Antarctic ice shelf has shrunk by 85pc since 1995

http://resources1.news.com.au/images/2012/02/14/1226270/781017-flying-over-antarctica.jpg

A VAST ice shelf in the Antarctic peninsula, a hotspot for global warming, has shrunk by 85 per cent in 17 years, the European Space Agency (ESA) says.

Images taken by its Envisat satellite show that the so-called Larsen B ice shelf decreased from 11,512 square kilometres in 1995 to only 1670 sq km today.

Larsen B is one of three ice shelves that run from north to south along the eastern side of the peninsula, the tongue of land that projects towards South America.

From 1995 to 2002, Larsen B experienced several calving events in which parts of the shelf broke away. It had a major break-up in 2002 when half of the remainder disintegrated.

Larsen A broke up in January 1995.

"Larsen C so far has been stable in area, but satellite observations have shown thinning and an increasing duration of melt events in summer," the agency said.

Ice shelves are thick floating mats of ice, attached to the shore, that are created by the runoff into the sea from glaciers.

Scientists say they are extremely sensitive to changes in atmospheric temperature and can be hollowed out from below by warmer ocean currents.

The northern Antarctic peninsula has been subject to atmospheric warming about 2.5C over the past 50 years, a figure that is several times greater than the global average.

Ice shelves are not the same as ice sheets, the vast blankets of frozen water that cover Antarctica.

If these melted, even partially, they would drive up sea levels, threatening small island states and coastal cities...

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/more-news/vast-ice-shelf-in-antarctic-has-shrunk-by-85pc-since-1995/story-e6frf7lf-1226320238434

We can't say we weren't warned. It makes me physically sick to think about it too much.

So why aren't we under water? :-/

Swagman wrote on Apr 6^th, 2012 at 2:01pm:

So why aren't we under water? :-/

Because the melting is just beginning. Ice shelves do not raise sea levels much because they are already displacing water to start with eg. they are already sitting on water.

The thing is, once the ice shelves melt, the warm seas get closer to the ice caps and melting will occur faster.

As ice shelved effectively act as stoppers to glaciers, presumeably glaciers will start to flow into the sea faster too.

Another issue is the ice shelves are white, and therefore reflect the suns's heat. As they disappear, more heat will be absorbed into seas and the atmosphere. This will cause faster melting of ice caps. A snowball effect in reverse you might say.


Quote:

Snowball effect: (adj.) descriptive of an entity or situation where something once small and relatively insignificant grows exponentially at a swift pace, engulfing. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=snowball%20effect

Quote:

Snowball effect is a figurative term for a process that starts from an initial state of small significance and builds upon itself, becoming larger (graver, more serious), and perhaps potentially dangerous or disastrous (a vicious circle, a "spiral of decline"), though it might be beneficial instead (a virtuous circle). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowball_effect

Sea levels could rise quite quickly and suddenly, even though we will see the precursors slowly unfolding over a period of time beforehand.

MOTR wrote on Apr 6^th, 2012 at 12:03pm:

We can't say we weren't warned. It makes me physically sick to think about it too much.

Me too.

Swagman wrote on Apr 6^th, 2012 at 2:01pm:

So why aren't we under water? :-/

So for it to be of concern it has to effect us directly?

It will effect us directly.

Annie Anthrax wrote on Apr 6^th, 2012 at 3:04pm:

It will effect us directly.

I know but by then it will be too late

Annie Anthrax wrote on Apr 6^th, 2012 at 2:41pm:

MOTR wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 12:03pm: We can't say we weren't warned. It makes me physically sick to think about it too much. Me too.

http://www.mims.com/resources/drugs/Malaysia/pic/Eno%20powd%20for%20oral%20susp_51833.gif


bobbythefap1 wrote on Apr 6^th, 2012 at 3:00pm:

Swagman wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 2:01pm: So why aren't we under water? :-/ So for it to be of concern it has to effect us directly?

Detrimentally yes....

but its only melting on one side, the other side has been developing more ice, most would say it has more to do with movement of the magnetic pole

Snow is not magnetic except at Thredbo.

BlOoDy RiPpEr wrote on Apr 7^th, 2012 at 4:33pm:

but its only melting on one side, the other side has been developing more ice, most would say it has more to do with movement of the magnetic pole

Or the angle of the sun

BlOoDy RiPpEr wrote on Apr 7^th, 2012 at 4:33pm:

but its only melting on one side, the other side has been developing more ice, most would say it has more to do with movement of the magnetic pole

Most fools might say, but I don't hear too many scientists saying anything of the kind.

The north magnetic pole is moving towards Russia and there is abnormally extensive sea-ice off Siberia. The wobble of the sun, light from higher vibration spirits and the Greek collapse have melted Greenland's icecap.

Sorry, I need to read these things more closely.

Swagman wrote on Apr 6^th, 2012 at 2:01pm:

So why aren't we under water? :-/

Time....

....if everything happened at once then what would life be?

Look up "entropy" and join the 21st century buddy!  ::)

bobbythefap1 wrote on Apr 6^th, 2012 at 3:00pm:

Swagman wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 2:01pm: So why aren't we under water? :-/ So for it to be of concern it has to effect us directly?

