Antarctic Ice Discussion

[laserguy]

How about this for an idea.....

Remove all need to label anyone. Consider what everyone says with an open mind. Accept that everyone has a right to make up their own mind, regardless of whether or not you agree with them. Consider that ordinary folk with an interest in this topic have absolutely no agenda to push. Read and digest what other people think without interpreting it as a dirty plot, out to destroy the planet. Above all, approach posts from others with humility. We all share this planet, no good has ever come from alienating people or placing people in groups to wage war against each other.

Divide and rule is an overrated idea usually employed by those who doubt their own authority; if all that is said about the theory of AGW proves to be correct, what does it matter that some didn't support the idea? The science will stand on it's own merit, it won't need support from any individual.

Excellent! This means I can throw around the word "cobblers" with wild abandon, and I don't mind how many times I'm labelled a sceptic (ugh), or denier (yay)! We'll all get found out in the end... or maybe not.

[BornFromTheVoid]

As I said, we all need to read what is said before commenting. That applies to all sides of the debate. The same applies to judging. I can't understand why people judge before reading and trying to understand the context and information contained within these comments. It really does apply to all sides of this whole debate.

I agree. But unfortunately, a large part of the sceptic side of this debate fails to read anything but emotive propaganda pieces.

Just by including environmentalist groups in the debate politics become involved. There are scientists involved with some of these groups as there are scientists involved with the nasty 'orrible old oil industry. There has to be truth from all of these scientists otherwise they wouldn't be involved where they are. All are involved with a theory that may or may not be correct. The sceptics here provide evidence as they deem fit for purpose, as do the opposite side of the coin. Just because you don't like what is being said doesn't mean it isn't valid as an argument.

If you don't like it, you don't have to read it or comment on it.

This is supposed to be a scientific debate though. Arguing for instance, that global warming isn't real because it might result in carbon taxes, is pointless and is exactly what ends up happening here all too often. A scientific debate should be based on science, not economics.

There are entire groups out their dedicated to spreading nothing but doubt about an important scientific issue, for the sole purpose of protecting the profits of some powerful industries. The fact that people think these are valid sources of data for a scientific debate is as ludicrous as it is worrying.

I agree with you on this bit. The line is hazy. You said it in more words than I did but it'll do. First funded one way then the other. I'm not criticising any scientists here, I'd go where the money is too. It pays bills. I just can't get my head around someone wanting to join the oil industry if the position the oil companies hold is wrong. The lure of money isn't that strong if your principles are what matter.

As I've mentioned in previous posts, many people I know generally don't seem too interested in debating scientific issues, this includes people that graduated from my earth science degree. A lot of them end up working in the oil or mining industry in Australia because the money is very good. There is no moral debate about helping these kinds of industries, about CO2 emissions, the pollutions from mining or any of that. They have their jobs to do, everything else is someone else's problem.

There are some very intelligent people working in the hydrocarbon industry that I've met. They're opinions on climate change or the damage their industry does, has ranged from flat out denial of many aspects, to an acceptance that pollution an unfortunate by-product of getting resources we need to keep our comfortable lives. But for most cases, the pollution was once again, not their concern. People will find a way to justify anything though.

Cracks in the ice. The water pushed sideways instead of down but they are going to have another go. It won't be long before it's up and running elsewhere and they bore for minerals in the guise of scientific research. Article 7 of the Antarctic Treaty System states that "Any activity relating to mineral resources, other than scientific research, shall be prohibited." So yes I am saying that this bore hole is going to damage a wide area of ice. Article 25(5) states that the Article 7 ban on mining may not be repealed unless a future treaty establishes a binding regulatory framework for such activity. If something is found then I'm sure they'll sit down and talk.

They're a drilling a small borehole to get to a lake. The data they can get from that could be used in improving palaeoclimate reconstructions, working out past atmospheric compositions, and they might even find some new life in the lake, which would be fascinating. Drilling operations have occurred all over Antarctica for decades and have been of massive importance in helping us understand past climates. It has nothing to do with mineral exploration.

The borehole is just 36cm across and will refreeze soon after the drilling stops, on an ice covered continent of 14,000,000km2, this borehole really is nothing

[Gray-Wolf]

I think ,P.P., if you want to be outraged about the rape of the last pristine continent look to the U.S. and it's EPA directives that do not allow much of the rubbish from McMurdo to be 're-patriated'

How many bulldozers lie in McMurdo sound? How many barrels of waste? Most of their trash is not a by product of any scientific quest but merely the by product of their wishes for 'home comforts'.

We all agreed not to pollute this continent and yet when you look at some of the junk that is left to rot their (or shoved into the ocean) you have to wonder?

Words are easy, it is our actions that define us.

