Jump to content
Holidays
Local
Radar
Pollen

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Ed Stone

Antarctic Ice: Where Are We Heading?

Recommended Posts

Here y'all go: a topic dedicated to Antarctic speculation...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I speculate that whatever change may happen, more ice or less ice, warmer or colder, some bright spark will deem that mankind wrought the change. I also speculate that the current high level of ice will not prevent some from trying to see disaster, where none currently exists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry P.P. but we've just witnessed what the changing globe has done to the Arctic why then , in the long run, will Antarctica not follow suit?

What makes you so sure that the Arctic,after it's current micro-blip,won't follow the Antarctic?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've just been on The Met Office website for the forecast and notice an article about Arctic sea ice but none about the Antarctic sea ice.

Both are facts but only the story that reinforces their agenda is given the time of day. This is supposed to be the Met Office for gods sake! Where is their neutrality?

Climate change may be real but nobody can tell me that it's not an industry, we all know there is money in it, and once that happens how can anybody be objective?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've just been on The Met Office website for the forecast and notice an article about Arctic sea ice but none about the Antarctic sea ice.

Both are facts but only the story that reinforces their agenda is given the time of day. This is supposed to be the Met Office for gods sake! Where is their neutrality?

Climate change may be real but nobody can tell me that it's not an industry, we all know there is money in it, and once that happens how can anybody be objective?

The Arctic change is vastly larger and more important than the Antarctic.

Antarctica only set an all time record according to one agency, with one measurement type and was less than 0.5% larger than the previous record. Arctic sea ice beat all previous records for every monitoring agency, with every measure of sea ice they have, and by a huge amount. The Arctic record was 19% lower than the previous record, and over 50% lower than the 80s extent.

As for where the money is, I'd say firmly in the pockets of the hydrocarbon industries and groups and individuals they fund to manipulate public opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I predict that no matter what changes may happen, some other bright spark will flatly refuse to think any change is occurring and especially that humans are partly to blame, no matter how much evidence there is. Even as the globes weather changes and disasters increase, they will continue to see natural causes, where none exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What makes you so sure that the Arctic,after it's current micro-blip,won't follow the Antarctic?

As I have said before a good start on understanding the differences between the the two poles would be to read "Climate Change in the Polar Regions" by Turner and Marshall, Cambridge University Press.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, if y'all want to make baseless claims and counter-claims, from now till eternity, this is the thread for them...Just try not to post them into the science-based thread?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, if y'all want to make baseless claims and counter-claims, from now till eternity, this is the thread for them...Just try not to post them into the science-based thread?

Just providing some balance!

It will be interesting yo see how much longer the sea ice will continue to hold out against the increasing global temperatures. As GW speculated in the other Antarctic thread, the warming must surely overcome the other effects causing sea ice growth and stronger circumpolar jet at some point. Just when will this happen though and how quick will be impacts become noticeable? I suspect not anytime soon (within the next decade that it) but it's a tough call.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that the Peninsula is where you go to find your 'guide' as to what to expect once the warming breaks through Antarctica's current defenses.

You will see Ice shelf losses and the subsequent speed up of the glaciers behind that formed the ice shelf. You will see warming encroach up to a mile above sea level and an uptick is runoff from such melt. You will see a similar albedo flip to the lower reaches of the ice sheet as we saw this year in Greenland (and all the years to follow?) in the lower extents of the ice sheet.

As with the Greenland Glaciers you will see warm water encroachment rapidly melting out the base of glaciers and a rapid retreat inland of the Grounding line (as we are seeing in P.I.G. and Thwaites) and the final 'float-off and collapse of the glacier snouts.

We will see the Roosevelt Island end of Ross collapse and the inundation of the Ross end of the channel connecting Ross to Weddell. We will also see the loss of summer ice in the Weddell sea and the removal of shelf vestiges around the coastal area of that sea.

Unlike BFTV I think we are already seeing the beginnings of this process even with the circumpolars still operating as they have over the past 30yrs. The resumption of warming, as promised by the MetO in the early noughties, coupled with the impacts of Arctic ice loss will bring rapid changes to the coastal areas of Antarctica at a similar speed to which we are witnessing the final Arctic Collapse (and the beginning of the rapid melt in Greenland).

As I've said in the other thread I think it a good time for the dissenters to be focussing on the southern continent as it's rapid warming will be yet another irrefutable sign of how mankind has destabilised the quasi stable climate that allowed our civilisation to flourish over the past 200yrs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My views are pretty much along the same lines: it is only a matter of time before the southern ice-fields start going the same way as their northern counterparts; but, the Antarctic being both more isolated and considerably colder, than the Arctic, increased ice-formation (due to increasing amounts of precipitation) should continue for some time yet...

Therefore, the data are still in broad agreement with predictions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before even entering into discussions with folk challenging my views I'd like to see how they propose that we do not see the global temp rises finally encroach into the coastal areas of Antarctica?

Since the time we noted , 30years ago, the impacts of the Ozone hole on the circumpolars global temps have continued to rise. this years predicted hole is far smaller than last years and so we expect it to continue as the CFC's lessen their impacts. So on one hand we have an increasing impetus for change whilst on the other a decreasing forcing to resist that change? The recent inclusion of the Arctic's energy into the system (30yrs worth of current CO2 loadings?) must surely only add into the pressures for change?

As for increased precip we are seeing this already and some impacts further afield as precip patterns alter (SW Australia?) but we know from our experience up north that increases in precipitation are being met with even greater 'melt' forcings in spring leading to record low snowfall amounts in May/June/July/Aug.

It is not 'if' warming arrives to the coastal regions but merely a question of 'when' warming arrives.

