It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Scientists demonstrate for 1st time that 10x more ice melts in Antarctic summer than 600 years ago

page: 1
6

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 14 2013 @ 08:01 AM
link   

For the first time, scientists have managed to demonstrate that ten times more ice melts in the summer months on the Antarctic Peninsula now than it did 600 years ago.

It has been known for some time that temperatures across the Antarctic Peninsula have risen dramatically. Over the past fifty years there has been an increase of 2.8C, making this the most rapidly warming region in the Southern Hemisphere. This is over five times the global average and comparable to rapidly warming regions of the Arctic.

The latest research looks at a 364 m ice core, which was extracted from the northern tip of the peninsula. Visible layers of this tube of ice show where the ice melted, then refroze. By measuring the thickness of the layers and analysing the gases contained in the ice, researchers were able to determine the changes in temperatures in the region over the last 1,000 years.

The ice core demonstrated that the current level of melting was unprecedented in the last 1,000 years, and ten times more than it was 600 years ago.

The climate of Antarctica is hugely complex. Although there are record levels of glacier and ice melting, there also appears to be an increase in the sea ice in the surrounding waters.

Just seven months ago satellites captured images of more ice floating around the continent than at any other time in history.

The increase in sea ice is thought to be caused by the increased amounts of melting ice. This melted ice runs into the sea, but does not mix with the water already in the ocean. Instead the water forms a separate, colder, layer on the surface of the ocean. This can protect sea ice from coming into contact with the warmer seas below and therefore prevent it melting.

It is also thought that a change in wind direction could have increased the extent of sea ice. Winds can both physically moving the ice, and can cause the sea surface to warm or cool. The increase in sea ice is not uniform around the Antarctic coast line, therefore the winds are also likely to have had some effect.
With the complex climate of Antarctica, and the uncertainty of the future of the climate, it is difficult to predict what this latest study means for the continent.

It is believed that the continent will continue to warm rapidly, particularly in summer, increasing the vulnerability of the delicate ecosystem of the continent.

The global significance of this is difficult to assess. However, the warming of the Antarctic Peninsula is amongst the highest seen anywhere on Earth in recent times, and is a reminder of the rationality of climate change that can be expected in the future.


www.aljazeera.com...
www.thesundaytimes.co.uk...

Whatever the reason, ice seems to be melting.
edit on 14-4-2013 by Cabin because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 14 2013 @ 08:32 AM
link   


The climate of Antarctica is hugely complex. Although there are record levels of glacier and ice melting, there also appears to be an increase in the sea ice in the surrounding waters.


This is kind of important...


And so if the fact that just because there is more melt happening, doesn't mean that the ice is being "lost" because as the OP states, it is re-freezing the same ice.

Also, measuring melt and temperature inside of an ice core, inside of a tube, is NOT the same as it being in a natural state captured in the vast amounts of deep ice that bring along a ton of other variables that are not present in the isolated state when in the tube.

It is far from "apples to apples" IMO and feels a lot more like an agenda.

~Namaste



posted on Apr, 14 2013 @ 08:36 AM
link   
Well considering that 1000 years is nothing in geologic time I'd have to question these findings. Heck, 1000 years ago is still within the current ice age we are currently in.

They would need to go back to previous ice-ages and measure the melt back then to get any empirical evidence of something different actually happening.

The one thing we know is that as we slowly work our way out of this glacial period, all the ice will eventually be gone until the next freeze. That is simply unavoidable.



posted on Apr, 14 2013 @ 08:53 AM
link   


This is kind of important...


And so if the fact that just because there is more melt happening, doesn't mean that the ice is being "lost" because as the OP states, it is re-freezing the same ice.


What is even more important is that the ice melt that runs into the seawater increases sea levels. Refreezing it as sea ice doesn't mean anything in relation to that.
If you have a glass with two ice cubes(sea ice) and add another two ice cubes(glacier melts) the water level will rise.


Also, measuring melt and temperature inside of an ice core, inside of a tube, is NOT the same as it being in a natural state captured in the vast amounts of deep ice that bring along a ton of other variables that are not present in the isolated state when in the tube.


