There is an Australian e-journal that is popular with many government-types called crikey.com.au. Today the lead story began,
“A chunk of ice seven times the size of Manhattan (as big as the Isle of Man if you prefer a more Anglo-centric news source) is hanging by a thread to the main, still-frozen body of the western Antarctic. Satellite images are showing the rapid disintegration of a 41km x 2.5km ice chunk, a part of the Wilkins Ice Shelf that has been there for hundreds, maybe 1,500 years. It is happening, the scientific consensus seems to be, because the seas are getting warmer. It’s that greenhouse thing.
So, what to do? Blame China? No, we need to take individual responsibility. Wait on the Garnaut report? No, too little too late. We must act now … of course! Let’s turn some lights off on Saturday. For an hour. That’ll fix it. Meanwhile, click on the image below to watch a video of what Earth Hour is up against.” [end of quote]
Anyway, that’s about as clever as it gets even from the so-called alternative media and the story is much the same in The Australian.
Then of course there are the blogs, including some which actually provide data and background information to put the collapse of the icesheet in some context:
“In reality it and all the former shelves that collapsed are small and most near the Antarctic peninsula which sticks well out from Antarctica into the currents and winds of the South Atlantic and lies in a tectonically active region with surface and subsurface active volcanic activity. The vast continent has actually cooled since 1979…
“The full Wilkins 6,000 square mile ice shelf is just 0.39% of the current ice sheet (just 0.1% of the extent last September). Only a small portion of it between 1/10th-1/20th of Wilkins has separated so far, like an icicle falling off a snow and ice covered house. And this winter is coming on quickly. In fact the ice is returning so fast, it is running an amazing 60% ahead (4.0 vs 2.5 million square km extent) of last year when it set a new record. The ice extent is already approaching the second highest level for extent since the measurements began by satellite in 1979 and just a few days into the Southern Hemisphere winter and 6 months ahead of the peak. Wilkins like all the others that temporarily broke up will refreeze soon. We are very likely going to exceed last year’s record. Yet the world is left with the false impression Antarctica’s ice sheet is also starting to disappear.”
Read the complete blog post and check out meteorologist Joseph D’Aleo graphs at http://icecap.us/index.php/go/political-climate.
Then there is more information from Anthony Watt’s:
Map of volcanoes in Antarctica
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/antarcticvolcanoes2.jpg
This image is from NASA, and shows areas with greatest warming in Antarctica are near the peninsula and pacific ring of fire groups of volcanoes:
http://veimages.gsfc.nasa.gov//17529/antarctic_temps.AVH1982-2004.jpg
here is the original article
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images.php3?img_id=17257
But now look at what Wikipedia has done to it:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Antarctic_temps.AVH1982-2004.jpg
They say ” they image is misleading…visit the discussion page”…okey dokey, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image_talk:Antarctic_temps.AVH1982-2004.jpg
and on that page they say “use alternative image” (GISS maps) instead which is this:
And it STILL shows a big red area over the ataractic peninsula where volcanism is the strongest.
[end of quote from Anthony].
Thank goodness for the internet.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
The Antarctic is one enormous ice generating machine and ice shelf collapse is the ice cap equivalent of glacial calving. In both cases enormous flows of ice from the poles seaward cause ice to continually break off into the oceans at the ice cap perimeter.
That said the mean temperature of the Antarctic is still well below zero degrees Celsius, so anyone who thinks that global warming that causes the Antarctic mean temperture to rise from -60 degrees Celsius to -55 degrees Celsius causes ice melting has a poor understanding of the physical sciences.
This report is nothing more than scare mongering by the mindless media minions of the IPCC, and with the obligatory po-faced earnestness of the the taillights of the journalistic profession.
“A part of the Wilkins Ice Shelf that has been there for hundreds, maybe 1,500 years. It is happening, the scientific consensus seems to be, because the seas are getting warmer. It’s that greenhouse thing.”
Did the writer even stop to think that an ice sheet that is only a few hundred years old must have broke off in the recent past too? Most likely during the MWP which warmers insist did not not happen.
If anything, the age of ice sheet supports the theory that the climate goes through natural cycles that have nothing to do with humans.
“A part of the Wilkins Ice Shelf that has been there for hundreds, maybe 1,500 years. It is happening, the scientific consensus seems to be, because the seas are getting warmer. It’s that greenhouse thing.”
Did the writer even stop to think that an ice sheet that is only a few hundred years old must have broke off in the recent past too? Most likely during the MWP which warmers insist did not not happen.
If anything, the age of ice sheet supports the theory that the climate goes through natural cycles that have nothing to do with humans.
Pretty obvious it must be AGW by the quickdraw denialist denial. Volcanoes indeed – what malarky. They must be all around Antarctica stirring up the atmosphere and oceans. Reality is that glacial flow in Western Antarctica has sped up significantly in many systems. Warmer waters and air temperatures eroding the frontal buttresses. It’s AGW at work.
Isn’t annoying when you’re having a big run on denial and a massive chunk of the Antarctic shears off. Bugger. Couldn’t have scripted it better. Charismatic mega ice chunks beat esoteric things like water vapour 10:1.
Couldn’t have scripted it better.
Indeed not chunks break off because they are too heavy (you know too much mass to be supported) not because they are melting away at.
Alarmists are forced to concentrate on part of the West Antarctic that sticks out into the currents and winds of South Atlantic, plus there may be tectonic and volcanic activity. Yawn, bring on the next non-scary scare.
Meanwhile, I don’t suppose we will hear about the satellite near record sea ice extent:
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/current_anom_south0325.
But fear not, if global CO2 emissions are reduced to ZERO, TODAY, NOW, including China and India, we’ll all be saved in 500 years time:
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/002801.html
Don’t wait until tomorrow – zero today.
There is no such thing as a “scientific Consensus”.
When you hear or read of this “consensus” then it is total pseudoscience.
Try this
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/current_anom_south0325.jpg
feel free to delete when fixed Paul
Luke, read the post previous to yours!
I would go along with the proposal, that if an ice sheet was only 400 or so years old, than it must have been broken off before or never existed in the first place.
As to your own posts, I only been following this blog for a few weeks and having read some of your offerings, I came to the conclusion, that either you are taking the piss in a grand way, or …(you are a pretentious git with not a single thought originating in your own cranium).
I sincerely hope it is the former, I like people with a warped sense of humor.
Good luck with your projects!
Luke, glacial flow has accelerated in recent years means that ice production at the glacier source has accelerated – not due to warming at its distal end.
If your understanding were correct, then the distal end of the said glacier would recede upwards to its source area.
As it is not, but continually disgorging icebergs by the well known process of “glacial calving” means you are, geoscientifically, a complete ignoramus.
Paul, this is hilarious. This is the least well researched post I have seen in this blog. It’s a joke really. And using Anthony Watts to say that it’s due to volcanism is HILARIOUS. Because he knows all about volcanoes… Yes he does.
I think you need to learn the difference between extent and volume.
No it doesn’t Louis. Go do some research. That’s the small part. The grounding lines are also moving. Do try to keep up and read Rignot’s work.
So how long have you been reading the literature on Antarctica Ms Russ – have another margarita
No it doesn’t Louis. Go do some research. That’s the small part. The grounding lines are also moving. Do try to keep up and read Rignot’s work.
So how long have you been reading the literature on Antarctica Ms Russ – have another margarita
For the last 29+ years, there has been no Antarctic warming. The trends are negative. Find another reason for the calving of an ice island. It’s not AGW.
SoPol Negative Trend:
http://tinypic.com/ fullsize.php?pic=ehrp3&s=3&capwidth=false
SoPol Land Negative Trend:
http://tinypic.com/ fullsize.php?pic=35bxmy1&s=3&capwidth=false
SoPol Ocean Negative Trend:
http://tinypic.com/ fullsize.php?pic=2nle1yp&s=3&capwidth=false
Graphs are of MSU data
There’s also an oceanic connection between El Nino oscillations and the Southern Ocean.
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/ releases/ 2002/ release_2002_54.html
Full paper here.
http://neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov/ publications/ pdf/ pubs2002/ 2_Southern_Ocean_Climate.pdf
Regards
Sorry about the links above. I tried to clean them up a couple of times, to no avail.
Bob,
Too many spaces in the links… You may want to have a look into the Antarctic Circumpolar Wave (ACW). Have a look at this site and the links to papers there:
http://jedac.ucsd.edu/ACW/index.html
Looking through the history of when the ACW sat over the Antarctic Peninsula ties (like where it’s right now) ties in with both the 1995 and 2002 Larsen ice-shelf collapses. This IMHO is the causative factor that led to the shelf collapses.
There is also a link between the ACW and ENSO (and possibly the IOD), and this certainly has a major effect on long term Australian climate…
cheers
Arnost
Arnost – you might ask why Antarctic circulation changes?
Here’s some science that links stratospheric ozone depletion and greenhouse with an altering Antarctic circulation.
http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-basics/antarctic_facts
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci;302/5643/273
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2004/2004GL020724.shtml
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/311/5769/1914 and we do have major warming of the Antarctic mid-troposhere
Paul, this is hilarious
http://www.nsf.gov/discoveries/disc_summ.jsp?cntn_id=109683
You might enjoy this. I though you were a geologist, what sort are you?
IMO it’s much better to stay with the major media for first hand observations and interviews
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hvgbwRoBCsttrkhOqhvZFlFuT_uw
“There is no such thing as a “scientific Consensus”.
When you hear or read of this “consensus” then it is total pseudoscience.”
Lets all celebrate the blog consensus.
Jan, I have read about the volcanoes under and near the Peninsula. It’s been discussed on this blog many times.
So the big question is: Has volcanic activity suddenly increased? The answer being “No”
It is interesting though. Volcanoes are pretty cool.
I did mostly geophysics, but currently work at the GSWA.
Hilarious…Volcanic activity…you denialists are gettimg desperate..
Isn’t it poor understanding of science that makes the hoax go round?
My question is: who exactly is paying your bills jen?…let me guess…starts with ‘c’ and ends with ‘l industry’
Let me guess…Volcanic activity is also causing the Arctic to become Summer ice free and the dramatic decline in Glaciers?? amazing..
For those that question the age of Wilkins…hilarious that you ignore the Larsen disintegrating which was thousands of years old.
Denialists….like shooting fish in a barrel.
Mr T, Volcanoes are pretty cool.
I thought they were rather hot. You know my mother used to say when I was very young that we would visit grandma if a certain hill (Merapi) started blowing more smoke. It took a while to figure out why it would take a volcano blowing it’s top for my mum to visit her mum. I loved them both but they didn’t get along.
Back to the issue Whether or not volcanic activity in the antarctic has increased there is activity down there and the area is somewhat unstable. I read somewhere that Tasmania is tipping up one side (west??) because of such activity I can’t remember where though.
One would think with this dramatic increase of under water polar volcanic activity there would be the tell tale increase in seismic activity…but nup there is not….c’mon denialists come up with something better than stealth volcanoes!
