From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
By Paul Homewood
We’re all going to drown – Part 94
Over the last 25 years, Antarctica’s melting ice sheets have released a staggering 7.5 trillion tonnes of water into the ocean, a study has revealed.
Analyzing over 100,000 satellite radar images, researchers from the University of Leeds discovered a steady erosion of the continent’s ice sheets, with over 40 per shrinking between 1997 and 2021.
While some ice sheets did grow in size during this time, the data revealed that a third have now lost more than 30 per cent of their initial mass – unleashing vast quantities of freshwater in the process.
Worryingly, scientists say this vast release of fresh water could threaten to destabilise ocean currents and contribute to global sea level rise.
What’s more, human-induced climate change means that ice melt will continue to happen faster in the future, the experts warn.
The scientists found that, while almost all the ice sheets on the east coast were melting, many ice sheets on the west coast stayed the same size or grew.
This is due to the patterns of ocean currents which surround Antarctica, carrying water of different temperatures.
While the Western side is exposed to warm waters which erode the ice shelves from below, East Antarctica is protected by a band of colder water close to the shore.
Overall, 59 trillion tonnes of water have been added to the continent’s ice shelves since 1975.
However, this was offset by the 67 trillion tonnes that were lost.
The biggest losses took place at the Getz Ice Shelf, which lost 1.9 trillion tonnes of water.
For perspective, one trillion tones of ice would make a cube more than six miles (10 km) in every direction – more than half a mile taller than Mt Everest!
Of this loss, 95 per cent was caused by melting and five per cent by ‘calving’, where large chunks of ice break off into the ocean.
Meanwhile, on the other side of Antarctica, the Amery Ice Shelf gained 1.2 trillion tonnes of ice due to the colder waters surrounding it.
What this study does not mention is the fact that trillions of tonnes of ice are lost every year, due to both calving and melt. That is what ice sheets and glaciers do. And the loss is replenished by snowfall over the Antarctic continent.
So to argue that the influx of freshwater could destabilise ocean currents is frankly a con.
And as ever with these Antarctic studies, there is an data prior to the handful of recent years, which are a mere speck in time. So we don’t know if any of this is out of the ordinary.
What is interesting though is this figure from the actual paper:
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adi0186
Now let’s home in on the top right graph:
We can see that the Total Mass Change (black line) has remained stable since around 2000. If anything it has risen slightly. This actually corroborates another study in May this year, which found that the Antarctic ice shelf had grown between 2009 and 2019.
All of the decline took place between 1997 and 2001. Whatever happened back then, and there must be question mark over the quality of the data then, it certainly is not occurring now, although there are evidently regional variations.
Also note the massive margins of error. We actually don’t know whether the ice sheets are growing, shrinking or staying the same.
This in itself makes the whole study meaningless.
But no doubt it will generate lots more grant money for “further research”!
Is the Daily Mail a peer-reviewed publication?
Peer review is only mandatory for denier papers. For papers from the godly, just sprinkling a little holy water on them is enough to ensure their scientific sanctity.
By Holy Water, Mark, I assume you a referring to that Melted Ice Shelf that maketh up that 7+ Trillion Tons swimming about messing with our ocean currents. Ain’t we humans the devilish sort for “likely” causing all that Holy water to go running amok.
Ya gotta just love the way these lefty news sources manage to slip in the might BE’s and Could Be’s and Maybe’s but their absolute best subliminal is LIKELY. It has such a way of burrowing into the unsuspecting post 1990 public school “gradiates” subconscious.
Shooting the messenger is a cheap shot – leave it to the warmists to do that
Mask up! Isolate! Minimalize. Go nowhere. You can do it!
The Daily Mail is not accepted as a reliable source by Wikipedia.
Think about that.
A schoolchild who uses Wikipedia as a source is marked down for not using assured evidence. The Daily Mail is even less reliable than that.
It’s not a newspaper. It’s business model is to hawk soft-core porn to ‘respectable‘ elderly genteman through a website clogged up with semi-nude celebrity images and links.
