Antarctic Ice Discussion

[stewfox]

This appears to be a common thing when you look at those folk, enamored by what the climate misleaders peddle, who only talk about the period of 'growth' in Antarctic sea ice whilst neglecting the losses from the 50's through to the early 80's? Why , when the data is there do they chose to ignore (willfully?) the full picture in favour of one which supports their own agenda?

 

 

 

Some folk base their discussion on the agreed consensus that accurate records go back to 1979.

 

Not on some you tube video

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement_of_sea_ice

 

Record ice levels for the time of year

 

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/antarctic.sea.ice.interactive.html

[knocker]

Boundary condition of grounding lines prior to collapse, Larsen-B Ice Shelf, Antarctica

 

Grounding zones, where ice sheets transition between resting on bedrock to full floatation, help regulate ice flow. Exposure of the sea floor by the 2002 Larsen-B Ice Shelf collapse allowed detailed morphologic mapping and sampling of the embayment sea floor. Marine geophysical data collected in 2006 reveal a large, arcuate, complex grounding zone sediment system at the front of Crane Fjord. Radiocarbon-constrained chronologies from marine sediment cores indicate loss of ice contact with the bed at this site about 12,000 years ago. Previous studies and morphologic mapping of the fjord suggest that the Crane Glacier grounding zone was well within the fjord before 2002 and did not retreat further until after the ice shelf collapse. This implies that the 2002 Larsen-B Ice Shelf collapse likely was a response to surface warming rather than to grounding zone instability, strengthening the idea that surface processes controlled the disintegration of the Larsen Ice Shelf.

 

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/345/6202/1354

 

Article

 

http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2014/09/rising-air-temperatures-caused-antarctic-ice-shelf-collapse/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+carbonbrief+%28The+Carbon+Brief%29

[keithlucky]

All time record set for Antarctic sea ice http://sunshinehours.wordpress.com/2014/09/13/antarctic-sea-ice-extent-sept-13-2014-new-all-time-record/

Edited September 13, 2014 by keithlucky

[Gray-Wolf]

So we have Ice levels higher than 1975 now eh? Bull pooh! 

[Nights King]

So we have Ice levels higher than 1975 now eh? Bull pooh! 

 

I don't know GW do we?

 

That's not what keith was referring to he was merely stating the fact that its highest levels ever 'recorded' which is true if we just look at the satellite records?

[Gray-Wolf]

And arctic sea ice is at its lowest ever, if we just look at the past two days............

[Nights King]

And arctic sea ice is at its lowest ever, if we just look at the past two days............

 

30 odd years is a little different to 2 days but yes that would be correct if we had been recording it for the last 2 days although you couldn't argue it was the lowest since records began because 2 days is a snapshot of the last 30 years in the arctic.. unlike the Antarctic which keith has kindly pointed out for us.

 

Either way it is still fairly impressive and nice to see the ice doing better again this year regardless of the theories that many have over the causes and such what would you agree?

[Gray-Wolf]

Hi Mullender!

 

Change worries me, it means there is an alteration to the 'normal' running of things. Change against the grain worries me even more!

 

I am satisfied that a good proportion of the gains in extent since the early 80's are driven by Natural cycle variation but there is more to it than that and so it worries me.

 

Prior to the reversal of the extent losses global temps were lower than today so what happens when the 'Naturals' do their flip to the opposite sign? The planet is warmer now than it was when last the Naturals favoured melt, the oceans warmer still?

 

Do we see extent rapidly fall back to early 80's levels or do we see it retreat further? 

 

At present I see too many global signs that the 'Naturals' are in flux/on the cusp of change and I do not like it. 

 

Prior to the exceptional losses in the Arctic in 07' the Antarctic was my biggest interest as it is where our biggest troubles are based. I always use a dam in my analogies and Antarctic was where I saw the first hairline cracks running across the Dam wall.

