More science fiction from the University of Arizona

The headline in the Arizona Daily Star reads: “UA study: Warming oceans will also speed ice melting.” The press release from the University of Arizona reads: “Warming ocean layers will undermine polar ice sheets.”

What is really interesting is the first two paragraphs of the press release:

Warming of the ocean’s subsurface layers will melt underwater portions of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets faster than previously thought, according to new University of Arizona-led research. Such melting would increase the sea level more than already projected. [emphasis added.]

The research, based on 19 state-of-the-art climate models, proposes a new mechanism by which global warming will accelerate the melting of the great ice sheets during this century and the next.

So what is wrong with this? When water freezes, it expands, that is why ice floats; ice is less dense than an equal weight of liquid water. The researchers claim that melting of underwater ice will increase sea level. But the underwater ice is already displacing a certain volume of water. When the underwater ice melts, the resulting water will occupy a smaller volume than the ice did. How can that cause sea level to increase?

Will scientists clinging to the orthodoxy of the global warming religion say anything to get research grants?

Other research questions the basic premise of the UofA research: is the ocean warming?

See: More Evidence that Global Warming is a False Alarm: A Model Simulation of the last 40 Years of Deep Ocean Warming

 

Sea also:

Science Fiction from the University of Arizona?

Sea level rising?

Size matters in sea level studies

Sea Level Rise in the South Pacific – None

75 comments

  1. When the underwater ice melts, that volume will be nearly displaced by ice that was above. The result is a net increase in sea level. I’m not even defending the UA study, just pointing out an obvious flaw in this author’s reasoning.

  2. I am not sure if you are trying to troll or you simply just don’t see it, but floating ice does not displace it’s volume, or else it wouldn’t be floating!

    The fact that you think researchers are lying about global warming for money also reveals how little you know about the actual grants system. If scientists wanted to make money our of their research, they’d join Pharmacological labs or fossil fuel corporations.

    Government and federal scientists are less paid, compensated and supported by their managerial overlords than private sector, which is while the USA has been on academic decline for the past 20 years.

    Too bad you won’t look for these information and correct your mistakes, you’re probably more likely to proclaim the whole world is in concert conspiracy against you rather than just admitting you were misinformed!

    1. Floating ice displaces its weight not its volume.  As for grants, how many would get grants if they say there is no problem with global warming?

      1. The single biggest threat to US today is people like you. While the world raises by powered by science and technology we have folks like to spewing garbage and talking down the few scientist left in this country.

      2. In your article you fail to comment on the complete findings of the UoA research, which represents a failure on your behalf as a “journalist”. They do not say that the melting of underwater ice will add to the volume of water in the ocean. They DO say that the melting of underwater ice will increase the rate at which ice is added from land sources, which WILL increase the volume of water in the ocean (ie. the end of a glacier sits partially in the water and the increased melting at the bottom/underside of it will increase the rate at which the rest of the glacier progresses into the water because there is less solid ice to hold it back – duh!).

        You’re ignorant and a f’n whack of a journalist. Here’s an example of someone reporting on the actual findings of the research (arbitrary article I picked up from Google:  http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/174019/20110704/warm-ocean-ice-melt-sea-level-arizona.htm

        Go on, read the last two sentences of that article. It says:

        “The melting of ice sitting on water will not raise the sea level because water is actually denser than ice (that’s why ice floats and takes up more space than water).
        However, the problem is that global warming is melting ice that’s sitting on the land of Greenland and Antarctica; the releasing of the grounded ice adds additional water to the oceans, thus raising the sea level.”

        Again, you’re daft Mr. DuHamel and an insult to journalists everywhere.

      3. You do realize that there is ice above sea-level which will sink into the ocean, thus raising its level, as the ice below sea level melts, right?  This will contribute to the additional volume of water in the ocean.

        The events following the last glacial maximum should be pretty clear evidence of what happens as ice sheets melt and glaciers recede.  

        Also:
        “As for grants, how many would get grants if they say there is no problem with global warming?”  Your bias is showing.  A scientist wouldn’t get a grant if they refuted climate change because the granting committee would realize that the scientist couldn’t incorporate scientific evidence into their research.

