Another climate model predicts unstoppable sea-level rise from Antarctica melt

Source: Wikimedia

Source: Wikimedia


The warmer the higher: Sea-level rise from Filchner-Ronne ice in Antarctica 

The more ice is melted of the Antarctic Filchner-Ronne shelf, the more ice flows into the ocean and the more the region contributes to global sea-level rise. While this might seem obvious, it is no matter of course for the huge ice masses of Antarctica: parts of the ice continent are characterized by instabilities that, once triggered, can lead to persistent ice discharge into the ocean even without a further increase of warming – resulting in unstoppable long-term sea-level rise. In the Filchner-Ronne region however, ice-loss will likely not show such behavior, scientists from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research now found. Published in Nature Climate Change, their study shows that in this area the ice flow into the ocean increases just constantly with the heat provided by the ocean over time.

“While for other parts of Antarctica unstoppable long-term ice loss might be provoked by a single warming pulse, caused by nature itself or human action, ice loss in the Filchner-Ronne region increases directly with ocean warming,” lead author Matthias Mengel explains. “This is good news, because it is in our hands to determine how much the region contributes to the global sea-level rise.” Ocean warming results from greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, produced by humankind’s unabated burning of coal, oil and gas. Importantly, however, the oceans might not respond linearly to atmospheric warming, and not in the same way in all parts of the world. This includes the risk that ocean temperatures first lag behind, and then rise rapidly.

“Good news” yet only compared to other parts of the ice continent

The Filchner-Ronne shelf covers an area bigger than Germany; its grounded-ice tributaries store water equivalent to a total of several meters of sea-level rise. “Our calculations show that this relatively small part of the Antarctic ice sheet within just 200 years of unabated climate change could contribute up to 40 centimeters to global sea-level rise,” says Mengel. “This kind of sea-level rise alone could already be enough to bring coastal cities like Hamburg into serious difficulties.”

“At present, most Antarctic ice shelves are surrounded by cold water masses near the freezing point,” co-author Anders Levermann says. “The topography around the ice continent acts as a barrier for heat and salt exchange with the northern warmer and saltier water masses, creating a cold water wall around the continent.” Projections of the breakdown of this front in ocean simulations for the Filchner-Ronne region under atmospheric warming raised concerns that such ocean instability might lead to unstoppable future ice loss also from this part of Antarctica, as is projected to occur in the Wilkes Basin region, for instance. “We found that this is not the case for the Filchner-Ronne shelf – which luckily means that we can still very well limit the ice loss in this area by limiting greenhouse gas emissions.”

Different mechanisms in different regions

Sea-level rise poses a challenge to coastal regions worldwide. While today sea-level rise is mainly caused by thermal expansion of the warming oceans, and by the melting of mountain glaciers, the major contributors to long-term future sea-level rise are expected to be Greenland and Antarctica with their vast ice sheets. The causes of ice loss differ greatly between the two. While on Greenland ice melting at the surface plays a large role, the Antarctic ice sheet loses almost all its ice through ice flow into the ocean. The simulation of the Antarctic ice flow is complex because the flow can become unstable. Ice shelves, the floating extensions of the ice sheet, can act as a break to the ice flow and inhibit instability. Warming oceans around Antarctica that melt the ice shelves therefore increase the risk of high sea-level rise.

The Parallel Ice Sheet Model, as used by the authors, resolves unstable grounding line retreat and simulates the flow of both the ice sheet and the ice shelves. It can therefore help to answer urgent questions as to the extent of Antarctica’s sea-level risks.

“It is more difficult to determine the risk that comes with global warming in parts of Antarctica that are considered unstable, and less difficult for the Filchner-Ronne region that responds linearly to global warming,” concludes Levermann. “One thing is clear: the more warming we cause by burning coal, gas and oil, the more expensive it will be for coastal regions to adapt.”


Article: Mengel, M., Feldmann, J., Levermann, A. (2015): Linear sea-level response of Antarctic tributaries to strong projected ocean warming underneath the Filchner-Ronne ice shelf.Nature Climate Change (Advance Online Publication) [DOI: 10.1038/nclimate2808]

Link to the article once it is published:

Link to a previous study on the Wilkes Bassin ice plug:

201 thoughts on “Another climate model predicts unstoppable sea-level rise from Antarctica melt

      • Bill2,
        The Antarctic contains about 10X the volume of Arctic ice. Here’s what’s happening in the Antarctic:
        As of today, global ice is rising:
        The shaded part is ± one standard deviation. Within two SD’s is natural fluctuation.
        You are getting all excited over the natural ebb and flow of the global ice cycle. Last year global ice was well above its long term average. Did you comment about that? If not, all you’re doing is parroting the alarmist narrative.
        This is a science site; the internet’s “BEST SCIENCE” site. There are plenty of blogs that welcome your kind of alarmism. Go tell them about your ice fears. Because we’re not concerned over minor wiggles like this.

      • Not only all those observations but this: early springs in Europe were supposed to be upon us. Vegetation did not get the message. – h/t NotricksZone

        Nature – Published online 23 September 2015
        Declining global warming effects on the phenology of spring leaf unfolding
        …..Using long-term in situ observations of leaf unfolding for seven dominant European tree species at 1,245 sites, here we show that the apparent response of leaf unfolding to climate warming (ST, expressed in days advance of leaf unfolding per °C warming) has significantly decreased from 1980 to 2013 in all monitored tree species……

        Regarding PIK, there is a website called It “was initiated by Munich Re in April 2005 in response to the growing realization that insurance solutions can play a role in adaptation to climate change” (source). Who was one of the founders of this outfit?

        Dr. Armin Haas
        Senior Reseearcher – Potsdam Institute für Klimafolgenforschung – Potsdam, Germany
        …..As a senior researcher at PIK, Armin is interested in the interaction of financial markets and climate change……Apart from being a co-founder of MCII, Armin founded ‘TheCompensators’ together with colleagues from PIK, to reduce personal CO2 emissions via the ETS.

        He is still there apparently, and here is what appears to be his newer entry.
        This is not the only reference for Potsdam, there are many more for the site. Potsdam are obsessed with us taking out insurance for floods and the like. I wonder why?

      • Like the fact that recent Antarctic sea ice levels are the highest ever recorded by humans? Or that the warmists got their research vessel STUCK in the Southern sea ice? Pretty confusing I guess. Good thing taxpayers bailed them out.