If you could link any material that proves the above statement in relation to the ice core data and what it presents in terms of historical rates of melting based on seasons, I would appreciate it.
Otherwise it just "feels" like an opinion.

BTW, when you get a blood test, and the doctor gives you the results, do you state "well doctor I know my blood states that, but that blood came from a tube that was a sample and not in its natural state captured in vast amounts of blood and vessels so that brings along a ton of variables. Doc, to be honest this feels like an agenda!"

Do you?
So you question that science too? I am curious because it is basically the same concept. Taking samples and looking at characteristics.


It is far from "apples to apples" IMO and feels a lot more like an agenda.

~Namaste


So i guess we are to go by the data of your "feelings".

Ummkay.


edit on 14/4/13 by atlasastro because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 14 2013 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by atlasastro

What is even more important is that the ice melt that runs into the seawater increases sea levels. Refreezing it as sea ice doesn't mean anything in relation to that.
If you have a glass with two ice cubes(sea ice) and add another two ice cubes(glacier melts) the water level will rise.


You assume that all of the melting ice runs into the seawater when that simply is not true. There are vast pools of melted water (Lake Vostok being a great example) in Antarctica, and several rivers that run through the continent, so again, it's not apples to apples. You are making a broad assumption with your ice cube example and it does not apply here because you're talking about too many other factors regarding the movement and storage of melted water, including the effects on sea ice and re-glaciation. You are not "adding" two more ice cubes, both sets are still the same mass of ice located in different parts of the glass.


If you could link any material that proves the above statement in relation to the ice core data and what it presents in terms of historical rates of melting based on seasons, I would appreciate it.
Otherwise it just "feels" like an opinion.


It's chemical analysis to determine the gases that were present at the times, not historical melting and not my opinion, regardless of how it "feels" to you. Their analysis gives an understanding of the temperature over several thousand years, NOT ice melt, which is why I made the comment. You can't measure ice melt inside of an ice core in a tube, it's an oxymoron (for starters) because it wouldn't make sense to try to measure ice melt of an enormous glacier by trying to sample the melt in a drilled core. Therefore, it is misleading and that is my complaint and by far, not my opinion.

From one of the authors of the paper, Dr. Mulvaney:


Sophisticated chemical analysis — at BAS and the NERC Isotope Geosciences Laboratory (part of British Geological Survey) — was used to re-create a temperature record over this period.


He goes on to say:


By 11,000 years ago the temperature had risen to about 1.3°C warmer than today’s average...


Still not as warm today.

This is similar to the Lake Vostok ice cores, except they go back to the beginning of the last ice age. It clearly shows that the warming trend began 600 years ago, long before the industrial revolution, and this is an important fact. Even though they found a more intense period in the last 100 years, that's a geological blip on the radar. The way the OPs title is written, it comes across alarmist, and is very misleading because scientists have not demonstrated anything regarding ice melts, and the above quote is very clear that what they measured was temperature, NOT the rate of melting ice. The whole paper is based on WARMING and tracking temperature changes, not MELTING.

Source


BTW, when you get a blood test, and the doctor gives you the results, do you state "well doctor I know my blood states that, but that blood came from a tube that was a sample and not in its natural state captured in vast amounts of blood and vessels so that brings along a ton of variables. Doc, to be honest this feels like an agenda!"

Do you?
So you question that science too? I am curious because it is basically the same concept. Taking samples and looking at characteristics.


LOL... Yes, I do actually. If the doctor gave me a blood test for a complaint of headaches, and is trying to find an aneurysm, I would question it. If he gave me medication for the headache, expecting me to just take it without question, and never bothered to look at any of the other FACTS related to my headache, I would question it and wouldn't blindly accept his diagnosis without thinking he has some other agenda, like getting paid for writing big pharma prescriptions. Do you see my point? You shouldn't blindly accept what the OP is saying without reading the original source, especially when it has such an alarmist tone to it.

To your point, a blood test alone doesn't detect all diseases, fungi, bacteria, virii, and might depend where the blood was drawn from, whether I fasted or not before the test, etc. If they are looking for an aneurysm or a clot, they aren't going to find it through a blood test, it doesn't give the FULL PICTURE. Taking samples and looking at characteristics is one thing. Woeful ignorance is another.


