Ice bridge ruptures in Antarctic

Ice bridge ruptures in Antarctic

news.bbc.co.uk

An ice bridge linking a shelf of ice the size of Jamaica to an island in Antarctica has snapped.

Scientists suggest the collapse could mean that the Wilkins Ice Shelf is on the brink of breaking away, and that it provides evidence of global warming.

The shelf has been retreating since the 1990s, but scientists say this is the first time it has lost one of the connections that keeps it in place.

...Several ice shelves have retreated in the past 30 years - six of them collapsing completely.

(visit the link for the full news article)



Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
STOP PRESS - Vast Cracks Appear in Arctic Ice

It's a great pity so many continue to argue global warming is a myth - it flies in the face of the facts, from disappearing glaciers world-wide to a rapidly declining arctic.

The situation in Antarctica has been more mixed than in some regions. Nevertheless this current news is being flagged by an authoritative source:

"It's amazing how the ice has ruptured," David Vaughan, a glaciologist with the British Antarctic Survey, was quoted as saying by Reuters news agency.

"Two days ago it was intact. We've waited a long time to see this."

Perhaps it's time for some to reconsider what is actually happening?



news.bbc.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

I really would not worry. This marvelous depression should force people to move their fatasses instead of using their ugly SUVs.

i wonder what the effect will be of dumping a chunk of fresh water , the size of jamaica into the worlds oceans will have on desalinization.

could it effect the north atlantic current?

edit for my aweful spelling

[edit on 5/4/09 by Harlequin]

Originally posted by Harlequin
i wonder what the efeect will eb of dumping a chunk of fresh water , the size of jamaca into the worlds oceans will have on desalinization.

could it effect the north atlantic current?

Desalinization on a large scale would wreak havoc on the sea’s currents. .
The question would be where the desalinize water is being carried to with the present currents. If it was to overwhelm a body of the ocean it could halt or slow the currents. As the two waters would be fighting for passage.
In the event that the currents slow to drastically or halt, it could very well cause massive storms the likes of which we have never seen before. Secondary to this would be the die off of many salt water fish/plants as they can not stand to be in fresh water for more than an hour. Even if it is able to blend with the current system it can and will cause a die off of more sensitive marine life.

Wow...

This has progressed faster than I had thought possible...

It was just recently reported that cracks were forming, and now this...

Wonder if this has anything to do with Hi Mag Eq's in the S Hemisphere lately?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/999a4fb05a45.gif[/atsimg]
Earthquake Details
Magnitude 5.4
Date-Time

* Saturday, April 04, 2009 at 18:39:17 UTC
* Saturday, April 04, 2009 at 04:39:17 PM at epicenter
* Time of Earthquake in other Time Zones

Location 56.002°S, 27.735°W
Depth 87.3 km (54.2 miles) set by location program
Region SOUTH SANDWICH ISLANDS REGION
Distances 85 km (55 miles) NNW of Visokoi Island, South Sandwich Islands
340 km (215 miles) NNW of Bristol Island, South Sandwich Islands
590 km (365 miles) ESE of Grytviken, South Georgia
3345 km (2080 miles) SE of BUENOS AIRES, Argentina
=====
Earthquake Details
Magnitude 5.3
Date-Time

* Saturday, April 04, 2009 at 07:19:42 UTC
* Saturday, April 04, 2009 at 05:19:42 PM at epicenter
* Time of Earthquake in other Time Zones

Location 62.558°S, 155.260°E
Depth 10 km (6.2 miles) set by location program
Region BALLENY ISLANDS REGION
Distances 560 km (345 miles) NW of Young Island, Balleny Islands
855 km (530 miles) ENE of Dumont d'Urville, Antarctica
2700 km (1680 miles) SSW of WELLINGTON, New Zealand
3060 km (1900 miles) S of CANBERRA, A.C.T., Australia
=====
Earthquake Details
Magnitude 5.2
Date-Time

* Friday, April 03, 2009 at 09:11:45 UTC
* Friday, April 03, 2009 at 07:11:45 AM at epicenter
* Time of Earthquake in other Time Zones

Location 59.550°S, 26.116°W
Depth 10 km (6.2 miles) set by location program
Region SOUTH SANDWICH ISLANDS REGION
Distances 65 km (40 miles) SSE of Bristol Island, South Sandwich Islands
325 km (200 miles) SSE of Visokoi Island, South Sandwich Islands
3645 km (2270 miles) SSE of BUENOS AIRES, Argentina

[edit on 4/5/2009 by Hx3_1963]

Originally posted by pause4thought

It's a great pity so many continue to argue global warming is a myth

Sigh....

