World's Ice Caps are Melting!

[Edufer]

Edufer, it is clear from the tenor of your reply that you are not interested in making your case, rather that you wish to be controversial and argumentative. Andre's quotation above states it perfectly.
If you genuinely wish to convince people of your position then you might care to look in more depth at Andre's posts on many threads. I probably disagree with 90% of Andre's conclusions, yet he has never caused my blood pressure to rise by even a nanometre; he has not alienated me in any way; he has encouraged me, by his attitude, to look more closely at his arguments. In short, he has been a perfect gentlemen, and has reaped the benefits of that position in that he has gained both respect and attention.
You, on the other hand, appear merely to be an arrogant, puke ridden asshole, with an agenda almost as large as their head. Was that the image you hoped to convey?

I have been discussing in Sciforums since 2001 siding with Andre (both of us post our opinions in a "climatologists only" dicussion board where there are no amateurs allowed). I have learned a lot from Andre and will keep learning as he knows tremendously --but he is Dutch and I have very hot Spanish blood that boil quite easily when I see "ignorance or stupidity in action".

If you think that I am arrogant, so be it, that's another opinion. But when you send a reply accusing someone of "Being a bad tempered bastard", don't expect the other person to say "I love you, dear". Very few people is here for learning more --most people is here for destroying the "other bastard" and showing how clever they are.

Try to stick to scientific questions, avoiding the mention of inexistent "agendas" and compromise with oil industries or other kind of institutions, provide solid scientific arguments and forget press releases.

 

[Edufer]

The title of this thread is World’s Ice Caps are Melting, but not a single piece of scientific evidence has been posted supporting such a claim. We’ve seen press releases talking about scientists telling that some small glaciers in Greenland had been retreating, but avoiding to mention the fact that glaciers are not a good indicators of local or global temperatures. They are influenced (governed, ruled, shaped, etc) more by physical factors as local or regional precipitation, winds, rate of calving, etc --than by temperature.

Antarctica is the most important ice cap on Earth. It should give us an idea of what to wait from the future, and the relation between CO2 and temperature, as per the greenhouse industry sacred dogma. Read and think (publishing date: 2005, just out of the oven).

Ice Stream Catchments Feeding the Filchner-Ronne Ice Shelf, Antarctica
http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V8/N49/C2.jsp

Reference
Joughin, I. and Bamber, J.L. 2005. Thickening of the ice stream catchments feeding the Filchner-Ronne Ice Shelf, Antarctica. Geophysical Research Letters 32: L17503, doi:10.1029/2005FL023844.

What was done
Among the many model-based predictions of the deleterious consequences of CO2-induced global warming is the melting of significant portions of earth's polar ice caps, which could raise the level of the world's oceans and inundate low-lying coastal locations with seawater. As a result of this concern, many researchers have attempted to evaluate trends in the mass balances of the polar ice sheets, with some of them producing results that are at odds with each other. Rignot and Thomas (2002), for example, utilized a "flux gate" method that yielded a recent thinning of the catchments feeding several ice streams in East Antarctia. Davis et al. (2005), on the other hand, employed satellite altimetry data and reported a significant thickening of the same region. Consequently, Joughin and Bamber set out to resolve the discrepancy by re-evaluating the mass balances of the ice stream catchments feeding the Filchner-Ronne Ice Shelf. They too used the flux-gate method, but with improved data and area of coverage.

What was learned
The new and improved data made all the difference in the world to the mass balance calculations of the Filchner-Ronne Ice Shelf and closed the gap between the previous estimates of Rignot and Thomas (2002) and Davis et al. (2005). Instead of the 3.6 ± 9.1 Gton/yr net thinning estimate of Rignot and Thomas, Joughin and Bamber found a net thickening of 39 ± 26 Gton/yr (= 1.6 ± 1 cm/yr), which is nearly identical to the 1992-2003 estimate of Davis et al. and is equivalent to a sea-level reduction of 0.11 ± 0.07 mm/yr.

Furthermore, Joughin and Bamber state that their mass balance estimates are likely representative of trends that have been occurring over "at least" the last several decades, and that they may yet be significantly influenced by a continuing response to the approximately 50% accumulation increase that began in the early Holocene.

What it means
It is clear from the results of this study that the Filchner-Ronne Ice Shelf is not rapidly, or even slowly, wasting away. Quite to the contrary, it is growing.

References
1. Davis, C.H., Li, Y., McConnell, J.R., Frey, M.M. and Hanna, E. 2005. “Snowfall-driven growth in East Antarctic Ice Sheet mitigates recent sea-level rise” . Sciencexpress/ www.sciencexpress.org/science.1110662.
2. Rignot, E. and Thomas, R.H. 2002. “Mass balance of polar ice sheets” . Science 297:1502-1506.​

Please make the appropriate comments and corrections to this “peer-reviewed” study and the commentary made by the reviewer, Dr. Sherwood Idso.

 

[valich]

Valich: the graph is clear for people that know about ozone hole matters, but especially for people who is in the science fields. But here is the meaning for the words in the graph:

Conteo R-XB x1.000/año = R-B counts per 10,000/year (R-B is Robertson-Berger, the values given by the spectrometer)

Año = Year.

What it should be clear is the fact that UV radiation over the USA decreased by an average of 0.7% annually.

Edufer: Thank you for translating your graph. However, it only refers to slight decreases in eight U.S. States. The main concern is the huge ozone hole over the Antarctic and the smaller one over the Arctic - not in the U.S. The good news is that the ozone layer over the Antarctic has also decreased since last year, but is not expected to rebound to it's former state until about 2040 or 2050.

Also, I've already posted numerous statistics about glacier's melting, including the one by Rignot and Thomas. Citing the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the "just out of the oven" meeting by the American Geophysical Union are the most up-to-date scientific sources that we, i.e. "we" as in "we in the scientific community," have.

None of the sources you cite tell us anything about how they arrived at their conclusions, what type of glaciers they measured, how they were measured, or how many were measured. The NOAA's results, that I posted above, were arrived at by measuring the average retreat for fifty of the world's most massive glaciers. Thus the most scientific accurate indicator of glacier mass retreat today to-date.

Also, I doubt that the article that you quoted from puts the words "thinning," "thickening," and "sea-level reduction" in bold print. That would be unscientific.

 

[valich]

This report is about one ice-shelf. And there are other contrary reports citing the fact that an entire ice shelf has now broken away from the Antarctic and is melting as it drifts away Northward. The reports I cited above are about mass-glacier retreats: not just one ice-shelf.

