"If only the natural factors are taken into account, we should be in a cold period now," said the lead researcher at a NASA press conference.
For years, researchers have studied the stability of the West Antarctic ice sheet as global temperatures rise. The melting of the ice sheet may directly cause the sea level to rise.
Although this is not unexpected, a press conference held by NASA on Monday this week, led by Tom Wagner, Cryosphere Project Scientist in the Earth Sciences Division at NASA Headquarters in Washington, Sridar Anadakrishnan, Professor of Earth Sciences at the University of Pennsylvania and Eric Rignot, Geologist at JPLL and the Department of Earth Sciences at UC Irvine, and everyone was concerned.
The West Antarctic Ice Sheet is a sea ice sheet below sea level that is bordered by the Rhone and Ross Ice Sheets and contains glaciers that wash into the Amundsen Sea. The study summarizes 40 years of data from various types of observations that examined the movement of the ice and its thickness.
A key component to the loss of ice is erosion along the lower part of the glacier (grounding line). This is the boundary where the ice detaches from the ground below and floats freely. A gradual erosion of the West Antarctic ice sheet has been observed, and can be attributed to an increase in the strength of the stratospheric trade winds plus warming ocean waters, all of which are due to man-made global warming.
"This sector will contribute significantly to sea level rise in the coming decades and centuries," said Ringut at the press conference. "In a conservative estimate, it will take several hundred years for all this ice to flow into the sea."
The thickness of the ice layer contributes to the load on the glacier, it slows its flow and pulls it out, reduces its weight and lifts it from the rock below it in a process of continuous feedback. The main concern for years has been the possibility of the glaciers collapsing, which will lead to an acceleration in sea level rise all over the world. An extreme retreat of the glaciers will sink millions of tons of ice into the sea in a relatively short period of time and while it is true that ice in this area melts every summer the multi-year melting average is increasing.
The research is supported by data from satellites, airplanes and ground observations examining the thickness of the ice layer for decades.
The researchers stated that the bay area in the Amundsen Sea alone contains enough ice to raise the sea level by twenty meters. The intensification of currents surrounding the South Pole region since the 20s has accelerated the process, along with the loss of ozone. These peripheral currents also make the process more complex than similar types of ice loss in Greenland and the Arctic.
The study was published in the journal Geophysical Research Letter of the American Geophysical Union. At the same time, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) published its own study on the instability of the West Antarctic ice sheet, on the same day in the journal Science, the two studies are related.
The most amazing data on the retreat of the ice is seen in the Smith and Kohler glaciers, each 35 kilometers long that broke off from the ground and spread over an area of 500 square kilometers between 1992 and 2011
Another factor cited in the study was the coordination between the detachment from the bottom of several glaciers, which indicates a common mechanism such as the underwater heat flow. As for the ice shelf itself, the key points where the glaciers are anchored in the bedrock are quickly disappearing, which indicates that the ice in the area will be destabilized on a larger scale in the future.
The study used data from remote sensing satellites of Kod Ha'aretz (ERS-1/2), mainly in the InSAR (Interferormetry Synthetic Aperture Radar) devices on board, observation data from ground expeditions collected in Operation IceBridge which included observation flights over Antarctica using Orion aircraft used to capture equipped submarines With the radar, but in this operation the radar was used to measure the thickness of the ice layer.
NASA plans to launch five scientific missions this year to study the Earth: Soil Moisture and Passive (SMAP), Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO-2, and Global Precipitation Measurement (GPM) - the last one was already launched in February this year.
"The collapse of an entire region in West Antarctica seems unstoppable," Rignot said. "The fact that the retreat occurs simultaneously over a large area shows that it is due to a common cause, such as an increase in the temperature of the ocean below the floating areas of the glaciers.
"Of course, the solar cycle, volcanic activities, the changing albedo of the Earth and human activity all play a role in the climate change process. The bad news is that if you take only the natural factors into account, we should be in for a cold period now.”
