Polar Ice sets new minimum

[Gray-Wolf]

Here's something you'll not see on C.T. any day of the week!

Firstly ,for scale, N. Scotland

And now Pine island and two large chunks of shelf afloat

As I was looking through I also came across this worrying image of East Getz Ice shelf

You can see the 'scallop' shaped feature running out either side of the pool ( like a " ) " pointing towards the coast. This is not what you would want to be seeing so early in the year! The way I see it is this section of East Getz is also ready to go and , come the next storm, it will!

Do note that the BAS bergs off pine island calved off just into the full moon tides and I had not seen this feature at the back off Getz until today though I've posted a few images of the same area recently none of them show the 'pool'.

[West is Best]

Here's something you'll not see on C.T. any day of the week!

And now Pine island and two large chunks of shelf afloat

Wow there's a crack in the ice. And it's even melting as summer approaches.

It's hardly proof of AGW, or anything quantifiable and empirical. I'd say it's weak science only it's not even science really GW.

Edited October 26, 2007 by West is Best

[Gray-Wolf]

You keep telling yourself that West, you keep telling yourself that!

So ,if you're discounting the B.A.S. and their 2 bergs what do you make of East Getz? Upload it onto you're viewer and have a zoom in, I think a pixel is about 2m square, if you're familiar with the two Getz's you'll know that that area should all be shelf ice so what the Frell is going on there?

Insofar as "Science" is concerned: Who put these two satellites up there and for what purpose? Using their visual frequencies, how many agencies do you believe use the images daily. On the other frequencies who do you think uses the images daily?

If you believe remote sensing is no more than a toy then you'd better explain your personal Revelation to them and save them all some cash by telling them how 'real scientists' would go about it.

It's over 24yrs since my 'remote sensing' module on my combined science degree but even then 'Landsat' was an invaluable tool in many fields (esp. the stereoscopic images) do you really think you can convince me that the world has gone 'retro' in their remote sensing or are you just being silly?

Edited October 26, 2007 by Gray-Wolf

[West is Best]

Sorry but gazing subjectively at photos isn't quantifiable science. You posted an image of a crack in the ice, that's not proof of anything.

Remote sensing empirically tested is fine. Posting a photo as proof without all the measures in place isn't.

Regardless of this, ice levels are up in antarctica after record highs this year. I'm sorry it doesn't fit the script you have GW, but you've two choices. Change the facts, or change your script.

Edited October 26, 2007 by West is Best

[Gray-Wolf]

When we have all the facts West I will certainly bow to the evidence but I've seen a wobbly graph from a Uni who don't answer their emails and nothing from B.A.S.,NSIDC,JPL,NASA or any other organisation.

Would I be sensible to roll out the red carpet to celebrate a recent record when an unreliable messenger boy is my only source that a record has been set?

I suspect novel ice growth, midst record melts up north and mega calving from Pine Island in Antarctica, would be 'big news' (Esp. for the Express) but nothing? Why do you think we're all being so slow with this remarkable news?

It's probably just all of us being dim witted isn't it?

EDIT: As you all know the images (Terra,Aqua) are all at the 250m resolution (plus the 'familiar landscapes/shapes posted for 'scale purposes) so we all have a pretty good idea at the scale of these features (and when you're viewing km's then a couple of hundred metres is nowt) and they are overflown, twice with 3 usable 'swipes' of central strip film over that time. If we viewed the same image, from the same spot,but tomorrow, you could 'Pixel count changes as they occur!

West and I may even be at crossed purposes here! I'm watching a fascinating (yet scary!!!) slo-mo movie of a massive event taking place right now. That which is now occurring is well beyond debate as to it's 'nature' or ''occurrence' it's here, now and is just a 'spectacle' to wonder at.

We all have a similar access to near real time data sets from many agencies in many specialist areas so we can all do far more than 'guess' at what is happening around us or post 'yesteryear papers' based on 'yesteryear models' (and then parade them as our feelings?) but why do that when you can find it all out for yourself?.

Anyhow, by January we'll know what kind of 'year that was' when the final 'number crunching' will have been done by all the major players and their 'recaps' published. January's not too long to wait now is it?

