Even The Antarctic Winter Cannot Protect Wilkins Ice Shelf

Originally posted by Kryties
Not caused by Global Warming

From www.theregister.co.uk...

Global warming cleared on ice shelf collapse rap -
Natural causes to blame, expert claims

I hate the word "expert" these days.

It means "Illuminati sponsored brainwashing person".

The truth about why this is happening will never be revealed by any "experts". Those in charge know exactly what is happening, and their "experts" job is to cover the reason with BS.

It's not caused by "global warming" either...

[edit on 7/9/08 by NuclearPaul]

reply to post by DavidWright


the atmosphere is being artificiaily heated by atmospheric metals...
www.carnicom.com...

why? ,who wants to cause global warming?.

the same entities who want to depopulate the planet perhaps?.

considering those who have the capability to launch these amounts of atmospheric metals are also those in charge of the energy network,ie carbon emmisions and free energy suppresion ,i have a suspicion global warming is an intentionional event ,to depopulate earth.

Wow, this thread is three months old, and still getting hits. Last time I checked, that three months has seen no measurable sea level increase.

The peninsula in question is breaking up because of a simple oceanic current adjustment. The same current shift appears to be the reason for an increase in snow cover, which means more ice at the Southern Pole, not less. Even the article referenced states:

Source: www.csmonitor.com...

More scare tactics. Weather changes, that is why it is called weather.

TheRedneck

reply to post by TheRedneck

I was surprised to see this back on the Top of MYATS thread list. A member who was debating on the Canada thread bounced this one back up. I can only assume it is his enthusiasm for such a controversial topic. I will be trying my best to discuss your post, and Kryties on both threads. Once again,Thank you for your input.

reply to post by atlasastro


Don't get too excited I merely stumbled upon that article whilst researching my post in the other thread and found it more than appropriate for this one.

reply to post by TheRedneck
It might be worth looking at the difference between Sea Ice and Glacial Ice. Sea Ice levels falling and rising does not effect seal levels significantly. Glacial melts do. The Ice shelf's the run from the glaciers out onto the sea are thought to be holding the glaciers. Once they go, then the glaciers go, then massive sea level rising. That is what the "doomsday" scenario is. How are those shelf's looking. Sea the OP. I wonder if those snow falls(seasonal) are making up for the current losses to date, Ice that has been around since the last Ice age apparently,a massive amount of Ice lost? Replaced in a seasonal snow fall. That is is a lot of snow. Seem Unlikely, what are your thoughts?

The overall growth in Antarctica's sea ice over the past two decades masks significant regional declines in the Bellingshausen and Amundsen Seas – the destination for glaciers flowing from the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. Researchers say these glaciers are losing ice to the sea faster than snow is replenishing the ice. Thus, the large regional drops in sea ice could also signal the presence of "a very big threat to glacier ice" on the continent, says Xiaojun Yuan, a polar scientist at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, N.Y. The leading suspect: relatively warm water upwelling near the coast as a result of global warming's effect on wind patterns in the region.

This is from Jan 2008.
www.csmonitor.com...


P.S. I have been looking into more research on ocean driven weather systems which i found whilst trawling through volcanic and deep see vent info. I have found an excellent paper on Decadal Oscillations in Ocean Currents that drive warmer weather and water north in trends that fit with the melting's in the north. These oscillations switch between Cooler and warmer periods over one and two decades. At the moment we are in a warmer oscillation. I believe you are onto something by looking at the oceans role with the North. Its a paper I am still reading and am forming a few replies for that other thread. I will hopeful post the reply soon.
This reply was easy as I have come across the topic of sea Ice in the south before and had the reference on hand to offer another view.



[edit on 8-9-2008 by atlasastro]

Just how ignorant do people have to be to actually propose the ice isn't melting?

Both poles, Arctic and Antarctic are breaking apart... and there are actually some nut jobs out there claiming they're "Growing" in size.