      4. How many scientists would get grants if they say there is no problem with global warming?

        Probably the same number who would get grants if they say the moon is made of cheese.

        Everyone saying the same thing isn’t necessarily a conspiracy. Maybe it is just the truth.

    2. Speaking of the misinformed, Archimedes Principle states that a body immersed in a fluid is buoyed up by a force equal to the weight of the displaced fluid.  Floating ice DOES displace (some) volume.  That’s why when you have a full glass of water and start dropping ice cubes into it, the water level will increase until the glass overflows.  Too bad you misunderstand basic principles of science to the point where you talk down to others who are actually correct, regardless of their opinion on other matters.  Derrrrrr!

  3. Your lack of understanding, and your ability to post a “news article” online is a dangerous combination.  Spreading ignorance is not helping the situation.

      1. Fill a glass with ice water and watch what happens to the water level as the ice melts.

    1. How about some actual factual and social commentary instead of kvetching?
      The LA Times featured cold fusion in ’89 before its debunking. Greens were aghast!
      “It’s like giving a machine gun to an idiot child.” – Paul Ehrlich (mentor of John Cook of the SkepticalScience blog, author of “Climate Change Denial”)
      “Clean-burning, non-polluting, hydrogen-using bulldozers still could knock down trees or build housing developments on farmland.” – Paul Ciotti (LA Times)
      “It gives some people the false hope that there are no limits to growth and no environmental price to be paid by having unlimited sources of energy.” – Jeremy Rifkin (NY Times)
      “Many people assume that cheaper, more abundant energy will mean that mankind is better off, but there is no evidence for that.” – Laura Nader (sister of Ralph)

      CLIMATEGATE 101: “For your eyes only…Don’t leave stuff lying around on ftp sites – you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone….Tom Wigley has sent me a worried email when he heard about it – thought people could ask him for his model code. He has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that.” – Phil “Hide The Decline” Jones to Michael “Hockey Stick” Mann

      Here I present A Global Warming Digest:
      Denial: http://i.min.us/ibyADs.jpg
      Oceans: http://k.min.us/idAw6Y.gif
      NASA: http://i.min.us/idFxzI.jpg
      Thremometers: http://i.min.us/idAOoE.gif
      Earth: http://k.min.us/ibtB8G.gif
      Ice: http://k.min.us/ibBgw2.jpg
      Authority: http://k.min.us/iby6xe.gif
      Prophecy: http://i.min.us/idEHdo.jpg
      Psychopathy: http://i.min.us/ibubmk.jpg
      Icon: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmPzLzj-3XY
      Thinker: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n92YenWfz0Y

      -=NikFromNYC=- Ph.D. in Carbon Chemistry (Columbia/Harvard)
      P.S. In 1986 The Oxford Union debating society rejected “That the Doctrine of Creation is more valid than the Theory of Evolution” by 198 to 150.
      In 2010 they accepted “That this House would put economic growth before combating climate change” by 135 votes to 110.”

      Today’s view of this summer’s “ice free” Arctic is here: http://tinyurl.com/icefreearctic
      Consensus: There is an ether that pervades space. Continents don’t move (despite an obvious jigsaw puzzle match between them)! Dirty hands don’t kill surgical patients! Children are a blank slate, personality wise with no genetic influence! The best therapy is to treat human beings as if we were shocking pigeons and ringing bells for dogs. Non-coding DNA is just “junk”. Man will never fly. Viruses have nothing to do with ulcers or certain cancers. Bacterial spontaneously generate. Dietary cholesterol dominates heart disease occurrence just as CO2 dominates the latest warming trend.

  4. You are the one who is dense.  The underwater ice melt “greases” the glaciers so that they flow faster from land into the sea.  The glaciers calve from above the water line; the sea level rises.

  5. If the underwater ice melts, the surface ice will sink, replacing the displacement of the underwater ice. Since the surface ice has now replaced the displacement of the melted ice, the water from the melted ice will cause the sea level to rise. Not a big believer in global warming hype, but I felt this point should be made.