4 Bill, actually there has been a significant increase in seismic activity world-wide over the last 20+ years…
I guess that nobody will suggest that USGS is a particularly biased body – so have a peek at how the earthquakes have increased since 1990 according to them.
http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/eqlists/eqstats.html
http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/eqlists/info_1990s.html
I doubt that all the increases can be attributed to better measurements – especially the nearly 100% increase in the 2.0 – 5.9 magnitude earthquakes since 2000.
This is a link for the 1980’s – however you’ll have to use the “wayback machine” as it no longer exists.
http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/eqlists/1980s.html
Please crawl back under your rock again – or until your attitude improves…
thanks
Arnost
well said, Arnost.
Lets also not forget that Antarctica needs to shed more than 1000km3 of ice each year just to offset new ice formation from precipitation. If it doesn’t calve this much the sea level will actually drop. In fact, given that some of the ice is already below the water line, much more must be calved to prevent a drop in sea level.
The U.S. media, almost all left-wing, jumped on this and reported in the national news that the ice shelf break was due to global warming–no ifs, ands, or buts. Consensus with the population is achieved with repetitive brain washing.
“I guess that nobody will suggest that USGS is a particularly biased body..”
Quite a few people think they are when it comes to Polar bears.
“Such occurrences are “more indicative of a tipping point or trigger in the climate system,” said Sarah Das, a scientist at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute.”
I love how climate alarmist “scientists” such as Das use their climate alarmist terminology like “tipping point” or “trigger”. It’s just the sort of pablum the drooling climate alarmists love to gobble.
Luke: There are also studies linking solar cycles to the Southern Annular Mode.
The USGS is a government body and therefore subject to political pressure as any government body. The brightest and best work for private industry while those who can’t often end up on the government payroll.
This is not to say that there are not bright ones in the USGS or any of the Australian geological surveys, but those of us at the coalface in mineral exploration have certain views based on experience, and the various government departments do what their political masters bid.
Luke,
your argument is rejected – you are incapable of writing, in your own words, a precis of what you regard contradicting my statements.
You are nothing but a blathering but erudite fool, using typical lefty argumentation expecting your opponents to refute your own allegations rather than demostrate the verity of your own by evidence.
You have not put up any evidence here.
Louis – you have a small problem – I simply now ignore everything you write as you really are so blinkered in your ways that you are unlikely to even consider anything other than your own POV – learned 50 years ago in one class on some ideotypical European glacier.
OK – let’s see what did you rant on about 20 posts ago. Dum de dum de dum….
was it …. “glacial flow has accelerated in recent years means that ice production at the glacier source has accelerated – not due to warming at its distal end.”
It’s a fair enough hypothesis – but glaciologists have gone to a place called Antarctica and also used other devices which are termed “earth orbiting satellites” – Landsat, Radarsat, ERS1 etc to measure rate of flow, survey grounding line positions, and ground height. They then undertake all manner of calculations on mass balance. Analyses and communication devices called papers are then written with the results whcih you and I may read. For example Google Rignot’s recent work as I told you.
A number of western Antarctic and a few eastern Antarctic systems have increased in discharge dramatically. The erosion of the frontal buttress by warming waters and air temperature seems to be the key issue. Some systems in other locations are not behaving this way.
I have not wildly extrapolated to major rises in sea level. Indeed scientists do seem to be aware that discharge and breakup need to be balanced against some increased snowpack – predicted by AGW and observed. But the western Antarctic glaciers are a very good example of climate change processes in action.
Now I would have had a look myself for such an author – anyone seriously interested would have easily found a number of references searching on Google (which is called a search engine on a thing called the “internet”) using “rignot glacier antarctica”.
You’re highly unlikely to read it but a major review is here.
Nature Geoscience 1, 106 – 110 (2008)
Published 13 January 2008
Recent Antarctic ice mass loss from radar interferometry and regional climate modelling
Eric Rignot1,2,3, Jonathan L. Bamber4, Michiel R. van den Broeke5, Curt Davis6, Yonghong Li6, Willem Jan van de Berg5 & Erik van Meijgaard7
It says in part
“The mass balance of Antarctica is determined from the difference between two competing processes of ice discharge into the ocean by glaciers and ice streams and accumulation of snowfall in the vast interior, which are two large numbers affected by significant uncertainties2, 12. Estimates of ice discharge have been sporadic in nature owing to the limited availability of ice velocity and thickness data at the grounding line of Antarctica, as well as precise knowledge of the grounding-line positions. Similarly, estimates of snowfall have been affected by uncertainties associated with the interpolation of sparse in situ data of varying quality and temporal coverage over the entire continent.
Here, we present a nearly complete map of surface velocities along the periphery of Antarctica (Fig. 1) obtained from interferometric synthetic-aperture radar (InSAR) data collected between 1992 and 2006 by the European Earth Remote Sensing (ERS-1 and 2), the Canadian Radarsat-1 and the Japanese Advanced Land Observing satellites. Our map covers all major outlet glaciers, ice streams and tributaries of importance for mass flux calculation, with ice velocity ranging from 100 to 3,500 m yr-1, at a precision of 5 to 50 m yr-1 (see the Methods section). Short-time variations in velocity, for example, due to ocean tides, are averaged out over the 24 to 46 day repeat period of our measurements. Velocities at the grounding line of fast-moving glaciers are assumed to be depth independent, which introduces errors of much less than 1% (ref. 3). ”
and
“Glaciers that flow into large ice shelves (basins JK, F’E, BC) are near balance or thickening. This is consistent with their stabilization by buttressing and their distance to ocean heat sources associated with the Antarctic Circumpolar Current22. Mass losses in the Amundsen Sea and the northern Peninsula are caused by ongoing acceleration, not by a change in snowfall because snowfall increased in 1980–2004, especially in the Peninsula17. Fast flow is explained by the ungrounding of glaciers owing to the thinning or collapse of their buttressing ice shelves6 or to a reduction in backforce resistance at the ice front as glacier fronts thin because of warmer air or warmer ocean temperatures4, 9. In the Amundsen Sea and the western Peninsula, ice-shelf melting is fuelled by intrusions of warm circumpolar deep water (CDW) onto the continental shelf down deep troughs carved into the sea floor during past ice ages24, 25. In East Antarctica, there is no report of CDW intrusion in Wilkes Land. A southward migration of the Antarctic Circumpolar Current26 caused by an increasingly positive southern annular mode may have, in favourable conditions24, entrained overspills of CDW onto the continental shelf and trigger glacier acceleration, but this hypothesis cannot be confirmed at present.
Our results provide a nearly complete assessment of the spatial pattern in mass flux and mass change along the coast of Antarctica, glacier by glacier, with lower error bounds than in previous incomplete surveys, and a delineation of areas of changes versus areas of near stability. Over the time period of our survey, the ice sheet as a whole was certainly losing mass, and the mass loss increased by 75% in 10 years. Most of the mass loss is from Pine Island Bay sector of West Antarctica and the northern tip of the Peninsula where it is driven by ongoing, pronounced glacier acceleration. In East Antarctica, the loss is near zero, but the thinning of its potentially unstable marine sectors calls for attention. In contrast to major increases in ice discharge, snowfall integrated over Antarctica did not change in 1980–2004 (ref. 27) and even slightly increased in areas of large loss17. We conclude that the Antarctic ice sheet mass budget is more complex than indicated by the temporal evolution of its surface mass balance. Changes in glacier dynamics are significant and may in fact dominate the ice sheet mass budget.”
To which you will simply say fiddlesticks so I have wasted more time on you hey?
But do try to keep up Louis and seek help for those seniors moments.
most of what you wrote is simply false. a good start would be a look at some research results about the antarctic ice.
start here:
Measurements of Time-Variable Gravity Show Mass Loss in Antarctica
Isabella Velicogna1,2* and John Wahr1*
Using measurements of time-variable gravity from the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment satellites, we determined mass variations of the Antarctic ice sheet during 2002–2005. We found that the mass of the ice sheet decreased significantly, at a rate of 152 ± 80 cubic kilometers of ice per year, which is equivalent to 0.4 ± 0.2 millimeters of global sea-level rise per year. Most of this mass loss came from the West Antarctic Ice Sheet.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/311/5768/1754
Get with the program, sod!
Velacogna’s cherry-picking propaganda was already obliterated here: http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/002547.html when Mr Ender and Lil’Lukefish already got slaughtered — Lukefish especially, for grotesque cut’n’paste offenses that bordered on copyright fraud. Not to mention he failed to understand what he read, and proceeded to gloat before he got called on it!
Rest easy though, the study you cited is in the minority, and cherry-picked to boot. Perhaps you can understand better than the guppy — a very low standard, I know, but baselining at his level, there’s no where to go but up.
Yea sure. Dream on.
Whoa Lukefish, you’re still here? Well, welcome to another “Antarctic” thread! Hope you brought more fight with you this time — you get hooked so fast, it’s hardly sport any more.
Did you ever think our host is just dangling these “antarctic” threads just to bait you and the rest of the warmers? Didn’t take you long this time, either.
Mccall. That’s hilarious! You think that a blog post ‘slaughters’ a paper… Especially this blog!
Arnost,
I guess you propose that Volcanic activity is also causing the Arctic to radically melt….LOL…
Denialists> rabidly zealot in their pursuit of a parallel reality…LOL…..
Arnost,
Can you show evidence of increased Volcanic activity in the area specific to the disintegration of the Wlikins, Larson etc? should be pretty easy…what with these modern Seismographs they have these days….but thats right…. Govenrment Geologists are involved with the Global warming conspiracy…LOL…
==================================================
I guess Volcanic activity is cause for Global rise in SST as well….lol
==================================================
Truly denialists are the hilarious lunatic fringe…
Well, well, well. Lots of clever casuistry but nothing will alter the fact that Bimbolopithicus climatensis would have us believe that global warming has caused a large calving from an ice sheet.
But there hasn’t been any warming since 1998, especially in the southern hemisphere. So this phenomena cannot, possibly be attributed to a warming that has not taken place.
And as the prevailing ocean currents circle the Antarctic continental coast, then the concept of localised sea surface warming, of any significance, is only plausible to the complete global village idiots.
And one could have sworn that these massive ice shelves have the major portion of their mass below the water line so the critical part of the thermocline is well below the surface. And it can only interface with the bottom of the ice, not the entire ice column.
And in such circumstances of restricted water volume under a thick ice shelf, a modest heat increment from a volcanic vent similar to that of Kilauea (Hawaii) will have a disproportionate and cumulative impact. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilauea
Much of the worlds volcanic activity involves continuous, low volume venting.
“The current Kīlauea eruption began in January 1983 along the East rift zone from Puʻu ʻŌʻō–Kūpaʻianahā and continues to produce lava flows that travel 11 to 12 km from these vents to the sea. This eruption has covered over 117 km² of land on the southern flank of Kīlauea and has built out into the sea 2 km² (230 hectares) of new land. Since 1983 more than 2.7 km³ of lava has been erupted, making the 1983-to-present eruption the largest historically known for Kīlauea”.
These sort of venting events do not involve major seismic activity or highly visible eruptions. So the sneering of the bimboscenti merely highlights the extent of their ignorance.
Note that the average discharge from Kilauea has been in the order of 0.108km3 each year for 25 years. So an under water vent of only a half of this would still deliver 0.054km3 over a one year interval. And that is at a temperature of about 1200C, enough to raise the temperature of 324km3 of water by 0.2C.