AKA The Sidebar of Shame
That is not a gauge of factual reliability , it is a political filter. David Rose writes for the Mail, they banned it. However, stupidly non factual climate lairs at the Guardian are accepted as WP source.
Think about that.
For god sakes don’t ever go shopping for underwear on line. Or for ah ah a significant other… yea yea that’s the ticket, shopping for another.
I dare say that perhaps that is the only reputable part of the paper.
Our old friend Griff turns up as a commenter on articles about climate and weather. He gets a similar response to what he used to get here. The comments are the best part of the Daily Mail as far as I’m concerned.
How do you know that it’s the same tard?
Still suffering from Griff derangement syndrome Ben? I’d completely forgotten he existed until you came along to keep him alive.
The Daily Mail is like WUWT. It doesn’t do any research of its own. It merely reports on research carried out by other people. Neither the articles in the Daily Mail or the articles on WUWT are peer-reviewed. It’s the research which they both report which is, or is not, peer-reviewed.
You must be new here. WUWT publishes a lot of original research. For example, articles by Willis Eschenbach:
https://muckrack.com/willis-eschenbach/articles
It doesn’t do any research of its own. It merely reports on research carried out by other people.
How is that different from what you said?
Perhaps it’s unofficial, but I think of Willis as WUWT’s resident cowboy-sailor scientist, part of WUWT’s inner circle.
Also consider the research by Anthony et al. on urban heat/weather station placement.
Does the Lancet conduct scientific research?
Does Scientific American conduct research?
No they are clearing houses, publishers, exactly as does WUWT.
Except hasn’t Anthony published research here.
WUWT is peer review. It’s just that the peer review (viewer comments) occur after publication rather than before.
None of the so called science journals do their own research either. They all publish papers that were done by others.
Nah! On WUWT it won’t take long before somebody asks questions like: “Isn’t the biggest loss of summer ice due to ablation?”
Any of those “peer-reviewed” authors are welcome here.
Why don’t they show up?
Mann? He still sticks to his Hockey Stick. Why hasn’t he come here to defend it?
(“Epoxology”. Dang! I can’t find a link to the old post!!)
Ill-informed. ^^ Mask up! Isolate! Use no fuels. Gotta save Gaia! Get to work!
Yes, by the gullibles.
Nothing about the under-ice volcanos?
And nothing about the fact only one iceberg can weigh up to a trillion tonnes… makes it all look a little inconsequential really.
Aren’t there a dozen or so active volcanos under the western shelf?
No. There hasn’t been a complete survey done over the whole of Antarctica but the study that was done, concentrating on the West of Antarctica and the western shelf, found 138 some dormant but far more than just a dozen were active.
Antarctica’s melting ice shelves have unleashed 7.5 TRILLION tonnes of water into the oceans since 1997,
Overall, 59 trillion tonnes of water have been added to the continent’s ice shelves since 1975.
However, this was offset by the 67 trillion tonnes that were lost.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Will the real starting point of the data please stand up.
Comparatively speaking, relative to the total mass of the world’s oceans, isn’t 7.5 Trillion Tonnes just a drop in the bucket?
I think you mean a drop in the ocean
The big question is, which can’t be answered by the modern (post 70’s) satellite imaging, what was the state of the Antarctic before 1975? Did it see a massive ice gain in the 50’s and 60’s which is now returning to a more normal level? Was the starting point of this data an abnormally high period of ice mass, or was it, as the article would have us believe, a fairly average amount? Without more context and some way of establishing previous amounts of ice mass then any conclusions reached are meaningless.
The 1970’s.
Isn’t that when the “consensus” science warned of the coming Ice Age?
Fish now have more water to live in. The ice wasn’t doing many creatures much good
But, but, but… think about the little baby penguins.
And just as much re-froze in the same period of time. Talk about lie spewing f*cks.
