Wilkins Ice Shelf Disintegrating (1 Viewer)

[Kwayera]

http://news.smh.com.au/big-chunk-of-antarctic-ice-shelf-falling-apart/20080326-21pa.html

Antarctica's massive Wilkins Ice Shelf has begun disintegrating under the effects of global warming, satellite images by the University of Colorado's National Snow and Ice Data Center showed.

The collapse of a substantial section of the shelf was triggered February 28 when an iceberg measuring 41 by 2.4 kilometers (25.5 by 1.5 miles) broke off its southwestern front.

That movement led to disintegration of the shelf's interior, of which 414 square kilometers (160 square miles) have already disappeared, scientists say.

The Wilkins Ice Shelf is a broad plate of permanent floating ice 1,609 kilometers (1,000 miles) south of South America, on the southwest Antarctic Peninsula.

Now, as a result of recent losses, a large part of the 12,950-square-kilometer (5,000-square-mile) shelf is supported by a narrow 5.6-kilometer (3.5-mile) strip of ice between two islands, scientists said.

"If there is a little bit more retreat, this last 'ice buttress' could collapse and we'd likely lose about half the total ice shelf area in the next few years," NSIDC lead scientist Ted Scambos said in a statement.

"Wilkins is the largest ice shelf on West Antarctica yet to be threatened. This shelf is hanging by a thread," echoed David Vaughan of the British Antarctic Survey, which contributed data on the break-up.

Jim Elliott, who was onboard a British Antarctic Survey Twin Otter aircraft sent to video the extent of the damage, said the scene looked like a bomb site.

"I've never seen anything like this before -- it was awesome," he said in a BAS statement.

"We flew along the main crack and observed the sheer scale of movement from the breakage.

"Big hefty chunks of ice, the size of small houses, look as though they've been thrown around like rubble -- it's like an explosion."

Antarctica has suffered unprecedented warming in the last 50 years -- with several ice shelves retreating and six of them collapsing since the 1970s.

"Climate warming in the Antarctic Peninsula has pushed the limit of viability for ice shelves further south, setting some of them that used to be stable on a course of retreat and eventual loss," Vaughan said.

Vaughan said the Wilkins breakout would not affect sea levels because it was already floating when it broke off.

"But it is another indication of the impact that climate change is having on the region."

Over the past half century, the western Antarctic Peninsula has experienced the steepest temperature increase on Earth, 0.5 degrees Celsius (0.9 Farenheit) per decade.

"We believe the Wilkins has been in place for at least a few hundred years, but warm air and exposure to ocean waves are causing a breakup," said Scambos, who first spotted the disintegration in March.

With the Antarctic summer drawing to a close, scientists do not expect the ice shelf to further disintegrate in the next several months.

"This unusual show is over for this season," said Scambos. "But come January, we'll be watching to see if the Wilkins continues to fall apart."

Ultimately, ice shelf breakup in the Antarctic -- more than 13,000 square kilometers (5,000 square miles) have been lost over the past 50 years -- could significantly increase ocean levels around the world.

In 1995 the Larsen A Ice Shelf -- 75 kilometers (47 miles) long and 35 kilometers (22 miles) wide -- disintegrated, fragmenting into icebergs in the Weddell Sea.

In March 2002, a NASA satellite captured the collapse of Larsen B, which had a surface area of 3,850 square kilometers (1,486 square miles), was 200 meters (656 feet) high, and packed in 720 billion tonnes of ice. It took just 30 days to break apart.

According to some calculations based on the present sea level rise of three millimeters per year (0.11 inches), ocean levels could rise by 1.4 meters (4.6 feet) by the end of the century.

 

[boris]

http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/1810

A powerful volcano erupted under the icesheet of Antarctica around 2,000 years ago and it might still be active today, a finding which raises questions about ice loss from the white continent.

The explosive event – rated "severe" to "cataclysmic" on an international scale of volcanic force – punched a massive breach in the icesheet and spat out a plume some 12 kilometres into the sky, said British scientists behind the find.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1697038.stm

I just think there are so many other options to explain weather phenomena, I'm hesitant to believe the chaos theories.

 

[Trampoline Man]

http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/1810



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1697038.stm

I just think there are so many other options to explain weather phenomena, I'm hesitant to believe the chaos theories.

Don't you think that perhaps that's already been taken into account by the many, many scientists who have accepted global warming is being caused by humans?

 

[boris]

Do you ever think that perhaps that's already been taken into account by the many, many scientists who have accepted global warming is being caused by humans?

If it's been taken into account why are they all still so fanatical about it, when really they should be realising it's a natural phenomena?

I just don't buy into the whole 'omg the world is going to esplode and humans are entirely responsible for it'. When this ice shelf fell off, no news sources printed stories about volcanoes, it was just more global warming hysteria.

