Climate Change

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Sun Apr 05, 2009 1:29 am

Ice bridge ruptures in Antarctic

David Vaughan says the break-up is a 'really strong indication' of warming

An ice bridge linking a shelf of ice the size of Jamaica to an island in Antarctica has snapped.

Scientists suggest the collapse could mean that the Wilkins Ice Shelf is on the brink of breaking away, and that it provides evidence of global warming.

The shelf has been retreating since the 1990s, but scientists say this is the first time it has lost one of the connections that keeps it in place.

It broke off at the thinnest point of the 40-km (25-mile) strip of ice.

Quoted from the BBC

The artcle is at:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/default.stm

So hopefully you can get to the relevant page if you want..

abbey · Post by **abbey** » Sun Apr 05, 2009 2:05 am

Scary!

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Sun Apr 05, 2009 4:40 am

Yep.:-1

Don't suppose it's going to change anyone's mind on the issue, but I do want to keep the issue of climate change reasonably high-profile...

FUBAR · Post by **FUBAR** » Sun Apr 05, 2009 6:57 am

Link doesn't seem to work and why is it scary.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Sun Apr 05, 2009 7:35 am

FUBAR: It's scary because it is yet more evidence that climate change is happening, and happening fast.

(btw, I appear to have successfully fixed the link.

And there was much rejoicing)

abbey · Post by **abbey** » Sun Apr 05, 2009 12:16 pm

FUBAR;1169840 wrote: Link doesn't seem to work and why is it scary.
Because it shows that global warming is happening and it's not a myth as some seem to think.

Clint · Post by **Clint** » Sun Apr 05, 2009 2:26 pm

When WASN'T climate changing?

FUBAR · Post by **FUBAR** » Mon Apr 06, 2009 4:56 am

AS Clint said, the climate has always changed and always will. It cannot be stopped from changing so what's all the bother over it. Humans didn't start it and we won't be able to stop it. The problem now is that it is becoming a business rather than a science and any old weather is being used as proof. Is it a bit hot-cold-wet-dry that's why the name changed from Global warming to Climate change, a more general description that will fit any change in any direction...

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Mon Apr 06, 2009 9:11 am

Fubar, clint: Yes, but it's never a good thing for the creatures alive at the time and this - according to the vast majority of reputable scientists around the world - is going to be very big and very quick: because NOW is the first time we've seen this since modern science began it is very hard to predict how much how soon, but the rise keeps getting bigger and the timescale shorter. It could very well be 5-7 deg C average rise in less than 100 years. If it is, things will get very nasty much quicker than that as we will find it (for example) increasingly difficult to grow food as the traditional crops of a region die and sea levels rise.

The scientists might possibly be wrong, and I hope to heaven they are. But I strongly suspect they are right, and I fear the sort of cynicism you have plays its part in making it worse.

Global Warming is an inadequate term for the sort of things we face. It won't just get warmer and at present the system is destabilising, meaning that we will get more extreme events such as hurricanes more often. Also, if for example, the Gulf Stream shuts down as a result of the greater amount of cold water coming down the East coast of America as the North Pole and Greenland icecap melt, Britain might actually get colder. At least for a while. "Climate Change" covers these sorts of phenomena better than the term "Global Warming".

You are undoubtedly correct to suggest that no individual event - such as the recent snow in the US - proves or even strongly suggests that Climate Change is a reality. We need to see an increase in frequency of such events over time linked to (probably) increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere to be able to do that.

I do grant you that not believing any of it, if you are over 50, will mean you have a much happier life. Especially if you don't have children. If you are under fifty you'll probably get to watch it happen and suffer the effects, unless the vast bulk of the world's scientists concerned with the issue are wrong.

Clint · Post by **Clint** » Mon Apr 06, 2009 6:25 pm

Clodhopper;1170582 wrote: The scientists might possibly be wrong, and I hope to heaven they are. But I strongly suspect they are right, and I fear the sort of cynicism you have plays its part in making it worse.

I'm sorry...please forgive me for what I'm about to say.

