Really wishThwaites would 'chill' out - th-waite for us to get our act together - and stop having such a 'melt-down' 🧊🧊🧊 🔒Remove your personal information from the web at joindeleteme.com/DRBEN and use code DRBEN for 20% off 🙌 DeleteMe international Plans: international.joindeleteme.com
I was in Antartica during '78-'82. I talked to a graduate student who had said his grant was being denied because his research found reduction of ozone layer. This has always been an ironic memory from my time in Antartica.
There You go! Are we in a Medieval Catholic_Vatican instructed: "Only this is the proper Science Aeon"? Today it is more the UNO, or who controlls them; Blackrock? Rothchilds, Templers?
Why? By that time the source of the problem was going away because of emission treaties (with a very long tail - as such the student was studying a problem already resolved - since then the Ozone layer has been slowly recovering - even for Australians. I am sure this is proof that science is a lie for you.
@@glacieractivity That problem wasn't actually solved until the adoption of the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer on September 16, 1987.
If his data was inconsistence with a consensus of peer reviewed and recreated data finding the opposite to be true, perhaps he was just a shitty scientist and that was why he lost his grant. There was nothing saying his data was of good quality. Plenty of crappy scientists loose funding when they are repeatedly proven to be wrong.
When water turns to ice it expands like crazy, meaning that when this ice melts, sea level would not rise much at all... Since you only see the top of the iceberg, and most of the ice is under the water and takes up alot of space, but will take up alot less space if it turned into water.
No, it really isn't surprising. Water is in a class of substances which are unusual for a key reason: They become less dense upon solidifying. This is usually accompanied by a reduction in density at low temperatures. Water has a peak density around 4 degrees. So if it was just pure water, if the water 4 degrees and hotter, we would expect the coldest water on the bottom and the hottest at the top. If it 4 degrees and lower, we expect 4 degrees at the bottom and colder at the top. This is also why during winter lakes freeze at the top first and that layer of ice slowly builds down. The salt complicates it.
you forget the 91 volcanoes under the ice in West Antarctica where one of them is erupting but cannot be seen because there is 3-4 km of ice on top of it, the heat from the lava melts the ice from below and we have known that for 20+ years just not that it was from lava from vulkans, in 2017 a uk professor discovered that there were 91 volcanoes under the ice which provided the heat to melt the ice, the temperatures down there have been measured for the last 50 years and show no change + that there is a cold ocean current that circulates around Antarcticaintact
Well, somehow I thought that it is a common knowledge, that below 4°C water becomes less dense until it freezes. As water cools below 4°C, the hydrogen-bond network becomes increasingly rigid, forming structures similar to ice. These structures take up more space, lowering the density. Seems, that this is a surprise to some scientists. Hint: this is the reason, why water freezes from the top. Not from the bottom.
Exactly! The warmth from the Earth will heat the water. He's talking about water over land - not the ocean. I'm glad I'm not the only one who's annoyed about this.
current year scientist are mostly activists and/or funded by activists trying to own/stick it to the "uneducated" people that are "science deniers" Climate scientists have a phrase "Bill chill" in their science arena because a lot of climate science is funded by Gates who will stop funding you if your science is "wrong"
Hey ben, not to say any of what you said was false, but could you start sharing sources and whatnot in the description? For people wanting to read more about it and such
@@DuckDodgers69sharing sources is more rigorous, build trust and makes verifying the information easier. Being against sharing sources is anti scientific in itself
@@DuckDodgers69Maybe so people can be held accountable for what they say rather than just falling back on “just look it up yourself.” Your high school teacher wouldn’t let any form of fact based writing go without proper citations, so why should adults be given the luxury not to?
@@DrBenMiles I hope your office is equal to, or higher, than your new home, otherwise your going to have to move to a new office as well?! 😮 LOL. I am 'lucky' where I live in Napier, New Zealand, because in 1931, an earthquake raised the East Coast up by 1-2 meters, so we are already ahead of the 'game'. However, we are overdue for an Hikurangi Trench quake. We could go down or we could go up. Up or Down, the devastation will be disastrous!
There needs to be a decoupling of media & science until science & politics has actionable steps. In 2000, it was 5 years. In 2010, it was 15-25 years. In 2024, it is 50-150 years.
Science and politics no longer mixes. Science is "elite" and therefore evil. Sorry dude, the era of politicians listening to scientists has long passed.
I'd like to see how you plan to decouple media from anything when they literally profit from telling people the news. Usually the most sensational stories. There are other issues with your idea as well, but I think the first that I'd assume you'd have issue with the most is free speech. Telling the free market media what they can and cannot say is literally against free speech and many people (on both sides of the political spectrum) would call that censorship.
Actionable steps. Here's the thing about research - it generally builds on what was done before. The start of ANY research study is the Literature Review. The idea is that a review of the existing literature on any topic will dictate both the research question and methodology. Ergo - your research will add to existing information in your field of study. That's why the timeline changes. And if you understood how science works, you'd know that.
I'm in a really bad mood at the moment, but that bit about the marketing team being off the day they named MATHGZ actually put a smile on my face and made me chuckle. Thank you. I needed that. 🙂
exactly. fear mongering for fake man made climate change sciense . all for carbon taxes that will do nothing but impoverish people while unjustly enriching proponents of the lie
part of it *is* floating, but also since the grounding line is receding so much there's an ever larger amount of glacier that used to not be floating and is still supported only by its own tensile strength, which is why the glacier is breaking up (because that part of the glacier may be over water but it's not actually floating)
@@junovzlatotally. What’s scarier to me how what I guess could be called “the coast” under the glacier is under sea level. So a large portion of the actually grounded ice will also melt.
I thought that was was widely known but it was not included in the discussion. I would hope it was included in any numerical models used by the oceanographers who study this glacier. Yes salinity matters too. Maybe the buoyancy of fresh water helps drive outflow near the ice?
It's NOT a+b. "Pure water has its maximum density at about 4°C, but the maximum density of water occurs at lower temperatures as salinity increases. Temperature variations are more important in warm ocean waters, whereas salinity variations are more important in cold ocean waters." NOAA claims that they measured 4.5C & 34.7ppt -> 1.0275, 0.5C & 34.6ppt -> 1.0277
Interesting. It is possible to view the record of what will happen as the warming trend increases... look at Greenland and Scandinavia as well as Doggerland to see the effects of climate change both up and down the temperature scale. Greenland once warmed enough to have large forests on the southern tip, and Doggerland was once above sea level as was the communities in the Black Sea currently around 30 to 240 feet below sea level today. Akra and Kalpe to name a couple. Fossils and rock strata also point to a time when the sea levels were much higher than they are today. As recently as 1200 AD, there was a summer village in the Swiss alps that was buried under a glacier. We can see its remains now that the glacier has receded. So what causes those cycles and can we use them to our advantage? One advantage is it spurs engineering advances to counter the man made portion, and the replanting and preservation of forests, another means of tempering climates locally. But that does not answer the more extreme cycles, such as the Greek, Roman and Medieval events previously noted. Interesting. I will be watching to see what other information you wish to share. Thank you.
All very big astroid trajectories have been calculated. We are safe from planetary killers for quite some time. Unless something comes in fast from outside the solar system. Only regional destruction is still possible, but very unlikely.
Dutch person here. We are working on this but 3 meters requires a lot more effort. It would require up to 4 times more sand depositing than we are currently doing. We have about 1500 km of dykes and levies that we are currently reinforcing and raising and making room for the rivers and improving our pumps etc. But three meters is a lot. And we are at a max of 7 meters below sea level.
@strangekwark Let's hope we are giving back to the sea . We need to restore Nature so back to a river delta and remove as much Dikes and polders so water can flow freely. Always wanted sea side property. 😂
@@strangekwark Zolang we maar goed kijken wat het zeeniveau doet en de rivieren ook genoeg aandacht blijven geven houwen we het wel droog voor het grootste gedeelte. En als de rest van de wereld nou eens gaat luisteren naar nederlandse ingenieurs maar dat zal wel niet.
It’s not a mystery that the water is colder against the melting ice surface than below it. The temperature of the water on the undersurface of the ice shelf is colder because the process of melting ice is endothermic. Ice absorbs 333J/g from its surrounding water when it melts. Melting 200g ice (at 0 Celsius) in 1liter of water at 25C results in a 15.9C reduction in water temp. We could probably tell how quickly the ice is melting just by measuring the temperature differential. This has nothing to do with the fact that the melted ice is fresh water. But the fact that it is fresh causes another phenomenon. Fresh water that forms from melted ice against the shelf, is lighter than salt water so it floats above the salty sea water in the absence of mixing and stays against the undersurface of the shelf for a time. But fresh water is colder yet has a slightly lower viscosity than sea water, so under the influence of gravity it might tend to “slide off” the sea water under the slope of the shelf, like liquid slides off a hillside. So maybe that’s how it makes a down-sloping current against the shelf.
@@monkeysezbegood Now imagine all that pollution on the coast going into the ocean and killing more life. That will lead to starvation killing billions of people.
This is why I am afraid of the ocean. What do you mean, there is a wall of everlasting ice that control the current, and it can dilute the salt in the sea?
Where I live we are about 1 KM above sea level. No worries about this. Not to say there is no worries. If sea level rose 3 meter that would mean surface area of the oceans increased massively. More water vapor and more going between drought and massive flooding. This is already been seen over the past 20 years. More pineapple expresses for mountain coast of BC more eastern flooding coming form the eastern rockies.
Do you really not understand this? It is a two minutes thought thing. It is the reason why Arctic ice melt produces no sea level rise while the Greenland and Antarctic melt does. Arctic ice is floating the other two are resting on land with glaciers being and extension of this land bound ice as it flows seaward. Here is an experiment for you: Place a large (but smaller than the sink) block of ice in your kitchen sink and top the sink up with water. Record the result as the ice melts. Then fill the sink with water and place your block of ice on the draining board. Record the result as the ice melts.