I'm more inclined to believe from the sources I've read, that global warming is entirely natural and that human interference has been minimal. I'm not arguing that people should be allowed to waste water in a wanton manner, or that these environmentally friendly alternatives are a waste of time; regardless of global warming there should be no reason why we shouldn't be more responsible.

 

[boris]

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88520025

http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Worldwide+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm

http://www-a.jpl.nasa.gov/news/features.cfm?feature=896

http://sos.noaa.gov/datasets/Ocean/buoywaterfall.html

 

[Trampoline Man]

If it's been taken into account why are they all still so fanatical about it, when really they should be realising it's a natural phenomena?

I just don't buy into the whole 'omg the world is going to esplode and humans are entirely responsible for it'. When this ice shelf fell off, no news sources printed stories about volcanoes, it was just more global warming hysteria.

I'm more inclined to believe from the sources I've read, that global warming is entirely natural and that human interference has been minimal. I'm not arguing that people should be allowed to waste water in a wanton manner, or that these environmentally friendly alternatives are a waste of time; regardless of global warming there should be no reason why we shouldn't be more responsible.

Because after proper scientific analysis, taking into account previous changes in temperature, they've concluded the current climate change is human caused?

 

[youBROKEmyLIFE]

If it's been taken into account why are they all still so fanatical about it, when really they should be realising it's a natural phenomena?

I just don't buy into the whole 'omg the world is going to esplode and humans are entirely responsible for it'. When this ice shelf fell off, no news sources printed stories about volcanoes, it was just more global warming hysteria.

I'm more inclined to believe from the sources I've read, that global warming is entirely natural and that human interference has been minimal. I'm not arguing that people should be allowed to waste water in a wanton manner, or that these environmentally friendly alternatives are a waste of time; regardless of global warming there should be no reason why we shouldn't be more responsible.

Do you accept that humans have pumped a bunch of C02 into the atmosphere?
Do you understand the concept of a weather 'forcing' ?

 

[boris]

Because after proper scientific analysis, taking into account previous changes in temperature, they've concluded the current climate change is human caused?

And I don't believe they're correct, or atleast they're misguided.

There are countless other sources of information and scientists that discredit the idea that humans are directly responsibile for global warming. The only reason it's such a hot topic is because certain idiots with media coverage have made it their mission to become martyrs of the environment.

Al Gore comes out with a convincing documentary that was flawed from the opening credits. People jump on the "earth hour" bangwagon and all of this happens to coincide with a drought. People begin to worry, and luckily for them there are enough scientists and psuedo scientists willing to sell the chaos theory that we're responsible for global warming and that the Earth is in dire straights.

Now tell me... For every bit of information you find supporting global warming as a human construct, there is just as much credible information to the contrary. Why are you inclined to believe the information that credits human interference and not natural phenomena?

 

[boris]

Do you accept that humans have pumped a bunch of C02 into the atmosphere?
Do you understand the concept of a weather 'forcing' ?

If you had read me Chadd you would have seen I said I believe we are contributing to, not responsible for global warming.
I think the amount humans are contributing to global warming is blown out of proportion.

Another question then;
Ice shelves fall off.
You're given two reasons. 1 is a volcano. The other is 'omg more proof for global warming'. Which one do you accept is more likely to be correct and why?

If as Trampoline says the pro global warming scientists have taken this into consideration, why don't they ever say "there are two possible theories for this. volcano and global warming. it can't possibly be a volcano for X reason, and instead it is global warming for X reason'

 

[youBROKEmyLIFE]

I think the amount humans are contributing to global warming is blown out of proportion.

Exactly why I asked if you understand the concept of 'forcings' in weather, it's necessary to build up a basic argument as to why we should probably accept global warming. The basic idea is that smaller variations in the amount of c02 in the atmosphere creates bigger variations amongst other parts of the atmosphere which are responsible for the temperature of the planet.

 

[boris]

Exactly why I asked if you understand the concept of 'forcings' in weather, it's necessary to build up a basic argument as to why we should probably accept global warming. The basic idea is that smaller variations in the amount of c02 in the atmosphere creates bigger variations amongst other parts of the atmosphere which are responsible for the temperature of the planet.

Of course I understand forcings in the weather. And I believe that natural changes are more responsible for the onset of global warming than humans, and I base this on sources that use evidence from 10,000 years, not 30 years. Sources like the 14C and 10Be isotopes found in ice core samples, etc.

 

[Trampoline Man]

And I don't believe they're correct, or atleast they're misguided.

There are countless other sources of information and scientists that discredit the idea that humans are directly responsibile for global warming. The only reason it's such a hot topic is because certain idiots with media coverage have made it their mission to become martyrs of the environment.

Al Gore comes out with a convincing documentary that was flawed from the opening credits. People jump on the "earth hour" bangwagon and all of this happens to coincide with a drought. People begin to worry, and luckily for them there are enough scientists and psuedo scientists willing to sell the chaos theory that we're responsible for global warming and that the Earth is in dire straights.