 

[valich]

The first comprehensive study of glaciers on Antarctic Peninsula has uncovered widespread glacier retreat and suggests that recent climate change on the peninsula is responsible. Eighty-seven percent of the 244 marine glaciers have retreated over the last 50 years. The widespread glacier retreat began at the northern, warmer tip of the Antarctic Peninsula. As atmospheric temperatures rose along the peninsula—more than 2.5 degrees Celsius in the last 50 years—the trend of retreat moved south toward colder mainland Antarctica. The rate of sea level rise could be affected if ice shelves on the peninsula continue their retreat.

"The widespread retreat of the glaciers on the Antarctic Peninsula over the last 50 years was largely caused by climate change. Of the 244 glacier-ice shelves and tidewater glaciers, 212 retreated from their earliest known position, which occurred in 1953, on average. Over this time, the average retreat of each glacier was approximately 600 meters.

A small remainder of glaciers advanced instead of retreated. The 32 advancing glaciers are not clustered in any pattern, but are evenly scattered down the coast. Their advances, 300 meters on average, are generally smaller than the reported retreats of the other glaciers.

Sjogren Glacier, at the northern end of the peninsula, has retreated 13 kilometers since 1993, more than any other glacier in the study. Sjogren Glacier had flowed into the Prince Gustav Ice Shelf and when the ice shelf broke up in 1993, the glacier retreated rapidly. With the exception of this unique case involving the break up of an ice shelf, Widdowson Glacier on the west coast of the peninsula, close to the Antarctic Circle, demonstrated the greatest retreat seen in a single glacier in any five-year interval—1.1 kilometers per year. This glacier had been advancing at around 200 meters per year in the 1940s but more recently switched to retreat. The highest rate of retreat for Widdowson Glacier occurred in the last five years.

From 1945 until 1954, 62 percent of the glaciers studied advanced and 38 percent retreated. After 1954 the number of glaciers in retreat rose, with 75 percent in retreat from 2000 to 2004."
Source: David Vaughan of the British Antarctic Survey in Cambridge, U.K., published in Science, 22 April 2005.

"At Science, we strongly support such broad and timely research projects. As the UK chief scientific advisor, Sir David King, wrote in Science last year, anthropogenic climate change is real. It is now widely accepted that we’re in the middle of a large uncontrolled climate experiment on our planet," said Andrew M. Sugden, International Managing Editor for Science."
http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2005/0421glaciers.shtml

"Glaciers in West Antarctica are shrinking at a rate substantially higher than was observed in the 1990s. They are losing 60 percent more ice into the Amundsen Sea than they accumulate from inland snowfall. The ice loss from the measured glaciers corresponds to an annual sea-level rise of .2 millimeters (.008 inches), or more than 10 percent of the total global increase of about 1.8 millimeters (.07 inches) per year. For a balanced glacial system, the amount of glacier ice melting or flowing into the sea roughly equals the ice formed from snow accumulations farther inland. The Amundsen Sea glaciers are not in balance. Ice shelves in the Amundsen Sea appear to be thinning, offering less resistance to their tributary glaciers. Our measurements show an increase in glacier thinning rates that affects not only the mouth of the glacier, but also 100 kilometers (60 miles) to 300 kilometers (190 miles) inland. The Earth underneath the ice is farther below sea level than had been assumed, so the ice is thicker than once thought. This increases the amount of ice each glacier can discharge into the ocean as its speed increases. It makes it easier for the thinning glacier to float free from its bed, and thus further 'loosen the cork'."
Source: "Accelerated Sea-Level Rise from West Antarctica," by R. Thomas et al., EG&G Services, NASA/Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Science, 8 October 2004 pp. 255-258.
http://www.sciencemag.org

"Using satellite images and airborne sensors, the researchers analysed 244 marine glaciers – that is, glaciers that terminate with floating sections in the ocean. They found that 87% of these glaciers show retreat over the past 61 years. The average retreat was 600 metres."
Source: "Glacial Retreat," by Cook et al., a study by the British Antarctic Survey and the US Geological Survey, Science, 308, p541.

"The break-off of a 500 billion ton chunk of the Larsen Ice Shelf - 650 feet thick and with a surface area of 1,250 sq. miles - is the second big break since a giant iceberg broke away in 1995 and is well beyond normal activity. The production of vast amounts of icebergs is a threat to the world's climate and the way the ocean's function. And the process, once started, cannot be reversed. The break-off said 'this is not theory, it's real - a rapid and dramatic collapse of an ice shelf can happen. This is saying 'that wasn't a one-off thing."'
Source: Quoted from Neal Young to Reuters, glaciologist with the Antarctic Cooperative Research Center (CRC) in Hobart.

"The fear is that a snowball effect will lead to disintegration of the vast West Antarctic ice shelf, kilometers thick in parts....Significant warming in parts of the pristine Antarctic wilderness is expected to continue to send huge icebergs into the Southern Ocean, and lead to the disintegration of other sections of ice shelves that fringe Antarctica's continental ice cover."
Source: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0514-03.htm

 

[Edufer]

Your long post consists only of press releases and quotes by “scientists” taken out of context from the studies of reference. It is a perfect sample of the Warming Litany. The only part that deserves some comments and straightening up is the last two paragraphs that I will analyze briefly, one at a time:

"The break-off of a 500 billion ton chunk of the Larsen Ice Shelf - 650 feet thick and with a surface area of 1,250 sq. miles - is the second big break since a giant iceberg broke away in 1995 and is well beyond normal activity. The production of vast amounts of icebergs is a threat to the world's climate and the way the ocean's function. And the process, once started, cannot be reversed. The break-off said 'this is not theory, it's real - a rapid and dramatic collapse of an ice shelf can happen. This is saying 'that wasn't a one-off thing."'
Source: Quoted from Neal Young to Reuters, glaciologist with the Antarctic Cooperative Research Center (CRC) in Hobart. ​

The Larsen-B Ice Shelf broke (or collapsed). It means it didn’t melt. Heat didn’t play a role in the event. The Larse Ice Shelf had collapsed some other times in the past, had formed again, and again collapsed, in a cycle that repeats and repeats. The cause is purely mechanical. The ice mass increased to a point that the extremes that anchored it to firm land couldn’t resist the weight. This was aggravated by the constant advance of the glacier that feed (or fed) the ice barrier, pushing it towards the sea. Finally, when the pressure was bigger than the resistance of the ice in its extremes, the ice “balcony” collapsed. No melting. No warming working there. It was pushed into the sea. If somebody tells you differently he’s conning you.

"The fear is that a snowball effect will lead to disintegration of the vast West Antarctic ice shelf, kilometers thick in parts....Significant warming in parts of the pristine Antarctic wilderness is expected to continue to send huge icebergs into the Southern Ocean, and lead to the disintegration of other sections of ice shelves that fringe Antarctica's continental ice cover." Source: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0514-03.htm ​

Huge icebergs will be sent to sea by calving (breaking off from the front of ice cliffs). It is the same event that occurs every four years with the Perito Moreno glacier in Patagonia: the glacier advances at about 50 cm a day in average (more in the center or “riverbed”) until huge chunks of ice start to fall from the high cliff (about 60 meters). You’ve seen it in the TV news around March this year. The strange thing is the Perito Moreno didn’t “calve” chunks of ice in the last 16 years, (it had stopped growing) but it has started growing again in the last years –since 1998, the “warmest period on record,” according to the IPCC. It sounds kind of weird to me.