My cynicism is generating heat?:yh_rotfl

TruthBringer · Post by **TruthBringer** » Tue Apr 07, 2009 2:02 am

Clodhopper;1169818 wrote: Yep.:-1

Don't suppose it's going to change anyone's mind on the issue, but I do want to keep the issue of climate change reasonably high-profile...

As you should. The fact that we are on the brink of a Pole-Shift should be something that should be on everyone's mind. And what will be the trigger? The Sun of course.

Yep. That big beautiful circular object in the sky that makes us all feel so good, is going to also be the trigger for one of the most destructive cataclysmic events of all time. It's just the way it has to be. The time for the Great Purification is near.

I'd say we have less than 4 years left at most before it happens. And it could happen anytime from this day until then. But mark my words, by 2011 Mother Nature will appear to all of us on this board to be "going crazy".

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Tue Apr 07, 2009 4:36 am

I'm sorry...please forgive me for what I'm about to say.

My cynicism is generating heat?

:wah:

Well, indirectly, YES!

....assuming that your cynicism means you are taking no action on the issue.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Tue Apr 07, 2009 4:52 am

FUBAR;1170470 wrote: AS Clint said, the climate has always changed and always will. It cannot be stopped from changing so what's all the bother over it. Humans didn't start it and we won't be able to stop it. The problem now is that it is becoming a business rather than a science and any old weather is being used as proof. Is it a bit hot-cold-wet-dry that's why the name changed from Global warming to Climate change, a more general description that will fit any change in any direction...

Yes, the climate always changes, a little bit this way a little bit that - trend upwards for a few tens of thousands of years then trend down again as the feedback loops kick in.

What is different now is the rate of change. Never, in all of the aeons we've mapped the climate for, has it changed so much so quickly without their being a cataclysmic event (such as the time of volcanoes or an asteroid strike) to start it off.

This time WE are the cataclysmic event!

Given that the universal result of such changes has so far been mass extinction for the majority of large land (and sometimes marine) animals we had better start doing something to try to reverse the damage we are demonstrably causing.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Tue Apr 07, 2009 4:57 am

Well said, Bryn.

Clint · Post by **Clint** » Tue Apr 07, 2009 6:11 am

Clodhopper;1171075 wrote: :wah:

Well, indirectly, YES!

....assuming that your cynicism means you are taking no action on the issue.

I have been taking action and I will continue to take action. I don't think mankind can reverse what is happening but we can prepare for the things we think are going to happen. If we work toward sustainability no one loses even if it doesn't result in less warming.

I get a little ticked when I see the word "fear" used related to this subject. Fear clouds our judgment and weakens us to be pawns for those who seek political and financial gain. The world in running on emotions right now and it isn't a good thing for most of us. A few are gaining big time because of it.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Tue Apr 07, 2009 8:20 am

I have been taking action and I will continue to take action.

Good for you. (Seriously. I'm not being sarcastic.)

I don't think mankind can reverse what is happening but we can prepare for the things we think are going to happen. If we work toward sustainability no one loses even if it doesn't result in less warming.

I doubt we can reverse it, but we can, hopefully, reduce it and/or its effects. I think we do lose if it doesn't result in less warming, but as you say, sustainability is a good thing in itself.

I get a little ticked when I see the word "fear" used related to this subject. Fear clouds our judgment and weakens us to be pawns for those who seek political and financial gain.

Well, I was using it in the sense of "am concerned that..." but I take your point. Nonetheless the effects the scientists (not the politicians or the businessmen) are talking about are huge, and when I think through the consequences, yes, sometimes I am scared, and I'm not ashamed to admit it.

The world in running on emotions right now and it isn't a good thing for most of us. A few are gaining big time because of it.

Ok, that's a slightly more general point, but I could argue a case to say that the world has always run on emotions.: Love, hate; kids, war.

Truthbringer: I've heard about pole shift, but know little about it. I think the difference with the Climate Change issue is that we can do something about Climate Change, whereas I have pole shifts in the same mental place as catastrophic meteor strikes or solar flares - we really can do nothing about it so there's no point worrying.

BTS · Post by **BTS** » Tue Apr 07, 2009 8:36 am

Another thread full of HOT AIR.........