And at the interface of ice and water beneath an ice shelf, it could melt a similar volume of ice, thereby altering the load dynamics of the sheet above.
And unlike global temperature increases, that clearly have not been present for the past decade, we know that volcanic venting is present in the area. The only unknown is the exact locations and volumes of that venting.
Hilarious to propose that warming is not occuring, when recent years have been the hottest ever recorded…you propose nothing more than statistical sophistry…
==================================================
“The only unknown is the exact locations and volumes of that venting.”
That is because there is no significant venting as there would be seismic activity locating it.
=================================================
“Thus one sees the young princes of Egypt hurl themselves at the palisades of reality, in the fervent hope that the Lady of de Nile may notice their zeal and find favour for them.”
-from the journal ‘verily they could not defeat reality’ 2008
Hilarious chaps…tally ho and all that.
The subject of this link has some bright folks round the place puzzled however it probably illustrates one of my points made frequent on the blog; we are divided (and perhaps limited) by our thinking process.
http://scienceline.org/2007/10/29/ask-hsu-spinning-girl-right-left-brain-hemispheres
gavin: what fun she spins backward and forward.
The illusion of going either circular, direction is caused by a lack of foreshortening in extended limbs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspective_(graphical)
A Norwegian study/ research that will be published in the American scientific journal ” Geographical Research Letters” , states that according to the Norwegian Polar Institute , the sea ice around the island Hopen ( Spitzbergen) , has decreased in thickness with 40 cm during the last 40 years , and the sea ice is now under 1 meter.
This is the first long time study on sea ice thickness in the Barents Sea.
The general decrease in sea ice around Hopen is in accordance with the general reduce in sea ice thickness in the whole Arctic , states the Norwegian Polar Insitute.
Ian Mott, I suggest you research how much warmer has occurred in the Antarctic Peninsula (where the Ice sheet is) – it’s warmed significantly.
Luke,
“So how long have you been reading the literature on Antarctica Ms Russ – have another margarita”
Thank you Luke, I will.
Oh, I have read quite a few books about the Antarctic, like Shackleton’s Voyage, and Scott of the Antarctic among others, and all of them say it’s rather cold down there.
Now these references may not seem too scientific, but dare I say, they are on par with your offerings.
Velacogna’s cherry-picking propaganda was already obliterated here: http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/002547.html when Mr Ender and Lil’Lukefish already got slaughtered
this is false again.
you are basing your claims on a handful of old papers, that have been contradicted by newer work.
the authors of the sdudies cited by you, CONTRADICT the way you are interpreting their results:
http://www.factcheck.org/article395.html
do you have any substance to offer?
Let me get this sorted out, for my own benefit if nothing else.
Luke puts up a dated study of the EDGES of Antarctica (Nothing on the middle of the continent where the ice would be building up. Nothing newer then 2006. Why even bother writing the thing?), and how they moved at the surface, which Rignot assumes says something about subsurface ice flow and the continental ice shelf.
Then Rignot confirms that ice shelves are calving due to being on a peninsula, which juts out into the circumpolar ocean conveyor, just like Jen does.
Only he forgets to mention the volcanos.
This is Luke’s great revelation?
That is lame.
Luke puts up a dated study of the EDGES of Antarctica (Nothing on the middle of the continent where the ice would be building up. Nothing newer then 2006. Why even bother writing the thing?),
well, you could simply read this article from last year:
After a century of polar exploration, the past decade of satellite measurements has painted an altogether new picture of how Earth’s ice sheets are changing. As global temperatures have risen, so have rates of snowfall, ice melting, and glacier flow. Although the balance between these opposing processes has varied considerably on a regional scale, data show that Antarctica and Greenland are each losing mass overall. Our best estimate of their combined imbalance is about 125 gigatons per year of ice, enough to raise sea level by 0.35 millimeters per year.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci;315/5818/1529
you are in contradiction with FACTS. face it.
I suggest you kids look into the destabilization and collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet and what it means to sea level.
==================================================
The ongoing collapse of the Wilkins (the Wilkins was not expected to collapse for another thirty years) and other Ice sheets, and speeding up of the PIG and Thwaite Glaciers signify growing instability of the WAIS.
The WAIS was expected to collapse between 300 and a thousand years from now…the smart money is now on the next twenty years….one only need realise the Arctic is disintegrating 50 times faster than expected to see how quickly things are evolving.
Gosh, now 4billion has discovered the PIG. Read “another day, another melting glacier scare” at http://ianmott.blogspot.com/ and spare us the crap.
“The WAIS was expected to collapse between 300 and a thousand years from now…the smart money is now on the next twenty years….”
Come again? Smart money? The climate bimbos don’t have any money, fella, wankers rarely do.
So how about putting up some of your “smart money”, 4billy, its only 20 years away? You clearly haven’t the faintest idea of the volumes of ice involved and their current melt rates. You are nothing but a seething mass of cliches flying in formation, to no-where.
And Mr T, you are referring to a localised warming, not a global warming, nor even a hemispheric warming. And that means it could just as easily have warmed anywhere else and probably will warm somewhere else after this local warming cools down again. It is the way the planet works. Get used to it.
And for those with a retention deficit, it warmed, then it stopped warming, for a decade. The term “warming” refers to a continuous state of increasing warmth. A temperature plateau is not a warming.
Gosh, now 4billion has discovered the PIG. Read “another day, another melting glacier scare” at http://ianmott.blogspot.com/ and spare us the crap.
“The WAIS was expected to collapse between 300 and a thousand years from now…the smart money is now on the next twenty years….”
Come again? Smart money? The climate bimbos don’t have any money, fella, wankers rarely do.
So how about putting up some of your “smart money”, 4billy, its only 20 years away? You clearly haven’t the faintest idea of the volumes of ice involved and their current melt rates. You are nothing but a seething mass of cliches flying in formation, to no-where.
And Mr T, you are referring to a localised warming, not a global warming, nor even a hemispheric warming. And that means it could just as easily have warmed anywhere else and probably will warm somewhere else after this local warming cools down again. It is the way the planet works. Get used to it.
And for those with a retention deficit, it warmed, then it stopped warming, for a decade. The term “warming” refers to a continuous state of increasing warmth. A temperature plateau is not a warming.
I might add that I tend to agree with Endersbee that alot of the water at the earth’s surface comes from non-rainfall primary water, so that apparent sea level rise might be more due to humanity’s continual pumping of ground water causing the landmasses to sink, relative to sea-level.
Our IPCC mini-minions here attribute variations in sea level exclusively to variations in the polar ice caps.
I suppose when the only tool they are given is an ice-pick, then it is logical that they only search for icebergs to pick.
Hilarious…the angry lunatic fringe….LOL
==================================================
I am not talking about WAIS melting, ‘tard…I am talking about WAIS collapse…go figure out what the diference is, then get back to me.
==================================================
The Arctic will be summer sea ice free in three years…it has lost 20% in the last 2 years motter foker…it was expected to be summer ice free in 100 years. Thus it can be seen that things are moving at a faster rate than expected.
==================================================
Thanks for link but no thanks.:-)
Well what a fruit loop fun fest.
James – you silly billy and goose – it’s more than the edges – read the title and the paper. And Sod’s other listed paper shows some more. As for 2006 – gee we’re sorry it’s not instantaneous – perhaps you’d like a live feed from the glacier. Take a hike chump.
Boofheadess waddlerenis var noshameii single handly dismisses all studies of changes in Antarctic circulation from an irrelevant Wiki article. Breathtaking ignorance. Wonder how the volcanoes warmed the mid-troposphere with no visible signs.
And changes in SAM and ACC too. Wonder why a temperature probe dragged over the new volcanic vent hardly even registered a blip.
The volcano stuff is utter crap.
And as for the PIG – the whole Mottsian calculus is wrong – so far out it’s really funny. Isn’t the internet a wonderful thing when any wingnut can open a blog and have a little rant. But we’ll let him find out why. No point in doing him too quickly.
And why does McCall have a piscine fetish? It’s weird.
hello!! 4 billion!
I’m supposed to be on the booze here, according to brother Luke, so what are you on, old son!?
Luke: Those who can’t see the AGW connection should definitly do the spin test above
Hi Margarita….I am not on anything in particular. Though I had enough of the Vodka on Sunday night to need ressurection…. I do find ‘angry’ Ian’s outbursts hilarious.
My WAIS proposal may sound a long stretch, but that is because people are in the mind set of ‘melting’, I am proposing collapse.
Collapse can occur very quickly as in The Prince Gustav Channel, Larsen Inlet, Larsen A+B, Wordie, Muller, Jones and now partial Wilkins Ice shelf collapse.
It is a far faster water delivery mechanism than melting.
Margarita: regardless of any starting point in physics it comes down to us witnessing almost constant sea level rise and ice retreating. Rates of change can vary decade to decade but the SL trend is up.
How can I be so sure? There are several beaches I have watched over a lifetime. Each one has an older inland shelf where the sea used to be some time ago. Step change is highly probable if not certain. Also any amateur observer in the right place can see some progression of high tides up the beach over time, not the other way.
Initial causes we may guess but any theoretical solution regarding periods of relative equilibrium must also involve the response sooner or later of all surface life. I hope everything can evolve short term including the blog math.
The WAIS collapse will be created by warm sea water partially encroaching the interface between Ice and Bedrock of the WAIS (remembering that this interface is below sea level). The Ice aboove the encroachment will naturally be inclined to float, causing shear force, of which, ice is none to good at withstanding and said ice mass breaks off. This, in turn, exposes fresh ice/rock interface to be encroached and the process repeats itself.
This process is also magnified by wave action. Wave action becomes more infuential due to the diminished sea ice and Ice shelves exposing interface.
I note there is deafening silence from the denialist camp concerning the rapidly approaching sea ice free Arctic summers….gee..I wonder why they don’t want to mention that? hilarious.
Yes – agree collapse and disintegration is more than the issue than it all melting away. The whole continent melting ruse has been well overused.
Luke: he whole continent melting ruse has been well overused.
Wow couldn’t agree more.
Jan: take this hint, a rising sea can lift a sheet of ice.
gavin:take this hint, a rising sea can lift a sheet of ice.
Are you serious? I never knew that ice would float let alone even rise on a rising sea or maybe even a very long wave swell. You are truly amazing gavin with such a wealth of hidden knowledge -a veritable walking encyclopedia. What is your secret how did you get so smart?
Jeez, sod — what is this? It’s like I’m watching you guys compete in MPFC’s Upperclass Twit Olympics. You guys can’t even jump over a match box.
Most of the melt and ice loss is (west) on Antarctic peninsula, an area about the size of Montana and containing ~220,000km^3 of ice. Okay, extend that to entire WAIS, ~3,000,000km^3 of ice with ~50% of the area in measurable decline (~30% increasing and 20% no change). Now compare that to the EAIS volume of ~24,000,000km^3 of ice volume the interior of which is measurably growing, and in conjunction with a declining in average temp from 1979-present.
