Antarctic Ice Discussion

[Gray-Wolf]

Hi knocks!

 

I'm beginning to think we have 2 very different beings looking at things? one sees the cracks in the dam and knows what to expect and one will not act until the dam is crumbling. Sadly the cracks go on for a while but the dam fails very fast. 

[keithlucky]

Antarctic sea ice continues its climb1,8sq km above its mean 25 daily record for the year

[knocker]

Fascinating new video from on South Georgia:

 

https://vimeo.com/125634374

Edited April 29, 2015 by knocker

[knocker]

Interesting article by Eric Steig.

 

How long does it take Antarctica to notice the Northern Hemisphere is warming?

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2015/04/how-long-does-it-take-antarctica/

[knocker]

Gravity data show that Antarctic ice sheet is melting increasingly faster

 

During the past decade, Antarctica's massive ice sheet lost twice the amount of ice in its western portion compared with what it accumulated in the east, according to Princeton University researchers who came to one overall conclusion — the southern continent's ice cap is melting ever faster.

 

http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S43/04/11E77/index.xml?section=topstories

[Midlands Ice Age]

That claim consists of about 30 metres of potential sea-level rise. Most of that sea level is safe for millennia, but perhaps not all of it. Indeed, we now know that two huge areas of potential instability sit, almost unstudied by anyone, within the Australian Antarctic Territory.?

.

.

 

 

I suppose that we all realise that this represents  almost the same sea level rise as has occured off SE England and East Anglia during the the last 1500 years, according to researches finding remains of hamlets and townships under the North Sea.

 

Have we any reason to believe this was also caused by CO2?

 

Or was it more likely the gradual move away from the last ice age is causing these sea level changes? 

 

MIA

[Gray-Wolf]

We are still suffering isostatic rejuvenation in the NW of the country and sinking in the SE. Most of the lost villages were also on top of loose glacial drift which , as we see currently, do not cope well with coastal erosion? So a combination of the country tilting around an pivot from SW wales to NE England and crap ground has your villages out in the north Sea 

[keithlucky]

Antarctic sea ice expands to a record high for April ,Virtually all around the Antarctic has shown growth. http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/index.html

 

 

 

Edited May 4, 2015 by keithlucky

[stewfox]

Antarctica's increasing sea ice restricting access to research stations

I don't buy 'the wind argument' but it is kind of funny.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/may/11/antarcticas-increasing-sea-ice-restricting-access-to-research-stations

Edited May 11, 2015 by stewfox

[keithlucky]

There is one pa

 

Antarctica's increasing sea ice restricting access to research stations

I don't buy 'the wind argument' but it is kind of funny.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/may/11/antarcticas-increasing-sea-ice-restricting-access-to-research-stations

There is one part that is quite interesting ,The sea ice through the Southern Ocean and around Australia’s Mawson Station usually breaks up for a couple of months a year allowing ships to enter the bay but that did not happen in 2013-14.

[knocker]

Oceanic and atmospheric forcing of Larsen C Ice-Shelf thinning

 

Abstract. The catastrophic collapses of Larsen A and B ice shelves on the eastern Antarctic Peninsula have caused their tributary glaciers to accelerate, contributing to sea-level rise and freshening the Antarctic Bottom Water formed nearby. The surface of Larsen C Ice Shelf (LCIS), the largest ice shelf on the peninsula, is lowering. This could be caused by unbalanced ocean melting (ice loss) or enhanced firn melting and compaction (englacial air loss). Using a novel method to analyse eight radar surveys, this study derives separate estimates of ice and air thickness changes during a 15-year period. The uncertainties are considerable, but the primary estimate is that the surveyed lowering (0.066 ± 0.017 m yr^−1) is caused by both ice loss (0.28 ± 0.18 m yr^−1) and firn-air loss (0.037 ± 0.026 m yr^−1). The ice loss is much larger than the air loss, but both contribute approximately equally to the lowering because the ice is floating. The ice loss could be explained by high basal melting and/or ice divergence, and the air loss by low surface accumulation or high surface melting and/or compaction. The primary estimate therefore requires that at least two forcings caused the surveyed lowering. Mechanisms are discussed by which LCIS stability could be compromised in the future. The most rapid pathways to collapse are offered by the ungrounding of LCIS from Bawden Ice Rise or ice-front retreat past a "compressive arch" in strain rates. Recent evidence suggests that either mechanism could pose an imminent risk.

