Polar Ice sets new minimum

[Chris Knight]

Seems a little sad really and more than a tad deceptive.

Not once in the article was the result on global temps that such Cathrite releases would initiate. The Cathrites are one of the strongest greenhouse gasses on the planet and the temperature increases that would follow such releases would be more than enough to melt the remaining Greenland ice cap and the rest of the West and East Antarctic ice sheets releasing 10s upon 10's more meters of sea level rises. offset by this supposed 1.5m 'saving' of sea level reduction.

Basically it's painting a rosy picture of one of the most dangerous aspects of G.W., the release of the deep sea/shelf Cathrites. It is my understanding that most efforts to 'peg' temps are pegged below the temp. that we currently feel would start The Cathrite release.

It's bad enough to have to factor in the methane currently seeping out of Siberia and Alaska without having to factor in massive Cathrite release.

Damn, I thought nobody knew about this, I was about to patent a method for dredging clathrate deposits from the now accessible Arctic floor, bringing them to the surface to reduce SSTs as they melted, and capturing the released methane for fuel in floating ballons and pipelines. Spoiled my day.

[Gray-Wolf]

Ice pushes out and collapses all the time. If it didn't they'd be ice all the way to the equator.

Sorry Gray-Wolf. Satellite observations are independent, and give a view of the total ice level all around Antarctica.

The Peninsular is interesting but it's 5% of Antarctica, and one should not focus on it to the exclusion of other areas.

Especially when these areas show frankly incredible ice totals compared to recent years. In fact, the highest recorded ice totals.

BTW the ice record was a few days ago. Don't mess me around and post something next week when the ice situation may be very different. What we need is calmer more impartial posts, like Carinthian. If we cannot manage this then I will request this thread be locked.

I'll start with your last point first.

As you will note I have simply requested that you, or Mr Sleet, provide concrete evidence of your claims between the dates of Aug 27th and Sept 16th. I have been busy compiling and posting (as requested by your good self) as many images (annotated) maps, Scale images to help with observations from over that period to support 'my observations' of a peculiar event taking place down there (which are obviously not widely held in the public sphere at present as the event has only been ongoing for 31 days).

This is a thread about the ablation of the winter ice build in Antarctica 2007/08, I am seeing a quite sensational event taking place at the start of that season and am posting the evidence where it is available to us all. You keep on keeping on about how it isn't right and then post one tidgy screen capture to back up your stance. When you are asked (as you asked of me at the start of the thread) to post 'concrete' observations to back up your hypothesis you take your bat home.

This is a thread for the folk of Net weather to observe what is happening in the Antarctic and you wish it locked because the mounting evidence posted, and the robust way it is defended, troubles you in your inability to respond with like, unequivocal evidence, to support your stance? Does that sound like the actions of a rational human being or the sulks of a person who feels out of their depth?

I have posted one image of the Northern Peninsula today to highlight it's current state (in line with your admissions of it's advanced ablation this season) and over the past two days ,from the images available and not blighted by cloud/fog/Arctic sea smoke (no mean feat) I have posted images from the areas your map shown as thick,contiguous ice up to the coastline and that are on the opposite side of Antarctica from the Peninsula (with longitudinal references). I have shown areas of open water as large as NW Scotland where your image shows 90% thick ice coverage and yet you pretend it is a nothing.

I will continue to post the images of the true, visible ,state of the ice pack as it continues to decay, I suggest you continue posting your image so I can pull up as many images of that area, four hours earlier, so the other folk can make their own minds up as to the accuracy of each viewpoint.

This is not a competition, this is a verifiable event. Time alone will tell whose observations are the most pertinent.

Ian.

EDIT " Ice pushes out and collapses all the time. If it didn't there'd be ice all the way to the equator" ?

Edited October 3, 2007 by Gray-Wolf

[parmenides3]

Having read all the posts on this topic, and being a bit of a skeptic about it all being down to GW as opposed to the end of an interglacial period, albeit speeded up by our wasteful ways and lack of consideration, I came across this in the BBC archives...makes for interesting reading. As I'm no expert on Polar Ice melt I'm asking if this could be possible???????

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/467928.stm

All comment greatly appreciated.

TTFN

Debs

Hi debs. That's a new one on me (albeit an old one; eight years is a long time in this field...). Clathrates are a complex subject. Mostly, they exist underneath the sea bed, and only appear when there's a disturbance to the ocean bottom like a minor earthquake or similar. It is believed that there are also substantail clathrate deposits underneath permafrost; certainly, methane is released when permafrost melts.