Edited December 30, 2012 by Gray-Wolf

[pottyprof]

I'm in no way suggesting it is our own researchers alone that is causing the Antarctic to become 'humanised'. What I'm getting at is the way we are always being told we should make sure the Antarctic remains in pristine condition and in the next breath we're being told 'but we are going to dib into this lake just to see what's there'. It's not on. We should be trying to rebuild what we've broken before ruining anything else.

Just my opinion but there you go...

[Gray-Wolf]

Agreed P.P. but some folk just do not get 'remote sensing' or trust 'proxies' when creating past environments leaving only invasive techniques to bring forward the data.

[BornFromTheVoid]

A great video from the ice-bridge mission again, looking at the airborne data collected from the Getz Ice Shelf

http://www.nasa.gov/...ia_id=159207271

[Gray-Wolf]

http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1112780865/hole-in-ozone-layer-getting-smaller-020913/

I can not gauge whether this is good or bad news for me?

We know that warm waters have already broken through the circumpolar current that the ozone loss had strengthened but the circumpolar winds had kept the warming out whilst the hole was large and growing? This is the second year it has 'recovered' so we must now be seeing impacts on the circumpolars by now?

In past warmings the west Antarctic had always been ahead of Greenland in it's losses but , due to the 'stall' in warming there, Greenland has moved ahead. Will we now see a rapid change with rapid warming across the WAIS with an increased annual mass loss?

I suppose we will wait and see?

[pottyprof]

I can not gauge whether this is good or bad news for me?

If it looks good its good news... If not then we're still on the road to hell. Enjoy the ride.........

We know that warm waters have already broken through the circumpolar current that the ozone loss had strengthened but the circumpolar winds had kept the warming out whilst the hole was large and growing? This is the second year it has 'recovered' so we must now be seeing impacts on the circumpolars by now?

When it all starts melting then we start to see where we are headed. I thought you'd already accepted that we're going to see huge rises in sea level due to these vast ice sheets melting? Don't tell me you've changed your mind and we're entering a big freeze?

In past warmings the west Antarctic had always been ahead of Greenland in it's losses but , due to the 'stall' in warming there, Greenland has moved ahead. Will we now see a rapid change with rapid warming across the WAIS with an increased annual mass loss?

I suppose we will wait and see?

Yep... Same old same old. Eventually we'll find out how high up a hill we need to move.

[Gray-Wolf]

Sorry to bore you P.P. but I feel it's important to re-state my understandings when it appears that the are unheard?

It was the same with the Arctic prior to 07' but My 'simple' overview of what must occur now appears closer to fact than fiction?

As for 'moving up ther Hill'. I've never said that over the next few years we will see dramatic sea level rise.Even if WAIS were to come on line at the same rate ass Greenland we would only be looking at mm/year.If we saw a doubling period evolve (like we see in Greenland) then by the end of our lives we would begin to see massive hikes each year (many cm's).

Our biggest ,immediate ,threat is abrupt warming and the weather extremes that would accompany it. I do not see an evernt comparible with past episodes of abrupt warming (up to 10c over a decade) but a 1 or 2c hike? Would that not prove enough on top of current warming to suddenly place us in the 'danger zone'? Would that not hasten the destabilisation of the permafrosts/GIS/WAIS?

If I am suffering anxiety it is for the next 5 years and just how climate will begin to settle to the new energy changes to our north have suddenly introduced into the climate system. Surely it cannot enter the system without impact???

[keithlucky]

New record set http://sunshinehours.wordpress.com/

[Gray-Wolf]

Yes Keith the record low ozone hole is having an instant impact with the Weddell sea ice apparently able to push out beyond the torque of the circumpolar winds/currents!

Let's see how that impacts mass loss over the rest of the Southern summer?

[Harve]

New record set http://sunshinehours.wordpress.com/

That has to be one of the most ridiculous blogs ever. Can we have a 'most obvious straw man' award?

http://sunshinehours.wordpress.com/2013/02/05/stop-agw-try-for-55-unemployment-like-spain/#comments

"Spain's unemployment is the result of fewer working hours": Is it taking the left trouser leg?

[keithlucky]

http://www.thegwpf.org/antarctic-sea-ice-record/2013 will go down as the secound highest Antarctic sea ice minmium of alltime.

[Gray-Wolf]

It will be doubly sad to see the Antarctic resume it's rapid warming both for the planet and for Keith!

It will be an interesting re-freeze this year though, let us see if the lessening of the ozone hole has had an impact on the circulation down there and how the early winter storms will fare this year? Most of the 'extension' of the ice bringing a high min was on the ouside of Weddell.....We saw what became of 1 million sq km of ice there, over a 3 day period, around ice max 3 or 4 years ago? Should the eqinocturnals throw in a big storm in that direction we will see a sudden resumption in ice loss?

[4wd]

Yes it would be awful if the minimum suddenly dipped to something almost as low as it was 20 years ago

Not least because we'd have endless posts about how it must be an irreversible process and the planet must be dooomed.