You know... when this is all over, and there simply is no ice left at either pole... I'm willing to bet, the same "scientists" who claim the ice is growing and the earth is cooling are going to come back out, and in their own words shout "FOOLED YOU! HAHA SUCKERS! YOU REALLY BELIEVED ME... HAHA, MORONS!"

And yet... for some reason... there are still people out there trying to claim the ice is growing.
... just as there are still people out there claiming cigarettes are good for you... lol.

reply to post by atlasastro
I am excited to hear that you are doing real research on this subject. That is a far step ahead of what many posters do, and I congratulate you on your search for the truth.

I also look forward to any reports you may find or conclusions you may make.

I reread the article thoroughly. My general impression as a whole is that this is simply an observation of unexplained phenomena along with a brief history of the difficulties scientists have encountered in an attempt to understand the ecological balances present at the South Pole. I found relatively little reference to propagandized agendas.

I wonder if those snow falls(seasonal) are making up for the current losses to date, Ice that has been around since the last Ice age apparently,a massive amount of Ice lost? Replaced in a seasonal snow fall. That is is a lot of snow. Seem Unlikely, what are your thoughts?

Source: www.csmonitor.com...

Apparently, the idea that Antarctic ice is thick and ancient may be incorrect. The extent of melt and refreeze that has been observed shows a more massive amount of water that cycles from liquid to ice on a yearly basis. There is also an excellent hypothesis on how melting ice can actually contribute to increased snowfall by allowing bacteria to release dimethyl sulfide to aid in cloud-seeding. It appears to me to be a nicely balanced system, self-correcting on several levels.

With that in mind, I would hazard to state that we are not yet aware of all of the self-corrections that exist in the Antarctic. Perhaps the collapse of some of the sea ice is necessary to allow the land ice to expand, or perhaps it is a consequence of land ice increasing. As more ice is deposited in the interior, would it not be reasonable to assume that this would push ice outward into warmer waters? If so, the ice along the edges (sea ice) is simply being recycled back into more snow and redeposited in the interior.

That's my initial take, anyway. I'm sure that as research progresses we will learn amazing things about the region, and that would obviously give everyone more information from which to base a conclusion.

I do have to point out one part opf the article I found amusing:

Source: www.csmonitor.com...

As water has a much higher specific heat than air, I do not see how warm water welling up from the depths could be caused by an atmospheric temperature anomaly. Perhaps a shift in oceanic currents? Perhaps either a sudden venting effect? I wonder if anyone is looking to see what is below the warm currents? I know I have attributed venting/volcanic activity to the Arctic ice decrease in another thread, and I do not believe all warming trends can be attributed to this, but as of now, I do not see another possibility. The heat must be coming from below, not above, to create an upwelling.

TheRedneck

reply to post by johnsky
Johnsky, I am surprised at you.

In other threads, I have found you to be very thoughtful and knowledgeable. You apparently have an excellent grasp of electronics and mechanics.

And yet, you deny empirical data? And you deny the possibility that there are systems in nature that are inherently self-correcting?

Consider for a moment, a simple throttle voltage regulator. As the output voltage attempts to increase, the device will respond by 'throttling back' the power throughput. Should the voltage level at the output decrease, it will respond by allowing more of the power to flow through the device. Either way, the voltage at the output remains at (or actually near, as there is always a minor time lag) the set level.

The earth has existed for untold eons before man walked upon it. It survived, no, thrived, long long before any of us were around to monitor and care for it. That in itself would indicate the presence of a self-correcting mechanism; else something would have long ago caused something to spiral out of control and make the planet lifeless. Just as a robot with a malfunctioning power regulator will cease to operate properly.

TheRedneck

The earth has existed for untold eons before man walked upon it. It survived, no, thrived, long long before any of us were around to monitor and care for it. That in itself would indicate the presence of a self-correcting mechanism; else something would have long ago caused something to spiral out of control and make the planet lifeless. Just as a robot with a malfunctioning power regulator will cease to operate properly.

Redneck-
I did like the way you explained a self-correcting ecosystem, but,....

