Antarctic Ice Discussion

[4wd]

Volcanic activity responsible for observed glacier mass loss
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012821X14005780

Edited October 12, 2014 by 4wd

[knocker]

Volcanic activity responsible for observed glacier mass loss

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012821X14005780

 

This has already been posted but where does it actually say that in the abstract?

[4wd]

What do you think it's about then.
You post dozens of similar links and get upset if I make any query 

[Gray-Wolf]

Groundhog day?

 

I'll do my bit!

 

The fact that we now find variable heat impact at the base of this region just ups the jeopardy (IMHO) as it allows for faster transfer once the shelf ice has been ablated by the warm waters now encroaching the Antarctic coastlines? We know that once we lose a shelf we see an uptick in flow rates up glacier and rapid thinning but if this is augmented by 'hot rocks' below then surely we get into a position where the west Antarctic sheet has a rapid transit exiti into the southern oceans.

 

Not good , not good at all.

 

Let's not let this discussion turn into the ridiculous like we saw with volcanic activity beneath the arctic ocean though?

[knocker]

What do you think it's about then.

You post dozens of similar links and get upset if I make any query 

 

Surely the abstract explains what it's about. I just don't see where you get, "Volcanic activity responsible for observed glacier mass loss" from it.

 

I also don't quite follow the comment regarding me posting similar links as I have no objection whatsoever to you posting the link. I don't get upset that easily.

[Gray-Wolf]

To be fair Knocks if we do see warmer,softer bases to the base of the glacier it will accelerate its flow but only once the Shelf , at the head of the glacier, is no longer holding back that flow?

 

The tectonic issues have been present through geological time and the glacier front ( the shelf) has been fine at keeping motion in check ( as with all the glaciers around Antarctica....... underfloor heating or not.......but once those buttresses are removed we see a rapid acceleration and thinning up glacier.......underfloor heating or not.....)

 

The 'change' we are seeing is due to the removal of the 'buttress'  and not changes in heat flow below the glacier.

Edited October 12, 2014 by Gray-Wolf

[knocker]

Record Antarctic sea Ice and global warming.

IMAS Sea ice scientist Dr Guy Williams explains how global warming is linked to record sea ice extent in Antarctica.

 

[keithlucky]

Volcanic activity responsible for observed glacier mass loss

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012821X14005780

More evidence that volcanic activity is causing glacier ice loss http://joannenova.com.au/2014/10/west-antarctica-more-evidence-it-was-the-volcanoes-that-melted-the-ice/

[Gray-Wolf]

And we're expected to think that a rift system ( do you know how long the evolution of a rift system takes Kieth?....maybe look to the African rift valley...where we evolved...for your answers?) is suddenly causing excess melt around west Antarctica? Nothing to do with the migration of warmed southern ocean waters to that coastline ( as we have plotted , with the help of our seals in bath caps, over the past 15 years?) as it picked its way through the ocean floor canyons and undercut the strengthened circumpolar current?

Edited October 13, 2014 by Gray-Wolf

[PeteG]

Volcanic activity responsible for observed glacier mass loss

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012821X14005780

 

 

More evidence that volcanic activity is causing glacier ice loss http://joannenova.com.au/2014/10/west-antarctica-more-evidence-it-was-the-volcanoes-that-melted-the-ice/

Do you honestly want me to believe that volcanic activity under the Antarctic ice, which no doubt has been going on for millenia, has suddenly increased sufficiently to cause the current rate of ice loss!

You'll be telling me next that the large number of new volcanoes that have been discovered under the oceans are causing the increase in sea water temperature, when it's the equivalent of me chucking a bucket of hot coals into Lake Windermere.

[stewfox]

Record Antarctic sea Ice and global warming.

IMAS Sea ice scientist Dr Guy Williams explains how global warming is linked to record sea ice extent in Antarctica.

 

 

 

Do you think there will be any evidence to supports these theories in the next few years ??

 

Surely we should be able to measure salinity levels at the surface a few hundred miles off shore and see if there has been a measurable change ??. Given how the ocean behaves (its not like a milk pond) i just cant see how the fresh water argument works ?

 

With the winds is there any evidence ?? He seems to suggest 'we knew about this', well that was a well kept secret !

Edited October 13, 2014 by stewfox

[4wd]

 

 

Do you honestly want me to believe that volcanic activity under the Antarctic ice, which no doubt has been going on for millenia, has suddenly increased sufficiently to cause the current rate of ice loss!

You'll be telling me next that the large number of new volcanoes that have been discovered under the oceans are causing the increase in sea water temperature, when it's the equivalent of me chucking a bucket of hot coals into Lake Windermere.

It looks like a valid scientific study, and was not written by me or Keith -  but it seems to be impossible to believe the conclusion. Apparently.

[DAVID SNOW]

Record Antarctic sea Ice and global warming.

IMAS Sea ice scientist Dr Guy Williams explains how global warming is linked to record sea ice extent in Antarctica.

 

 

 

 If global forecasting models did not 'see' this coming at such short range, then how are they able to predict values 70 or so years from now?