Despite Davis’ protest, his ‘05 study showed net Antarctic growth over a decade from 1993-2003 (include Dr. Mann’s dreaded “1998′ end of the 1990s). The Davis’ study only overlaps the start of Velicogna’s 3+ years of CHERRY-PICKED decline. You twits can’t see the cherry-pick? Dr Davis’ protests don’t mean squat, when his study draws from over 3X times period of accumulation and the lions share of ice area and volume in Antarctica. You can’t fight the overwhelming numbers. BTW, there are also other ‘06 published studies that show growth: Chen et al.; Ramillien et al.; and van de Berg et al.
Oh, and Antarctica is ~2X the lower 48 of USA in area (and you know how 2-faced Dr. Hansen tried to minimize the impact of something that size). To paraphrase a recent commercial, “what happens in the East Antarctic Ice Sheet, dominates Antarctica!” Cause that is where nearly over 85% of the ice is!
This is like shooting fish in barrel…
Nothing like a picture to sort stuff out.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/antarctic.jpg
Notice no multi year sea ice around the Wilkins area. The only area open to the sea.
Ah well – summer downunder is over and it took this long for the doom merchants to find a reason to report on Antarctica.
re: “I note there is deafening silence from the denialist camp concerning the rapidly approaching sea ice free Arctic summers….gee..I wonder why they don’t want to mention that? hilarious.”
Wow — another twit tripped over the match box! Physics Q: is (the floating) polar ice cap melt a possible source of catastrophic sea level increase? Now we’re not talking about the Greenland Ice Sheet (which is over land), but the F-L-O-A-T-I-N-G polar ice cap? Why your right — millions drowned(?) lying on the worlds beaches last August(?) during the record ice free arctic melt(?) … um, NEVER MIND!
Definitely a fish fetish.
Don’t bother changing the subject James – you’ve been caught talking utter crap.
Hi mccall!
Hilarious…another angry denialist…I feel like I’ve landed on a tropical island and discovered a coupla 70 year old Japanese soldiers still fighting the war…and they are none to happy ’bout it…don’t worry chaps…. I’m sure the Emperor will rise again!
It seems the significance of the melting Arctic flies straight over your head…have a bex and a lie down, think about it, and you will realise it is a massive indicator of Climate change which is the issue at hand concerning the collapse of the WAIS.
Sod: “Our best estimate of their combined imbalance is about 125 gigatons per year of ice, enough to raise sea level by 0.35 millimeters per year.”
Holy tsunami Batman! Run for the hills! That’s a whole 1 and a half inches per century!
Given that the raw global temperature has not increased for 10 years and 25+ years if you normalize for volcanic activity, it’s no surprise that the warministas are grasping onto these ice related nonevents in their efforts to support their nonscience! (or nonsense if you really want to get down to it)
Hi Angry denialists,
The collapse of the WAIS leads to the sea rising 5 meters.
mccal..or is that mcaw?…you seem a bit of a parrot..interesting that you try and introduce ‘class’ into Global warming debate…a hilarious development, I have not seen before..so I take it that the proletariat does not accept Global warming is happening? hilarious..maybe you could write a bit of peoples poetry lyrically telling of how the bourgesie tried to take your V8 commodore away..not from your cold dead hands no doubt! ….hilarious.
The lack of sea ice off the Antarctic peninsular as pictured http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/antarctic.jpg
kindly supplied by James, is bad news, as there is no protection for the edge of ice sheets and Glaciers from incoming swell, meaning a heightened rate of collapse.
as there is no protection for the edge of ice sheets and Glaciers from incoming swell, meaning a heightened rate of collapse.
Isn’t that the case there every summer?
I don’t know what the average summer sea ice area has been prior to warming of Antarctic peninsular and surrounding waters.
Wow, it’s like someone opened the doors of an insane asylum, and allowed all these idiotically laughing, drooling, pablum-gobbling climate hysterics out. It’s like a scene from Night of the Living Dead. Back! Back, I say!
“Dr Davis’ protests don’t mean squat, when his study draws from over 3X times period of accumulation and the lions share of ice area and volume in Antarctica.”
———————
yes, forget what the author says!
sounds reasonable…
if you have anything with substance, now it is the time to bringit up. so far you sceptics have brought absolutely ZERO credible information to this topic.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.365.south.jpg
Some collapse!
4: don’t know what the average summer sea ice area has been prior to warming of Antarctic peninsular and surrounding waters.
It’s good of you to say so but photos of the Australian research stations show open ocean and the odd ship in port in summer photos where currently according to the the chart there is currently sea ice. Looks like winter is a little early down there this year.
Bruce Knob horrified at the news – gee I don’t have anything to counter that – heck that ice collapse was a bit of a blow to our latest campaign – and we’d planned it for so long too – hmmmmm – OK where’s my daily cue card – OK you “idiotically laughing, drooling, pablum-gobbling climate hysterics ”
Wonder what Aynsley would say.
Poor, frightened Pukey Lukey, terrified of an iceberg. It’s a tipping point, a trigger, they cry! Typical diaper-filled, drooling, pablum-gobbling climate hysteric.
Hilarious…as more evidence of Climate change becomes apparent the denialistas become more shrill in their catterwalling.
It is only the lunatic fringe that can look at the collapsing Ice shelves and not think things are changing.
Jan..winter did not come early enough to save part of the Wlikins.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
Excellent site…truly sceptical
Jan, the Hadley centre present a different story about Antarctic sea ice.
It may have slightly increased over the last few years, but in the long term their best estimate is for a large reduction.
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadisst/HadISST_paper.pdf
Their estimates for the 19th and early twentieth century are up around (and exceeding) 20 million km2
Touring word “estimate”. Bunch of doom merchants take a guess and by some miracle, ignoring all contradictory evidence, they come up with global warming is going strong and unless we shut down all human endeavers forthwith, we are all gonna die. Nevermind that ten foot deep snowpack. You aren’t really cold – see this GISS graph – it’s just your imagination.
Piff.
Yesterday I noted a strange lack of sea ice on the western edge of the Antarctic peninsula.
Here is further reading.
http://www.parks.tas.gov.au/fahan_mi_shipwrecks/infohut/acc.htm
“At the narrowest part of the ocean, south of the southern tip of South America, the International Southern Ocean Studies Group spent 6 years measuring the flow of water through Drakes Passage. It found that the (Antarctic Circumpolar) current carried about 134 x 106 cu. metres per second of ocean water through the passage. Such a huge volume is difficult to visualise; so perhaps one can relate it to all the water in Sydney Harbour passing you in 3 seconds! The flow is equivalent to a current of approximately 10 -18 km per day. Some of the sea water in the ACC travels the 24,000 km. around the world in about 8 years.”
Wow, the largest current on the planet funneled through Drakes Passage by the Antarctic Peninsula. Imagine that.
Now here’s something else that’s pretty interesting.
“Using the data from the latest satellites that measure the sea surface temperature and height, scientists have noticed that the temperature of the water in the current varies, some parts are 2-3 degrees C warmer (shown in red) while other parts are 2-3 degrees C colder (shown in blue)than the average. There are two warmer and two colder pools and each one is several thousands of kilometres long and thousands of metres deep. They appear to be due to interactions between the atmosphere and the ocean. The regions seem to move eastwards with the ACC and take about 8-9 years to travel around the globe in the southern latitudes. This phenomena has been christened the “Antarctic Circumpolar Wave” (ACW).”
There is a good map illustrating the ACW concept here;
http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap11/ant_wave.html
Betcha one of those warm nodes is centered on the western edge of the Antarctic Peninsula right now.
James you are quite the scientist.
Some people do a study, get it published in the Journal of Geophysical Research – one of the most prestigious journals. And you wave you arms say “Bunch of doom merchants” and thus you prove them wrong.
Get a grip mate.
4 Billy should have remined silent so he could be merely thought to be a fool, but he spoke up and removed all doubt.
The WAIS is 3km thick and only a small portion is below sea level, you dopey turd. So the sheet will not float until sufficient ice melts off the top to allow the remaining sheet to float. That is, when the portion above sea level is less than 10% of the portion below sea level. (the floating proportions of ice bergs)
At the moment the minor surface ice melt in summer gets refrozen again just 6 weeks later as temperatures head back to -50C and another layer of ice is deposited on top as snow fall. The only way the ice can decline is by calving and the flow rate of the PIG has only increased from 200 metres a year to 214 metres a year.
That is, less than 4.5km3 of discharge from a volume of more than 100,000km3 of ice in the PI Glacier alone.
And where the f@#% does he think it will float to?
I’m getting a serious case of bimbophobia with this clown.
Ian, are you aware of the recent research showing that the water flow under the ice of the WAIS is greater than ever measured, and increasing? They did a gravit survey over Antarctica showing where the ‘lakes’ lie beneath the ice.
Also the melt at the base of the WAIS is due to heat from the pressure of the overlying ice, Melt water at the base of the WAIS isn’t due to warm air. Ice behaves diffrently under such pressure.
The WAIS will slide off the continent. Gravity will see to that. The reason it doesn’t is that the ice floating offshore provides a dam. it is held up counteracting gravity. It won’t ‘float off’ it will slide off. It won’t melt either, it will move as a large massflow, then when it slides into the southern ocean will displace a huge volume of water, leadin to a seal level rise of up to 6m. This won’t be a huge tidal wave, but rather an inevitable tide over several hours.
Ian, are you aware of the recent research showing that the water flow under the ice of the WAIS is greater than ever measured, and increasing? They did a gravit survey over Antarctica showing where the ‘lakes’ lie beneath the ice.
Also the melt at the base of the WAIS is due to heat from the pressure of the overlying ice, Melt water at the base of the WAIS isn’t due to warm air. Ice behaves diffrently under such pressure.
The WAIS will slide off the continent. Gravity will see to that. The reason it doesn’t is that the ice floating offshore provides a dam. it is held up counteracting gravity. It won’t ‘float off’ it will slide off. It won’t melt either, it will move as a large massflow, then when it slides into the southern ocean will displace a huge volume of water, leadin to a seal level rise of up to 6m. This won’t be a huge tidal wave, but rather an inevitable tide over several hours.
Quote IMott
“….only a small portion (of WAIS) is below sea level”
Wrong answer IMott>
“The base of the West Antarctic ice sheet lies below sea level, which allows ice to escape to the sea easily”
Otto-Bliesner, Bette L.; Marshall, Shawn J. & Overpeck, Jonathan T. et al. (24 March 2006)
==================================================
Quote IMott
“At the moment the minor surface ice melt in summer gets refrozen again just 6 weeks later as temperatures head back to -50C”
Wrong answer IMott>
If this was totally the case the ice shelves would be reforming
==================================================
Quote IMott
“The only way the ice can decline is by calving”
Wrong answer IMott>
Ice Shelf and Sheet collapse is another way of Ice declining
==================================================
Quote IMott
“And where the f@#% does he think it will float to?”
Gee… where do you reckon it will float to and then what happens to it Einstein?…think Ice bergs, Gallileo….lol
==================================================
I’d say that’s four strikes and your out IMott…get back to me when you pull your head outta the place the sun don’t shine
Hey Einstein….look at this diagram and pay special attention to the sea level line…you will see a significant portion of the WAIS is below sea level.
http://www.ig.utexas.edu/research/projects/wais/wais_cartoon.gif
Mr T
Trouble with the proposal of WAIS sliding off Bed rock, is that Bed rock surface is concave.