If you close your eyes you'll miss it, if you care to watch you may well witness a thing that no human eye has ever seen.

Edited October 26, 2007 by Gray-Wolf

[Paul]

I think we're treading fairly close to the line in the tone of recent posts, so please reel it in a touch, you can be poles apart in terms of your views but that doesn't mean you have to get personal..

[Gray-Wolf]

Anyhow, by January we'll know what kind of 'year that was' when the final 'number crunching' will have been done by all the major players and their 'recaps' published. January's not too long to wait now is it?

If you close your eyes you'll miss it, if you care to watch you may well witness a thing that no human eye has ever seen.

Slartybartfarst would've approved of the show at least!

[Iceberg]

Indeed what happens to the sea ice shelves is really rather irrelavent, it's the true ice selves that effect sea level rises which need to be watched GW's picture about the size of scotland puts it into focus also add on that these bergs are 200 or so metres high.

The first signs of what's been happening over the winter can start to be seen now.

I don't have the time to follow all the doings down there so keep posting them GW.

[Gray-Wolf]

Thanks Iceberg!

Though I may well be 'looking' for aspects that highlight my overall view of things I can't escape the rest of things that are so common down there at the moment.

'

You have to decide whether I've been incredibly 'selective' in my posts which ,considering the spread of images around the continent that I've supplied, would be nigh on impossible or that both the melt season and the early calvings are quite 'novel' this early in the season.

I'm not taken with West's reasoning (he'd argue over arguing if he found the right fella to yell at!) for a berg, half the size of Greater London, isn't hard to mistake! You can gauge yourself the size of the area in the "Scallop" on East Getz but ,when that goes, it'll take far more than the inside of the scallop with it. Once coastal Shelf is broken it exposes more shelf to the mechanical action of the sea swell and from a different direction (90 degrees askew from the 'normal' bending and bowing). With Pine on the move and East Getz looking ready to go you have to wonder what will be left of E.,W. Getz, Pine island, Abbot, Wilkins and LarsenC by the end of the year!

The rest of W.A.I.S. glaciers feed out through this coast too!

If you remember this section of coast has been in 'open water' since Aug.

Anyone who is following the C.T. site's view of things must ,by now, be aware that the graph work leaves a lot to be desired (I recall independent posts questioning the use of 'scales' over the summer melt up north)

[Gray-Wolf]

So ,once again we've had a full moon (and it's tides) and more chunks of the coastal ice/shelf ice are falling off. does anyone else have an idea why this should be happening this year?

I've posted on other threads a thought about whether the Arctic melt extended to a greater outflow off Greenland itself and the extra waters are now helping 'lift' the bits of ice anchored to the coast around Antarctica? If you scan around the coast you'll see a fresh load of fragmentation (into the coastal strip/shelf ice) behind where the last years sea ice broke away in sept/Aug.

I haven't seen this in past years, the coastal strip generally becomes free of all ice and is then plagued by 'rounded bergs' of sea ice when the wind drives them ashore otherwise we just get the odd isolated chunk falling off. This year gert big chunks are falling off all over the place!

[Gray-Wolf]

Some more news from the arctic circle

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/...71030092705.htm

Obviously, if you take note of the last para, this is a 'novel event' that cannot just be laid at the door of 'natural cycles'.

[jethro]

Mmmm, bit of a big assumption to make there, me thinks. Natural cycles account for the glacier being smaller than it is currently, also for it being larger than it is currently; they ebb and flow.

The last paragraph speaks volumes of this wholesale assumption :

"It seems like an unprecedented change in a short amount of time," Koch said. "From this work and many other studies looking at forcings of the climate system, one has to turn away from natural ones alone to explain this dramatic change of the past 150 years"

"It seems" is a long way from "It is". The glacier may well be in rapid decline but there is no evidence that this is unprecedented; not experienced in our time is a more acurate description. Glacial retreat has revealed many artifacts from around the world, some such as those found in Greenland and Austria paint a peculiar picture of tools and workplaces looking as though they were quite literally abandoned overnight.