You said it yourself, that was BEFORE man came along. No other animal in nature has the ability to affect the Earth so severely. Some may say:
"well cows produce more methane than..." That is because we are raising them in numbers far beyond their natural birth-rates.

There are many examples of how this works but I agree the earth can correct itself. It just depends on how hard it has to work to swat us like flies...and believe me, we deserve it.

reply to post by TheRedneck


It's very possible (as you stated that water has a higher specific heat than air) that 2 factors are truly in play here. Perhaps oceanic currents, but I tend to believe this is resultant of 2 before it.

The reality is that specific heat is defined as 1 calorie to heat 1 gram of pure water by 1 degree Celcius. This is well known, and to attain the specific heat of salt water (more dense) simply follows these laws, albeit the means by which to arrive at the number of cals to actually heat up salt water become somewhat more complex as it becomes necessary to actually evaluate the amount of energy to do so based on the characteristics of that saltwater at any given time. This is also only applicable when the substance (in this case air and water) are not near the freezing/boiling/vaporization/condensation point.

Now, the preceding is also dependant on normal or considered normal atmospheric pressure, which as a standard is 1000mb. The same rules apply to the specifc heat of air as they do to water (or really any substance). As a point of interest, for any of those who are interested in climatology, typically pressure systems that are "born" in the ITCZ (the Inter Tropical Convergence Zone) have a propensity for moving toward the poles normally in a somewhat predictable pattern. Given this, we can pretty much arrive at a mean atmospheric pressure in a given location.

Suppose the mean at the locations nearest the Northern Hemisphere, versus the mean at locations nearest the Southern Hemisphere change (not perceptibly to humans perse) radically enough. Whereby the Lows from the ITCZ travel less to the poles. Obviously in the Northern Hemisphere Highs would start to prevail. This in turn would bring less cloud (again not necessarily perceptible to humans) cover, obviously more sunlight, and both air AND water higher specific heat values. Meanwhile, in the Southern Hemisphere, the exact opposite applies, where the Lows prevail, a higher degree of cloud cover, and lower specific heats values.

It's possible this in turn, drives erratic oceanic currents, so while there may be a strengthening in the Southern Hemisphere at the pole, of ice, a higher level of desalinization is occuring simultaneously in the Northern Hemisphere.

Now truly, if at the Southern Pole, ice is actually increasing in density, BUT the periphery ice is diminishing, it could well have an effect like blowing up a baloon. Now slowly apply pressure to the bottom of the baloon, the hand at the bottom acts like the higher degree of ice, the hand at the top, like gravity. While the change to the earths surface may not be easy to recognize, it's possible that it HAS in fact, changed ... we cant see it, but the earth feels it. It moves just enough to open fissures that normally would only open under enough pressure. Now the water heats even more. The heated water creates a higher degree of evaporation, this lends to a higher level of greenhouse gas. NOW the perception becomes that "we MUST be doing it". Also, unexplained anomolies like more ice at the south and decreasing ice in the north, become topics for debate.

Just a theory,

AB1

reply to post by Grafilthy

There are many examples of how this works but I agree the earth can correct itself. It just depends on how hard it has to work to swat us like flies...and believe me, we deserve it.

I can't really dispute you on this. Every self-correcting mechanism has limits; inside those limits, it will work, but outside those limits it may not.

But in the case of GW, we have had times in the earth's history when it has been warmer, times when it has been colder, and times when the CO2 level has been both higher and lower. It has survived all of these times, so I see no reason why it cannot handle such imbalances now.

In fact, I cannot state that we have not been living in an abnormal climactic condition for recorded history; perhaps what we are seeing is a righting of an imbalance. We really just don't know for sure. Just as we are not aware of all the self-correction mechanisms in play.

reply to post by alphabetaone

Just a theory

It's good to see you thinking along scientific lines, and your assertions are basically correct. The specific heat of water does indeed vary with temperature, but not with pressure.

The specific heat is expressed in energy per mole per degree temperature change. If pressure increases on a gas, the temperature will raise, due to the Ideal Gas Law: PV=nRT. (P=pressure, V=volume, n=number of moles of gas, R=constant, T=°K) This has nothing to do with the specific heat, except that it will impart energy into the gas in proportion to the pressure.