Comments
Eran
Say, when the theory is not supported by the facts, don't you think it's worth replacing the theory?
So that you don't get confused, I will tell you some facts.
1) The industry emits huge amounts of PADH
2) PADH absorbs energy from the sun that turns into heat.
3) This heat also heats the sea, which is extremely sensitive.
4) Although in terms of Milankovitch cycles we should be in a cooling state on average, we are in a warming state.
Hmmmmmmm .. not complicated, right?
Eran
"well yeah . The sunspot model, unlike the global warming model, is backed by science"
Wow, you're right, how did I not come across this before? The global warming model is based on dreams that people had at night and has nothing to do with evidence and actual measurements.
The global climate is not affected by one factor exclusively, according to which it is possible to determine precisely what the change will be following a change in the influence of this factor. Although the sun is probably the most significant factor (without the presence of the sun we would probably turn into a frozen block in no time), but it is not the only factor. There are a considerable number of non-negligible mechanisms that affect the climate in a very significant way. One of them, for example, is the greenhouse effect (without it, for example, the world would be considerably colder and we would most likely not be able to exist in it).
"Actually, according to this model, there is a company that gives annual weather forecasts with an accuracy of about 90%, while most forecasters in the world arrive at what? 70 75% and that too only about close things.”
If you want me to refer to it, bring a link. I have no way of guessing which company you are talking about. I also don't understand exactly what kind of forecast you are talking about and where you get your numbers from.
"Regarding CO2, the leading claim follows the graph presented by Al Gore, and it is that an increase in the level of CO2 equals global warming.
If in the last 800K years there was not such a high level of CO2 and yet now it is not the warmest. And of course there is no ice age. It is probably a confusion of eggs.
It's either 0 or 1..and it's one big zero."
I understand that you really want it to be a one-on-one thing, because that way it's much easier to understand, but it just doesn't work that way. If, for example, the radiation of the sun was weaker in a previous period when the CO2 level was higher than today, then the temperatures could still be lower, even though the CO2 level was higher then.
"By the way, Al Gore's film showed in a "very nice" way a normalized graph in general, since the CO2 levels do follow the temp levels... but with a difference of 800 years on average!! ..to the detriment of CO2, so that an increase or decrease in heat leads to this"
It's not that simple
https://www.skepticalscience.com/Why-does-CO2-lag-temperature.html
You insist on not understanding that it's not a one-on-one thing. We are talking about mechanisms that are much more complex than that, not to mention that they operate in the course of interactions that affect one another, the third, etc.
"Regarding climate science. In the early 90s it was a negligible and esoteric field with no budget. Today, on the other hand
25 years ago there was no research to search for bodies in space that could crash into the Earth. 30 years ago there was no research to discover a cure for AIDS (the numbers are not necessarily correct). Both of these things are also a conspiracy of scientists to get funding right? What actually in science is not a conspiracy for the purpose of funding the unnecessary research work?
” and it was even shown two years ago in the news how to submit two unrelated research requests. One includes "and the effect of global warming on the process" and the other does not... guess who got a grant and who didn't (by the way the request was completely unrelated to something.
Al Gore has long since crossed the billion mark and the field of climate science is exposed to crazy budgets today"
Beauty is the same with cancer. Write two identical proposals, one with some gibberish about how it can help cure cancer and one that doesn't, and guess which one has a higher chance of being accepted. It has to do with whether the problem is realistic or not, how?
In addition, the budget allocated to this is really not as big as you describe. Want to guess how many percent of the US budget is dedicated to climate research?
"I really do not support the oil industries and I personally wish for the day when the world will end all oil and gas in any form"
I don't, it would be a really bad day, but it's not related. The related question is why do you choose to listen specifically to scientists (perhaps "scientists") who are funded by them, and it is known in advance what their position will be following this funding, and not to scientists who are funded by the public, and who are not committed to private financial interests?
"And as I said, there is no doubt for a moment that those industries, as well as many others, are responsible for the pollution of nature, the quality of the air, and what not, and endanger all of our health."
