Large ice sheets could suddenly slide into the oceans, scientists say ...

HE ! you, guys !

Please, don't fight around the question : WHAT is causing the GW.

It's NOT the subject of this thread.

It is NOT to answer to the question : "do you THINK that GW is true or not".

The melting of the ice caps and of all the glaciers worldwide is a FACT.

Now, among all the issues that this FACT may arouse, there is the one I was speaking of : the melting of great sheets of ice generates enormous quantities of WATER at their bottom.

Those rivers (sometimes described as enormous as the Niagara falls) and lakes at their bottom may provoque an acceleration of the movement of these sheets towards the sea.

This acceleration may be catastrophic if very large chunks suddenly SLIP towards the sea.

The result won't be only a rising of the sea level : worlwide mega-tsunamis may be the most deadly result.

Thus, the melting of the ice-caps could be somethings very far from the slow and somehow kind sea-rising which is often described.

Telling that the sea level will rise of 1 meter during this century and telling that it could rise several meters in a single week, accompanied with worlwide mega-tsunamis is not the same thing ...

This is the real subject and concern risen by this thread.


Edited to correct typing errors ...



[edit on 17-4-2009 by orkson]

[edit on 17-4-2009 by orkson]

Originally posted by mandroid


biofuel production does not require forest preservation

what is that supposed to mean? of course it does not, an ecological polcy aimed at saving natural habitats should include the preservation of rainforests, that is all.

increased land use tends to encroach on.... everything. biofuels increase land use, obviosly unless they're made from waste products which would not be used as fertilizer anyway, which is rare to say the least.

and I would like to know your source for claiming biofuel production is taking precedence over forest preservation. Biofuel has come a long way from corn.

you guys tell me to search?

www.guardian.co.uk...

www.msnbc.msn.com...


www.eurekalert.org...

news.stanford.edu...

news.mongabay.com...



regardng feedstock, i had this discussion several times in the last few years, so let me link one:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

there's a list available at

www.ethanolrfa.org...

the vast majority is using corn, no matter what labs and experimental plants do and it's imho doubtful if they will ever be converted.

PS: a more direct reason for deforestation would be sugar can production or palm oil, of course, but destroying food anywhere will put a little strain on agriculture everywhere.


reply to post by orkson


so what did you say? that d00msday is near and now what? it's plain as day that the transitory thrill of impending apocalypse is merely a tool to foster CO2 mania.

the consequences of this particular state of mind are visible everywhere by now, (just count windmills) many of which are extremely destructive and biofuels are a typical example.

[edit on 2009.4.18 by Long Lance]

Originally posted by orkson
HE ! you, guys !

The melting of the ice caps and of all the glaciers worldwide is a FACT.

This is the real subject and concern risen by this thread.

And Ice Caps and Glaciers are forming worldwide is a fact.

www.foxnews.com...

Report: Antarctic Ice Growing, Not Shrinking
Saturday, April 18, 2009

Ice is expanding in much of Antarctica, contrary to the widespread public belief that global warming is melting the continental ice cap.

Granted things change. This planet has changed many times without any help from man. Certainly, there are concerns about some areas where it is very clear Ice is melting, but as expressed, these changes we tend to "dwell' upon, such as the Wilkins Ice Shelf, gain widespread attention, while the FACTS are actually ignored.

Ice is forming in the Antartic, and Glaciers are growing.

geology.com...

Mount Shasta’s Glaciers Are Growing
July 10, 2008 | CNN

Global warming is melting most of the world’s glaciers. An exception are the glaciers of California’s Mount Shasta.

or

geology.com...

Glaciers Growing in Norway
November 28, 2008 | Daily Tech

Glaciers in Norway have been shrinking for many years but during the last two years some have been advancing. This trend could be an anomaly.

But, it MAYNOT just be an anomaly.

Just wishing FACTS are not simply Onesided.

So your Quote "The melting of the ice caps and of all the glaciers worldwide is a FACT", is not quite an accurate assessment and I hope you take time to ensure that when you would like to indicate a definative statement, rather than offering a speculative query, your facts, are the facts, and thats all the facts.