In order to have an increase in atmospheric pressure sufficient to raise the temperature of an area of the atmosphere by a significant amount, there would have to be a substantial increase in pressure. This would lower the pressure in other areas, since the volume of the atmosphere is more or less constant. The result would be a weather system of sustained high winds; indeed, the prevailing winds we experience normally are due to differences in pressure of a few millibars, not enough to raise the temperature of the atmosphere by any measurable amount due to the pressure. A high enough pressure to make a significant temperature difference would produce winds the likes of such we have never seen.

In short, there are simply not enough atmospheric differentials to accommodate your theory.

TheRedneck

reply to post by atlasastro

Who cares weather you think Al Gore is right or just in it for the carbon cash.....i remember him and other saying this would happen. And it is.

Ahh - the old con trick of sowing lies with factual information.

You do know we're coming out of an Ice Age, right? You know what that means? Yup - ice melts. Sorry to bust your bubble there, but a dose of cold, hard reality is what is needed - not some pseudo-science crap spread by hypocrites like Gore.

One day this planet will be ice-free. I'm not worried - I'll just move to higher ground and adapt.

Don't worry about it - it's perfectly normal!!

@TheRedneck: Nice to read a considered, scientifically-backed post for a change! Starred!

[edit on 10-9-2008 by mirageofdeceit]

Pardon my lack of understanding, but aren't Ice Shelves basically glaciers that are already in the water? It's not like they are on land and then slide into the ocean. They have already raised whatever water level they will. Oceans will not rise due to ice shelves breaking off, correct?

reply to post by NuclearPaul

Global warming cleared on ice shelf collapse rap -
Natural causes to blame, expert claims

I just love the way they so openly pick and choose what is due to global warming, and what is natural. Sheeesh - climate science has really lept forward in the last year!

How is it they still get the weather for the next 24 hours so wrong??

[edit on 10-9-2008 by mirageofdeceit]

reply to post by Kryties

Originally posted by Kryties
reply to post by atlasastro

 

Not caused by Global Warming

Thanks for Making that assertion. I found many interesting things in the excellent article you have Linked. Firstly. The Date of the Article predates the events in the OP by THREE years.

Natural causes to blame, expert claims
By Pelle Neroth Taylor → More by this author
Published Thursday 24th February 2005 12:47 GMT

I think it would be only fair to highlight this. Kryties, you quoted extensively, but left that bit out. Without the Date in your post, Members may believe it is current and this could be construed as misleading and i would hate for that to happen, as i am sure you would too. But just because it is three years old does not exclude the articles content, nor mean it should be Ignored.
But lets see what else the article is saying that you also left out Kryties. I mean, we cannot just exclude information from this article can we?

The professor continued: "I am not denying global warming. For instance, Greenland, in the northern hemisphere, does seem to be going. But Greenland's ice cap - Greeland is quite far south - is a last survivor from the ice age and only its height protects it. The more that cap melts, the more it will continue to melt as it gets lower and warmer. But Antarctica is different. Even in the Arctic I am sceptical of some claims that 40 per cent of the sea ice has already vanished, and that what remains is drastically thinning.

So here we have the Expert stating that Global Warming is responsible for Northern Melts, but remains sceptical of some claims as to how much, fair enough . Does he qualify his scepticsm or the claims. No. So all we know is that he doubts some claims while accepting global warming as the cause for Northern Ice Melts. (Hmmm note to self....must paste this in another thread I recently started. I know its Old but what the hey, it agrees with what a lot of other experts are saying about the North an Global Warming.....sorry was thinking out loud, oops.)
I know the Expert has stated he is not denying Global Warming, but i am Confused as to how Global Warming, or the Warming of the Globe, could only be responsible for regional melts of the North, and excluded from a cause of melting in the south so easily.
Here is why the Expert believes this.