    1. Take a glass fill it with ice. Fill it with water exactly to the brim. Let it melt. did it run over?
      Dumba$$es! This is just one more example of the ‘Science’ espoused by those big brains at AU and the CRU at East Anglia.

  6. Jonathan,
    Thats some narrow, agenda driven thinking. How about some more on the story? How about entire systems? They are not talking about a closed system like ice in a glass.
    “While melting floating ice won’t raise sea level, ice flowing into the sea from glaciers often reaches the bottom, and grounded ice melted by warm water around it can produce added water to the sea. “Ocean warming is very important compared to atmospheric warming because water has a much larger heat capacity than air,” Yin explained. “If you put an ice cube in a warm room, it will melt in several hours. But if you put an ice cube in a cup of warm water, it will disappear in just minutes.” In addition, Yin explained, if floating ice along the coastal areas melts it will allow the flow of glaciers to accelerate, bringing more ice into the seas.”
    – By RANDOLPH E. SCHMID, AP Science Writer

    1. Underwater grounded ice has a larger volume than the water it displaces.  When that ice melts, the volume is decreased.  You seem to be making the same mistake as the researchers.


      1. @
        Jonathan you should have really attending your science classes. What is it that you don’t get about the very basic concept of “allow[s] the flow of glaciers to accelerate”?

      2. Wow, the amount of dis/misinformation in this article (and the comments) is incredible.

        “Glaciers are rivers of ice. Like rivers of liquid water, glaciers move downhill. Some glaciers melt before reaching the ocean, and others, called tidewater glaciers, flow all the way to the sea.
         
        The face of a tidewater glacier visible from a boat is only part of it – much of the glacier’s leading edge is underwater in a deep fjord.
        Yin’s research suggests Greenland’s glaciers are being exposed to increasingly warm subsurface water that will melt the underwater portion of the glaciers. As a result, the tops of the glaciers will no longer have support and will topple into the sea, creating icebergs. In addition, as the undersides of the glaciers melt, that meltwater will speed the glaciers’ movement into the sea by lubricating their undersides.”

        – from http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-07-ocean-layers-undermine-polar-ice.html

        Some glaciers, starting on land, move into the sea. This raises sea level. If the bases of the glaciers melt faster, it will accelerate the whole process. Is it really that hard to understand? Either you are intellectually lazy, or you are intentionally trying to confuse the issue.

        Also, do you really think that a ‘problem’ as simple as the one you raise would get by the peer review process? Something that a layperson could catch? You’re like those ‘skeptics’ who think that scientists have never thought about how the sun plays a role in climate.  Nice work, hack. Please think before you write.

  7. Heartwarming, if not nostalgic, to bump into an editorial “news” article like this.  It reminds me there would have been “newspaper” like this around in 1775 which spoke of the myth of resistance to British colonial power, the foolishness of democracy and, of course, silly scientists who dared counter common sense understanding of God’s powerful lightning in stormy skies.

  8. The last few paragraphs of the article explain the relationship between melting the bottom of glaciers and overall glacial melting.

  9. The undersea ice in Antarctica is holding back massive glaciers which rest on solid ground. If the undersea ice melts, the land based ice sheets will slide into the ocean causing significant sea level rise.

  10. Hey dude, have you taken any hydrodynamics or fluid dynamics classes? Me either, but here’s a laymen’s disproof of your laymen’s proof.

    When the bottom of an iceberg melts there is less ice displacing water, which means the iceberg is less bouyant, so it sinks lower in the water. Underwater ice melts and becomes seawater and above water ice sinks and replaces underwater ice.

    This effect is more pronounced in glaciers, where melting underwater ice can lead to the accelerated breaking off of ice which is supported by land.

    I don’t have the math to show the exact ratio of exchange of volume, but it doesn’t look like you have any math to back you up either. Maybe we should ask the UoA people if they know the math.