Ciao

Shane

reply to post by Shane


Hi Shane

Glaciers are growing

Mount Shasta’s Glaciers Are Growing July 10, 2008 | CNN Global warming is melting most of the world’s glaciers. An exception are the glaciers of California’s Mount Shasta.

Telling "Glaciers are growing" is just like if you told "ALL Glaciers are growing" or "MOST of glaciers are growing".

But in fact, the very link you gave tells that Mount Shasta's Glacier is an EXCEPTION, when "Global warming is melting MOST of the world’s glaciers"

So telling that Glaciers are melting is more ACCURATE than telling that they are growing ...

[edit on 19-4-2009 by orkson]

Originally posted by pieman
reply to post by munkey66

 

yeah, all except the ultra-smart and ultra-informed group that have seen the opposing evidence on the internet.

i mean, come on people, why believe real scientists telling you things which will leave you feeling compelled to stop being such an all encompassing selfish, greedy dumbass when you can feel reassured by two-bit half hearted websites and oil industry sponsored disinformation projects.

wise up, all the climate change we're witnessing is clearly nothing got to do with the atmospheric change we are obviously perpetrating, it's ridiculous to imagine any obvious correlation between dumping tons of gases into the atmosphere and changes to the climate that is regulated to a large degree by that atmosphere.

next you'll be telling me that it is my flatulence that causes the room to stink regardless of the fact that the room has undergone such cycles of stink and non-stick many times in it's past. given that i was not in the room at the time of those other stinks, it is safe to assume, despite the obvious correlation between sound effect and stink, that my flatulence is not the cause of this stink either.

Heheh...Hilarious analogy! But very apt all the same.

Yes, it constantly amazes me how many people come on to this site and then still have trouble dealing with the basic science behind many of the issues debated here.

Perhaps we need an alternative ATS? One just for these people?
A really good slogan could be:

'Embrace Ignorance'

I'm sure it would be a huge success too!!

J.

[edit on 19-4-2009 by jimbo999]

Originally posted by orkson

Telling "Glaciers are growing" is just like if you told "ALL Glaciers are growing" or "MOST of glaciers are growing".

So telling that Glaciers are melting is more ACCURATE than telling that they are growing ...

Hi Orkson

As you maybe aware, I did not indicate ALL of anything. I offered some examples that pointed out, everything is not melting.

Some are melting. Some are growing. That's the FACT.

Ciao

Shane

Originally posted by Shane
So your Quote "The melting of the ice caps and of all the glaciers worldwide is a FACT", is not quite an accurate assessment and I hope you take time to ensure that when you would like to indicate a definative statement, rather than offering a speculative query, your facts, are the facts, and thats all the facts.

Hi Shane,

facts are important. So lets clarify. Based on data From Dyurgerov & Meier (2005):

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/df7d0faf7e26.png[/atsimg]
instaar.colorado.edu...

However, a small number of glaciers are increasing in mass. Of no great consolation, of course, as globally glacier mass is decreasing rapidly.

Earlier, you quoted from the recent 'Australian' media article which is little more than a deniers piece of misinformation. But I see it is getting being paraded around the forum.

From another thread...

Originally posted by melatonin
No real to and fro. It's been known for a while that antarctic sea ice isn't reducing and probably increasing overall.

However, the ice sheet is a different story. So the author is being cute here...

ICE is expanding in much of Antarctica, contrary to the widespread public belief that global warming is melting the continental ice cap

and I think he is with Dr Allison's quotes as well. There are studies that show recent ice mass loss in antarctica.

Published Online March 2, 2006
Science DOI: 10.1126/science.1123785
Science Express Index

Reports
Submitted on December 13, 2005
Accepted on February 21, 2006

Measurements of Time-Variable Gravity Show Mass Loss in Antarctica
Isabella Velicogna 1* and John Wahr 2*
1 University of Colorado and CIRES, UCB 390, Boulder, CO 80309-0390, USA; Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Mail Stop 300-233, Pasadena, CA 91109-8099, USA.
2 University of Colorado and CIRES, UCB 390, Boulder, CO 80309-0390, USA.