      • I don’t know how are they counting total sea ice area, but simply eyeballing graphs from
        Looking in the middle of September it is obvious that total sea ice area in Arctic is around 4.5 million km2 and total sea ice area in Antarctica is around 18 million km2
        Total Earth sea ice area roughly 22.5 million km2 not around 18 as in the graph…

      • Not just that Paul. Suppose sea level rose 30 ft in 90 years.
        New York City:
        We can’t work on the fourth floor or above. Venice proves that water taxis do not work.
        We cannot move inland to higher ground. New York City residents’ ancestors lived here 9000 years ago. The city was not just built here over the last 200 years. Anyway, even if it was, architects and builders just aren’t as smart as they used to be. Even Donald Trump has admitted that building a hotel at 4000 ft elevation Las Vegas was nearly impossible, as do other Sunset Strip builders, not to mention 5000 ft elevation builders in Denver. Mexico City, elevation 7300 ft, is a tiny pueblo, because you can’t build that high above sea level. You just can’t create a modern metropolis above 60 ft current sea level.
        And really, does anyone believe that New Orleans could be replicated in 70-ft elevation Baton Rouge?
        People say that Los Angeles, built mostly above 125 ft, would be fine, but how about Malibu? Most of Malibu would be fine, but Steven Spielberg’s, and all his post-1980 mover-in neighbors’ beachfront houses could be washed away.
        San Diego International Airport elevation 17 ft would be drowned. Asking San Diego to relocate airline operations to Miramar (former Top Gun School location on the mesa), elevation 478 ft, would just be impossible.
        People just aren’t as smart as they used to be.
        Well, anyway, I lived in California in the 70s. Visiting recently, beaches from Marin County to San Diego, have not disappeared, not ocean encroachment/beach diminution. Scripps Institution has a pier, many decades old, but it has no plan to raise it in the near future.
        If anybody has info on Wood Hole raising their pier, or making plans to move the Institution inland to to higher ground, please report it. It the world’s top two oceanographic study centers aren’t doing anything to escape “dangerous sea level rise”, what does that tell you?
        All the “important people” are going to COP21 on massive-carbon-dioxide-spewing jets. They don’t believe they are contributing to climate catastrophe. They aren’t hypocrites. They’re fraud artists. Excuse me, I mean “artistes”.

      • There can’t be a new law of physics because the science is settled – nothing knew to find out.

      • Always an important fact when discussing “melting” with warmists. Generally, I find that most of them don’t know the difference between warming and “less cold”.

      • “Not only is the southern ocean colder than normal, it is actually -2.0C which is colder than the freezing point of fresh water glacial ice.”
        Well spotted Bill.
        The excuse for cooler oceans around Antarctica were because of melting ice. The fact it is -2.0 c with no ice shows there is a high salt content, so can’t have anything to do with melting ice.
        Another alarmist failure.

      • One very significant observation in the North Atlantic ocean is a very small patch about 8 c colder than usual. If true this would be concerning to say the least. It is normally around 16 c there, but there is a very small area ~8 c. This doesn’t show up on anomalies because it’s too small, but still in a region much colder than normal.

    • Check out the Bahamas where Hurricane Joaquin was sitting for a few days. Notice the cooling it produced.

    • Pot’s damn! How are they supposed to PIK those sort of factual details out of all that model output? There just isn’t time to do climate science that the MSM want and be thorough, rational and professional about it!

    • Here is the problem that PIK (their nose?) has with crappy science. It’s really simple as Roger alludes too.
      Density of water = 1
      Density of Ice = 1
      Floating ice is frozen water of the same density. If it melted, absolutely nothing would happen!
      Really, it’s just basic science that is being ignored so they maybe can, or possibly should or might, get more funding.
      This is nothing but HORSE PUCKY!

  1. The average annual surface temperature of Antarctica is -47 C. Wake me up when the ice starts to melt. Thanks.

      • And the melting point of ice.
        It’s 9°F McMurdo Station, going down to -8 tonight. 20 degrees of warming would melt no ice.

    • We need an under-ice volcano alarm clock for you then because that’s the only mechanism for Antarctic ice melting.

    • The only melting of Antarctic ice cap cannot be caused by the atmosphere neither by the surrounding Ocean, but by telluric and volcanic activities under the ice in some parts of this continent.
      And yes, they may make the ice melting and speeding up the glaciers shifting towards the ocean. But it has nothing to do with the AGW.
      A similar phenomenon was recently observed on the Arctic Océan’s floor which warms up the water under the ice shelf and makes it melting and thinning. Nothing to do with AGW here too.

  2. The melt season ended in the arctic so quickly that I was not able to carry out my plan to kayak to the North Pole this summer.
    But next year, with all of the Arctic ice certainly gone, I will have a much more open schedule for planning.
    Now, I am adding another adventure to highlight the problem of disappearing ice: I will mountain bike to the South Pole in the same year.

    • Warmists are certainly trying to get the alarm out. Recently the Toronto Star published a piece on “we’ll soon be sailing in the ice-free Northwest Passage”. Er. Sometime. Not this year, maybe next.
      Basically, they change the date of the article, re-arrange a few words here and there and re-print, hoping nobody catches them.

    • “already”
      What does this mean?
      Are they implying that it already happened, we just have not noticed yet?
      Or is it like a signed death warrant, where the convict is “already” dead?

    • I’m conflicted – don’t know if I should just end it all now or smoke some baby back ribs. It would help of editors would ban articles that use “could, may, is possible, models indicate…”. It is safe to say the world could be hit by a large asteroid before the day is over in which case I will definitely go with the ribs today and tomorrow.

      • Not baby backs, puleeze! (There’s a reason so many restaurants “feature” baby backs these days.) Use some good ribs. And will you be criminally splashing any of that charcoal starter fluid about? 😉

    • “‘This kind of sea-level rise alone could …’ [insert JACKASSERY here]”
      FTFY. No charge.

  3. ““Our calculations show that this relatively small part of the Antarctic ice sheet within just 200 years of unabated climate change could contribute up to 40 centimeters to global sea-level rise,” says Mengel. “This kind of sea-level rise alone could already be enough to bring coastal cities like Hamburg into serious difficulties.””
    Could have. Would have. Should have. I have to throw BS on this paper. In view of the fact that most of Antarctica has not gotten warmer during the past two decades, the paper represents just speculation for a fee, a government fee.

    • And even if we accept the warmista numbers on ocean warming, was it not about 0.02 C?
      Last time my freezer warmed up by two one hundreths if a degree, I did not notice any of the ice cubes melting.
      And what the heck is ” unabated climate change”?
      If they are talking about warming…then say warming! But there has been no warming, bated or otherwise, for nearly 19 years. So what are they even talking about?
      And how can they conclude that any warming pulse will cause unstoppable ice loss, when the Earth has seen a long series of such pulses over time…and yet the ice sheet remains.
      Have these people no scruples or shame?
      How can people publish something that amounts to shear speculation based on a one sided view which is not even borne out by any facts?
      The only thing that seems unstoppable to me is the stream of alarmist BS, and the damage to the reputation of science in general.