I would say the most alarming thing about this piece, is that prior to the glacial advance trees were quite happily growing there, what happened to make the ice advance so quickly? They report the stumps were still rooted in the ground, some with bark intact, this indicates they were alive and well at the time. If the glacier advance had happened slowly due to decreasing temps then I would imagine the tree line would have lowered prior to this point, the stumps would not be intact, stood in the ground, the trees would have been dead long enough for decay to have set in, thus rotten stumps not rooted to the ground.

[Devonian]

Mmmm, bit of a big assumption to make there, me thinks. Natural cycles account for the glacier being smaller than it is currently, also for it being larger than it is currently; they ebb and flow.

The last paragraph speaks volumes of this wholesale assumption :

"It seems like an unprecedented change in a short amount of time," Koch said. "From this work and many other studies looking at forcings of the climate system, one has to turn away from natural ones alone to explain this dramatic change of the past 150 years"

"It seems" is a long way from "It is". The glacier may well be in rapid decline but there is no evidence that this is unprecedented; not experienced in our time is a more acurate description. Glacial retreat has revealed many artifacts from around the world, some such as those found in Greenland and Austria paint a peculiar picture of tools and workplaces looking as though they were quite literally abandoned overnight.

I would say the most alarming thing about this piece, is that prior to the glacial advance trees were quite happily growing there, what happened to make the ice advance so quickly? They report the stumps were still rooted in the ground, some with bark intact, this indicates they were alive and well at the time. If the glacier advance had happened slowly due to decreasing temps then I would imagine the tree line would have lowered prior to this point, the stumps would not be intact, stood in the ground, the trees would have been dead long enough for decay to have set in, thus rotten stumps not rooted to the ground.

What is more interesting is everyone seems to accept this glaciers (and many other world wide) hasn't melted back so far for at least 7,000 years. So, now is warmer than in the much touted MWP then...

[jethro]

What is more interesting is everyone seems to accept this glaciers (and many other world wide) hasn't melted back so far for at least 7,000 years. So, now is warmer than in the much touted MWP then...

Which kind of proves my point quite nicely Dev; there is much talk of how we were warmer during the MWP than now, I believe from both sides of the fence there is general agreement that this is so, hence the hockey graph being discarded. So, let's assume it was warmer then and this glacier hung on to its' secret buried tree stumps; would that not confirm that glacial retreat is not and cannot be used as a measurement of AGW? Pretty much the same way that the Arctic ice loss has been used to demonstrate AGW; pretty conclusive evidence points to that being caused by ocean currents/weather patterns, neither of which are the result of AGW but the general public can imagine ice melting due to a warmer world, ergo it is used repeatedly to hammer home the message.

[Devonian]

Which kind of proves my point quite nicely Dev; there is much talk of how we were warmer during the MWP than now, I believe from both sides of the fence there is general agreement that this is so, hence the hockey graph being discarded.

Jethro, there have been amazingly determined attempts by sceptics to rubbish the hockey stick (as you must well know...) and to thus promote the idea the MWP was warmer than now - not that it wasn't...(thus also putting about the idea now isn't particularily warm - yeah right) but if you check the AR4 you'll see the MWP is very muted in most reconstruction of part temperature - a view which this report backs up.

Now id problably warmer than at any time for 2,000 yearsa and perhaps with this evidence, 7, 000 years.. So, let's assume it was warmer then and this glacier hung on to its' secret buried tree stumps; would that not confirm that glacial retreat is not and cannot be used as a measurement of AGW? Pretty much the same way that the Arctic ice loss has been used to demonstrate AGW; pretty conclusive evidence points to that being caused by ocean currents/weather patterns, neither of which are the result of AGW but the general public can imagine ice melting due to a warmer world, ergo it is used repeatedly to hammer home the message.

It confirms indicates now is perhaps as warm as for 7, 000 years. There is an obvious extra forcing atm but no obvious other extra forcings - go figure :lol:

Edited November 1, 2007 by Devonian

[jethro]

Jethro, there have been amazingly determined attempts by sceptics to rubbish the hockey stick (as you must well know...) and to thus promote the idea the MWP was warmer than now - not that it wasn't...(thus also putting about the idea now isn't particularily warm - yeah right) but if you check the AR4 you'll see the MWP is very muted in most reconstruction of part temperature - a view which this report backs up.