"Taken as a whole, Antarctica is so cold that our present efforts to raise its temperature might be regarded as fairly puny. Change is undoubtedly occurring: in the collapse of the northerly Peninsula ice shelves, and elsewhere in the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, where the circumpolar current appears to reached the ice edge and is eating away drastically at the ice shelves

So he believes its Circumpolar currents that are eating away at he West, and the Peninsular that contains the Wilkins Shelf, the topic in my OP. And that there are fluctuations in these Currents, as stated at the top of the article, and here below.

The high-profile collapse of some Antarctica's ice shelves is likely the result of natural current fluctuations, not global warming, says a leading British expert on polar climates.

But What are Circumpolar currents? I hear you ask Kryties. Well, this is what they are.

The Antarctic Circumpolar Current (ACC) is an ocean current that flows from west to east around Antarctica. An alternate name for the ACC is the West Wind Drift. The ACC is the dominant circulation feature of the Southern Ocean. It keeps warm ocean waters away from Antarctica, enabling that continent to maintain its huge ice sheet.

en.wikipedia.org...
WOW. The Circumpolar Currents that the expert says is responsible for eating away the Ice in Antartic is supposed maintain its huge Ice Sheet.
But hang on a second, lets go back to a bit of the article that the expert said this.

The Antarctic is to some extent insulated from global warming because to its north are zonal flows in the atmosphere and ocean, unimpeded by other landmasses. This insulates the continent from warmer events further north and leads one to suppose it is better protected from global warming.

Now what we have here is a puzzle. On one hand we have the ACC protecting the Antarctic, and then now its eating away at the Antarctic due to fluctuations. But, in whats more, the expert acknowledges that there is no way to rule out atmospheric warmth causing melting as these atmospheric air temp fluctuations

and elsewhere in the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, where the circumpolar current appears to reached the ice edge and is eating away drastically at the ice shelves. One cannot be certain, because packets of heat in the atmosphere do not come conveniently labelled 'the contribution of anthropogenic warming'.

www.theregister.co.uk...

Earlier media reports after a conference on climate change in Exeter suggested it was "unclear" whether the collapse in the Antarctic ice shelves was due to global warming or not. Although the melt and collapse of the ice shelves does not raise sea levels initially, there is fear these shelves act as corks whose disappearance could lead to an outflow from landbased glaciers - which would increase sea levels.

I love this quote. Media reports were unclear as to weather the Antarctic ice melts were due to global warming. MEDIA. UNCLEAR. How funny is that. That sums up this whole article for me. Its a shame that you regard this article as supporting your beliefs Kryties.
Remember Kryties, this is your source, a source which you accept and state as proof that GW is not responsible for the Antarctic melts. So logically, after reading and accepting this article that admits GW is responsible for melting in the North, or the Arctic as stated by this article, I suggest you visit this threadCanada Thread and edit your posts and offer an apology, if not then Edit your posts here and do the same with the apologees. Remember, this is your source. Yours. You can't have it both ways.



[edit on 13-9-2008 by atlasastro]

Originally posted by atlasastro
reply to post by Kryties

 

Not caused by Global Warming

Thanks for Making that assertion. I found many interesting things in the excellent article you have Linked. Firstly. The Date of the Article predates the events in the OP by THREE years.

Natural causes to blame, expert claims

The article exceeds the date. Nicely noted OP except for the fact that it clearly shows a repeated cycle, not a 'one off' as you assume the article to be.

I think it would be only fair to highlight this. Kryties, you quoted extensively, but left that bit out. Without the Date in your post, Members may believe it is current and this could be construed as misleading and i would hate for that to happen, as i am sure you would too. But just because it is three years old does not exclude the articles content, nor mean it should be Ignored.

Actually, the date in question is of extreme relevance as it shows these cycles are happening in the NOW not the LATER. The fact that I have shown a non-debatable cycle, as opposed to a 'one off' scenario is more proof than I need.

Yes the article isn't dated as of this year but that is a stupid attempt at discrediting it's relevance.

