Topic: 'Doomsday glacier,' is holding on 'by its fingernails,' scientists say (Read 262 times)

lessons to learn from people in the 1800's
if you live on "marsh common" or "boggy street" or "the glades" [insert thousand of examples of names related to wetlands]
know that some deplorable real estate developer built your house on KNOWN flood risks
same goes for beach front real estate too

so when it does flood. dont be fooled by "oh thats climate change" first sue them for building on known flood/wetlands and then realise why there were no houses on that land for 2000 years before your house was build on it

and yes that includes beach real estate
building on beachland is obvious to cause issues

oh and for future reference. even without seeing wetlands.. dont buy real estate on the grand canyons or other spots known for erosion..

im from the UK. we have alot of sea towns that are hundreds of years old.. but do you also know what most of those towns build hundreds of years ago. HUGE WALLS

yep even hundreds of years ago. those wanting to build near the coast would look at the land. notice cliffs (land erosion) and realise 2 things.
1. not proper location to build a house
2. lets build a huge wall first to defend against erosion. and then build a house

this century in silly places like america however, they just build houses into the natural dunes/ coastline and think that insurance companies will cover the problems later.. and to ensure insurers pay out instead of saying it was not covered due to a "act of god" clause. they now call sea erosion a human caused event

..
i still laugh sometimes when comparing the UK's current response to "climate change" compared to history
london when at the smoggiest of the old coal fired house fireplaces where chimney sweepers were a big business and smog was a regular occurance. london suffered the worse FROST periods

most of current response to "carbon" is not about sealevels. but its actually about the dwindling supplies of carbon which will see oil and coal reserves depleted by 2050-2060 anyways.. but requires FUNDING now to pay for conversion to renewables before the fossil reserves run out..

pay particular attention to what the words "renewable" and "sustainable" actually mean in regards to words like "oil reserves"..
as oppose to the media definitions that pretend the words relate to "healing planet", "reversing temperatures"

This is actually a "Frog in the Pot" scenario, where the world are cooked slowly and they never see the disaster, until everything goes to shit. It will be very different, if a huge chuck of ice break away and you suddenly see massive flooding on coastal towns... then people will sit up and take notice.

"absolute sea level has risen at an average rate of 0.06 inches per year from 1880 to 2013 (see Figure 1). Since 1993, however, average sea level has risen at a rate of 0.12 to 0.14 inches per year—roughly twice as fast as the long-term trend." - Source : https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-sea-level

Do you think average people care about 0.12 to 0.14 inches per year?  ... I think the only people who will notice that, are people living at the beach or close to the ocean.  

In addition, the melting of glaciers adds another big problem to humanity. The ice melts and exposes the continental land, which has been in a state of permafrost for many centuries and even millennia. All frozen bacteria are now awakening and will inevitably enter the human environment. Among them will be the causative agents of various deadly and previously unknown or long-gone diseases. Therefore, to all the predicted misfortunes, this big problem will also be added.

you do realise that tides change by meters a couple times a day and that video only shows 10cm variance over decades

no 2 times are the same and taking any measurement even by a couple minute variance of the 'peak tide' twice daily and based on if its summer or winter can produce more then a 10cm variance

Just my thought after reading OPs post. The process of mining crypto emits more energy which causes more harm than good to environment. But taking OPs question whether there will be role to this solution to global dilemma is just absurd. The application of cryptocurrencies, although vast, cannot be applied on very specific things like this, thus making more senseless argument if we continue. I'll believe if the OP proposes one solution.

More and more networks will be built and develop, this means that more energy will soon be generated. I think it's a no.

This is the second most important part of climate change, but people could keep on ignoring it and denying science. That's what the world is at these days, denying a scientific data is what people like to boast about these days, it's not like the yare secretly denying science, they are talking about how proud they are. There are politicians all around the world who say they do not believe in "climate change BS" and get votes for saying that, the humanity has gone that stupid, this isn't something you deny or accept, it's a fact, it's reality, it's proven data, you do not "believe" that humans breath oxygen, it's science, it's data, same goes here.

The bigger problem is the drought, even though it may look like sea levels rising means water, the reality is that inlands will be very drought, and farming will become much harder, and there will be plenty of fires all around, so food will be much scarce as well. This is a much bigger thread, not finding anything clean to drink and not be able to afford to eat.

environmentalists say that crypto’s blockchain technology actually gives way more to greenhouse gas emissions the system of mining of cryptocurrency requires so much energy in order to function effectively which is said to be harmful for the environment

however smaller blockchains have found their way into reducing the greenhouse gases they emit it is not an impossible thought that cryptocurrencies develop into a more eco-friendly system

I can see that you have a sense of humor.
I guess that the process of global warming will make huge regions in countries like Russia and Canada more suitable for living, so all the climate refugees from the coastal areas could just move to Russia, Canada or Kazakhstan. Those three countries have plenty of space and a relatively small population. I'm joking, but I might be right in the end.
Ice melting in Antarctica and Arctica cannot be stopped at this point. All the policies for reducing CO2 emissions won't change anything.
By the way, do you have any plans of launching some "Antarctica coin" or "Doomsday glacier token"?