By my quickie calcs, ignoring all other effects and offsets, the 7.5 trillion tons would have raised sea level by only 20 mm or so – over 25 years. Less than a mm a year annually. Yawn!
Oh come on, 1mm/year is very scary if you have climate mental disease…
They are ice SHELVES. With water underneath them. It’s FLOATING ice.
By my calculations the melting of umpteen trillions of cubes of FLOATING ice will increase sea levels by ZERO.
Easy to check.
Put some water and an ice cube in a glass. Measure how high the water level is. Let the ice cube melt then measure it again.
Without checking, yes it would.
BUT, as the story says, that pulse of 7.5trn tonnes occurred over the period of ’97 thro ’01 = 4 years. (We do see and love the mirror image ‘left-to-right’ hokey-cokey-stick don’t we?)
That pulse of water would have shown up in any one or more of the myriad sea-level graphs that grace these pages as a 20mm step change during those 4 years
Does anyone remember seeing that – does anyone have a screenshot of it?
Assuming not, should that not have been the Very First Thing those clowns at Leeds should have used to check/verify their claims here
Those clowns at Leeds aren’t getting grants for checking and verifying their claims.
Peta,Peta, Peta. Floating ice displaces exactly the volume of water equal to the melted volume of the ice.
Ice doesn’t bob on the surface like a cork; it sinks 90% into the water. Most of floating ice is below the waterline. Hence the phrase “tip of the iceberg”. When ice melts it gets denser, because water is denser than ice. In effect, when it melts the ice shrinks 10%, and fills exactly the space in the water, as water, that was below the waterline when it was floating ice. It’s physics. Read the book.
So it really doesn’t matter how many gigatonnes of floating ice melted last millennium, it could not and did not change the water level of the oceans. No change in sea level due to melted floating ice could be detected because such a phenomenon would violate the Laws of Nature and is impossible.
The author of the cited alarmist screed above, evidently someone named Wm Hunter, wrote “[T]his vast release of fresh water could … contribute to global sea level rise.”. Nope. No way. Physically impossible. Violation of Nature. I wasn’t fooled. Nor should anyone else be.
Exactly. When the ice in your lemonade melts the liquid level gets lower, not higher. Ice shelves either add nothing to the ocean volume, or they reduce it.
Melted ice would on contribute to the “height” of water in the oceans if it was melt water from ice on land.
Hmmm … how many tons of ships have been added since whichever starting point the want to use?
Side note. (Corrections welcome.)
I think merchant ships “weights” are based on a calculation of the cubic feet of cargo they can carry whereas warships are based on a calculation of the on the weight of water they displace. (I think before WW2, Germany got around the Versailles Treaty limits for it’s “pocket battleships” by reporting the displacement before they were fully loaded.)
One would have assumed more data giving greater data certainty, not its antithesis.
I also love the automatic assumption. That if anything that can be painted as bad, is happening (no need to actually prove that something bad is happening), that it must be caused by human induced climate change. It can’t possibly be caused by naturally induced climate change. (As much as the alarmists try to deny it, that is a real thing, it hasn’t gone away.)
As with the polar bears (allegedly) not having enough seals to eat if too much ice melts in the Arctic.
Presumably, if true, that would mean good times for the seals.
I guess the seals only matter when seal hunters are harvesting the cute babies with clubs, which is probably a quicker death than being munched on by a polar bear.
Yes, I always measure an amount of water by how much it weighs. Who doesn’t?
And as a helpless American I don’t know a ton from a tonne. Is that Imperial Units?
I’m going to guess that a tonne, is a metric tonne, which is 1000 kg. Which is somewhere around 2200 US pounds.
Kevin is an American so his ‘ton’ would be a ‘short ton’ or 2000lbs as opposed to the Imperial ton which is 2240 lbs and the ‘tonne’ which is 1000kg or 2204 lbs.
1 tonne = 1.016 ton, so essentially equivalent.. close enough for government work.
As a litre of water weighs One Kilogram a 1000 litres weighs one Tonne. Which means 1 Tonne = 2204 lbs, an Imperial ton is 2240lbs. All having to allow for difference in density at different temperatures.