      • But the heat is hiding somewhere, it’ll come back with a vengence, we just cannot find it, but we know it’s there, . There now, do I qualify for a grant. We have to find it before it’s too late! I’ll start my research in Hawaii, see, it’s counterintuitive. It WILL take a while… (I have no such thoughts of passing the days swimming or dining out every night. Oh no, I’ll be busy making a new case for another grant).

    • “Speculation for a fee” This is what taxpayers get for the billions that is taken from them.
      The Education Bubble can’t burst fast enough for me.

      • Climate Science – where else can one get such a large return in speculation for a such a small investment in fact?

      • Ferd Berple said, “Climate Science – where else can one get such a large return in speculation for a such a small investment in fact?”
        I think this exhibits an economic problem that few have considered. For every inefficient job created in our economy, either part of a real job, or an entire real job disappears. For example, with the misapplication of science and scientific tools, we spend money inefficiently on things like climate scientists, whereas, we need more genetic scientists, more medical doctors, and any number of other disciplines including engineers. Misapplied research dollars have an opportunity cost by denying resources for serious research in medicine and food production.
        The federal government winds up paying for climate scientists to get their Phd’s, but what about medical doctors or real scientists like physicists and engineers? Instead of paying for tons of useless climate studies, how about repaving some roads or rebuilding some bridges.
        Nobody’s day-to-day life will change on the results of speculative climate change studies. The people in Bangladesh will not get wet feet because of increasing CO2. They might get wet because of subsiding land, but the Ganges delta is in no danger of disappearing underwater. Even with sea levels rise over time, the people in Bangladesh, Miami, or New York City are not stupid. They will find ways of staying dry, obtaining food, and mitigating any climate dangers that come up over the next thousand years.
        Except, maybe another ice age.

    • Only 200 years of unabated climate change will do it.
      Now I tend to agree with those worry warts that we are in for at least 200 years of unabated climate change. Lordy ! we’ve had about 4.5 billions (with a B) of unabated climate change, so why would it stop now.
      Biggest question to resolve is it going up or down ?? What means climate going up or down ?? What is climate for that matter ??
      When you use imprecise terms in scientific discussions, you tend to get a failure to communicate.
      That’s why I tend to get a bit pedantic, when discussing science.
      That means roughly the same thing as ” nit picky “.

  4. Triggers and Forcing, the hallmarks of Global Warming Alarmism.
    I don’t know what a forcing is. Nobody has been abole to describe, in a unit-based scientific way, what a forcing is. Similarly, the CAGW chicken littles like to use the word “Trigger”.
    Doom is upon us but apparently is being held back by a simple quintessential stick and string under the immense boulder of unstoppable destruction.
    1) Please give me a testable, and provable example of a ‘climate trigger’. No Butterfly effect BS.
    2) Show me that the trigger will, without a doubt, result in cataclysm.
    3) Show me that there are no other triggers.
    4) Prove to me that there isn’t a giant wall in front of either the trigger of the cataclysm. (The earth is a big system, a lot of mass to influence, so that is the wall that I am thinking about)
    5) Show me that your funding isn’t tied to preaching doom and gloom.
    Trigger and Forcing are Bullsh1t words that really mean nothing and everything.

      • Very amusing! Lotta horses up there in Edmonton, so that make you an expert… on..Trigger droppings.

    • What is more, Paul…. if the climate had significant positive feedbacks on any of these perturbations, or if it were critically unstable with sensitive “triggers”….. and given the huge expanse of parameter space which the earth has been in past millenia (hot, cold, hi CO2, low CO2, different ocean configurations, different polar-continent arrangements), wouldn’t we have locked up into either a frozen hell or a boiling hell a long time ago? I agree with you that this talk of triggers is speculative uninformed BS.

    • “Forcing” – I work across disciplines, and so I recognize that different disciplines have different terms for different things.
      I thought “forcings” was just an independent variable suspected of causally leading to planetary temp.

    • To Jeff Bob and Brian,
      I had to study control systems in my undergrad and my graduate work. I recognize hype wrt transfer functions when I hear it.
      Consider the stability of the earth, and I give you 3 notions of stability represented by a solid cone resting on a plane.
      1) the cone is pointing up resting on its circular base. -Stable.
      2)The cone is resting on its curved side, and can ve rolled if touched. -Neutrally stable.
      3) The cone is resting on its point, pointing down and can tip over with any disturbance. Unstable
      I do not think a convincing case has been made by Mengel et al that there is such an instability in reserve that the earth will radically change if a piece of ice melts.
      I would like to the transfer function Mengel et al proposes.
      I will be waiting…forever.

    • Triggers and forcing are the result of false analogies.
      Unfortunately false analogies can create a popular belief that the earth will automatically lurch uncontrollably towards some extreme and nightmarish condition.
      Luckily for us, they are unlikely to ever get the concept of glacial “uncorking” into the public consciousness.
      Even public discussion of renewables is beset by the circulation of inappropriate analogies.
      When the government launched their unsustainable solar cash give-away, they described their policy as one of “priming the pump” of the solar market.
      But, actually when they cut the subsidy the bubble that they had created almost completely collapsed.
      So, no pump was primed. It was a dumb analogy that aided the creation of a catastrophically dumb and expensive scheme.
      False analogies, dangerous things in the hands of useful idiots!!!

      • Oh I agree. It seems that rather than pursue science, the investigators have assumed a metaphor as a fact and endeavored to seek evidence of the metaphor’s existence in reality. How weird is that? Someone must see real value in the popular appeal and acceptance of “triggers” and “tipping points”.

  5. I’d love to know the physics of how “Ocean warming results from greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, produced by humankind’s unabated burning of coal, oil and gas”. Just that one sentence tells you all you need to know about the ignorance of the authors.

  6. “Ocean warming results from greenhouse gases in the atmosphere”
    Interesting. I thought it was from sunshine.

  7. I am still awaiting an explanation of how GHG can make any measurable difference to ocean temperatures, particularly below the top few mm, where it conceivably might.

    • Yet the oceans have theoretically warmed without GHG warming the atmosphere. I am with you Paul I can’t see how GHG can cause the oceans to warm without also showing significant and dramatic warming in the atmosphere, but I can sure think of a million reasons why a cyclical warming ocean could warm the atmosphere.

    • It is not a difficult concept to understand that in the vacuum of space the only heat transfer possible is by radiation, in fluids it is by convection and in solids by conduction. ” The lost heat of AGW has disappeared into the ocean depths” demonstrates a total lack of understanding about simple physics as well as contradicting at least one of the Laws of Thermodynamics. The fact is that still water and still air are very good insulators (wet suit, dry suit, loft insulation and many others all rely on this simple fact).
      Why should we impoverish billions of people and destroy the World Economy, based on “science” that is not only incorrect, but grossly wrong?