 

http://www.the-cryosphere.net/9/1005/2015/tc-9-1005-2015.html

 

Article and a couple of videos

http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2015/05/antarctic-larsen-c-ice-shelf-at-risk-of-collapse-study-warns/

 

 

Edited May 13, 2015 by knocker

[knocker]

The evolving instability of the remnant Larsen B Ice Shelf and its tributary glaciers

 

Abstract

Following the 2002 disintegration of the northern and central parts of the Larsen B Ice Shelf, the tributary glaciers of the southern surviving part initially appeared relatively unchanged and hence assumed to be buttressed sufficiently by the remnant ice shelf. Here, we modify this perception with observations from IceBridge altimetry and InSAR-inferred ice flow speeds. Our analyses show that the surfaces of Leppard and Flask glaciers directly upstream from their grounding lines lowered by 15 to 20 m in the period 2002–2011. The thinning appears to be dynamic as the flow of both glaciers and the remnant ice shelf accelerated in the same period. Flask Glacier started accelerating even before the 2002 disintegration, increasing its flow speed by ∼55% between 1997 and 2012. Starbuck Glacier meanwhile did not change much. We hypothesize that the different evolutions of the three glaciers are related to their dissimilar bed topographies and degrees of grounding. We apply numerical modeling and data assimilation that show these changes to be accompanied by a reduction in the buttressing afforded by the remnant ice shelf, a weakening of the shear zones between its flow units and an increase in its fracture. The fast flowing northwestern part of the remnant ice shelf exhibits increasing fragmentation, while the stagnant southeastern part seems to be prone to the formation of large rifts, some of which we show have delimited successive calving events. A large rift only 12 km downstream from the grounding line is currently traversing the stagnant part of the ice shelf, defining the likely front of the next large calving event. We propose that the flow acceleration, ice front retreat and enhanced fracture of the remnant Larsen B Ice Shelf presage its approaching demise.

 

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012821X1500151X

 

Article

 

Vast Antarctic ice shelf a few years from disintegration, says Nasa

Remnant of Larsen B Ice Shelf, about half the size of Rhode Island, is expected to break apart completely around the year 2020, adding to sea level rises

 

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/may/15/antarctic-ice-shelf-larsen-b-disintegration-nasa

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TE-RMLM30Do

[keithlucky]

No temperature increase in Antarctic so no GW therhttp://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/e%C2'> Since 1983, there have been ups and downs, notably the drop in the early 1990’s associated with the Pinatubo eruption, but clearly temperatures now are no higher than they were in the mid 1980’s.

Edited May 15, 2015 by keithlucky

[keithlucky]

The evolving instability of the remnant Larsen B Ice Shelf and its tributary glaciers

 

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012821X1500151X

 

Article

 

Vast Antarctic ice shelf a few years from disintegration, says Nasa

Remnant of Larsen B Ice Shelf, about half the size of Rhode Island, is expected to break apart completely around the year 2020, adding to sea level rises

 

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/may/15/antarctic-ice-shelf-larsen-b-disintegration-nasa

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TE-RMLM30Do

 

Same old stories repeated  as 40 yrs ago

Edited May 16, 2015 by keithlucky

[Gray-Wolf]

Some times I get lost considering KL's agenda???

 

We know that Antarctica saw massive losses/retreats from the 50's onward. The Sea ice alone crashed in area/extent up until it halted in the late 70's/early 80's ( with today's 'gains' still leaving well behind historic levels.

 

Larsen has already shed 2 of its 3 shelfs and this remnant is now set to rapidly follow suit. Remember that 'C' took only 2 weeks to completely disintegrate and that it was a winter event so we should not think that the season is a 'safe collapse free zone'?

 

Watchers are also concerned about P.I.G. with a potential majoe calve there again.