This is a huge, global problem, but honestly, I don't really believe that we have to face the dangers of nature before the dangers we cause ourselves (war). But it's clear that the reality that post-global change is increasingly changing what people are starting to think about is also quite relevant. I remember when I was young, I used to encounter cold winter air that I could clearly feel, but now the winter in the area I live in is no longer either cold. But people are gradually getting used to and adapting to the environment. Looking at the issue of rising sea levels, migration is almost mandatory, but thinking back, I think the responsibilities and obligations of individuals are only very small and don't even have much impact on environmental protection.
 
For countries with developing industries, the problem of industrial waste and CO2 is seen more clearly, the cause of the greenhouse effect. It reminds me of a few years ago, when I read the information. It is believed that since the outbreak of the epidemic, industrial emissions into the environment have significantly helped restore the ozone layer. Perhaps our common problem still needs a joint plan from all countries, not a single solution, and we can begin to find ways to overcome it by seeing the problem.

I partially agree, you clarified some of the nuances, but the sea ice mass is really located in the southern hemisphere, and “sliding” from the solid surface actually leads to an increase in the level of the world’s oceans. And glaciers “floating in water” do not actually change the volume of the world’s oceans, because... they essentially change the form of storage of liquid found in the world's oceans. In total, the most dangerous “potential” is at the south pole.

But no matter how much we argue “which ice is worse”, the fact of rising sea levels is a FACT

https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a005100/a005114/seaLevelWaveTank_6-24-2023a_wavetank.mp4

you said it yourself the south pole is a rocky base.. follow that with your previous statement
Most glaciers are on the "solid surface" and "spread" into the oceans. Therefore, the main mass of water, now almost does not affect the level of the world's oceans. ***

then realise the only ice of concern are the EDGES that are sea worthy.. and those large volumous sea worthyglaciers that people are concerned with are already majority ice volume below sea tide line. meaning when they melt the impact is not the full ice volume adding to the see. but a small percentage

again run the glass of pepsi and ice experiment put some ice into a glass, add pepsi to the brim and although you see ice poking above the glassline/pepSEA line.. just watch it melt. and realise that due to majority of the pepSEA worthy ice being majority below the pepSEA line the glass doesnt over flow because the ice melt takes up less volume as water than it does as ice

and its this sea worthy ice shelves they fear cracking off.. but they are not the x km tall numbers of the land locked ice

in short you say metrics like "antarctica holds 61% of worlds freshwater".. but only a minority of that is on the sea worthy edges in the dangerzone of cracking off and floating away to better climates to melt

***look at your own notes.. not the 98% land locked ice. and then realise the sea worth ice they fear cracking in one area is not even 2%

i dont care about rehearsing and memorising or fearing stats of  14 million km² and a volume of 26.5 million km³ of ice.. because we can both agree 98% is land locked..

its the 2% that is sea worthy that scientists are fear factoring about

and of that 2% not all of it is in any imminent threat of detaching
and of that 0.x% that is imminent threat of detaching, not all of it is above sea level to add volume to the oceans

so please dont quote total volume of antarctica values to try to exaggerate the risk of just the EDGE case of only 0.x% of added ocean volume

heres a cross section.. look how much ice is above water on the two edges.. compared to under sealine


funniest thing is how scientists are saying how new york will flood
i think the real threat if any would be argentina, south africa and australia would be more in a worry .. but everyone knows the research funding only comes from wallstreet so they gotta make americans fear a imminent danger so that scientists can stay funded to continue making snowmen for the next decade plus.. after all zero threat doesnt pay the bills

Awhile ago I was curious about negative side effects of terraforming antarctica. How much woul dmelting all of the ice there raise sea levels. Sources I saw claimed sea levels could rise 100 to 200 feet above current levels if all of the ice in antarctica melted. It was an eye opening statistic.

Now it seems scientists are projecting a piece of ice the size of the US state of florida could break off the ice shelf and melt. Potentially raising sea levels 16 feet above current levels.

World leaders like Barack Obama and Ivanka Trump are not heeding these warnings. Considering they continue to buy up beach front property.

With the term climate change refugee being coined in regions like bangladesh and the maldives. As unfortunate beachfront residents are forced to move further inland.

What trends can we expect from this. And what steps can be taken to address them. Perhaps crypto tokens and coins have a role to play here in subsidizing solutions to climate change.
[/quote]

The only people predicting the sea levels rising by 100-200 were making up a load of rubbish, based on fear mongering and with no basis in science. The volume of water stored there has been known, or at least fairly accurately estimated for many decades. The real danger from losing the attics are changes to the weather systems which rely on heated and then cooled air currents which move across the whole world. If those stop working then some very unpredictable weather conditions might set in and get much more severe, which is the biggest danger.