Concave in the middle, but not towards the coast. So what I think will happen is that it will snap, where it stops being concave, and slide from that point.
There is still a version of the original topography of Antarctica under the ice.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006GeoRL..3309502H
Wish I could find a picture though.
I thought the ice shelves lying in water were holding the rest of ice sheet back, as their bouyancy prevented the ice from sliding forward. I thought this was why everyone was getting concerned as when the ice sheet in water disnitegrates it provides less resistance to the rest of the ice shelf sliding into the sea.
“It won’t ‘float off’ it will slide off. It won’t melt either, it will move as a large massflow, then when it slides into the southern ocean will displace a huge volume of water, leadin to a seal level rise of up to 6m.”
What? All of it at once? Like in a MPFC cartoon? Cool!
Mr T,
From what I have read, the Shelves do form a ‘plug’ inhibiting WAIS ice sliding into sea. So it stands to reason that your proposal has credence, as removing these ‘plugs’ will accelerate this flow.
I would add to this that direct exposure of the actual WAIS base to moving water will also accelerate this flow. By removing Ice from the edge of the actual WAIS, there is less inhibition of the ice flow you speak of.
Mark
A Climatologist at ABoM suggested I not own any land below 5m above sea level…so you may be in for a ‘cool’ time yet.
Mr T – James M is entirely correct with the ACW – and there’s been a lot of stuff done on it. The ACW periodicity is actually the biggest driver of drought in S/SE Australia. Here’s a start with your research into it:
http://jedac.ucsd.edu/ACW/index_research.html
(From the site I linked to in my March 26 9.03pm post).
And yes, one of the wave hot-spots is now against the western side of the Antarctic peninsula.
http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.html
And out of interest I’ve been looking at the temps on and around the Antarctic peninsula. Over the last 10 years+ there has been no significant increase – the sampled stations are very flat.
Here’s my graph of the four closest:
http://i26.tinypic.com/2z4fofs.jpg
from the data at this site:
h t t p://www.antarctica.ac.uk/met/gjma/
In the yearly smoothing, the ACW is clearly evident.
The interesting thing from the Faraday station (highlighted in red) is that in 1995 it was handed over to the Ukraine. From then, the deeper negative temps in winter evident before the handover are gone… The other stations evidence still these dips. Hmmm… Microsite issue at this station? As it is right now, it contributes the most to the Antarctic Penisular warming trend. Maybe Anthony Watts should have a look at it. 🙂
cheers
Here’s a link to an article by Marc Morano that includes lots more links and information on the ice sheet collapse:
The media is once again hyping an allegedly dire consequence of man-made global warming. This time the media is promoting the ice loss of one tiny fraction of the giant ice-covered continent and completely ignoring the current record ice growth on Antarctica. Contrary to media hype, the vast majority of Antarctica has cooled over the past 50 years and ice coverage has grown to record levels since satellite monitoring began in the 1979, according to peer-reviewed studies and scientists who study the area… http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f1f2f75f-802a-23ad-4701-a92b4ebbccbf&Issue_id
lol…Inhoffe..I’d forgotten about him…thanks for the laugh.
Motta – hopeless – PIG 2.5 km/yr
Inhofe simply ignores all the science on mass balance and what AGW modelling even suggests. ROTFL.
Why do we even bother.
Gosh, a so-called rebuttal with no actual figures. Awesome, 4billy.
So what happens when this large ice mass first seperates from the rest? The resulting gaps and cracks will allow most of the water trapped under the ice to escape and the claimed lubricant factor will be gone before anything else can happen. If it spurts to the surface it will freeze again and if the pressure is released then the remaining water will cool down.
“The base of the West Antarctic ice sheet lies below sea level, which allows ice to escape to the sea easily” Yes but this doesn’t tell us what portion of the ice column is below sea level, does it?
And notice how the above quote switches tense mid sentence? First we have a simple statement that the BASE of the sheet is below SL but it then switches to the present continuous “allows ice to escape”. As if ice is escaping at this speculated rate already.
That is the key problem with climate morons. They have brains capable of giving a very vague and distant possibility the same cognitive weight as an existing verifiable fact.
This is an intelligent blog here, 4billy. So if you are going to show us pretty pictures you should at least do us all the courtesy of ensuring it is to scale and proportion. Your little climate cartoon only highlights your limitations.
Nice theory Mr T but this slide “scarenario” assumes there is no inherent structural integrity in a 3km thick lump of ice that is 1000km wide.
So lets go back to basic inertia theory shall we?
“A body will remain at rest, or at uniform motion, unless acted upon by an external force”.
And last time I checked, gravity was a vertical force, not a horizontal one. So what sort of external force would be needed to shift more than 3 million Km3 of ice over 1000 km to the sea?
Especially when the lubricating water will be released the moment even a 10 metre shift takes place.
IMott…if you don’t understand diagram that is not my problem….hilarious you criticise the U of Texas diagram..what a twat…lol
I merrily pointed out where your statements were blatantly wrong…perhaps my favourite is your proposal that calving is the only way Ice is disseminated into the sea….you blatantly ignore the topic of this thread…..HILARIOUS
Jen, You miss the point…it is not the size that matters but the fact that ice shelves are collapsing…these ice shelves have been present for up to 10000 years and you do not think it is significant that they are suddenly starting to collapse??
Ian, why not assume a less aggressive tone. Your aggression doesn’t assist your argument and makes you seem childish.
Why not do some investigation of your own before lumbering around demanding everyone explain things to you.
“Nice theory Mr T but this slide “scarenario” assumes there is no inherent structural integrity in a 3km thick lump of ice that is 1000km wide. ”
You don’t know what it’s assumptions are. Because you haven’t bothered to find out (I hope to provoke you into at least googling here, preferably Google Scholar)
Personally I would assume if the ice retained it’s integrity it would be more likely to move as a big lump. The ice is supported, the ice wants to move out of antarctica to the sea (you can see that be measuring the flow of the ice – note that it moves out to the sea). This flow is due to gravity. It’s moves laterally because it is on an inclined plane. There is a concave aspect but this is more in the middle of Antarctica. I don’t know what the force is, but 3 million km3 of being held uphill REQUIRES an enormous force to hold it in place.
Why would all the fluid be released after moving 10 m? You made that up.
that link I gave earlier is of a paper that claims radar altimetry of the base of the WAIS shows it is all below sea level except what would be some islands in the middle:
“Simple isostatic rebound modeling shows that most of this landscape would be submarine after deglaciation, aside from an island chain near the present-day Ross-Amundsen ice divide. ”
That means AFTER deglaciation, the ground would rebound and STILL be below sea level.
Why don’t you read about deglaciations in the past. Try reading about the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal maximum (55 Mya).
Jennifer, why would you source Marc Morano about this? How on Earth would he know about this? Why wouldn’t you source from the UGS? Or BGS? Or British Antarctic Survey? or anyone of the institutions studying this?
You are a scientist, do some proper literature review.
It looks like you are more interested in spin than trying to determine what is happening by not doing a review of the literature.
This paper contradicts Marc with regards to ice growth around Antarctica.
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadisst/HadISST_paper.pdf
Surely you would acknowledge the Hadley Centre would know more about this than Marc Morano.
The Mottster figures if he yells at people long enough they will be driven into submission….hilarious.
Ian, don’t worry about the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maxima, there was no ice.
Just use google scholar and enter “Antarctic deglaciation” then have a good read.
http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/23/1/4
I didn’t realise the US government was so active in promoting denialist rubbish…scary stuff…
Denialists really are nuts….proposing that Ice shelves collapsing is all totally normal….what drugs are you people on??….bloody crazy….
The more obvious climate change becomes the more insane the denialists get.
Russia and the United States..the only two Countries on the planet who say Climate change is no worries…hilarious!!
Really tedious stuff Mr T and 4billy. The WAIS is connected by a 1000km x 3km bonded face with the rest of the continental ice mass and there are some under surface mountains sticking up in the middle of it that will do a pretty good job of preventing lateral movement. The mass would need to completely shatter before any movement was possible and even then the movement would be restricted by friction at the sides of each part.
One cannot apply the attributes of calving at the edges to the main ice body. You can do all the cut and paste jobs you like but nothing will alter the basic dynamics of an ice mass of that scale. Put a block of ice onto an ice rink and it will sit there indefinitely until some force acts to move it. Even basic centrifugal force is minimal at the poles. Get used to it, bozos, it has been that way for eons.
And not so fast Luke, show us the link to your claimed 2.5km speed of the Pine Island Glacier.
re: “proposing that Ice shelves collapsing is all totally normal … bloody crazy”
Twit-Vivian – you’ve proven with your polar ice cap melt hysteria that you don’t know physics. In fact, in displaying more hysterical ignorant of physics posts, while expecting a different result (perhaps you’re dreaming of credibility?), you’ve become the poster child for the cliche definition of INSANITY!
You’re busted… and almost tragically, in more ways than one.
Ian, did you read any of the literature on the WAIS?
You can claim whatever you like, but it’s pretty clear you don’t know what you’re talking about.
It’s called ‘Doing the Dodgy Descarte’:
I reckon, therefore I’m right.
Hell you won’t even acknowledge that the base of the WAIS is below sea level yet we have quite clearly demonstrated it is. Quit while you have a little dignity.
PIG 2.5km/yr
4: Jan..winter did not come early enough to save part of the Wlikins.
I’m not going to be losing any sleep over an ice shelf calving <3% of it’s area which is something that usually happens when there is too much mass for to hold and lets face winter coming early might just mean just that – to much ice has been added in recent weeks.
Jan…you do realise The Prince Gustav Channel, Larsen Inlet, Larsen A+B, Wordie, Muller, and the Jones Ice Shelves have also collapsed.
You incorrectly identify what has occured as calving…it is called collapse, 400 square kilometers collapsing is not called calving..points for effort at aparatchik propoganda speak though..hilarious
Now 4 billion don’t confuse us with factual material. Doesn’t wash here – fabricated numbers do better.
Oh, Luke and the Loonies are in charge here 🙂
I wonder whether Luke is one of Al Gore’s “useless idiots” to post inanities here in order to make Jen’s blog site a looney site, so that serious students of AGW avoid it.
So Louis..I take it you think the Prince Gustav Channel, Larsen Inlet, Larsen A+B, Wordie, Muller, Jones and partial Wilkins Ice Shelf collapse is not a topic for ‘serious students of AGW’? roll-eyes.
4Jan…you do realise The Prince Gustav Channel, Larsen Inlet, Larsen A+B, Wordie, Muller, and the Jones Ice Shelves have also collapsed
Wow and all in one year with the most exposed one last? Must have been a bad winter last year to put down so much ice.
4collapse is not a topic for ‘serious students of AGW’?
Of course they because along with calving glaciers it has to be the most dramatic visual proof that they are melting from them heat.
Not necessary Louis – observing your utter stupidity over time is enough to make even your own mates cringe.
jan:”Wow and all in one year with the most exposed one last?”
incorrect, the Ice shelves I mentioned have been disintegrating over the last twenty years
incorrect, the Ice shelves I mentioned have been disintegrating over the last twenty years
did glaciers engorged with ice wanting them to escape push them out of the way or over load them?