 

In 2012 we saw data showing how La Nina 'helped' slow losses from PIG/Thwaites by impacting winds and current flow. Will the building strong Nino drive the exact opposite?

[keithlucky]

Some times I get lost considering KL's agenda???

 

We know that Antarctica saw massive losses/retreats from the 50's onward. The Sea ice alone crashed in area/extent up until it halted in the late 70's/early 80's ( with today's 'gains' still leaving well behind historic levels.

 

Larsen has already shed 2 of its 3 shelfs and this remnant is now set to rapidly follow suit. Remember that 'C' took only 2 weeks to completely disintegrate and that it was a winter event so we should not think that the season is a 'safe collapse free zone'?

 

Watchers are also concerned about P.I.G. with a potential majoe calve there again.

 

In 2012 we saw data showing how La Nina 'helped' slow losses from PIG/Thwaites by impacting winds and current flow. Will the building strong Nino drive the exact opposite?

Its totally natural for ice shelves to grow and calve, the scaremongering ,has always happened as my clips show ,yet only 1 mm a year rise in sea level rise,so nothing to worry about. http://joannenova.com.au/2014/08/global-sea-level-rise-a-bit-more-than-1mm-a-year-for-last-50-years-no-accelleration/

Edited May 16, 2015 by keithlucky

[Gray-Wolf]

'Normal' shelf behaviour is just like that of the glaciers feeding them so ,yes, the flow and calve they do not collapse and disappear ( As we saw both Larsen C and A do) unleashing the glaciers behind.

 

We have now dropped to a 6 year 'doubling period' for mass loss in both Greenland and Antarctica so at what point do you become 'worried' about sea level rise ( if this remains constant? 2012 was the end year of the data used so that means ( should the doubling period stop accelerating down.....which appears unlikely?) by 2018 it is 2mm/year, then 4mm by 2024, 8mm 2030, 1.6cm 2036, 3.2cm ( an inch?) by 2042........ need I go on? an inch a year ,every year by 2042 and 2 inches a year from 2048..... 

 

The above does not take into account any 'catastrophic collapse which I believe must be part of ice sheet ablation. Sea level rise is instrumental in 'floating off' sections of Ice shelfs/Glaciers as tidal ranges 'waggle' the floating section of glaciers reactivating the crevasses formed in the ices journey to the coast and leading to breakage and float off. We are currently seeing this occur in all of the Sea terminating glaciers of Greenland even though melt season is only just begining ( we have seen some winter calving of the glaciers there which is not the norm and instantly doubles their contribution to sea level rise for the year).

[knocker]

I find that the terse recent posts in this thread by the sceptics of this parish surpass even their normal level of ignorance. Their arrogant dismissal of studies by leading glaciologists and their refusal to even attempt to justify this arrogance with at least some attempt at a scientific explanation is breathtaking. They talk glibly about glacier dynamics and refuse to add any context .

 

So just a quick attempt to rectify this.

 

Firstly.

 

The Antarctic Peninsula has undergone rapid climatic warming in the last 50 years. As a consequence the glacial region has reacted with drastic changes, such as retreat, breakup and disintegration of ice shelves.

 

Now a brief extract from Global Land Ice Measurements from Space.

 

Monitoring glacier changes on the Antarctic Peninsula

 

Summary of known glacier dynamics.

 

 

According to analyses of recent Glacier Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) data logging period 2002-2009, which allows estimates of glacier mass change, the northern AP has the continents second largest negative mass balance rate (Chen et al. 2009). However, such  low resolution data belie the geographic complexity and  rapidity of some glacier dynamics in the region.