Why is there really no doubt? Maybe even here the greedy scientists and the research budgets are inventing things so that they can have a job? Companies used to be allowed to pollute freely, until scientists came up with all kinds of theories about harming the environment and harming health.
"But that doesn't mean it causes global warming"
It doesn't mean it causes global warming, it doesn't really mean anything. The evidence is.
"Before you contradict me, just search Google for the film (something like an hour) that explains fact for fact how everyone is lied to and rejects and omits years that they don't want to be heard regarding "global warming""
Sorry, I can't relate without knowing which movie you're talking about, and you didn't really clarify which movie it was. There is no shortage of movies full of nonsense and lies in our world. You are welcome to tell and then maybe I can relate to him.
You can also decide that you prefer to watch more movies. If you want recommendations, there are also movies that show the aliens on the moon and their visits to the earth, about how the Americans themselves blew up the twins, about how the Illuminati and the Freemasons rule the world and we are all their slaves, about how aliens visited the world in the ancient past and we are the product of their hybrids, About mysterious and invisible stars that are going to return to our solar system and destroy us all two years ago, there really aren't any.
"I would also like to point out that I was an ardent believer in the theory until I saw this film and began to Google a little to look for established information myself."
This is your first mistake, stop believing, it does you no good. The second is that you are basing your faith on a movie. Movies are media of laziness and are pre-biased to convey a message. It's nice to expose people to get them interested, but nothing more. Beyond that you have to look past and look at the data as it is and not trust the editor of the film and let him spoon feed you his message. Googling following a movie will bring you exactly where the movie directed you, because you'll look for exactly the bombastic quotes that entertained you and you'll get exactly to the sources that the movie is based on. You must be able to be critical of the sources of information you consume, and understand whether they have an agenda, are lazy or just wrong for some reason, or are serious and reliable.
In the end it's a bit of a game of these company lies being better reasoned and based on the evidence from these company lies.
The onus is on you to see the actual data and evidence and try and figure out what the correct analysis of that data is, don't let someone else do it for you.
"By the way.. until the mid-70s the temperature was decreasing - the record of the industrial deflation of the UAE and the pollution was measured in those years in the Western countries - the situation seemed so serious that there were warnings of global cooling in general and the transition to the ice age"
Then they started to reduce certain parts of the air pollution and oops what happened?
"I'm a person of science, science with facts, and when people try to adjust the reality that doesn't fit the facts, it just pisses me off"
really? Did you even look at the links I provided here? I don't want to insult you or anything, but it seems to me that you are trying to look at something extremely complex, as something simple, while ignoring data that tells a different story, and that is simply a mistake.
"I don't rule out that the climate is changing, I rule out the global warming model because the rulers, unlike the supporters, show you a whole graph and not just parts."
Like those who specifically chose the last 17 years?
(Regardless of that by the way, that's a really bad reason to reject something.)
"If you want a concrete example, look at the topic of this article.
Why did none of the respected SO CALLED scientists bother to point out that there is an active underwater volcano under the glacier?
It doesn't seem relevant enough?? ..unintentional omission? .Nonsense . They knew and knew about it."
I thought I already answered this claim in my first comment on the page. Well come on one more time.
This is the last sentence there:
"Of course, the solar cycle, volcanic activities, the changing albedo of the Earth and human activity all play a role in the climate change process. The bad news is that if you take only the natural factors into account, we should be in for a cold period now."
Do you see that it says volcanic activity there? You know I guess what volcanic activity is. So how do you conclude that someone left something out?
Here is an excerpt from Assaf's link for example:
West Antarctica, where the ice is melting fastest, is also home to a number of active volcanoes. Could they be melting the ice, instead of climate change?
Several lines of evidence say the answer is a resounding NO.