 

Do not be fooled by a lowly 1.8% per decade increase in sea ice around the continent, the continent is still in rapid change and some of that change ( PIG/Ross) will have near instant impacts on the rest of the planet. A reversal to the current Antarctic forcings may well reverse the sea ice increases and may well increase shelf calvings but it will increase the amount of fresh, cold water in the oceans surrounding Antarctica. The big CO2 spike we tracked in the southern ocean must be of as much concern as the Methane issues across the north of our planet. The failure of one of the planets biggest carbon sinks must drive concerns? The record increase in CO2 over 2013 is partly down to Nature failing to take up as much CO2 as normal so what occurs if , for part of the year, the Southern ocean closes up shop to CO2?

 

So the wheel turns and the Naturals swing back to augmenting AGW so what? Well we have the Arctic in a very different place to the late 90's. The northern permafrost is also in a very different place to the last time we saw augmented warming, extreme weather events are measurably more common than the last time we had rapid warming, we have a few less ice shelfs buffering continental ice drain around Antarctic and PIG is just about to retreat, up glacier, from its current 'choke point' (that has been limiting discharge).

 

If anything I see a planet that is now better set up to accept more of the solar coming our way due to the albedo changes and have more GHG's aloft to then trap this heat when re radiated. The next spate of Natural cycle Augmented AGW warming will obviously be at a higher rate than anything we have yet encountered ( due to the changes we have seen since the negative Naturals took charge. So why should I have anything positive to say about Antarctic Sea ice?

 

The saddest part of this is we now face a mass of folk who became young adults since the onset of the negative natural hiatus began who think this is how the world works ( having no knowledge of how the world was under the augmented warming last time around?). I see a world even worse than it was during the last major warming spurt and yet have to bear folk telling me that this is OK 'cause its not as bad as this strawman or that strawman...... Ho hum

[Nights King]

Hi GW thanks for reply I was going to send you a quick pm but it says you cant receive any at this time? Inbox full?

[keithlucky]

Antarctic sea ice continues to rise now 170.000sq km above last year  record ,thats 18sq km higher than yesterdays record.

Edited September 15, 2014 by keithlucky

[keithlucky]

At last some press coverage which isen"t scare mongering,just facts.http://t.co/geo8Pk7wPT

Edited September 15, 2014 by keithlucky

[keithlucky]

Antarctic sea ice continues to rise now 170.000sq km above last year  record ,thats 18sq km higher than yesterdays record.

Absolute amazing Antarctic sea ice growth240.000sq km above new record,, Can it reach 20 million sq km still enough time

Edited September 16, 2014 by keithlucky

[jonboy]

Research suggests melt in west antartic glacier due to increased thermal activity from below

 

http://iceagenow.info/2014/09/researchers-find-major-west-antarctic-glacier-melting-geothermal-sources/

[4wd]

Research suggests melt in west antartic glacier due to increased thermal activity from below

 

http://iceagenow.info/2014/09/researchers-find-major-west-antarctic-glacier-melting-geothermal-sources/

They won't look at that link, original source

http://www.utexas.edu/news/2014/06/10/antarctic-glacier-melting/

[knocker]

They won't look at that link, original source

http://www.utexas.edu/news/2014/06/10/antarctic-glacier-melting/

 

I think you will find 'they' posted a link to the paper shortly after it was published which was three months ago. Note to yourself 'really must try harder'. It beats me why you feel the need to attempt to point score on this as I would have thought anyone with any common sense should be concerned about the state of the Antarctic glaciers.

Edited September 17, 2014 by knocker

[keithlucky]

I think you will find 'they' posted a link to the paper shortly after it was published which was three months ago. Note to yourself 'really must try harder'. It beats me why you feel the need to attempt to point score on this as I would have thought anyone with any common sense should be concerned about the state of the Antarctic glaciers.

So you deny record cold in Antarctic Knocker and that  underground volcanic activity is causing glacial melt in west Antarctica? even though numorous studies have concluded that this is the cause of glacial melt..

[knocker]

So you deny record cold in Antarctic Knocker and that  underground volcanic activity is causing glacial melt in west Antarctica? even though numorous studies have concluded that this is the cause of glacial melt..