  8. The observational facts about this ice shelf are coverd in essay Tipping Points. It is stable based on actual drill cores. The big concern was the Ross, until the ANDRIL program showed itbis stable also. That is why NASA JPL’s Rignot refocused the alarm to PIG in the Amundsen Embayment. Except his estimate is almost 4x NASA’s previous ones in 2011 and 2012. And, PIG is so small that to get a scary 1.2 meters, the PR assumed all the ice in the Embayment basin woild disappear. Rignots owm research in the same paper showed that was impossible.
    The Potsdam model cannot be very good. No different than the rest of Schellnhuber, Rahmsdorf, and crew work product to date. Pure fantasized warmunism.

    • I am curious about the actual temperature of the ice itself, at the surface and at various levels.
      In most places, groundwater is about equal to the average annual air temperature in that location. Is the same true of Antarctic ice? Is it colder way down deep, representing the temp long ago during glacial epochs?
      Is there a place to look this up?
      Did they take temp readings in the boreholes?
      I am bringing this up because of a simple fact which may have eluded the people worried about these ice sheets melting: Ice melts when the temp of the ice gets above 32, not necessarily the air.
      My freezer is at -2 F, and therefore so is the ice in it. If I take some out, and place it on the counter, it does not start melting right away…because the cubes themselves have to first warm up to the melting point. Same with Antarctic ice. My guess is that ice is far below zero F, and will take a very long time to even begin to melt, if the temp ever got up to even 32F.

    • The Potsdam Institute can be counted on to release a new study showing catastrophic impacts on the world due to manmade global warming/climate change based on computer models, about every two or three weeks. They and NASA are the standard-bearers of climate alarmism

  9. Finally, I see a climate paper which is absolutely correct. And from the notorious PIK, no less.

    Our calculations show that this relatively small part of the Antarctic ice sheet within just 200 years of unabated climate change could contribute up to 40 centimeters to global sea-level rise,” says Mengel.

    Historic sea level rise for the last 4 thousand to 6 thousand years is typically given as 8 inches/century or 20 cm/century. So two centuries rise gives 40 cm. Very good.
    This is proof that the PIC researchers were able to successfully calculate:
    20 * 2 = 40.
    News Flash Scientists from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research have demonstrated an ability to do simple multiplication. This is a characteristic which has previously been absent in the Climate Alarmist community. Future Directions Can partial differential calculus be far behind?

    • Seems to be the Marine Corps style of “tell ’em what you’re gonna tell ’em, tell ’em, tell ’em what you told ’em”.
      Repeat as needed until every last warmist fantasy of all of us getting together and saving the planet comes true.

    • I think what they are saying is that this ice shelf, when melted in 200 years, will,of itself, contribute 40 cm sea level rise in addition to that already happening in 200 years.

  10. Meanwhile in the real world mother nature clearly isn’t reading the press releases as Antarctic ice extent continues to be above the norm.

      • Maybe not above “norm” because there is no such thing. But certainly well above the 1979 to 2000 mean and about to break above 1 standard deviation of that mean. It sure looks like there is a strong possibility that Antarctic sea ice to once again break the record for the period mentioned.

    • JimB,
      That was the most involved conversion of centimeters to meters I have ever seen…just move the decimal place three places left.:-) (I know you were trying to show the inches in the middle for all us Americans, but the order of it tickled me.)

      • Well that sort of bush calculation won’t show anything significant, as we are only thinking about 1.0 deg. C rise in the last 150 years; more or less.
        So 1 inch is actually 2.54 cm; not 2.5 that’s a bigger error than what that possible 1 deg. C in 150 years represents as an uncertainty.
        And it is 39.37 cm per inch; not 39, which makes a foot 30.48 cm.
        But what we do know is that the earth’s equatorial circumference is exactly 21,600 nautical miles. Well it used to be exactly that; one minute of arc longitude per nm.
        But then they went and metricated the nautical mile, and now it is exactly 1852 metres; by definition.
        Why would you metricate a nautical mile; reserve your metrication for kilometering.
        Also a nautical mile is supposed to be 1,000 fathoms, which means a fathom is really about 6.076 feet; so even that get wronged in the MSM.
        If you like being sloppy; try to not do science; take up knitting instead; like knit one, purl 2, and so on.

      • I think this place is cursed 🙂
        It really isn’t “39.37 cm per inch” but maybe 39.37 cm per meter?
        Also nautical mile is one arc minute of latitude not longitude…

      • There are exactly 100 CM in one meter. This is the definition of a centimeter, after all.
        There are 39 plus inches in a meter.

      • Yes, lines of latitude are parallel.
        Lines of longitude are not…they converge at the poles, so you would have to specify a latitude in order to give a degree of longitude a distance.

      • When the metric system was devised, the meter was define as one ten millionth of the distance from the Equator to the North pole.
        And a gram was defined as a cubic centimeter of water at the melting point.
        This was later changed to be 4.0 C, which is the temp of maximum density of fresh water.
        Then the definitions changed to be based on actual physical specimens.
        I think the official meter is a platinum rod, and was further defined in terms of the wavelength of some atoms, sort of the way a second is defined.
        Later, the meter was defined in terms of the speed of light in a vacuum.

      • Yeah I mixed my mm and cm. I am used to working in time so that was a stretch for me. Of course I used to work in the non-metric nm in the Air Force. Pulse width was calculated in metric and blanking distance was converted to nautical miles. Max unambiguous range was most easily calculated in metric, but the pilots wanted everything in nautical miles. So convert, convert, and convert. Worse was we usually worked in time in the electronic circuits and had to convert to make it real for everyone else. For some reason pilots just didn’t understand what you mean when you reference distance in milliseconds/microseconds/nanoseconds.

  11. The Potsdam Institute (PIK) was set up in 1992 and is directed by Hans Joachim Schellnhuber. He is a pantheist and senior climate advisor to Pope Francis. Pantheism is defined as “the doctrine that God is the transcendent reality of which the material universe and human beings are only manifestations: it involves a denial of God’s personality and expresses a tendency to identify God and nature.” Schellnhuber believes the world population is ideally fewer than 1 billion people.

    • 1. if we are only manifestations, what’s his problem?
      2. how is that immaterial universe burning natural fuels (hydrocarbons)?
      somebody is off their meds

    • Schellnhuber believes the world population is ideally fewer than 1 billion people.
      he believes the world would be better off if he had never been born?

      • “he believes the world would be better off if he had never been born?”
        I know I do (along with his fellow-travelers)

      • “he believes the world would be better off if he had never been born?”
        And I agree with him.
        Anyone carrying around that much self-loathing is a detriment to us all.