In this sort of calculation where numbers are rounded to the nearest 100 billion is the difference worth worrying about?
Context is everything!
And yet a 20 pound note is about as light as a feather.
Edit:
“And as ever with these Antarctic studies, there is an data prior to the handful of recent years, which are a mere speck in time. So we don’t know if any of this is out of the ordinary.”
The sentence makes a very important point and it is not written correctly. I think “an”->”no”.
Fix and delete this comment?
If polar temperature stays below zero C, a desalinization plant and a really big hose could convert the poles into super tall ice caps to fight off sea level rise.
A cube of water 6 miles on a side sure does sound like a lot of water, doesn’t it.
Until you remember that the total surface area of the oceans is almost 200 million square miles, and the average death is a bit over 2 miles.
A cube 6 miles square has a volume of 216 square miles. The oceans have a volume of around 400,000,000 square miles. In other words, the oceans have a total volume almost 2 million times larger than the amount of ice allegedly released from the Antarctic glaciers.
Big freaking whoop.
“the average death is a bit over 2 miles.”
End of a tough road race.
It’s obvious he meant “depth.” (It’s easy for you to spell!)
Every time I turn off auto-correct because it replaces unusual things I meant with common things I did’t mean, life reminds me I benefit from auto-correct way more than I’m thwarted by it.
You’re right, he obviously meant depth not death. it could be a mis-type or it could be an overzealous robot editor auto correction or it could be something for his psychologist – but at least he’ll know it’s there if he ever comes back to it.
I go back to reread comments I wrote to check whether they read like something someone I don’t like might write. Sometimes words sound different later than they did earlier, and often they don’t sound better.
Unfortunately we’ve lost our ability to manually recorrect that which auto replace or fat fingers monkeys with
You may want to re-edit the bold bits?
There is the option of Autosuggest, where, should the editor disagrees with your usage of the keyboard, it red underlines it, with a right-click option for a suggested spelling/ grammar list.
My distrust of classicism predisposes me to a turn of phrase often frowned upon by robots of all type, thus my poor spelling and grammar often has me at odds with a machine I bloody well paid good money for!
And equally easy for autocorrect/autoreplace to mistakenly change the word.
What burns me is when autoincorrect changes a word I misspelled into utter gibberish.
I can understand it substituting what it thinks might be the right word but sometimes it only resembles a word jumble.
I sometimes wonder if I have the Finnish version?
😀
But the comment made me laugh.
Whilst we’re nitpicking, nothing has a volume of square anything, Shirley you mean cubic?
Apologies, forgot the basic rule of ‘check all comments before posting’, bnice has already pointed this out.
“A cube 6 miles square has a volume of 216 square miles”
“volume of around 400,000,000 square miles.”
?, I assume you meant to type cubic miles
No, they actually say this..
Overall, 59 trillion tonnes of water have been added to the continent’s ice shelves since 1975.
However, this was offset by the 67 trillion tonnes that were lost.
But yes, the rest is pointless fear mongering. As a matter fact the Antarctic does neither warm nor melt. With it, the whole southern ocean does not warm. And that is a huge problem – not for the climate of Earth, but the climate scientists of Earth. They cannot explain it. It is one of the instances revealing they got it completely wrong.
+/- error range. What is the error range used for that calculation? My betting is that those figures will be completely within it, as usual.
Zwallky et al had a different result in 2015.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-glaciology/article/mass-gains-of-the-antarctic-ice-sheet-exceed-losses/983F196E23C3A6E7908E5FB32EB42268
When the results of the calculations are still well within the error range, any conclusions will always be ambiguous.
The study you quote uses complex science that uses high tech radar to measure mass gain and lose over the entire land mass. That is to hard a concept.This study uses photos and lines to guess mass loss. Not actual measurements from complex satalites. This is science for dumb people. Just like all the good propag…I mean science should be.