[keithlucky]

http://news.sky.com/...on-live-updates Handy link for Robert Swans latest expedition of the Antarctic.

[knocker]

Sheldon Glacier retreat, Adelaide Island, Antarctica

Sheldon Glacier drains east from Adelaide Island and is close to the British Antarctic Survey (BAS) Rothera Research Station. This research camp has a webcam if you want to see current conditions. Adelaide Island is off the west side of the Antarcitc Peninsula, the first image is from the USGS-BAS joint mapping project Ferigno et al (2008).

http://glacierchange.wordpress.com/2013/03/08/sheldon-glacier-retreat-adelaide-island-antarctica/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

[barrel1234]

The southern Pacific was relatively calm over the melt season compared to average years, however this surely has got to be a positive for sea ice lovers more multi-year ice and surely this would mean that some of it will be much thicker than average when the next melt season arrives.

I can only see positves as regarding ice thickness and stability?

[knocker]

Antarctic Sea Ice Gain

Posted on March 16, 2013 |

We’ve looked at Arctic sea ice data, noting not only its overall decrease but changes in the annual cycle as well. As one reader suggested, let’s take a similar look at sea ice in the southern hemisphere.

Unfortunately I don’t know where to get data for Antarctic sea ice volume. But extent and area data are available, and I’ll use the monthly averages from NSIDC. This enables us to compute two derived quantities, the “spread†(extent divided by area) and “split†(extent minus area).

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/03/16/antarctic-sea-ice-gain/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

[knocker]

An observed negative trend in West Antarctic accumulation rates from 1975 to 2010: evidence from new observed and simulated records

Abstract

[1] Observations of snow accumulation rates from five new firn cores show a negative trend that is statistically significant over the past several decades across the central West Antarctic ice sheet. A negative temporal trend in accumulation rates is unexpected in light of rising surface temperatures as well as model simulations predicting higher accumulation rates for the region. Both the magnitude of the mean accumulation rates and the range of interannual variability observed in the new records compare favorably to older records collected from a broad area of the West Antarctic ice sheet, suggesting that the new data may serve as a regional proxy for recent temporal trends in West Antarctic accumulation rates. The observed negative trend in accumulation is likely the result of a shift in low-pressure systems over the Amundsen Sea region, dominated by changes in the austral fall season. Regional-scale climate models and reanalysis data do not capture the negative trend in accumulation rate observed in these firn cores. Nevertheless the models and reanalyses agree well in both accumulation-rate means and interannual variability, with no single model or dataset standing out as significantly more skilled at capturing the observed magnitude of and trend in accumulation rates in this region of the West Antarctic ice sheet.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jgrd.50362/abstract

[Gray-Wolf]

This is the way it works Knocks, certain folk have drawn attention way out in the edges of the Weddell sea to see a small sea ice anom there whilst (it's behind you!!!) the real action is occuring elsewhere?

Transient sea ice or onland albedo flip?

[knocker]

Important role for ocean warming and increased ice-shelf melt in Antarctic sea-ice expansion

Abstract

Changes in sea ice significantly modulate climate change because of its high reflective and strong insulating nature. In contrast to Arctic sea ice, sea ice surrounding Antarctica has expanded¹, with record extent² in 2010. This ice expansion has previously been attributed to dynamical atmospheric changes that induce atmospheric cooling³. Here we show that accelerated basal melting of Antarctic ice shelves is likely to have contributed significantly to sea-ice expansion. Specifically, we present observations indicating that melt water from Antarctica’s ice shelves accumulates in a cool and fresh surface layer that shields the surface ocean from the warmer deeper waters that are melting the ice shelves. Simulating these processes in a coupled climate model we find that cool and fresh surface water from ice-shelf melt indeed leads to expanding sea ice in austral autumn and winter. This powerful negative feedback counteracts Southern Hemispheric atmospheric warming. Although changes in atmospheric dynamics most likely govern regional sea-ice trends⁴, our analyses indicate that the overall sea-ice trend is dominated by increased ice-shelf melt. We suggest that cool sea surface temperatures around Antarctica could offset projected snowfall increases in Antarctica, with implications for estimates of future sea-level rise.

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1767.html

[knocker]

An article on the above here.

http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1112813578/antarctic-meltwater-sea-ice-expansion-040113/

[Beverley Lass]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2302401/Global-warming-INCREASED-ice-Antarctica.html

An article on 'why Global Warming has increased Antarctic ice amounts'.

Don't know if this is new to the more knowledgeable here.

B.

[stewfox]

http://www.thegwpf.o...ice-record/2013 will go down as the secound highest Antarctic sea ice minmium of alltime.

I wonder how this is explained away ? Maximum extension 'explained' by freshwater and/or winds. Is it the wind or is it something else that keeps the mins so high??. Obviously not much interest in the media and a few googles keep bringing up the Artic, what's the theory behind these highest mins being recorded year on year. Edited April 7, 2013 by stewfox