The Washington Post (WaPo) published a story that explains how a 600 square mile chunk of iceberg has broken off from Antarctica, and that scientists do not believe it is due to climate change.
This is factually true, and WaPo should be praised for publishing a scientifically-sound article on spectacular natural phenomena without attempts trying to tie it to climate change.
WaPo writer and meteorologist Dan Stillman covered the recent drama of a large segment of iceberg breaking off from Antarctica’s Brunt Ice Shelf, in a post titled “Giant iceberg breaks off from Antarctica. Aerial view is ‘spectacular.” Stillman reports that the calving occurred “during a particularly high tide known as a spring tide,” and has been expected by Antarctic researchers for years now after a large crack formed and expanded.
The article goes into detail about the theory and mechanics of the ice shelf and the natural growth of the chasm that eventually caused a split—in part due to the growth of the ice shelf itself.
Stillman wrote, “Unlike some previous icebergs and collapsed ice shelves that have been linked to climate change, the BAS press release said the break is a “natural process” and there is “no evidence that climate change has played a significant role.”
This is the only time in the article that Stillman attempts to attribute Antarctic ice calving in general to climate change. To Stillman’s credit, it is far more reasonable compared to the blind hysteria surrounding an earlier ice calving in spring 2022, in which a smaller section of an eastern Antarctic ice shelf broke up, and media headlines falsely claimed that it was the “first time in human history” that such an ice shelf collapsed. When those stories ran, Climate Realism pointed out, here, that this was only the first time a satellite observed an ice shelf collapse in east Antarctica.
There is very little to be worried about when it comes to Antarctic ice melt. Collected data from Climate at a Glance: Antarctic Sea Ice Melt shows that recent ice loss in Antarctica is barely a drop in the bucket compared to the total volume of ice on the continent, nor are losses causing any significant or alarming acceleration in sea level rise.
The figure below illustrates how a seemingly impressive amount of ice loss barely makes a dent, compared to all of the ice existing on the Antarctic continent.
Later in the article, the WaPo journalist quoted senior researcher at the University of Colorado at Boulder, Ted Scambos, reiterating that this calving event is “just a part of how Antarctica’s ice sheet works,” and that it usually has “nothing to do” with any climate change related forcings.
Praise is in order for the scientists and journalists like Dan Stillman who refrained from attempting to rope this natural event into the climate alarm narrative, which all too often overshadows good science.
https://www.heartland.org/about-us/who-we-are/linnea-lueken
Linnea Lueken is a Research Fellow with the Arthur B. Robinson Center on Climate and Environmental Policy. While she was an intern with The Heartland Institute in 2018, she co-authored a Heartland Institute Policy Brief “Debunking Four Persistent Myths About Hydraulic Fracturing.”
I would like to say that this might be a sign that sanity about global warming is starting to reappear in the media. Unfortunately, in Britain, the opposite is happening. The British media have become even more insane about global warming in the last few years. Cop26 in Glasgow seemed to inspire every newspaper and tv channel in Britain to climb new heights of science denying insanity about the climate. There is absolutely no sign of sanity returning to the British media.
They certainly are.
Angela Terry, chief executive of One Home, said: ‘Sea levels are rising as global temperatures soar and so larger waves batter our coast during severe storms.
‘These irreversible changes mean some cliff faces are crumbling fast.
‘We can’t turn the tide or build a wall around the entire coast so we urgently need to help seaside communities to prepare for the damage that will come.’
The climate expert also said that many homeowners are unaware their properties are at risk and that decisions have been made about whether to protect them.
Today’s scare story
Im building an ark in Michigan, just in case.
This is fairly par for the course, a torrent of misleading statements. The south-east of England has been sinking since the end of the last ice age as the north rises due to isostatic rebound. As the weight of glaciation pressed down on Scotland and Northern England, the south-east was pushed up and is now returning. Also the east coast has been falling into the sea for hundreds of years and many ancient villages have disappeared due to the soft geology, this has accelerated in places because local councils have abandoned funding coastal erosion defences.
Careful now–don’t want England tipping over like Guam is supposed to do
“There is very little to be worried about when it comes to Antarctic ice melt. Collected data from Climate at a Glance: Antarctic Sea Ice Melt shows that recent ice loss in Antarctica is barely a drop in the bucket compared to the total volume of ice on the continent, nor are losses causing any significant or alarming acceleration in sea level rise.”