Lets see.
A bit of ice sitting over water, in the only area of Antactica which isn’t locked by over summer sea ice, cracks. It doesn’t go anywhere mind you. It just cracks.
Scientists, who make their living from the government funded British Antarctic Survey (BAS), a self proclaimed world leader in research into global environmental issues, after soberly investigating all angles of the cracked ice, elect not to muddy the press release with extraneous information about circumpolar currents, ossolating warm zones, sea ice pushed out of the area opening up the shelf to wave erosion, earthquake faults riddling the Antarctic Peninsula, under ice/sea volcanos, or accumulated continental ice mass pushing against the edges.
Instead they say global warming, because after a decade of falling temperature and a year of record colds, record snowfalls, and climates responding in direct agreement with solar sunspot cycles, people might panic about giving unchecked economic regulatory power over to government agencies.
I’m betting these guys spent more time deciding whether to use either the phrase “global warming” or “climate change” in the report, then they took investigating other possible causes.
So yes, doom merchants is the correct term for them.
Jennifer: %75 downunder are concerned.
4 Billion: The floating ice berg
http://www.climateshifts.org/?p=145
James: Man made denial
http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/phillipadams/index.php/theaustralian/comments/the_smoking_gun/
we go on
Desperately pathetic Jan. Just desperate. Your time spent on the literature on this = 0.0 So disgraceful bulldusting. A decade of “falling” temperature – err nope. Climate agreeing with solar cycles – nope and statistical snake oil
The ACC is part of the story – part of the point ! As is accumulated continental ice – part of the point. Evidence on the volcanoes = zip.
Well put James Mayeau.
—and what an appropriate acronym the BAS is
Bulldust As Science.
James. Where is your analysis of the frequency of Ice Shelf collapse?
Your comments are nonsense, you have no research or data to back your claims. More Dodgy Descarte!
I reckon, therefore I’m right.
Like your claim about how the BAS are somehow paid according to the findings they make, that’s a real pearler.
IT’S A CONSPIRACY!!! SO VAST!!! GIVE UP NOW!!!
WE HAVE ALL YOUR BASE!!!
Here’s some SCIENCE.
ok, so your lesson for the day is how to find out what is science.
So:
http://www.nature.com/climate/2008/0804/full/climate.2008.30.html
This is science
This is political spin
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f1f2f75f-802a-23ad-4701-a92b4ebbccbf&Issue_id
Notice the first quotes from a paper published in Geology, what’s called a scientific journal. These scientific journals are where science is debated. The second is a blog, or weBLOG, this is someone’s opinion. This is not where science is debated. This is a political opinion not a scientific one…
Do we understand?
Hilarious….the denialists on this site have to be the most fanatical I have come across yet….Stealth Volcanoes are causing Ice sheets to collapse and whats more amazing is that these stealth Volcanoes have been slowly becoming more active over the last 20 years….and what do you know other denialist fruit cakes say that Volcanoes are causing the Arctic to melt….my oh my…all this slow increase in Volcanic activity happening at the same rate, at the same time, at both poles…bloody amazing….you guys oughtta get a Nobel prize….LOL…just a shame there is no actual evidence of increased Volcanic activity at either pole…
Hilarious Malcolm…”British Antarctic survey is Bulldust”…are you retarded?? LOL
You denialists are so desperate all you have left is to say the Scientists who discover evidence of Climate change are dumb….talk about sign of the lost argument.
Denialists..the new Luddites
Jen, in your opening piece you post an outright furphy.
“Wilkins like all the others that temporarily broke up will refreeze soon.”
Hilarious…Err….so has the Larsen A+B reformed? thats a big No…I like how ‘temporarily’ is used to muddy the waters as to what ‘other’ ice sheets the author is talking about. The impression is given that the Ice sheets that have collapsed have reformed..hilarious…one wonders what your motivation is for spreading such crap…
jan,
“did glaciers engorged with ice wanting them to escape push them out of the way or over load them?”
They have collapsed due to warming waters, as posted by Jen here http://veimages.gsfc.nasa.gov//17529/antarctic_temps.AVH1982-2004.jpg
I do so love the way the alarmists are so sure of their arguments that they have to hide behind pseudonyms, firing off google references they havnt read, earnestly trying to make up for a life wasted on being a complete failure on everything else they have done.
There can be absolutely no credibilty attaching to anything these anonymous charlatans have say
ps Jen…it is hilarious on one hand you say Antarctic ice sheets are not disappearing
“Yet the world is left with the false impression Antarctica’s ice sheet is also starting to disappear.”
Yet on the other hand you say it is melting due to Volcanic activity…..hilarious…work it out …you cannot have it both ways…
Hey Malcolm…I’m not the Nut bag saying the BAS is full-o-crap…hilarious you are concerned about pseudonyms…is that the best you got??…
So Malcolm you think there are stealth Volcanoes?
At least you, and the world know who I am, no matter what I do or not say on any matter.
But who are you, 4 billon of what? it sure aint neurones, or sincerity.
You people get on your high horses about only considering material that is peer reviewed but the peddle whatever nonsense you care to spray, whilst cowardly hiding behind pseudonyms.
In polite circles that is called hypocricy.
Oh and BTW, the BAS IS full of crap, and it is not the first time they have peddled this line of over stated and alarmist rubbish.
I am not sure what caused the ice sheet to break off. But I doubt it was global warming. In my opening piece I put the Crikey perspective and the perspective from two bloggers. I’ve done a few radio interviews and quote Louis Hissink’s comment – its a big ice making machine, bits will fall off the edge.
And here’s a new contribution:
Interesting to note a 5.6 magnitude earthquake occurred on the Pacific-Antarctic Ridge on March 17, at location 55.22S 135.12W.
The Wilkins breakup first became visible by satellite on March 25. I don’t know the typical drift speed for massive chunks of broken ice shelf, but the timing is a bit too coincidental for my comfort zone.
Let’s just write it off to “global warming” – saves bothering to think.
Jim Peden
I was going to ignore the Wilkes thing until I stumbled on a report in The West Australian of Thursday and spotted the images of 27 and 28 Feb. That, so called, ice shelf is actually newly formed ice and not a broken up bit of the older Wilkes Sheet.
I commented about it on Henry Thornton today (hopefully Henry gets it up today for the Dark Hour celebration tonight).
Mr T,
your patronising and condescending homily about science being practised in Nature Journal and non science in web blogs is interesting.
Nature has become somewhat politicised as other previously esteemed journals. In terms of geoscience the New Concepts In Globa Tectonics Newsletter is now the preferred forum for the publication of geoscience papers based on fact and empiricism.
Peer review, especially in those science which lack a means of empirical testing, has now become the means by which to regulate scientific thinking.
Nature, Scientific American, Science and other “august” joounrals now publish the politically correct pseudoscientfic litany of government funded science.
Article from BBC Friday:
“But researchers are warning that the risk of hidden contamination could be more serious.
Dr Richard Thompson of the University of Plymouth has investigated how plastic degrades in the water and how tiny marine organisms, such as barnacles and sand-hoppers, respond.
He told the BBC: “We know that plastics in the marine environment will accumulate and concentrate toxic chemicals from the surrounding seawater and you can get concentrations several thousand times greater than in the surrounding water on the surface of the plastic.
“Now there’s the potential for those chemicals to be released to those marine organisms if they then eat the plastic.”
Shoreline mess
Once inside an organism, the risk is that the toxins may then be transferred into the creature itself.
“There are different conditions in the gut environment compared to surrounding sea water and so the conditions that cause those chemicals to accumulate on the surface of the plastic may well be reversed – leading to a release of those chemicals when the plastic is eaten.”
It is as if the plastic particles act as magnets for poisons in the ocean.”
To be continued….
Part II :
” In an experiment involving plastic carrier bags immersed off a jetty in Plymouth harbour, he is assessing the time taken for them to fragment.
In related projects, he and colleagues have also added plastic powder to aquarium sediment to establish how much is ingested by marine life. Research on stretches of shoreline has shown that, at the microscopic level, plastic pollution is far worse than feared.
In a typical sample of the sandy material gathered at the high tide mark on shorelines, one-quarter of the total weight may be composed of plastic particles.
Studies have found that plastic traces have been identified on all seven continents.
Here on Midway, Matt Brown of the US Fish and Wildlife Service echoes the warnings of a long-term threat from plastic waste.
“The thing that’s most worrisome about the plastic is its tenaciousness, its durability. It’s not going to go away in my lifetime or my children’s lifetimes.
“The plastic washing up on the beach today – if people don’t take it away it’ll still be here when my grandchildren walk these beaches.”
Hilarious how you guys love to look at the Wilkins in isolation….conveniently ignoring the other Ice sheets that have collapsed over the last twenty years….me thinks you realise the trend is somewhat deleterious to the stealth volcano proposal.
==================================================
It is hilarious how you guys like to look at Antarctica in isolation, ignoring the fact the Arctic will be shortly summer ice free…hmmm…seems to me there could be a connection…bet its those same type of stealth Volcanoes coincidently also been erupting for the last twenty years under the Arctic.
==================================================
Truly this is an amazing discovery…stealth volcanoes simultaneously erupting at North and South poles, continually for the last twenty years…also Stealth volcanoes no doubt are causing Global SST’s to rise…I smell Nobel prize.
==================================================
Lets just write Arctic and Antarctic disintegration off to stealth volcanoes….therefore nothing has to change and everbody be happy time.
==================================================
Seeing you are getting your knickers in a twist Malcolm, my name is James Crabb….still waiting for your yay or nay vis a vie stealth Volcanoes.
Oops, I see now that I have posted my comments on the wrong thread. Apologies!
My favourite figure is the radiative forcing due to the Anthropogenic CO2 has the energy equivalent of 300000 1Gwatt Nuclear powerstations….
Too be truly Alarmist one only need think beyond the collapse of the WAIS and the resultant extension of the relevant plate, resulting from the sudden release of the depressed Antarctic land mass, leading to Clathrate gun effect…now that is truly alarming.
4 Billion,
Heaven knows where you source your ideas from but considering your, machine gun like postings, I suspect your presence here will be short.
2 New Concepts in Global Tectonics Newsletter, no. 46, March, 2008
FROM THE EDITOR
As mentioned by Prof. Karsten Storetvedt on pages 59 to 60, our NCGT symposium at the International
Geological Congress in Oslo has had 24 abstracts – 18 oral and 6 poster presentations. Out of IGC’s 10 topical “tectonic and structural geology sessions”, the NCGT session was ranked third after “General contributions to tectonics and structural geology” (62) and “Structure and formation of rift basins and passive margins from surface to depth” (32). The number is higher than any plate tectonic sessions, such as “Accretionary orogens”, “Mantle
convection and plumes”, and “Three-dimensional aspects of subduction zone processes”. Also noteworthy is that half the presenters of our sessions are new to us.
Our colleagues who are organizing a session at the European Geosciences Union Annual Meeting are doing very well too. Giancarlo Scalera presents the latest news on page 59 of this issue. Their session aims to promote a new creativity in the Earth sciences based on factual data, and is targeting young scientists with open, independent minds.