Until recently, it was thought that the storegga landslide some thousands of years ago might have been in part responsible for shifts in climate patterns, due to the almost instantaneous release of thousand of tons of clathrate. Last i read, (this year), a team went and looked for evidence of the same around the area and came up with nothing, suggesting that the clathrates weren't released after all.

There is probably enough clathrate in certain areas of the sea floor to cause a real problem, if some disturbance (such a drilling for oil) were to cause its wholesale release. The effect would be to add a large amount of a potent greenhouse gas straight into the atmosphere. However, it is very unlikely; at least, there's no evidence yet that it has happened in the past, so no clear idea of what might causeit to happen in the future.

I don't get the bit about sea level at all; it makes no sense to me. i don't think this is an issue, tbh.

:)P

[NorthYorksWeather]

If people dont agree with others posts i think there is no need to reply as it just causes arguments, everyone is entitled to have there own say, i come on here to look at good discusision not childish bickering about whos right and whos wrong.

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

Clearly you are interested in Antarctic sea ice only to the extent you can push your narrative.

I'm not interested in your narrative. You have a platform for to give your views on Antarctica on the Environmental Change forum. Anyone interested in your narrative can discuss the obvious signs of the impending meltdown of Antarctica there.

Carinthian's thread,which this one was to mirror, gives us the facts of the state of the sea ice as they are. There is little or no accompanying narrative. Certainly not to the extent you'd like to give us here, meltdown admist a big freeze.

Let's review some basic facts why I don't trust your judgement

* you don't trust NOAA data, maps or charts

* you don't trust NASA data, maps or charts

* you don't trust University of Brehmen data, maps or charts

* your extreme rejection of NOAA and NASA and sources of data rival to your one approved source are widely agreed to be false

* you may not trust any source of data, maps and charts other than NASA visual satellite images of Antarctica and your own interpretation of them

* you trust only your own observations and experience

* you want this thread dedicated to your theory

* you want this thread dedicated to land as well as sea ice

* your want to focus on whichever part of Antarctica happens to show lower than average ice totals, and ignore the rest because it doesn't fit your theory. Even if 95% of Antarctica shows high, historically unprecendented, levels of sea ice you will give us evidence we are on the verge of a catastrophe.

* your statements and focus is biased to butress your narrative which is widely agreed to be speculative and controversial

* you accuse those who criticise you, who raise logical issues with your work, of being irrational

* you claim NASA and NOAA scientists don't know what they are talking about and you do, and you really expect us to believe this

* you believe you have a revolutionary idea and that if other people don't accept it it's not a problem with the idea it is because they are too ignorant.

* you have mentioned these include NASA and NOAA scientists

* you have sent emails to real scientists at Antarctic stations asking if there is anything to worry about, when they write - I paraphrase - "no, there is nothing to worry about" you carry on as before as if there is something to worry about

* you have said you don't have to be scientifically trained to do what you do

* you have not responded to reasonable requests to change your behaviour to suit this thread

* you want this thread to be the mirror of the one in the Environmental Change forum, whereas almost everyone else want a thread like Carinthian's thread

[Osbourne One-Nil]

.

[Gray-Wolf]

Thank you for that Oon! (and very quick may I add........I'm very tempted to take back all those naughty things I've said about you in the past but I wouldn't want you viewing it as a sign of weakness/senility!

If you are new to this thread you can see there is a little bit of contention as to the state of play down south. A.F. has it in his head that I am focusing on the Peninsula this southern spring but as my last image of there shows that would be pointless as the ice has already gone! The area that once housed Larsen B is the only part of the ice cover left to go and it appears to be on with that little job right now.

A.F. et-al seem to wish to convince me that the other areas around the Antarctic continent are still in the icy grips of winter but my eyes (and the images I've posted) tell a different story.

For some reason there seems to have been a continent wide disruption of the ice pack around Antarctica around 26th-30th of August. Ice extent plots then show a growth in the extent (and total coverage of the ice) from Aug 29th thru to Sept 16th.

I have tried, the best I can , with the help of the MODIS Rapid response Satellites (Terra and Aqua) to give a visual overview of the 'actual extent' and coverage of the ice over that period of time. There are obviously many more images that I could post but they are ,in the main, part blighted with low stratoform cloud, fog and Arctic sea smoke and seeing as folk wished to be contentious I chose to post the 'clearest images' available (erroneously thinking this would stifle the arguments).