When sea ice freezes it expands and the ice in the water displaces an amount of sea volume. When the sea ice melts, its volume decreases. Consequently, melting sea ice will decrease the volume of the sea and lower the sea level.
QUICK! Someone tell Barack Obama that his newly acquired seaside estate is about to go under!
$25 Million gone, gone, gone… but wait!
“Unfortunately, in Britain, the opposite is happening.”
Take the Mayor of London – elected on just over 50% of a 40% turnout, ie 60% of voters didn’t vote
He has been caught fiddling the figures of a public consultation and even then it remains opposed to his ULEZ, but don’t worry…
“Eastleigh Conservative MP Paul Holmes took Mr Khan to task on a new driver tax which will hit many businesses, residents in London and people who live outside but need to come into the capital for work.
The Tory MP claimed that 11 councils including five Conservative, four Lib Dems and two Labour (Barking and Dagenham, and Redbridge) had raised concerns about the ULEZ driver tax which was opposed by 80 percent of respondents in the consultation.
But Mr Khan said: “I was elected by the silent majority. I will stand up to those vested intersts [who oppose the ULEZ expansion]”.
In a clear dig at former Prime Minister David Cameron over the EU referendum, the Rejoiner London Mayor added: “There’s a difference. A brave, strong leader doesn’t rely on referenda, to decide policy.”
https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1728288/sadiq-khan-brexit-ulez-levelling-up-communities-select-committee-commons-hearing-update
Like it or not, the Mayor of London was elected with 1.3million votes.
He has a mandate to run London even without a talking cat.
You keep using that word, “mandate”. I do not believe it means what you think it means.
In the narrowest sense, yes, he has a mandate, but in the more political sense, I would say not.
Ah, yes, but he identifies as having a mandate.
When was the last US president to have a ‘mandate’ based on your definition?
Ronal Regan, 1984. 17 million popular vote margin and every state except Minnesota. Definite mandate.
You might make a case for Bush in 1984, as he won the electoral vote 426 to 111 and the popular vote by a 7 million vote margin. Maybe a mandate.
Obama’s first win didn’t have an impressive electoral vote margin, but he had a popular vote margin of 5 million. Not a mandate.
Talking cats appear to be a British thing. Us poor colonists have to put up with gaffe-prone Joe Bandon and self-promoter George Santos. Talking cats are more believable.
Having visited the UK twice, in the 1980s, and in 2004, I can’t imagine why anyone living there would not celebrate warming. We love global warming here in Michigan. Please give us more.
On the other hand, the US has Jumpin Joe Bidet, the UK has King Charles, and Canada has Justin TrueDope — when combined, they are The Three Stooges of Climate Change. … Al Gore and John Kerry are auditioning for Shemp.
Most people – not academia, media, politics or woke capitalism – love the warm weather, after all we fly south for holidays, right?
‘Fun in the sun’ photos are a dangerous distraction from the reality of climate breakdown
“ images of people having fun in the sun – kids splashing in city fountains, crowded beaches, blue seas, azure skies and holiday happiness.
…
We found two distinct themes in visual coverage. The first used images of “fun in the sun” that depicted heatwaves as something enjoyable. In all four countries, the majority of these images showed people having a good time in or by water. This was particularly prominent in the UK, perhaps saying something about how British culture narrates the experience of very hot weather in our historically mild climate.
The second theme we found was “the idea of heat”, depicted through red and orange colours”
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/may/14/sun-photos-climate-breakdown
And other nonsense.
“I would like to say that this might be a sign that sanity about global warming is starting to reappear in the media.”
Sanity and global warming should not be used in the same sentence. If there was sanity, people would be celebrating global warming, and maybe fearing global cooling. Global warming lacks a sanity clause.
Not directly related to icebergs but important for climate.
I have been looking at the free body movement of the sun under the influence of the planets and happened upon an interesting correlation between the sun’s rotational acceleration/deceleration and sunspots.
I do not know if this has been observed before.
This gives me some confidence that the 11 year and 28 year signals observed in good temperature records is related to the movement of the sun under the forces of the planets. The same forces cause sunspots. It is quite freaky how severe the accelerations are at certain times of the cycle. And there is a very long term beat in the spin cycle.