First is Iceland. The land mass has many very active volcanoes, but glaciers still cover its surface. And Iceland is just one of several examples showing that fire and ice can coexist at volcanoes without widespread melting occurring. Second, volcanoes called tuyas erupted through ice sheets during past Ice Ages, and there is little evidence they caused rapid, catastrophic melting. Third, the volcanic activity beneath West Antarctica has not significantly changed in the past few decades, which is when the glaciers there started their galloping retreat. Finally, a super-eruption the size of Yellowstone's biggest blast would be needed to melt through the miles of ice that cloak the volcanoes, scientists have calculated.
Do you even notice that your opinion is pre-biased? You see any scientist who finds any evidence of global warming as a greedy conspirator who only cares about his own work and hides the truth from the public so they can keep paying him.
well yeah . The sunspot model, unlike the global warming model, is backed by science.
In fact, according to this model, there is a company that gives annual weather forecasts with an accuracy of about 90%, while most forecasters in the world arrive at what? .70 75% and that too only on close things.
Regarding CO2, the leading claim follows the graph presented by Al Gore, and it is that a rise in the level of CO2 equals global warming.
If in the last 800K years there was not such a high level of CO2 and yet now it is not the warmest. And of course there is no ice age. It is probably a confusion of eggs.
It's either 0 or 1..and it's one big zero.
By the way, Al Gore's film showed in a "very nice" way a normalized graph in general since the CO2 levels do follow the temp levels...but with a difference of 800 years on average!! ..to the detriment of CO2, so that an increase or decrease in heat leads to this.
Regarding climate science. In the early 90s it was a negligible and esoteric field with no budget. Today, on the other hand, it was even shown two years ago on the news how to submit two unrelated research requests. One includes "and the effect of global warming on the process" and the other does not... guess who got a grant and who didn't (by the way the request was completely unrelated to something.
Al Gore has long since crossed the billion line and the field of climate science is exposed to crazy budgets today.
I really do not support the oil industries and I personally wish for the day when all oil and gas in any form will end. And as I said, there is no doubt for a moment that those industries and many others are responsible for the pollution of nature, air quality and what not and endanger all of our health.
But that doesn't mean it causes global warming.
Before you contradict me, just search Google for the movie (something like an hour) that explains fact for fact how everyone is lied to and put off and omit years they don't want to be heard regarding "global warming".
I would also like to point out that I was an ardent believer in the theory until I saw this film and began to google a bit to look for substantiated information myself.
By the way.. until the mid-70s the temps were falling - the peak of the industrial deflation of KDA and the pollution was measured in those years in the Western countries - the situation seemed so serious that there were warnings of global cooling in general and the transition to the ice age.
I'm a man of science, science with facts, and when people try to fit the reality that doesn't fit the facts it just pisses me off.
I don't rule out that the climate is changing, I rule out the global warming model because the rejecters, unlike the supporters, show you a whole graph and not just parts.
If you want a concrete example, look at the topic of this article.
Why did none of the respected SO CALLED scientists bother to point out that there is an active underwater volcano under the glacier?
It doesn't seem relevant enough?? ..unintentional omission? .Nonsense . They knew and knew about it.
Eran
"Is the level of CO2 (the zero 0.00X) of the total ozone responsible for all the "crimes" of the weather?"
That's it, no. The weather is affected by many factors, and no serious scientist looks only at CO2 levels to determine whether the world will warm or cool.
"Unless you do what those who take care of their finances do and delete the years you don't want to display"
It's nice to look at it as a conspiracy on one side, and ignore the other side that receives funding from energy companies, who make a living from what exactly? You know?
"Yes ..what is heresy today to talk like that.."
Not heresy at all, at most just intellectual laziness or stupidity. There is no problem presenting an opinion that contradicts the consensus, but it needs to be supported by evidence and a broad understanding of the mechanisms involved in the matter. To say that the temperature is not rising, therefore there is no global warming, is to take one figure and conclude from it that everything is good and there are no problems, there is no need to do anything, business as usual, you can move on. The reality is a bit more complex. The question is not whether we are causing global warming or not. The question is what effect do we have on the climate, is this effect dangerous for our continued existence in the world, and if so, how can this danger be prevented.