The output of renewable sources of energy is so bad compared to coal and oil so I don't think we're going to see a sustainable and environment friendly crypto future and I don't think that this is just a matter that involves crypto, countries all over the world are going to need to band together to solve this crisis and for us humans, climate change is a slow death and either we have to do something about it to prevent the acceleration or we do some adaptations now before the global sea level rises, that's the only option for us but given how greedy humanity is, we're likely to see ourselves doing the latter which is adapting to the changes.

You're a little wrong. Most glaciers are on the "solid surface" and "spread" into the oceans. Therefore, the main mass of water, now almost does not affect the level of the world's oceans. The North Pole, yes, contains "floating ice", but its thickness is not very large (about 3-5 meters). At the same time, the North Pole is conditionally "warm" in contrast to....

But the South Pole is a "rocky base" with the thickness of the ice shell - reaching 2810 meters, and a very low average temperature...

Here's a brief description: the Antarctic Ice Sheet is one of Earth's two polar ice sheets. It covers about 98% of the area of Antarctica and is the largest ice accumulation on Earth. It has an area of 14 million km² and a volume of 26.5 million km³ of ice. The Antarctic Ice Sheet contains about 61 % of all fresh water on Earth, which is equivalent to 58 m of the world's ocean level....
Whether all of it will melt or not is not crucial. There are models that show what happens to the world when the level of the world ocean rises to different levels, I recommend to see what even a 5-10 meter rise will do.

as for a few peoples worry about glaciers.. science and experiments help

most people know 90% of glaciers are below waterline and we only see the top 10%

when water freezes, it expands by more then 10%. meaning the physical space/volume ice takes up is more then its water equivalent when it melts

now try it out yourself

get a glass, put icecubes in it then fill it right to the top with water.. whereby any melt can easily see if any spillage happens..
wait for ice to melt...
. notice no spillage out of the glass happens

the only true threats are if ice amount is way more then 10% above sea-line where by the ice above water exceeds the amount that shrinks below sealine when it melts

in short not all iceburgs are going to cause sea level rises if they melt

just some quick 10 second finds

google is a great tool
https://anderson-review.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/uclaforecast_Dec2020_Yu.pdf

https://www.iii.org/article/spotlight-on-flood-insurance
($000)
Year    Net premiums   Annual%   Combined   Annual point
           written (1)       change      ratio (2)    change (3)
2017    $470,961.0      0.7%      186.1       92.3 pts.
2018    540,875.0       0.1%        55.0       -131.1
2019    287,197.0       -46.9       58.5       3.5
2020    302,444.0       5.3           50.7       -7.8
2021    524,209.0       73.3       65.0       14.3
2022    768,688.0       46.6       70.8       5.8

By the way, a question - is there any open statistics for example on such indicators:
- number of real estate sales transactions on the coast, preferably with historical data for 3-4 years
- reinsurance of previously insured properties
- growth in the cost of real estate insurance in coastal regions
dynamics of residential real estate offers in such areas

It would be interesting to see, I think if there is realistic information about the problems in a 2-3 year perspective, there will be a noticeable movement in this market, in these directions

My country is one of the countries that will likely suffer from this doomsday glacier, countries will only take action when this happens, powerful countries who could make an impact and create solutions for this catastrophe are busy waging their own wars or preparing for wars, the scenario is not good in the next ten years and it may be too late to take action, the United Nations or green organizations should take action now.
Now is the best time to take action, when this glacier doomsday happens we will have no time to wage war for other countries many nations will have to fight this Doomsday glacier or they will perish.

The process of climate change on our planet has started and has become almost irreversible. It will take a lot of effort from almost all countries to correct the situation. And since all countries are unlikely to agree on joint actions even under the threat of major disasters, the ongoing process will only accelerate, and therefore the melting of glaciers is inevitable. Maps are already being published about which regions and in which countries flooding will occur. Along with this, the climate will change very sharply, since the direction of currents, winds, warm and cold atmospheric fronts will change and often simply cannot be predicted.

there are changes.. but here is the thing. they will never lose. .. there is this thing called insurance. if the property floods. they get a pay out and rebuild. it ends up cheaper than renovating every 10 years

yep many land owners buy cheap property on flood plains. rent it out where the tenants pay off the mortgage/insurance total. and when floods occur the land owner makes a claim and gets his money.

imagine buying a $100k house in 2010, but value it as worth $250k in 20 years, so you take out a $250k policy where premiums are $1430 per year for home owners insurance
your tenants are paying the mortgage+$120/month to cover your insurance cost.
the maths, insurance premiums(via tenants) paid in $1430 for 20 years=$29k~  but you get $250k when a flood happens
all without touching a penny in your own pocket

this is why people that live near the coast dont just sell home to move in-land. they love the idea of insurance payouts and rebuilds.
these days, even fema will chip in a little bit to cover costs of flood