    1. I did take a fluid dynamics course.  Whenever floating ice melts, the volume is decreased.  I am not arguing that glaciers flowing into the sea displace water and can increase sea level, I am arguing that melting of underwater ice with decrease the volume displaced.

      1. You have no argument as your readers would know if you had cited the entire AP article.  Of course, then you wouldn’t have a story for the latest edition, either.
        Why can’t a smart person like yourself find something to write about where he is happy to report on the facts instead of lying or misleading the readership about terribly important information?

  11. I’m surprised to see this sort of denialist codswallop published.  Tsk Tsk Tsk.

  12. haha, okay. So if the underwater portion of an ice sheet melts, what do you think happens to the above water portion?

    Answer: It becomes the underwater portion and then displaces more water.

  13. Did you read far enough into the study to understand that it discusses  moving back the point at which the glaciers are ‘grounded’.  This is frequently on land that is far below sea level yet inland.  As more of the glacier floats rather than grinds, the faster it will flow into the sea.
    These details were not ‘buried’ in the study even if they weren’t listed in press release.  And about the press release, they are meant to draw your attention to new research that may be important.  They are not the research itself.  I’m sure you’re doing the best you can with the time available in your day but reporting based on press releases and other reporting is pretty weak sauce.

  14. Put an ice cube in a glass of water.  Mark the water level.  Let the ice melt.  You’ll notice the “water”level stayed the same.  i.e., you can melt all the floting ice in all the oceans and the level of the oceans will not raise. 

    1. So where is the land in your glass of water? Or do we live in a water world !!

  15. Awesome piece of scientific ignorance, Jon. Maybe you want to write your next piece on how the earth is flat or maybe an essay on why the earth is the center of the universe. You’re well qualified to be a science correspondent on Fox News, but you shouldn’t be spreading your stupidity over real news channels. Thanks for fortifying the image of Arizonans being stupid hicks.

    1. Some would say that being a stupid hick is better than a fear-mongering, progressive douche.

      1. Mr. DuHamel, have you any qualification to present any real scientific doubts regarding the UA study? I would love to see your scientific debunking of their research, but until then you should restrain yourself from publishing. Your article fails to demonstrate anything. You extracted a paragraph and remarked on quite limited terms as how does not make sense to you.
        I hope you finished reading the whole study before firing off this ridiculous article of yours.

        Your writing had the intellectual depth of a kiddie pool, except children show much mire inquisitiveness.

        The facts are not clear on climate change or ocean level changes, but that is what science is trying to find.

        You labeling it as science fiction minimizes the entire body of research being done, which is just as valuable and meaningful as the medical research that you, your friends and loved ones benefit from every day. When their hypothesis fails, do you call that science fiction?

        I hope not, because if those scientists were deterred by people like you, humanity would not be where it is. On the other hand, there aren’t enough scientists and too many people like you, looking out only for themselves, publishing nonsense to fill a quota or an ego, and that is why humanity is where it is. So look yourself in the mirror and ask yourself if you want to add or subtract to our world before littering in public like you have this morning.

  16. I don’t think the author understands that as the ice melts the ice level has to lower at the surface to keep floating. This will cause a raise in the water level.

  17. It is really easy to show that floating ice when melts raises the level of water- put some ice cubes in a glass and mark the level and after they melt mark the level and you will see that the water level raises.

  18. Besides spreading ignorance, the author demonstrates the limited intellectual curiosity to go beyond his erroneous application of archimides principle. Not only is this article a disservice to society, spreading more disinformation, but it discredits the publication.

    Mr. DuHamel should read a book and have more respect for academia. PhDs dont publish without checking their facts, since that can often lead to the end if their careers, but so called journalists like Mr. DuHamel unfortunately do not loose their jobs for missinforming the public so blatantly.

    The Tucson citizen should find a better editor with a little more common sense than to publish such inflammatory yet erroneous information.

    Fortunately, stupidity falls by it’s own weight. I hope the author looks deep inside and realizes that the UA scientists are looking to add to society, add to human knowledge so that we can avert a serious anthropogenic crisis, and should strive to be a little more like them and find a better use of his time than to publish garbage.