BTS · Post by **BTS** » Tue Apr 07, 2009 8:39 am

CURRENT SOUTH

POLE WEATHER

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Tue Apr 07, 2009 9:10 am

BTS: I might just as reasonably argue that since it's day now, it will never be night.

Just as no individual weather event proves the existence of climate change, no individual temperature you give proves its non-existence.

But since since six (well, seven now with the Wilkins) ice sheets have vanished in the last thirty years, something unusual is going on.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Tue Apr 07, 2009 4:13 pm

BTS;1171205 wrote: Another thread full of HOT AIR.........

Then maybe you'd like to post a reasoned argument to support your point of view?

So far you've just tried to rubbish whatever is said without adding anything to the discussion.

BTS · Post by **BTS** » Tue Apr 07, 2009 9:52 pm

Bryn Mawr;1171464 wrote: Then maybe you'd like to post a reasoned argument to support your point of view?

So far you've just tried to rubbish whatever is said without adding anything to the discussion.

I think this here thermometer (below) is pretty good proof it is G0D@m cold down there.......

Golly gee...........SHEEESH......Right now it is -62 C

CURRENT SOUTH

POLE WEATHER

Get that..............MINUS 62 C

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Tue Apr 07, 2009 11:47 pm

BTS;1171596 wrote: I think this here thermometer (below) is pretty good proof it is G0D@m cold down there.......

Golly gee...........SHEEESH......Right now it is -62 C

CURRENT SOUTH

POLE WEATHER

Get that..............MINUS 62 C

And what has the specific temperature at one point on the Earth's surface at one specific point in time got to do with average global temperature?

We are talking climate and you are talking weather - totally different subjects.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Wed Apr 08, 2009 4:55 am

I think this here thermometer (below) is pretty good proof it is G0D@m cold down there.......

Golly gee...........SHEEESH......Right now it is -62 C

No-one's suggesting it'll ever be a sunbathing destination. Even if the current predictions turn out to be exactly right, in say 100 years at this time of year, it'll be somewhere between -55 and -57 deg C. That's still very cold. Just not as cold as it should be.

Dixie · Post by **Dixie** » Wed Apr 08, 2009 5:10 am

Drat, I cannot post links yet, but earthobservatory of Nasa has a great photo of the place where the ice bridge melted.

earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=37806&src=eoa-iotd

perhaps copy and paste the URL if you want to see?

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:28 am

Wilkins Ice Bridge Collapse : Image of the Day

That might have done it. Use the little globe with a paperclip and paste the URL in the box that comes up. Usually takes me at least two goes to get it right, but then I am a technotwit.

What really strikes me is that this is happening as Antarctica goes into winter - it ought to be getting more solid at this time of year, shouldn't it?

BTS · Post by **BTS** » Sun Apr 12, 2009 11:01 am

Clodhopper;1172428 wrote: Wilkins Ice Bridge Collapse : Image of the Day

That might have done it. Use the little globe with a paperclip and paste the URL in the box that comes up. Usually takes me at least two goes to get it right, but then I am a technotwit.

What really strikes me is that this is happening as Antarctica goes into winter - it ought to be getting more solid at this time of year, shouldn't it?

Weird all this hoopla about Wilkins Ice Bridge Collapse and rushing to blame it on man made global warming.........

What about this volcano last year? It makes more sense that the oceans temp have more to do with the melting of the ice than the outside temps...

My thermometer is saying -56 deg. C = -68.8 F

What is it that ice melts at again?