 

The successive breakup and retreat of ice shelves occurring in the AP over the last two decades has received extensive attention from the general and media. After the retreat of Wordie Ice Shelf in the late 1980s (Doake and Vaughan 1991. Vaughan and Doake 1996), pronounced retreat and breakups were also detected at the northern margins of George VI Ice Shelf and Wilkins Ice Shelf (Lucchitta and Rosanova 1998, Scambos et al, 2000), followed by a rapid sequence of breakup events on the  northeastern side of the peninsula: Prince Gustav Ice Shelf and Larsen A Ice Shelf disappeared in 1995 (Skvarca 1993, Rott et al. 1996, 1998, 2002). Larsen B Ice Shelf started calving in 1995 and collapsed almost completely in 2002 (Skvarca et al. 1999, Rack and Rott 2004). Moreover, new breakup events and retreat were detected in 2008 and 2009 at Wilkins Ice Shelf, when almost 40% of the ice shelf connecting the two islands broke off (Braun et al. 2009, Humbert et al. 2010). Progressive thinning (Shepherd et al. 2003. Skvarca et al. 2004), the formation of melt ponds (Scambos et a. 2000, 2003), changes in structure (Glasser and Scambos 2008, Braun et al. 2009) and extended melt seasons (Fahnestock et al. 2002, Van den Broeke 2005) linked to the breakup of ice shelves are strong indications that some of these events occurred in response to changing climatic and oceanographic conditions, at least in the case of Prince Gustav Ice Shelf and Larsen Ice Shelf. In this context, Morris and Vaughan (2003) proposed the -9°C isotherm of mean annual temperature as the new limit of ice shelf distribution in 2002, updating the -5°C limit previously proposed by Reynolds (1981 ). Hence, further warming might shift the viability limit of ice shelves in the AP farther south.

 

An overall trend of glacier front recession was detected in the AP (Rau et a. 2004, Cook et al. 2005), on James Ross Island (Skvarca et al. 1995, Skvarca and De Angelis 2003) and on the South Shetland Islands (SSI; Park et al. 1998, Calvet et a. 1999, Simoes eta. 1999, Braun and Gol3mann 2002). As suggested by Cook et al. (2005), floating glaciers and most ice shelves may be reacting to progressive atmospheric warming detected in the AP (Vaughan et al. 2003, Morris and Vaughan 2003, Scambos et al. 2003). However, as they are influenced by other external factors (e.g., oceanic temperature and circulation), it is difficult to isolate a clear climate cause (Rau et al. 2004). Tidewater glaciers with their fully grounded marine termini are influenced by a complex set of forcing mechanisms composed of atmospheric temperature and oceanographic parameters as well as subglacial topography (Van der Veen 2002, Benn et al. 2007), and hence their retreat rates cannot be linearly linked to short-time climate change on ice masses (Pfeffer 2003).

 

Thus, for all types of glaciers in the AP, climate change, oceanographic conditions, and glacier/ice shelf dynamics are complexly coupled, with climate change pretty obviously a key driving factor. However, the system has strong forcings other than climate change. Hence, prediction of glacier and ice shelf dynamics in the AP is hazardous at best, and clear attribution of recent dynamics to climate

Edited May 16, 2015 by knocker

[Midlands Ice Age]

I find that the terse recent posts in this thread by the sceptics of this parish surpass even their normal level of ignorance. Their arrogant dismissal of studies by leading glaciologists and their refusal to even attempt to justify this arrogance with at least some attempt at a scientific explanation is breathtaking. They talk glibly about glacier dynamics and refuse to add any context .

 

So just a quick attempt to rectify this.

 

Firstly.

 

The Antarctic Peninsula has undergone rapid climatic warming in the last 50 years. As a consequence the glacial region has reacted with drastic changes, such as retreat, breakup and disintegration of ice shelves.

 

Now a brief extract from Global Land Ice Measurements from Space.

 

Monitoring glacier changes on the Antarctic Peninsula

 

Summary of known glacier dynamics.

 

 

According to analyses of recent Glacier Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) data logging period 2002-2009, which allows estimates of glacier mass change, the northern AP has the continents second largest negative mass balance rate (Chen et al. 2009). However, such  low resolution data belie the geographic complexity and  rapidity of some glacier dynamics in the region.