I will continue the thread here as I feel that this early breakup will lead to longer and greater ablation on the remaining shelf ice over the summer and ,if we're lucky ,we can watch it occur 4hrs behind times.

I have spent over 4yrs studying the wealth of visible images output from Antarctica ,and though not qualified, have amassed a depth of personal experience on how to interpret the images.

I have never enjoyed being 'spoon fed' information and personally choose to take my inputs from the 'experts' on the ground or from the visible images freely available. I hope you'll humour me in this!

[debs]

Thanks for those replies.

Just a point to make. I recently took and Open Uni course and it mentioned the effects of Polar Ice melt shutting down the North Atlantic current because of the amount of fresh, cold water being added to the areas around the Artic Ice region, thus slowing or even as mentioned, shutting down the current altogether. Now if the Polar region is diminishing (melting), and freshwater is being added to the conveyor which in turn would switch off, which in turn would create colder winters for many decades/centuries, wouldn't this produce more ice which would then create an albedo effect reflecting the suns heat from the surface thus deminishing the greenhouse effect over time and returning the earth back to "normal". I use the word normal for simplicity because I know that normals today or 100 years ago will not be the same normal that this sort of event would leave behind.

Now I know this sounds very much "day after tomorrow movie scenario," but l think that to a certain degree if this scenario were to be the consequence of polar ice melt then its mother natures way of repairing it wounds inflicted by years of abuse and as long as we learn by these mistakes, then surely something good can come from this. Having said this, the likihood of mankind ever learning by its mistakes is slim to none.

Again, any comments appreciated.

TTFN

Debs

[Gray-Wolf]

I think that we have covered this in other threads but ,if memory serves, your O.U. course is also well outdated! Recent data seems to show that the process doesn't work in nature and is more than compensated by the climate shift driving it's slowing.

If you jump back to basics the planet is always trying to balence her 'heat Budget'. Warmth from the equatorial regions is trying to move North and South to bring equillibrium to temps globaly. The removal of one of the 'heat rivers' in the ocean would lead to a regional imbalence in the budget and the heat would dig out another route north.

AGW may well mean some regional extremes in climate as weather and climate adjust to their new parameters but this will be a short lived 'blip' if we continue to push out ever increasing levels of the pollutants driving the changes.

EDIT: Just spotted this, another take on the 'extremes in the Arctic this year

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/...70926155626.htm

Oh! and this

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/...70927090341.htm

Edited October 4, 2007 by Gray-Wolf

[debs]

Cheers Grey Wolf,

Yes I suppose my OU stuff was outdated, science is forever changing. New discoveries everyday.

I'm sorry if this subject has been covered. Don't get much time to look on here as much as I would like to, but your comments are good and links are enlightening. Thank you.

Debs

[Gray-Wolf]

Busy bod yesterday so I didn't get chance to upload images!

I'm concentrating on areas that A.F.'s images show as 90%+ coverage and I'll try and clip from the coast to open waters

the above area is the South India Basin situated 100E to 115E.

Here is the east of the Admunsen sea showing it's state of fragmentation/melt

And here is Scotland at the same res./scale

Off to check out today's availability of images TTFN.

Edited October 5, 2007 by Gray-Wolf

[jethro]

Whilst looking for info for another thread about underwater volcanoes, I came across this. It's three years old but it's something I'd never heard of before and can't recall it being mentioned on here. Isn't this somewhere near Larsen B?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/20/...ain618807.shtml

[Gray-Wolf]

Hi Jethro! (morning an' all that)

Here's an image of the sea floor around Antarctica and I would imagine that we are talking about the area over 'South Georgia Ridge' which is an extension of the subduction zone responsible for the trench off the west coast of S.America and the accompanying Andes (and their Andesitic Volcanoes).

You would imagine that at plate margins (both constructive and destructive) you'd find varying levels of both Volcanic activity and accompanying seismic activity.

Again I feel that this is the media 'sensationalising' a normal process.

As mentioned previous there are plenty of volcanic outlets beneath the Antarctic ice cap itself and more than enough thermal activity beneath the 2 miles of ice to have a worry about if we must!