But, as I told you at the start of this thread some weeks ago, while Perito Moreno is advancing fast, the Upsala glacier has been retreating and advancing and retreating again, and it is barely 50 km away from Perito Moreno. Temperature in the area is the same. One glacier retreats and the other one advance fast. Rule out temperature. I already posted the scientific study where they say temperature has nothing to do with the Upsala glacier retreat in this part of the thread, (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=48944&page=4&pp=20) with an appropriate graph showing the rate of increase and retreat of nearby glaciers in Patagonia. Remember this?

http://glacier.lowtem.hokudai.ac.jp/project/patagonia/patagonia.htm
Thinning and retreating of Glaciar Upsala, and an estimate of
annual ablation changes in southern Patagonia
(R. Naruse, P. Skvarca and Y. Takeuchi)

I also asked you to not put to much faith on websites with press releases like Common Dreams. It is not a peer reviewed website If you insist on posting such dubious links you’ll have to accept my posting links to http://www.junkscience.com :m:

 

[valich]

Are you also condemning the:

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Assocaiation (NOAA)
NASA/Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Antarctic Cooperative Research Center (CRC)
British Antarctic Survey in Cambridge, U.K
The U.S. Geological Survey Association
The Journal of Science that these reports refer to (direct quotes from the authors)?

My postings are much more precise, detailed, accurate, complete, and cited to the original authors - always professionals and Ph.D. or reference to a reputable organization - than any of your's have ever been.

Do you think there's no such thing as "Global Warming" or overall "Glacier Retreats"?

Wake up and read the facts! You're living in an ignorant dream world. It's a fact!

We in the intelligent scientific community know this. The problem is not how to convince the crack-pot nonbelievers: the problem is how we can reverse the human induced effects that we now see that are causing these drastic climatic changes.

Ozone layer decrease in South America: directly correlated to increase of skin cancer and melanoma deaths there.

Polar bears not able to retrieve seals in the Arctic because the ice is too thin know for them to venture out.

Inuit Indians now sueing the United States for the same reason.

Decreases in seal population due to Arctic Ocean warming.

Absolute rises in sea level global-wide due to rising temperatures due to Greenhouse gas effects.

87% retreat of all glaciers in Antarctica.

Total retreat of glaciers in Greenland, Alaska, the Arctic and worldwide (6-9 miles per year). Incluuding in the Alps, the Himalayas, and Glacier National Park, Montana (ask any ranger about this there!)

Kyoto Protocal agreements going on right now in Canada?

What's your purpose in trying to skirt all the facts? You're all alone in the world. A crack-pot voice shouting out with no substance or content. You posted an article that only refers to one single ice-shelf! Only one! I postred articles that refer to all of them and everything! Wake-up and get with it.

Why am I wasting my time?

 

[Ophiolite]

Valich - on this one I am with you 100%. Your posts here are accurate. You are not obfuscating. I am happy to support you here unequivocally, despite our severe differences elsewhere.

 

[SkinWalker]

Answering Ophiolite's questionaire:

1. There is, or there is not an ozone hole?

No, there is not an ozone hole. Just a mere decrease in ozone levels at some altitude over the South Pole.

Well said. This "hole" terminology has always bothered me.

2. This was, or was not caused, at least in part by human activity?

Not in the least. The Southern Anomaly (as Gordon Dobson named it back in 1957 when he and the French scientists Leroy and Rigaud, at base Dumont D'Urville, discovered the low ozone levels back in 1957) has totally natural causes. It has been there since the last time the South Pole moved to its present position.

3. The primary culprit was, or was not hyrdoflourocarbons?

CFCs have nothing to do with the Southern anomaly. It has been demonstrated beyond doubt. The amount of CFC rising to the stratosphere range between 0.1 to 0.001 parts per trillion. (R. Fabian, S.A. Borders, S. Penkett, "Halocarbons in the Stratosphere," Nature, Dec, 24, 1981).

Not so according to the data. Russell et al (1996) used satellite data to conclude that mean total chlorine at 55 km was ~2.7 parts per billion by volume. Natural sources should have only produced about .6 ppvb. So the chlorine is there. Moreover, the chemistry shows us that there should be a reaction (Molina & Rowland 1974).

The reaction is very basic: Cl + O₃ --> O₂ + ClO

One chlorine molecule is liberated from the energy of UV striking the the CFC. The single chlorine molecule then reacts with a single atom of oxygen thus: O + ClO --> Cl + O₂

The result is a cycle of depletion of ozone since the single atoms of oxygen created by the reaction of UV + O₂ --> O + O are used in making the chlorine molecule instead of the ozone molecules in the reaction 2O + 2O₂ --> 2O₃

I was always weaker in chemistry than I'd have liked, but I think I got it right.

Regardless, Fabian et al (1996) reported that of the 15 or so CFCs they measured in the troposphere, CFC-11 & -12 were at 290 pptv and 460 pptv respectively. To quote Peter Fabian (you indicate his first initial incorrectly in your citation by the way) and his coauthors: "Tropospheric abundances of CFC-11 have increased by 88%, from an average of 145 pptVmeasured in the late 1970s, to 272 pptV obtained at the end of the 1980s. The corresponding growth of CFC-12 was 60%, from 274 to 438 pptV. Similar growth rates are noticeable in the stratosphere as well."

These fully halogenated hydrocarbons are nearly inert gases in the troposphere but photolize after gradual penetration of the upper atmosphere from the troposphere where they accumulate.

The real question becomes, is the chlorine present at 55 km anthropogenic? Some have suggested that the chlorine is from volcanic sources, but direct measurements of the stratospheric chlorine produced by El Chichon, the most important eruption of the 1980's (Mankin and Coffey, 1983), and Pinatubo, the largest volcanic eruption since 1912 (Mankin et. al., 1991) found negligible amounts of chlorine injected into the stratosphere. Volcanos contribute at most just a few percent of the chlorine found in the stratosphere. Perhaps there are other natural sources.

But until then, it cannot be ignored that the introduction of CFCs corresponds with the significant decrease in ozone and subsequent increases in later years corresponds with the decreased use of CFC containing products. This strong correlation along with data gathered from researchers like Russell et al makes a compelling case.