  19. This author is nothing but an absolute moron. A simple  Google search returns comments such as this (on physorg.com)

    In a paper titled “The Melting of Floating Ice will Raise the Ocean Level” submitted to Geophysical Journal International, Noerdlinger demonstrates that melt water from sea ice and floating ice shelves could add 2.6% more water to the ocean than the water displaced by the ice, or the equivalent of approximately 4 centimeters (1.57 inches) of sea-level rise.
    The common misconception that floating ice won’t increase sea level when it melts occurs because the difference in density between fresh water and salt water is not taken into consideration. Archimedes’ Principle states that an object immersed in a fluid is buoyed up by a force equal to the weight of the fluid it displaces. However, Noerdlinger notes that because freshwater is not as dense as saltwater, freshwater actually has greater volume than an equivalent weight of saltwater. Thus, when freshwater ice melts in the ocean, it contributes a greater volume of melt water than it originally displaced.

  20. Is tucsoncitizen.com your personal blog or something, because if it is a real news site (or worse a newspaper) there is nothing that concerns me more than the rapid decline in real journalist in the US.

  21. Folks, arctic ice is floating ice, but Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, which is what these UA studies are apparently about, are not floating ice. They are affixed to the Greenland and Antarctic land masses. It always amazes me that climate skeptics like this blogger seem to think (or want us to believe) that climate scientists are total idiots unaware of basic scientific information (floating ice, sunspots, volcanoes, etc etc)

  22. Read the rest of the article: “… the tops of the glaciers will no longer have support and will topple into the sea, creating icebergs. In addition, as the undersides of the glaciers melt, that meltwater will speed the glaciers’ movement into the sea by lubricating their undersides.”
    The net effect is ocean rise.
    Does that clarify it for you?

  23. Your bias on this issue is blindingly apparent. It’s easy to go through life and analyze every statement on climate change and declare it’s a myth based off two questionable sentences. Not everybody can be accurate, fair, and balanced like Fox News. I’ll get my facts on climate science from actual scientists like Stephen Hawking and not journalists or congressmen. People can continue to live in their isolated little bubble until it’s too late and my children can tell yours, “we told you so.”

  24. It’s just amazing how you can dismiss this research in such a flippant blog post, but that’s what the anti-science community is best at.

  25. You need to read the press release to the end: “As a result, the tops of the glaciers will no longer have support and will topple into the sea, creating icebergs. In addition, as the undersides of the glaciers melt, that meltwater will speed the glaciers’ movement into the sea by lubricating their undersides.”  The warming seawater speeds the addition of land based ice which WILL raise sea levels.

  26. Your lack of understanding of the basic laws of science is remarkable.  Furthermore, this paranoid criticism of a well researched scientific study without equally researched and critical backup reveals a lack intellectual rigor with which you are not familiar.  Until you show equally researched documented studies to match the level of inquiry you criticize then you should keep your purposeful ignorance to yourself.  It is a scary thing that you can publish in any form.  By the way, if you actually displayed the discipline and extreme effort to research topics properly, and were honest to yourself, you would find the truth is not what you blindly assume.

  27. Way to get owned by your commenters Mr. Duhamel (pronounced Dumb-bell). You should just take this whole article down, it is really embarrassing for you. The best part is how you personally responded to a couple of comments but have no rebuttal for everyone’s simple explanation of how a melting floating glacier will raise the sea level (Oh I get it! There is ice *above* the water that is not *in* the water until the ice under the water melts! Doh!) Seriously dude, how did you not think of that? You have no business pretending to be smart on the public stage.

  28. Pick your poison. Put all the earth’s ice in the ocean and see what the sea level is then, or put all the earth’s ice on land and see what the effect of melt water will be. Happier now?

