Ice shelf about to break away from Antarctic coast

Originally posted by TwiTcHomatic
reply to post by melatonin

 

The future problem of the ice shelf breaking off is what is behind the concern...

Yeah, I said...

Originally posted by Long Lance
The sea ice is relevant, but the melting land mass of ice is most pertinent for obvious reasons. And as the ice shelves fall away, the land mass is next in line - and the research suggests that the land mass is melting and at increasing rates.

Lance and redneck together, birds of a feather and all that jazz..

Originally posted by TheRedneck
Ah, I see someone has attained comprehension. Congratulations Mel.

lol, so why would anyone need a scientific explanation for the failure of an event to result in sea level rises when that is not expected to directly cause sea level rises and is understood well enough?

It is a problem, just not the one that you and Lance suggest.

Originally posted by Long Lance
cherry picking is btw almost inevitable at the South Pole, because data is scarce anyway, as said

“This looks like a pretty good analysis, but I have to say I remain somewhat skeptical. It is hard to make data where none exist.

comment: hardly, as experience has shown

Trentenbach was his name, btw.

Trenberth?

That was not in response to these studies, but to the Steig et al article.

the issue here is that you have recent studies treating selected glaciers (cherries?) and i posted articles which are 7 years old and are more concerned with the overall ice mass.

Just sea ice extent for the 2002 study. Plus, one of the studies covers melting across 85% of the antarctica coastal region.

If you can't tell the difference between covering 85% of a phenomena and being clear about that, and taking measures from just one single station among many and attempting to apply to a whole continent (like taking temps at Perth and applying to the whole of Oz), then I can't help you. Especially when it appears you know there is one study that attempts to combine all available temp data in antarctica (Steig et al, which Trenberth was responding to) which shows something very different.

i think i made it clear in previous that measuring ice cap mass is far from trivial and therefore not really trustworthy either way. (can i keep my lamps still i like the mercury free variety) i just would expect that such data will not show up on front page climate indicator curves. too much averaging and extrapolation i presume.

I like the mercury aside. It isn't trivial. Yet only now do you say that.

thinking about it, it's probably much easier to erase data where too much existed....

lol

pack ice is seasonal, no, i mean there is less carryover from the last year and it's less dependant on precipitation, therefore probably a better indicator of temperatures. disclaimer: not an end all be all indicator, but worth mentioning i believe.

But why, then, follow into a sea level blah? Melting sea ice is an indicator, but is has no direct effect on sea level.

i think i asked already, but what do you epect a glacier to do? to pile up indefinitely? it can either melt or calve and either way you're unhappy, what did you expect to happen? or is it that these particular masses of ice violated your personal speed limit? is that really reason enough to write us all a ticket?

You do understand that these shelves hold back much of the land mass? That once gone the land mass is next in line, and glaciers will slip away faster? That the ice in antarctica is melting much much faster than any scientist predicted just 5 years ago? That these events were not expected till about 2100?

Ice on Greenland and Antarctica is already thinning faster than it's being replaced - and faster than scientists thought it would, notes Richard Alley, a paleoclimatologist at Penn State University and member of one of the research teams. Only five years ago, he notes, climate scientists expected the ice sheets to gain mass through 2100, then begin to melt. "We're now 100 years ahead of schedule," he says.

www.csmonitor.com...

lol

[edit on 6-4-2009 by melatonin]

reply to post by melatonin

lol, so why would anyone need a scientific explanation for the failure of an event to result in sea level rises when that is not expected to directly cause sea level rses and is understood well enough?

Exactly! So exactly why is there gloom and doom over this?

It's a continual cycle. Snow falls over Antarctica and is compacted by subsequent snowfalls into ice. That ice is a solid, but it also has the ability to flow at a slow rate under enough pressure. So flow it does, from the areas with snowfall outward toward the perimeter of the ice mass. Once it reaches that perimeter and moves into contact with water above the freezing point, it begins to melt. As it melts, it breaks away into icebergs, some small, some huge. The icebergs them float way to melt at their leisure in warmer water. The water then evaporates from the ocean surface to again form snow and repeat the whole process. As has happened since there was an ice sheet covering Antarctica.

You know this, Mel. That explanation is not for you, but for other readers. It's intent is to show just how specious your arguments are to others.

You do understand that these shelves hold back much of the land mass? That once gone the land mass is next in line, and glaciers will slip away faster? That the ice in antarctica is melting much much faster than any scientist predicted just 5 years ago? That these events were not expected till about 2100?

So, are you saying that the land-based ice somehow has a higher viscosity than this ice shelf? Could you give me some information on how exactly this differential in viscosity has occurred? The last time I was studying physics, a substance's viscosity had no relation to geographical location. Has this changed?

I'll answer that for you: there is no difference in viscosity. Just as there is no physical difference between man-made CO2 and 'natural' CO2. They are molecules, just like ice is molecules, and thus do not care or know what process formed them. Your explanation of releasing land-based ice is pure fantastic alarmist rhetoric, and has about as much basis in reality as telling someone you can plug a leak in a water line with 'special' water.

As for this being inconsistent with predictions, who was it that keeps stating how computer models are not science? Oh, yes, the other 'bird of a feather', Long Lance (who I am proud to have on my friends list). Your post appears to bear him out. After all, the models were wrong this time, by your own admission.