* To whom correspondence should be addressed.
Isabella Velicogna , E-mail: [email protected]
John Wahr , E-mail: [email protected]

Using measurements of time-variable gravity from the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) satellites we determine mass variations of the Antarctic ice sheet during 2002-2005. We find that the ice sheet mass decreased significantly, at a rate of 152 ± 80 km3/year of ice, equivalent to 0.4 ± 0.2 mm/year of global sea level rise. Most of this mass loss came from the West Antarctic Ice Sheet.

Nature Geoscience 1, 106 - 110 (2008)
Published online: 13 January 2008 | doi:10.1038/ngeo102

Subject Categories: Climate science | Cryospheric science

Recent Antarctic ice mass loss from radar interferometry and regional climate modelling

Eric Rignot1,2,3, Jonathan L. Bamber4, Michiel R. van den Broeke5, Curt Davis6, Yonghong Li6, Willem Jan van de Berg5 & Erik van Meijgaard7

Large uncertainties remain in the current and future contribution to sea level rise from Antarctica. Climate warming may increase snowfall in the continent's interior1, 2, 3, but enhance glacier discharge at the coast where warmer air and ocean temperatures erode the buttressing ice shelves4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11. Here, we use satellite interferometric synthetic-aperture radar observations from 1992 to 2006 covering 85% of Antarctica's coastline to estimate the total mass flux into the ocean. We compare the mass fluxes from large drainage basin units with interior snow accumulation calculated from a regional atmospheric climate model for 1980 to 2004. In East Antarctica, small glacier losses in Wilkes Land and glacier gains at the mouths of the Filchner and Ross ice shelves combine to a near-zero loss of 461 Gt yr-1. In West Antarctica, widespread losses along the Bellingshausen and Amundsen seas increased the ice sheet loss by 59% in 10 years to reach 13260 Gt yr-1 in 2006. In the Peninsula, losses increased by 140% to reach 6046 Gt yr-1 in 2006. Losses are concentrated along narrow channels occupied by outlet glaciers and are caused by ongoing and past glacier acceleration. Changes in glacier flow therefore have a significant, if not dominant impact on ice sheet mass balance.

The Australian is known to have issues with presenting the science in a robust fashion. Comparable to the Telegraph in the UK.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

So while one part of antarctica appears in generally good balance, the other is significantly losing mass. Therefore overall, continental antarctica is losing ice mass. The sea ice is of little consequence, as its melting only has a minor influence on sea levels (small positive due to density issues).

[edit on 19-4-2009 by melatonin]

reply to post by melatonin


i think the real question is how are glaciers in the same region capable of going against the trend (~ average change rate), how much effect their total loss would have and if there are parallels in the past.

from your linked .pdf

ABSTRACT

Glacier changes are having impacts on processes of global importance such as sea-level rise, hydrology of mountain-fed rivers, freshwater balance of oceans, and even the shape and rotation of the Earth. Here we discuss the effects of “small glaciers” — all perennial ice masses other than the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets. We now estimate that the total area of these glaciers and ice caps to be about 785 ± 100 􀀁 103 km2, somewhat larger than earlier estimates because of improved information on isolated glaciers and ice caps around the periphery of the large ice sheets. We estimate the total volume of this ice to be about 260 ± 65 􀀁 103 km3, equivalent to 0.65 ± 0.16 m of sea-level rise.

so, this is not about Antarctic glaciers. but in the next sentence, they talk about total ice, including caps, which begs the question, whether the sea level rise in case of complete meltoff is for everything, including caps or just smaller glaciers, which the paper is about.


btw, i found a paper from 2006 which seems to contradict the net loss you claimed

www.cpom.org...

Mass gains from accumulating snow, particularly on the Antarctic Peninsula and within East Antarctica, exceed the ice dynamic mass loss from West Antarctica. The result exacerbates the difficulty of explaining twentieth century sea-level rise.

exceeded being the key word. my other sources from 2002 said the same thing iirc. i find it startling that noone asked how cold it actually is at the South pole, because melting starts at 0°C and that's a long way off still. ice flow, as mentioned in the other thread can't really be induced within a short timeframe by temperature rises on the surface, though.

Originally posted by Long Lance
so, this is not about Antarctic glaciers. but in the next sentence, they talk about total ice, including caps, which begs the question, whether the sea level rise in case of complete meltoff is for everything, including caps or just smaller glaciers, which the paper is about.

