New Evidence of Antarctic Ice about to break off.

Somebody should go there and inform it that global warming is a hoax. That might stop it from breaking off!

 

Serious, Antarctica isn't supposed to warm for another 50 years yet. I think the net ice mass for Antarctica as a whole remains slightly above recent historical levels.

 

Hmm, sure looks ominous:

 

A simple search of "wilkins ice shelf" reveals all sorts of current videos and recent pictures showing massive ice cubes. How do we reconcile these with the chart that 'proves' it isn't happening?

 

These things look very dramatic, but have always broken off in seemingly massive chunks that are in reality quite small when measured against the backdrop of the antarctic as a whole. So just because these things seem to be of "record" proportion - one must consider that our record - our ability to observe these things - is incredibly short by historical standards. Just because we haven't until this century observed it, doesn't mean it is something new.

The bulk of the antarctic is increasing in mass, as the chart shows. The west antarctic juts out into ocean currents, that even scientists quoted in the article concede is likely causing the breakoff. Are these currents a result of changes in circulation -- or anthropogenic global warming? I don't think anyone has demonstrated the latter.

 

Yes, very strange indeed. Never before in the past multi-billions years of history of our planet as we know it, has the earth ever gone through ice ages and warming cycles. Funny how humans have decided the temps of the last few decades were deemed to be "normal". Any percieved deviation from the "norm" is our fault (and of course that of particular political parties and also let's not forget those big greedy, evil corporations).

Those pesky humans are at it again. Of course for all you AGW pundits, I'm sure our next president will, through "diplomatic channels" only of course, convince China and India to totally reverse their modernization (but not ours! I want my SUV!) and go back to their primitive agrarian, pajama wearing, rickshaw societies of the past. Uh huh...

Rick
#4 2006

 

Rick,

In the last 600K years the rate of change doesn't appear to ever be this fast. That's the dangerous part. Further, that "normal" climate is the basis for our entire global economy and contribute trillions of dollars to it each year. As such, we ought to be very careful about what we do to it. Human activities clearly have a regional impact, even a global one. You can measure China's activities in the air in California, for example. The garbage patches in the Indian and Pacific Oceans are 3 more excellent examples. We're clearly have an impact and not a good one.

I agree that we can't make China and India to anything, but we can change our own habits, and if we can create a new energy economy in doing so, we'll have huge business opportunities to cash in on. China and India are rapidly exhausting their fossil fuel resources, they're going to need alternatives. American manufacturers, like yourself, have a golden opportunity to take advantage of that demand.

 

Rick, you've missed the finer point on rate of change as Tripop has explained for you. We all know that the earth has gone through rather extreme changes from hot to cold yet short of meteor impact events and the like we rarely see changes happen very quickly and during those times when global climate did shift abruptly there were no super delicate human infrastructures in place. Sure species died out and others evolved but they didn't have to worry about world trade, electricity production and transmission, fossil fuel extraction and transportation, millions of humans living in hazardous areas with no real ability to relocate large numbers of environmental refugees etc.. What happened in the ancient past is all well and dandy but conditions for humans have changed and abrupt and large scale climate change will wreak havok on our civilizations to be sure.

*edit*

Just wanted to state that I am neither supporting the claim that global warming is causing this particular ice shelf break down nor am I refuting it. I just wanted to comment on Rick's stance on pre-historic climate change.

 

Great points. Well said.

 

My question was how a 30 year chart of the Southern Hemisphere could have any relevance to a specific location at a certain point in time. And why are the ocean currents changing? Could it be related to climate change?

 

We all know that in our lifetime we're going to see the ice cap virtually gone(at least during the summer time) right? Nothing we do is going to reverse that trend.

 

A "specific location at a certain point in time" is sounding a lot closer to "weather" than is a 30 year chart reflecting "climate" over an entire continent. In any case, ocean currents could be changing for many reasons - one of which could be AGW - but to my knowledge, this has not been substantiated.

 

If that's the case, why worry about it.

 

BTW, that's around 0.1% of the total.

 

Cheers Fibb! Except for all of the bloody typos perhaps. <_<

 

Bloody icons. :smash:

 

That's the North Pole, where the ice is already floating. Complete melting is bad news for polar bears, and a sign that big changes are underway, but in itself is not a danger to humanity.

Greenland and the South Pole is another matter entirely. Most of that ice is grounded, which means that if it melts or slides into the sea, sea level will rise, possibly catastrophically. If it really is already too late to prevent that then we have to start building 30 foot seawalls around the world's coastal cities which we want to save, and start planning the evacuation of the ones we don't want to save.

 

Don't worry yourself, Richard.

"...a Dutch study using 17 years of satellite measurements in western Greenland suggests that the movement associated with the meltwater is not as rapid as had been feared. The acceleration appears to be a transient summer phenomenon, the researchers said, with the yearly movement actually dropping slightly in some places....

...Dr. Alley and other experts said the new study showed that it was unlikely that Greenland’s ice had already become destabilized in ways that could cause a surge in sea levels."

Link.

And since the ice between Canada and SW Greenland just hit its highest level in 15 years, and the antarctic is at record high levels, and the annual sea level rise has slowed to 1.45 mm / year, we can probably hold off on the 30 foot seawalls for now.

 

The western side of Greenland is not melting as rapidly as the eastern side, and Greenland does offer more information than Antarctica.

SVS Science Story: Greenland's Receding Ice