Ice is app 2/3rds the density of water based on the temperature of the water. A Glacier breaking off and starting to float is when it raises it, not when it melts.
You missed a significant point about water. It is densest at 4 degrees C. As the water gets colder from that point on, it actually gets less dense. This is why ice floats. The fresh water melt will add to the situation but it's not the main cause.
We have to remember that volcanic activity is increasing which is present under the ice... I am not saying that is the cause but it is a very large contribute of warmer water under there.
The history of humanity suggests that we will not do anything significant until the effects become too big too ignore. By then, it will be hugely expensive to fix, or not fixable at all.
Yes. You are exactly right. That's why the average lifespan of humans is spiraling down, poverty is growing, more people are freezing in winter and dying of heat in the summer. Thousands of years ago, nothing was resolved with violence. Now everything is resolved by resort to violence. Women used to be free to do anything they wanted and now they are all enslaved. Humanity has never managed to fix anything or make anything better. Everything just keeps getting worse. Oh, to live in the days of cave men. Or even during the time of the Roman empire. Those shows in the Colosseum were awesome. Now all we have are Korean dramas on Netflix.
Why are you watching if you're not worried? Better, how can you still be "not worried"? There are records. It's actually getting hotter. Weather is actually getting pretty wild. Are you thinking you'll age out before the bad times come? I bet you're wrong.
I can't wait for next year's media hyped disaster. Before it was cow farts that were certain to bring doom upon us all...and I'm betting next year they will warn us that the sea levels are going to rise because the fish are all peeing too much. No doubt there are going to be some lunatics asking the government to install port-a-potties on the ocean floor to save the Earth.
Same goes for illegal immigration, crime and the cost of social programs. I personally don't think any of these things actually exist and thus according to my logic others should pay the consequences of them. I don't think the logic actually works.
10:29 ... for Reasons we still don't know? Maybe large Laboratory measurements of water-viscosity under these conditions T, p, sal, chem, should be repeated/done! Viscosity of water is more dependent on temp than Density (which itselve is max at 4°C). Below 4°C the water molecular structure changes notably, H2O molecules build groups with stronger H - OH bridges!
Me too! I thought Mike Lindell, owner of My Pillow, was offering a new color option on his pillows! I love lavender, but that glacier-blue color would appeal to men, perhaps, a bit more. Thanks, Mike, for all you have done for America and our great Constitution! You are a godly man, and you understand the importance of good sleep hygiene for Americans to be great patriots. I love your pillows and all your other products, too!
Just a fun fact for you: In Vanda Lake in the Wright Valley, 10,000 years of accumulated salts at the bottom, have created a salt concentration higher than the sea. Fresh melt water that flows over the top can't mix with it except by diffusion. A 4 meter (13ft) thick frozen layer forms and floats on top of the 70 meter (230ft) lake. With crystallization at the bottom of the fresh water ice and evaporation at the top, the ice crystals are aligned vertically and act as light pipes. Trapped heat at the bottom of the lake has the salty water at 25 ℃ due to the solar effect of the floating 'polarised' ice 'cover'. Some parts of the lake have been measured at 45℃. At a thin 'niche' layer, algae grows, where it receives enough nutrients below and ideal heat just above.
@@David-yo5ws That's pretty interesting. I'd never expect there to be such hot water in Antarctica. So the ice would need to be clear without snow cover in order for the sun's energy to get through and warm the water.. What keeps it snow free?
@@charjl96 Excellent reasoning indeed! Called "The Dry Valleys" there are two large valleys that cover an area of 3000 sq km (1,160 sq miles) on the eastern side of McMurdo Sound. Similar oases exist in the Bunger Hilss, Wilkes Land; in the Vestfold Hills, Princess Elizabeth Land and also on the peninsula. Once carved out valleys from glaciers but were uplifted, some of these areas, with constant dry winds with humidity less than 10%, has meant some of the valley has not seen snow or rain for over 2 million years. Ref: second edition Reader's Digest ANTARCTICA released 1990.
Great video, as always, but whoever had the idea of using dark grey and dark blue to signify land and water in your animations deserves to have their box of cereal left open (so it goes slightly chewy)! ...you can barely tell the difference between them.
I'm going to say something controversial here, and I can see a lot of people getting their knickers in a twist, but here goes. That we are polluting the atmosphere with excess CO2 cannot be denied by anyone, also, that we are polluting with Nitros Oxides cannot also be denied - we are a dirty species that is pooping in our own garden is so true it risks becoming depressing and we must do something about that. BUT - how do we know for sure that what is happening to the Antarctric ice sheets and glaciers is not simply a natural consequences of changes that have been happening for the last 12,000+ yrs? Antarctica is so cold because of the circumpolar current of cold water that seperates Antarctic waters from the the surrounding waters of the global ocean and thus prevents warmer waters mixing with water on the other side of the circumpolar current, equally, the air has circumpolar currents that also prevent warmer air from mixing with Antarctic air, thus maintaining the deep freeze we all know and love. There is another aspect of this which I have not seen discussed, Antartic volcanism - we know it exists, we have evidence for the mantle plume under the Ross Ice shelf, forming Ross Island and the volcanoes therein, and we know there are other volcanoes in the region, just buried under the ice, there are places where mountains poke through the ice - in West Antartica alone there are 91 confirmed volcanoes. Takahe is a shield volcano in the Western Antartica Volcanic Province, the last eruption was 5550BCE, but this does not mean it is not active, The Hudson Mountains are also there, calculations suggest they last erupted in 207BCE, but this is not confirmed, we have no idea if there have been other smaller eruptions along the chain in the meantime, and we have no clue as to their activity status under 2.5km of ice. Western Antarctica is a volcanic hot zone, we know that the Ross Mantle Plume is active and it is highly likely that some of the other volcanoes in the region are also active - there is a lot we simply do not know about the geology and the geophysics of Antarctica and especially Western Antartica - whilst unlikely, we have no idea if there is another mantle plume or a branch of the Ross plume that is surfacing under the Thwaites glacier that is warming the surface under the glacier and slowly causing melting from below - far more research is required right around Antarctica, but especially Western Antartica. We need to be careful about attributing every change we see to "global warming" and the activity of humanity - that is lazy science and potentially dangerous.
It would be "lazy science" if it would be like you describe, but it is not. The melting happens everywhere from greenland ice shield, to the north pole to glaciers in mountain ranges. And we know it is not a natural cylce already by the sheer speed it is changing. We talk about 1000s of times faster than any gelogocial record.
@@DerIchBinDageological records = ice cores. How would ice cores form if temps were high for few years in the past. The cold years before and after would be there but the melting years wouldn’t show up necessarily. Using ice cores as a temperature record is a flawed science seeing as how there is no other records to compare with. To assume there is a layer of ice for every year is laughable.
@@DerIchBinDa I would suggest you actually educate yourself on what is happening. Melting in one location does not mean that the cause there is the same as melting in another location. The Northern Polar regions have direct access from the warmer waters that travel upward from the equator/temperate regions - this does not happen in the South Polar regions because of the Polar current and the circumpolar air currents - the geography of the north and south polar regions is wholly different - the north has no cirulating ocean currents and the land reduces the impact of cirumpolar air currents which cannot build to the stregth and the persistance of those in the south as they occur over open ocean that has no land mass or mountains that block its pathways.
DEAR BEN: PLEASE READ! If the AMOC collapses, as I believe is almost certain - will it; 1 Stop the Permafrost/methane, tipping point for a bit? 2 Will the increased glaciation and sea ice, have much effect re albedo/reflectivity? (NB I'll take answers from others too, please.)
My guess is that we are not so much in a Greenhouse- and certainly don't have to fear a Runnaway- Greenhouse- effect. What we see is a significant weather change in the Northern Hemisphere, due, mostly to the many wind turbines everywhere! The abundant Westerlies are gone, the Coriolis effect is shrunken to a whisper. The Jetstream is meandering, even flowing in a figure-8 now, sometimes. More winds blow directly in a North-South direction! Atmospheric heat is distributed differently, now. Rain in the Sahara, floods occasionally in Saudi Arabia! That is far from "The deserts will spread" because of a strong Greenhouse effect. There is one possible effect, that more evaporation will happen but more of all the rain will fall on the oceans directly; and the interior of large continents may get "left out"!
This so unbiased!!! Thank you kind Sir (assuming you have the title already). It's unclear to me at this point if we should pursue or let go... the board will decide
What a surprise that yet another "We're all doomed in the next 10-20 years unless we pay more taxes and radically change our everyday lives" turns out to not be such an immediate crisis. How many is that now over the last 30 years? I've lost count.
Anyone from Minnesota knows well that when the lakes (on which they've had their fish house all winter) thaws in the spring, the lake can refreeze very fast because the water which was ice yesterday is still on the top of the lake. There is an event called turnover. It happens twice a year. In the summer, the warmest water is on the top and your feet can get quite chilly as you walk in. In the Winter, the least cold water is on the bottom and ice is on the top. Turnover date has a great effect on fishing, as the fish have a particular favorite temperature, it seems, so their depth would probably match that nearest their preferred temperature. Did you know that the Gulf of Mexico, which is reputed to be the 'hottest ever' (because most people only look at surface temperature, is about 4 degrees C at the bottom?
Those processes take too long to make any difference to us. Parts of North America and Scandinavia are still measurably rebounding from the last time they were under ice sheets - but "measurable" is with very precise instruments.
@@tealkerberus748 Not so, In Norway the Rebound is clearly visible from marks made on a harbour wall about 60 years ago. The average rise is 40 cm. No sophisticated instruments needed! Source ScienceNorway website amd many others.