Are these purported “experts” aware that Antarctica hasn’t warmed at all? How will melt “continue to happen faster” due to something that doesn’t exist?
“How will melt “continue to happen faster” due to something that doesn’t exist?”
Good question!
These people are delusional. They have warming on the brain. It’s warming in one place on the globe, so they assume it is warming everywhere. They apparently don’t understand that the Sun is heating the northern and southern hemispheres differently.
The Southern Hemishere is cooling in this Age of Human-caused Global Warming/Climate Change.
I guess all the CO2 is in the northern hemisphere.
As if!
As if all that water since 1997 (or 1975….. whatever) never did anything, just carefully stayed in its liquid state. It didn’t warm and rise and precipitate. Like the buckets of water relentlessly hauled from the well in “The Sorcerer’s Apprentice,” it will fill up our cellars and drown us all.
It’s magic water.
Add a little CO2 and THEN it’s “magic water”!
Sounds good! 🙂
Tastes good, too!
I remember when I was a kid seeing the commercials for “Fizzies”. We begged our parents to buy some. They did eventually. We stopped begging them for them after that.
(They were basically “Alka-Seltzer” with an artificial sweetener and flavor instead of medicine.)
“It didn’t warm and rise and precipitate”
Yep.
If the the Globe is warming so much and the ice is melting as CAGW melts so much “extra” then there should be more rain. Yet they claim more droughts?
They are cherry-picking again as with the Arctic sea ice record, the graphs above begin around 1999 when the Antarctic temperature was at a low point relative to the entire record that shows no significant trend since 1958 (HadCRUT4).
And still no acceleration of sea level rise.
Sea level rise acceleration is like commercial fusion power it’s always coming and never arriving.
1 tonne of water has a volume of 1 m^3. 1 km^3 = 10^9 m = 10^9 tonnes of water or 1 gigatonne of water. 7.5*10^12 tonnes = 7500 gigatonnes = 7,500 km^3
Doesn’t 7,500 cubic kilometers sound a lot smaller than 7.5 trillion tonnes.
😎
Reminds me of someone talking about the steam clouds rising from a nuclear power cooling tower.
(No agenda or attempt to deceive on his part.)
He made the comment that the cloud of steam could weigh a ton!
But a ton of water is only about 240 gallons of water.
Putting the big number into some sort of perspective.
What the Daily Mail (?) says is; the whole continent of Antarctica issued over 25 years, the same amount of water into the ocean as the Amazon river issues every single year. So one (very big) river from one part of the South American continent has 25 times more impact than the Antarctic has regarding water flow to the ocean.
Next!
Ah, but this is Antarctic ice melt water and that has a totally different effect to ordinary river water obviously!
That’s true, it makes you a lot colder than normal river water if you swim in it…. 🙂
Indeed 7.5 trillions tons sound way more terrifying then 21mm uptick from oceans levels 😉
They also always forget to tell that the melt occurs from below the ice shelf…
“21mm uptick from oceans levels”
Which didn’t happen anyway 🙂
This paper is an utter FAIL from start to finish !
From Tony Heller.
One of these pictures shows Antarctic sea ice extent on October 8, 2023 and the other shows the same for October 8, 1986. According to climate experts, one is normal and the other is a Penguin killing crisis. Which one is 2023?
There is a climate crisis in there somewhere? Just a question of where to find it. Thank god for Tony Heller and those bringing sanity into the public arena to counter the hype and lies of Climate Alarmism.
“Thank god for Tony Heller and those bringing sanity into the public arena to counter the hype and lies of Climate Alarmism.”
I agree with that.
Climate Alarmists go out of their way to disparage Tony Heller and that means he is right over the climate-change-fraud target.
There is very little difference in those two charts. Not enough to write home about.
Since the Emperor penguins breed in May/June I don’t see what relevance the sea ice extent in October has? The recent loss of penguin colonies was due to record low sea ice in the Bellinghausen Sea. The current extent is over a million sq km below the average of the last 40 years.