But I bet it (volcano) was caused by GW Bush somehow;);)

A recent volcanic eruption beneath the West Antarctic ice sheet

Hugh F. J. Corr & David G. Vaughan

A recent volcanic eruption beneath the West Antarctic ice sheet : Abstract : Nature Geoscience

Indirect evidence suggests that volcanic activity occurring beneath the West Antarctic ice sheet influences ice flow and sheet stability1, 2, 3. However, only volcanoes that protrude through the ice sheet4 and those inferred from geophysical techniques1, 2 have been mapped so far. Here we analyse radar data from the Hudson Mountains, West Antarctica5, that contain reflections from within the ice that had previously been interpreted erroneously as the ice-sheet bed. We show that the reflections are present within an elliptical area of about 23,000 km2 that contains tephra from an explosive volcanic eruption. The tephra layer is thickest at a subglacial topographic high, which we term the Hudson Mountains Subglacial Volcano. The layer depth dates the eruption at 207 BC240 years, which matches exceptionally strong but previously unattributed conductivity signals in nearby ice cores. The layer contains 0.019–0.31 km3 of tephra, which implies a volcanic explosive index of 3–4. Production and episodic release of water from the volcano probably affected ice flow at the time of the eruption. Ongoing volcanic heat production may have implications for contemporary ice dynamics in this glacial system.

More here:

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Mon Apr 13, 2009 4:43 am

But I bet it (volcano) was caused by GW Bush somehow

Only if he was actively trying to stop it erupting.

You have taken a temperature on land - at the South Pole in the middle of the continent - and measured the air temperature. Sea temperatures in the Antarctic Ocean vary between -2 deg C and 10 deg C. The Wilkins Ice shelf is floating on the sea and is made (I believe) of fresh water, freezing point 0 deg C, so it slowly melts in sea water most of the time, freezing up in winter and thawing the rest of the time. Temperature at the coast is much milder...

If the climate gets colder, the net effect of freezing and thawing and more ice perhaps being added by glaciers pushing out from the land is that the ice thickens. If the climate gets warmer, the net effect of freezing and thawing is that the ice thins. If it thins enough, waves and tidal rise-and-fall cause the ice to break up, particularly where that ice is attached to land, which does not rise and fall with the tide. It is this sort of thing we are seeing.

On top of this case, six other ice shelfs like the Wilkins one have undergone a similar collapse in the last 30 years.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Tue Apr 14, 2009 1:06 pm

BTS;1174258 wrote: Weird all this hoopla about Wilkins Ice Bridge Collapse and rushing to blame it on man made global warming.........

What about this volcano last year? It makes more sense that the oceans temp have more to do with the melting of the ice than the outside temps...

My thermometer is saying -56 deg. C = -68.8 F

What is it that ice melts at again?

But I bet it (volcano) was caused by GW Bush somehow;);)

A recent volcanic eruption beneath the West Antarctic ice sheet

Hugh F. J. Corr & David G. Vaughan

A recent volcanic eruption beneath the West Antarctic ice sheet : Abstract : Nature Geoscience

Indirect evidence suggests that volcanic activity occurring beneath the West Antarctic ice sheet influences ice flow and sheet stability1, 2, 3. However, only volcanoes that protrude through the ice sheet4 and those inferred from geophysical techniques1, 2 have been mapped so far. Here we analyse radar data from the Hudson Mountains, West Antarctica5, that contain reflections from within the ice that had previously been interpreted erroneously as the ice-sheet bed. We show that the reflections are present within an elliptical area of about 23,000 km2 that contains tephra from an explosive volcanic eruption. The tephra layer is thickest at a subglacial topographic high, which we term the Hudson Mountains Subglacial Volcano. The layer depth dates the eruption at 207 BC240 years, which matches exceptionally strong but previously unattributed conductivity signals in nearby ice cores. The layer contains 0.019–0.31 km3 of tephra, which implies a volcanic explosive index of 3–4. Production and episodic release of water from the volcano probably affected ice flow at the time of the eruption. Ongoing volcanic heat production may have implications for contemporary ice dynamics in this glacial system.

More here:

Could you give us more on the "last year" part of it? The only date mentioned in the abstract is 2216 years ago and I don't have an account with them to download the full article.

BTS · Post by **BTS** » Tue Apr 14, 2009 4:50 pm

Bryn Mawr;1175178 wrote: Could you give us more on the "last year" part of it? The only date mentioned in the abstract is 2216 years ago and I don't have an account with them to download the full article.