8:45 nope, that's a DS4 but you knew we were all thinking it. And kudos for recognizing that the "OP" controller was a Logitech and not an "Xbox controller" like 90% of the media said.
I understand we’re talking a massive scale, but what if we built a “jettie-like” structure on the grounding line? Thwarting turbulent flow of the ocean water, make it easier for the glacier to re-freeze in winter, and slow basal melt rate in summer.
its hard for me to imagine that the entire ocean would be raised by 3 whole meters by just one glacier.. but then its also hard for me to imagine the scale of the glacier
The 3m thing was saying if the undermining of this one glacier allowed water in under the entire range of western coastal land ice, which would be about 1/4 of the entire antarctic continent. A lot more than one large glacier, quickly going from being supported by land to floating on the ocean.
But wouldn't all the freshwater cause the Antarctica Circumpolar Current to shut down and start us into a new ice age? The craziest thing is that we want a stable system from what has always been a chaotic system of freezing and thawing. Building costal defensive infrastructure would be the better use of money. You can feed a large population more easily in a warm climate than a cold one.
@@kalrandom7387 The north is the arctic, the amoc and gulf stream parts in question that can trigger a local european ice age are the waters south of greenland. The south ice mass is called the Antarctic and the main current is Antarctic Circumpolar Current. :)
@MalcolmYoung-h4k thanks boss man, I was busy using one of the last warm days outside before the insulated work gloves are mandatory, when old fingers hate to work right. Have a good one.
Walls and curtains are just patchwork. It may only delay the inevitable. Besides, if you build a curtain you're not just preventing hot water to penetrate inside, you're also preventing hot water to get out so if the water starts heating up in situ (e.g., due to volcanic activity) the curtain will actually speed up the melting. The fact is, with decreasing pressure of the ice sheets and shelves, volcanism increases. Research has shown, for example, a massive increase in volcanic activity with the melting of ice caps and erosion of land below at the end of the last ice age.
It's really kind of pointless because by the time it happens global temperatures will be above + 3 c. The wet-bulb temperature will be so high in many areas that humans can't survive there for more than a few hours without artificial air conditioning and perhaps living underground as they are in parts of australia.
OK what your saying is that for the last 20 years the ice has been melting at an alarming rate and the water still hasn't risen on the coast. Somebody did the math wrong
Glacial systems have already displaced the water they are sitting in and would not raise ocean levels significantly. However, if land-based glaciers were to slide into the ocean or melt, there would be flooding worldwide. I would be more concerned with Antarctic volcanoes, which we know exist. A major eruption could be catastrophic and a more realistic doomsday scenario. As for ice sheet and glacial thickness, I thought all of Antarctica had been mapped by satellite radar, and the thickness was known. I am not a scientist, but......I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night. :P
Do you really not understand this? It is a two minutes thought thing. It is the reason why Arctic ice melt produces no sea level rise while the Greenland and Antarctic melt does. Arctic ice is floating the other two are resting on land with glaciers being an extension of this land bound ice as it flows seaward. Here is an experiment for you: Place a large (but smaller than the sink) block of ice in your kitchen sink and top the sink up with water. Record the result as the ice melts. Then fill the sink with water and place your block of ice on the draining board. Record the result as the ice melts.
1. The West Antarctic ice sheet is sitting on the sea floor. Its not floating. Thus it isn't displacing an equal mass of water so it melting will raise sea levels. 2. Antarctic volcanoes are not a big worry. Some have erupted in recent times and we have seen what happens in other locations like Iceland, what happens when a volcano erupts underground. The effect is very localized for continental landmass. 3. Antarctic glacial thickness is pretty well known, but I guess the data about the faster moving ice sheets isn't as well understood because they are more prone to change over shorter periods of time.
way before sea rises becomes a problem, the lowering of the ocean temperatures triggers a rapid cooling of the planet like shown in the movie "the day after tomorow", the planet has safety features built in.
on the long run (11000yrs) we are on a Milankovich Ice-age track! but even if there is short term warming, the cold 4°C 39°F ocean water can absorb more "calories" than the whole Antarctic Ice would absorb by melting, because this cold water comprises ~ 1/2 of all ocean water! below Thermocline. Sea Level rise due to thermal expansion of this water could more than match sea Level rise due to Antarctic melting. But for this to happen, it would need a "runaway greenhouse Effect" which won't happen, really! Even the solar radiation input (and the iR night-side ratiation outflow of the Earth globe) could be controlled by an advanced tech economy! More imminent, increasingly likely, is the dramatic loss of orbital satellites due to Kessler Crash Syndrome. Without orbiting satellites there is no radiative climate controll; (the clean one! compared to the Machiavellian, dirty Chemtrail spraying)!
@@cj09beira No. The planet doesn't have safety features built in. You sceptics are always saying temperature changed in the past' so you are now saying it doesn't? And the Day After Tomorrow is utter nonsense. You're clearly referring to the AMOC. If that does fail then what will happen is that northern Europe will get colder winters. Summers will still be warm though. It will cause other changes but the big temperature drop is for a small percentage of the globe during a season when it is usually cold.
It's disingenuous of you to state the ice loss in Antarctica while not mentioning the ice accumulation in the centre and the East which as reported has been rising.
Yet it is, and hence shows shenanigans once again in the 'climate science' arena... people are more over the BS than these folks realize. Show unbiased data and stop fear mongering for money and status whilst offer zero viable suggestions.... from your private plane and zillionaire yacht.
No it isn't. One small part of the continent has a bit of ice that fell of other parts blown against it by a changing wind pattern does not cancel out all the loss from the entire rest of the continent. They did not cover the small part of the eastern shelf growing because the rest of the eastern shelf is still shrinking, as is the northern shelf and the southern shelf, and the entire western shelf...and Greenland, and the Arctic, and most land borne glaciers on other continents. The amount that one piece of the eastern shelf is growing is a tiny fraction of a rounding error in how much the rest of it is melting. And the central ice sheet had record snowfall and accumulated a bit in 2022, so? WTF is your point. It did it once in 1984 as well...woopie. Two years in the last 50 there was some accumulation, the rest of the time there was thinning. And among all of that this video was specifically talking about one particular glacier flowing into the western sea ice, which makes your entire comment irrelevant. So this really makes you seem like a petroleum sponsored doubt machine with no genuine concern for science or truth.
The loss of ice is higher than the gain of ice in other areas. He was citing the net loss of ice from Antarctica, not just the loss from the areas which are melting. Stop wasting your life.
Maybe I didn’t absorb this info right, but it seems what this means is that the “end” of the ice sheet will be cataclysmically fast (faster than predicted), because once it falls out of the slower melting (it’s not at equilibrium now, but IS slower than anticipated), there will be no modulation and that will be the actual tipping point, I.e. we won’t have time to mitigate sea-level rise?
01:14 This is phrased really poorly. The pause makes it sound like the glacier is as tall as either the Eiffel Tower or the Burj Khalifa, even though what you meant to convey is that it is as tall as the Burj Khalifa with half an Eiffel Tower on top.
At its highest point, It is hardly uniform and at it its shortest is only few meters deep. The better measurement would be to state its volume in CUBIC km and stop sensationalizing by throwing out nebulous comments about height and width.
I think, hear me out, we should open all our fridges at the same time, freezers too, maybe crank up the AC to max. If we get enough people together, maybe we can return to the ice age.
If the glacier is already undermined and actually currently floating it won't effect sea level any more than the ice shelf itself. Only if it melts off the land does it add to sea level rise. If it's floating it does not.
it's the ice on land BEHIND that glacier that the ice below sea level that is still 'anchored to the ground' is blocking from sliding into the ocean they worry about pal
2:08 "How can we get this glacier to go from catastrophic to total annihilation?" Sounds like Dr Miles is pitching a Doomsday Device to Dr Evil. 😄 "As tall as the Empire State Building" or about 1.2 Eiffel Towers. 15:31 There is someone really enjoying their job 😃👍
As intersting as this is (and it is, thanks) perhaps rising sea levels aren't quite as bad. Relocating cities isn't necessarily a total disaster. 1: it won't happen overnight. 2: every part of every city is constantly degrading and getting regularly rebuilt. 3: We're already losing houses occasionally around the UKs coast, this is a managed process. The value of buildings "in danger" will gradually fall, and significant repair works will be avoided on the basis of long term viability, instead time and effort will be put into new and existing buildings sat on higher ground. i.e. Cities will migrate gradually to higher ground. Clearly 50bln is a "drop in the ocean" compared to moving cities, and although it won't solve everything if it buys time, it's probably well worth it.
Oh humans will not drown alright. Instead they will have reduced life quality because they waste their resources relocating big cities over the decades. Imagine wasting hundreds of billions of dollars in resources on relocating the entirety of New York. Even if that money is spent over the span of a century or two it's still tens of billions going to waste each year. And that's only one city among thousands that will have to be displaced.
Structure creates habitat for marine life. As long as cities do some cleanup before those regions are reclaimed by the sea... fish are pulling for more melting.
I think along a similar thought if this is a naturally occurring cycle, we’re probably going to do more damage by trying to keep it consistent, then letting it cycle through and build to suit the changes of the earth instead of trying to change the Earth to suit us
@@bushcraftcentralflorida8303 Except we know that we are 1. contributing on top of any naturally occurring cycle 2. that this has come about very much by our practice of changing the Earth to suit us 3. perpetuation of this damaging contribution so that we can remain consistent with our way of living is precisely the problem.
maybe you didn't, Nobbs and Vagene, but I listened. the people who's fault this is is big oil. we listened, they didn't. your name comes from a racist joke about indian people. love yall ❤
How could it raise Sea levels by 67cm itself exactly? The water displayed by ice equals the amount above the water. If ice melts water levels remain the same. Sure this changes if land mass is a factor but its not in that case.
