Your Questions About Weight Loss Tips For Men Over 40


June 4, 2013 Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Google+ Weight Loss Tips


William asks…

What would the collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet mean to the rest of the planet?

For the past year now I’ve watched this global warming site with interest,not just for the information but also for the range of opinion.It seems to come down to just two sides.Those who accept the science and those who don’t.
Those who don’t, appear to go way beyond reasonable in their self expression,however those who accept the science seem reluctant to talk about worst case scenarios.
I would like to change that a bit with this question,Thanks for your indulgence.
Thanks Eric good links and I think Cguy just gave Jim a News Flash

Power Health Tips answers:

Man, there are just people who are bound and determined to obfuscate everything….

From DATA (not hyperbole or anything else)

First, overall it appears that large areas of the WAIS (West Antarctic Ice Sheet) are losing more mass than is currently being replaced by snowfall. Estimates place the replacement at only about 40%, and the rate of mass loss has been increasing over the last couple of decades.

Models of ice sheet break up show that there is a tipping point, a point beyond which the break-up increases very rapidly. What this point is for the WAIS is unknown.

If the entire WAIS was to disintegrate, the global sea level rise would be between 3 to 5 meters.

As to jim z’s comments:

1) He would be correct about no sea level rise if all of the ice was floating. Floating ice is less dense than an equivalent mass of water. If the entire WAIS was floating, its disintegration would lead to a sea level decrease. However, the weight of ice in the WAIS has caused the underlying rock to sink (in some places up to a kilometer, a process called isostatic depression). This ice is not floating, and if it disintegrates and melts, it will lead to a significant sea level increase.

2) His analysis of the chance of collapse being zero would be correct, if the term collapse here meant to fall down. It doesn’t. The term collapse here is synonymous with disintegrate or break up. The break up of portions of the ice sheet that are below sea level (but still on land) are significant enough NOW to measurably contribute to sea level rise.

3) Glaciers do melt and calve and reform, but as I mentioned above, the current replacement is around 40% of loss.

The truly “exciting” thing would be if one of these tremendously large landed glaciers calved and fell into the ocean. Sure, there would be some sea level rise, but the real damaging part would be the resulting tsunami that could send 10 story waves around the globe (see 1958, Lituya Bay, Alaska).

Anyone want to buy ocean front property in Nevada?

Powered by Yahoo! Answers

Comments