 

The connection between my post and your reply is so tenuous I lost the thread after the the word deny as you seem to have attributed it to me for some unaccountable reason.

 

What the record cold in east Antarctica has to do with glacier melt in West Antarctica I have no idea but why would I deny a recorded temperature if the subject arose which it hasn't.

 

Volcanic activity may well be contributing significantly to the imminent collapse of the Thwaites Glacier, not the West Antarctic Ice Sheet.

 

 

Gathering knowledge about Thwaites Glacier is crucial to understanding what might happen to the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. An outlet glacier the size of Florida in the Amundsen Sea Embayment, it is up to 4,000 meters thick and is considered a key question mark in making projections of global sea level rise.

 

The glacier is retreating in the face of the warming ocean and is thought to be unstable because its interior lies more than two kilometers below sea level while, at the coast, the bottom of the glacier is quite shallow.

 

You then go on to say, "numerous studies have concluded that this is the cause of glacial melt". Interesting as the study in question mentions the warming ocean. Glacier melt is too general a term but more to the point perhaps a link to these numerous studies would help.

 

Anyway you are also missing the point. The point I was attempting to make was that the paper shouldn't be an issue between the dark side and those who believe in the science of global warming, the paper didn't set out do this, but it is yet another reason for being concerned regarding Thwaites. So why the attempted point scoring?

 

As a matter of interest I posted the paper in the first place.

 

A classic case of Bulverism. Assume i said something that I hadn't and then proceed to tell me, or infer, that I'm wrong.

Edited September 17, 2014 by knocker

[keithlucky]

Another 100.000sq km gain today.

[Nights King]

Another 100.000sq km gain today.

 

How high will she go?    Is it going to reach 20...

[stewfox]

How high will she go?    Is it going to reach 20...

 

I think the wind theory is the only one that is left ?

 

I don't get this 

 

The second theory is that sea ice forms easier due to the colder and fresher melt water from Antarctica's melting glaciers and ice sheets.

 

The growth of sea ice isn't even, however. The region west of the Antarctic Peninsula, for instance, shows a large decline in sea ice. Conversely, in areas such as the Ross Sea, sea ice is increasing.

 

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/05/140512-thwaites-glacier-melting-collapse-west-antarctica-ice-warming/

 

I could buy the wind theory but this glacial melt, areas seeing reduce sea ice are nearest where the supposed highest glacial melting is taking place ? The re freeze now is happening hundreds and hundreds of miles from the coast , no fresh water would stay on the surface

 

I cant find any papers to explain this

 

http://theconversation.com/new-antarctic-sea-ice-record-but-scientists-arent-confounded-31676

Edited September 17, 2014 by stewfox

[Geoffwood]

Stewfox, I think you are seeing through some of the wool being pulled. If it's warmer ice melts if it's cooler water, either fresh or salt, freezes. Well spotted that less ice forms near the melting area. Ice makes a great integrator of flux, unlike temperature which is a non linear and already averaged function, the average of which is dependent upon the weighting algorithm.

[Geoffwood]

mullender83, hopefully Antarctic sea ice won't go up any higher. The heat capacity and thermal lag of the Southern Hemisphere makes Antarctic sea ice a long term integrator of thermal change. Obviously the heat entering the oceans and the illusion of back radiative forcing are insufficient to stop the sea freezing when it should (according to mainstream climate science) just melt away.

Maybe something more obvious, like changes in the energy supply, the old bright thing up above that climate science forgot. Perhaps.

Hey, is mentioning the current and prolonged solar downturn off topic here?

[4wd]

Indeed, it is somewhat concerning - and not because lots of additional ice is somehow pretended to be an indicator of warming.

[Nights King]

We have yet another record high for Antarctic today :clapping:Now over 20!

 

 

 

 

[Geoffwood]

mullender83, Phenomenal. Look forward to seeing this on the news tonight!

Do you not feel that the media and scientific opinion and consensus are going to be proven wrong in due course?