That only applies if the ice is already in the water - like ice cubes floating in a drink. When the ice is sitting on land, and then it either melts and runs into the ocean, or it simply slides off the land into the ocean, it is adding that much extra water to the ocean. That's what raises the sea level.
Did you REALLY not know that the point of highest density for water is 4 degrees C, NOT zero, so newly melted, COLDER, water is LIGHTER than water that had warmed up a bit.
@@TheEnd-um7yd There is no reasonable way to prevent a place like Florida from becoming largely underwater if the sea level rises that much, they're just too close to sea level as it is and surrounded on three sides by sea water. Moving is far easier, there's plenty of higher land even if all of the Antarctic ice melts, which has happened in history and probably will happen again no matter what we do.
So there's 6 mile wide cathedral caverns under and deep inside Antartica where we can take submersives into and just swim around? and the seafloor under it hasnt been touched in god knows how long? every year we get more and more thawed submersed land to explore. I wonder what else they're finding.
The proposed solution is "just stop doing the things we began doing right before the problems started." If you think that's illogical I don't know what to tell you.
@jakegearhart But the way had consistently been getting warmer for a very long time. So do we stop farming. Do we stop huntng and gathering? Before you go all liberal twat try and find out what causes an ice age, once you realize there is no consensus on what causes one you'll understand how little we as a species understands about our environment.
the "solutions" in question being to halt our warming of the planet, a thing that would have no negative effects so best-case scenario we stop destroying the earth, worst-case scenario nothing happens. terrifying! better continue to pump CO2 into the atmosphere then.
a problem with the expensive curtain is that governments will tax us to build it, then when it nears time to build it they will figure out that it wont work and will go back to the drawing board. then they will have another fix available but........... they accidentally spent the taxed money on something else.......... and will need to bring in another tax, which will most likely also dissapear! (faster than the melting ice)
I am confused. Is this "ice sheet" over water? If it is, doesn't the ice displace its mass in that water? Therefore if the "ice sheet" melts it should have zero affect on water levels. ?? The video was not totally clear on this. If you were to melt the entire north polar ice sheet, it would have no affect on sea levels, since it floats on that sea, just like ice in a glass of ice tea. When that ice tea ice melts, the level of tea does not change. I think some dude came up with this principal about 2,000 years ago. What's the History of this Glacier? Is it only 60 yrs? Glaciers shrink and grow. I am also hearing a lot of "could"s and "might"s
Have you considered the possibility that Greenland and Antarctica are 2 huge landmasses that have a buttload of ice that is NOT floating on water? And that therefore the melting of their ice would mean adding more water to the oceans?
@@texanplayer7651Greenlands ice over a series of “islands”. So is Antarctica. To say all of the ice over them is on land is a misnomer. It’s likely around 50%+/-of the ice is on land of Antarctica with maybe 70% of Greenland’s ice being on land. But that’s extremely subjective because we don’t know the geography that well. Another fun solid theory being left out about Greenland is the recently reviewed ice cores revealing that the ice sheet may not be but a few thousand years old. It takes a few years to melt it all of it stayed about melting point and could take just as quick to reform in freezing conditions. Another fun thing being left out is the possibility of Honga tongas water vapor destroying the ozone over Antarctica and the UV possibly can have some effects. Another fun thing left out is the influence of Mars in earths currents every 2.4 million years, and the evidence suggest we are in such a period. Will the ice cap in Antarctica melt completely by the time the millennium ends? Probably not. Greenlands ice? Yes.
We survived the Sahara Desert turning from tropical jungle to endless sand dunes just a few thousand years ago. No one thought it possible but it happened. Life on earth never stays the same for long.
@@jamesvandamme7786 It's not just slow change. Anything can happen. Super volcanic eruption, impact event, super massive solar flare, or magnetic pole reversal all of which we're overdue for. I'm pretty sure if we answer the unanswered questions in Physics the world is going to change forever too. The world as a know it isn't going to stay the way it is.
@@DuckDodgers69 Antarctica is a very volcanically active area with over 100 volcanos under the ice sheet. A quick web search will get all that information and it will do so without mocking anyone. I didn't see anything about a caldera directly underneath any part of the Antarctic continent, but there is an active caldera volcano just off its coast.
this is obvious, how do you think fish live through the winter. Clearly the water is warmer under the ice and get colder as you get closer to it, until it eventually freezes.
Really wishThwaites would 'chill' out - th-waite for us to get our act together - and stop having such a 'melt-down' 🧊🧊🧊
🔒Remove your personal information from the web at joindeleteme.com/DRBEN and use code DRBEN for 20% off 🙌 DeleteMe international Plans: international.joindeleteme.com
Thank you for your work. Details matter! We need more people like you explaining what we know rather than shallow lazy wishful thinking.
How many elephants is it? Gotta use a standard unit of measurement! ;)
Really beginning to think you science communicators are on the WEF payroll.
What is your reasoning behind you calling it 'hot' water and not 'warm' water? Is this in order to sound more dramatic?
If we can spend 50 billion for aid to a war we can spend 50 billion for this curtain.
I thought the thumbnail was of the latest super-deep foam mattress! I can't be the only one...
You weren’t.
You're not
Now that you mention it
Same
I only clicked on the video to see if I wasn't the only one
I was in Antartica during '78-'82. I talked to a graduate student who had said his grant was being denied because his research found reduction of ozone layer. This has always been an ironic memory from my time in Antartica.
There You go!
Are we in a Medieval Catholic_Vatican instructed: "Only this is the proper Science Aeon"?
Today it is more the UNO, or who controlls them; Blackrock? Rothchilds, Templers?
Why? By that time the source of the problem was going away because of emission treaties (with a very long tail - as such the student was studying a problem already resolved - since then the Ozone layer has been slowly recovering - even for Australians.
I am sure this is proof that science is a lie for you.
@@glacieractivity That problem wasn't actually solved until the adoption of the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer on September 16, 1987.
If his data was inconsistence with a consensus of peer reviewed and recreated data finding the opposite to be true, perhaps he was just a shitty scientist and that was why he lost his grant. There was nothing saying his data was of good quality. Plenty of crappy scientists loose funding when they are repeatedly proven to be wrong.
@@glacieractivity me when no knowledge of time
If we nuke the Thwaites Glacier first, the ocean can't melt it. 🙂
Good plan, let's do it!
Calm down America.
@@DrEnzyme Killjoy...
Sir who the fuck are you
Why are you so wise in the ways of science
When water turns to ice it expands like crazy, meaning that when this ice melts, sea level would not rise much at all...
Since you only see the top of the iceberg, and most of the ice is under the water and takes up alot of space, but will take up alot less space if it turned into water.
No, it really isn't surprising. Water is in a class of substances which are unusual for a key reason: They become less dense upon solidifying. This is usually accompanied by a reduction in density at low temperatures.
Water has a peak density around 4 degrees.
So if it was just pure water, if the water 4 degrees and hotter, we would expect the coldest water on the bottom and the hottest at the top.
If it 4 degrees and lower, we expect 4 degrees at the bottom and colder at the top.
This is also why during winter lakes freeze at the top first and that layer of ice slowly builds down.
The salt complicates it.
Ice being less dense than water is the reason icebergs float, if it was denser, they would sink.
How does one tell the Western Coast from the eastern coast in Antarctica? Aren't they all the northern coast?
It’s part of the western hemisphere
@@outinspace3083 So that would mean the south pole is in the western hemisphere?
@@ZER0-- well i think half of antarctica in the west hemisphere and half in the east?
@@ZER0-- Everything within 180° to the west of the Prime Meridian, ist western hemisphere.
one side is democratic and the other is obviously commie
you forget the 91 volcanoes under the ice in West Antarctica where one of them is erupting but cannot be seen because there is 3-4 km of ice on top of it,
the heat from the lava melts the ice from below and we have known that for 20+ years just not that it was from lava from vulkans,
in 2017 a uk professor discovered that there were 91 volcanoes under the ice which provided the heat to melt the ice, the temperatures down there have been measured for the last 50 years and show no change + that there is a cold ocean current that circulates around Antarcticaintact
Does this train of thought have a caboose?
@@jamesvandamme7786 threy search 91 vulkan under the ice
threy search 91 vulkan under the ice
Well, somehow I thought that it is a common knowledge, that below 4°C water becomes less dense until it freezes. As water cools below 4°C, the hydrogen-bond network becomes increasingly rigid, forming structures similar to ice. These structures take up more space, lowering the density.
Seems, that this is a surprise to some scientists.
Hint: this is the reason, why water freezes from the top. Not from the bottom.
Exactly! The warmth from the Earth will heat the water. He's talking about water over land - not the ocean. I'm glad I'm not the only one who's annoyed about this.
current year scientist are mostly activists and/or funded by activists trying to own/stick it to the "uneducated" people that are "science deniers"
Climate scientists have a phrase "Bill chill" in their science arena because a lot of climate science is funded by Gates who will stop funding you if your science is "wrong"
Belive me, they know...its you who does not understand.
@DornigeChance Believe me... Trust the $cience...
@@SchantaKlaus You really do know how science works, do you.
Hey ben, not to say any of what you said was false, but could you start sharing sources and whatnot in the description?
For people wanting to read more about it and such
Why not try to do the "work" yourself if you're that curious
Totally. I'll post them tomorrow when I'm in the office 👍
@@DuckDodgers69sharing sources is more rigorous, build trust and makes verifying the information easier. Being against sharing sources is anti scientific in itself
@@DuckDodgers69Maybe so people can be held accountable for what they say rather than just falling back on “just look it up yourself.” Your high school teacher wouldn’t let any form of fact based writing go without proper citations, so why should adults be given the luxury not to?
@@DrBenMiles I hope your office is equal to, or higher, than your new home, otherwise your going to have to move to a new office as well?! 😮 LOL.