Now tell me... For every bit of information you find supporting global warming as a human construct, there is just as much credible information to the contrary. Why are you inclined to believe the information that credits human interference and not natural phenomena?

Because if we do something about human caused climate change and it turns out we're wrong, then our planet and our standard of living will still be better for it.

If we do nothing and it turns out we are causing climate change, then sea levels will rise, more land becomes inhospitable, and lots of people will die.

And here's the clincher for me - either way, humanity induced climate change or not, we absolutely have to eliminate our civilisation's dependence on fossil fuels, because climate change or not, they will run out, and I don't want to see what happens when an advanced civilisation loses its source of energy.

 

[boris]

Because if we do something about human caused climate change and it turns out we're wrong, then our planet and our standard of living will still be better for it.

If we do nothing and it turns out we are causing climate change, then sea levels will rise, more land becomes inhospitable, and lots of people will die.

And here's the clincher for me - either way, humanity induced climate change or not, we absolutely have to eliminate our civilisation's dependence on fossil fuels, because climate change or not, they will run out, and I don't want to see what happens when an advanced civilisation loses its source of energy.

Yeah and as I said I see no reason why, regardless of global warming, we should not be more responsible.

I'm not arguing that people should be allowed to waste water in a wanton manner, or that these environmentally friendly alternatives are a waste of time; regardless of global warming there should be no reason why we shouldn't be more responsible.

It's like we need an excuse to be more responsible, and the only way we can justify making these sacrifices is if we buy into the whole 'humans are destroying the earth' argument. And yes in cases we are; foresting, plastic waste in oceans, etc. I don't know why I haven't seen an argument put forward that says "global warming is a natural phenomena, but that doesn't mean it's okay for you to waste resources", because yes as you said, regardless of global warming, these resources are finite and will run out eventually.

I think this is an entirely different argument though.

 

[youBROKEmyLIFE]

It's a physical truth that if you have an atmosphere with X c02 and u increase it by Y amount (what we've been doing) then you'd expect to see temperature increases - this is anthropogenic global warming.

Why do you think it's getting hotter?

 

[boris]

It's a physical truth that if you have an atmosphere with X c02 and u increase it by Y amount (what we've been doing) then you'd expect to see temperature increases - this is anthropogenic global warming.

Why do you think it's getting hotter?

How do you explain rises in temperature before the industrial revolution? It's also a physical truth that the earth has had periods of hot and cold well before humans started burning fossil fuels.

It's also true that 2007 saw the biggest decline in earth temperatures, a decline big enough to offset the rise seen over the last 30 years.

What will everybodys theories be when the earth enters another destructive ice age?

 

[youBROKEmyLIFE]

How do you explain rises in temperature before the industrial revolution?

Natural causes (such as solar etc) which are accounted for in climate change models.

It's also a physical truth that the earth has had periods of hot and cold well before humans started burning fossil fuels.

Yes, and such effects on our future climate have been accounted for.

It's also true that 2007 saw the biggest decline in earth temperatures, a decline big enough to offset the rise seen over the last 30 years.

It's also true that the 5 hottest years on record (since 1880) have been in the last 10 years, kewl.

-------------------------------------------

I thought you only had doubts of anthropogenic global warming, now you're casting doubts on ALL global warming?

 

[boris]

Natural causes (such as solar etc) which are accounted for in climate change models.



Yes, and such effects on our future climate have been accounted for.



It's also true that the 5 hottest years on record (since 1880) have been in the last 10 years.


I thought you only didn't believe in anthropogenic global warming, now you're casting doubts on ALL global warming?

Um. I'm definitely not casting doubts on ALL global warming. How did you deduce that?

 

[youBROKEmyLIFE]

Why bother bringing up that factoid about 2007 being so cold if you believe in the end we're in a period of warming?

 

[boris]

Why bother bringing up that factoid about 2007 being so cold if you believe in the end we're in a period of warming?

Even if I did believe we're at the end of a warming period, how does that denounce all global warming? The point of that was to show that if humans are mostly responsible, why would there be periods of cooling, because the amounts of greenhouse gasses emitted didn't suddenly drop in 2007 (to account for the decrease in temperature, which you would expect if humans are directly responsible).

 

[youBROKEmyLIFE]

Even if I did believe we're at the end of a warming period, how does that denounce all global warming?

global warming being the theory that we're at the begining of a continuing warming trend... well a priori I'd say you're denying it if you think we're at the end of a warming period.

The point of that was to show that if humans are mostly responsible, why would there be periods of cooling, because the amounts of greenhouse gasses emitted didn't suddenly drop in 2007 (to account for the decrease in temperature, which you would expect if humans are directly responsible).

- There is a lag time between emissions and temperature increases
- There could be some other natural forces that come in to to delay the inevitable warming somewhat..


By the way:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20080116/

2007 Was Tied as Earth's Second-Warmest Year

Jan. 16, 2008

Climatologists at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City have found that 2007 tied with 1998 for Earth's second warmest year in a century.