At the very least, it is irresponsibly un-scientific to state that CFCs have nothing to do with ozone depletion and that it "has been demonstrated beyond doubt." Your very source for the doubt appears to say otherwise in a later publication (Fabian 1996). I was unable to obtain your citation to his 1980 publication, but based on the information that he and his coauthors present in the 1996 work, I'd be willing to believe you've misrepresented the data somewhat. At the very least, you've ignored the fact that Freon 12 reacts in the upper atmosphere whereas it does not in the lower, perhaps accounting for the negligible pptv count.

With regard to the thread topic, however, I find myself in agreement with your position that there has not been any hard, scientific data shown that demonstrates the "world's ice caps are melting."

I'm also in agreement with you regarding the sensationalist stance that some significance-junkies take with regard to the popular media reports of exaggerated climate claims. Very little of what Vallich has posted in this thread is sourced in data.

I'm in the camp that recognizes the data are in support of stating there is a trend in global warming, but I'm still unconvinced as to what degree, if any, this trend is anthropogenic.

References:

Fabian, P.; Borchers, R.; Leifer, R.; Subbaraya, B.H.; Lal, S.; and Roy, M. (1996). Global stratospheric distribution of halocarbons. Atmospheric Environment, 30(10/11), 1787-1796

Mankin, W., and M. Coffey, (1983). "Increased stratospheric hydrogen chloride in the El Chichon cloud", Science, 226(170).

Mankin, W., M. Coffey, and A. Goldman (1992). "Airborne observations of SO2, HCl, and O3 in the stratospheric plume of the Pinatubo volcano in July 1991", Geophysical Research Letters, 19(179).

Molina, M.J., and F.S. Rowland (1974). Stratospheric Sink for Chlorofluoromethanes: Chlorine Atom-Catalyzed Destruction of Ozone, Nature 249, 810-812.

Russell, J. et al (1996). "Satellite Confirmation of the Dominance of Chlorofluorocarbons in the Global Stratospheric Chlorine Budget" Nature, February 8, 1996, pp 526-529.

 

[Billy T]

...The reaction is very basic: Cl + O₃ --> O₂ + ClO
One chlorine molecule is liberated from the energy of UV striking the the CFC. The single chlorine molecule then reacts with a single atom of oxygen thus: O + ClO --> Cl + O₂
The result is a cycle of depletion of ozone since the single atoms of oxygen created by the reaction of UV + O₂ --> O + O are used in making the chlorine molecule instead of the ozone molecules in the reaction 2O + 2O₂ --> 2O₃...

At the very least, it is irresponsibly un-scientific to state that CFCs have nothing to do with ozone depletion and that it "has been demonstrated beyond doubt." Your very source for the doubt appears to say otherwise in a later publication (Fabian 1996). I was unable to obtain your citation to his 1980 publication, but based on the information that he and his coauthors present in the 1996 work, I'd be willing to believe you've misrepresented the data somewhat. At the very least, you've ignored the fact that Freon 12 reacts in the upper atmosphere whereas it does not in the lower, perhaps accounting for the negligible pptv count.

With regard to the thread topic, however, I find myself in agreement with your position that there has not been any hard, scientific data shown that demonstrates the "world's ice caps are melting."
...

Thanks for a well balanced and referenced discussion. I seldom argue with Eduffer as like him, I think correctly used nuclear power is safe and necessary, but he does, MHO, seem to be very selective in his references and unduly biased in his views.

I saw recently a map of the artic sea /land mass ice coverage reduction but do not recall the reference. It was a significant reduction in last decade as I recall. In addition, I posted yesterday (11Dec) at 14 minutes after the hour the shrinkage of some glaciers citing data of two university studies etc. perhaps you missed it? As far as I can tell, there is good evidence that the artic ice volume is reducing at an alarmingly increasing rate. The sea level data seems to confirm this also. In my post I mentioned the idea of a positive feed back link between inland glacier melting and stronger storms (they are driven by thermal gradients, which may be larger with Earth retaining more IR radiation etc.) causing more rapid calving of icebergs form tidal water glaciers, like Alaska Columbia glacier. I now want to add another potentially very strong positive feed back mechanism:

It is my understanding that currently the Ross Ice Shelf is "pinned" from rapid advance into the Antarctic Ocean by a chain of submerged mountain peaks. Furthermore, only a modest increase in sea level will likely free it and in a decade or so, it will not impede the movement of the glaciers behind it. You are very well informed and I now trust you more than Eduffer. What do you know about this and / or other positive feed back mechanisms? - I worry that it is already to too late to reverse "global warming" trends, especially with the current ex-oil CEO leadership in power in USA. Hope you have seen some of my posts relating to the use of alcohol instead of gas as car fuel as it actually reduces CO2 in the air and is cheaper per mile driven, if produced from cane in tropical countries.

 

[Avatar]

I also asked you to not put to much faith on websites with press releases like Common Dreams

Although it's not targeted towards me I feel inclined to answer (off topic, I know) that common dreams per se is nothing supernatural, but occurs, I've myself have had this with my half sister. Also identical dream themes have been with humans since the days of earliest myths (archetypes, etc).
Of course I have no idea what's written in that press release.

 

[SkinWalker]

Thanks for a well balanced and referenced discussion. I seldom argue with Eduffer as like him, I think correctly used nuclear power is safe and necessary, but he does, MHO, seem to be very selective in his references and unduly biased in his views.

I'm all for nuclear power. The drawbacks are storage of waste, possible terrorist targetting, and operational/construction costs, but the returns appear to be worth it.

I saw recently a map of the artic sea /land mass ice coverage reduction but do not recall the reference. It was a significant reduction in last decade as I recall.

I've read similar newsbits, but I've yet to pin down the actual data these news items are using. I'm not saying it isn't there, I just haven't seen it. I'm a bit skeptical by nature, so I take it all with a grain of salt and think perhaps the media and various significance-junkies (scaremongers as Andre refers to them) pick and choose parts of the data that appeals to them. Or, the other possibility is that the data exists and I simply haven't seen it.

The publications I referenced above list their methodologies and results, which is something that many of the press releases and popular media articles don't do. There are a couple of references that I'm looking for that might fit this bill though:

Serreze, M.C., J.A. Maslanik, T.A. Scambos, F. Fetterer, J. Stroeve, K. Knowles, C. Fowler, S. Drobot, R.G. Barry, and T.M. Haran (2003). A record minimum arctic sea ice extent and area in 2002. Geophysical Research Letters

and

Stroeve, J.C., M.C. Serreze, F. Fetterer, T. Arbetter, W. Meier, J. Maslanik, and K. Knowles (2005). Tracking the Arctic's shrinking ice cover: another extreme minimum in 2004. Geophysical Research Letters. In press.

But I don't have access to that particular journal and haven't been overly motivated to go out of my way. Maybe this week when I'm at the library I'll look for them.

In addition, I posted yesterday (11Dec) at 14 minutes after the hour the shrinkage of some glaciers citing data of two university studies etc. perhaps you missed it?