So i guess we are to go by the data of your "feelings".

Ummkay.


My feelings are irrelevant. It's science. The paper is clear about temperature, not melt. It was the first time an ice core was taken from the region, so therefore the first time they could measure the temperature over the last 15,000 years of ice deposit. Misleading title, second hand sources.

But hey, whatever lets you sleep better.


~Namaste



posted on Apr, 16 2013 @ 03:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by SonOfTheLawOfOne
You assume that all of the melting ice runs into the seawater when that simply is not true. There are vast pools of melted water (Lake Vostok being a great example) in Antarctica, and several rivers that run through the continent, so again, it's not apples to apples.

We are not talking about Vostok, the article is specific, its the Peninsula.

It has been known for some time that temperatures across the Antarctic Peninsula have risen dramatically.

The latest research looks at a 364 m ice core, which was extracted from the northern tip of the peninsula.


You are assuming it doesn't run into the ocean. I read the linked article, here is why I say what I did. I also have read papers on glacial fluid dynamics. So I also KNOW that they look at deglaciation with run off patterns in mind aswell as lake formation. Not to mention they monitor sea water over summer for many reasons.
www.pnas.org...


The increase in sea ice is thought to be caused by the increased amounts of melting ice. This melted ice runs into the sea, but does not mix with the water already in the ocean. Instead the water forms a separate, colder, layer on the surface of the ocean.


You think these people don't consider sub-glacial lakes and drainage pathways and patterns until you showed up?
Do you really think that?
www.the-cryosphere-discuss.net...

A glacial systems model configured for large ensemble analysis of Antarctic deglaciation
R. Briggs, D. Pollard, and L. Tarasov
The Cryosphere Discuss., 7, 1533-1589, 2013
Abstract Discussion Paper (PDF, 1502 KB) Supplement (107 KB) Interactive Discussion (Open, 0 Comments) Manuscript under review for TC

A decade of supraglacial lake volume estimates across a land-terminating margin of the Greenland Ice Sheet
A. A. W. Fitzpatrick, A. L. Hubbard, J. E. Box, D. J. Quincey, D. van As, A. P. B. Mikkelsen, S. H. Doyle, C. F. Dow, B. Hasholt, and G. A. Jones
The Cryosphere Discuss., 7, 1383-1414, 2013
Abstract Discussion Paper (PDF, 26129 KB) Interactive Discussion (Open, 0 Comments) Manuscript under review for TC


You are making a broad assumption with your ice cube example and it does not apply here because you're ..... You are not "adding" two more ice cubes, both sets are still the same mass of ice located in different parts of the glass.
Are you stupid? We are talking about Ice that is on the land that is melting and then running into the ocean.
Go into your kitchen.
Get a glass.
Put two ice cubes(sea ice) in the glass.
Fill it up to the top of the glass with water(sea water).
Now take two more ice cubes(Glaciers) and drop them in the glass.
What do you observe?



You don't answer my question. And your post is a blatant lie.



You stated this:

Also, measuring melt and temperature inside of an ice core, inside of a tube, is NOT the same as it being in a natural state captured in the vast amounts of deep ice that bring along a ton of other variables that are not present in the isolated state when in the tube.

You linked me to the source of a study that supports the method you question.
I asked you to show me material that would support your assertions that the results they show warrent questioning.
I mean, should I just take your word for it that there are variables, and tonnes of them apparently, that are not present?

Their analysis gives an understanding of the temperature over several thousand years, NOT ice melt, which is why I made the comment.
Your are wrong, dead and simple.
Here is the actual paper and what it states.

Here we reconstruct changes in ice-melt intensity and mean temperature on the northern Antarctic Peninsula since AD 1000 based on the identification of visible melt layers in the James Ross Island ice core and local mean annual temperature estimates from the deuterium content of the ice. During the past millennium, the coolest conditions and lowest melt occurred from about AD 1410 to 1460, when mean temperature was 1.6 °C lower than that of 1981–2000. Since the late 1400s, there has been a nearly tenfold increase in melt intensity from 0.5 to 4.9%. The warming has occurred in progressive phases since about AD 1460, but intensification of melt is nonlinear, and has largely occurred since the mid-twentieth century. Summer melting is now at a level that is unprecedented over the past 1,000 years. We conclude that ice on the Antarctic Peninsula is now particularly susceptible to rapid increases in melting and loss in response to relatively small increases in mean temperature.
www.nature.com...