My predictions stand. They will either be borne out or not. Your propaganda, misdirection, and half-truths will not affect that. I find it extremely interesting that while you seem to disagree with my assessment, to the point of ridiculing it, you do not take up my offer to test my predictions out.

Time will tell, Mel. Words are fleeting; reality is not.

TheRedneck

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by melatonin

lol, so why would anyone need a scientific explanation for the failure of an event to result in sea level rises when that is not expected to directly cause sea level rses and is understood well enough?

Exactly! So exactly why is there gloom and doom over this?

Eh? So you suggest scientists would need to explain something that won't happen because it is not expected to happen?

Interesting.

The gloom and doom is that this is just another indicator. The disintegration of an area of ice that has been around for at least 10,000 years is notable. Indeed, once these shelves are gone, the land mass behind has little to hold it back. With evidence of increasing melting at antarctica, and predicted future warming, it's concerning enough.

It's a continual cycle. Snow falls over Antarctica and is compacted by subsequent snowfalls into ice. That ice is a solid, but it also has the ability to flow at a slow rate under enough pressure. So flow it does, from the areas with snowfall outward toward the perimeter of the ice mass. Once it reaches that perimeter and moves into contact with water above the freezing point, it begins to melt. As it melts, it breaks away into icebergs, some small, some huge. The icebergs them float way to melt at their leisure in warmer water. The water then evaporates from the ocean surface to again form snow and repeat the whole process. As has happened since there was an ice sheet covering Antarctica.

...

It's intent is to show just how specious your arguments are to others.

lol

So, are you saying that the land-based ice somehow has a higher viscosity than this ice shelf? Could you give me some information on how exactly this differential in viscosity has occurred? The last time I was studying physics, a substance's viscosity had no relation to geographical location. Has this changed?

lol

Please. The mechanisms that increase velocity are due to altering the resistance to flow.

I'll answer that for you: there is no difference in viscosity. Just as there is no physical difference between man-made CO2 and 'natural' CO2.

Way to miss the point.

They are molecules, just like ice is molecules, and thus do not care or know what process formed them. Your explanation of releasing land-based ice is pure fantastic alarmist rhetoric, and has about as much basis in reality as telling someone you can plug a leak in a water line with 'special' water.

Redneck, stop playing science, dude. You suck at it.

The ice shelves provide a barrier through 'backstress'. This has been suggested for 30 years, and has been repeatedly confirmed. Once the shelf is gone, the velocity of the glacier(s) behind can readily increase.

Science 7 March 2003:
Vol. 299. no. 5612, pp. 1560 - 1562
DOI: 10.1126/science.1077987
Prev | Table of Contents | Next

Reports

Glacier Surge After Ice Shelf Collapse
Hernán De Angelis,* Pedro Skvarca

The possibility that the West Antarctic Ice Sheet will collapse as a consequence of ice shelf disintegration has been debated for many years. This matter is of concern because such an event would imply a sudden increase in sea level. Evidence is presented here showing drastic dynamic perturbations on former tributary glaciers that fed sections of the Larsen Ice Shelf on the Antarctic Peninsula before its collapse in 1995. Satellite images and airborne surveys allowed unambiguous identification of active surging phases of Boydell, Sjögren, Edgeworth, Bombardier, and Drygalski glaciers. This discovery calls for a reconsideration of former hypotheses about the stabilizing role of ice shelves.

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 15 July 2006 vol. 364 no. 1844 1637-1655

Changes in ice dynamics and mass balance of the Antarctic ice sheet
Eric Rignot*
+Author Affiliations

Jet Propulsion Laboratory 4800 Oak Grove Drive MS 300-319, Pasadena, CA 91109-8099, USA
([email protected])
Abstract

The concept that the Antarctic ice sheet changes with eternal slowness has been challenged by recent observations from satellites. Pronounced regional warming in the Antarctic Peninsula triggered ice shelf collapse, which led to a 10-fold increase in glacier flow and rapid ice sheet retreat. This chain of events illustrated the vulnerability of ice shelves to climate warming and their buffering role on the mass balance of Antarctica. In West Antarctica, the Pine Island Bay sector is draining far more ice into the ocean than is stored upstream from snow accumulation. This sector could raise sea level by 1 m and trigger widespread retreat of ice in West Antarctica. Pine Island Glacier accelerated 38% since 1975, and most of the speed up took place over the last decade. Its neighbour Thwaites Glacier is widening up and may double its width when its weakened eastern ice shelf breaks up. Widespread acceleration in this sector may be caused by glacier ungrounding from ice shelf melting by an ocean that has recently warmed by 0.3 °C. In contrast, glaciers buffered from oceanic change by large ice shelves have only small contributions to sea level. In East Antarctica, many glaciers are close to a state of mass balance, but sectors grounded well below sea level, such as Cook Ice Shelf, Ninnis/Mertz, Frost and Totten glaciers, are thinning and losing mass. Hence, East Antarctica is not immune to changes.

As for this being inconsistent with predictions, who was it that keeps stating how computer models are not science? Oh, yes, the other 'bird of a feather', Long Lance (who I am proud to have on my friends list). Your post appears to bear him out. After all, the models were wrong this time, by your own admission.

No, the models are science. They are just limited by our ability to model fully the relevant mechanisms. The models are not and never will be perfect, they just did not predict the rapidity of change - mainly because they don't model the mechanisms that are accelerating melting. They needed to be a bit more 'alarmist'. Indeed, that's generally been the problem, the IPCC and models are in many ways too conservative.