I saw it, but your post seemed concerned with ice other-than-polar-caps and, while related, it wasn't addressing the thread topic. I agree, however, that there is a significant net decrease in glacial and alpine ice in non-polar regions based on data that I've seen.

I worry that it is already to too late to reverse "global warming" trends, especially with the current ex-oil CEO leadership in power in USA. Hope you have seen some of my posts relating to the use of alcohol instead of gas as car fuel as it actually reduces CO2 in the air and is cheaper per mile driven, if produced from cane in tropical countries.

I'm not convinced that there's anything we can, or should, be trying to do to "reverse" global warming, since I don't know how much is anthropogenic -I'm open to being educated on it should the data be shown, however. I *do* agree that there are many reasons for seeking to reduce emissions from fossil fuels. I'm a proponent of hybrid cars. The technology exists, it could be quickly introduced into the manufacturing process, it requires little additional infrastructure, etc. Other alternatives (the hydrogen pipe dream for instance) require great adaptations in infrastructure and manufacturing and the technology isn't even fully realized yet.

 

[Edufer]

Skin Walker, I suggest you (or perhaps I) should open a new thread on the ozone hole hoax so we can discuss it at length. But I will make a very brief answer perhaps later on this day.

Excuse my delay, Valich, I had some other business to attend. I will answer you unbelievable tirade in various posts for making each answer comprehensible and not lost among a lot of information.

Are you also condemning the:

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Assocaiation (NOAA)
NASA/Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Antarctic Cooperative Research Center (CRC)
British Antarctic Survey in Cambridge, U.K
* The U.S. Geological Survey Association
The Journal of Science that these reports refer to (direct quotes from the authors)?

All mentioned organizations have a Big Ax to grind –called “money + geopolitics” Their heads don’t’ think or act by themselves but they follow orders “from above”. The only one that could be an exception is the The U.S. Geological Survey Association but there are some reports and studies funded by them that follow the “Alarmist’s warming bandwagon”. Lots of other reports from the US Geological Survey Service, on the contrary, supports the skeptics claim that the warming observed is not as catastrophic as you wanted it to sound. Special mention deserve many reports of Alaska’s and other US glaciers showing their increase in size and length.

My postings are much more precise, detailed, accurate, complete, and cited to the original authors - always professionals and Ph.D. or reference to a reputable organization - than any of your's have ever been.

Wrong. Your posts refer to press releases and quotes from magazines and dubious websites. Websites as those belonging to the above mentioned organizations doesn’t provide a credible support to the global warming hypothesis –much less Science and Nature magazines, whose peer review process is a shame for the scientific community.

 

[Edufer]

Valich: Do you think there's no such thing as "Global Warming" or overall "Glacier Retreats"?

You have a bad memory. I already stated here there WAS a global warming trend as the result of a recovery from the deep cooling of The Little ice Age. Even so, the warming trend started about 1880 was interrupted by a few cooling trends, while the CO2 trend kept uniformly rising. This FACT is putting to shame the claim that CO2 is directly responsible for temperature increases on Earth. According to the latest studies (2005) Bold text is mine – I really hope you could understand the meaning of really scientific studies –but I doubt it:

“A climate record stretching back in time nearly three-quarters of a million years and encompassing eight glacial cycles was obtained a couple of years ago from the Dome Concordia (Dome C: 75°06'S, 123°21'E) ice core in East Antarctica by Augustin et al. (2004); and now, CO2 and proxy temperature (δD, the ratio of deuterium to hydrogen) data derived from that core have been published by Siegenthaler et al. (2005).”

“Siegenthaler et al. say they obtained the best correlation between CO2 and temperature "for a lag of CO2 of 1900 years." Specifically, over the course of glacial terminations V to VII, they indicate that "the highest correlation of CO2 and deuterium, with use of a 20-ky window for each termination, yields a lag of CO2 to deuterium of 800, 1600, and 2800 years, respectively." In addition, they note that "this value is consistent with estimates based on data from the past four glacial cycles," citing in this regard the work of Fischer et al. (1999), Monnin et al. (2001) and Caillon et al. (2003). Clearly, therefore, it is temperature that is the robust leader in this tightly-coupled relationship, while CO2 is but the humble follower, providing only a fraction (which could well be miniscule) - of the total glacial-to-interglacial temperature change.”

“This observation does little to inspire confidence in climate-alarmist claims that the CO2 produced by the burning of fossil fuels will lead to catastrophic temperature increases, which predicted warmings, in some of their scenarios, rival those experienced in glacial-to-interglacial transitions. Nevertheless, Siegenthaler et al. stubbornly state that the new findings "do not cast doubt ... on the importance of CO2 as a key amplification factor [our italics] of the large observed temperature variations of glacial cycles."

“In vivid contrast to this unsupported contention, it is our opinion that when temperature leads CO2 by thousands of years, during both glacial terminations and inceptions (Genthon et al., 1987; Fischer et al., 1999; Petit et al., 1999; Clark and Mix, 2000; Indermuhle et al., 2000; Monnin et al., 2001; Mudelsee, 2001; Caillon et al., 2003), there is plenty of reason to believe that CO2 plays but a minor role in enhancing temperature changes that are clearly induced by something else, which latter italicized point is an undisputed fact that is clearly born out by the new ice core data.”

“Consequently, whereas Thomas Stocker (the second and corresponding author of the Siegenthaler et al. paper) is quoted by the BBC's Richard Black (BBC News, 24 Nov 2005) as saying of the tight and time-invariant relationship between δD and CO2, without any additional evidence, that it is "a very strong indication of the important role of CO2 in climate regulation," we say it is "a very strong indication of the important role of climate in CO2 regulation. " Why? Because like Mary's little lamb, and as evidenced by 650,000 years of real-world data, wherever temperature went over this period, CO2 was sure to follow, which by definition is "a very strong indication of the important role of climate in CO2 regulation" and not the opposite.