Emperor Penguins usually hatch their eggs 40+ km inland. They walk to the edge of the ice to fish and, as excellent swimmers, I can’t see a bit of ice drifting off as any problem for them.
The Emperor penguins hatch their eggs and raise their young on land-fast seaice the young fledge in January so they need the ice to be stable until then. What happened this year was that the ice where four colonies in the Bellinghausen Sea were based broke up before the young penguins were able to swim. So Richard the ice breaking up and drifting away is a problem for them!
Here’s the seaice map for early January, you’ll notice there is no ice in the Bellinghausen sea:
Figure5a_2-758×1024.png
Here’s what it looked like a few years ago:
Figure5-1-860×1024.png
Holy %&%$& they walk 40km? Flabbergasted.
LOL! So typical. A pathetic attempt to deflect from what those images make clear. And why would anyone trust anything such “scientists” say about penguin populations after the fiasco concerning the Adelie penguins, where they declared having observed a massive loss of population only to find the birds had established a super colony elsewhere?
Yes a pathetic attempt by Heller making irrelevant comments about the images.
It’s highly unlikely there is any loss of any colonies.
If there are issues in a particular area they just move on.
Well the adults do but the young of the year were unable to because prior to fledging they can’t swim. Consequently all the brood from those colonies were lost this year.
I saw the word “could” in the 4th paragraph- stopped there.
I don’t think Einstein said that E could equal MC squared.
“could”
Which says to me: Maybe, maybe not. Which is not definitive enough for science.
perfect for propaganda
Sorry, but it is just not possible to actually measure ice mass in Antarctica, only to grossly estimate it. We do not have detailed topographical maps of the underlying terrain, and only imprecise sat data for surface elevations of the ice, only estimates. Sat data are not reliable measures to anything less than multiple meters precision, no matter what the warmunists claim.
According to USGS, absolute vertical precision of terrain elevation measured by satellites is plus or minus 2.44 m.
So consider the following:
1) the area of Antarctica is 14,200,000 square km, virtually all of it ice covered at depths up to thousands of meters, which also compresses as a function of time due to the pressure of overlying ice mass, so is not a static thickness. The continental land mass also subsides over time due to the mass of ice.
2) a layer of ice of 2.44 m – the best precision available for elevation measurements with sat signals – covering that area has a mass of 3.46 times ten to the 13th power of metric tons. That is, in other words, 34.6 trillion metric tons of ice plus or minus, which is the best precision available with today’s available technology.
So the correct reporting would be a mass change of 7.5 trillion plus or minus 34.6 trillion tons. Which means the ice mass could just as easily have increased by as much as 27 trillion tons.
And these scientists claim they can measure ice mass changes across multiple decades of a mere handful of trillions of tons?
Whenever dealing with claims involving large numbers across continental sized areas, or even larger (ie, world wide sea level changes), best to check both the measurement technology claimed as the basis, and to check the math.
In this case, the changes claimed do not arise to the noise level of any possible changes in Antarctic ice mass measurements.
Holly… ice volume batman… that was great work! Thank you!
From the article: “Also note the massive margins of error. We actually don’t know whether the ice sheets are growing, shrinking or staying the same.
This in itself makes the whole study meaningless.”
This is how crazy human-caused climate change science really is. They can’t reach any definitive conclusion from their data.
I guess this kind of pseudoscience pays well.
The aren’t doing science, they’re doing propaganda.
If you need to fee a family, and you see a loaf of bread
One more time, a paper whose data doesn’t support it’s conclusions.
The above article has a scary sounding headline, doesn’t it?
But, assuming the claimed number is correct, let’s put it into perspective:
The present mass of Earth’s oceans is about 1.4×10^21 kg
(ref: https://hypertextbook.com/facts/1998/AvijeetDut.shtml )
The above article’s claimed release of “7.5 TRILLION tonnes of water” would be the equivalent of 7.5×10^15 kg.