I can't remember how many times I've had to correct this statement. Most of us that say otherwise say that Global Warming is NOT ANTHROPOGENICALLY CAUSED. We are not denying that climate shift is happening, just that it is a NATURAL OCCURRENCE and NOT human-caused.

[edit on 5/4/2009 by Kryties]

reply to post by Kryties


That just depends on who you ask though. I know alot of people who talk about global warming like its a big joke because they're so afraid of acknowledging the facts. Then they go on some rant about how the earth is actually cooling.. And the glaciers worldwide would be receding why? This is not a difficult thing to understand. Scientists have been saying for years earth is warming at an ever-increasing rate and that CO2 emissoins are skyrocketing. We don't know why and that is beside the fact anyway (at least IMO). Just because I don't acknowledge global warming as man-made doesn't mean we have to exacerbate the situation by NOT acknowledging it in the first place. Whether or not humans are contributing to or otherwise exacerbating global warming doesn't mean we shouldn't try to prevent the situation from worsening.

The fact is that we are in a period known as "Quaternary glaciation" which is commonly referred to as "The current ice age". We ARE currently in this ice age but don't let the name fool you. Ice ages have trends and cycles. Sometimes there are periods of increased warming, sometimes there are periods of increased cooling (at least with regards to geologic timescales).

We are currently in a warming cycle referred to as quaternary glacation. We know that all the scientific evidence shows that is the most likely scenario. We also know that CO2 levels have risen dramatically since we've been documenting C02 Levels ..

But pause4thought is generally correct.. The truth is that alot of folks still argue that global warming is a myth. You didn't correct the statement because you can't.. It's absolutely true. I know a few folks, personally, who still argue that global warming doesn't exist. In fact, these "The earth is cooling" statements are really just a particular group of people looking for any reason possible to NOT acknowledge it.. The earth is cooling? Maybe a few hundred thousand years from now the earth might be cooler (we have no way of knowing) but that doesn't mean that the earth is cooling in the present (In fact, we know it is not). It's more of a tactic to dodge the issue entirely without acknowledging the facts..

-ChriS

[edit on 5-4-2009 by BlasteR]

Vanga's predictions doesn't seem so impossible now, does it?

"Everything melts away like ice yet the glory of Vladimir, the glory of Russia are the only things that will remain. Russia will not only survive, it will dominate the world."

english.pravda.ru...

reply to post by Kryties


I was about to post something similar, but you beat me to it!



I think that most of us agree on the Global Warming, it's the cause that is up for debate.

I may not be a scientist, but I am a skeptic. I'm intrigued by very word: WHY. I probably use that word 328 times a day (I drove my parents nuts when I was a kid - often times referred to as the 'why' I'm an only child). Why is Global warming such a huge movement? Why spend so much energy (pun) and resources (yet another pun) on an inevitable event that we have little, if any, control over?

Sun Blamed for Warming of Earth and Other Worlds


Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says

Global warming on other planets in the solar system


What's next? Global carbon credits for the sun? I don't think I want to see a green sun.




[edit on 5-4-2009 by SourGrapes]

I don't think people are questioning warming trends. They can be proven pretty objectively (providing the data isn't meddled with, as Al Gore's guy has been known to do.)
What people are questioning is the causes. Like many others I don't believe that man made CO2 is the driving force behind the climate change we have been observing.

It is also worth noting that the warming curve has evened out and that last year we actually saw a decline i global temperatures of 0.1 degrees Celsius, which is fairly significant.

Whether this is the beginning of a new cooling trend or a temporary lull in warming I do not know. But it certainly flies in the face of the models put forth by Gore & his minions. It also coincides with an extreme lack of solar activity, giving support to the idea that the sun is the the driving force behind climate change put fort by Henrik Svensmark & others.

reply to post by Kryties


todays volcano eruption in Chile and Alaska has brought to the atmosphere the amount of CO2 we will produce in next few years. stop carbon mafia!!

Originally posted by Kryties

Originally posted by pause4thought

It's a great pity so many continue to argue global warming is a myth

Sigh....

I can't remember how many times I've had to correct this statement. Most of us that say otherwise say that Global Warming is NOT ANTHROPOGENICALLY CAUSED. We are not denying that climate shift is happening, just that it is a NATURAL OCCURRENCE and NOT human-caused.

[edit on 5/4/2009 by Kryties]

Hi Kryties. As it happens I chose my words very carefully; I wasn't seeking to rehearse all the old chestnuts in the 'natural vs. man-made debate'. I'm aware there is a whole forum dedicated to such issues.