They are much more informative than your BS intuitive folk science.

My predictions stand.

lol. What? The fantastic prediction that scientists won't bother to explain why the disintegration of the ice shelf directly doesn't lead to increasing sea level, when they already know that they won't directly lead to inceasing sea levels.

Your propaganda, misdirection, and half-truths will not affect that.

The arrogance of ignorance.

I find it extremely interesting that while you seem to disagree with my assessment, to the point of ridiculing it, you do not take up my offer to test my predictions out.

Because they are just inane rubbish?

[edit on 7-4-2009 by melatonin]

reply to post by melatonin

Eh? So you suggest scientists would need to explain something that has already been explained?

Actually, I was pointing out the absurdity of the gloom and doom via absurdity.

I guess that flew right over your head. I'll try to start typing on a lower grade level if you think it'll help.

The gloom and doom is that this is just another indicator. The disintegration of an area of ice that has been around for at least 10,000 years is notable. Indeed, once these shelves are gone, the land mass has little to hold it back.

...

The mechanisms that increase velocity are due to altering the resistance to flow.

And what happens when more ice flows forward to fill the gap left by the missing ice shelf? It makes a new ice shelf. The only resistance change to the flow of ice will be temporarily. The same forces that caused the Wilkins ice shelf to exist in the first place will create a new ice shelf.

Things change, even in the process of remaining the same, Mel. It's just the way things are. If there were no breaking away of ice shelves and melting around the perimeter, we would have a glacial invasion of warmer climates. The ice is still building in the interior of the mass. Therefore, it must be removed at the edge in order to maintain stability. The fact that nature has decreed through physics that ice melts are not nice and uniform is just a fact of life you (along with Gore and Hansen) are going to have to someday accept.

Way to miss the point.

It's called making a point.

Redneck, stop playing science, dude. You suck at it.

Yeah, I suck at it so much I had a 4.0 GPA through college. I suck at it so much I owned my own design firm at one time.

Sorry for not sitting at home regurgitating everything some dude with an agenda I like says. I am assuming that's your definition of not 'sucking at it'.

From your own (unspecified) source:

The possibility that the West Antarctic Ice Sheet will collapse as a consequence of ice shelf disintegration has been debated for many years. This matter is of concern because such an event would imply a sudden increase in sea level.

(Emphasis mine)

So is the sea level going to rise, or isn't it? Your source says it will, while you are busily stating here it will not.

No, the models are science. They are just limited by our ability to model fully the relevant mechanisms.

The only way a computer model could be considered science is for programming to be considered science. Now, perhaps that is the case in some circles, but I consider it what it really is: a branch of engineering and mathematics.

It is also a very easy way to disguise how the models are being analyzed. Just because something goes through a computer does not mean it is correct. I can write '1+1=3' on a computer page very easily; as a matter of fact, I just did. Does that make it true?

You are missing the point that this Global Warming scam uses an inordinate amount of 'computer models' as opposed to actual study and open research. And so far, I have not seen an open source for the code used in these computer models.

The fantastic prediction that scientists won't bother to explain why the disintegration of the ice shelf directly doesn't lead to increasing sea level, when they already know that they won't directly lead to inceasing sea levels.

The source you mentioned above shows that a sea level rise is indeed expected.

The arrogance of ignorance.

The only ignorance worse than not knowing is refusing to know.

TheRedneck

Originally posted by melatonin


But why, then, follow into a sea level blah? Melting sea ice is an indicator, but is has no direct effect on sea level.

let's not forget that what we are talking about was at least for a decade called global warming, so a relatively pure temperature indicator is nothing to scoff at, especially if it goes against the predicted trend.

You do understand that these shelves hold back much of the land mass? That once gone the land mass is next in line, and glaciers will slip away faster? That the ice in antarctica is melting much much faster than any scientist predicted just 5 years ago? That these events were not expected till about 2100?

Ice on Greenland and Antarctica is already thinning faster than it's being replaced - and faster than scientists thought it would, notes Richard Alley, a paleoclimatologist at Penn State University and member of one of the research teams. Only five years ago, he notes, climate scientists expected the ice sheets to gain mass through 2100, then begin to melt. "We're now 100 years ahead of schedule," he says.

the fallacy is that a wrong prediction which just happened to coincide with their 100 year estimate is somehow more valid than one which is obviously off the mark and even worse would be the idea that 100 year trends are now supposedly compressed into 5 year trends.

let me quote my older article

Net gain

Geologists have previously traced the landward retreat of the line where the base of the ice in West Antarctica meets the ocean. This has averaged 120 metres a year since the end of the last ice age. The studies had estimated the Ross Ice Streams region was losing 20.9 billion tons of ice per year.

But now Ian Joughin of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory and Slawek Tulaczyk of the University of California at Santa Cruz report a net gain of 26.8 billion tons per year. This represents about a quarter of the annual snow accumulation.

so, a few years ago we had a net gain now we have a net loss, if the ice mass remained in statistical equilibrium over a century (just a random figure of course), while fluctuating wildly in between, it would still be nothing in geological timeframes and too much for any of us to remember.

Originally posted by melatonin


But why, then, follow into a sea level blah? Melting sea ice is an indicator, but is has no direct effect on sea level.

let's not forget that what we are talking about was at least for a decade called global warming, so a relatively pure temperature indicator is nothing to scoff at, especially if it goes against the predicted trend.

