Wouldn't it be completely expected and normal to see polar ice sheets shrinking during an interglacial period?
obviously
>>16280746Generally no. Glaciers are only stable when the climate is stable. Also that implies the glacier melt isnt going to accelerate in the coming years, which it probably will. Exactly when the glaciers will be gone ut anybody's guess though.
>>16280746Also he said 30 million TONNES, not tons (Amerishart moment), so the math is wrong. Multiply 262.8 billion by about 1.1 an you get the real answer (again, assuming it's not going to accelerate)
>>16281970I am not going to dig it out again, last time I did it by following the links from Wikipedia, but the estimated mass change of the Greenland ice mass is smaller than the measurement error. in other words it may be growing for all we know.>probablyyour hope for an 'I told you so' moment is disgusting.
>>16282228>it may be growingit definitely is
>>16283313Right, but we're not really in an interglacial period currently, we're in the transition period between an interglacial period and an ice age.
>>16282228ice sheet mass estimates are extremely low quality, notoriously so
>>16286105That would make it extremely easy to lie about "oy vey the world is coming to an end because muh ice sheets are melting"
>>16281970I remember going to Glacier National Park in the US and they had a sign saying the glaciers would be gone by 2020. They are still there.
>>16281970>when the climate is stableNo such thing as a stable climate, familiarize yourself with the concept of dynamic stability, the climate has never been stable.
>>16288916>dynamic stabilitythats stable tho
>>16288916On long time periods the climate changes. On short time periods the climate is stable and glaciers don't change unless the planet is seriously out of equilibrium.As in billions of tons of ice shouldn't be melting each year. Ice caps of "normal" levels of oscillation.
>>16290090Thats completely wrong, interglacial periods are relatively brief and polar ice needs to decile rapidly during them otherwise all of the planet's water would eventually be locked up in the polar ice caps.Over 100,000 years of polar ice accumulation needs to disappear during a 10,000 year long interglacial period for the world to have ended up as we currently see it.
>>16290093Your post has absolutely nothing to do with what I said.
>>16280746Yes, but not at this current rate
>>16290167wrong, the current rate is pretty much exactly the expected rate for an interglacial period
>>16291206>the current rate is pretty much exactly the expected rate for an interglacial periodsauce, because that is counter to everything I'ver read and heard about it.
>>16292503>Greenland's has a net gain in masssauce, because that too is counter to everything I'ver read and heard about it.
>>16292508>i only read CNN propaganda >i never read actual scientific articles >thats why i consider myself an expert in science
>>16293985Anon, this isn't about me, it's about what you're claiming. The burden of proof is on you.
>>16290090>glaciers don't changethey constantly change, they are a lagging indicator of the climate
>>16280746yes, obviously
>>16295136Ice that was formed on glaciers during the little ice age over 150 years ago still hasn't completely melted. It'll be over a century before its all gone