I am 'lucky' where I live in Napier, New Zealand, because in 1931, an earthquake raised the East Coast up by 1-2 meters, so we are already ahead of the 'game'.
However, we are overdue for an Hikurangi Trench quake. We could go down or we could go up. Up or Down, the devastation will be disastrous!
There needs to be a decoupling of media & science until science & politics has actionable steps. In 2000, it was 5 years. In 2010, it was 15-25 years. In 2024, it is 50-150 years.
Science and politics no longer mixes. Science is "elite" and therefore evil. Sorry dude, the era of politicians listening to scientists has long passed.
I'd like to see how you plan to decouple media from anything when they literally profit from telling people the news. Usually the most sensational stories. There are other issues with your idea as well, but I think the first that I'd assume you'd have issue with the most is free speech. Telling the free market media what they can and cannot say is literally against free speech and many people (on both sides of the political spectrum) would call that censorship.
@@Talik13The smith Mundt Modernization act of 2012 gives gov and media permission to lie and use propaganda all they want.
Science is broken, like every other institution once based on values.
Actionable steps.
Here's the thing about research - it generally builds on what was done before.
The start of ANY research study is the Literature Review. The idea is that a review of the existing literature on any topic will dictate both the research question and methodology. Ergo - your research will add to existing information in your field of study.
That's why the timeline changes. And if you understood how science works, you'd know that.
I'm in a really bad mood at the moment, but that bit about the marketing team being off the day they named MATHGZ actually put a smile on my face and made me chuckle.
Thank you. I needed that. 🙂
Id argue losing the permafrost is very much more devastating
Antarctica has a "west coast?" I thought it only had a north coast.
Sorry but this is a dumb question
@@00shivanihow do you define “west” on Antarctica?
@@00shivani Maybe just answer the question rather than give your opinion on the question.
@@ZER0-- freedom of speech 🤷🏽♀️
@@00shivani Freedom of speech doesn't excuse rude behaviour. Don't like being criticised? Well, that's freedom of speech for you ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
3:00 thanks for this cuz my brain is like “well if it’s already floating then this means nothing” but that illustration is indeed alarming
exactly. fear mongering for fake man made climate change sciense . all for carbon taxes that will do nothing but impoverish people while unjustly enriching proponents of the lie
part of it *is* floating, but also since the grounding line is receding so much there's an ever larger amount of glacier that used to not be floating and is still supported only by its own tensile strength, which is why the glacier is breaking up (because that part of the glacier may be over water but it's not actually floating)
@@junovzlatotally. What’s scarier to me how what I guess could be called “the coast” under the glacier is under sea level. So a large portion of the actually grounded ice will also melt.
To be honest I wasn't too surprised that colder water was on top. After all water has a maximum density at about 4°C.
Fool. We all know water over land is colder at the surface. The 4 degree warmer water would sink because it is denser than 1 degree water.
That is so racist.
@@SchantaKlausimbecile. Cold water is more dense. Just like cold air. And you're calling that dude a fool? 😂
40f
@SchantaKlaus wamer water is "less dense," it is higher, not lower
Hey, the water is the most dense at 4•C, thats another reason why -1 at the top and 0.5 at the bottom. Salinity is a plus.
I thought that was was widely known but it was not included in the discussion. I would hope it was included in any numerical models used by the oceanographers who study this glacier. Yes salinity matters too. Maybe the buoyancy of fresh water helps drive outflow near the ice?
That is the reason you're right.
@@fpadams It is widely known but maybe not by Dr Miles.
It's NOT a+b. "Pure water has its maximum density at about 4°C, but the maximum density of water occurs at lower temperatures as salinity increases. Temperature variations are more important in warm ocean waters, whereas salinity variations are more important in cold ocean waters." NOAA claims that they measured 4.5C & 34.7ppt -> 1.0275, 0.5C & 34.6ppt -> 1.0277
@ can be easily. Just wanted to highlight this another important aspect.
Interesting.
It is possible to view the record of what will happen as the warming trend increases... look at Greenland and Scandinavia as well as Doggerland to see the effects of climate change both up and down the temperature scale. Greenland once warmed enough to have large forests on the southern tip, and Doggerland was once above sea level as was the communities in the Black Sea currently around 30 to 240 feet below sea level today. Akra and Kalpe to name a couple. Fossils and rock strata also point to a time when the sea levels were much higher than they are today.
As recently as 1200 AD, there was a summer village in the Swiss alps that was buried under a glacier. We can see its remains now that the glacier has receded.
So what causes those cycles and can we use them to our advantage?
One advantage is it spurs engineering advances to counter the man made portion, and the replanting and preservation of forests, another means of tempering climates locally. But that does not answer the more extreme cycles, such as the Greek, Roman and Medieval events previously noted.
Interesting.
I will be watching to see what other information you wish to share.
Thank you.
400 years ago advancing glaciers were threatening farms and villages in the Alps.
Then the planet gets hit by a big rock from space and we’re back to an ice age.
Nope anything big enough can be detected and it's simple enough to change their course - bucket of white paint can do that
All very big astroid trajectories have been calculated. We are safe from planetary killers for quite some time. Unless something comes in fast from outside the solar system. Only regional destruction is still possible, but very unlikely.
Call the dutch, we are already prepared for 3 meters sealevel rise
Well you are already 20m below sea level, aren't you?
The dutch have been fighting the ocean for their whole existence. Y’all are prepared
Dutch person here. We are working on this but 3 meters requires a lot more effort. It would require up to 4 times more sand depositing than we are currently doing. We have about 1500 km of dykes and levies that we are currently reinforcing and raising and making room for the rivers and improving our pumps etc. But three meters is a lot. And we are at a max of 7 meters below sea level.
@strangekwark
Let's hope we are giving back to the sea .
We need to restore Nature so back to a river delta and remove as much Dikes and polders so water can flow freely.
Always wanted sea side property. 😂
@@strangekwark
Zolang we maar goed kijken wat het zeeniveau doet en de rivieren ook genoeg aandacht blijven geven houwen we het wel droog voor het grootste gedeelte.
En als de rest van de wereld nou eens gaat luisteren naar nederlandse ingenieurs maar dat zal wel niet.
It’s not a mystery that the water is colder against the melting ice surface than below it. The temperature of the water on the undersurface of the ice shelf is colder because the process of melting ice is endothermic. Ice absorbs 333J/g from its surrounding water when it melts. Melting 200g ice (at 0 Celsius) in 1liter of water at 25C results in a 15.9C reduction in water temp. We could probably tell how quickly the ice is melting just by measuring the temperature differential. This has nothing to do with the fact that the melted ice is fresh water. But the fact that it is fresh causes another phenomenon. Fresh water that forms from melted ice against the shelf, is lighter than salt water so it floats above the salty sea water in the absence of mixing and stays against the undersurface of the shelf for a time. But fresh water is colder yet has a slightly lower viscosity than sea water, so under the influence of gravity it might tend to “slide off” the sea water under the slope of the shelf, like liquid slides off a hillside. So maybe that’s how it makes a down-sloping current against the shelf.
This is the only time I've ever re-watched an ad read on purpose. I thought I didn't see what I saw.... Clever!
1:05 that’s a neat clip of a rare C47 RATO/JATO take off.
You haven't mentioned the ice gaining on top.
You mean to tell me nyc will be under water! Totally worth it
Why would that be good?
But then all the rats will run to Washington DC to join the next administration.
@Earthneedsado-over177 there is no next administration
@@Joe-ti7qd and babbitt is missing out on it all
@@drewlop because nyc is full of useless eaters. causes all of upstate’s problems
Wait wait wait. Your very first words here are "On the West coast of Antarctica..." How can there be a West coast of Antarctica??
I can’t wait to see the ancient civilizations under the ice
And a modern one underwater?
@@monkeysezbegood Now imagine all that pollution on the coast going into the ocean and killing more life. That will lead to starvation killing billions of people.
This is why I am afraid of the ocean. What do you mean, there is a wall of everlasting ice that control the current, and it can dilute the salt in the sea?
Where I live we are about 1 KM above sea level. No worries about this. Not to say there is no worries. If sea level rose 3 meter that would mean surface area of the oceans increased massively. More water vapor and more going between drought and massive flooding. This is already been seen over the past 20 years. More pineapple expresses for mountain coast of BC more eastern flooding coming form the eastern rockies.
The bad news: Angelenos will start moving to your neighborhood.
amazingly well-done video. very explanative in a way anyone can understand.
Some of the comments show that it's hard to make content understandable for everyone.
If glaciers raised ocean levels then why doesnt my cup overflow when the ice melts ?
Ice in water will not change the ocean lvl.
Ice on lands will.
Do you really not understand this? It is a two minutes thought thing. It is the reason why Arctic ice melt produces no sea level rise while the Greenland and Antarctic melt does. Arctic ice is floating the other two are resting on land with glaciers being and extension of this land bound ice as it flows seaward.
Here is an experiment for you: Place a large (but smaller than the sink) block of ice in your kitchen sink and top the sink up with water. Record the result as the ice melts. Then fill the sink with water and place your block of ice on the draining board. Record the result as the ice melts.
Ice is app 2/3rds the density of water based on the temperature of the water. A Glacier breaking off and starting to float is when it raises it, not when it melts.
You missed a significant point about water. It is densest at 4 degrees C. As the water gets colder from that point on, it actually gets less dense. This is why ice floats. The fresh water melt will add to the situation but it's not the main cause.
"Science is the art of fucking around"
-Dr Ben Miles
and ignoring it is the part where you "find out"
- me
What impact do the volcanoes have under the ice? You should do a show. Keep up the good work!
We have to remember that volcanic activity is increasing which is present under the ice... I am not saying that is the cause but it is a very large contribute of warmer water under there.
The history of humanity suggests that we will not do anything significant until the effects become too big too ignore. By then, it will be hugely expensive to fix, or not fixable at all.