I suppose it's inevitable the issue should be raised. After debating it at great length in the 'related thread' mentioned in the OP, I continue to believe many accept climate change is not influenced by human activity largely as a result of being bombarded with 'research' and propaganda paid for by the oil industry - but I'm not so closed-minded as to preclude the possibility the cause is actually multifactorial. There is clearly some merit in the arguments put forward by SourGrapes, though I believe it is far from an open and shut case.

I have to agree with BlasteR that it is not uncommon to hear people denying that the evidence over recent decades clearly indicates an increase in average temperature. It was evident from some in the thread alluded to and I've come across it on several occasions since.



reply to post by MrVertigo

It is also worth noting that the warming curve has evened out and that last year we actually saw a decline i global temperatures of 0.1 degrees Celsius, which is fairly significant.

In the overall scheme of things it is not significant: it is a tiny aberration, both in terms of time and scale. What has happened over the last 100 years is clear:


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/53f6bad9cc0a.gif[/atsimg]

Source


I might as well add some evidence of a correlation with increases in global CO2 emissions from the same source:


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6532e4996734.gif[/atsimg]


...and provide evidence for a correlation with reconstructed CO2 levels in Antarctica:


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e5e6b2b0e71b.gif[/atsimg]

(from the same source).

Whether this is the beginning of a new cooling trend or a temporary lull in warming I do not know.

Look at the longer-term evidence.

But it certainly flies in the face of the models put forth by Gore & his minions.

A blip like that does not 'fly in the face' of a contrary trend. And I'm afraid the way you refer to Al Gore is rather suggestive of a political agenda. I've neither seen Al Gore's film nor have any political axe to grind. The data speaks for itself.

Those who deny global warming is real are clutching at straws.

reply to post by SourGrapes


We are at solar minimum now. Have been for a while. In fact it has been longer than expected. My country saw some of the most extreme heat waves this summer, in solar minimum? Wonder what it would have been like if we were at normal solar activity.

The think that has me is that scientist have been saying that the earth was going to heat up, from our actions, and that as a result we would see the ice caps melt and break up.

We had the hypothesis, they did the tests and now we observe the results. I think people get caught up in the political scam mentality when it comes to this issue, which is fair enough as it is unavoidable that politicians will screw us all for a buck, but this is seperate and not the fault of science or those whose finding support AGW. To use this as an arguement in the face of the overwhelming evidence and observed climactic change is only fueling apathy towards change, which we will need regardless of wether you think this is a long term trend or cycle or anthropogenic GW.

These changes, lke these melts, were predicted as per AGW Theory, there are also predictions as to what consequences will arise from these events, these will flow on and effect us all. Wether you like Al Gore or not, or wether you think a blog attacking GW or and Oregon think tank institute survey hold the facts.

To those that claim it is purely cyclical, I have often wondered as to why was this theory not heard until we needed an arguement against AGW. Why had no one in this field predicted the changes to the same level that climate scientist predicted warning of AGW have since the 1980's? I would appreciate any information relating to predicted forcasts made of a cycle like we see now that accounts for these warmings, that AGW can account for and infact predicted.

S&F OP, this issue is being overwhelmed at the moment by the obvious turmoil in Global Markets etc, nice to see someone keeping tabs.

SO what. It's going to drop down into the 20's here tonight and I could use some global warming. There is constant change at the poles and has been before humans walked the earth.

Here is a good site that shows data for polar ice from 1950 until today. While it shows a current decrease in ice you can see the trend from 1950. It constantly goes up and down. Sea temperature is the leading cause of polar ice melt. Therefore it lags a few years behind a warming trend in the air temperature. The temperature hasn't increased enough to really change anything in recent years so you will see the ice become thicker again. The sun activity has more direct cause for ice melt than any carbon foot print man spews out. The sun has been very inactive for quite some time.

Artic Ice Study 1950-2008

Pictures of subs at North Pole surrounded by water in 1987 and 1959.






This is just part of a natural trend.




[edit on 5-4-2009 by on_yur_6]

reply to post by pause4thought


Water vapor is overwhelmingly the largest greenhouse gas--in the 90th percentile. Not much we can do about that.

Methane (cow farts) is also up there. Should we kill off all cows?

Volcanism too.

And our Co2 emissions are a fraction of a fraction of all that.

Solar activity is the largest cause of global warming, and has been tracked over centuries and its alignment with temperature trends is compelling.

We should reign in pollution, but not by using this strawman.

reply to post by pause4thought

MAN MADE global warming IS a myth!!! I don't dispute it is perhaps getting warmer however. It's totally natural. The sooner people get uised to the idea, trhe better. MMGW is being used as a political tool and weapon to tax the masses into oblivion and cover up other more mundane facts like oil is running out, and that we are facing a serious energy crisis, etc...