Nor was the original claim from Shane. I responded with the appropriate info - worldwide glaciers. The are generally assessed separately (i.e., antarctica, greenland, other glaciers) for obvious reasons.

btw, i found a paper from 2006 which seems to contradict the net loss you claimed

www.cpom.org...

Cheers.

exceeded being the key word. my other sources from 2002 said the same thing iirc.

The 2002 study was assessing sea ice, no?

Anyway, from the same authors a year later...

SCIENCE VOL 315 16 MARCH 2007
REVIEW
Recent Sea-Level Contributions of the
Antarctic and Greenland Ice Sheets
Andrew Shepherd1 and Duncan Wingham2*

After a century of polar exploration, the past decade of satellite measurements has painted an altogether new picture of how Earth’s ice sheets are changing. As global temperatures have risen, so have rates of snowfall, ice melting, and glacier flow. Although the balance between these opposing processes has varied considerably on a regional scale, data show that Antarctica and Greenland are each losing mass overall. Our best estimate of their combined imbalance is about 125 gigatons per year of ice, enough to raise sea level by 0.35 millimeters per year. This is only a modest contribution to the present rate of sea-level rise of 3.0 millimeters per year. However, much of the loss from Antarctica and Greenland is the result of the flow of ice to the ocean from ice streams and glaciers, which has accelerated over the past decade. In both continents, there are suspected triggers for the accelerated ice discharge surface and ocean warming, respectively— and, over the course of the 21st century, these processes could rapidly counteract the snowfall gains predicted by present coupled climate models.

Reading the earlier 2006 article, I see the obvious weakness which likely led to their data. See if you can find it. Just apply the knowledge you might have picked up about regional effects in antarctica.

i find it startling that noone asked how cold it actually is at the South pole, because melting starts at 0°C and that's a long way off still. ice flow, as mentioned in the other thread can't really be induced within a short timeframe by temperature rises on the surface, though.

The flow of glaciers has been increasing. So obviously it can alter sufficiently. There's a reason why scientists are concerned about the disintegration of ice shelves

[edit on 20-4-2009 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin

The 2002 study was assessing sea ice, no?

i didn't read it like that. i included a sea ice perspective because i found if more compelling, more verifiable for example, although clearly limited wrt glaciers, better for indicating temperature, obviously.

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.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The flow of glaciers has been increasing. So obviously it can alter sufficiently. There's a reason why scientists are concerned about the disintegration of ice shelves

wouldn't temperatures better be measured directly instead of attributing ice flow to temps and going from there? it would take an awful lot of time for surface effects to filter through an ice mass several thousand feet thick, so whatever effects we are seeing, they were caused a while ago.

[edit on 2009.4.20 by Long Lance]

Originally posted by Long Lance
i didn't read it like that. i included a sea ice perspective because i found if more compelling, more verifiable for example, although clearly limited wrt glaciers, better for indicating temperature, obviously.

On the sea and temps, not really an ideal indicator. Temps have increased in the southern ocean, especially in the western region. The increase in sea ice may be a blip anyway, as other long-term studies suggest a non-significant reduction in antarctic sea ice cover.

The 2002 ice sheet study is just for the Ross region, and in the same interview Joughin is pretty clear that this trend could not be applied elsewhere. Indeed, the gains are minor compared to the losses in the West Antarctic region as a whole. 27 billion tonnes is a drop in the ocean - well, thousands of billions of tonnes are dropping into the ocean, lol.

In West Antarctica, widespread losses along the Bellingshausen and Amundsen seas increased the ice sheet loss by 59% in 10 years to reach 13260 Gt yr-1 in 2006. In the Peninsula, losses increased by 140% to reach 6046 Gt yr-1 in 2006.

wouldn't temperatures better be measured directly instead of attributing ice flow to temps and going from there? it would take an awful lot of time for surface effects to filter through an ice mass several thousand feet thick, so whatever effects we are seeing, they were caused a while ago.

Nope, when the ice shelves collapse the ice sheet they butress speeds up significantly. It's not much to do with surface effects.

[edit on 20-4-2009 by melatonin]