Yes. You are exactly right. That's why the average lifespan of humans is spiraling down, poverty is growing, more people are freezing in winter and dying of heat in the summer. Thousands of years ago, nothing was resolved with violence. Now everything is resolved by resort to violence. Women used to be free to do anything they wanted and now they are all enslaved. Humanity has never managed to fix anything or make anything better. Everything just keeps getting worse. Oh, to live in the days of cave men. Or even during the time of the Roman empire. Those shows in the Colosseum were awesome. Now all we have are Korean dramas on Netflix.
The people who are worried about this stuff can pay for the schemes to stop it. The rest of us can get on with our lives, thanks.
exactly. But, fear mongering click bait pays for this guys mortgage.
Why are you watching if you're not worried? Better, how can you still be "not worried"? There are records. It's actually getting hotter. Weather is actually getting pretty wild. Are you thinking you'll age out before the bad times come?
I bet you're wrong.
I can't wait for next year's media hyped disaster. Before it was cow farts that were certain to bring doom upon us all...and I'm betting next year they will warn us that the sea levels are going to rise because the fish are all peeing too much. No doubt there are going to be some lunatics asking the government to install port-a-potties on the ocean floor to save the Earth.
Well, if your life is near the end and you don't care about your grandchildren, just ignore it.
Same goes for illegal immigration, crime and the cost of social programs. I personally don't think any of these things actually exist and thus according to my logic others should pay the consequences of them. I don't think the logic actually works.
"West coast of antarctica"? Isn't every coast the north coast?
10:29 ... for Reasons we still don't know?
Maybe large Laboratory measurements of water-viscosity under these conditions T, p, sal, chem, should be repeated/done!
Viscosity of water is more dependent on temp than Density (which itselve is max at 4°C). Below 4°C the water molecular structure changes notably, H2O molecules build groups with stronger H - OH bridges!
Me too! I thought Mike Lindell, owner of My Pillow, was offering a new color option on his pillows! I love lavender, but that glacier-blue color would appeal to men, perhaps, a bit more. Thanks, Mike, for all you have done for America and our great Constitution! You are a godly man, and you understand the importance of good sleep hygiene for Americans to be great patriots. I love your pillows and all your other products, too!
When he says that hot water is flowing under the ice sheet, I wonder how hot he means?
Warmer than the colder water by a degree or two.
Cold.
Just a fun fact for you: In Vanda Lake in the Wright Valley, 10,000 years of accumulated salts at the bottom, have created a salt concentration higher than the sea. Fresh melt water that flows over the top can't mix with it except by diffusion. A 4 meter (13ft) thick frozen layer forms and floats on top of the 70 meter (230ft) lake. With crystallization at the bottom of the fresh water ice and evaporation at the top, the ice crystals are aligned vertically and act as light pipes. Trapped heat at the bottom of the lake has the salty water at 25 ℃ due to the solar effect of the floating 'polarised' ice 'cover'. Some parts of the lake have been measured at 45℃. At a thin 'niche' layer, algae grows, where it receives enough nutrients below and ideal heat just above.
@@David-yo5ws That's pretty interesting. I'd never expect there to be such hot water in Antarctica. So the ice would need to be clear without snow cover in order for the sun's energy to get through and warm the water.. What keeps it snow free?
@@charjl96 Excellent reasoning indeed! Called "The Dry Valleys" there are two large valleys that cover an area of 3000 sq km (1,160 sq miles) on the eastern side of McMurdo Sound. Similar oases exist in the Bunger Hilss, Wilkes Land; in the Vestfold Hills, Princess Elizabeth Land and also on the peninsula. Once carved out valleys from glaciers but were uplifted, some of these areas, with constant dry winds with humidity less than 10%, has meant some of the valley has not seen snow or rain for over 2 million years. Ref: second edition Reader's Digest ANTARCTICA released 1990.
Great video, as always, but whoever had the idea of using dark grey and dark blue to signify land and water in your animations deserves to have their box of cereal left open (so it goes slightly chewy)!
...you can barely tell the difference between them.
2:21. Title was clickbait...
Hi Ben, thanks for the video. I remember meeting you at cop 28 in Dubai last year.
I'm going to say something controversial here, and I can see a lot of people getting their knickers in a twist, but here goes. That we are polluting the atmosphere with excess CO2 cannot be denied by anyone, also, that we are polluting with Nitros Oxides cannot also be denied - we are a dirty species that is pooping in our own garden is so true it risks becoming depressing and we must do something about that. BUT - how do we know for sure that what is happening to the Antarctric ice sheets and glaciers is not simply a natural consequences of changes that have been happening for the last 12,000+ yrs?
Antarctica is so cold because of the circumpolar current of cold water that seperates Antarctic waters from the the surrounding waters of the global ocean and thus prevents warmer waters mixing with water on the other side of the circumpolar current, equally, the air has circumpolar currents that also prevent warmer air from mixing with Antarctic air, thus maintaining the deep freeze we all know and love. There is another aspect of this which I have not seen discussed, Antartic volcanism - we know it exists, we have evidence for the mantle plume under the Ross Ice shelf, forming Ross Island and the volcanoes therein, and we know there are other volcanoes in the region, just buried under the ice, there are places where mountains poke through the ice - in West Antartica alone there are 91 confirmed volcanoes. Takahe is a shield volcano in the Western Antartica Volcanic Province, the last eruption was 5550BCE, but this does not mean it is not active, The Hudson Mountains are also there, calculations suggest they last erupted in 207BCE, but this is not confirmed, we have no idea if there have been other smaller eruptions along the chain in the meantime, and we have no clue as to their activity status under 2.5km of ice.
Western Antarctica is a volcanic hot zone, we know that the Ross Mantle Plume is active and it is highly likely that some of the other volcanoes in the region are also active - there is a lot we simply do not know about the geology and the geophysics of Antarctica and especially Western Antartica - whilst unlikely, we have no idea if there is another mantle plume or a branch of the Ross plume that is surfacing under the Thwaites glacier that is warming the surface under the glacier and slowly causing melting from below - far more research is required right around Antarctica, but especially Western Antartica. We need to be careful about attributing every change we see to "global warming" and the activity of humanity - that is lazy science and potentially dangerous.
It would be "lazy science" if it would be like you describe, but it is not. The melting happens everywhere from greenland ice shield, to the north pole to glaciers in mountain ranges.
And we know it is not a natural cylce already by the sheer speed it is changing. We talk about 1000s of times faster than any gelogocial record.
You realize one pooping in the garden would make plants grow better. Poop = fertilizer
@@DerIchBinDageological records = ice cores.
How would ice cores form if temps were high for few years in the past. The cold years before and after would be there but the melting years wouldn’t show up necessarily.
Using ice cores as a temperature record is a flawed science seeing as how there is no other records to compare with.
To assume there is a layer of ice for every year is laughable.
@@joeweb5581 I bet you are fun at parties!!
@@DerIchBinDa I would suggest you actually educate yourself on what is happening. Melting in one location does not mean that the cause there is the same as melting in another location. The Northern Polar regions have direct access from the warmer waters that travel upward from the equator/temperate regions - this does not happen in the South Polar regions because of the Polar current and the circumpolar air currents - the geography of the north and south polar regions is wholly different - the north has no cirulating ocean currents and the land reduces the impact of cirumpolar air currents which cannot build to the stregth and the persistance of those in the south as they occur over open ocean that has no land mass or mountains that block its pathways.
DEAR BEN: PLEASE READ! If the AMOC collapses, as I believe is almost certain - will it; 1 Stop the Permafrost/methane, tipping point for a bit? 2 Will the increased glaciation and sea ice, have much effect re albedo/reflectivity? (NB I'll take answers from others too, please.)
How is there still ice? Oh right, ice doesn’t only melt, it also freezes
Thank God there are such ultra-simplistic notions.
I can't make a response because your statement is so dull.
@Earthneedsado-over177 wrote something rude anyway.
But there's a net loss...?
My guess is that we are not so much in a Greenhouse- and certainly don't have to fear a Runnaway- Greenhouse- effect.
What we see is a significant weather change in the Northern Hemisphere, due, mostly to the many wind turbines everywhere!
The abundant Westerlies are gone, the Coriolis effect is shrunken to a whisper. The Jetstream is meandering, even flowing in a figure-8 now, sometimes. More winds blow directly in a North-South direction! Atmospheric heat is distributed differently, now. Rain in the Sahara, floods occasionally in Saudi Arabia!
That is far from "The deserts will spread" because of a strong Greenhouse effect. There is one possible effect, that more evaporation will happen but more of all the rain will fall on the oceans directly; and the interior of large continents may get "left out"!
This so unbiased!!!
Thank you kind Sir (assuming you have the title already).
It's unclear to me at this point if we should pursue or let go... the board will decide
What lives in the giant empty spaces under the glacier?
You haven’t mentioned how much snow/ice accretes on Antarctica while ice is being lost. This is more complex than it looks.
What a surprise that yet another "We're all doomed in the next 10-20 years unless we pay more taxes and radically change our everyday lives" turns out to not be such an immediate crisis. How many is that now over the last 30 years? I've lost count.
what about the countless other ones that don’t turn out to be false
Uh yeah, we have actually taken action on many because they were easy, as soon as one is hard we don't do it. Lol
Wait we lost 28 trillion tons of artic ice since 1994? It's one of those numbers I have no idea how to wrap my head around
*_Comprehensive_* thanks
When the rivers have no place to drain, nowhere is safe.
Anyone from Minnesota knows well that when the lakes (on which they've had their fish house all winter) thaws in the spring, the lake can refreeze very fast because the water which was ice yesterday is still on the top of the lake. There is an event called turnover. It happens twice a year. In the summer, the warmest water is on the top and your feet can get quite chilly as you walk in. In the Winter, the least cold water is on the bottom and ice is on the top. Turnover date has a great effect on fishing, as the fish have a particular favorite temperature, it seems, so their depth would probably match that nearest their preferred temperature.