"But none of this is related to humans but to the activity of the sun."
So with you, (instead of your straw man of everything being connected only with carbon dioxide,) everything is actually connected only with the activity of the sun, and it is to blame for all the "crimes" of the weather. Very beautiful, a very realistic climate model without a doubt.
"Humans are responsible for pollution. Humans are responsible for destroying species and habitats and what not. But humanity has zero effect on the climate."
It's really nice to make firm assertions based on zero data. Personally, I prefer continuous research, collecting data and additional evidence, in order to understand exactly what effect humans have on the climate, over making determinations based on "because I want it to be that way" and turning a blind eye and renouncing the need to find additional data and evidence.
For those who are interested in more information regarding the lack of warming in the last 17 years-
http://www.skepticalscience.com/no-warming-in-16-years.htm
What I like most is the amazing logic of some people here..
About two or three weeks ago, sensational news was published.
The current level of carbon dioxide is the highest in 800000 years!!!
which is amazing.
But .. here is an interesting thing .. in 800000 years we had several ice ages and several very warm periods.
Could all this have happened regardless of the CO2 level????
Is the level of CO2 (the zero 0.00X) of all the ozone responsible for all weather "crimes"?
Hmmm..also let's see a global warming model...the model says that there should be warming..yet in the last 17 years it hasn't happened (unless you do what those who take care of their funding do and delete the years you don't want to show).
Conclusion - the global warming model is not worth the ink they used.
Yes ..what is heresy today to talk like that..
Now ..I said it once and I will probably say it many more times.
Does the weather change? ..unequivocally yes. He is constantly changing. Until 200 years ago there were still rivers in the Sahara.
And Greenland used to be warmer (and greener) and thus earned its name.
And more and more...and maybe we are going to an ice age.
But none of this has anything to do with humans but with the sun's activity.
Humans are responsible for pollution. Humans are responsible for destroying species and habitats and what not. But humanity has zero effect on the climate.
Noam
Do you not have, and will not have, children? None of your family will have children and grandchildren? My children are not entitled to life?
If every person thought that he should leave a better world for those who come after him - think what the world would look like?
I agree with Mickey. I don't care what happens in a hundred years, I won't be here to see anyway. After me the flood.
Instead of chasing bosons and measuring Antarctica they should invest in the development of nuclear fusion power and fuel cells
Mickey
This is simply not true. You can have any opinion you want. But, your opinion does not change the facts.
And to say that you don't need to worry because you personally won't be here when the problem gets worse - that's really sick in my opinion.
You remind me of an old TV broadcast - you see a man standing on a railroad track, and a train is approaching behind him at high speed. The man gets off the track just before the train arrives and is saved. But - behind him is a little girl...
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
Straight from the people who wouldn't have reached the moon, with 97% of scientists relying on their opinion, a forecast for the next hundreds of years that someone should seriously consider in making policy today?!
Oh yes, if you didn't graduate from high school - did you know that since your birthday there has been no warming trend? Yes, the trend in the last 18 years is: zero
Skeptical01
let me guess …. You didn't read the article itself, did you?
Instead of getting into an argument about "skepticism" and the other skeptics
Please before you express your skepticism (and your ignorance),
You should read the Harchev..
http://www.livescience.com/45571-antarctic-melting-myths.html
Here are answers to skeptics...
skeptical
Let's not read selectively.
This is the penultimate sentence -
Of course, the solar cycle, volcanic activities, the changing albedo of the Earth and human activity all play a role in the climate change process.
Do you see the fifth and sixth word?
Just kidding with you. After all, it is clear that the NASA scientists are just spreading prophecies of rage for more budgets, so that they and their friends will have a job next year as well.
*Second line correction = in eastern Antarctica
How convenient not to write the real reason for the increased ice melting in West Antarctica.
In West Antarctica (a much larger area) the amount of ice has increased.
So who is responsible for the meltdown? PADH? No ! Active submarine volcanoes
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v1/n2/abs/ngeo106.html