Antarctica

[Gray-Wolf]

http://www.physorg.com/news154866298.html

I have a lot of respect for Mr Benn's dad (not he of 52 Festive Row you understand!!!) so I hope it's 'like father like son' and he can impress on Mr Brown the peril we are all in regarding catastrophic collapse (partial) of the Antarctic ice sheet.

[LadyPakal]

Looks like the refreeze began around late Feb:

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IM...t.365.south.jpg

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/..._timeseries.png

[Gray-Wolf]

Looks like the refreeze began around late Feb:

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IM...t.365.south.jpg

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/..._timeseries.png

I'd agree with that LadyP but let us not forget the impact of the early winter storms ,and there storm swell on the now 'unprotected' shelfs. There is little left of Wilkins at the moment and , for the first time in a while ,there is a lot of 'open water' around the Weddell sea.

Though temps are now falling (re-freeze has begun) mechanical erosion of the coast is still able to occur. :lol:

[Gray-Wolf]

Nice view of Wilkins yesterday. Not much left but mangled ice it would seem.....apart from the 'ice bridge' to Chardot island that is........

[Gray-Wolf]

http://www.esa.int/esaEO/SEMWZS5DHNF_index_0.html

It would appear we now have a site dealing with the Wilkins collapse.....less effort from me eh? More hammock time I say

[LadyPakal]

A little something for discussion:

http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/me...t-natural-cycle

'Historical records for the western Antarctic Peninsula (WAP) show that it is particularly prone to rapid climate change—change that occurs in cycles of ~200 years and ~2500 years. By studying major transitions in plankton productivity in the western Antarctic, scientists have shown that “spectacular” ice-cover losses have happened many times in the past.'

[Methuselah]

A little something for discussion:

http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/me...t-natural-cycle

'Historical records for the western Antarctic Peninsula (WAP) show that it is particularly prone to rapid climate change—change that occurs in cycles of ~200 years and ~2500 years. By studying major transitions in plankton productivity in the western Antarctic, scientists have shown that “spectacular” ice-cover losses have happened many times in the past.'

So, does that mean:

i) Do nothing, worry not; it's all natural and thus not our fault - or;

ii) We should worry; if nature can do it without our help, we could make things very-much worse?

Interesting question, LP. <_<

[Gray-Wolf]

So, does that mean:

i) Do nothing, worry not; it's all natural and thus not our fault - or;

ii) We should worry; if nature can do it without our help, we could make things very-much worse?

Interesting question, LP. <_<

I see no evidence in paleo sea levels of impacts across the Mediterranean world (2500 yrs ago) that are currently being forecast (lower limits). I feel it to be similar to CO2 and the planets ability to 'throw it in reverse' producing positive CO2 production from past CO2 sinks.

With the current 'revision' in the once 'stable' EAIS still ongoing there is only one of Pete's scenario's that appears ((to me) reasonable.

[Chris Knight]

I see no evidence in paleo sea levels of impacts across the Mediterranean world (2500 yrs ago) that are currently being forecast (lower limits). I feel it to be similar to CO2 and the planets ability to 'throw it in reverse' producing positive CO2 production from past CO2 sinks.

With the current 'revision' in the once 'stable' EAIS still ongoing there is only one of Pete's scenario's that appears ((to me) reasonable.

You appear to have said this a couple of times now, GW. Does this mean you feel that the southern ocean is outgassing carbon dioxide to an appreciable extent?

Re. 2nd para:

i) Do nothing, worry not; it's all natural and thus not our fault - or;

ii) We should worry; if nature can do it without our help, we could make things very-much worse?

The choice given by Pete is: worry or not? Ignore it or make it worse, it seems - which of these appears reasonable to you GW - your answer is not clearly evident?

[Admiral_Bobski]

I see no evidence in paleo sea levels of impacts across the Mediterranean world (2500 yrs ago) that are currently being forecast (lower limits). I feel it to be similar to CO2 and the planets ability to 'throw it in reverse' producing positive CO2 production from past CO2 sinks.

With the current 'revision' in the once 'stable' EAIS still ongoing there is only one of Pete's scenario's that appears ((to me) reasonable.

Perhaps, if there was rapid climate change 2500 years ago, there were no effects in the Mediterranean? Perhaps rapid climate change does not actually have the knock-on effects that are predicted?

You seem to be suggesting that the predictions can't be wrong. If this is the case then clearly history has got it wrong then...

CB

[Gray-Wolf]

Perhaps, if there was rapid climate change 2500 years ago, there were no effects in the Mediterranean? Perhaps rapid climate change does not actually have the knock-on effects that are predicted?

You seem to be suggesting that the predictions can't be wrong. If this is the case then clearly history has got it wrong then...

CB

That would be empirical 'data' Bobski my dear and not a personalised account of what the 'winners' wished to preserve. :lol:

Paleo-climatology/oceanography works around the impacts of past events that are measurable by the tools of the 'discipline' (as the impacts of our current 'changes' are measured).