Try these:

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v1/n ... 106-s1.pdf

First Evidence Of Under-ice Volcanic Eruption In Antarctica

Volcano eruption under Antarctica ice sheet confirmed - People's Daily Online

Brooding giant

Although ice buried the unnamed volcano, molten rock is still churning below. David Vaughan, a glaciologist with the BAS and a co-author of the new study, said the discovery might explain the speeding up of historically slow-moving glaciers in the region.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Tue Apr 14, 2009 11:12 pm

BTS;1175239 wrote: Try these:

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v1/n ... 106-s1.pdf

First Evidence Of Under-ice Volcanic Eruption In Antarctica

Volcano eruption under Antarctica ice sheet confirmed - People's Daily Online

Brooding giant

Although ice buried the unnamed volcano, molten rock is still churning below. David Vaughan, a glaciologist with the BAS and a co-author of the new study, said the discovery might explain the speeding up of historically slow-moving glaciers in the region.

If you look, the discovery was recent but the eruption was over two thousand years ago :-

Evidence of a powerful volcano, which erupted under the ice sheet of West Antarctica around 325 BC and might still be active now, has been confirmed by British scientists, according to media reports Monday.

Whilst interesting it is unlikely to explain what's happened to the Wilkins Ice Sheet.

Certainly, any tectonic activity in the area would have to be taken into account but the excitement is because this is the first proven volcano in the area and "it might still be active" - not a good explanation of recent exceptional melting.

Rapunzel · Post by **Rapunzel** » Wed Apr 15, 2009 6:26 am

BTS;1171596 wrote: I think this here thermometer (below) is pretty good proof it is G0D@m cold down there.......

Golly gee...........SHEEESH......Right now it is -62 C

CURRENT SOUTH

POLE WEATHER

Get that..............MINUS 62 C

BTS;1174258 wrote: My thermometer is saying -56 deg. C

So, to clarify, on April 8th you stated that your thermometer of the South Pole read -62 C and on April 12th, just 4 days later, you stated that it reads -56 deg. C

That's an increase of 6 degrees C in just 4 days.

What does that tell you? :sneaky:

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed Apr 15, 2009 10:30 am

Rapunzel;1175340 wrote: So, to clarify, on April 8th you stated that your thermometer of the South Pole read -62 C and on April 12th, just 4 days later, you stated that it reads -56 deg. C

That's an increase of 6 degrees C in just 4 days.

What does that tell you? :sneaky:

Given that it's still -56 deg C three days later it must mean that climate change has now stabilised and we can stop worrying :yh_rotfl

Nice one Rapunzel :-6

BTS · Post by **BTS** » Thu Apr 16, 2009 10:48 am

Rapunzel;1175340 wrote: So, to clarify, on April 8th you stated that your thermometer of the South Pole read -62 C and on April 12th, just 4 days later, you stated that it reads -56 deg. C

That's an increase of 6 degrees C in just 4 days.

What does that tell you? :sneaky:

Huh today it is -63 C

CURRENT SOUTH

POLE WEATHER

BTS · Post by **BTS** » Thu Apr 16, 2009 10:54 am

Bryn Mawr;1175523 wrote: Given that it's still -56 deg C three days later it must mean that climate change has now stabilised and we can stop worrying :yh_rotfl

Nice one Rapunzel :-6
So what does it mean then, if it is now 8 Deg. cooler (next day of your post) -63 C?

Maybe climate change has not stabilised?

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Thu Apr 16, 2009 11:58 am

BTS;1176112 wrote: So what does it mean then, if it is now 8 Deg. cooler (next day of your post) -63 C?

Maybe climate change has not stabilised?

It means that spot temperature at a single fixed point has no bearing whatsoever on, and is no indicator of, climate change - as we've tried to tell you several times in the past.

If you took the spot temperature at every point on the Earth's surface at a given point in time and averaged them then you have the spot global surface temperature.

If you did that every second of the year and averaged the results then you'd have the global average surface temperature.

If you do that at each level from subsurface to high atmosphere then you'd have the global average temperature.

What we're talking about is the trend in this global average temperature and the factors affecting it. What you are talking about are three of the billions of measurements that go towards it - they're of absolutely no interest whatsoever because they tell us nothing.