It confirms indicates now is perhaps as warm as for 7, 000 years. There is an obvious extra forcing atm but no obvious other extra forcings - go figure :lol:

Now I'm confused. Leaving the hockey stick aside for a mo (it was just the first thing which sprang to mind and I don't see any point in opening that world of disagreement again here); if, as you say above the MWP was warmer than now (I think that's what you're saying?) - then how can this indicate it is now perhaps as warm as it has been for 7,000 years? The MWP was a few hundred years ago. Muted or not, it happened, I'm sure if the AR4 exists in a few hundred years time this current period will appear muted too, given that it hasn't as yet exceded the MWP nor lasted as long thus far.

There may well be an obvious forcing now (Co2) but as we know so little about glacial advance/retreat I fail to see how we can be so sure there is no other obvious forcing, given that the accepted wisdom is higher Co2 = higher temps ergo they retreat and yet a period a few hundred years ago experienced higher temps and this one at least, didn't retreat as far as it has now. Surely that would indicate higher temps alone are not the only thing at play here? It cannot be that this one did retreat then but no one noticed or there was no one around to document it because if it had retreated then, the stumps would have rotted away.

I think presenting this as further evidence of AGW is misleading and constitutes a huge leap of assumption in those who reported the findings if the article is accurate; perhaps it's an editorial lapse.

[Devonian]

Now I'm confused. Leaving the hockey stick aside for a mo (it was just the first thing which sprang to mind and I don't see any point in opening that world of disagreement again here); if, as you say above the MWP was warmer than now (I think that's what you're saying?)

No it's not what I'm saying. Check the IPCC AR4 - the MWP probably existed but it was probably muted and temps now are likely to be higher - these melting glaciers (more melt than for 7,000 years) backs that view up.

- then how can this indicate it is now perhaps as warm as it has been for 7,000 years?

See above.

The MWP was a few hundred years ago. Muted or not, it happened, I'm sure if the AR4 exists in a few hundred years time this current period will appear muted too, given that it hasn't as yet exceded the MWP nor lasted as long thus far.

You're 'sure' - I wish I could be so certain - either way. You make a lot of assumptions with that word 'sure'

here may well be an obvious forcing now (Co2) but as we know so little about glacial advance/retreat I fail to see how we can be so sure there is no other obvious forcing, given that the accepted wisdom is higher Co2 = higher temps ergo they retreat and yet a period a few hundred years ago experienced higher temps and this one at least, didn't retreat as far as it has now.

But, the MWP wasn't assertably warmer than now The glaciers didn't retreat so far because it wasn't as warm as now is both the more sensible explanation and what this new data says.

Surely that would indicate higher temps alone are not the only thing at play here? It cannot be that this one did retreat then but no one noticed or there was no one around to document it because if it had retreated then, the stumps would have rotted away.

Wrong assumption imo. Btw, note how far away from the glacier the log in the picture is.

I think presenting this as further evidence of AGW is misleading and constitutes a huge leap of assumption in those who reported the findings if the article is accurate; perhaps it's an editorial lapse.

Ahh, the old 'misleading' allegation eh :lol:

[Gray-Wolf]

C'mon Jethro!

Those hills that are the Granite uplands inland from you used to be overflowing with folk until, they messed up the land and the climate changed. That climate change (to colder and wetter) would just be around the 5,000BC that the Forrest's were over-run by the glaciers. As we know it is more important to have heavy snow fall to grow your glacier than it is to have massive temperature drops. The cooler wetter conditions that we have here do mark a global climatic 'alteration' (unlike the MWP) which was probably tied into the globe 'settling down' into it's new ocean currents/weather patterns post the 10500 BC meltdown.

It may well reflect a 'normal' climate cycle that was augmented by the 'novel' conditions our planet was experiencing after the end of the last ice age but we'd need to establish 'which one' to make sense of it.

I do find it bemusing to have ump teem different areas of the biosphere showing signs of 'forced' change (that hasn't been witnessed in the records before) and for them all to be put down to 'obscure' drivers and not the most obvious one! Maybe folk think it's all a grand 'coincidence'?

Edited November 1, 2007 by Gray-Wolf

[jethro]

A brief reply to you both whilst popping in before popping out again....