  29. I find it amazing how illiterate those who follow the republican mindset really are. I do not believe they are stupid but very lazy when dealing with easily researched matters. The premise of the post by John is a perfect example of how America desended into the current police state of lemmings afraid to breathe lest they become victims of terror. While his rational is correct for an ice berg, 78% of all ice is not floating but rests above sea level on land and therefore will raise the oceans level to a far greater degree than the republican business party would have its minions believe. The only upside of the truth is that most republicans live along the beaches and will therefore drown in the resulting floods of the shoreline. There really is a silver lining to every black cloud after all. (my tongue and cheek hurts after that tirade, lol) All kidding aside, sea lever rise is a fact all of us  must deal with.

  30. To the author: You’re daft.  Undermining ice sheets will put more surface ice into the water,  allowing it to melt faster and add to the amount of water in the ocean. Please go get a real education before you talk about things you don’t know about at all. Apparently, most of the people commenting agree. You’re an idiot. It’s people like you who hold back this country/ world by sticking your head in the sand and denying that the problems around you actually exist.

  31. Horsepoo, this writer does absolutely nothing to dispel anything other than the fact that he is talking out of his tushy. The entire article is available and even  addresses his point. Read on

  32. This is like bad comedy! Science is all about questioning research results, but serious people generally do more than read the first paragraph of the press release.

  33. What an embarrassment. What is wrong with this country that there is no respect for intelligence anymore? How is it that this moronic “journalist” really thinks he’s smarter than people whose job it is to think about science?

    Global warming aside, remember that the sea level was lower during the last ice age when more water was trapped in ice than currently. There was a land bridge between what’s now Siberia and Alaska, for example. Now, do you believe in the ice age? Or do you think that that was some plot by geologists to get grant money?

  34. Jonathan DuHamel –
    You may want to brush up on your  reading skills, because as the report’s state, many of the ice shelves in the Antarctic were “grounded”. That is , there was so much ice that they sat on the sea bed.  This “grounding” acted as a brake to the ice flowing off the Antarctic landmass.

    This study clearly says those brakes are melting  from under  the ice shelves as well as on top of them.  When they start floating,  the glaciers behind them push forward much faster.

  35. accepted 13 June 2011.
    Available online 30 June 2011.
    Abstract
    There has been a rapid acceleration in ice-cap melt rates over the last few decades across the entire Canadian Arctic. Present melt rates exceed the past rates for many millennia. New shallow cores at old sites bring their melt series up-to-date. The melt-percentage series from the Devon Island and Agassiz (Ellesmere Island) ice caps are well correlated with the Devon net mass balance and show a large increase in melt since the middle 1990s. Arctic ice core melt series (latitude range of 67 to 81 N) show the last quarter century has seen the highest melt in two millennia and The Holocene-long Agassiz melt record shows the last 25 years has the highest melt in 4200 years. The Agassiz melt rates since the middle 1990s resemble those of the early Holocene thermal maximum over 9000 years ago.
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S092181811100097X

    1. So what was the source of the “thermal maximum” 9,000 years ago?  Not human industrial activity generating CO2 I suspect.  The larger issue is, if there is climate change (“warming” has gotten a bit harder to justify with warming in some places, but cooling in others – anyone for a July 4 SNOW skiing trip out West this year?), which seems likely, is it really anything significant to do with current human activity,  thus justifying draconian measures that create hardship for many people?   Or could it be due to larger-scale solar cycles that have a longer record of known cause and effect, and are beyond the control of power-hungry bureaucrats (who have a selfish vested interest in perpetuating the “problems” that justify their jobs, let us not forget)?
      Diverting some of our energies to learning how to cope with the “inevitable” (such as farming closer to the polar regions, guiding the new icebergs to the coasts of desert areas, etc.) instead of whacking every CO2 mole that seems to pop up, might be more productive.  Human adaptability in coping with such cycles has been our greatest strength.

  36. You really kicked the hornet’s nest this morning, Jonathan.

    Note to other posters:  IMO Jonathan’s real concern is not about the evidence, or lack thereof, vis a vis global warming.  He is no ascetic engaged in the search for the truth, wandering the landscape and carrying the light of knowledge.  No, it has more with his concern that damage might be done to business interests in the attempts to ameliorate global warming.   If you can convince him that the efforts to slow down the pace of global warming will be good for Ayn Rand’s favored folks, you might be able to turn him around.   