“the 11 year and 28 year signals observed in good temperature records”
There is no such correlation
TOA solar energy measured by NASA satellites has declined slightly since the 1970s as global average temperatures rose. Solar energy TOA did not cause the 1975 to 2015 global warming.
Sunspot counts are not an accurate measure of incoming solar energy and should not be used when about 50 years of satellite data are available.
You have to distinguish between power flux and energy flux. Most people, including NASA climate modellers, are not aware that the sun bakes the SH with the same amount of energy in 180 days as goes into the NH in 185 days. Same energy but at higher intensity.
About 1000 years ago the SH reached peak intensity and the NH minimum intensity. That means that the NH has been warming for a little less than 1000 years because of the thermal lags. It is now starting to respond to the intensifying sun. As most thinking people would appreciate. And it has only just started the 10,000 year warming trend. In 9,000 years time, the NH willl have the sun’s zenith over it for 180 days while the weaker sun will be over the SH for 185 days.
So your quote above is correct but thinking in terms of energy is muddled thinking when it comes to temperature. For an extreme example, a piece of paper placed directly into the flame of a candle will reach sufficient temperature to combust. Place the paper 1m away from the candle for a few hours; it will absorb more energy from the flame but dissipate just as much so it does not get as warm as placing it directly in the flame for a second or so, It is the peak power flux that matters not the accumulated energy.
The solar intensity at zenith can range from 1300W/m^2 up to 1420W/m^2 over a yearly cycle. Zenith is over the SH when it is at 1420W/m^2.
As for the correlations with the planets, the attached show the frequency analysis for the satellite record of the Nino34 region. The long record has a more pronounced peak at 28 years corresponding to Saturn and 18 years corresponding to the nutation of obliquity caused by the Moon’s orbit.
I have now found the connection between gravitational forces on the sun causing sunspots and that gives me conferencing that the planets moving the sun about are the cause for the change in solar intensity.
If you do not believe me that the solar intensity changes then you can verify that fact by looking at the variation in measured solar intensity at the surface for the same month over a period of years.
NASA calibrate ToA instruments to the ocean heat content so their ToA readings are useless. They’re fudged. They also incorrectly assume Earth orbits the centre of the sun – at least that is what climate models embody..
NASA scientists are completely wrong, and you are the expert? Forgive me if I don’t believe that.
Solar energy data are accurate for perhaps 50 years
Planetary geometry has no measurable effect in short 50 to 100 years periods. We only have reasonably accurate global average temperature data from satellites since 1979.
Your claims about sunlight 1000 years ago can not be based on accurate data.
You are presenting a personal opinion, not provable facts.
NASA scientists are making the same mistake with TSI measurements as NOAA scientists are with their SURFRAD stations: they are characterizing radiation as “power”, i.e. measuring it in Watts, which is false. You don’t need to be an “expert” to see that, but you do need to know the difference between energy and power, and how radiation, temperature, heat, and entropy are related to these concepts.
Radiation (energy) can, of course, be used to develop power (energy performing work while increasing entropy), if you have a temperature (energy) differential. What is the energy differential underlying the TSI measurements? How about for the SURFRAD stations?
Indeed, what are the “solar energy data” you mention? I have never seen any. Only solar “power” data, which are useless as Rick says, because they never tell you the reference target temperature.
If you haven’t been studying your theoretical physics quite carefully, it is easy for a layman to confuse radiation, energy, power, temperature, and heat. After all, they all sort of feel the same, if you go outside and stand in the hot sun, right? The government scientists depend on you being confused in this way so that you don’t see their deceptions. I can’t tell how many of them know they are presenting falsehoods, i.e. lying, vs simply being incompetent…
Wow stevekj….your unclear explanation confuses even me, a 40+ year heat transfer engineer….
Which part was unclear, DMac? Note that my comment was aimed at people with a physics background. If you don’t have one, none of this is going to make sense. You’ll have to start from scratch with the theoretical physics of thermodynamics, and it’s a pretty big hill to climb from the bottom. Much of it is highly counterintuitive, which doesn’t help, and explains why it took hundreds of years for people much smarter than you or me to nail it down properly…
(In engineering courses they teach you a bunch of formulae, and where to use them, but spend essentially no time explaining where they came from, or what the underlying theory means. Engineers generally just don’t care. It’s not how they make money.)
RickWill,
I think you are proposing A below but can you please confirm this?