Therefore, the scary headline is talking about a total increase in the mass of Earth’s oceans of (7.5×10^15/1.4×10^21) = .0005%. Yep . . . a one-half of one thousandth of 1 percent increase.
Ho, hum.
Please do NOT mention Arctic sea ice this year. Summer minimum ice extent was indistinguishable from what it was in 2007 when all the screaming started.
So much for all the talk of imminent “ice-free” summers, albedo feedback, tipping points and the rest of the BS.
“For perspective, one trillion tones of ice would make a cube more than six miles (10 km) in every direction – more than half a mile taller than Mt Everest!”
For perspective, the 7.5 trillion tons of ice melt since 1997 would result in ~0.75 mm of sea level increase per year. Just a small part of the centuries old 2-3 mm/year trend documented in tidal gauge data.
7.5 trillion tons of ice melt from ice floating in the water would result in 0.0mm of sea level increase.
Thank you Richard. Kind of a duh! statement but appreciated nonetheless. In addition, the melting of ice SHELVES adds zero mass to the world’s oceans because the FLOATING ice was already in the ocean and part of its previous mass.
I know: well duh! But some people have low science IQ’s and are easily hoodwinked by noise that sounds like science but isn’t.
Richard, the above article’s title specifically refers to ice melting from ice shelves. This is scientifically interpreted as meaning ice that resides on land.
Therefore, it is not floating ice . . . and consequently it would create a positive, albeit insignificant, increase in global sea level.
Richard,
Ooops!
I should have done it before my rather careless post of several minutes ago! You are absolutely correct: an “ice self” is an extension of ice from a land origin that extends out onto adjacent water, and thus it would be floating.
(ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_shelf )
My apologies for not confirming what I thought to be true prior to posting my response.
I learned something today.
We just finished a triple La Nine, a rare event which starts with the Humbolt Current which
originates from the Antarctic. There were a good number of reports of how cold it was
in South America during this time. Cold as in coffee plantations that have been in productions
for decades getting ruined from the cold, and other such events in that region, not to mention
the atmospheric rivers hitting the west coast in a way that hasn’t been seen since the 1860’s.
The DailyMail has no credibility complete trash.
7.5 trillion Tonnes of water?
How much water is that?
Using 8.267 trillion US tons
I’d like to know how many tons is in a 1 inch sea rise.
Is this accurate?
Surface of oceans = 139,000,000 Square Miles
1 sq mile is 27,878,400 sq ft ÷ 1.6 sq ft = 17,424,000 gallons x 8.33 lbs per gal= 145,141,920 lbs
(1 gallon is 231 cubic inches – 231 cubic inches is 1.6 sq ft / 1 inch deep & = 1 gallon)
Each sq mi 1 inch deep weighs 72,571 tons
8.267 trillion tons ÷ 72,571 tons = 113,920,639 sq miles 1 inch deep
That’s .819 inch deep for the entirety of the oceans.
So by my calculation it would take 10.086 US tons of additional water to add 1 inch of sea rise.
How do they know how much water there is?
I’m a simple man. Maybe too simple?
No, you’re not simple. You just haven’t thought it through. Zero mass is added to the oceans from floating ice melting, with zero change in sea level. No math required!
That must be why all of my Oregon beaches are unchanged during my entire 69 years?
And they named the state after you.
😀
Last I checked- without reading the initial study- a sea terminating ice shelf doesn’t add any water mass to the ocean when it melts. Ice take up more volume than water. When the ice in your lemonade melts the amount of liquid is lower than it was when it started. So, if the majority of the ice loss is ice shelf and sea terminating glaciers, the more it melts the lower the sea level will be. Yes, there is more water, but NOT more volume.
Recycle time!
“When glaciers calve, alarmist have a cow.
That explains all the bellowing!”
Quick google search yields that there are 1,450,000 trillion tons of water in the oceans so this has increased it by 0.00000517.
I’m feeling faint
Don’t faint!
Go glue yourself to something!
That’ll stop it!
Antarctica melting….BWAH HAHHA! Good one.