      • BTW, I was only kidding. I do not wish anyone dead, even they that want themselves to be dead.
        The mentally unbalanced are to be pitied, not scorned, IMO.
        ( I make exceptions to the first statement above for killers and other such vicious human beings.)

      • Yes, but curiously even when the ‘eliminationists’ are confronted with their own hypocritical statements (such as “humans are a cancer to Gaia”), they never volunteer to take themselves out of the world’s population count, and always manage to evade answering the question of why they don’t.

      • great comment.
        in my opinion, it will either be an intellectual elitist, as Malthus was and many eugenicists have been, or a Marxist. the hard part is that intellectual elitists and Marxists have converged.

    • ” Hans Joachim Schellnhuber. He is a pantheist and senior climate advisor to Pope ”
      I read the same thing. How in the world can the Vatican enlist a man like Schellnhuber to give advice, any kind of advice? His core beliefs run counter to the the Roman Catholic world that I would think they would be ashamed to admit a connection.

      • Yes, the Church wants more babies! And at the same time believes we are all doomed to die in a terrible End of Times holocaust.

  12. This kind of alarmism is exactly like auto advertising. How many time have you heard the expression “introducing the all new XXX” where XXX is the brand name of the assembly line jalopy that the manufacturer is pushing your way. How on earth could an assembly line car be “all new” every year? They re-use 90 % of the previous year’s design, or they’d go broke in a hurry. Buyers know this, and they ignore the claim. Likewise “introducing the all new global warming scare XXX” has the same mind-numbing effect that produces a result that is the exact opposite of the one intended.

    • About as viable as claiming the recent rains in S. Carolina were a “1 in a 1,000 year” event based on 180 years of data.

      • The total rainfall is meaningless without the duration when it comes to the determination of what sort of rainfall event it was..

      • Doesn’t matter because the record does not go back far enough to allow any real accuracy in such a claim even as a statistical probability.

      • If you look at 1,000 communities, at least one of them should have a 1 in 1,000 year rainfall in any year.
        It is just odds.
        There are actually at least 1,000,000 communities on the planet, so there should be at least 1,000 which have a 1 in 1,000 year rainfall event in any one year.

      • With statistical modeling, you can take 100 years of data, look at the dispersion, and assume the variability in 100 years of dispersion would be consistent for a thousand years, then set your flood district and begin rate-setting.

      • Steve Jones is correct, comparing monthly totals to that for 3 days is not valid. Here are the statistics for various time intervals (ie XX rain in YY minutes or days) and the threshold for being considered a 1000 year flood (other values also published, all the way down to 1 year):
        For example, for SC the threshold for a 1000 year (average reoccurrence) is 15.7 inches over 3 days

  13. What the authors are always ignorant too with these models are the fact it takes a lot more than just summer temperature reaching more than 0 c to melt glacier. Ground temperatures are much colder over land and can remain below zero when temperatures are a few degrees above zero. If you lose a cm ice due to melt over a couple of days during the summer peak, only need more than 2 cm snow fall ice equivalent rest of the year to cause a yearly gain. This behavior if occurred in northern hemisphere, would lead to full blown ice age conditions and yet here temperatures would have to reach many degrees higher to to reach this condition.
    The glaciers can only hold so much weight and when it becomes too heavy spreads out further. If increased weight one day leads to parts of the glacier spreading out over unstable areas like the ocean. A collapse could easily occur and result in some of the glacier breaking off. This has nothing to do with temperatures, but natural behavior occurring over Antarctica land mass.
    Ocean warming does not result from greenhouse gases. There is no scientific evidence that this has any noticeable affect. If this was true the oceans linking the ACC around Antarctica would have been warming and they haven’t. The Antarctic Circumpolar Current is the main reason why warmer oceans away from this have no affect on the continent itself and that is what we have observed until now. There is no evidence this will change in any decade soon and the model just goes against all the scientific evidence there is as usual.

    • And even IF there was an increase in the water temperature, that would create greater evaporation that would sequester the water as snow in the interior of the Antarctic desert.

      • Areas close to coasts are also easily cold enough for a rise in water temperatures supporting increased water vapor for greater snowfalls on exterior.

  14. “Our calculations show that this relatively small part of the Antarctic ice sheet within just 200 years of unabated climate change could contribute up to 40 centimeters to global sea-level rise”
    A little faux pas? Climate change only equates to warming? Methinks their prejudice is showing juuuuuuust a little bit.

      • menicholas
        Odd really, in most sci-fi 18-20 years would be a cool time to wake up. But in the “Alarmist” world,,, ah no. What ever happened to to atomic war etc being the great threat to mankind? Oh.. A Volkswagen is going to off you,. forget all the other threats, Mutates, biker MUTATES, FEMALE mutates, and last last BUG EYED bunnies after our women,,, okay time for my meds,,,
        michael 😀

  15. Another climate model predicts unstoppable sea-level rise from Antarctica melt
    If only it would start melting.

  16. “The more ice is melted of the Antarctic Filchner-Ronne shelf, the more ice flows into the ocean”

  17. If I remember correctly, the yearly average temp in the Antarctic is minus 47. How much ice could possibly melt in a year at those temps ???

    • Marcus – You are doing it wrong. Antarctica is at the bottom of the world, and is therefor upside-down. You have to flip over the thermometer to compensate. Then the temperature becomes 47 deg.
      That is a Pro Tip, I hope it helps.

  18. Many of use the amazing resource called Null School Earth.
    I just wish some of these Alarmists would check conditions in Antarctica on a daily basis!
    Let them deny the evidence of their own eyes.

      • I think some of them tried a few years back. Did not work out so well.
        They seem to have amnesia for the event.
        They got a lot of that amnesia, that lot.

  19. Marcus is correct.
    Antarctica temperatures are far below freezing, and they are not rising. At all. Therefore, Antarctic ice is steadily increasing:
    Since the Antarctic contains ≈ten times (10X) more ice than the Arctic, even though the Arctic has seen some decline, global ice cover is near its long term average:
    The shaded part above is one Standard Deviation (SD). Within 2 SD is considered normal. Currently, global ice cover is a bit below average. But last year global ice was well above average, in fact, sea ice set several all time high records in 2014, for example:
    “Ice” is the last desperate claim of the alarmist crowd. Every other scary prediction they made has turned out to be flat wrong. But since Arctic ice declined for a few years (mostly 2006 – 2012), they cling to the “ice” narrative like a drowning man clings to a toothpick.
    But they’re only half right, about half the globe: Arctic ice did decline for a while. Now it is recovering.
    Of course, being half right means being all wrong. Sort of like a drop of poop in a milkshake. So whenever I see someone wringing their hands over “ice”, I get a mental image of them being terrified by what amounts to a ghost story around a campfire. But if some folks need something to worry about, I suppose worrying about natural fluctuations in the polar ice cycle will do as well as anything.

    • I prefer to be ” terrified ” of EMP attacks , Solar Flares , Asteroid hits or all out Nuclear war !!!! Maybe even the switching of the magnetic poles….or getting hit by a car tomorrow !!!!

    • The catastrophe of the melting ice.
      Because a world with less acreage to freeze to death on is just not worth having.

    • Your Antarctic graph is a year out-of-date. The sea-ice dropped below average a couple of months ago, and has been below average for most of the time since.
      And as for the recovery in the Arctic ice – it is currently 32 per cent below average, and the second lowest in the whole satellite record for 5th October. Not much of a recovery.

    • Richard Barraclough,
      Yes, it’s the chart from 2014. I explained that when I posted the chart:
      “…last year global ice was well above average, in fact, sea ice set several all time high records in 2014…”
      As for your statement that Arctic ice is 32% below its average (since only 1979?), let me point out that Arctic sea ice has had the earliest minimum on record this year, and it showed record growth in September.
      Arctic ice thickness has increased by 40% during the past 5 years:
      The graph above begins in 1979-80, when global T was coming out of a cooling cycle. Naturally, polar ice will be higher then. So you will understand if I am not the least bit worried about what is obviously nothing more than a natural fluctuation in global ice.

      • Yes – all the figures are unfortunately only since 1979, since there are no readily accessible daily figures before that. So all sea-ice averages, extremes, daily records, etc. refer to the last 36 years.
        According to the figures which can be downloaded from “Cryosphere Today”, the average date for the Arctic minimum is 10th September, with an average of 4.72 million sq. km.
        This year bottomed out on 9th September at 3.09 million.
        In 2005, the minimum was on 31st August
        The averages for sea ice gain in September are
        Start 4.80 million
        End 5.38 million
        Gain 0.58 million
        This year
        Start 3.32 million
        End 3.85 million
        Gain 0.53 million
        So perhaps you are getting your “earliest minimum” and “greatest gain” information from somewhere else? I have no idea whether there are competing sites for Arctic ice which show different figures.

  20. “Ocean warming results from greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, produced by humankind’s unabated burning of coal, oil and gas.”
    Excuse me, and I’m not a scientist here, but I thought the sun was responsible for–or at least a significant contributor to–ocean warming. If I’m right about that, where do these people keep getting the idea from that humanity’s use of fossil fuels is doing it–or at least a sizable chunk of it?

  21. Model only speculation which claims it is worse than we thought, is climate ‘ science’ the easiest subject to study in all of history. Given you never need to reflect reality and no matter how rubbish your approach any old BS from models is good enough?

  22. Are these the same scientists who are punching each other out, after a few drinks?
    Scientists in Antarctica drink so much they get into fights and it’s a growing problem
    Office of the Inspector General conducted a health and safety audit of U.S. bases last year
    National Science Foundation officials in Antarctica told auditors drinking has created ‘unpredictable behavior’ that has led to fights
    They also it has ‘indecent exposure and employees arriving to work under the influence’
    NSF is considering deploying breathalyzers to the continent in order to enforce new teetotaling mandate from Washington

  23. I like to look on the bright side. With the “rising sea levels” that *could* happen, we may finally be able to find those formerly hidden sea monsters of ancient lore, since they will subsequently also be theoretically closer to the surface. Megalodon, Kraken?

    • This is scientifically incorrect.
      With rising sea levels the oceans will be deeper.
      Hence, on average, the monsters will have more range in which to dive.
      And therefore, on average they will tend to lurk at a proportionally greater depth.
      It’s time that people commenting on this blog got the science of sea monsters correct.
      I’m tired of all the unsupported and unreferenced speculation.

      • Dear Indefetagiblefrog–science, schmience, don’t confuse me with facts –I took my sea science cue from those “97%” people . Besides, I have it on good authority from the Weekly World news (pretty close to The Guardian and the NYT as far as content goes), quoting “a” scientist!

  24. There has been some imprecision in the comment thread. The waxing and waning of seasonal sea ice may or may not be a signal of AGW polar amplification. But it has nothing to do with SLR thanks to Archimedes principle. Melting ice cubes in a glass of water do not cause the water level to change. The Ronne/fitchner is grounded below sea level. So it can raise sealevel if it melts or ‘slides off’. It cannot slide because locked to that big rocky Island (James Ross Island)on the post map, and to a lot of rocky features on the ice floor. It either has to melt, or calve off icebergs. It cannot melt at Antarctic temperatures. That leaves iceberg calving at the sea face undercut by oceanwater. Which is happening, and likely what the model accelerates. But according to NASA, measured first by ERS and then by ICESat, the Ronne/Fitchner overall is gaining between 8 and 20 Gt of ice per year annually since 1998. It isn’t losing anything. Plus, an ice core from Fletcher Propmontory shows it was also stable during the entire warmerEemian interglacial, just as ANDRILL showed Ross to have been. There was more ice loss then than now; Emmian peaked about 6 meters higher than now over about 3000 years, a rate of SLR of 20cm/century.that includes everything (greenland, EAIS, WAIS, thermosteric rise). Shows how divorced from reality the Potsdam model is. Essays Tipping Points and By Land or by Sea give all the scientific references.

  25. Schellnhuber is concerned about the future of Potsdam funding, even with the aid of the false prophet?

  26. sorry for the off-topic but i was looking for a link that someday in the past got posted here with a website containing all the failed predictions so far and i just can’t remember the name of that website, if someone could help me out i would be very grateful!

  27. I quote:
    ” Projections of the breakdown of this front in ocean simulations for the Filchner-Ronne region under atmospheric warming raised concerns that such ocean instability might lead to unstoppable future ice loss also from this part of Antarctica,”
    First, we have a model again. None of their models since the beginning of IPCC have been any good. Second,they talk of instability from atmospheric warming. Apparently the lack of warming for the last 18 years has made no impression on them. May I suggest that they look outside first before they construct any models that predict warming? It is well known that up-welling of warm water under the ice has periodically caused WAIS ice shelf collapse. This record of ice sheet collapses is found in the sediments that have accumulated in the Ross Sea. They start in the Pleistocene, with the most recent collapse about 1,500 years ago. If the authors weren’t non-readers they could have gotten this information frpm my book. The Antarctic continent is isolated from the rest of the world ocean by the circum-Antarctic current. It is the coming into existence of this cold current that caused it to ice over. Prior to that it had an ecosystem that included flora and fauna in a forested environment. All these facts could have come out in a peer review that is evidently absent. It is just like Nature Climate Change to publish papers that meet their ideological criterion without bothering to inconvenience the authors with a peer review.

  28. Well I am selling kayaks that fits in your living room, The flood comes and no problem, you hop in the kayak and there you go paddling to dry land. Kayak comes with a free Michael Mann compass. Life vest and paddle is extra.
    For global warming enthusiasts, a must have. Go to to for more info – have your credit card ready.

    • Alx – I will help you with a promotion.
      I plan to kayak to the North Pole next September, once the ice is gone. Do you want to be a corporate sponsor? I will use your kayak.

  29. The previous interglacial period, the Eemian, was warmer than this one with more ice cap melting and higher sea levels yet CO2 levels were lower than today The cause is the sun and the oceans.. The climate change we have been experiencing is well within the real of natural variability and there is nothing that Man can do to change it
    The AGW conjecture is just too flawed to support. For those who believe in the radiant greenhouse effect, the idea is that increases in CO2, because of CO2’s LWIR absorption bands, is suppose to cause an increase in the radiant thermal insulation properties of the troposphere causing a restriction in heat energy flow causing warming at the Earth’s surface and lower atmosphere and cooling in the upper atmosphere because that is how insulation works. The effect is small because there is so little CO2. We are talking jsut .o4%. To make the effect seem more significant the AGW conjecture adds the idea that H2O provides a positive feedback to changes in CO2 because warming causes more H2O to enter the atmosphere which causes more warming because H2O is also a greenhouse gas. That is where the AGW conjecture ends but that is not all what happens. Besides being the primary greenhouse gas, H2O is also a major coolant in the Earth’s atmosphere transporting heat energy from the Earth’s surface to where clouds form via the heat of vaporization. More heat energy is moved by H2O by phase change then by both convection and LWIR absorption band radiation combined. Then one must also consider clouds and what is happening in the upper atmosphere. When everything is added together the feedback must be negative and not positive. This negative feedback must operate to mitigate any effect that CO2 might have on climate, not increase it. Negative feedback systems are inherently stable as has been the Earth’s climate for at least the past 500 million years, enough for life to evolve. We are here.
    A real greenhouse does not stay warm because of the action of heat trapping, so called, greenhouse gases. A real greenhouse stays warm because the glass limits cooling by convection. It is a convective greenhouse effect. So to on Earth. The Earth does not stay warm because of the action of heat trapping greenhouse gases. The surface of the Earth is 33 degrees C warmer than it would otherwise be because gravity limits cooling by convection. It is this convective greenhouse effect, as derived from first principals, that keeps the Earth warm and accounts for all 33 degrees C. There is no room for an additional radiant greenhouse effect. The convective greenhouse effect is evident on all planets in our solar system with thick atmospheres. Even Venus, with an atmosphere that is more than 90 times as massive as the Earth’s and with a CO2 percentage of more than 96%, has no evidence of an additional radiant greenhouse effect. The high temperatures on the surface of Venus can all be accounted for by the planet’s proximity to the sun and the planet’s very thick atmosphere. The AGW conjecture neglects the fact that good absorbers are also good radiators and that heat transfer by convection dominates over heat transfer by radiation in the troposphere. CO2’s LWIR absorption bands do not really add any thermal insulation effect in the troposphere. It is all a matter of physics. If CO2 really affected climate then the increase in CO2 over the past 30 years should have caused an increase in the natural lapse rate in the troposphere but that has not happened. Based on these observations the climate sensitivity of CO2 is 0.0.

    • In retrospect, it would have been more appropriate for Mann to have turned his hockey stick upside-down when applying it also to the southern hemisphere.

  30. The problem for the Antarctic scaremongers is that there hasn’t been a decent sized iceberg (>1,000 km²) break off the continent since 2002 (C-19 which broke off the Ross Ice Shelf). Two years before that, in 2000, the biggest recorded iceberg, B-15 (11,000 km²), also broke off the Ross Ice Shelf. The last one to break off the Filchner-Ronne Ice Shelf was A-38 in 1998. Before A-38 the only recorded big one was the Mertz Glacier tongue (B-9) which broke off in 1987. Recent icebergs from Antarctica (only two) have been tiny in comparison (310 & 660 km²).
    It’s difficult to whip up alarmism when nothing of real note has happened in the way of big icebergs drifting off Antarctica for 13 years.

    • The alarmists have been conning you the public for years because iceberg’s breaking off have always been a sign of too much snow/ice. In southern regions in Greenland for example where glaciers have been retreating no icebergs have been breaking off because the ice is not being pushed into the ocean like is does on Antarctica. For this to happen in Greenland it requires advancing glaciers caused by gaining mass pushed towards the coasts.
      The Heinrich events are a natural phenomenon in which large armadas of icebergs break off from glaciers and traverse the North Atlantic during the coldest periods of ice ages. These icebergs were caused when too much snow/ice formed and had no where to go other than towards the coastal and ocean edges. Eventually these were pushed into the North Atlantic ocean where they floated in the ocean current until they reached warmer waters and melted. Majority of them flowed in a gyre around the North Atlantic ocean, where at the time was cold enough to preserve them for many thousands of miles.

  31. ice flow into the ocean increases just constantly with the heat provided by the ocean over time….
    …what kind of crap are they feeding into these models?
    the more expensive it will be for coastal regions to adapt.”
    …… will cost exactly the same

  32. I note PIK is conforming to the memo that over the top alarmism has made the public more skeptical, so warming proponents are adopting a nuanced ‘alarm’. They realized that this “it’s too late, now” scare just makes people think there is nothing to be done about it. Now they say “The good news is if we kill off world industry”, we can prevent the Antarctica ice sheet from sliding of into the ocean. I’m sure the public will give a sigh of relief.

  33. Another study on Antarctic Glaciers and not even a reference to the 3 studies finding surprising levels of geothermal activity on the West Antarctica Peninsula in the last 2 years. But why do that. It would only create questions about all the dynamics that might actually be going on. Plus it makes hysterical headlines much easier to write without the messy details.

    • At this point in time, anyone who repeatedly cites “the 97% of scientists support global warming” talking point is either too completely ignorant of the facts to be given a voice in public affairs, or is a blatantly lying propagandist.

  34. So that subglacial ash sheet the size of Wales near PIG was the imagining of the British Antarctic Survey? Whole place has the look of a cordillera to me…But, no, it’s your SUV or your plane ride causing all the melting.
    I remember fondly the days when you could discuss vulcanism outside the context of explaining away the LIA or any other inconvenient coolings.

  35. “Importantly, however, the oceans might not respond linearly to atmospheric warming, and not in the same way in all parts of the world. This includes the risk that ocean temperatures first lag behind, and then rise rapidly”
    Presumably the “lag behind” refers to ocean temperature increases lagging behind atmospheric temperature increases….if and when the atmosphere is warming.
    The surfaces of the world’s oceans are in constant intimate contact, constantly mixed with the atmosphere. How could an increase in atmospheric temperature not be almost immediately transferred to the oceans ?
    Why would the oceans decide not to warm up immediately, then decide they’d lingered bit and better catch up? And what would the difference be between water in the North Pacific and the South Atlantic that it would decide to warm differently [and presumably cool differently if that became necessary]?

    • “Why would the oceans decide not to warm up immediately, then decide they’d lingered bit and better catch up?”.
      This has to do with the vast heat capacity of the oceans. The oceans have a heat capacity that is 1000 times greater than the atmosphere. According to the blog WUWT here:
      What that also means is that if you were able to experimentally warm the atmosphere by 1 degree over, let’s say, ten days, and hold it at that temperature (Using all the world’s nuclear weapons, perhaps). Then the additional heat (energy) that was transferred to the ocean during that period would not raise the average temperature of the oceans significantly. Not even measurably in the long run.
      I’m not sure what the rate of flow of heat from the atmosphere into the oceans is. If I get the time then I will look up this topic, out of curiosity.
      BUT, the point that I am making is that the heat capacity is so big that changes are inevitably going to take a long time. i.e. a sudden change in atmospheric temps will take a long time to be matched by an equivalent adjustment in the ocean temperature. That much should be intuitively obvious.
      But, I may find time soon to look up the estimated heat transfer rate.
      (For simplicity and clarity I have ignored consideration the additional complexity, that the oceans also transfer heat with the ocean bottom on which they sit. And, I have also ignored the effects of fish farting!!)

  36. These guys seem to live in a universe where thermal processes are always governed by positive feedbacks and instability. Everything is always on the verge of tipping, runaway or in this article “uncorking”.
    Thermal changes in the atmosphere are going to “snowball” into bigger changes. (ironically)
    To paraphrase Farage’s abuse of the EU bureaucrats, “just what planet are they on?”
    What is interesting to consider about all the thermal events experienced in life and engineering, is that they are all dominated by negative feedbacks. Mostly annoyingly so.
    And so, whether you are trying to heat your home in winter or trying bring water to the temperature at which you can make a cup of tea, you have to keep hurling energy into the process. And as soon as you stop hurling energy in, the process reverts.
    At no point has anyone found a way to make these processes “tip” or “runaway” or “snowball” or “uncork”, so that you can have free central heating or free cups of tea.
    I got stung at the end of the nineties when I watched some BBC propaganda that told me about runaway warming from methane releases, ice albedo changes, water vapour etc.
    Part of me must have been attracted to believing in an oncoming apocalypse (diminshment of personal responsibility perhaps), because my experiences of everything else, so far, in my life had shown me that thermal systems are not unstable in this manner.
    Later, of course, I discovered that I had simply been bullshitted and all that I was told was motivated speculation.
    But isn’t it interesting that the entire debate revolves around this conception of stability/instability and negative/positive feedbacks?
    So, I now tend to see the modern climate as some marbles in a wok. If you tilt the wok then the marbles move, a little.
    But, the whole of the alarmist community seems to prefer to see the climate as marbles ON a wok.
    And they are always in danger of completely losing their marbles.

    • Clarification, I meant ON a wok, that is upside down, of course!! An upturned wok world.

  37. “…says Mengel. “This kind of sea-level rise alone could already be enough to bring coastal cities like Hamburg into serious difficulties.””
    I couldn’t find any reason on line why Hamburg was particularly ‘threatened’. Nothing on the docks looks like it was built more than 200 years ago. The sea level rise is not accelerating, it is tapering off. In 200 years time Hamburg will be mostly rebuilt except maybe the Cathedral of St Michael’s which is beautiful and not near the water.
    The sea level in Hamburg was 140 metres higher a few millions years ago. I supposed they have to move their tusk huts back from the beach.
    IPCC 1990: “No convincing evidence that sea level rise accelerated in the 20th century” – See more at:

  38. !!Mythos trigger Warning!!
    Best it stay cold, lest the dreaded Shoggoths awaken.Just sayin’
    A public service announcement from the Office of Elder Thing Affairs Antarctica.
    You may return now to your consensus Reality Safe Spaces.

  39. The Antartic did not glaciate until 34 million years ago. At that time, CO2 levels were about 900ppm. According to the bullshit Greenhouse Effect theory this should never have happened. Why did an ice cap form there? The answer is in the continental drift of Africa, South America and Australia northwards as Antartica moved over the pole. As those continents moved north, the Deep Ocean Conveyor was now able to move cold water along the entire coastline of the southern continent, initiating a glaciation….even while there was still no Artic Ice Cap, which did not form until 3 million years ago, when the North and South Americas met and cut off the Panama Current.
    400,000 years after the loss of the Panama Current and the glaciation of the Artic, the Quaternary Ice Age began. This can also be explained by the shift in ocean currents according to the new alignment of the land masses. The fresher water flowing in the Artic Ocean through the Bering Sea, which was much larger then, froze. As the ice accumulated, it reflected more sunlight into space, cooling the planet even more. When enough ice accumulates, the Bering Sea is drained by lowering sea levels and cuts off the flow of fresh water into the Artic.
    As Greenland and Europe moved farther from each other, a current was created that is now the AMOC. Here, warm salty water was moved into the Artic from the tropics which melted the ice and made the sea levels rise. This in turn flooded the Bering Sea and as the Greenland ice melts, it changes the salinity of the AMOC until fresh water dominates agains and the AMOC system shuts down, stopping the warm water from going so far north and allowing the fresh water to freeze again.
    This happens in cycles. Originally about 45,000 years between cooling and warming, now about 100,000 years of cooling followed by a short 15-20,000 years of warm, which we are in now. This change in periodicity can be adequately explained by the constant narrowing of the Bering Sea and the growing gap between Greenland and Europe. Eventually the flow of fresh water will be cut off and the AMOC will be continuous, triggering the end of the current Ice Age.
    So this is why the world is warming. That massive Artic ice cap has melted, reducing albedo and reflecting very little sunlight back into space. Once the currents change, as they have without fail for the last 2.6 million years, the ice will return, the albedo will increase, and it will get cold again. This will happen soon, probably within the next one or two thousand years.
    It has nothing to do with CO2 levels or man. This is a massive planetary process involving continental drift and ocean currents that’s been going on since man first started learning to bang rocks together to make crude tools. No legislation, government pronoucements or non-profits groups demanding we all stop eating meat and drive electric cars is going to stop it. Only a fool thinks they can tell a planet what to do.

Comments are closed.