Antarctica is a unique case but we can look to our experience of the changes now underway, both in the Peninsula and the Arctic/Greenland, as a guide as to what to expect. None of this points to increases in overall ice mass and all point to a rapid destabilisation of the coastal regions.

If , over the next few years, we see Pine Island and Thwaites fail then we know it only a matter of time before the huge expanse of Ross follows and ,to me ,that is the game changer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted · Hidden by pottyprof, October 1, 2012 - Bit close to the line Barrie.
Hidden by pottyprof, October 1, 2012 - Bit close to the line Barrie.

It is not 'if' warming arrives..........but merely a question of 'when' warming arrives.

You sound like that po-faced sciency guy off Discovery Channel, who spouts that line every ten minutes ( replace "warming" with asteroid/ supervolcano/ coronal mass ejection/ megaquake/ your favourite disaster scenario ). God it's all so boring.

Share this post


Link to post

As I have said before a good start on understanding the differences between the the two poles would be to read "Climate Change in the Polar Regions" by Turner and Marshall, Cambridge University Press.

No thanks; it's written from an AGW slant so I'd be as well reading the barcode on a tin of catmeat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted · Hidden by pottyprof, October 1, 2012 - Sorry Pete removed LG's post due to report.
Hidden by pottyprof, October 1, 2012 - Sorry Pete removed LG's post due to report.

You sound like that po-faced sciency guy off Discovery Channel, who spouts that line every ten minutes ( replace "warming" with asteroid/ supervolcano/ coronal mass ejection/ megaquake/ your favourite disaster scenario ). God it's all so boring.

You've found us at last, barrie...

Share this post


Link to post

No thanks; it's written from an AGW slant so I'd be as well reading the barcode on a tin of catmeat.

Actually it isn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe that as we continue through the interglacial, temperatures will continue to increase and will partially melt out the Antarctic eventually. Cold anomalies happen, just as warm anomalies happen but we cannot remain in a cold anomalous condition and therefore the planet will heat up. AGW CO2 will speed up the melt but as for this being totally responsible, I doubt it very much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree with you to a point P.P.? Mother nature will force warming far better and faster than we can (as we are currently seeing in the Arctic?) but we have provided the slow ,steady, initial forcing that has prompted mother N. to flip us to a warmer state?

As i understand things though we had already begun our cooling from the 'interglacial' and the precessional 'wobble' had placed the polar region into a slow , but steady, cooldown (up until 100yrs ago or so?). Our 'Ice age now' scares (from but a few scientists) in the mid to late 70's was as a reflection of this very slow cooldown? We may not have had a global glacial epoch like the last but we would have seen the Arctic cooling off and year long ice increase?

As it is not only have we offset this cooling trend in the north but also started to bring into play the 'buried carbon' from past major interglacials. The addition of this carbon back into the carbon cycle will surely lead us to a further period of warming/carbon releases?

For me I do not think you can take man out of the picture but firmly believe that 'natural warming' will replace mans impacts over the coming years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I predict that as axial tilt continues to decline then, as has been the trend for the past 4,000 years, polar ice cover (Arctic and Antarctic) will continue to increase.

All else being equal ......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I predict that as axial tilt continues to decline then, as has been the trend for the past 4,000 years, polar ice cover (Arctic and Antarctic) will continue to increase.

All else being equal ......

Did we not have a nice reply from one of the lead Authorities in orbital forcing tell us here, at NetWeather, that due to our warming we would now skip 2 precessional cycles before any significant cooling could be expected??? How do you find otherwise?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did we not have a nice reply from one of the lead Authorities in orbital forcing tell us here, at NetWeather, that due to our warming we would now skip 2 precessional cycles before any significant cooling could be expected??? How do you find otherwise?

Note the all else being equal part!

For the past 130 years or so, the globes temperature pattern seems to have been a general rise from about 1880-1940, a slight decrease from 1940 to about 1978, an increase from '78 to around 2000, and then essentially flat since then.

What I'd like to ask, is if most of the warming has been natural, as some seem to think, how do they believe the warming pattern of the last 150 years globally would have panned out? And how would this have influenced the sea and land ice?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did we not have a nice reply from one of the lead Authorities in orbital forcing tell us here, at NetWeather, that due to our warming we would now skip 2 precessional cycles before any significant cooling could be expected??? How do you find otherwise?

Ah, but I said all else being equal :p And I'm not talking significant cooling - just a continuation of the trend over the past 4,000 years. Other orbital parameters means it'll be a good while yet before a proper new N.Hemisphere glaciation gets underway, whatever else happens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Arctic change is vastly larger and more important than the Antarctic.

Antarctica only set an all time record according to one agency, with one measurement type and was less than 0.5% larger than the previous record.

A record is still a record is it not? Can we deny that Antarctic sea ice reached record levels?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A record is still a record is it not? Can we deny that Antarctic sea ice reached record levels?

Nope we cannot. But should every record make headline news?

As I've pointed out previously, the record for Antarctica was marginal. The Arctic set several new record lows during the winter that never made it to headline news, yet nobody had any issues with that.

If the Antarctic sea ice maximum grows at an accelerating rate, if the minimum especially begins to show a significant upward trend, then I think it should get more attention, but until then, I think the coverage it has received has been fair.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd have to agree with that BFTV. Even with the ever stronger links to escalating weather extremes across the northern Hemisphere we are constantly reprimanded for bringing them up as evidence of such changes.

It is generally then the norm to be told that there have always been 'extreme events' over the period of recorded history and so the record is meaningless?

Seeing as we have now lost 500k of that area ,over a far shorter period of time than it took to build to this record, it would suggest that , in this instance, there was little to the substance of the ice that caused this interest.

Really a case of "Look!, Squirrels!" in my opinion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×