They look at the history of the ice in terms of temperature and melts.


Do you see my point? You shouldn't blindly accept what the OP is saying without reading the original source, especially when it has such an alarmist tone to it.

I don't blindly accept it. Just the same way I don't blindly accept your post. See what I mean!
So you question the science, and assume it is agenda driven. Thats what I get. I am questioning that.
Cool.
Then back to your statement, please link any material you have showing the variables you refer too, and again as I asked, how this relates to the accuracy of the data found in the ice core samples.
Thanks again.


edit on 16/4/13 by atlasastro because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2013 @ 03:39 AM
link   
reply to post by atlasastro
 


Maybe all of the ice melting has to do with how many international teams OF HUMANS they have down there studying - God only knows what - how much humans impact ice meltage on Antartica?

Research it and see -you can see maps of - international teams setting up camps down there over the last few years. The have to stay warm somehow - how much "fuel" are they burning?



posted on Apr, 16 2013 @ 04:12 AM
link   
And yet every week, 'climate depot' has head lines saying that there's been no mean temperature rise for the last 15 years, sea ice at the north and south poles is increasing, to days strange head line from 'climate depot' heavy April snow causes roof collapse at Saskatchewan hockey rink. In April?????



posted on Apr, 16 2013 @ 06:42 AM
link   
reply to post by pikestaff
 


Climate Depot is trash.

As far as the extreme winter in the North, welcome to climate change.


Rapidly shrinking Arctic sea ice could be behind the recent unusually cold and snowy winters in the Northern Hemisphere, a new model suggests.

From 2007 to 2011, large parts of the U.S., northwestern Europe, and northern and central China experienced early or abnormally heavy snowfall.

Some scientists have speculated that such harsh winters might be a result of disappearing Arctic sea ice, which reached a record low in 2007 due to global warming, according to the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center.

To test that theory, scientists entered data about Arctic sea ice and sea-surface temperatures into a climate model created by the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research.

The results pinpointed two mechanisms for how a decline in sea ice could lead to more snowfall.

For one, major sea ice loss could alter how air circulates in the atmosphere, so that more cold air masses from the Arctic would travel farther south. At the same time, melting sea ice also exposes more ocean water, which results in increased water vapor in the atmosphere that can be transformed into snow.


National Geographic


Abstract
While the Arctic region has been warming strongly in recent decades, anomalously large snowfall in recent winters has affected large parts of North America, Europe, and east Asia. Here we demonstrate that the decrease in autumn Arctic sea ice area is linked to changes in the winter Northern Hemisphere atmospheric circulation that have some resemblance to the negative phase of the winter Arctic oscillation. However, the atmospheric circulation change linked to the reduction of sea ice shows much broader meridional meanders in midlatitudes and clearly different interannual variability than the classical Arctic oscillation. This circulation change results in more frequent episodes of blocking patterns that lead to increased cold surges over large parts of northern continents. Moreover, the increase in atmospheric water vapor content in the Arctic region during late autumn and winter driven locally by the reduction of sea ice provides enhanced moisture sources, supporting increased heavy snowfall in Europe during early winter and the northeastern and midwestern United States during winter. We conclude that the recent decline of Arctic sea ice has played a critical role in recent cold and snowy winters.


PNAS (full paper)



posted on Apr, 16 2013 @ 07:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Cabin
 


What the report also states is that melt in the Antarctic was faster than today around 2'000 years ago, and indicators suggest this is also the case going further back (periods of fast and slow ice melt), suggesting there are other factors at play in Antarctica.

What i found most interesting about the report is the way it was portrayed in different media outlets. For example, some stated this story as you have, others reported it as "Antarctic ice loss slower than 2'000 years ago".



posted on Apr, 17 2013 @ 02:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Happy1
 


Interesting question.

I guess there must be teams of humans on all the glaciers all over the world at the same time. Because most of them are melting?



new topics

top topics



 
6

log in

join