You do understand that these shelves hold back much of the land mass? That once gone the land mass is next in line, and glaciers will slip away faster? That the ice in antarctica is melting much much faster than any scientist predicted just 5 years ago? That these events were not expected till about 2100?

Ice on Greenland and Antarctica is already thinning faster than it's being replaced - and faster than scientists thought it would, notes Richard Alley, a paleoclimatologist at Penn State University and member of one of the research teams. Only five years ago, he notes, climate scientists expected the ice sheets to gain mass through 2100, then begin to melt. "We're now 100 years ahead of schedule," he says.

the fallacy is that a wrong prediction which just happened to coincide with their 100 year estimate is still off the mark and even worse would be the idea that 100 year trends are now supposedly compressed into 5 year trends.

le me quote my older article

Net gain

Geologists have previously traced the landward retreat of the line where the base of the ice in West Antarctica meets the ocean. This has averaged 120 metres a year since the end of the last ice age. The studies had estimated the Ross Ice Streams region was losing 20.9 billion tons of ice per year.

But now Ian Joughin of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory and Slawek Tulaczyk of the University of California at Santa Cruz report a net gain of 26.8 billion tons per year. This represents about a quarter of the annual snow accumulation.

so, a few years ago we had a net gain now we have a net loss, if the ice mass remained in statistical equilibrium over a century (just a random figure of course), while fluctuating wildly in between, it would still be nothing in geological timeframes and too much for any of us to remember.

Originally posted by melatonin


No, the models are science. They are just limited by our ability to model fully the relevant mechanisms.

the models are supposedly based on scientific fact, but we have no way of knowing, much in the way we don't know for certain which OSes have spyware built into them (well, there is evidence, of course).

they are opaque and which year was the warmest again? 1934? did they simulate that once with the old data when it was not and came out right and then another time (again spot on...) when the data had been revised?

did i miss something ? that's a valid objection long before going into the data itself and its various issues.

[edit on 2009.4.7 by Long Lance]

Originally posted by TheRedneck
Actually, I was pointing out the absurdity of the gloom and doom via absurdity.

I guess that flew right over your head. I'll try to start typing on a lower grade level if you think it'll help.

You're pretty good at absurdity, I'll give you that.

And what happens when more ice flows forward to fill the gap left by the missing ice shelf? It makes a new ice shelf. The only resistance change to the flow of ice will be temporarily. The same forces that caused the Wilkins ice shelf to exist in the first place will create a new ice shelf.

Which then melts rapidly, lol.

Therefore, it must be removed at the edge in order to maintain stability. The fact that nature has decreed through physics that ice melts are not nice and uniform is just a fact of life you (along with Gore and Hansen) are going to have to someday accept.

Yeah, melting ice shelves that have been around for 10,000 years have now become a 'fact of life'.

It's called making a point.

And it's an idiotic point.

CO2 is CO2. Although there are isotopic differences. However, it's never been about one form being special. So your comment was nothing more than an absurd strawman.

Yeah, I suck at it so much I had a 4.0 GPA through college. I suck at it so much I owned my own design firm at one time.

Well done.

Sorry for not sitting at home regurgitating everything some dude with an agenda I like says. I am assuming that's your definition of not 'sucking at it'.

The only agenda I can clearly see is yours.

From your own (unspecified) source:

The possibility that the West Antarctic Ice Sheet will collapse as a consequence of ice shelf disintegration has been debated for many years. This matter is of concern because such an event would imply a sudden increase in sea level.

(Emphasis mine)

So is the sea level going to rise, or isn't it? Your source says it will, while you are busily stating here it will not.

Jeez, again, way to miss the point. I'll parse it for you, but it should be pretty simple for someone with a 4.0 gpa.

The quote says ice sheet collapsing due to ice shelf disintegration. When the ice sheet collapses, then we get massive rises in sea levels.

You were not suggesting that at all. The ice shelf disintegration does not directly lead to sea level rises. Earlier...

The Wilkins ice shelf will break off and float away from the Antarctic mainland.
The ice shelf will then melt into liquid water as it leaves the colder antarctic regions.
The sea will not rise perceptibly despite this.
Someone will come up with a 'scientific explanation' as to why sea level did not rise enough to make Florida disappear.
Another ice shelf will be found to be about to break off.
Everyone will panic because we're all going to die if it breaks off.

Which is just another example of your ignorance on this issue.

The only way a computer model could be considered science is for programming to be considered science. Now, perhaps that is the case in some circles, but I consider it what it really is: a branch of engineering and mathematics.

lol, it's a model using scientific understanding. They lead to predictions which are the basis of future observations. They provide useful information. Indeed, the verified predictions from models are numerous. And, moreover, computer models are used across science.

It is also a very easy way to disguise how the models are being analyzed. Just because something goes through a computer does not mean it is correct. I can write '1+1=3' on a computer page very easily; as a matter of fact, I just did. Does that make it true?

lol

You are missing the point that this Global Warming scam uses an inordinate amount of 'computer models' as opposed to actual study and open research. And so far, I have not seen an open source for the code used in these computer models.

Perhaps you just need to look? Here ya go, took me one google...

www.cgd.ucar.edu...

The source you mentioned above shows that a sea level rise is indeed expected.