[jethro]

Morning GW,

I don't think so, I've also found this, looks like it is near Larsen B.

http://www.nsf.gov/discoveries/disc_summ.jsp?cntn_id=109683

[Devonian]

Whilst looking for info for another thread about underwater volcanoes, I came across this. It's three years old but it's something I'd never heard of before and can't recall it being mentioned on here. Isn't this somewhere near Larsen B?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/20/...ain618807.shtml

What's your argument here, Jethro?

Edit: to be clearer, wrt that volcano and Larsen B.

Edited October 8, 2007 by Devonian

[Gray-Wolf]

Hi again Jethro you ole' pedant! you are correct that the old Larsen ice shelf was situated on the eastern coast of the peninsula facing into the Weddell sea (underlain by the Weddell Plain) but as you will see the Peninsula itself is an 'extension' (via the south Georgia ridge) of the subduction zone that is the eastern side of S. America. The Atlantic plate is being 'subducted' underneath the Pacific plate at an angle of between 30 and 50 degrees (the actual contact zone is nicely plotted out by the earthquakes as the plate grinds its way down towards the mantle) the muds and seawater that is subducted along with the sea floor become heated (superheated) by both depth and friction and then seek the easiest route 'out'. I would imagine that in this region that 'route' is via faulting in the sea floor of the 'Weddell plain'.

EDIT : I've also had a look 'Darn Sawf' and ,up to now, the later part of yesterday and up to 6:30 this morning the overflights are pretty much blighted by weather systems,stratoform cloud,fog and sea smoke. From the glimpses available it appears that we are well into this years melt including the Ross Sea. If this keeps up we will be effectively clear of coastal ice before the start of Nov.

[Scarf-Carrot-Coal]

Lets have debate but please drop the bickering. This debate (and I use the word loosely) is not adding to anyones knowledge.

[jethro]

Hi again Jethro you ole' pedant! you are correct that the old Larsen ice shelf was situated on the eastern coast of the peninsula facing into the Weddell sea (underlain by the Weddell Plain) but as you will see the Peninsula itself is an 'extension' (via the south Georgia ridge) of the subduction zone that is the eastern side of S. America. The Atlantic plate is being 'subducted' underneath the Pacific plate at an angle of between 30 and 50 degrees (the actual contact zone is nicely plotted out by the earthquakes as the plate grinds its way down towards the mantle) the muds and seawater that is subducted along with the sea floor become heated (superheated) by both depth and friction and then seek the easiest route 'out'. I would imagine that in this region that 'route' is via faulting in the sea floor of the 'Weddell plain'.

EDIT : I've also had a look 'Darn Sawf' and ,up to now, the later part of yesterday and up to 6:30 this morning the overflights are pretty much blighted by weather systems,stratoform cloud,fog and sea smoke. From the glimpses available it appears that we are well into this years melt including the Ross Sea. If this keeps up we will be effectively clear of coastal ice before the start of Nov.

Cheers GW, not intentionally being pedantic honest, just trying to get a picture of where this is.

Dev: Good morning Dev, no argument, merely posting more information which may be relevant here. I'd never heard of an underwater volcano being discovered here, had you? Ice loss both North and South is discussed with a view to AGW being the over-riding factor, this is evidence that perhaps Larsen B and changes in Antarctic may not be due to AGW. Another piece of the puzzle perhaps.

[Devonian]

Cheers GW, not intentionally being pedantic honest, just trying to get a picture of where this is.

Dev: Good morning Dev, no argument, merely posting more information which may be relevant here. I'd never heard of an underwater volcano being discovered here, had you? Ice loss both North and South is discussed with a view to AGW being the over-riding factor, this is evidence that perhaps Larsen B and changes in Antarctic may not be due to AGW. Another piece of the puzzle perhaps.

Jethro, why do you think the volcano might be relevant to the demise to the Larsen B? Can I see your (or others) calculations as to how it might have had an effect?

[Gray-Wolf]

I believe that the loss of Larsen B had quite a bit to do with the strengthening of the 'circumpolar wind' and the extra movements of the 'warm' ocean surface this generates (the Peninsula being stuck out into the Southern Ocean like a sore thumb!).

If you think of a 'still pond' compared with a 'choppy pond' you can easily guess which will freeze first, and remain frozen, and if you look at how the Weddell sea effectively is a giant 'inlet' then all the extra 'mechanical action' of waves into the bay would naturally start to smash things up (if you recall the sizable section of B15, from Ross, that met it's destruction by storm swell generated from the Bearing straights you'll see how destructive the 'sea' can be!).