These facts are strong indications that we have started riding the tide of revolution in geological thinking.
Plate tectonics is now in disarray. In his report on the 2007 AGU Fall meeting (page 73, NCGT no. 45) Leo Maslov mentioned that the reigning plate-tectonic authorities had confessed, “There has been no consensus on the main driving mechanism for the plate tectonics since its introduction”, “Neither layered nor whole mantle convection”, and “Seismic tomography has not solved fundamental questions of geodynamics”.
So your geological predicated snipes at comments posted here are not based on very sound science, but on rather sound pseudoscience.
Perhaps you are another mutation of Phil Done, AKA Luke, ? Inherent stupidity does have its problems, you know.
In case some of Jennifer’s readers are wondering about the use of “consensus” in geoscience, (see previous post), and my criticism of any science based on consensus as being a pseudoscience, then this is quite correct.
Geology, along with astronomy, (and cosmology) and archaeology are indeed dominated by the deductive, and thus consensual, method. This is because these science cannot conduct replicable experiments, and therefore should also not be critised for this lack of empirical verification.
It would be churlish to demand a palaentologist demonstrate physically the fossilisation of a Jurassic Saurian – clearly that cannot be done!
But as we describe novel phenomena in terms of experience, then if that experience is based on related laboratory experiments, we can test those theories proposed by astronomers, geologists and archaeologists.
If our only source of experience is imaginal, such being the case of mathematics, then it is inevitable that such sciences end up in mathematical cul de sacs; Astronomy is one such science that has stalled intellectually.
Louis Hissink,
Pardon my ‘inherent stupidity’ but the bulk of your post addressed to me goes over my head. My dullard mind vaguely conjures an implication that as the understanding of plate tectonics is in disarray, no understanding is valid, thus the Clathrate gun ‘understanding’ is invalid.
==================================================
You may feel my posts are ‘machine gun’ like, I feel they are brief and to the point.
==================================================
Perhaps Louis you would be so kind as to point out the most obvious, and no doubt many, flaws in my proposal.
A.Lets assume the WAIS collapses (not melts), the section of plate it rests upon will no longer be depressed by the weight of the WAIS.(my understanding it is depressed by roughly a kilometer)
B. As the relevant section of plate will no longer be depressed, it will be released to return to it’s original position.
C. As the plate expands back into its original position internal friction is created.
D. The friction creates heat causing Clathrates to melt.
4 bill, you will learn quickly that Louis, a long timer of these sort of blogs, including this one from ground zero, has lots of “interesting ideas”, big on ad hom complaints (but dishes heaps out), and never seriously debates. Apart from that he’s a good bloke and worth having a beer with. If you can get anywhere you get the blog breakthrough award.
Now Louis you’ve been told 100 times Phil can’t use his hands after the accident with the blender and the ostrich. So you now just have me. But he (or now she) sends hugs. Goes by Philipa these days.
4 Bill
Conclusion remains, despite the overshooting.
And the WAIS is actually resting on seawater, not a plate, so your explanation remains problematical.
Luke,
In your case the Greek Trojan Horse analogy comes to mind.
Louis,
“And the WAIS is actually resting on seawater..”.
Eh?….its base is below sea level but it most definitely rests on bedrock….other wise it would be what we scientists call floating.
To save further blushes I recommend looking into isostatic depression.
Please don’t get depressed yourself now that I just nailled your arse to a tree…:-)
Lets assume that the worlds leader in environmental issues isn’t totally in the bag to blaim humans for god knows whatever happens on the planet… dandruff, tooth decay, body odur.
Where does that leave BAS?
A very expensive, completely government funded boondoggle, which by way of reinforced iron hulled behemouth ice breakers and a plethora of permanently occupied bases, all of which need bi-annual resupply, in a land where no human has any business or hope of survival, a small group of hypocrits pontificate at me and my auto.
Look here at this picture. http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/antarctic.1.jpg
Notice the ice in the Weddell Sea. It is almost completely covered by multi year ice. This is a color coded map with red denoting thin ice, dark purple thick. Along the entire eastern shore of the Weddell Sea there is a line of thin ice terminating in a large yellow patch, which is the offload point for the resupply ships servicing Hadley’s Antarctic station.
I is obvious that their back and forth, back and forth, ice breaking has had more of an impact on Antarctica’s environment then all the rest of us humans, innocently going about our business, put together.
Here is something else for you to look at. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/medieval.html
This goes right to the heart of what is wrong with peer review and government agency.
AS far as conspiracies, hell government is the mother of all conspiracies.
“was going to ignore the Wilkes thing until I stumbled on a report in The West Australian of Thursday and spotted the images of 27 and 28 Feb. That, so called, ice shelf is actually newly formed ice and not a broken up bit of the older Wilkes Sheet.”
Louis do you have links to before and after photos showing the Wilkes shelf before the new shelf moved out over ocean?
Mr T, Jan, the Hadley centre present a different story about Antarctic sea ice.
How can a paper written in 2002 tell us what is happening in 2007/08?
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/
The current farce over the alarm about natural occuring ice-shelf fragmentation of 0.1% while the broader ice-shelf growth to record levels is unmentioned in the media is just too much.
So I just had to put this together:
Sorry forget a zero. Make that 0.01%!!!
Here’s something. Undersea volcano on the Antarctic peninsula discovered in 2004.
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/news/reports/2004/CORC04/05_10_04.htm
There is a red dot marking the aproximate location of the volcano. Does that look anywhere near that Larsen ice shelf? To me it looks really close.
4 billion
“It seems the significance of the melting Arctic flies straight over your head…have a bex and a lie down, think about it, and you will realise it is a massive indicator of Climate change which is the issue at hand concerning the collapse of the WAIS.”
Please, even NASA, who are not exactly in any doubt about drastic climate warming, stated categorically that it was variations in ocean currents that pushed much of the ice out into warmer waters, not the dreaded global warming.
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/quikscat-20071001.html
4 billion,
An ice shelf, like Wilkes, is on sea, not land, otherwise it is a glacier.
I see you are as patgronising as Mr T, “we scientists”and as a dept as Luke in posting ad hominems.
And forgot about your plates, plate tectonics is suffering its final death throws, so you plate analogy is as relevant.
James Mayeau
I found the image by the usual search engines but repeating the search just now (Sunday Morning) failed to bring it up. I did however make a copy of it so perhaps Jennifer could post it here after I email it to her.
It should also be up on Henry Thornton…….depending on how busy Henry is this weekend.
OK Mark – I kacked. Good video.
But seriously denialist dimwits – what would it take to convince you of anything. So if ice increases in flow, edges start to erode, and chunks shear off (which presumably would happen if AGW was “on”) you guys would ignore it. So if the system is behaving in a way consistent with a theory this is no longer evidence. It now proves the opposite.
Holey doley – the old reverse perpendicular anti-matter logic inversion. Gets me every time. You dimwit denialists sure are smart.
So in the video with the humongous waves inundating New York – Mark, Pompous Git, Louis and James would be all be there on the waterfront saying “Aw bullshit – just greenie propaganda – it’s just a little decadal surge”. “Stand your ground men – it’s nothing”
(hey Louis would be Hissunk – get it – ROTFL).
You guys will say that about every bit of new evidence that comes in. You will have a lame excuse for everything that is ever tabled until the public decides you’ve misled them and forms the tar and feathering party. (well glue and feathers – as you will have converted the tar to oil).
Louis,
The reference to “we scientists” from whom ever, underscores yet again what I have thought for long time, and that is one cannot be sure that anyone who uses a pseudonym is anything other than a currently publically funded scientist doing some moonlghting in order to shore up his/her position in some State or Commonwealth bog hole,including univerities.
With the Expediture Review Committee looking closely at all these funds, and wanting to knock 25% off, is it no wonder that the silliness and frequency of these anonymous posts is increasing.
Or, am I mistaken.
But pretty well all the sceptical posts in this thread are from people who use their full name, but the alarmist ilk have to hide.
Says it all really.
“Eh?….its base is below sea level but it most definitely rests on bedrock….other wise it would be what we scientists call floating.”
Eh?….the definition of an ice shelf is ice that extends beyond the land and over the sea. And ice shelves are for the most part floating.
From wiki:
“An ice shelf is a thick, floating platform of ice that forms where a glacier or ice sheet flows down to a coastline and onto the ocean surface.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_shelf
Malcolm,
I see you are not paying attention, I have already revealed my name to you on a prior post.
==================================================
Louis,
My proposal, which hilariously you said was wrong….you thought I was talking about Wilkins..is that upon collapse of West Antarctic Ice Sheet, isostatic depression is suddenly ended, releasing the bedrock to expand back from its depression a kilometer deep. This expansion could then instigate Clathrate gun.
==================================================
Forget about plate tectonics…eh?…. they don’t exist anymore? then how come we aren’t swimming in Magma? lol
==================================================
It is hilarious you should get sniffy about ad hominem when you accused me of pseudo-science and inherent stupidity…..seems you are only to happy to dish it out but suddenly take the high road when it comes your way…..LOL
Malcolm,
You have made an excellent point – and the position seems to be far worse than most of us imagine concerning the practice of science in our universities. We seem have produced a generation of quasi-Lysenkoists, many of whom post here under pseudonyms, who give precedence to computer modelling to measured empirical data.
Luke’s logic is actually quite elastic – he can fit his arguments to any case whatsover, and that is quite characteristic of pseudoscience.
But I am impressed so much hoo haa can we posted here about one small part of the Antarctic which when the rest of it is getting colder and larger.
It makes me wonder whether Hugh Auchin-CLoss Brown, an electrical engineer, in proposing his tippe-toppe earth model, where ever increasing polar ice masses cause the earth to careen to another more stable configuration, might need to be looked at again. He used this mechanism to explain the Pleistocene extinction event.
There are other explanations for that extinction event as well, but way off thread here.
One of the reasons the climate alarmists don’t use there real names is because to do so would demand they be responsible for what they post. Using alias’ absolves them of any personal responsibility.
Tilo…..I am talking about an Ice Sheet.
oooh ffs…I already said my name………JAMES CRABB!!!!!!!!
4 Billion,
I suggest you get a copy of the NCGT Newsletter and catch up on what is going on in global tectonics. That you assume that we should be floating on magma if PT is falisifed tells me that your geological knowledge is incomplete.
And I got something hilariously wrong? All I seem to read in your posts is a concatenation of non sequiturs.
What did Betrand Russell write: “the problem with the world is that the stupid are so cocksure, and the intelligent full of doubt”, or words to that effect.
You seem to have ignored the fact that the Antarctic ice mass is increasing in size, and as another commentator here as corrected your misunderstanding of floating ice sheets, nothing more need be said.
“But seriously denialist dimwits – what would it take to convince you of anything.”