Dev: I'm assuming nothing merely going on data, not a clue what difference it makes how far away the log is, it's there, it was previously hidden by ice, now it isn't and it's been carbon dated.

GW: Absolutely we need "to establish 'which one' to make sense of it." That was the point of my original post. It's equally as bemusing to have every last climatic variation asigned to being as a result of AGW.

When it comes to past temperatures I tend to stick to the Vostok results as they appear to be accepted by all as being correct.

Here they are, it's been both cooler and warmer than now

http://mclean.ch/climate/Ice_cores.htm

[Stratos Ferric]

A brief reply to you both whilst popping in before popping out again....

Dev: I'm assuming nothing merely going on data, not a clue what difference it makes how far away the log is, it's there, it was previously hidden by ice, now it isn't and it's been carbon dated.

GW: Absolutely we need "to establish 'which one' to make sense of it." That was the point of my original post. It's equally as bemusing to have every last climatic variation asigned to being as a result of AGW.

When it comes to past temperatures I tend to stick to the Vostok results as they appear to be accepted by all as being correct.

Here they are, it's been both cooler and warmer than now

http://mclean.ch/climate/Ice_cores.htm

Jethro, I'm assuming you're therefore still arguing that all of the current warming is natural?

I'm currently sat in a house that feels fairly chilly. I could turn the heating on and it will warm. Even so, it will not get as warm as it would on a sunny day in mid summer without the heating on.

So, in an hour, my house will be three or four C warmer than it is now, but below the level attained quite naturally in summer. I've now got a dilemma, because by your logic this warming is therefore natural, even though I've turned the heating on: after all, it's well within previous bounds.

You do tend to argue as if all things remain equal through time. Over long periods they do not. The fact that we might, a long time ago, have been warmer at the poles than we are now does not of itself disprove that the current warming is influenced by man's activities. There are lots of reasons for climate warming and cooling, and at different times they may or may not be present.

If I drive my car into a tree it will stop rather dramatically, and, arguably, naturally. If I apply a brake, it will retard more slowly, if I driev across a rough surface, or corner, it will slow again. There's a million reasons why my car might slow. If you show me a plot of car speeds slowing down v time, and no other inforamation, just those plots, it's impossible to know what might have been causing deceleration at any time, but I sure know that if I'm sat in a car now, and the driver has her foot on the brake, that irrespective of what else might be happening, that braking is slowing the car down

e

[Stratos Ferric]

Mmmm, bit of a big assumption to make there, me thinks. Natural cycles account for the glacier being smaller than it is currently, also for it being larger than it is currently; they ebb and flow.

The last paragraph speaks volumes of this wholesale assumption :

"It seems like an unprecedented change in a short amount of time," Koch said. "From this work and many other studies looking at forcings of the climate system, one has to turn away from natural ones alone to explain this dramatic change of the past 150 years"

"It seems" is a long way from "It is". The glacier may well be in rapid decline but there is no evidence that this is unprecedented; not experienced in our time is a more acurate description. Glacial retreat has revealed many artifacts from around the world, some such as those found in Greenland and Austria paint a peculiar picture of tools and workplaces looking as though they were quite literally abandoned overnight.

I would say the most alarming thing about this piece, is that prior to the glacial advance trees were quite happily growing there, what happened to make the ice advance so quickly? They report the stumps were still rooted in the ground, some with bark intact, this indicates they were alive and well at the time. If the glacier advance had happened slowly due to decreasing temps then I would imagine the tree line would have lowered prior to this point, the stumps would not be intact, stood in the ground, the trees would have been dead long enough for decay to have set in, thus rotten stumps not rooted to the ground.

Jethro, having read the article I find your spin amusing. I take your point re the us of 'it seems' but his main hypothesis is quite unequivocal..."one has to turn away from natural...". As to your unprecedented, well, perhaps not - in fact obviously not, but as has been mentioned many times in these threads if you go back far enough you can argue pretty much anything you want, albeit that the world was unrecognisable from where we are now so that comparisons are really meaningless. I don't agree with your 'in our times': the ayuthoer of the article makes it clear - 'not for at least the last 7000 years'; not quite what I would call 'our times'.