The professor continued: "I am not denying global warming. For instance, Greenland, in the northern hemisphere, does seem to be going. But Greenland's ice cap - Greeland is quite far south - is a last survivor from the ice age and only its height protects it. The more that cap melts, the more it will continue to melt as it gets lower and warmer. But Antarctica is different. Even in the Arctic I am sceptical of some claims that 40 per cent of the sea ice has already vanished, and that what remains is drastically thinning.

So here we have the Expert stating that Global Warming is responsible for Northern Melts, but remains sceptical of some claims as to how much, fair enough . Does he qualify his scepticsm or the claims. No. So all we know is that he doubts some claims while accepting global warming as the cause for Northern Ice Melts. (Hmmm note to self....must paste this in another thread I recently started. I know its Old but what the hey, it agrees with what a lot of other experts are saying about the North an Global Warming.....sorry was thinking out loud, oops.)

Does he qualify? Yes he does. If you happen to be a disbeliever in Global Warming it does not automatically make you a 'discreditable disbeliever'. That in itself is a load of bullcrud.. You appear to be resorting now to the old adage of "If they don't believe they must be an idiot"."

Now before you jump in and say "He doesn't know what he is talking about as he hasn't finished the post" I shall say that I need to go out now and upon my return I shall finish what I started. (This is a warning to all those who will now attempt to debunk me based on what I have not mentioned. For those posters I say: Look again in a few days or look like an idiot).

[edit: screw these tags, I am sure I did it the right way twice]

[edit on 13/9/2008 by Kryties]

[edit on 13/9/2008 by Kryties]

I find it pretty amazing that any chance in climate is automatically blamed on humans. As if there hasn't been enormous changes in climate, up until the last 100 years. Give me a break and quit with the fear mongering.

Originally posted by atlasastro

Not caused by Global Warming

Thanks for Making that assertion. I found many interesting things in the excellent article you have Linked. Firstly. The Date of the Article predates the events in the OP by THREE years.

Natural causes to blame, expert claims

The article exceeds the date. Nicely noted OP except for the fact that it clearly shows a repeated cycle, not a 'one off' as you assume the article to be.

I think it would be only fair to highlight this. Kryties, you quoted extensively, but left that bit out. Without the Date in your post, Members may believe it is current and this could be construed as misleading and i would hate for that to happen, as i am sure you would too. But just because it is three years old does not exclude the articles content, nor mean it should be Ignored.

Actually, the date in question is of extreme relevance as it shows these cycles are happening in the NOW. The fact that I have shown a non-debatable cycle, as opposed to a 'one off' scenario is more proof than I need. I definately agree it should not be ignored.

The professor continued: "I am not denying global warming. For instance, Greenland, in the northern hemisphere, does seem to be going. But Greenland's ice cap - Greeland is quite far south - is a last survivor from the ice age and only its height protects it. The more that cap melts, the more it will continue to melt as it gets lower and warmer. But Antarctica is different. Even in the Arctic I am sceptical of some claims that 40 per cent of the sea ice has already vanished, and that what remains is drastically thinning.

So here we have the Expert stating that Global Warming is responsible for Northern Melts, but remains sceptical of some claims as to how much, fair enough . Does he qualify his scepticsm or the claims. No. So all we know is that he doubts some claims while accepting global warming as the cause for Northern Ice Melts. (Hmmm note to self....must paste this in another thread I recently started. I know its Old but what the hey, it agrees with what a lot of other experts are saying about the North an Global Warming.....sorry was thinking out loud, oops.)

Does he qualify? Yes he does. If you happen to be a disbeliever in Global Warming it does not automatically make you a 'discreditable disbeliever'. That in itself is a load of bullcrud.. You appear to be resorting now to the old adage of "If they don't believe they must be an idiot"."

Now before you jump in and say "He doesn't know what he is talking about as he hasn't finished the post" I shall say that I need to go out now and upon my return I shall finish what I started. (This is a warning to all those who will now attempt to debunk me based on what I have not mentioned. For those posters I say: Look again in a few days or look like an idiot).







[edit on 14/9/2008 by Kryties]

I screwed this post up.