Proposition A: The planets moving the sun cause the earth to get varying solar energy due to varying earth-sun distance and, incidentally, the planets moving the sun also somehow cause (or at least affect) sunspot activity.
Proposition B: The planets moving the sun cause the sun to get sunspots and these sunspots somehow cause the solar energy reaching earth to vary.
Thanks,
Ric
Ric
It is well known that the sun orbits the barycentre of the solar system. NASA did the numerical analysis for this going back to the 1980s. And the attached image is readily available on the web.
I wanted my own positional data for Earth ToA solar calculations because Earth’s ephemeris is based on the barycentre and I wanted true distance. So I produced my own point model but realised it was incomplete because the sun has rotational inertia and its centre of mass produces a torque in relation to the distance from the barycentre. The additional spin of the sun due to the planets is actually faster than the resolved gravitational vector. An analogy is a yo-yo with an infinite string that has the pulling end spinning. There are times of very high acceleration and deceleration. Once I set the starting parameters to balance KE, I got the torque peaks to align with the sunspots. Unsurprising if you think about it.
It also means the published motion is wrong. The sun is not a point source relative to the pull of the planets. So I am now close to having the correct movement.
I think the position of the sun relative to Earth is more important than sunspots. The correlation between sunspots and temperature is because they are primarily driven by the planets acting on the sun moving it and altering distance to Earth. The high occasional torque produces the sunspots.
For this analysis I am working on mass as ratio of Earth and distance in AU so the numbers do not mean much to my normal world but I expect the velocity changes on the surface of the sun are spectacular. I may do the calculation in MKS for the velocity change so I can relate to them.
Thanks RickWill. This is very intriguing. I wonder if the Spörer’s Law pattern can be explained somehow by this gravitational-torque-induced-sunspots mechanism? That could really help clinch it.
What I have found is well beyond anything else that I have seen. No one else has actually looked it the gravitationally induced spin.
It is like the sun is on a whip cord that gets jerked around. The axis between the sun and barycentre rotates faster than the gravitational vector. So when the axis is aligned with the pull, there is no torque. As it moves past alignment the torque is accelerating the rotation. And increases to 90 degrees leading then reduces to zero at 180 degrees leading before going negative reaching peak negative at 270 degrees leading.
Try this link. Theodore Landscheidt and Carl Smith are way ahead of you.
http://landscheidt.info/
They are a long way behind. I produced what they have in two hours. The whole thing falls into place once the torque is taken into account. I spent two days playing around with the velocity as they are doing because I could;d see the pattern there. It took another day to get the torque sorted and then it just falls into place.
I can tell by their charts that they are just playing with velocity without angular momentum.
Try this link. Old news.
http://landscheidt.info/
They are only considering translation velocity. They are missing the main game. I played around for 2 days trying to tease out sunspots without considering the spin. Once spin was included it immediately fell into place.
If they saw my plot they would be blown away. It is so simple and obvious that no one would think it has not been found before.
“WaPo should be praised for publishing a scientifically-sound article on spectacular natural phenomena without attempts trying to tie it to climate change.”
Ok, but…
“This is the only time in the article that Stillman attempts to attribute Antarctic ice calving in general to climate change. “
The media has nowhere to go other than ramping up the scares…
“The world is on the brink of breaching a critical climate threshold, according to a new study published on Monday, signifying time is running exceedingly short to spare the world the most catastrophic effects of global heating.
…
“This new study, using a new method, adds to the evidence that we certainly will face continuing changes in climate that intensify the impacts we are already feeling.”
Utilizing a neural network, or a type of AI that recognizes relationships in vast sets of data, the scientists trained the system to analyze a wide array of global climate model simulations and then asked it to determine timelines for given temperature thresholds.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jan/30/climate-crisis-global-heating-artificial-intelligence
What a waste of time, money and resources. Evidence it ain’t.
“Utilizing a neural network, or a type of AI that recognizes relationships in vast sets of data, the scientists trained the system to analyze a wide array of global climate model simulations and[…]”
And, and, and…
Yup. Training an AI neural net to recognise what they have already synthesized from computer models that don’t simulate reality very well. It’s a double fail. Squared.