References

Augustin, L., Barbante, C., Barnes, P.R.F., Barnola, J.M., Bigler, M., Castellano, E., Cattani, O., Chappellaz, J., Dahl-Jensen, D., Delmonte, B., Dreyfus, G., Durand, G., Falourd, S., Fischer, H., Fluckiger, J., Hansson, M.E., Huybrechts, P., Jugie, G., Johnsen, S.J., Jouzel, J., Kaufmann, P., Kipfstuhl, J., Lambert, F., Lipenkov, V.Y., Littot, G.C., Longinelli, A., Lorrain, R., Maggi, V., Masson-Delmotte, V., Miller, H., Mulvaney, R., Oerlemans, J., Oerter, H., Orombelli, G., Parrenin, F., Peel, D.A., Petit, J.-R., Raynaud, D., Ritz, C., Ruth, U., Schwander, J., Siegenthaler, U., Souchez, R., Stauffer, B., Steffensen, J.P., Stenni, B., Stocker, T.F., Tabacco, I.E., Udisti, R., van de Wal, R.S.W., van den Broeke, M., Weiss, J., Wilhelms, F., Winther, J.-G., Wolff, E.W. and Zucchelli, M. 2004. Eight glacial cycles from an Antarctic ice core. Nature 429: 623-628.
Brook, E.J. 2005. Tiny Bubbles tell all. Science 310: 1285-1287.
Caillon, N., Severinghaus, J.P., Jouzel, J., Barnola, J.-M., Kang, J. and Lipenkov, V.Y. 2003. Timing of atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic temperature changes across Termination III. Science 299: 1728-1731.
Clark, P.U. and Mix, A.C. 2000. Ice sheets by volume. Nature 406: 689-690.
Fischer, H., Wahlen, M., Smith, J., Mastroianni, D. and Deck, B. 1999. Ice core records of atmospheric CO2 around the last three glacial terminations. Science 283: 1712-1714.
Genthon, C., Barnola, J.M., Raynaud, D., Lorius, C., Jouzel, J., Barkov, N.I., Korotkevich, Y.S. and Kotlyakov, V.M. 1987. Vostok ice core: Climatic response to CO2 and orbital forcing changes over the last climatic cycle. Nature 329: 414-418.
Indermuhle, A., Monnin, E., Stauffer, B. and Stocker, T.F. 2000. Atmospheric CO2 concentration from 60 to 20 kyr BP from the Taylor Dome ice core, Antarctica. Geophysical Research Letters 27: 735-738.
Monnin, E., Indermühle, A., Dällenbach, A., Flückiger, J, Stauffer, B., Stocker, T.F., Raynaud, D. and Barnola, J.-M. 2001. Atmospheric CO2 concentrations over the last glacial termination. Science 291: 112-114.
Mudelsee, M. 2001. The phase relations among atmospheric CO2 content, temperature and global ice volume over the past 420 ka. Quaternary Science Reviews 20: 583-589.
Petit, J.R., Jouzel, J., Raynaud, D., Barkov, N.I., Barnola, J.-M., Basile, I., Bender, M., Chappellaz, J., Davis, M., Delaygue, G., Delmotte, M., Kotlyakov, V.M., Legrand, M., Lipenkov, V.Y., Lorius, C., Pepin, L., Ritz, C., Saltzman, E., and Stievenard, M. 1999. Climate and atmospheric history of the past 420,000 years from the Vostok ice core, Antarctica. Nature 399: 429-436.
Siegenthaler, U., Stocker, T., Monnin, E., Luthi, D., Schwander, J., Stauffer, B., Raynaud, D., Barnola, J.-M., Fischer, H., Masson-Delmotte, V. and Jouzel, J. 2005. Stable carbon cycle-climate relationship during the late Pleistocene. Science 310: 1313-1317.
​

I hope the concept is completely clear: Temperature drives CO2 levels making it increase or decrease, not the other way around.

Valich: Wake up and read the facts! You're living in an ignorant dream world. It's a fact!

I have just showd you some of the facts that disproves everything you have said up to now. Can you read well? Or your Alzheimer won’t let your brain function at all?

 

[Edufer]

We in the intelligent scientific community know this. The problem is not how to convince the crack-pot nonbelievers: the problem is how we can reverse the human induced effects that we now see that are causing these drastic climatic changes.

You are not part of the scientific community. You are an amateur. What you have written here proves it. Mere copy an paste of websites and not a single scientific thought from your part.

Ozone layer decrease in South America: directly correlated to increase of skin cancer and melanoma deaths there.

This, my sir, is a BLATANT and SHAMELESS LIE, and you must apologize with people in this forum for saying it.

One. Show us JUST ONE epidemiological study that support your insane claim. I live in South America, I have ALL official statistics showing there is no melanoma increase in South America. The reason is a simple one: ozone levels over the continent have NOT decrease since they began to measure ozone levels. The very small increase in melanomas is the result of a better statistic work, more people traveling to bigger cities (ie. Buenos Aires, Rio de Janeiro, Sao Paulo) where specialized centers are. Before that, people remained at home and those melanomas went unnoticied as local doctors don't make reports of melanomas (ot other diseases) to bigger hospitals in cities. South America has not the health standards as the USA or Europe.

We have in Ushuaia, Tierra del Fuego, (the southernmost city in the world) one of the four latest models of spectrometers in the world, provided by the US National Science Foundation to our National Meteorological Service for monitoring ozone levels in conjunction with scientists at the LAGE (Laboratory of Geophysics at Buenos Aires National University.) The lead scientist in charge of taking the ozone measurements is Lic. Victoria Tafuri, head of the Villa Ortuzar National Observatory, where they analyze data from Ushuaia and Antarctica. She has stated to the press in many occasions that: “Ozone levels above Buenos Aires and the rest of the Argentinean territory have not decreased in the last 30 years.”

She keeps saying that on every interview the press makes when trying to keep promoting the ozone scam. She always adds (a reason why they are interviewing her less and less)

“The wrongly named Ozone Hole is secluded in the Antarctic region and there are no scientific reasons to presume it may reach the Argentinean territory. This ozone hole story only benefits corporate and industrial interests. The lack of ozone does not cause skin cancer as it is persistently repeated –although the benign tumors incidence can be blamed to an excessive exposure to the sun without blocking creams or other precautions.”​

Then, two leading scientist from the LAGE laboratory (Dr. Isidoro Orchansky –now at NASA- and Dr. Ernesto A. Martínez), conducted studies in Ushuaia on “mini-ozone holes” above the region, providing the following comments:

“If ozone levels were to decrease 50% -something that happens very few days and in very reduced areas in the Antarctic- and the rest of parameters remain constant, UV radiation will increase 15% locally and 1,5% globally. Typical average values of UV radiation are 300 watts/m2 over Buenos Aires; about 100 to 150 watts/m2 on Ushuaia; and less than 100 watts over Antarctica. UV-B values directly under the ozone hole do not reach half the values falling at the same moment over Buenos Aires, or 1/4 of values falling at the same moment north of the Tropic of Capricorn line.”​

 

[Billy T]

I'm all for nuclear power. The drawbacks are storage of waste, possible terrorist targetting, and operational/construction costs, but the returns appear to be worth it.

I basically agree, but note most of the construction costs is false expense of the capital tied up by delays and fact that PSC does not include it in the "FAIR RETURN" base until plant is on line. France does a safer job and makes money, including some from Germany, with their nuclear power (about 80% of their electric consumption is from standardized "safety first" nuclear plants with identical control rooms, etc.)