 

The successive breakup and retreat of ice shelves occurring in the AP over the last two decades has received extensive attention from the general and media. After the retreat of Wordie Ice Shelf in the late 1980s (Doake and Vaughan 1991. Vaughan and Doake 1996), pronounced retreat and breakups were also detected at the northern margins of George VI Ice Shelf and Wilkins Ice Shelf (Lucchitta and Rosanova 1998, Scambos et al, 2000), followed by a rapid sequence of breakup events on the  northeastern side of the peninsula: Prince Gustav Ice Shelf and Larsen A Ice Shelf disappeared in 1995 (Skvarca 1993, Rott et al. 1996, 1998, 2002). Larsen B Ice Shelf started calving in 1995 and collapsed almost completely in 2002 (Skvarca et al. 1999, Rack and Rott 2004). Moreover, new breakup events and retreat were detected in 2008 and 2009 at Wilkins Ice Shelf, when almost 40% of the ice shelf connecting the two islands broke off (Braun et al. 2009, Humbert et al. 2010). Progressive thinning (Shepherd et al. 2003. Skvarca et al. 2004), the formation of melt ponds (Scambos et a. 2000, 2003), changes in structure (Glasser and Scambos 2008, Braun et al. 2009) and extended melt seasons (Fahnestock et al. 2002, Van den Broeke 2005) linked to the breakup of ice shelves are strong indications that some of these events occurred in response to changing climatic and oceanographic conditions, at least in the case of Prince Gustav Ice Shelf and Larsen Ice Shelf. In this context, Morris and Vaughan (2003) proposed the -9°C isotherm of mean annual temperature as the new limit of ice shelf distribution in 2002, updating the -5°C limit previously proposed by Reynolds (1981 ). Hence, further warming might shift the viability limit of ice shelves in the AP farther south.

 

An overall trend of glacier front recession was detected in the AP (Rau et a. 2004, Cook et al. 2005), on James Ross Island (Skvarca et al. 1995, Skvarca and De Angelis 2003) and on the South Shetland Islands (SSI; Park et al. 1998, Calvet et a. 1999, Simoes eta. 1999, Braun and Gol3mann 2002). As suggested by Cook et al. (2005), floating glaciers and most ice shelves may be reacting to progressive atmospheric warming detected in the AP (Vaughan et al. 2003, Morris and Vaughan 2003, Scambos et al. 2003). However, as they are influenced by other external factors (e.g., oceanic temperature and circulation), it is difficult to isolate a clear climate cause (Rau et al. 2004). Tidewater glaciers with their fully grounded marine termini are influenced by a complex set of forcing mechanisms composed of atmospheric temperature and oceanographic parameters as well as subglacial topography (Van der Veen 2002, Benn et al. 2007), and hence their retreat rates cannot be linearly linked to short-time climate change on ice masses (Pfeffer 2003).

 

Thus, for all types of glaciers in the AP, climate change, oceanographic conditions, and glacier/ice shelf dynamics are complexly coupled, with climate change pretty obviously a key driving factor. However, the system has strong forcings other than climate change. Hence, prediction of glacier and ice shelf dynamics in the AP is hazardous at best, and clear attribution of recent dynamics to climate

 

 

Knocker....

 

Not wishing to invoke invective in here. (as you are doing!)

 

But you are calling us terse, arrogant and ignorant.-  Is that necessary?

All KL  has done is repost actual news posts from  50 years ago!!

 

In addition he shows actual data from the Antarctic that the temps are on a downward trend that seeems to fit the scenario of expanding sea ice.

 

Yet you call him arrogant and ignorant!!!!!

 

Come on now lets not lose our rags!  If KL's data is incorrect then prove it. 

 

I think everyone understands that the AP is slowly warming (as in your post), but it is only a portion of the Antartic Polar icecap. Its like your saying that the south west penninsula of England is warming (home!)  so the whole of Europe must be!!

 

KL is claiming that over 50 years the Antartic sea ice has waxed and wained. You have pulled out satellite data for the period 2002 -2009 (cherry picking?) to disprove this.

 

Also you have lots of quotes from the last 20 years. BUT perhaps that has been happening since the last ice age?    KL's post shows it has been happening during the last 50 years.. 

 

Why does it have to be caused  by CO2? -  as your post assumes. I just cannot see that it is undeniably connected . Why is it not a continuation of the slow warming experienced since the last mini ice age?   (It has been warming for the 200 years before CO2 could have had an impact, presumably natural warming - so why won't natural warming continue, maybe even increase slightly?).