The infamous 1982 Exxon report had a paragraph on the possible melting of the Antarctic:
“In addition to the effects of climate on agriculture, there are some potentially catastrophic events that must be considered. For example, if the Antarctic ice sheet which is anchored on land should melt, then this could cause a rise in sea level on the order of 5 meters. Such a rise would cause flooding on much of the U.S. East Coast, including the State of Florida and Washington, D.C. The melting rate of polar ice is being studied by a number of glaciologists. Estimates for the melting of the West Antarctica ice sheet range from hundreds of years to a thousand years.”
From: Exxon CO2 “Greenhouse” Effect 1982 Page 13
The press and alarmists concentrate more on the 5 meter sea level rise and less on the 1000 years it may take.
You can get the Exxon report and some other useful stuff (e.g. JP Morgan, BP, McKinsey reports) at Just Stop Net Zero:
https://www.juststopnetzero.com/
David Tallboys
As the NH spring sunlight intensifies, the oceans will do what they have done for millions of years and even more spectacularly in the last 400k years. They will fall.
Maybe not within a thousand years but certainly within 3,000, they will be falling at 40mm/year. and land north of 40N will be increasing in elevation at 120mm/year.
Right now only Greenland and Iceland are gaining permanent ice because they are surrounded by ever increasing surface water at higher temperature that puts more water in the atmosphere before the NH fall and winter. So more ice but still melting faster than accumulating in most other regions but that will change within 200 years.
The NH is warming up and the snowfall is increasing. A lot more of the NH ocean surface has to reach the 30C limit before the snow starts to pile up.
The concern I have is that there is a lot of resources being wasted on pointless solutions to a non problem. The idea that CO2 can directly alter Earth’s energy balance is as silly as it can get. By contributing to atmospheric CO2, humans are terraforming in a positive way with all biomass responding positively to our efforts.
“The idea that CO2 can directly alter Earth’s energy balance is as silly as it can get.”
Not silly, a proven fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
But CO2 greenhouse effects are obviously small and harmless above 400ppm — More CO2 is beneficial if you consider C3 plant greening effects.
If you are denying AGW, then I am objecting.
Let’s focus on denying CAGW — that’s the right target.
Still ignoring the effects of boundary layer equilibrium on radiative forcing I see. As far as I can see this would eliminate all warming except for pressure broadening which is small and likely compensated by increases in evapotranspiration cooling.
Overall, Rick’s claim is correct.
And perhaps 99.9% of scientists in the world, who all recognize CO2 as a greenhouse gas, are all wrong?
Not so much wrong as incomplete. Pretty much the same view as you have only my reasoning is more specific and easy to understand if one spends a little time.
How could 99.9% be wrong? That is a really good consensus, which is the basis of climate phiisics. Lets vote on what is right.
The vast majority of vocal scientists are in academia and that precludes original thought. They teach the consensus.
Anthony did an experiment that demonstrated that given the same energy input a jar of air had a higher temperature than a like jar with increased CO2. The experiment is easily found on the site.
If you have an experiment that demonstrates the opposite please share it.
I think you mean this post by Mr. Watts:
Al Gore and Bill Nye FAIL at doing a simple CO2 experiment | Watts Up With That?
The Exxon report was completely wrong about Antarctica melting — just data-free speculation about Antarctica melting, which obviously did not happen.
The report was based on articles and work by MIT, University of Oregon, National Academy of Science – there are about 100 scientific papers referred to in the bibliography at the end, pages 31-39.
I really think you ought to read the report rather than dismiss it out of hand with 40 years of hindsight.
You can get it here: https://www.juststopnetzero.com/
“…if the Antarctic ice sheet which is anchored on land should melt…”
“Estimates for the melting of the West Antarctica ice sheet range from hundreds of years to a thousand years”
By placing these two statements in the same paragraph, the anonymous author at Exxon was engaging in an early version of alarmist rhetoric. Implying that the whole Antarctic ice sheet could melt in a thousand years. When the second statement only refers to the WAIS. If you look at the ≈ 9,000 years it took for the Laurentide ice sheet to disappear, the idea that the whole antarctic could melt in a thousand years is absurdly implausible.
Should we expect the dismissal of Mr. Stillman for missing such a wonderful opportunity to scare the gullible public with the obvious catastrophic sea level rise due to climate change story?
I posted a short complement of the original article at Climate Realism
Then I posted a long comment there, similar to this one.
You can guess which comment got censored (this one)
Great two-part Antarctica chart in the article that I featured in my climate science blog about five years ago, comparing an honest chart and dishonest chart showing the same thing. My former blog was called The Honest Climate Chart Blog. That was test Antarctica chart I’ve seen in my 25 years of climate science reading.