As for the storage problem, I think it dangerous as currently done in US, basically on site - a tempting target for terrorists, but it could be safely shipped to 4 or 5 central well guarded facilities and stored for roughly a decade to let the shorter half-life isotopes decay. Then, it should be glassified (mixed with glass) to form a disk about an inch thick and foot in diameter*, so steady state temp is no more than 100 degrees C, which are then coated with a thin layer of pure glass - thick enough to stop the Alpha particles. Ships with disk-hurling slings etc or air guns, on their sterns steaming above a deep ocean trench should then send them on a billion year trip much deeper into the earth. (The disk shape, instead of balls insures that they will not roll to any one low point and disperse much more that the ship can throw them. Glass is very strong in compression and will take any pressure the deepest trench can provide.) I.e. IMHO, the waste is not a big problem and we can solve it with less than the current risk.

On the artic ice cover photo I saw, it appeared to be a real one from satellite that had a hand drawn dotted line showing the extent of ice cover X years earlier, but I forget the value given for "X".

...I do not know how much is anthropogenic -I'm open to being educated on it should the data be shown, however. I *do* agree that there are many reasons for seeking to reduce emissions from fossil fuels. I'm a proponent of hybrid cars. The technology exists, it could be quickly introduced into the manufacturing process, it requires little additional infrastructure, etc. Other alternatives (the hydrogen pipe dream for instance) require great adaptations in infrastructure and manufacturing and the technology isn't even fully realized yet.

I also agree with most of this, especially that hydrogen is a negative energy "source." I think an all electric car with regenerative brakes, motors in the wheels etc may be good idea for the city, especially one with electric source recharging parking meters, but that is a big change compared to add a fuel mix sensor and some minor changes (mainly the computer program controlling the fuel injectors I think, but do not know) to existing IC engine cars so they can run on any mix of alcohol or gas, as 68% of those sold last month in Brazil can. Brazil (and all the major car companies) has 30 years of experience driving on alcohol, but the new "flex fuel" cars are only 3 or 4 years on the market. Alcohol fueled cars is an economic way to remove CO2 from the air and cheaper to drive per mile, if made from cane grown in tropical countries. Unfortunately the oil industry has a lot of influence, even getting US into wars etc. (Main reason why we US is in Iraq and not where the 9/11 terrorist came from, is that US oil had already the all the lucrative contract in Saudi Arabia but the French and Russian had them all in Iraq. Also why France and Russia did not support the Iraq invasion, but all governments hide their true motives with more noble sounding causes.) but this is getting too far off thread so I stop.
______________________________________________
The total long life-time isotopes produce by an "all electric" set of about 25 US familes, during the entire life of each member (100 years and 100 people), will fit in one disk!

 

[valich]

Your long post consists only of press releases and quotes by “scientists” taken out of context from the studies of reference. It is a perfect sample of the Warming Litany. The only part that deserves some comments and straightening up is the last two paragraphs that I will analyze briefly, one at a time:

I think you must be only looking at the underlined websites and not what was posted out of the highly respect scientific journal called "Science." In any case, the other two small paragraphs were direct quotations taken from researchers at the Antarctic Cooperative Research Center in Hobalt, Australia. These were quotations taken in context from professionals with Ph.D.s conducting a long-term study of all Antarctic glaciers: they are credible sources. Let me repost the journal of Science articles that you seem to not be seeing since I guess only what is written in science journals and not what is quoted from researchers out in the field mean anything to you. You've really got a bad case of tunnel vision.

The first comprehensive study of glaciers on Antarctic Peninsula has uncovered widespread glacier retreat and suggests that recent climate change on the peninsula is responsible. Eighty-seven percent of the 244 marine glaciers have retreated over the last 50 years. The widespread glacier retreat began at the northern, warmer tip of the Antarctic Peninsula. As atmospheric temperatures rose along the peninsula—more than 2.5 degrees Celsius in the last 50 years—the trend of retreat moved south toward colder mainland Antarctica. The rate of sea level rise could be affected if ice shelves on the peninsula continue their retreat.

"The widespread retreat of the glaciers on the Antarctic Peninsula over the last 50 years was largely caused by climate change. Of the 244 glacier-ice shelves and tidewater glaciers, 212 retreated from their earliest known position, which occurred in 1953, on average. Over this time, the average retreat of each glacier was approximately 600 meters.

A small remainder of glaciers advanced instead of retreated. The 32 advancing glaciers are not clustered in any pattern, but are evenly scattered down the coast. Their advances, 300 meters on average, are generally smaller than the reported retreats of the other glaciers.

Sjogren Glacier, at the northern end of the peninsula, has retreated 13 kilometers since 1993, more than any other glacier in the study. Sjogren Glacier had flowed into the Prince Gustav Ice Shelf and when the ice shelf broke up in 1993, the glacier retreated rapidly. With the exception of this unique case involving the break up of an ice shelf, Widdowson Glacier on the west coast of the peninsula, close to the Antarctic Circle, demonstrated the greatest retreat seen in a single glacier in any five-year interval—1.1 kilometers per year. This glacier had been advancing at around 200 meters per year in the 1940s but more recently switched to retreat. The highest rate of retreat for Widdowson Glacier occurred in the last five years.

From 1945 until 1954, 62 percent of the glaciers studied advanced and 38 percent retreated. After 1954 the number of glaciers in retreat rose, with 75 percent in retreat from 2000 to 2004."
Source: David Vaughan of the British Antarctic Survey in Cambridge, U.K., published in Science, 22 April 2005.

"Glaciers in West Antarctica are shrinking at a rate substantially higher than was observed in the 1990s. They are losing 60 percent more ice into the Amundsen Sea than they accumulate from inland snowfall. The ice loss from the measured glaciers corresponds to an annual sea-level rise of .2 millimeters (.008 inches), or more than 10 percent of the total global increase of about 1.8 millimeters (.07 inches) per year. For a balanced glacial system, the amount of glacier ice melting or flowing into the sea roughly equals the ice formed from snow accumulations farther inland. The Amundsen Sea glaciers are not in balance. Ice shelves in the Amundsen Sea appear to be thinning, offering less resistance to their tributary glaciers. Our measurements show an increase in glacier thinning rates that affects not only the mouth of the glacier, but also 100 kilometers (60 miles) to 300 kilometers (190 miles) inland. The Earth underneath the ice is farther below sea level than had been assumed, so the ice is thicker than once thought. This increases the amount of ice each glacier can discharge into the ocean as its speed increases. It makes it easier for the thinning glacier to float free from its bed, and thus further 'loosen the cork'."
Source: "Accelerated Sea-Level Rise from West Antarctica," by R. Thomas et al., EG&G Services, NASA/Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Science, 8 October 2004 pp. 255-258.
http://www.sciencemag.org

"Using satellite images and airborne sensors, the researchers analysed 244 marine glaciers – that is, glaciers that terminate with floating sections in the ocean. They found that 87% of these glaciers show retreat over the past 61 years. The average retreat was 600 metres."
Source: "Glacial Retreat," by Cook et al., a study by the British Antarctic Survey and the US Geological Survey, Science, 308, p541.