Did you know that the Gulf of Mexico, which is reputed to be the 'hottest ever' (because most people only look at surface temperature, is about 4 degrees C at the bottom?
The surface temp is what feeds hurricanes and such.
Yes because water is the densest at 4 degrees C. It's the same all around the world.
Very informative video that is written in such a fantastic way to be enjoyed by everyone (from easy accessible to knowledgable on these matters)
How much is the weight of ice depressing the land, and when that ice melts will the ground still be below sea level?
Those processes take too long to make any difference to us. Parts of North America and Scandinavia are still measurably rebounding from the last time they were under ice sheets - but "measurable" is with very precise instruments.
@@tealkerberus748 Not so, In Norway the Rebound is clearly visible from marks made on a harbour wall about 60 years ago. The average rise is 40 cm. No sophisticated instruments needed! Source ScienceNorway website amd many others.
8:45 nope, that's a DS4 but you knew we were all thinking it.
And kudos for recognizing that the "OP" controller was a Logitech and not an "Xbox controller" like 90% of the media said.
8:45
You can call this product placement, but I say its a nice touch lol
I understand we’re talking a massive scale, but what if we built a “jettie-like” structure on the grounding line? Thwarting turbulent flow of the ocean water, make it easier for the glacier to re-freeze in winter, and slow basal melt rate in summer.
Sure would be great to see pics of those "cathedral like caverns."
Love the "underwater curtain" idea. Right out of Christo! I hereby dub it it, "The Christo Curtain"!
What a great video explaining what is happening.
its hard for me to imagine that the entire ocean would be raised by 3 whole meters by just one glacier.. but then its also hard for me to imagine the scale of the glacier
Not just the one.
@@Earthneedsado-over177go outside. Touch grass.
The 3m thing was saying if the undermining of this one glacier allowed water in under the entire range of western coastal land ice, which would be about 1/4 of the entire antarctic continent. A lot more than one large glacier, quickly going from being supported by land to floating on the ocean.
It's a ice sheet, not simply a glacier. The WAIS contains about 2.1 million km3 (530,000 cu mi) in ice that is above the sea level.
But wouldn't all the freshwater cause the Antarctica Circumpolar Current to shut down and start us into a new ice age? The craziest thing is that we want a stable system from what has always been a chaotic system of freezing and thawing. Building costal defensive infrastructure would be the better use of money. You can feed a large population more easily in a warm climate than a cold one.
other half of the planet.
But that IS exactly what is happening in the north.
@MalcolmYoung-h4k I don't know the name of the southern one, if you do I'll correct it in my comment
@@kalrandom7387 The north is the arctic, the amoc and gulf stream parts in question that can trigger a local european ice age are the waters south of greenland.
The south ice mass is called the Antarctic and the main current is Antarctic Circumpolar Current. :)
When AMOC slows down, Northern Europe will get colder but souther Europe will get warmer
@MalcolmYoung-h4k thanks boss man, I was busy using one of the last warm days outside before the insulated work gloves are mandatory, when old fingers hate to work right. Have a good one.
Walls and curtains are just patchwork. It may only delay the inevitable. Besides, if you build a curtain you're not just preventing hot water to penetrate inside, you're also preventing hot water to get out so if the water starts heating up in situ (e.g., due to volcanic activity) the curtain will actually speed up the melting. The fact is, with decreasing pressure of the ice sheets and shelves, volcanism increases. Research has shown, for example, a massive increase in volcanic activity with the melting of ice caps and erosion of land below at the end of the last ice age.
One way or the other eventually the sea will rise as per the rest of time so might be worth looking at defenses well beforehand.
As sea ice is on the rise, sea level drops. Laat winter was the most sea ice measured in recent history.
Or adapt as previous civilizations in the past. An area floods, adapt or move the city. Don’t rebuild like they keep doing in New Orleans.
@@diegomontoya796 The Royal Meteorological Society disagrees with you. What is your source?
It's really kind of pointless because by the time it happens global temperatures will be above + 3 c. The wet-bulb temperature will be so high in many areas that humans can't survive there for more than a few hours without artificial air conditioning and perhaps living underground as they are in parts of australia.
@@diegomontoya796 Intrigued, also I am
OK what your saying is that for the last 20 years the ice has been melting at an alarming rate and the water still hasn't risen on the coast. Somebody did the math wrong
Glacial systems have already displaced the water they are sitting in and would not raise ocean levels significantly. However, if land-based glaciers were to slide into the ocean or melt, there would be flooding worldwide. I would be more concerned with Antarctic volcanoes, which we know exist. A major eruption could be catastrophic and a more realistic doomsday scenario. As for ice sheet and glacial thickness, I thought all of Antarctica had been mapped by satellite radar, and the thickness was known. I am not a scientist, but......I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night. :P
Do you really not understand this? It is a two minutes thought thing. It is the reason why Arctic ice melt produces no sea level rise while the Greenland and Antarctic melt does. Arctic ice is floating the other two are resting on land with glaciers being an extension of this land bound ice as it flows seaward.
Here is an experiment for you: Place a large (but smaller than the sink) block of ice in your kitchen sink and top the sink up with water. Record the result as the ice melts. Then fill the sink with water and place your block of ice on the draining board. Record the result as the ice melts.
1. The West Antarctic ice sheet is sitting on the sea floor. Its not floating. Thus it isn't displacing an equal mass of water so it melting will raise sea levels.
2. Antarctic volcanoes are not a big worry. Some have erupted in recent times and we have seen what happens in other locations like Iceland, what happens when a volcano erupts underground. The effect is very localized for continental landmass.
3. Antarctic glacial thickness is pretty well known, but I guess the data about the faster moving ice sheets isn't as well understood because they are more prone to change over shorter periods of time.
way before sea rises becomes a problem, the lowering of the ocean temperatures triggers a rapid cooling of the planet like shown in the movie "the day after tomorow", the planet has safety features built in.
on the long run (11000yrs) we are on a Milankovich Ice-age track! but even if there is short term warming, the cold 4°C 39°F ocean water can absorb more "calories" than the whole Antarctic Ice would absorb by melting, because this cold water comprises ~ 1/2 of all ocean water! below Thermocline.
Sea Level rise due to thermal expansion of this water could more than match sea Level rise due to Antarctic melting. But for this to happen, it would need a "runaway greenhouse Effect" which won't happen, really!
Even the solar radiation input (and the iR night-side ratiation outflow of the Earth globe) could be controlled by an advanced tech economy! More imminent, increasingly likely, is the dramatic loss of orbital satellites due to Kessler Crash Syndrome.
Without orbiting satellites there is no radiative climate controll; (the clean one! compared to the Machiavellian, dirty Chemtrail spraying)!
@@cj09beira No. The planet doesn't have safety features built in.
You sceptics are always saying temperature changed in the past' so you are now saying it doesn't?
And the Day After Tomorrow is utter nonsense. You're clearly referring to the AMOC. If that does fail then what will happen is that northern Europe will get colder winters. Summers will still be warm though. It will cause other changes but the big temperature drop is for a small percentage of the globe during a season when it is usually cold.
the dissapearing pictures on the ad part was so confusing lol
good video. i feel i finally understand what they meant by climate tipping point... a literal runaway tipping point event
You just made me super sad. I really was expecting to experience it in my lifetime. But now it looks impossible. 😢
It's disingenuous of you to state the ice loss in Antarctica while not mentioning the ice accumulation in the centre and the East which as reported has been rising.
This is something I did not know 🤔
Yet it is, and hence shows shenanigans once again in the 'climate science' arena... people are more over the BS than these folks realize. Show unbiased data and stop fear mongering for money and status whilst offer zero viable suggestions.... from your private plane and zillionaire yacht.
No it isn't.
One small part of the continent has a bit of ice that fell of other parts blown against it by a changing wind pattern does not cancel out all the loss from the entire rest of the continent.
They did not cover the small part of the eastern shelf growing because the rest of the eastern shelf is still shrinking, as is the northern shelf and the southern shelf, and the entire western shelf...and Greenland, and the Arctic, and most land borne glaciers on other continents.
The amount that one piece of the eastern shelf is growing is a tiny fraction of a rounding error in how much the rest of it is melting.
And the central ice sheet had record snowfall and accumulated a bit in 2022, so? WTF is your point. It did it once in 1984 as well...woopie. Two years in the last 50 there was some accumulation, the rest of the time there was thinning.
And among all of that this video was specifically talking about one particular glacier flowing into the western sea ice, which makes your entire comment irrelevant.
So this really makes you seem like a petroleum sponsored doubt machine with no genuine concern for science or truth.
@@5353Jumper "But I heard it on Fox News, and Info Wars and Newsmax agreed."
The loss of ice is higher than the gain of ice in other areas. He was citing the net loss of ice from Antarctica, not just the loss from the areas which are melting. Stop wasting your life.
Maybe I didn’t absorb this info right, but it seems what this means is that the “end” of the ice sheet will be cataclysmically fast (faster than predicted), because once it falls out of the slower melting (it’s not at equilibrium now, but IS slower than anticipated), there will be no modulation and that will be the actual tipping point, I.e. we won’t have time to mitigate sea-level rise?
01:14 This is phrased really poorly. The pause makes it sound like the glacier is as tall as either the Eiffel Tower or the Burj Khalifa, even though what you meant to convey is that it is as tall as the Burj Khalifa with half an Eiffel Tower on top.
At its highest point, It is hardly uniform and at it its shortest is only few meters deep. The better measurement would be to state its volume in CUBIC km and stop sensationalizing by throwing out nebulous comments about height and width.