Yes, as an indirect consequence. Your 'predictions' are above, and are pretty clear that they relate to the melting of the ice shelf, and had nothing to with the land mass.

The only ignorance worse than not knowing is refusing to know.

TheRedneck

lol


[edit on 7-4-2009 by melatonin]

Originally posted by Long Lance
let's not forget that what we are talking about was at least for a decade called global warming, so a relatively pure temperature indicator is nothing to scoff at, especially if it goes against the predicted trend.

Eh? So you think that because the word global warming has been used that every single part of the globe must show montonic increases?

lol

the fallacy is that a wrong prediction which just happened to coincide with their 100 year estimate is somehow more valid than one which is obviously off the mark and even worse would be the idea that 100 year trends are now supposedly compressed into 5 year trends.

let me quote my older article

so, a few years ago we had a net gain now we have a net loss, if the ice mass remained in statistical equilibrium over a century (just a random figure of course), while fluctuating wildly in between, it would still be nothing in geological timeframes and too much for any of us to remember.

It was a pretty fair balance until recently. Amazingly, the balance was predicted by those damned models, lol. But their inability to model the mechanisms of accelerated melting has led to a bit of myopia and the illusion of time.

And now they are rapidly melting, many glaciers are accelerating, ice shelves that have been around for 10,000 years are disintegrating, and it appears the future is already here.

let's not forget that what we are talking about was at least for a decade called global warming, so a relatively pure temperature indicator is nothing to scoff at, especially if it goes against the predicted trend.

You're showing your age. This discussion has been going on for decades. Can even be traced back to the 19th century.

The sea ice extent has been pretty stable in the southern hemi (still increasing a bit, IIRC). But, again, it's no big surprise. It's pretty cold down there, and the influx of fresh glacial water helps sea ice form.

the models are supposedly based on scientific fact, but we have no way of knowing, much in the way we don't know for certain which OSes have spyware built into them (well, there is evidence, of course).

they are opaque and which year was the warmest again? 1934? did they simulate that once with the old data when it was not and came out right and then another time (again spot on...) when the data had been revised?

Oh, right. So it's time for other denier's canards to make an appearance, lol.

The warmest year globally was 1998, and probably was for a couple of thousand years at least. That was nothing to do with GCMs, although even the data you're talking about is modelled/reconstructed.

did i miss something ? that's a valid objection long before going into the data itself and its various issues.

[edit on 2009.4.7 by Long Lance]

Perhaps if you're interested in that issue you can resurrect Indy's thread. I doubt I'll bother contributing, as it's just another pathetic ASS thread.

[edit on 7-4-2009 by melatonin]

reply to post by melatonin

Which then melts rapidly, lol.

• Where in my predictions did I state any sea level rise had to be directly connected to the Wilkins ice shelf? I said the sea level would not rise perceptibly despite the Wilkins ice shelf disintegration.
  
  
• Where are you getting the notion that the inland ice is going to melt immediately when it reaches the perimeter? The average temperature of the sea water around the Wilkins ice shelf is about 33°F; the average temperature in the Antarctic (and therefore of the ice) is around -49°F. That's a temperature difference of 83°F, 82° of that being required to raise the temperature of the ice to the melting point. Add in the latent heat required to change phase to liquid water, and we're gonna need you, Gore, and Hansen flying multiple jet passes over that ice to get it to melt any time soon. There's not enough heat energy in the area to melt the ice flow in a short time.
  
  Wilkins took 10,000 years (science's best guess, accepted for purposes of argument) to increase it's temperature to 32°F and overcome the latent heat barrier. Even at that, it is not completely melted, but rather has melted in one area that will allow it to break free due to stress forces and float away to melt in the open ocean. Now, since the temperature of the air has warmed by about 5°, you want me to believe that the ice flows behind it, much colder than Wilkins is at the present time, will somehow simply dissolve into some GW tidal wave of fresh water?
  
  Yeah, makes perfect sense to me.
  
  
  (Note to those who may have missed it - Mel - that last statement was sarcasm)

And it's an idiotic point.

CO2 is CO2. Although there are isotopic differences. However, it's never been about one form being special. So your comment was nothing more than an absurd strawman.

What may be a strawman to you, is a realization to others. I have seen far too many people in these AGW debates arguing that man-made CO2 is more dangerous than 'natural' CO2. So if this argument is a strawman to you, then perhaps you should stop making strawmen and then complaining about them existing.

The only agenda I can clearly see is yours.

I'll freely admit my agenda. It is to stop your agenda, which in turn is to devastate the economy of the developed nations in order to provide a free flow of their assets to less-developed nations.

Jeez, again, way to miss the point. I'll parse it for you, but it should be pretty simple for someone with a 4.0 gpa.

If A causes B, and B causes C, then it follows that A causes C.

It's called 'logic'.

Saying that A doesn't cause C because B does... now that's called 'propaganda' and 'strawmen arguments'.

lol, it's a model using scientific understanding. They lead to predictions which are the basis of future observations. They provide useful information. Indeed, the verified predictions from models are numerous. And, moreover, computer models are used across science.

Yeah, as long as you forget about the time factor, I suppose there are plenty of matches. Let's see, what was it you stated earlier? Oh, yes:

Originally posted by melatonin
You do understand that these shelves hold back much of the land mass? That once gone the land mass is next in line, and glaciers will slip away faster? That the ice in antarctica is melting much much faster than any scientist predicted just 5 years ago? That these events were not expected till about 2100?