As to rapid formation of ice; it's unlikely to have been flowing ice in the first instance. For ice mass to build up dramatically it would require intense snowfall and reduced, or no, summer melt. Such a snowfall would not be neatly bounded by the edge of the existing ice mass. It is more likely that, for whatever reason (perhaps a large meteor strike) there was a sustained period of heavy snowfall, such that trees simply became buried.

The process of glacier ice formation required compression of snow by the weight of more snow from above; eventually there will be lateral or downhill movement, but the process of growth probably relies far more on 'primary development' at the margins (i.e. top down compression) than it does lateral expansion.

[Osbourne One-Nil]

If I drive my car into a tree it will stop rather dramatically, and, arguably, naturally. If I apply a brake, it will retard more slowly, if I driev across a rough surface, or corner, it will slow again. There's a million reasons why my car might slow. If you show me a plot of car speeds slowing down v time, and no other inforamation, just those plots, it's impossible to know what might have been causing deceleration at any time, but I sure know that if I'm sat in a car now, and the driver has her foot on the brake, that irrespective of what else might be happening, that braking is slowing the car down

Wouldn't it be simpler just to look where you're going?

[jethro]

Stratos: Firstly, let's start with the most obvious, glaring thing in your posts:

"Jethro, I'm assuming you're therefore still arguing that all of the current warming is natural?"

Did the conversations a couple of days ago not happen? You must have read my posts stating catagorically my position, as you replied to them.

The article GW posted about the glacier said, and I quote, "until the recently warming climate released the stumps from their icy tombs". The stumps have been carbon dated at 7000 years old so the article is saying for the first time in 7000 years the climate has been warm enough to melt the glacier and reveal them. Straight forward, we are warmer now than we have been for 7000 years, otherwise this would not have happened. Yes? It is yet another thing which is, as a direct result of the climate warming. Well no, it isn't. It is an assumption made due to the warming climate we are currently experiencing. If we had never been warmer than now in the last 7000 years then they would be correct, but we have been.

This isn't a case of going far enough back in time to find a point, to a time when land masses were configured differently so that comparisons are meaningless. The Vostok Ice Cores are accepted as valid by both sides of this debate, so using those figures, not some shonky data, 1000 years ago we were about 1 degree warmer than now, 2,100 years ago we were about 2 degrees higher than now and about 3,300 years ago we were roughly 3 degrees warmer than now. If the glacier has retreated to this extent due to the current warming climate, why did it not do so then? It cannot be that is has retreated before but advanced again and buried the stumps, they would have rotted.

http://mclean.ch/climate/Ice_cores.htm

[Gray-Wolf]

Hi Jethro!

Have you thought it might be because they were 'natural' warmings and that this warming is man driven? I think you may find that the speed of warming/areas of warming/ocean respoces/climate responces were all different under 'normal forcings' than they are to our 'novel forcings'.

If we look back over the last 150yrs and see where our 'warming' originates then we may find it more localised than a natural event driven by global tilt/solar output.

This time around we will likely see many 'strange' or misplaced events as we impact our atmosphere/climates when compared with how 'mother nature' does things.

[jethro]

Hi Jethro!

Have you thought it might be because they were 'natural' warmings and that this warming is man driven? I think you may find that the speed of warming/areas of warming/ocean respoces/climate responces were all different under 'normal forcings' than they are to our 'novel forcings'.

If we look back over the last 150yrs and see where our 'warming' originates then we may find it more localised than a natural event driven by global tilt/solar output.

This time around we will likely see many 'strange' or misplaced events as we impact our atmosphere/climates when compared with how 'mother nature' does things.

Hey Geedubya,

I can't see how that would make a difference really, the speed at which we've warmed isn't unique in the temperature record.

I found this: http://iprc.soest.hawaii.edu/~axel/cp-2-99-2006.pdf

If you get time, take a look, it doesn't offer anything conclusive but it does cover quite a lot of variables including solar output/orbital tilt and concludes these played a very small part in the MWP.

I'm sure there are still many surprises in store but attributing wholesale, every last climatic variation to AGW is to my mind, only likely to cloud the issue further.