This article could have mentioned that the only warming in Antarctica is local so could not be caused by CO2: Some melting of ice shelves near underseas volcanoes and some peninsula melting from underseas volcanoes and tide changes.
The entire continent of Antarctica is not melting or warming in spite of more CO2 in the air. That is because most of Antarctica is not affected by more CO2 in the same way as other places. More CO2 causes cooling of most of Antarctica, which has a temperature inversion. I believe the explanation quoted below. You may differ. We can at least be sure there was no warming since the 1970s. Earlier temperature measurements may not be accurate.
“Rising atmospheric carbon dioxide actually cools most of Antarctica
NASA
Local weather conditions, altitude to blame for counterintuitive trend
“In a world where most regions are warming because of increasing concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), central Antarctica has been cooling slightly in recent years. Greenhouse gases such as CO2 typically trap heat radiated back toward space from the planet’s surface, but large swaths of the East Antarctic Ice Sheet (the broad pink mass on the right side of the image) are, on average, actually colder than the upper layers of the atmosphere for much of the year—the only place on Earth where that’s true. When the team looked at the overall balance between the radiation upward from the surface of the ice sheet and the radiation both upward and downward from the upper levels of the atmosphere across all infrared wavelengths over the course of a year, they found that in central Antarctica the surface and lower atmosphere, against expectation, actually lose more energy to space if the air contains greenhouse gases, the researchers report online and in a forthcoming Geophysical Research Letters. And adding more CO2 to the atmosphere in the short-term triggered even more energy loss from the surface and lower atmosphere there, the team’s climate simulations suggest. The topsy-turvy temperature trend stems, in part, from the region’s high elevation; much of the surface of the ice sheet smothering East Antarctica lies above an elevation of 3000 meters, so it is much colder than it would be at lower altitudes. Moreover, that region often experiences what meteorologists call a temperature inversion, where temperatures in the lowest levels of the atmosphere are cooler than those higher up. For the lower-altitude fringes of the icy continent, and for the rest of the world (even Siberia and Greenland), the greenhouse effect still works as expected.”
There was also a recent article on the subject where scientists claim to be puzzled about Antarctica, I recommended it wo days ago on my climate science blog. I recommend articles with varying opinions, although none promote CAGW or Nut Zero:
Scientists Struggle to Understand Why Antarctica Hasn’t Warmed for Over 70 Years Despite Rise in CO2 – The Daily Sceptic
Daily list of the best climate science and energy articles I’ve read, always includes some from this website:
Honest Climate Science and Energy
This is classic NASA BS trying to explain the cooling in Antarctica having something to do with CO2.
The Southern Ocean has a 40 year cooling trend of 0.6C/century. The Southern Ocean is around 0C and obviously at sea level. So there is surface there cooler than the atmosphere over it..
NASA are the classic one trick pony; they attempt to relate everything to CO2. They have no idea what goes on in the sun. They think it puts out a steady stream of energy and is always the same distance to Earth and Earth always present the same view to the sun.
Nasa really lost its way under Obama and it shows little sign of recovering.
If you think that means 100% of everything NASA says is false, then you are very biased and wrong.
You’re good at putting words into other people’s mouths
Al Gore was VP from ’93 to ’01. With nothing much to do, he meddled a lot in the bureaucracy.
Once again you claim NASA scientists are all wrong about everything, and you are right?
This is classic appeal to authority fallacy. “Who are you to criticize the gods!” If you think Rick’s argument is flawed, say where and why.
The institution does not permit them to buck the consensus, which is driven by politics not science.
NASA publish an image of Earth’s energy balance showing back radiation from cold atmosphere to warmer ground. Radiation is a short way of stating electromagnetic radiation i.e. is ELECTROmagnetic radiation. When did electrical energy start transferring AGAINST the electric field. Their phiisics is garbage.
Their is one NASA physicist, Michael Mischenko, who went to some pains to prove that back radiation is nonsense but it appears his understanding did not penetrate the consensus before he passed away. This is a lecture he gave in 2016:
https://earth.gsfc.nasa.gov/maniac/mishchenko
If you want to know the tiniest bit about EMR energy transfer then you need to read some of Michael’s work on derivation of Maxwell’s equations. He proves EMR is unidirectional at any location in space and time.