[knocker]

 If global forecasting models did not 'see' this coming at such short range, then how are they able to predict values 70 or so years from now?

 

Climate models aren't designed for short range or at least until recently when a new decadal model correctly reproduced the slow down in global temps. And of course science being science it moves forward. There also has been the complication of the ozone hole.

Edited October 13, 2014 by knocker

[knocker]

It looks like a valid scientific study, and was not written by me or Keith -  but it seems to be impossible to believe the conclusion. Apparently.

 Of course it's a valid study, nobody is questioning that as you well know. Merely your interpretation of the abstract. I don't believe many of us have read the paper and thus the conclusion, so perhaps a copy and paste job if you could be so kind.

 

And this was your interpretation.

 

 

Volcanic activity responsible for observed glacier mass loss

Edited October 13, 2014 by knocker

[BornFromTheVoid]

Where is the sensible "sceptic" approach that was applied to the methane release along the Siberian coast? Remember,  when ye would question whether the methane bubbling out of the ocean was something new or had been going on for thousands of years?

 

Why can't the "sceptics" here apply that thinking to the volcanic activity in Antarctica? Also, where are the "sceptical" questions about how much melting the researchers believe is being caused by the heating from below, compared to other sources of melting?

 

Ye want to be called sceptics and not deniers? Then demonstrate that ye can apply "scepticism"  not just to topics that challenge your preconceived ideas, but to those that conform with them too.

Edited October 14, 2014 by BornFromTheVoid

[Midlands Ice Age]

 

 

Do you honestly want me to believe that volcanic activity under the Antarctic ice, which no doubt has been going on for millenia, has suddenly increased sufficiently to cause the current rate of ice loss!

You'll be telling me next that the large number of new volcanoes that have been discovered under the oceans are causing the increase in sea water temperature, when it's the equivalent of me chucking a bucket of hot coals into Lake Windermere.

 

Peter G  (and all notes following?). Re your first comment sentence above......

 

I guess that no-one currently knows what is happening beneath the ice in Antarctica. Apparently the  volcanos identified are part of a rift valley which could be massive ie roughly at least half way across the continent..

 

Until we know more about how active the rift is (or has been) no-one can quantify its effects on the curent or future effects.

 

Since you raise the subject of ocean warming (your BELIEF is its miniscule), what do you suggest is happening on the sea bed in the Atlantic. The rift valley there is believed to be at least 2000miles long. It seems to be becoming very active around Iceland and the surrounding areas. How much heat will escape from this one earth feature?  No-one knows........ but since someone mentioned methane and the huge warming effect of a a few small potholes in the Siberian seas, compare that to the active rift valleys 1000's of miles long around the world.

 

BFTV agreed but I think a little bit of perspective also needs to be shown by the war mists above. As always do not jump to conclusions either way until the numbers are known.

 

Also you must bear in mind that these features come and go. The current eruption in Iceland (at Barbarunda)  is putting huge amounts of heat into the atmosphere. It has been active now for nearly two months and seems to  be increasing in lava flows at the moment. The lava now covers 55square kilometers and quite a bit of it is still white hot.

 

The ice level in the caldera has currently  dropped about 30meters  over 10sq kilometers, since the eruption started .Agreed this could be a drop in the volcano  rather than ice melting but what if it is the icemelt? Remember this would be heat coming up thru' the volcano and  nothing to do with the lava flow.. We do not and currently cannot know what the cause and effect could be.

 

The last time Barbarunda was active was 10,000 years ago and some people who seem to know a lot more than us about the subject are suggesting that this may go on for many months if not years yet. So nothing should be stated (or inferred) until what is actually going on under the Antarctic continent until more is known.

 

The above should be applied to both sides in the discussion.

 

MIA

[jonboy]

We should also remember that evidence shows volcanic activity increases when we enter low solar cycles as we are presently

[Gray-Wolf]

Somehow I get the feeling that some posters do not have the 'scale' of things quite right? The Earth is still cooling from its creation and will continue to do so for a huge period of geological time. The heat that this places into the atmosphere is negligible. It may will have some pretty cool local effects but it is a near constant process over the ages. Events, like the formation of the Deccan traps , may place forcings on the workings of the atmosphere but not via the heat from such events?

 

As for the heat over the constructive plate margins a simple look at the 'black smokers' will show you just how local an event heat spewing into the ocean is ( and how quickly the ocean soaks up this heat around such features without causing any warming to the waters a matter of metres away). Geothermal heating of the base of a glacier will cause changes to the ice there and will allow for faster transport but any look a the workings of Ocean terminating glaciers will show you where 'melt' takes place. The thinning of the glaciers is primarily a result of more ice being lost at the glacier front and not from in-situ melt further up stream.

 

The one thing this little debacle does bring is unity from all sides over mass losss from the area under scrutiny...... at least a small step forward!