'History' is (in my understanding) one person's perspective (as with the Chinese 'dairies') of events as they happen or a cobbled together verbal tradition that has finally made it's way to a scribe.

The raised beaches of the Caribbean are a prime example (IMHO) of the impacts of sea level change over the last 125,000yrs.

[Admiral_Bobski]

That would be empirical 'data' Bobski my dear and not a personalised account of what the 'winners' wished to preserve.

Paleo-climatology/oceanography works around the impacts of past events that are measurable by the tools of the 'discipline' (as the impacts of our current 'changes' are measured).

'History' is (in my understanding) one person's perspective (as with the Chinese 'dairies') of events as they happen or a cobbled together verbal tradition that has finally made it's way to a scribe.

The raised beaches of the Caribbean are a prime example (IMHO) of the impacts of sea level change over the last 125,000yrs.

What would be "empirical 'data'"? You're rambling again.

It all depends on your definition of "history" - if by "history" you mean what has been written down by man then I agree with your analysis. If, on the other hand, you mean events that have happened in the past, regardless of their having been recorded, then you're talking nonsense.

And what's with all the quote marks all over the place again?

"Empirical 'data'"? Is it data or not?

"Tools of the 'discipline'"? Is it a discipline or not?

"Current 'changes'"? Are they changes or not?

"Chinese 'diaries'"? Are they diaries or not? (I assume you meant diaries and not dairies - I'm not sure what Chinese milk might have to do with the discussion...)

Putting "History" in quotes is acceptable, since you are going on to give a definition of that particular word.

I know these diatribes on grammar annoy many (if not most) people on here, but for crying out loud...!

CB

[doctormog]

What would be "empirical 'data'"? You're rambling again.

It all depends on your definition of "history" - if by "history" you mean what has been written down by man then I agree with your analysis. If, on the other hand, you mean events that have happened in the past, regardless of their having been recorded, then you're talking nonsense.

And what's with all the quote marks all over the place again?

"Empirical 'data'"? Is it data or not?

"Tools of the 'discipline'"? Is it a discipline or not?

"Current 'changes'"? Are they changes or not?

"Chinese 'diaries'"? Are they diaries or not? (I assume you meant diaries and not dairies - I'm not sure what Chinese milk might have to do with the discussion...)

Putting "History" in quotes is acceptable, since you are going on to give a definition of that particular word.

I know these diatribes on grammar annoy many (if not most) people on here, but for crying out loud...!

CB

Good to see the positive ice anomaly continuing to grow after having dipped as low as average for a while.

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/..._timeseries.png

[Iceberg]

The daily view of the antarctic as well.

http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/subsets...saic=Antarctica

[Chris Knight]

The daily view of the antarctic as well.

http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/subsets...saic=Antarctica

Wonderful views Ice, here and in the north. Thanks for posting them. I particularly like: http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/subsets...2.2009093.terra

and the similar views from the Arctic where frigid blasts from over the polar ice create distinct parallel streams of snow-clouds heading away from the poles, as the air streams pass over open waters. Beautiful.

[Red Raven]

Wilkins Ice Shelf is on the brink of breaking away.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7984054.stm

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Wilkins Ice Shelf is on the brink of breaking away.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7984054.stm

All in context. Its a very small part of the continent...look at the rest.

In Mar of 1980, Antarctic sea ice covered 3.5 million sq km (1.6 million sq miles). Today it covers five million sq km (1.9 million sq miles). That's an extra 1.5 million sq km (386,000 square miles).

Funny how this stat is 'completely' ignored and IMO completely swamps an ice bridge collapse.

BFTP

[Gray-Wolf]

All in context. Its a very small part of the continent...look at the rest.

In Mar of 1980, Antarctic sea ice covered 3.5 million sq km (1.6 million sq miles). Today it covers five million sq km (1.9 million sq miles). That's an extra 1.5 million sq km (386,000 square miles).

Funny how this stat is 'completely' ignored and IMO completely swamps an ice bridge collapse.

BFTP

I don't think anyone denies it gets cold in the Antarctic winter Blast!

The fact that we got to the 'ice bridge' phase through a winter melt (very uncommon) last year and that Wilkins is fast becoming another name lost to Antarctica is ,again, noteworthy (IMHO).

Why would anyone (in the scientific community) choose to ignore anything that is 'out of the ordinary' whilst holding up a 'non-event' as special?

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

I don't think anyone denies it gets cold in the Antarctic winter Blast!

The fact that we got to the 'ice bridge' phase through a winter melt (very uncommon) last year and that Wilkins is fast becoming another name lost to Antarctica is ,again, noteworthy (IMHO).

Why would anyone (in the scientific community) choose to ignore anything that is 'out of the ordinary' whilst holding up a 'non-event' as special?

Nope, natural wastage IMO. The antarctic is clearly much healthier now [healthier as in its meant to be ice laiden. Yes interesting if the ice shelf breaks away but clearly not an AGW disaster as it has so much more ice now.