 

You seem to be suggesting that natural warming has stopped in the face of the onslaught from the ever more powerful CO2 effect?

 

I thought you guys had finally accepted that natural affects were impacting CO2 warming observed.

 

MIA.

Edited May 16, 2015 by Midlands Ice Age

[knocker]

Knocker....

 

Not wishing to invoke invective in here. (as you are doing!)

 

But you are calling us terse, arrogant and ignorant.-  Is that necessary?

All KL  has done is repost actual news posts from  50 years ago!!

 

In addition he shows actual data from the Antarctic that the temps are on a downward trend that seeems to fit the scenario of expanding sea ice.

 

Yet you call him arrogant and ignorant!!!!!

 

Come on now lets not lose our rags!  If KL's data is incorrect then prove it. 

 

I think everyone understands that the AP is slowly warming (as in your post), but it is only a portion of the Antartic Polar icecap. Its like your saying that the south west penninsula of England is warming (home!)  so the whole of Europe must be!!

 

KL is claiming that over 50 years the Antartic sea ice has waxed and wained. You have pulled out satellite data for the period 2002 -2009 (cherry picking?) to disprove this.

 

Also you have lots of quotes from the last 20 years. BUT perhaps that has been happening since the last ice age?    KL's post shows it has been happening during the last 50 years.. 

 

Why does it have to be caused  by CO2? -  as your post assumes. I just cannot see that it is undeniably connected . Why is it not a continuation of the slow warming experienced since the last mini ice age?   (It has been warming for the 200 years before CO2 could have had an impact, presumably natural warming - so why won't natural warming continue, maybe even increase slightly?).

 

You seem to be suggesting that natural warming has stopped in the face of the onslaught from the ever more powerful CO2 effect?

 

I thought you guys had finally accepted that natural affects were impacting CO2 warming observed.

 

MIA.

 

Firstly I note the main posts I was referring too have been removed. I hadn't noticed.

 

You go on to say

 

 

Come on now lets not lose our rags!  If KL's data is incorrect then prove it. 

 

I think everyone understands that the AP is slowly warming (as in your post), but it is only a portion of the Antartic Polar icecap. Its like your saying that the south west penninsula of England is warming (home!)  so the whole of Europe must be!!

 

For a start KL gives no ref. for his two station posts ( which actually wouldn't prove anything whichever way you look at it). but check them out here if you wish. http://moyhu.blogspot.com.au/p/blog-page_6.html

In addition he says," no temperature increase in Antarctic so no GW" and then produces two dubious station graphs to prove the point!!

 

You then say everyone knows AP is slowly warming but presumably not KL.

 

Then

 

 

KL is claiming that over 50 years the Antartic sea ice has waxed and wained. You have pulled out satellite data for the period 2002 -2009 (cherry picking?) to disprove this.

 

Total tosh. I wasn't even talking about sea ice.

 

 

Why does it have to be caused  by CO2? -  as your post assumes. I just cannot see that it is undeniably connected . Why is it not a continuation of the slow warming experienced since the last mini ice age?   (It has been warming for the 200 years before CO2 could have had an impact, presumably natural warming - so why won't natural warming continue, maybe even increase slightly?).

 

 

My post doesn't assume anything. It was compiled by a number of glaciologists who concluded.

 

 

Thus, for all types of glaciers in the AP, climate change, oceanographic conditions, and glacier/ice shelf dynamics are complexly coupled, with climate change pretty obviously a key driving factor. However, the system has strong forcings other than climate change. Hence, prediction of glacier and ice shelf dynamics in the AP is hazardous at best, and clear attribution of recent dynamics to climate

 

I find it very odd that genuine scientific sources are continually questioned ( in itself not wrong because that's how science works) but the same level of scrutiny is not given to snippets from Australian newspapers, graphs with no reference and dodgy denier web sites.

 

NB

The whole point of my post was an attempt to clarify the current expert knowledge/opinion of the glacier dynamics of the Antarctic Peninsula, I'm quite sure that the many glaciologists who did the research and compiled this data are fully conversant with the history of glaciation in the area as far as it can possible be known.