(Emphasis mine)

With that sort of acceptance, just about every psychic wanna-be who ever lived would be a prophet. Heck, I predict an earthquake will hit Saskatchewan next Thursday. Am I correct of one hits the Philippines ten years from now?

You're trying to cast the net so wide it'll catch something, regardless of whether there's anything to catch. And you've just been called on it. The year 2100 is not next month. Prediction failure.

Yes, as an indirect consequence. Your 'predictions' are above, and are pretty clear that they relate to the melting of the ice shelf, and had nothing to with the land mass.

Allow me to repeat these predictions verbatim:

Originally posted by TheRedneck
Can I make some predictions here?

• The Wilkins ice shelf will break off and float away from the Antarctic mainland.
  
• The ice shelf will then melt into liquid water as it leaves the colder antarctic regions.
  
• The sea will not rise perceptibly despite this.
  
• Someone will come up with a 'scientific explanation' as to why sea level did not rise enough to make Florida disappear.
  
• Another ice shelf will be found to be about to break off.
  
• Everyone will panic because we're all going to die if it breaks off.

The third prediction does not in any way contain any reference to the Wilkins ice shelf, except to state that it will not be a factor in sea level rise. I did not restrict any such rise to any specific event. However, since comprehension seems to be a dying art around these parts, let me re-state prediction 3:

The sea level will not rise perceptibly despite the melting of the Wilkins ice shelf, and irrespective of any other possible cause.

Better?

lol

I guess so.

TheRedneck

Originally posted by TheRedneck
The third prediction does not in any way contain any reference to the Wilkins ice shelf, except to state that it will not be a factor in sea level rise. I did not restrict any such rise to any specific event.

Oh, come on, RD. You state it was something to do with logic, and the logical argument went..

1. Ice shelf breaks off
2. It melts
3. Sea level won't rise despite that.
4. Scientists need to explain why.

A>B>C.

You can dance, but it's crystal.

However, since comprehension seems to be a dying art around these parts, let me re-state prediction 3:

The sea level will not rise perceptibly despite the melting of the Wilkins ice shelf, and irrespective of any other possible cause.

Better?

Would be better to say:

"The sea level will not rise perceptibly despite the indirect and direct effects of the disintegration of the Wilkins ice shelf"

Which will likely be wrong.

I lost a previous reply, and can't be bothered replying to the rest. I might do so later.

reply to post by melatonin

"The sea level will not rise perceptibly despite the indirect and direct effects of the disintegration of the Wilkins ice shelf"

Suggestion accepted. Now, will you accept the challenge?

TheRedneck

Originally posted by TheRedneck
Suggestion accepted. Now, will you accept the challenge?

TheRedneck

Which? This?

Now, who will agree that if sea level does not rise perceptibly, they will stop arguing for carbon Cap & Trade and that mankind is the reason the planet is undergoing slight variations in average temperature? And admit that Al Gore and Jim Hansen are total buffoons who belong in a freak show as the 'Men Without a Brain'?

Anyone?

If so, no. It's a non-sequitur.

With your 4.0gpa and penchant for logic, you would see that.

ABE: found an interesting prediction, though...

One warning sign that a dangerous warming is beginning in Antarctica, will be a breakup of ice shelves in the Antarctic Peninsula just south of the recent January 0C isotherm; the ice shelf in the Prince Gustav Channel on the east side of the peninsula, and the Wordie Ice Shelf; the ice shelf in George VI Sound, and the ice shelf in Wilkins Sound on the west side.

Mercer, Nature, 1978, v271 pp.321-325

Wilkins being the last standing.

[edit on 7-4-2009 by melatonin]

the reason sealevels wont rise with this iceshelf detaching itself from antartica is that it is already in the water.

reply to post by melatonin

If so, no.

I didn't think you would.

Words are easy, good sir. Actions are much more difficult. Have a nice day.

TheRedneck

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by melatonin

If so, no.

I didn't think you would.

Aye, I'm not that stupid.

Words are easy, good sir. Actions are much more difficult. Have a nice day.

TheRedneck

lol, 'twas rather a incoherent challenge though. Perhaps if you said that 'if and when we show CO2 to not be a GHG, then will you reject the anthro aspect' you might have been in the ballpark...but, of course, CO2 is not the only anthro factor. So even then not a perfect challenge but one that would be compelling enough.

reply to post by melatonin

Perhaps if you said that 'if and when we show CO2 to not be a GHG, then will you reject the anthro aspect' you might have been in the ballpark...

That would have been wonderful for you to read, I'm sure. But I am not yet willing to bear the burden of proof against an idea you propose. The burden of proof is on the one who proposes change, not on the one who resists it.

TheRedneck

Has anyone even considered that this is happening because magmatic events have been increasing, and we know for a fact many places in the Arctic, and the Antarctic have melted due to underwater volcanoes?

Of course, this is happening all ove rthe world, and not just in the north, and south poles.


Let me give some examples of what i am talking about.

There are even scientists who have found evidence of this.