Um,
– Antarctic sea ice not at record high levels
– Raw global temperatures actually increasing since 1998
– Ocean temperatures not decreasing since 2003
– Global temperatures actually increasing since the early 1980’s after volcanic impacts are accounted for
– Arctic temperatures exceeding those of the 1930’s and 1940’s
– There not being much better correlation with global temperatures changes between solar and ocean current changes versus changes in CO2 levels
– There not being several periods in human history where the temperature was higher than now
– There not being prior interglacials that were warmer than now
– There not being geologic periods where CO2 levels were more than 10x higher than they were today and yet the earth was an ice cube at the time
– Leading alarmists actually willing to debate the science and try to prove their position while subject to legitimate scientific challenge
Yada, yada, yada
Oh and thank you Aussies for sending that silly earth hour our way tonight here in Canada. Checked our street and could see the odd fool with candles in the window. Wasn’t more than 1 in 6 or 7 houses though. Wonder how many houses we’ll here about in the news tomorrow that burned down? Next time send us something better eh? Like maybe the bubonic plague!
Louis,
“..and as another commentator here as corrected your misunderstanding of floating ice sheets”
Hilarious….you have no idea what you are talking about…Ice sheets don’t float…what you are talking about is ice SHELVES.. get terminology right.
==================================================
For the third time I am talking about the West Antarctic Ice SHEET collapsing….not ice shelves!
==================================================
My point about magma was a joke.
==================================================
You have no counter to the Clathrate gun effect other than to say we know nothing about plate tectonics.
Clathrate gun effect is reliant upon a very basic mechanism of plate tectonics, expansion of plates when pressure is released….are you saying that this does not happen?
ps
Basically it is the same mechanism as drives Earthquakes, when built up tension is released, plates spring back into position….so basically according to you Louis, we should not be having Earthquakes.
4billy-alias James Crabb,Scientist.
That is just one of you, who has elected to be truthful out himself.
My previous comment was more general in nature.
Denialists = Neville Chamberlains of Science…..lol
So parts of the West Antarctic ice sheet are never supposed to break off? Explain then why it doesn’t extend all the way to South Georgia Isand?
“Denialists = Neville Chamberlains of Science…..lol”
You got that backwards. It’s the Alarmists that are the lovers of fascism!
Mark,
Of course Ice sheets break off, primarily due to Milankotvitch cycle …a time scale absolutely irrelevant to the activity we now see…as seen here http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/Ice_Age_Temperature.png
A more relevant time scale that sees Ice sheets collapse are extinction level events….which goes some way in explaining current ‘alarmism’.
As to why it doesn’t extend all the way to Sth Georgia Island…I have no idea….but be careful not claim uncertainty on micro-level means uncertainty on macro-level.
==================================================
Just because one cannot explain every thing doesn’t mean one can’t explain anything…me thinks Louis could take this on board as well.
==================================================
Does anybody know if the calculated 5 meter sea level rise due to the melting/collapse of the WAIS includes the displacement due to the release of isostatic depression on Antarctic plate? I would have thought it would.
A sudden collapse of the WAIS could lead to some very spectacular tectonic activity due to the sudden release of isostatic depression.
Yes Mark – but have anything besides your list of unsupported nonsense.
Mark,
How is the proposal Anthropogenic Atmospheric CO2 is increasing radiative forcing, Fascist?
….hilarious!!
As for increase in Antarctic Ice, this is somewhat moot to my WAIS scenario as most likely it is occuring over the EAIS, as suggested by this graphic
http://veimages.gsfc.nasa.gov//17529/antarctic_temps.AVH1982-2004.jpg
James Crabb, what is the significance of “4 billion” that you would use it instead of your real name?
Basically I see myself as 4 billion years old…though to be totally accurate,3.7 billion…but this is a little unwieldy.
I see myself as this age due to the fact my DNA holds information this age…so as people say the bible is 2000 years old…I am 4 billion years old.
I am the latest manifestation of a single ‘chain’ of data that has existed for 4 billion years.
Interestingly even the crickets sound alarmed this afternoon…Adelaide is rapidly turning into a desert,and no doubt they are getting frantic due to less and less chances of reproduction.
countries which possess no mines of their own, a continual importation, in order to repair this skinny default layouts for myspace The popular fear of engrossing and forestalling may be compared
according to the effectual demand, or according to the demand of scrapbook layouts done with the cricut of buying and disposing of his goods, that with the same capital fvwrjutois
according to the effectual demand, or according to the demand of scrapbook layouts done with the cricut of buying and disposing of his goods, that with the same capital fvwrjutois
“Mark,
How is the proposal Anthropogenic Atmospheric CO2 is increasing radiative forcing, Fascist?
….hilarious!!”
Hey the Alarmists can propose anything they want. It’s when try and shout down opposing positions and prevent legitimate debate that they become fascists. And when you have the likes of Gore calling his opponents “flat-earthers” and Suzuki calling for jailing politicians that don’t believe in global warming doom, well, there you go buddy!
“Yes Mark – but have anything besides your list of unsupported nonsense.”
Of course it’s nonsense Luke because it counters the Alarmist gloom and doom position!
And this just in. Earth Hour = 10% power consumption drop in Sydney, 5% in Toronto. What a bloody waste of time that was!
Yea whatever – dream on.
Hey exactly what “Alarmist gloom and doom” position have I advanced BTW??
But agree with you on Earth Hour – silly stuff – better to be efficient all the time. Energy costs money. If you need lights use them. If you don’t turn them off. Common sense.
“But agree with you on Earth Hour – silly stuff – better to be efficient all the time. Energy costs money. If you need lights use them. If you don’t turn them off. Common sense”
Yep, we’re just looking for a bit of common sense on the whole climate change issue. Certainly we’re currently far from that!
The money currently being flushed down the toilet by governments would be far better off directed at things like new energy technology research than dum things like ethanol and carbon sequestration.
mark,
“It’s when try and shout down opposing positions and prevent legitimate debate that they become fascists.”
I have been shouted down by a few denialists on this site so I guess that makes you guys Fascists as well.
4 Billion
Since you write under a pseudonym, your self-righteous indignation is hilarious.
Louis,
You have failed to specifically refute my proposed ramifications of sudden release of Antarctic isostatic depression.
All you have proposed is that we don’t know anything about Tectonics any more thus all statements pertaining to said issue are inconsequential…hardly a Scientific stance…more fundamentalist if anything.
==================================================
You seem driven to find fault in me, so you bring up the paltry issue of psuedonyms….whatever dude.
James Crabb
4 Billion
I don’t think you understand what you wrote – The antarctic ice cap is topographically on continental crust and when suddenly removed the crust would readjust itself but over a far longer time period than you assume. Northern Europe is still in isostatic rebound from the last ice age 10,000 years ago.
Methane Clathrates have nothing to do with it as those are found in the deep sea sediments at the bottom of the oceans, not in warmer continental crust.
And from your last sentence we finally suspect you are but a callow youth baiting climate sceptics behind a facade.
Louis,
Kindly jam your ageism where the Sun don’t shine.
==================================================
You were the one who proposed that the WAIS was resting on seawater….hilarious…remember this? I quote you directly:
“And the WAIS is actually resting on seawater, not a plate,”
…and you have the gall to accuse me of misunderstanding…outrageous.
==================================================
So any way, now you have realised the WAIS is resting on bedrock, you say that it takes a long time to rebound. But the example you use to substantiate this (which I do not dispute) is that of a transformation that occurs over thousands of years, thus irrelevant to the time period I am proposing.
Actually the phenommenon which is more relevant to my proposal, due to similar time frame, is the Earthquake.
As the Earthquake is triggered by the forces of friction suddenly being overcome, one can see similarities in resultant phenomena via the sudden release of structural tension due to rapid decrease in isostatic depression.
==================================================
My proposal incorporates the deep sea floor due to this expanding when isostatic pressure is released.
James Crabb
The example of the Earth quake does preclude my proposed Clathrate gun effect, some what. As it would mean that every time there is a sub-marine Earthquake there would be a massive release of methane, which clearly is not the case.
Ironically though, this may be due to the fact the Tectonic expansion that occurs due to Earthquake is minimal and very short duration, unlike the 1 kilometer Tectonic expansion due to release of Antarctic isostatic depression, that would occur over period longer than a few seconds.
Notice how 4billycrab sidestepped the key point about this WAIS completely $hitting its pants?
This lateral movement of the entire sheet is supposed to be theoretically possible because of the lubrication from water trapped under pressure under the ice sheet. But the moment there is any movement in the sheet, the water will no longer be trapped. It will be forced out through the cracks and edges by the weight of the ice above.
No more lubrication = end of journey before it starts = end of silly scarenario.
My proposal does not involve lubrication from water trapped under ice sheet…maybe yours does….lol
====================================================
My proposal revolves around collapse of the Ice shelves removing the structural support of WAIS, creating instability and exposing WAIS directly to warm wave action.
Motty: “Notice how 4billycrab sidestepped the key point”
JC is very hard to pin down on the WWW so I don’t like your chances here.
“No more lubrication”
Nice try hey.
Even dumber, 4billy. So now we will have a 1000km lateral slide without any lubricant. Wave action takes place only at the surface so it will only influence the perimeter of the sheet.
And you seriously expect us to believe this wave action could undermine more than 3 million cubic km of ice in a matter of hours? It was hours that you indicated somewhere back in the guff, wasn’t it?
Your use of terms like “my proposal” indicates a serious outbreak of narcissism, with a deliberate intention of burying serious discussion in a 206 post thread full of vacuous delusion. On ya bike ya bum.
“narcissism”…hilarious…leave the amateur psychology at the door.
You do realise this set of possible physical phenomena which I have happened to bring to the table for discussion at this particular junction of space and time……humble enough for you motter fokker?….. has central to it, the collapse of the Filchner-Ronne and Ross ice shelves.
Now if you propose that the WAIS will not collapse after the collapse of these two shelves, then you are a braver man then me Gunghadin.
As for “hours”…that’s the little voice in your head…I never uttered the word..I did say a comparable event due to similar time frame is the Earthquake..but then I said that duration of collapse of WAIS is longer…I did not specify how much longer..I did say it is definitely faster than the usual periodic transistion between Ice ages.
ps MoFo, One can see here http://veimages.gsfc.nasa.gov//17529/antarctic_temps.AVH1982-2004.jpg
that both Filchner-Ronne and and Ross are warming and exposed to warming waters
What a cop out. So now this “collapse” will take less time than the “usual periodic transistion between Ice ages”. Ooohh, so you mean it could take 5 to 10 millenia?
Your sole intention is to muddy the water and disrupt discussion. So on ya bike, punk, you have completely trashed your credibility here. There must be some sort of half way house for people like you, just keep looking.
Motta
Fokka, I was only pointing out that I did not say hours…that was the little voice in your head that told you that.
Motta
Fokka, As to the actual time of the collapse WAIS, it will be far faster than 5-10000 years ya little smart arse. This was my point to Louis.
Motta
Fokka, My intention is to discuss the rammifications of the ongoing collapse of the permanent Ice shelves of Antarctica…as the suject of this thread refers to the latest collapse….hardly muddying the waters MoFo.
Motta
Fokka, you have avoided my question as to if you think the collapse of Ronne and Ross will lead to the collapse of the WAIS.
==================================================
ps.Motta Fokka….I suggest you take that cork outta your butt as you seem to be getting a little backed up. 🙂
Hey Mo Fo…you strike me as the attack poodle of the denialist posse…LOL