The effects of Vulcanisity beneath the East Antarctic Ice Sheet shouldn't be underestimated in it's abilities to generate catastrophic collapse there though. Maybe not another piece of the puzzle but certainly another feature that shows the fragility of this massive structure independent of climate!

[Mr Sleet]

Cheers GW, not intentionally being pedantic honest, just trying to get a picture of where this is.

Dev: Good morning Dev, no argument, merely posting more information which may be relevant here. I'd never heard of an underwater volcano being discovered here, had you? Ice loss both North and South is discussed with a view to AGW being the over-riding factor, this is evidence that perhaps Larsen B and changes in Antarctic may not be due to AGW. Another piece of the puzzle perhaps.

Guys,

Having been away for a while I'm disappointed that the original thread has been hijacked and moved to the enviro thread. Originally I suggested a separate Antarctic ice report thread as poor old Carinthians Arctic ice report thread was being contaminated with Antarctic ice often my fault.

It's a shame that it developed into a heated debate about how the ice area was measured,( interesting though that was) when the intention was to follow how the ice area was changing with the seasons.

Now hopefully those questions can be debated in this thread, OON/mods , could we have the original thread back please ? Maybe we could called it "Mr Sleets Antarctic ice reports" and I 'll do my best to keep everyone on topic.

Edited October 8, 2007 by Mr Sleet

[Gray-Wolf]

Guys,

Having been away for a while I'm disappointed that the original thread has been hijacked and moved to the enviro thread. Originally I suggested a separate Antarctic ice report thread as poor old Corinthians Arctic ice report thread was being contaminated with Antarctic ice often my fault.

It's a shame that it developed into a heated debate about how the ice area was measured,( interesting though that was) when the intention was to follow how the ice area was changing with the seasons.

Now hopefully those questions can be debated in this thread, OON/mods , could we have the original thread back please ? Maybe we could called it "Mr Sleets Antarctic ice reports" and I 'll do my best to keep everyone on topic.

Why not just post it Mr S.? It was A.F's imploring that moved me to concede and have Oon move the thread (rather than face the continual onslaught of poorly backed up 'evidence to the contrary').

So far as this year is concerned there is a lot to witness that is novel (if you care to page back over the images) as some areas are now ice free 6 weeks before times (no mean feat if we are to believe the 'record ice extent/thickness' claims) and I for one feel that these 'exceptional circumstances' deserve their own thread.

I'd suggest you get a move on with your thread though as there won't be much sea ice left soon! LOL

Edited October 8, 2007 by Gray-Wolf

[jethro]

I believe that the loss of Larsen B had quite a bit to do with the strengthening of the 'circumpolar wind' and the extra movements of the 'warm' ocean surface this generates (the Peninsula being stuck out into the Southern Ocean like a sore thumb!).

If you think of a 'still pond' compared with a 'choppy pond' you can easily guess which will freeze first, and remain frozen, and if you look at how the Weddell sea effectively is a giant 'inlet' then all the extra 'mechanical action' of waves into the bay would naturally start to smash things up (if you recall the sizable section of B15, from Ross, that met it's destruction by storm swell generated from the Bearing straights you'll see how destructive the 'sea' can be!).

The effects of Vulcanisity beneath the East Antarctic Ice Sheet shouldn't be underestimated in it's abilities to generate catastrophic collapse there though. Maybe not another piece of the puzzle but certainly another feature that shows the fragility of this massive structure independent of climate!

Agreed GW but surely anything which adds to a deviation from the norm has to have an impact too. An active volcano, which this is, will add considerable warmth to the bottom.

Dev: Common sense, see above reply to GW.

[Devonian]

Agreed GW but surely anything which adds to a deviation from the norm has to have an impact too. An active volcano, which this is, will add considerable warmth to the bottom.

Dev: Common sense, see above reply to GW.

Jethro, common sense used to tell us the Sun went around the Earth...

Common sense tells me that sums don't add up - common sense tells me any effect that that volcano had on the Larson B ice shelf is vanishingly small. Why? because the sums for heat output from a volcano and the heat needed to melt the ice sheet don't add up. Further (and a bigger problem imo) the volcano is nowhere near Larsen B, but in Antarctic Sound near Joinville Island - and heat from it would be swept into the Southern Ocean.

Edited October 8, 2007 by Devonian

[pottyprof]

heat from it would be swept into the Southern Ocean.

But isn't that using common sense too Dev?