.
Let’s see. You float a huge ice sheet on the ocean, but anchor it to the land. You allow it to increase in size, and precip pushes it toward the sea. More precip is added on to it which increases its height and weight. Now you wiggle it twice a day between high and low tides.
What do you THINK will happen?
Too many people have no common sense.
Climastrology, the nonsensical religion of Scientism! Common sense, not so much!
This reminds me of something interesting about big icebergs. The ocean floor near Greenland has iceberg keel scouring to 700m. Take off 100m of sea level fall, that still means 600m deep. That is a big block of ice.
Then there was the Big Baffin Bay Berg that ran aground at the mouth of Davis Strait and caused Greenland to cool down for a few thousand more years. That happened after the sea level had already risen 20m. So a lot of buoyancy lift to break it free from its ice flow.
Deglaciation is one of the tipping points. When the sea level rises it inundates more ice flows and the break off, melt and accelerate the breaking off. The cooler water slows the water cycle so that means less transfer of ocean water back to land.
I understood that this was a natural process when in elementary school. If the US had any kind of success in teaching science, the public would laugh at any other conclusion.
After about a half-hour of intense Googling, I failed to find a graph for Greenland like the one Anthony Watts created for the ice cap at the South Pole, so I gave up. Defeated. I could not even find an estimate of total ice for Greenland, just the delta, (AKA balance.) The closest I could get was one passing claim that Greenland ice has a mass of about one-ninth of Antarctic ice. So much for trusting the science – which is essentially hidden.
Greenland is gaining in extent and elevation but still losing mass due to calving. Calving will be close to balance and Greenland very close to net accumulation again.
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/145185/major-greenland-glacier-is-growing
It is only unexpected for these clueless clowns at NASA.
Yes, they’ve hidden it. I was frustrated by this same problem and wanted to know how much ice is in Greenland ice sheet and how fast it’s estimated to be melting. (Links below the paragraph) There are 2.68×106 Gigatons of ice in the Greenland Ice Sheet (700,000 cubic miles of ice) and Mouginot et. al 2019 found that Greenland’s Ice Sheet has varied between growing (1972-1980) to shrinking (1981 to 2018) and furthermore that it was estimated that 286±20 Gigatons of ice were lost per year between 2010 and 2018.
At the 1981-2018 rate of 286±20 Gigatons per year rate melting, it will take between 8,772 to 10,091 Years to entirely melt Greenland. Even 10xing the rate doesn’t matter to humans alive today.
https://www.britannica.com/place/Greenland-Ice-Sheet
https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/quickfacts/icesheets.html https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2020JB019837
https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/116/19/9239.full.pdf
https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-ice-sheets#:~:text=Greenland's%20ice%20sheet%20reaches%20more,about%206%20million%20cubic%20miles.&text=Together%2C%20these%20ice%20sheets%20hold,of%20the%20world's%20fresh%20water.
These cracks or fractures appear to be caused by cantilever stress.
It’s hysterical news if Jerry Brown is using it to go after Federal funds for high-speed rail to nowhere. Otherwise, it’s reasoned science discussed in context.
Doubtless the story is just the tip of the iceberg…
Those who would like to monitor its progress can follow berg A81 at EOSDIS
https://go.nasa.gov/3WMdOi0
Animation from Jan 21 shows the break and subsequent rotation.
“The Washington Post Gets Iceberg Story Right“
I must be dreaming! Never thought I’d see a headline like that here!
There must have been some slip up at WaPo. Were the editors all out jet setting to allow this to happen?
It is worth noting that the charted ’20 year loss of 2500 gigatonnes of ice mass’ (shown in the chart) if calculated across the entire area of Antarctica, would entail a loss of 0.18 mm over that entire surface.
Now, I know the claimed loss is supposed to be from the WAIS, but I seriously doubt that we have enough precision in measurement to determine wheter the rest of the continent has lost or gained a fraction of a mm of height.
On the topic of Antarctica, do we know why NASA have not updated their ice sheet data? Last update september 2022 and they state the delay is usually only 2 months?
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/ice-sheets/
Ice calving means the glacier is growing.
If it recedes up the valley it’s not growing.
But it’s the Brunt ice shelf that broke up, not a glacier.
Hmmm, you say an iceberg twice the size of NYC is about to break off? Might I suggest that the UN Headquarters should immediately be moved there?