[4wd]

http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2014/10/12/september-2014-sea-surface-temperature-sst-anomaly-update/

Some interesting graphs in this, showing pronounced recent cooling of seas around the Antarctic

[4wd]

Somehow I get the feeling that some posters do not have the 'scale' of things quite right? The Earth is still cooling from its creation and will continue to do so for a huge period of geological time. 

This is not correct, geothermal  heat is not only a residue from creation, but an ongoing dynamic process resulting from gravity and other forces.

Gentle heat at the base of a body of water (melted ice) is a remarkably efficient way of warming it, which is why kettles and saucepans work rather well.

On the other hand, wafting warm air over the surface of water is an extraordinarily ineffective way to warm it.

You could heat the surface of a pan of water all day with a blowtorch and see practically no effect at the bottom.

 

[Midlands Ice Age]

 

http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2014/10/12/september-2014-sea-surface-temperature-sst-anomaly-update/

Some interesting graphs in this, showing pronounced recent cooling of seas around the Antarctic

 

4WD

I find this interesting.

Knocker has just posted what I thought was the same graph on the evidence thread. It turns out it is a map of the decline of the Arctic Sea Ice. (the one showing it going to zero by 2025-2030!)

Surely the two are identical in shape year by year until about 2010.

Is there any reason that this could be true?

Also of note is that the warming of the southern oceans have been touted around as the reason for the missing heat. Your graph above seems to totally disprove that theory, since if the SST's are reducing since 1980 its very difficult for the warmers to arguethat the deeper oeans (between 700-2000m)

are taking it all. How does it get there - through a colder surface layer?

MIA

[Midlands Ice Age]

Paul,

Can you please transfer a copy of the post above to sceptics thread please? I think it needs more discussion but not on this thread. Sorry I shouldn't have put the last part of my reponse into this thread! I will remove/edit it after a copy is taken.

MIA

[keithlucky]

Mass gains in Antarctic ice sheet

The Antarctic Ice Sheet is growing at the rate of 49,000,000,000 tons per year!So the argument used by some that Antarctic Ice gains this year is thin sea ice is wrong.The paper, entitled “Mass Gains of the Antarctic Ice Sheet Exceed Losses,http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20120013495

Edited October 24, 2014 by keithlucky

[knocker]

We seem to be going around again on this.

 

You have to take into account two very recent studies.

 

Elevation and elevation change of Greenland and Antarctica derived from CryoSat-2

 

Abstract. This study focuses on the present-day surface elevation of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets. Based on 3 years of CryoSat-2 data acquisition we derived new elevation models (DEMs) as well as elevation change maps and volume change estimates for both ice sheets. Here we present the new DEMs and their corresponding error maps. The accuracy of the derived DEMs for Greenland and Antarctica is similar to those of previous DEMs obtained by satellite-based laser and radar altimeters. Comparisons with ICESat data show that 80% of the CryoSat-2 DEMs have an uncertainty of less than 3 m ± 15 m. The surface elevation change rates between January 2011 and January 2014 are presented for both ice sheets. We compared our results to elevation change rates obtained from ICESat data covering the time period from 2003 to 2009. The comparison reveals that in West Antarctica the volume loss has increased by a factor of 3. It also shows an anomalous thickening in Dronning Maud Land, East Antarctica which represents a known large-scale accumulation event. This anomaly partly compensates for the observed increased volume loss of the Antarctic Peninsula and West Antarctica. For Greenland we find a volume loss increased by a factor of 2.5 compared to the ICESat period with large negative elevation changes concentrated at the west and southeast coasts. The combined volume change of Greenland and Antarctica for the observation period is estimated to be −503 ± 107 km³ yr^−1. Greenland contributes nearly 75% to the total volume change with −375 ± 24 km³ yr^−1.

http://www.the-cryosphere.net/8/1539/2014/tc-8-1539-2014.html

http://www.the-cryosphere.net/8/1539/2014/tc-8-1539-2014.pdf

 

Increased ice losses from Antarctica detected by CryoSat-2

 

Abstract

We use 3 years of Cryosat-2 radar altimeter data to develop the first comprehensive assessment of Antarctic ice sheet elevation change. This new data set provides near-continuous (96%) coverage of the entire continent, extending to within 215 km of the South Pole and leading to a fivefold increase in the sampling of coastal regions where the vast majority of all ice losses occur. Between 2010 and 2013, West Antarctica, East Antarctica, and the Antarctic Peninsula changed in mass by −134 ± 27, −3 ± 36, and −23 ± 18 Gt yr^−1, respectively. In West Antarctica, signals of imbalance are present in areas that were poorly surveyed by past missions, contributing additional losses that bring altimeter observations closer to estimates based on other geodetic techniques. However, the average rate of ice thinning in West Antarctica has also continued to rise, and mass losses from this sector are now 31% greater than over the period 2005–2010.

 

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014GL060111/abstract

 

and of course

 

World’s melting glaciers making large contribution to sea rise - See more at: http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2013/05/16/world%E2%80%99s-melting-glaciers-making-large-contribution-sea-rise#sthash.qU0oGuc6.dpuf

Edited October 24, 2014 by knocker