BFTP

[Red Raven]

Nope, natural wastage IMO. The antarctic is clearly much healthier now [healthier as in its meant to be ice laiden. Yes interesting if the ice shelf breaks away but clearly not an AGW disaster as it has so much more ice now.

BFTP

But it all depends what is causing this. Is it part of a pattern that has occurred many times before or is this something new? Nothing should be ignored and certainly within recorded history this is an unusual event and as such should be examined. You cant just say 'pah, it's hardly significant' without examining the data etc - that's just bad science (in fact it's not science at all).

[noggin]

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/19/nsid...ques/#more-7212

I've posted this in the Arctic Ice thread and thought it might be of interest here, too. It's a piece by Dr Walt Meier of the NSIDC about how ice is measured.

:huh:

[Gray-Wolf]

Nope, natural wastage IMO. The antarctic is clearly much healthier now [healthier as in its meant to be ice laiden. Yes interesting if the ice shelf breaks away but clearly not an AGW disaster as it has so much more ice now.

BFTP

Hi BFTP!

Does your opinion take into account the sedimentation records that show how long those lost shelfs had been in place?

IMHO this is a new phenomina certainly not observed in humanities time on the planet (or so the paleo data appears to show) so you may need be more specific in your cyclical theory for me to understand it better.

That said I would imagine that the long term cycles you talk of/seem to talk of would have been recognised and studied by the teams currently running studies there and we would have heard of such by now.

I to would like to believe that there is nothing to worry about (and have mooted the same on many occasions) and so am intensly interested in anyone with data to show we have nothing to fear and that the many millions spent to bring us our current understanding (both in training up a person in their discapline and also on facilitating their ,with hardware, their studies). As far as I am concerned it seems the more we know of the southern continent the less secure we should feel about what we are witnessing there.

[doctormog]

Hi BFTP!

Does your opinion take into account the sedimentation records that show how long those lost shelfs had been in place?

IMHO this is a new phenomina certainly not observed in humanities time on the planet (or so the paleo data appears to show) so you may need be more specific in your cyclical theory for me to understand it better.

I'm not sure I agree with that to be honest, nor does it seem does Dr Ian Allison head of the Australian Antarctic Division glaciology program who has apparently stated that, "Ice shelves in general have episodic calvings and there can be large icebergs breaking off — I’m talking 100km or 200km long — every 10 or 20 or 50 years".

[Gray-Wolf]

I'm not sure I agree with that to be honest, nor does it seem does Dr Ian Allison head of the Australian Antarctic Division glaciology program who has apparently stated that, "Ice shelves in general have episodic calvings and there can be large icebergs breaking off — I’m talking 100km or 200km long — every 10 or 20 or 50 years".

C'mon Dr M.

There are 9 (or is it 10 now??) shelves that no longer exist!

This is not Ross Snapping a chunk off this is the collapse and disintegration of the whole shelf and I do not find any comments from Dr A. on such behaviours.

If we see regrowth in the areas now bereft of shelf I'll gladly hold my hands up and say I'm wrong but as things stand, even though the glaciers to the rear of the areas concerned have accelerated since the shelf loss, no re-growth is occurring (to my knowledge) and so I find it disingenuous to suggest otherwise (when things are so 'different' to the past).

New readers , or folk with less interest, may be falsely re-assured by your statement and it seems, to me, to be merely a straw man set up to befuddle others (IMHO)

Edited April 22, 2009 by Gray-Wolf

[doctormog]

C'mon Dr M.

There are 9 (or is it 10 now??) shelves that no longer exist!

This is not Ross Snapping a chunk off this is the collapse and disintegration of the whole shelf and I do not find any comments from Dr A. on such behaviours.

If we see regrowth in the areas now bereft of shelf I'll gladly hold my hands up and say I'm wrong but as things stand, even though the glaciers to the rear of the areas concerned have accelerated since the shelf loss, no re-growth is occurring (to my knowledge) and so I find it disingenuous to suggest otherwise (when things are so 'different' to the past).

New readers , or folk with less interest, may be falsely re-assured by your statement and it seems, to me, to be merely a straw man set up to befuddle others (IMHO)

It's not my statement. Make any accusation towards the Australian Antarctic glaciology program leader who made the statement. Do you isagree/think is is incorrect and do you have evidence to support that. I could equally say that new readers , or folk with less interest, may be falsely alarmed by your statement and significance placed upon ice shelves calving. The areas in question are statistically highly insignificant and that's a fact.

Is there a database of ice shelf data available anywhere? If Antarctic sea ice continues to increase (as the trend has been for a number of years) is there any significant global climate impact to the ice shelves breaking even if we assume it is historically significant?

Perhaps if the evidence/discuss was re. land ice/snow levels then there would be more significance but apart from interest value, the climate significance seems marginal. I see no false reassurance just an observation of the current and past picture, but I guess you'll disagree.