     

    1. Good point @leftfield.  I think it’s pretty hard for many of us to understand the mind of folks who buy into climate change denial, but your insight is helpful.  I also have a libertarian friend in California who has the same take on climate change and paranoia/distrust about the motivation of scientists.  What I’ve said to him is that even if you’re right, that the climate isn’t changing and that billions of humans don’t have an iota of an effect on the planet, even then – it’s still good for us to use much less oil, especially foreign oil and for us to become more efficient and competitive in the global marketplace.  There are lots of good reasons to go green EVEN if you don’t believe in the results of current climate science.  Don’t know if that worked with my friend, but seems like a good argument for the Ayn Rand groupies out there.  May not be loved by the deep pockets @ Exxon, however.

  37. One more completely different study saying the same thing :
    West Antarctica’s Biggest Glacier Is Melting 50% Faster Than 17 Years Ago
    The Pine Island glacier and smaller glaciers that flow into it contain enough ice to boost sea levels by 24 centimeters, according to Columbia.
    The regional increase in ocean temperatures of 0.2 degrees Celsius (0.4 degrees Fahrenheit) isn’t enough to cause the increase in melt at Pine Island, the researchers said.
    They sent a robot submarine beneath the floating portion of the glacier and determined that the ice mass had previously been grounded on a ridge. The ice melted free from the ridge, opening room for warmer waters to circulate, they said.
    “More warm water from the deep ocean is entering the cavity beneath the ice shelf, and it is warmest where the ice is thickest,” Stan Jacobs, an oceanographer at Columbia’s Lamont- Doherty Earth Observatory and the study’s lead author, said in an e-mailed statement.
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-26/antarctica-s-pine-glacier-melting-50-faster-study-indicates.html

  38. Hey Jonathan, Take a look at the consequences if we ignore climate change and it turns out that you’re wrong vs the consequences if believe the majority of scientist and make an effort to reduce the effects we have on climate. I’d rather be safe than sorry.

    Beside, you article title is down right insulting. It seems to me your more interested in aggrevating people than informing them.

  39. Most healthy glaciers are grounded on rock even where they enter the ocean, not floating.
    An article from Scripps titled “Footloose Glaciers Crack Up: New detailed observations of what happens when glaciers float on ocean surface”
    http://scrippsnews.ucsd.edu/Releases/?releaseID=1080
    And a TED talk by James Balog who has time laps photos of glaciers.  Note reference around 9:00 to 10:00 discussing the floating behavior of the Columbia glacier.
    http://www.youtube.com/user/TEDtalksDirector#p/search/0/DjeIpjhAqsM

  40. Hello,
    A good way to a better future is through good communication.  Let’s be open and honest.  All of us have been right at times.  All of us have been wrong at times.  It doesn’t matter if we as individuals are right or wrong.  What matters is if the group is right or wrong after open and nice debates, with an eye on finding out what is really correct.  We have all been right and wrong at times.

    I was wondering why you don’t, if you haven’t already, check with a physicist (or several) to get a consensus on whether or not melting of ice will raise sea levels.  I see your (the author’s) point about the volume difference of liquid water and water ice.  But might there be more to the story?

    Perhaps when the underwater ice melts, more ice from glaciers on land (in the case of Greenland) might move into place to be melted into the sea.  There is an immense amount of ice on Greenland that may not be resting on the ocean, and thus is not displacing water volume.  This would most definitely raise world-wide ocean levels, in my opinion, although I have no idea by how much.

    Thanks for your time,
    J

  41. For global sea level rise: Ice in the water isn’t the problem. Ice sitting on land (Greenland and Antacrtica) is the problem. When that melts, it will add tremendous volume.

  42. Bravo!  For once an article written about global warming without hysteria and wild, unproven exaggerations.  Too many Chicken Littles out there:
    The Sky is falling!  The Sky is Falling!

  43. Ever notice how science deniers always have a blazing lack of critical thinking skills?

  44. So what happens to the ice above the water when the ice below the water–you know the stuff its on top of–melts?

Comments are closed.