The shelf has been retreating since the 1990s, but scientists say this is the first time it has lost one of the connections that keeps it in place.

Well they KNOW it has been retreating for DECADES (and longer than that too!!), so WHY are they soooo surprised at this????? Ice doesn't choose to melt just because it feels like it.

It's a BS argument.

In your CO2 graph, it shows in the 1500s CO2 at ~280 ppm, and in the last data plot ~340. Over 500 YEARS (half a MILLENNIA!) it only rose 60 ppm, or 21% compared with the 1500 levels. In 500 YEARS????

Another thing massively over looked is the drop after 1500. WHY?

In 1750 CO2 levels are recorded as being at the same levels as in 1500. Between 1750 and 2000 (250 YEARS), CO2 steadily rose. THIS PRE-DATES THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION BY AT LEAST 100 YEARS.

Explanations????? What caused the very large rise after the low shortly after 1500, to 1750??? We had no industrial revolution at that time, so what caused it???

Looking at your temperature chart, has anyone asked why AFTER 1940, the CO2 level DROPPED?? Further, why it was STEADY between 1940 and 1975-ish??

Going on from this, INDUSTRIAL OUTPUT INCREASED MASSIVELY DURING THIS STEADY PERIOD! More cars on the road than ever, more industry, more people.... the list goes on. Yet it remained STEADY???

Here is an inconvenient truth for you to try and explain away: In the early 1970s, Europe passed a Clean Air Bill. Curious that this is exactly the same time that temperatures start rising.

Please explain this, too?????

[edit on 5-4-2009 by mirageofdeceit]

doh, sorry homer farted again.
the conundrum is that the CO2 stored in the ice and ground being released in hot weather cause a rise in green house effects. Which is in the end good for us, bigger crops, more green space..why not global warming. Humanity has not been more confused than today, global warming, not global warming. what to think what to do?

Adapt. Predict. Liberate. Invent. Create. Go.

[edit on 5-4-2009 by mastermind77]

Originally posted by pause4thought
It's a great pity so many continue to argue global warming is a myth - it flies in the face of the facts, from disappearing glaciers world-wide to a rapidly declining arctic.

Who is saying its a myth?
No one is saying it isn't getting warmer.
What they are saying is, WHY it is getting warmer.
The earth has been having cycles like this for millions of years.
The scientific fact is, 6 billion people, on a planet this size.
Could NOT be causing such a huge monumental impact.
This is just propaganda from those who stand to profit from a carbon trading scheme.
It was shown in the European model, that company's were actually given so many carbon credits to start.
That they made 100's of % profit, just from entering into the scheme.
And never even had any pollution to trade.
And it was the tax payer who footed the bill.

WOW...

Seems whenever someone mentions "Global Warming" look out...

I prefer not to get into the atmospheric CO2 implications...go fer it...

BTW: The Oceans and Forests are the largest Carbon Sinks on the face of the Earth...

What I think might be more of a issue is...Oceanic Circulation and it's affects on Global Weather patterns...

How the Earth Works
www.uwgb.edu...

:snip:

Oceanic Circulation

Surface Currents

Surface currents, shown below, are driven by the winds. Warm water is red and cold water is blue. The Trade Winds propel ocean water westward along the equator, and when it strikes a continent, it is diverted poleward. However, a narrow return flow also occurs along the equator. In mid-latitudes the currents are driven eastward by the Westerlies. The opposing wind belts cause currents in all the ocean basins to form gyres, or giant loops.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/3dccfa15b7d6.gif[/atsimg]
Thermohaline (Deep) Circulation

* Evaporation makes water more saline and denser
* Freezing makes water more saline and denser
* Cold water is denser than warm water
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c690b91a8ac8.gif[/atsimg]
A combination of surface and deep flow creates a giant global heat conveyor. The coldest and densest water forms off Antarctica and flows along the ocean floors until it reaches an obstacle. Then it rises and joins the surface circulation. As water loops around the North Pacific gyre, it becomes extremely warm. Even though the amount of water that passes from the Pacific to the Indian Ocean is not great, the amount of heat it carries is. It cools a bit rounding Africa, then warms in equatorial latitudes and carries water up the Atlantic into the Arctic. Finally the water cools and sinks, mixes with cold bottom water, and begins the cycle again.

If this "conveyor cycle" is interrupted enough, it will affect Atmospheric Circulation and the Hydrologic Cycle...which could cause storms and droughts in places which have never seen them before...

Use yer imagination as to Crop production and human migration...


[edit on 4/5/2009 by Hx3_1963]