"The break-off of a 500 billion ton chunk of the Larsen Ice Shelf - 650 feet thick and with a surface area of 1,250 sq. miles - is the second big break since a giant iceberg broke away in 1995 and is well beyond normal activity. The production of vast amounts of icebergs is a threat to the world's climate and the way the ocean's function. And the process, once started, cannot be reversed. The break-off said 'this is not theory, it's real - a rapid and dramatic collapse of an ice shelf can happen. This is saying 'that wasn't a one-off thing."'
Source: Quoted from Neal Young to Reuters, glaciologist with the Antarctic Cooperative Research Center (CRC) in Hobart.

 

[valich]

"Changes in global sea level for the next few hundred years, due to changes in its surface mass balance imposed a temperature scenario, in which surface air temperature rises to 4.2° C in the year 2100 AD."
Source: "Response of the Antarctic ice sheet to future greenhouse warming," by
Philippe Huybrechts and Johannes Oerlemans, Climate Dynamics, Vol. 5:2, Dec.1990, pp.93-102

"The [Antarctic] mountain glaciers have been melting over the last century, and together with the thermal expansion of the ocean, this has contributed to a sea level rise of about 2 mm/year (over an inch per decade) over the last century.....More recent research has shown an acceleration of ice loss from important coastal region in Greenland and West Antarctica....New research shows that over the past decade, the small ice-shelf that helped restrain Jacobshavn ice stream (aka

"In the last 40 years or so, several ice shelves have disintegrated in responce to a measeured atmospheric warming trend in the western and northern part of the Antarctic Peninsula....Observations at the meteorological stations in the region show a 2.5 degree C rise in 50 years. Ice shelves appear to exist up to a climatic limit, taken to be the mean annual


"In March 2000, an 11,000-square-kilometer iceberg the size of Connecticut split from the Ross Ice Shelf in Antarctica. Two months later, a similar area of ice broke free from the continent's Ronne Ice Shelf. Three months after that, the Ninnis Glacier Tongue, a 1,450 sq-km slab of ice jutting into the sea, snapped off near the shoreline and cast off for warmer climes. Last September, yet another huge chunk of ancient ice broke free from the Ross Ice Shelf. Now, satellites have detected a crack across the Antarctic ice shelf that's fed by the Pine Island Glacier. This massive fissure promises to spawn another megaberg in the next 12 to 18 months. Rising temperatures have been linked to ill effects along the coast of the Antarctica's northernmost peninsula."
Source: "An armada of ice sets sail for the new millennium," by Sid Perkins, Science,
May 12, 2001; Vol. 159, No. 14 , p. 298.

 

[valich]

"The [Antarctic] mountain glaciers have been melting over the last century, and together with the thermal expansion of the ocean, this has contributed to a sea level rise of about 2 mm/year (over an inch per decade) over the last century.....More recent research has shown an acceleration of ice loss from important coastal region in Greenland and West Antarctica....New research shows that over the past decade, the small ice-shelf that helped restrain Jacobshavn ice stream (a.k.a Greenland Ice Shelf) in Greenland has thinned, accelerating what was already the fastest sustained flow of any ice-sheet on Earth. The same seems to have happened to several glaciers in the West Antarctic ice sheet of Pine Island Bay, with thinning and speed-up extending far into the ice sheet. Along the Antarctic Peninsula, ice-sheet melting from below was augmented with surface meltwater wedging open crevasses in part of the Larsen ice shelf. The shelf fell apart quickly, over only a few days or weeks, freeing the ice behind it to melt more rapidly."
Source: "Abrupt Climate Changes: Ocean, Ice, and Us," by Richard B. Alley, Oceanography, Vol.17:4 Dec. 2004. http://www.tos.org/oceanography/issues/issue_archive/issue_pdfs/17_4/17.4_alley.pdf

"In the last 40 years or so, several ice shelves have disintegrated in responce to a measeured atmospheric warming trend in the western and northern part of the Antarctic Peninsula....Observations at the meteorological stations in the region show a 2.5 degree C rise in 50 years. Ice shelves appear to exist up to a climatic limit, taken to be the mean annual -5 degree C isotherm, which represents the thermal limit of ice shelf viability. The steady southward migration of the isotherm has coincided with the pattern of ice-shelf disintegration"
Source: "Ice Shelf Stability," by C.S.M Doake, British Antarctic Survey, Cambridge, U.K.
http://curry.eas.gatech.edu/Courses/5225/ency/Chapter10/Ency_Oceans/Ice-shelf_Stability.pdf.

"

 

[Edufer]

You accuse me of “tunneled vision.” Good. What about yours? You keep posting the same quotes and links that have been already debunked. Why your insistence?

You are talking about the Antarctic Peninsula, a mere 2% of the Antarctic continent --that has been cooling strongly for the last 25 years. The Peninsula is full of scientific and military bases, tourist spots, harbors and other installations that deliver heat the whole year long. You might argue that this amount of heat cannot unbalance the climate in the Peninsula. How would you know? Did you measured the heat being produce and released to the environment by so many bases, airplanes, helicopters, snow-cats, caterpillars, ice breakers, heating, cooking, etc? There is an approximate way of doing this: see how much fuel is carried and used there, multiply by their BTU value and will get some figures.

Marine glaciers are small ones, not important. All those 244 marine glaciers are in the Peninsula, 2% of the territory.

Then, your press releases speak of “break-off” not MELTING. You are refusing to acknowledge the huge difference, something that really speaks about YOUR tunnel vision. They are talking about “COLLAPSE” not melting away. Collapse is a mechanical occurrence when the weight of a structure overwhelms the resistance of materials. And the weight was gained not through MELTING but through the increase in ice thickness and by the push from the advancing glaciers.

If you refuse to see this clear physical contributors to the Larsen shelf collapse, then I give up.

Some pictures from the website by Dr. Anton Uriarte, the most famous Spanish climatologist, author of the most important treatise in “History of the Earth Climate” (for those of you that can read Spanish his monumental website is at: http://homepage.mac.com/uriarte/index.html Graphs are beautiful.

<img src="http://homepage.mac.com/uriarte/tempsartico.jpg" width="500" height="328">

Anomalies in the Arctic temperatures since 1880. As it can be seen, present temperatures have not reached those of the 1930-40 decade.

<img src=http://homepage.mac.com/uriarte/hieloartico.jpg width=500>

Extension of ice in the four seas surrounding the Arctic.
Reference: Polyakov I. et al. 2002, Observationally based assessment of polar amplification of global warming, Geophysical Research Letters, 29, 18, 25-1/4