At 2:25, he says, "extending it (ice perimeter) to reduce what's called an ice shelf". He misread his script. The correct word is 'produce"
what do we do about it? thats easy. buy cheap land inland that is projected to be beach front property in 50 years for massive profit
I think, hear me out, we should open all our fridges at the same time, freezers too, maybe crank up the AC to max. If we get enough people together, maybe we can return to the ice age.
If the glacier is already undermined and actually currently floating it won't effect sea level any more than the ice shelf itself. Only if it melts off the land does it add to sea level rise. If it's floating it does not.
fake climate change fear mongering a part of the political science at work
@@sirei01 cant change nature and earth cycles nothing can be done any attemp will backfire into a bigger problem as always
@@edminnich4971 shut up idiot
More taxes would stop this......
it's the ice on land BEHIND that glacier that the ice below sea level that is still 'anchored to the ground' is blocking from sliding into the ocean they worry about pal
2:08 "How can we get this glacier to go from catastrophic to total annihilation?" Sounds like Dr Miles is pitching a Doomsday Device to Dr Evil. 😄
"As tall as the Empire State Building" or about 1.2 Eiffel Towers.
15:31 There is someone really enjoying their job 😃👍
It was the end of the great ice age that gave us the coastlines and bays we enjoy today, just the planet doing what the planet does.
Killing off the dominant species on the planet like it did the Dinosaurs?
nope
It also got rid of Doggerland. Imagine how much farmland and pasture was lost.
Wow. Many thanks for this amazing video!
As intersting as this is (and it is, thanks) perhaps rising sea levels aren't quite as bad. Relocating cities isn't necessarily a total disaster. 1: it won't happen overnight. 2: every part of every city is constantly degrading and getting regularly rebuilt. 3: We're already losing houses occasionally around the UKs coast, this is a managed process. The value of buildings "in danger" will gradually fall, and significant repair works will be avoided on the basis of long term viability, instead time and effort will be put into new and existing buildings sat on higher ground. i.e. Cities will migrate gradually to higher ground. Clearly 50bln is a "drop in the ocean" compared to moving cities, and although it won't solve everything if it buys time, it's probably well worth it.
Oh humans will not drown alright. Instead they will have reduced life quality because they waste their resources relocating big cities over the decades. Imagine wasting hundreds of billions of dollars in resources on relocating the entirety of New York. Even if that money is spent over the span of a century or two it's still tens of billions going to waste each year. And that's only one city among thousands that will have to be displaced.
Structure creates habitat for marine life. As long as cities do some cleanup before those regions are reclaimed by the sea... fish are pulling for more melting.
I think along a similar thought if this is a naturally occurring cycle, we’re probably going to do more damage by trying to keep it consistent, then letting it cycle through and build to suit the changes of the earth instead of trying to change the Earth to suit us
@@bushcraftcentralflorida8303 Except we know that we are 1. contributing on top of any naturally occurring cycle 2. that this has come about very much by our practice of changing the Earth to suit us 3. perpetuation of this damaging contribution so that we can remain consistent with our way of living is precisely the problem.
It's still cheaper not to move
"Small body of ice" - It's the single biggest glacier on earth.
We didn't listen!
We didn't listen!
We... we didn't listen!
We did NOT listen!
We didn't even care..
If we had today's technology when monarchs ruled the world, we should have been extinct by now.
maybe you didn't, Nobbs and Vagene, but I listened. the people who's fault this is is big oil. we listened, they didn't. your name comes from a racist joke about indian people. love yall ❤
Pump the ocean into the desert
How could it raise Sea levels by 67cm itself exactly? The water displayed by ice equals the amount above the water. If ice melts water levels remain the same. Sure this changes if land mass is a factor but its not in that case.
That only applies if the ice is already in the water - like ice cubes floating in a drink.
When the ice is sitting on land, and then it either melts and runs into the ocean, or it simply slides off the land into the ocean, it is adding that much extra water to the ocean. That's what raises the sea level.
Most of the Thwaites Glacier is still sitting on land.
Did you REALLY not know that the point of highest density for water is 4 degrees C, NOT zero, so newly melted, COLDER, water is LIGHTER than water that had warmed up a bit.
What should we do about it? How about leave it alone.
And have Billons of people displaced? Are you high?!
@@TheEnd-um7yd Highly likely that in 150 years, they would have all moved anyway. That's 7 generations. It's not a tsunami you know.
@@TheEnd-um7yd There is no reasonable way to prevent a place like Florida from becoming largely underwater if the sea level rises that much, they're just too close to sea level as it is and surrounded on three sides by sea water. Moving is far easier, there's plenty of higher land even if all of the Antarctic ice melts, which has happened in history and probably will happen again no matter what we do.
Why are we thinking we can stop Mother Nature and Father Time
@@bushcraftcentralflorida8303 Because we're not primitive tribes that think spirits rule the world. Most of us...
Yikes 😬 you said ice wall...
So there's 6 mile wide cathedral caverns under and deep inside Antartica where we can take submersives into and just swim around? and the seafloor under it hasnt been touched in god knows how long? every year we get more and more thawed submersed land to explore. I wonder what else they're finding.
More seafloor mapping and silt samples as more expeditions are conducted.
So could a hot water balloon work in the ocean? Hits blunt
"We were completely wrong about the fluid dynamics and thermodynamics involved but I'm sure our solutions will do exactly what we plan them to do"
Hey, there's no reason for logic here.
The proposed solution is "just stop doing the things we began doing right before the problems started." If you think that's illogical I don't know what to tell you.
@jakegearhart But the way had consistently been getting warmer for a very long time. So do we stop farming. Do we stop huntng and gathering? Before you go all liberal twat try and find out what causes an ice age, once you realize there is no consensus on what causes one you'll understand how little we as a species understands about our environment.
the "solutions" in question being to halt our warming of the planet, a thing that would have no negative effects
so best-case scenario we stop destroying the earth, worst-case scenario nothing happens. terrifying! better continue to pump CO2 into the atmosphere then.
It's complicated so perhaps you shouldn't strain yourself.
Dr Ben throwing shade @ 8:45 lmao
That’s why if im ever lucky enough to win the lottery , I’m buying a home in the mountains
landslide be like : Yo, dude I'm here🎉
Also wild fires.
Don't move too close to a lake or river, either.
i'd buy the mountain and live in it.
@@SHATOSHI123 top of a mountain all the mud runs downhill
a problem with the expensive curtain is that governments will tax us to build it, then when it nears time to build it they will figure out that it wont work and will go back to the drawing board. then they will have another fix available but........... they accidentally spent the taxed money on something else.......... and will need to bring in another tax, which will most likely also dissapear! (faster than the melting ice)
I am confused. Is this "ice sheet" over water? If it is, doesn't the ice displace its mass in that water? Therefore if the "ice sheet" melts it should have zero affect on water levels. ?? The video was not totally clear on this. If you were to melt the entire north polar ice sheet, it would have no affect on sea levels, since it floats on that sea, just like ice in a glass of ice tea. When that ice tea ice melts, the level of tea does not change.
I think some dude came up with this principal about 2,000 years ago.
What's the History of this Glacier? Is it only 60 yrs? Glaciers shrink and grow.
I am also hearing a lot of "could"s and "might"s
Have you considered the possibility that Greenland and Antarctica are 2 huge landmasses that have a buttload of ice that is NOT floating on water? And that therefore the melting of their ice would mean adding more water to the oceans?
If it was submerged in the water it'd be displacing water, it being over the water means it has no contact with the water or has minimal contact.
@@texanplayer7651Greenlands ice over a series of “islands”. So is Antarctica. To say all of the ice over them is on land is a misnomer. It’s likely around 50%+/-of the ice is on land of Antarctica with maybe 70% of Greenland’s ice being on land. But that’s extremely subjective because we don’t know the geography that well. Another fun solid theory being left out about Greenland is the recently reviewed ice cores revealing that the ice sheet may not be but a few thousand years old.
It takes a few years to melt it all of it stayed about melting point and could take just as quick to reform in freezing conditions. Another fun thing being left out is the possibility of Honga tongas water vapor destroying the ozone over Antarctica and the UV possibly can have some effects. Another fun thing left out is the influence of Mars in earths currents every 2.4 million years, and the evidence suggest we are in such a period. Will the ice cap in Antarctica melt completely by the time the millennium ends? Probably not. Greenlands ice? Yes.
What is the honga Tonga
The ocean is not a glass of iced tea. You do grasp that, right?
We survived the Sahara Desert turning from tropical jungle to endless sand dunes just a few thousand years ago. No one thought it possible but it happened. Life on earth never stays the same for long.
Stuff changing over 100 years is a lot harder to get used to.
@@jamesvandamme7786 It's not just slow change. Anything can happen. Super volcanic eruption, impact event, super massive solar flare, or magnetic pole reversal all of which we're overdue for. I'm pretty sure if we answer the unanswered questions in Physics the world is going to change forever too. The world as a know it isn't going to stay the way it is.
You completely left out that Antarctica sits on a caldera and they found volcanic vents warming the water under the ice shelves.
Source?
@peq42_ oh for goodness sake! Type it into any search bar and you will find a plethora of your beloved 'sources' 🙄
@@peq42_ "trust me bro"
@@DuckDodgers69 Antarctica is a very volcanically active area with over 100 volcanos under the ice sheet. A quick web search will get all that information and it will do so without mocking anyone. I didn't see anything about a caldera directly underneath any part of the Antarctic continent, but there is an active caldera volcano just off its coast.
Yah man I heard about this place up north they call "the land of ice" and the volcanoes have been going ape shit there lately.....
this is obvious, how do you think fish live through the winter. Clearly the water is warmer under the ice and get colder as you get closer to it, until it eventually freezes.
Turn the heat lamp to 100%...
...look on in dumbfounded surprise as the glaciers disintegrate.