Oceanic Influences on Recent Continental Warming
GILBERT P. COMPO
PRASHANT D. SARDESHMUKH
Climate Diagnostics Center,
Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences,
University of Colorado, and
Physical Sciences Division, Earth System Research Laboratory,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
325 Broadway R/PSD1
Boulder CO 80305-3328
[email protected]
(303) 497-6115
(303) 497-6449

Citation:
Compo, G.P., and P.D. Sardeshmukh, 2008: Oceanic influences on recent continental warming. Climate
Dynamics, doi: 10.1007/s00382-008-0448-9.
This article is published by Springer-Verlag. This author-created version is distributed courtesy of Springer-Verlag.
The original publication is available from www.springerlink.com at
www.springerlink.com...

Abstract
Evidence is presented that the recent worldwide land warming has occurred largely in response to a worldwide warming of the oceans rather than as a direct response to increasing greenhouse gases (GHGs) over land.

Atmospheric model simulations of the last half-century with prescribed observed ocean temperature changes, but without prescribed GHG changes, account for most of the land warming. The oceanic influence has occurred through hydrodynamic-radiative teleconnections, primarily by moistening and warming the air over land and increasing the downward longwave radiation at the surface. The oceans may themselves have warmed from a combination of natural and anthropogenic influences.

www.cdc.noaa.gov...

Lets continue with more evidence for this.

School of Earth and Geographical Science, The University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA 60009,
Australia


Hansen’s Glacier Model is Wrong!
Hansen is a modeler, and his scenario for the collapse of the ice sheets is based on a false model.

His model has the ice sheet sliding along an inclined plane, lubricated by meltwater, which is increasing because of global warming. The same model is adopted in many copycat papers.

Christoffersen and Hambrey (2006) and Bamber et al. (2007) are typical. A popular article based on the same flawed model appeared in the June 2007 issue of National Geographic and the idea is present in textbooks such as The Great Ice Age (2000) by R.C.L. Wilson et al.

Unfortunately, Hansen’s model includes neither the main form of the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets, nor an understanding of how glaciers flow. The predicted behavior of the ice sheets is based on melting and accumulation rates at the present day, and on the concept of an ice sheet
sliding down an inclined plane on a base lubricated by meltwater, which is itself increasing because of global warming. The idea of a glacier sliding downhill on a base lubricated by meltwater seemed a good idea when first presented by de Saussure in 1779, but a lot has been learned since then.

It is not enough to think that present climate over a few decades can affect the flow of ice sheets.
Ice sheets do not simply grow and melt in response to average global temperature. Anyone with this naïve view would have difficulty in explaining why glaciation has been present in the southern hemisphere for about 30 million years, and in the northern hemisphere for only three
million years.

To understand what is possible, it is necessary to know something about the physics of glacier flow, which explains a few things not accounted for in the Hansen model, including:
• Why are ice crystals at the foot of a glacier a thousand times bigger than those in the snow that feeds them?
• Why does lake ice deform at lower stress than other ice?
• Why do crevasses only reach a limiting depth?

In reality, the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets occupy deep basins, and cannot slide down a plane. Furthermore glacial flow depends on stress (including the important yield stress) as well as temperature, and much of the ice sheets are well below melting point. The accumulation of kilometers of undisturbed ice in cores in Greenland and Antarctica (the same ones that are sometimes used to fuel ideas of global warming) show hundreds of thousands of years of accumulation with no melting or flow. Except around the edges, ice sheets flow at the base and depend on geothermal heat, not the climate at the surface. It is impossible for the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets to “collapse.”

ff.org...

Ocean Floor Geysers Warm Flowing Sea Water

ScienceDaily (Sep. 25, 2008) — An international team of earth scientists report movement of warmed sea water through the flat, Pacific Ocean floor off Costa Rica. The movement is greater than that off midocean volcanic ridges. The finding suggests possible marine life in a part of the ocean once considered barren.

With about 71 percent of the Earth's surface being ocean, much remains unknown about what is under the sea, its geology, and the life it supports. A new finding reported by American, Canadian and German earth scientists suggests a rather unremarkable area off the Costa Rican Pacific coast holds clues to better understand sea floor ecosystems.

Carol Stein, professor of earth and environmental sciences at the University of Illinois at Chicago, is a member of the research team that has studied the region, located between 50 and 150 miles offshore and covering an area the size of Connecticut. The sea floor, some two miles below, is marked by a collection of about 10 widely separated outcrops or mounts, rising from sediment covering crust made of extinct volcanic rock some 20-25 million years old.

www.sciencedaily.com...


I'll continue posting more as i find it.

[edit on 8-4-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

Here is some more evidence to what is really happening.

Study finds Arctic seabed afire with lava-spewing volcanoes

The Arctic seabed is as explosive geologically as it is politically judging by the "fountains" of gas and molten lava that have been blasting out of underwater volcanoes near the North Pole.

“Explosive volatile discharge has clearly been a widespread, and ongoing, process,” according to an international team that sent unmanned probes to the strange fiery world beneath the Arctic ice.

They returned with images and data showing that red-hot magma has been rising from deep inside the earth and blown the tops off dozens of submarine volcanoes, four kilometres below the ice. “Jets or fountains of material were probably blasted one, maybe even two, kilometres up into the water,” says geophysicist Robert Sohn of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, who led the expedition.

www.canada.com...

The hot magma down there is 2,150 degrees, and this does contribute greatly to warming the oceans.

Boiling Hot Water Found in Frigid Arctic SeaBy LiveScience Staff

posted: 24 July 2008 04:51 pm ET

Many miles inside the Arctic Circle, scientists have found elusive vents of scalding liquid rising out of the seafloor at temperatures that are more than twice the boiling point of water.

