not show the bottom of the container.
I ran a quick experiment that showed almost zero change in the liquid level.
 
Actually you cited article supported the idea that the change in sea level would be minimal,
I question the two photos in the experiment
Because it did not show the bottom of the container.
I ran a quick experiment that showed almost zero change in the liquid level.

Your post #4 did it say that it would be “minimal”. You said that it would not rise. Guess you didn’t know your science, eh?
 
Your post #4 did it say that it would be “minimal”. You said that it would not rise. Guess you didn’t know your science, eh?
It does stay the same with fresh water, and the difference between fresh water and sea water is minimal, like your cite says 2.6%.
 
It does stay the same with fresh water, and the difference between fresh water and sea water is minimal, like your cite says 2.6%.

So you admit once again that your science in post #4 was wrong. Thanks.
 
The same thing happens when the ice cubes in you drink melt, the level stays the same!

Lets say you had a glass full of water, with a chunk of ice in it that stuck six inches out of the glass.
The glass is full of water to the brim.

As the chunk of ice melts...what would happen then?
 
So you admit once again that your science in post #4 was wrong. Thanks.
Not at all, post number 4 was a simple observation that the level in a drinking glass does not change when the ice melts.
The citation used an unknown level of ice in a container of salt water, the ice would float slightly higher but only increased the level by 2.6%.
I tried the experiment with a super saturated salt solution, and observed no measurable level increase.
 

Attachments

  • A5B1FD22-1C2C-4D32-989C-E970BBFC1364.webp
    A5B1FD22-1C2C-4D32-989C-E970BBFC1364.webp
    75.8 KB · Views: 4
Lets say you had a glass full of water, with a chunk of ice in it that stuck six inches out of the glass.
The glass is full of water to the brim.

As the chunk of ice melts...what would happen then?
The ice would not stick out 6 inches if it were floating!
 
Not at all, post number 4 was a simple observation that the level in a drinking glass does not change when the ice melts.
The citation used an unknown level of ice in a container of salt water, the ice would float slightly higher but only increased the level by 2.6%.
I tried the experiment with a super saturated salt solution, and observed no measurable level increase.

I love your backpedaling.
 
I love your backpedaling.
How so?
I tested the idea, floating ice melting in salt water did not increase the level in the glass in and measurable way.
 
How so?
I tested the idea, floating ice melting in salt water did not increase the level in the glass in and measurable way.
I tested it too with a saturated mix. I had a considerable increase in level, which I did expect. Only problem, being saturated at 1.1972 gm/mL, I wondered what thermal expansion is for saltwater that concentrated. I couldn't find the data in a short time, not sure where to look. Consider that as soon as you put that much ice in a small volume of water, the water cools considerable. When you melt it and its at room temperature, how much is due to thermal expansion? I doubt it was significant, but I cannot say that with any certainty.

Maybe you had some water evaporate? I covered my glass.

Sea water is so much less saturated. From the data I could find, that are changing the brine mix from 1.1972 gm/mL to about 19.5 gm/mL. (I'm assuming 3 part brine 1 parts ice.) This alone changes the brine mix to a density of 1.1378, which is an increase of 5.22% in volume.

The same chemistry handbook I referenced has a different percentage when using lower salinity with the same ration. If I use 4 to 3 gm/mL, instead of 26 to 19.5 gm/mL, I get a change from 1.0268 to 1.0196 gm/mL, which is only a 0.7% increase in volume.

I mentioned somewhere about the this, I told one person to do the math. I also gave the ocean dilution example.

Thing is, the percentage of displacement change is so much less at the salinity of the ocean than it is in a saturated mix.

As I said, this experiment is flawed for the conclusion claimed. It only shows that there is an effect. But when you take it to the scale of the ocean, you have an insignificant change in salinity, with an insignificant change in density.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom