From CFACT:
According to the National Snow and Ice Data Center (nsidc.org), ice currently covers 6 million square miles, or one tenth the Land area on Earth, about the area of South America. Floating ice, or Sea Ice, alternately called Pack Ice at the North and South Poles covers 6% of the ocean’s surface (nsidc.org), an area similar to North America. The most important measure of ice is its thickness. The United States Geologic Survey estimates the total ice on Earth weighs 28 million Gigatons(a billion tons). Antarctica and Greenland combined represent 99% of all ice on Earth. The remaining one per cent is in glaciers, ice sheets and sea ice. Antarctica can exceed 3 miles in thickness and Greenland one mile. If they were to melt sea level would indeed rise over 200 feet, but not even the most radical alarmists suggest that possibility arising due to the use of fossil fuels. However the ice that flows off of the Antarctic and Greenland called shelf ice represents only half a percent of all the Earth’s ice and which if melted would raise sea level only 14 inches, (nsidc.com).
Although Sea Ice covers 6% of the entire oceans at an average thickness of 6 feet, were it all to melt sea level would rise only 4 inches. If we melted all 200,000 of the Earth’s temperate zone glaciers sea level would rise another two feet. So total catastrophe can only occur if we can melt the Antarctic and Greenland. But the Antarctic is the coldest place on Earth. At www.coolantarctica.com calculations show the temperature would have to rise 54 degrees Fahrenheit to start the warming of that Ice Cap.
The geologic record provides a perspective on how climate impacts the quantity of ice on Earth. They have encompassed every extreme. 800 million years ago the planet was almost entirely encased in ice (Rafferty, J.P. Cryogenics Period). Since then there have been many extended periods when there has been no ice present. As recently as 3 million years ago sea levels are believed to have been 165 feet higher than today. While ice covered a third of the entire planet during the last ice age, when sea levels were 400 feet lower, allowing ancient peoples to cross the Siberian Land Bridge to populate North America.
Al Gore predicted in 2007 that by 2013 the Arctic Ocean would be completely ice free. In the summer of 2012 ice levels did reach all time lows in the Arctic. Emboldened by this report Australian Professor Chris Turney launched an expedition in December of 2013 to prove that the Antarctic Sea Ice was also undergoing catastrophic melting only to have his ship trapped in sea ice such that it could not even be rescued by modern ice-breakers.
The Professor should have known that a more accurate estimate of sea ice can be had from satellite images taken every day at the Poles since 1981. These images show that between summer and winter, regardless of the degree of summer melting, the sea ice completely recovers to its original size the winter before for almost every year since the pictures were taken. The sea ice has been stubbornly resistant to Al Gore’s predictions. In fact the average annual coverage of sea ice has been essentially the same since satellite observations began in 1981. However that has not stopped global warming advocates and even government agencies from cherry picking the data to mislead the public.
Africa’s Mt. Kilimanjaro has been the poster child for land based melting supposed to be caused by Global Warming. It did lose half of its ice cover between 1880 and 1936 before the major use of fossil fuels and only 30% more in the past 80 years. However the temperature at its peak has not risen at any time during these years above freezing (32 degrees Fahrenheit). The melting has been due to deforestation and the dry air rising to the mountain top causing the ice to turn directly into water vapor a process called sublimation.
Melting glaciers are another topic of the warming alarmists. Indeed they can choose to point to some that are actually melting, ignoring those that are growing or remaining stable. Why the differences? They are largely dependent on whether over periods of time more snow falls than ice melts or the reverse. They are a great place to cherry pick data.
The solution to public fear about ice melting and sea level rising is simply using common sense.
Maybe we can get Lucia to put up a guest “baby ice” contest here. I miss some of the more lighthearted fun we used to have.
“…Although Sea Ice covers 6% of the entire oceans at an average thickness of 6 feet, were it all to melt sea level would rise only 4 inches…”
From 12 yrs ago… https://academic.oup.com/gji/article/170/1/145/2019346
“…If all the extant sea ice and floating shelf ice melted, the global sea level would rise about 4 cm…”
Think the author may be off.
Melting of all sea ice would raise sea level by 4″?? I thought we all agreed that that melting of floating sea ice had no effect on sea level. It is floating because it is less dense, when it melts it takes up less volume. Who is this “guest blogger”. I must admit I didn’t read fully after I saw this statement. Is this humor?
check @ur momisugly 11:19 and following, above.
There will be a small increase that won’t matter.
Still, it is nice to know.
Common sense breaks down to
– hermeneutics: evolutionary heritage
– instinct: live experience
– intuition: live experience + knowledge / science
All 3 help us to stay on top of the food chain.
NONE of the 3 is perfect but ‘nobody is perfect’.
Page Not Found …
[Which link? What is not found? .mod]
https://www.google.com/search?q=common+sense+meaning&oq=common+sense+meaning&aqs=chrome.
Common Sense has been mentioned a few times in this conversation. I am a great fan of this most elusive and rare form of intelligence. It has also been called horse sense probably because it is more common in horses than humans.
My personal version of common sense leads me to some simplistic conclusions.
Water exists as a liquid above 0 C
Water below 0 C will form ice.
Water is a poor conductor of heat. It is difficult to heat water from a heat source applied to the surface. It is far more efficient to heat it from below.
Ice floating in water will melt.
Ice exposed to air above 0 C will melt
Ice exposed to air below 0 C will not melt unless some external heat source is applied. it matter not whether the air temp is -10 or -50. The ice will not melt.
Glaciers will always flow downhill and therefore will always begin to melt when they reach an altitude where the air temperature is over 0 C. There is nothing unusual or catastrophic about this phenomenon.
Glaciers which terminate in water will eventually break off (calving) and form icebergs. These icebergs will then melt. There is nothing unusual or catastrophic about this phenomenon unless one is sailing on the Titanic.
The ice in glaciers is replenished by rain or snow with water drawn for the oceans. This is a repetitive cycle that is not always in perfect sync. (The glaciers grow or shrink accordingly with a corresponding but opposite effect on sea level.)
Greenland is a volcanic island covered by ice.
Antarctica has several active volcanoes.
Many active volcanoes are tall mountains with snow caps and glaciers.
Volcanic action is an external heat source and will cause melting of the ice from below.
All the above are natural phenomena and they although may be catastrophic they are beyond the powers of humans to control.
Humans may attempt to mitigate the consequences with varying degrees of success.
I have courage to change the things I can change.
I have strength to bear the things I can not change.
Do I have the wisdom to know the difference?
Ice will not melt under 0 degrees C, but it can and does sublimate.
And sea water will not form ice at zero degrees.
Ever.
MarkW

“Interesting how you are only interested in the glaciers that are losing mass, but ignore the larger number that are staying same and even growing?”
So MarkW you are saying the ice mass balance for glaciers over the whole planet is positive…. really? Reference please…. I call that BS.
Simon
“Reference please…. I call that BS.”
1. You will never obtain it.
2. In this case the wording is not inappropriate.
The question of mass balance is meaningless without a specific interval being quoted as the relevant time period.
Are we talking about the past year?
The past decade?
Or perhaps a century, or the past 100 years?
Short term fluctuations are completely meaningless unless they are given in relation to longer term trends and the range of historical variation.
I think we are all pretty sick of people who make assertions regarding short term trends or recent events but ignoring or lying about the longer term variations that have always occurred.
We have an understanding that the Arctic has been free of glacial ice during the Hothouse Period, prior to the Last Glacial Maximum, because none of ice in any of the Northern Hemisphere has been found to contain any evidence of particulates of volcanic activity or any other sources that are evidence found in the Antarctic ice. Where even the deepest ice cores from the Antarctic show that it too was free of ice some 2 billion years ago in the Hothouse Period before the Icehouse Period that followed it. Whatever theory you follow of Contenital Drift or Expanding Earth the land mass at the South Pole wasn’t there during the Hothouse Period over 3 billion years ago. Existing land masses show high water marks and fossil evidence of aquatic origin dating to those times. There is not enough water on Earth to cover the land mass of that period using the Contenital Drift Theory of a same sized Earth. If the Expanding Earth Theory is correct then even all the Ice melting wouldn’t cause the same land mass to be under water. That this article says Earth would have to warm 54°F warmer than now to melt all the ice…is a global temperature of around 110°F. Where previous science says when the Hothouse Periods were only around a 75°F mean +/- 5°F at the Arctic. When there was a Tropical Climate that circled the Equator with a greater Biomass that hardwood forests were in the Arctic Circle. All this talk about a few degrees is just semantics of our Holocene Interglacial Period that is closer to an Icehouse than it is a Hothouse. The question we should be trying to answer is why hasn’t Earth warmed above the 15°C mean of this Holocene Interglacial and why aren’t we preparing with infrastructure and advanced energy to survive either another anomaly of an Icehouse or the possibility that another Hothouse may come? Governments have spent trillions studying these semantics to control climate using an unproven theory. When the history of Earth shows humans have very little influence on it.
Nonsense.
There is lots of volcanic ash in Greenland ice, as a matter of fact much more than in the Antarctic since Greenland is close to the Icelandic volcanoes.
And you are mixing up million and billion.
I had started to reply to this mixed up malarkey from John Chism, but that was before I read all the way through.
Basically, I can see nothing coherent in the entire comment.
It is confused nonsense devoid of meaning, and showing an extremely poor comprehension of geology and/or Earth history.
This guy does not know a billion from a million, conflates multiple timelines, and does not even know the difference between the terms “hothouse Earth” and “interglacial”.
About the one thing Chism gets right is that the continents have moved around a lot over millions of years, and Antarctica has not always been centered on the South Pole.
Oldest ice there that has been dated is about 2.5 million years old.
Oldest usable ice core timeline goes back no more than 800 k years.
Beyond that, the layers are all mixed up due to flowing like taffy, since that is what two mile thick ice does.
“Beyond that, the layers are all mixed up due to flowing like taffy, since that is what two mile thick ice does.”
Not quite. Under an ice divide the ice will accumulate indefinitely. Unfortunately ice divides shift over time, so the older ice will ultimately move away and calve into the sea. But there are probably places with ice older than 800 KA somewhere in Antarctica. Ice in frozen soil in the Transantarctic Mountains can be up to 10 million years old.
I said as much. You must not have read what I wrote through.
There is older ice, although it cannot be dated by stratigraphic methods.
It was dated by radioisotope methods.
Some ice was found that has been dated at 2.5 million years.
And no one is saying there is nothing that has not been found yet.
Obviously, ice can be trapped in various places.
But that is not to say that it is known to be the case.
And it does not allow anything to be said about what older ice, which has not been found yet, might reveal, if at some point some is located.
Hell, I can recall arguing with some particular obtuse warmistas about the age of the oldest ice proving that there was no ice in Antarctica older than the ice we can find…it is not there today so it never existed, was the bone headed assertion.
One needs to stick to what is known to be considered to be doing science, although theorizing by dint of logic is not exactly unscientific. It is merely a form of daydreaming.
If it is totally illogical, it is evidence though…of the addled mind of the person making the assertion.
Same old , Same old-
“Accounts from 19th-century
Canadian Arctic Explorers’ Logs
Reflect Present Climate Conditions”
https://seagrant.uaf.edu/nosb/2005/resources/arctic-explorers.pdf
What does the guest blogger mean here with “… alternately called Pack Ice” ?
Pack ice is a synonym for ‘sea ice area’ (100 % sea ice) as opposed to ‘sea ice extent’ (at least 15 % sea ice).
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1J1_KobBchTT43J_y_0Lff-KHs4VNSavM/view
He uses sloppy terminology and phraseology left and right.
He refers to Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets by simply calling them Greenland, and Antarctica.
The land mass and the ice sheets are distinct entities, obviously.
He makes many such errors, as well as factual errors and inaccuracies.
Whoever this is, he is not a very concise communicator.
“But the Antarctic is the coldest place on Earth. At http://www.coolantarctica.com calculations show the temperature would have to rise 54 degrees Fahrenheit to start the warming of that Ice Cap.”
Jesus its not air temps
https://youtu.be/03t3429OUSM?t=162
Just like IPCC, completely ignoring the possibility that geothermal activity is influencing movement of some of the glaciers. There are several papers that have focused on the obvious. Anyone who wants to have a complete understanding needs to assess what percentage of the dynamics is geological.
But, that’s alright, if IPCC gets it right by 2050, they will have caught up with the skeptics.
cerescokid
“There are several papers that have focused on the obvious.”
Obvious? What about showing some numbers confirming this.
And thanks in advance for presenting links to these “several papers”.
Jesus. Geothermal activity is less than 1 mW/m²… If I do correctly remember, the solar radiation reaching Earth’s surface is about 240 W/m².
Maybe it gives you a hint that glacier retreat is related to atmospheric processes.
Wow! Apologies. This needs a correction.
Geothermal activity is less than 1 W/m².
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4078843/
https://www.geos.ed.ac.uk/homes/rbingha2/48_2017_Vries.pdf
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/2017JB014423
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rsta.2014.0296
https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/advances/1/6/e1500093.full.pdf
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/2017GL075609
https://escholarship.org/content/qt3gz689fg/qt3gz689fg.pdf
https://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/fac/argon/Publications/Vogel%20et%20al%202006.pdf
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2015JB012455
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2017GL075579
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2015GL065782
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Robin_Bell2/publication/232773729_Active_volcanism_beneath_the_West_Antarctic_ice_sheet_and_implications_for_ice-sheet_stability/links/553fb9930cf29680de9d09c6/Active-volcanism-beneath-the-West-Antarctic-ice-sheet-and-implications-for-ice-sheet-stability.pdf
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/David_Vaughan7/publication/31998771_A_recent_volcanic_eruption_beneath_the_West_Antarctic_Ice_sheet/links/09e415138dd89244ea000000.pdf
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012AGUFM.C31A0577C
https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/0604CD4ABA33E73C18E5212B6DFE8B9E/S026030550000690Xa.pdf/div-class-title-the-dynamics-of-the-antarctic-ice-sheet-div.pdf
While geothermal energy is a fairly minor player when it comes to direct melting of the icecaps (a few percent compared to calving in Antarctica) it is far from unimportant. It is the reason most icecaps are “warm based”, i. e. has a bottom temperature above the pressure melting point. “Cold based” and “warm based” glaciers are very different beasts. Warm based glaciers are much more dynamic (=moves faster, calves more) and also have a much greater erosive effect than cold-based ones. Geothermal heat is also the main source for subglacial lakes and rivers (the only one in Antarctica, in Greenland surface meltwater can penetrate to the bottom of the ice-sheet in marginal areas). Some (several?) relevant links:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322642527_High_geothermal_heat_flux_in_close_proximity_to_the_Northeast_Greenland_Ice_Stream
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2007GL030046
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/e994/3a31bb1d6a7660d1b0580365ae19262adb04.pdf
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2018GL078289
https://voice.fas.harvard.edu/files/voice/files/stevens_et_al-2016-journal_of_geophysical_research_earth_surface.pdf
http://homepages.vub.ac.be/~fpattyn/papers/Pattyn2010_EPSL.pdf
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6014989/
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263098960_Evidence_for_elevated_and_spatially_variable_geothermal_flux_beneath_the_West_Antarctic_Ice_Sheet
https://www.geo.umass.edu/climate/papers2/pollard_deconto_heatflux.pdf
https://epic.awi.de/id/eprint/45279/1/Dziadek-etal_geothermal-heatflux-ASE_G3_2017.pdf
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-11515-3
https://www.geos.ed.ac.uk/homes/rbingha2/48_2017_Vries.pdf
Many thanks to cerescokid and tty for the valuable information given! This stays in pleasant contrast to the usual polemic.
I agree that near the Poles the geothermal activity becomes by far more relevant than within latitude bands around 45°.
Not only is solar radiation reduced by the square of the cosine of the incidence angle (at 75N / 75S, the solar flux goes down to 16 W/m²). Moreover, one needs to consider that during the boreal and austral winters, this flux simply moves to near zero due to the angle of Earth’s rotation axis with the ecliptic.
Thus you were right to underline the importance of the geothermal flux in these extreme regions.
Now, where does the dormant volcano Kilimanjaro sit, with its steam and sulphureous fumaroles in the ash crater? Seems to me to be geothermal flux is important anywhere.
“Jesus its not air temps”
You sure do love to take the Lord’s name in vain a lot.
In any case, when listening to the gravely certain intonations of the prophet of gloom you linked to in the you tube video, it is instructive to get an idea of the underlying assumptions that the speaker and his ilk are belaboring under.
For a small glimpse of this needed context, one can skip ahead the question by Craig Miller and the answer he was given, starting at around 5:22 mark of the video.
Mr. Miller asks if these predictions, given as authoritative and without qualification or reservation, are assuming a certain emissions scenario. Mr. Miller himself may or may not be a Kool Aid drinker, but his question seems to assume that global temps are tightly and inextricably linked to CO2 emissions, which is of course the whole basis of the questions we are here to debate.
Regardless of that assumption or implication, the answer given by Dr. Nahasapeemapetilon is very revealing. “That is a very good question. I am not sure I have an answer to that very good question.”
He then proceeds to give one anyway, in which he states that his assertion of “unstoppable” ice sheet collapse is based on his assumption that global warming is ongoing, is not going to stop, let alone reverse, ice sheets are thinning and the grounding line migrating inland, and all sorts of other incredibly dubious assumptions of the far future, centuries from now.
And the basis of all of this is the belief that CO2 causes global warming.
And yet, unless pressed on this, he does not qualify anything he has to say at all.
And even when pressed, he does not allow for the possibility that perhaps, just maybe, a few decades long trend (which mostly exists via assertion, “corrections” to historical data, and just plain old assuming he is right about everything he/they believes to be the case, plus some good old fashioned lying and a heaping helping of warmed over wrongness) is not the last word on the future history of the Earth.
And his belief in future warming due to CO2 is only one of the ways he might just be completely wrong.
He might just not know as much as he thinks he does, may be operating under mistaken ideas of ice sheet dynamics, or he might be completely full of crap and just pretending he knows shit from shinola.
As he reveals in the first few words of his response.
In short, warmistas are a pack of mealy mouthed blowhards who are under no obligation to be rigorous or even to prove anything they say.
They do science by assertion and supposition, and are backed up by a world full of like-minded people who are not just allergic to criticism, but completely intolerant of it.
I’m no scientist but I have a basic understanding of physics. I thought that the reason that ice floats is due to the air trapped in the ice; air that is released from the water as it freezes. Applying Archimedes principle, the volume of water that it displaces is equal to the weight of the ice. When the ice melts, it will constitute the same weight (and volume) of water, approximately. So doesn’t this mean that melting sea ice wont make ANY difference to sea levels? (assuming only minor differences due to fresh vs salt etc).
Air bubbles may make a small difference in density, but even completely bubble-free ice is less dense than water and will float. Of course since salt water is denser than fresh water it will float slightly higher in salt water.
And yes, when floating ice melts it will turn into a volume of salt water equal to the volume of the part of the ice below sea level before the melting. There will actually be a minute increase in sea-level since the additional fresh water will very slightly decrease salinity of the ocean and thereby the average density of the ocean, but this effect will be extremely small even if all sea-ice melts.
That was always my understanding…salt water-fresh water density aside…water becomes slightly less dense as it freezes and so is lighter than liquid water. Which is also why when you make ice in a tray and fill the water to the top of the cube lips in the tray, the ice is always taller than that after freezing.
Although Ice Bergs are 90% under water and 10& above water, they still displace their entire weight not just the portion below the water surface.
Actually c. 88% under water, glacier ice has a density of 0.91, but cold ocean water has a larger density than 1.