The cluster of five hydrothermal vents, also called black smokers, were discovered farther north than any others previously identified. The vents, one of which towers four stories high, are located on the Mid-Atlantic Ridge between Greenland and Norway, more than 120 miles farther north than other known vents.

Remotely operated vehicles photographed the scene as part of an expedition led by Rolf Pedersen, a geologist at the University of Bergen in Norway.

Black smokers have been found in many deep-sea locations, including on the Juan de Fuca Ridge off Washington and British Columbia. Despite the lack of sunlight to power life in the abyss, the vents often support unique communities of creatures that live off their warmth and chemicals. Some scientists think the vents would have been great locales for the origin of life on Earth.

www.livescience.com...

Giant Undersea Volcano Found Off Iceland
Richard A. Lovett
for National Geographic News

April 22, 2008

A giant and unusual underwater volcano lies just offshore of Iceland on the Reykjanes Ridge, volcanologists have announced.

The Reykjanes formation is a section of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, which bisects the Atlantic Ocean where the North American and Eurasian tectonic plates are pulling apart.

As magma wells up from the rift between the plates, it cools to form ridges.

But it doesn't generally form giant volcanoes, said Ármann Höskuldsson, a University of Iceland volcanologist who was part of the international team that discovered the volcano last summer.

That's because mid-ocean ridges are constantly pulling apart, making it harder for large volcanoes to form without being torn asunder.

"We were doing a normal oceangoing mission, and we found a big edifice" about 90 miles (150 kilometers) south of Iceland, Höskuldsson said.

The structure turned out to be an active volcano that rises about 3,300 feet (1,000 meters) above the surrounding sections of the ridge, coming within 1,300 feet (400 meters) of the surface.

At its base the volcano is approximately 30 miles (50 kilometers) across. The peak contains a depression known as a caldera that is 6 miles (10 kilometers) wide.

That indicates that the mountain is being fed by its own magma chamber, Höskuldsson said.

"It's a higher magma production that generates the edifice."

news.nationalgeographic.com...

Volcanic Eruptions, Not Meteor, May Have Killed The Dinosaurs

ScienceDaily (Oct. 30, 2007) — A series of monumental volcanic eruptions in India may have killed the dinosaurs 65 million years ago, not a meteor impact in the Gulf of Mexico. The eruptions, which created the gigantic Deccan Traps lava beds of India, are now the prime suspect in the most famous and persistent paleontological murder mystery, say scientists who have conducted a slew of new investigations honing down eruption timing.

www.sciencedaily.com...

Sea die-out blamed on volcanoes

Undersea volcanic activity has been blamed for a mass extinction in the seas 93 million years ago.

In the so-called "anoxic event" of the late Cretaceous Period, the ocean depths became starved of oxygen, wiping out swathes of marine organisms.

Researchers from the University of Alberta, Canada, found a tell-tale signature of underwater volcanism in rocks dating to the period.

Their findings have been published in the journal Nature.

At the time of the anoxic event, the average temperatures were higher than those of today, researchers say.

Palm trees grew in what would later become Alaska and large reptiles roamed northern Canada. The Arctic Ocean was ice-free and scientists think it would have had a temperature we might describe today as lukewarm.

However, the oceans were also hit by a mass extinction which wiped out a type of large clam common at the time as well as tiny ocean creatures known as foraminifera, which live on the sea floor.

news.bbc.co.uk...

In the middle of the following article you find what some grologists are finding about the melting in the Arctic.

Antarctic glaciers surge to ocean
By Martin Redfern
Rothera Research Station, Antarctica

...........

"The measurements from last season seem to show an incredible acceleration, a rate of up to 7%. That is far greater than the accelerations they were getting excited about in the 1990s."

The reason does not seem to be warming in the surrounding air.

One possible culprit could be a deep ocean current that is channelled onto the continental shelf close to the mouth of the glacier. There is not much sea ice to protect it from the warm water, which seems to be undercutting the ice and lubricating its flow.

Ongoing monitoring

Julian Scott, however, thinks there may be other forces at work as well.

Much higher up the course of the glacier there is evidence of a volcano that erupted through the ice about 2,000 years ago and the whole region could be volcanically active, releasing geothermal heat to melt the base of the ice and help its slide towards the sea.

news.bbc.co.uk...

Of course, to find out more or less how many underwater volcanoes could be causing all this, there is the following story.

Thousand of new volcanoes revealed beneath the waves
10:04 09 July 2007 by Catherine Brahic
For similar stories, visit the Mysteries of the Deep Sea Topic Guide

The true extent to which the ocean bed is dotted with volcanoes has been revealed by researchers who have counted 201,055 underwater cones. This is over 10 times more than have been found before.

The team estimates that in total there could be about 3 million submarine volcanoes, 39,000 of which rise more than 1000 metres over the sea bed.

"The distribution of underwater volcanoes tells us something about what is happening in the centre of the Earth," says John Hillier of the University of Cambridge in the UK. That is because they give information about the flows of hot rock in the mantle beneath. "But the problem is that we cannot see through the water to count them," he says.

Satellites can detect volcanoes that are more than 1500 m high because the mass of the submerged mountains causes gravity to pull the water in around them. This creates domes on the ocean's surface that can be several metres high and can be detected from space.

www.newscientist.com...