Edited May 16, 2015 by knocker

[Midlands Ice Age]

 

For a start KL gives no ref. for his two station posts ( which actually wouldn't prove anything whichever way you look at it). but check them out here if you wish. http://moyhu.blogspot.com.au/p/blog-page_6.html

In addition he says," no temperature increase in Antarctic so no GW" and then produces two dubious station graphs to prove the point!!

 

You then say everyone knows AP is slowly warming but presumably not KL.

 

Two points...

 

1) KL is talking about the whole of Antartica

2) to refute it you have produced data fro the Antarctic Peninsula (Hence my Cherry picking remarks)

 

This is not a 'balancing' arguement as you eluded, it is answering a biased suggestion, with an even more biased reply.

 

Allso the point in your post states that  -

 

Quote

Thus, for all types of glaciers in the AP, climate change, oceanographic conditions, and glacier/ice shelf dynamics are complexly coupled, with climate change PRETTY OBVIOUSLY a key driving factor. However, the system has strong forcings other than climate change. Hence, prediction of glacier and ice shelf dynamics in the AP is hazardous at best, and clear attribution of recent dynamics to climate

 

Endquote

 

For the reasons I gave above it is not PRETTY OBVIOUS to anyone taking a longterm view. These people have clearly started out their research by assuming the answer. Never a sound scientific way to proceed!!

 

MIA

[knocker]

 

1) KL is talking about the whole of Antartica

2) to refute it you have produced data fro the Antarctic Peninsula (Hence my Cherry picking remarks)

 

1 KL says, " No temperature increase in Antarctic so no GW" and then posts two ridiculous graphs of stations in the AP. I take it makes sense to you?

2. I refuted it by giving you a link not that it should need refuting.

 

It's pretty obvious a key driving factor  to the scientists involved based on the numerous research papers that I quoted in my post. They also qualified it which you fail to mention.

 

For the record I also find it pretty obvious. The AP is one of the fastest warming areas in the world. if AGW isn't playing a significant role.............what is?

 

My post was specific to the AP because the posts that were removed were critical of the recent research there.

 

KL's snippets from the Australian newspapers are quite meaningless.

Edited May 16, 2015 by knocker

[Gray-Wolf]

I would not concern yourself with defending the Antarctic and its trajectory Knocks....... it appears to be looking after that all on its own!

 

We knew , from studies of marine terminating glaciers in Greenland, the perils of warm bottom waters attacking the grounding line ( though things have moved on there now with some major calves over the past winter from a number of the main ocean terminating Glaciers opening up what once was once respite from calving to continuous mass loss year round) but now we have the data of looking at the evolution of this process, since the turn of the century, from the Peninsula down as far as Ross.

 

We know, from the paleo data, that capping the ocean in cold,fresh water ( and its skim of sea ice over winter) is key to the rapid de-glaciation of the lands beyond. The cap stops the warmth from being released into the atmosphere and off into space. The power of warm water to melt ice , compared to warm air, is huge so to applaud the very process that is driving the reductions in mass loss doubling periods appears to me to be plain dumb?

 

With Totten now on the table the chances of seeing disruptive Sea level rise has risen. either Totten or the Roosevelt Island end of Ross partial collapse will put feet of sea level rise into the oceans in less than a decade........Prior to that the flotilla of ice bergs produced by the partial collapse will increase Sea ice in that Sector, will they be crying out about how that dispels AGW too?

[Midlands Ice Age]

 

For the record I also find it pretty obvious. The AP is one of the fastest warming areas in the world. if AGW isn't playing a significant role.............what is?

 

Knocker,

 

You have hit the nail on the head there...

 

I believe that this process is 'natural' and has been ongoing since the last mini iceage. I also believe a small part is due to CO2 and its effects.

I do not, as you clearly do, believe that anything not understood must be caused by CO2 (the assumption by all CAGW's).

 

MIA

[Gray-Wolf]

I take it, M.I.A., that you dismissed all we were told about the breakup of the Larsen's and the data we were able to cull from where they once stood? I see no other way you could see things as you claim if in receipt of that knowledge?