IT'S BUSINESS ACUMEN TALKING YOU MUST UNDERSTAND!  :D :o :o :o  ::)

Swagman wrote on Apr 6^th, 2012 at 3:47pm:

Annie Anthrax wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 2:41pm: MOTR wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 12:03pm: We can't say we weren't warned. It makes me physically sick to think about it too much. Me too. http://www.mims.com/resources/drugs/Malaysia/pic/Eno%20powd%20for%20oral%20susp_51833.gif bobbythefap1 wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 3:00pm: Swagman wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 2:01pm: So why aren't we under water? :-/ So for it to be of concern it has to effect us directly? Detrimentally yes....

hOW'S THOSE TERRORISTS THREATENING YOUR NUCLEAR SHIELD TREATING YOUR CALCULATING BUSINESS ATTITUDE?

WHAT NUCLEAR SHILED, LOL!!!  :D :D

BlOoDy RiPpEr wrote on Apr 7^th, 2012 at 4:33pm:

but its only melting on one side, the other side has been developing more ice, most would say it has more to do with movement of the magnetic pole

LOL, sowing the seeds of doubt means the customer walks out and buys a tv off the internet where they don't have to listen to julios like you!!

MOTR wrote on Apr 6^th, 2012 at 12:03pm:

We can't say we weren't warned. It makes me physically sick to think about it too much.

Take a pill and lie down.
And keep the red crash helmet handy. :)

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Apr 19^th, 2012 at 1:39pm:

MOTR wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 12:03pm: We can't say we weren't warned. It makes me physically sick to think about it too much. Take a pill and lie down. And keep the red crash helmet handy. :)

Chickenlips thinks impotent Nuclear Weapons can keep his greedy attitude protected....

... and Joe Hockey has just told the nation greed is no longer sustainable!!

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Apr 19^th, 2012 at 3:06pm:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Apr 19th, 2012 at 1:39pm: MOTR wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 12:03pm: We can't say we weren't warned. It makes me physically sick to think about it too much. Take a pill and lie down. And keep the red crash helmet handy. :) Chickenlips thinks impotent Nuclear Weapons can keep his greedy attitude protected.... ... and Joe Hockey has just told the nation greed is no longer sustainable!!

Death you're nonsense on stilts...riding a unicycle.

tonegunman1 wrote on Apr 19^th, 2012 at 3:34pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Apr 19th, 2012 at 3:06pm: chicken_lipsforme wrote on Apr 19th, 2012 at 1:39pm: MOTR wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 12:03pm: We can't say we weren't warned. It makes me physically sick to think about it too much. Take a pill and lie down. And keep the red crash helmet handy. :) Chickenlips thinks impotent Nuclear Weapons can keep his greedy attitude protected.... ... and Joe Hockey has just told the nation greed is no longer sustainable!! Death you're nonsense on stilts...riding a unicycle.

Man Made Climate Change is a market failure.

Western Nations greedily aquire the resources they need for RAMPANT mass consumption by force of standing armies supported by industrial complexes!!

The growth economy only knows growth thru the making of weapons to support it's own growth: it's a house of cards and I dare you to question me futher on the matter!!

It's unsustainable as the terrorists have pointed out!!

A paradox whereby someones freedom is supported by anothers poverty breeds war that by definition no one wins!!

UNSUSTAINABILITY DEFINED IS WHAT THAT IS CALLED!   :D :D :D :D :D  :-?


The terrorists showed there is no such thing as a perfect weapon: these cultures know what war is!!

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Apr 19^th, 2012 at 8:18pm:

tonegunman1 wrote on Apr 19th, 2012 at 3:34pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Apr 19th, 2012 at 3:06pm: chicken_lipsforme wrote on Apr 19th, 2012 at 1:39pm: MOTR wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 12:03pm: We can't say we weren't warned. It makes me physically sick to think about it too much. Take a pill and lie down. And keep the red crash helmet handy. :) Chickenlips thinks impotent Nuclear Weapons can keep his greedy attitude protected.... ... and Joe Hockey has just told the nation greed is no longer sustainable!! Death you're nonsense on stilts...riding a unicycle. Man Made Climate Change is a market failure. Western Nations greedily aquire the resources they need for RAMPANT mass consumption by force of standing armies supported by industrial complexes!! The growth economy only knows growth thru the making of weapons to support it's own growth: it's a house of cards and I dare you to question me futher on the matter!! It's unsustainable as the terrorists have pointed out!! A paradox whereby someones freedom is supported by anothers poverty breeds war that by definition no one wins!! UNSUSTAINABILITY DEFINED IS WHAT THAT IS CALLED!   :D :D :D :D :D  :-? The terrorists showed there is no such thing as a perfect weapon: these cultures know what war is!!

I must be tired...that made sense!

We should be under water. :(

Swagman wrote on Apr 20^th, 2012 at 12:59pm:

We should be under water. :(

Swagman, your kind can only hide their greedy attitudes behind impotent Nuclear Weapons because you sure can't hide it in your social life!!

How does it feel getting laughed at by your own reflection?

:-* :-*

MOTR wrote on Apr 6^th, 2012 at 12:03pm:

We can't say we weren't warned. It makes me physically sick to think about it too much.

Don't think about it too much.

There's nothing you can do anyway.

Worry about the things you can change, learn to live with the rest.

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Apr 20^th, 2012 at 2:33pm:

Swagman wrote on Apr 20th, 2012 at 12:59pm: We should be under water. :( Swagman, your kind can only hide their greedy attitudes behind impotent Nuclear Weapons because you sure can't hide it in your social life!! How does it feel getting laughed at by your own reflection? :-* :-*

http://www.anchoredbygrace.com/smileys/party.gif

http://smileys.on-my-web.com/repository/Holidays_and_Party/fireworks-074.gif
http://smileys.on-my-web.com/repository/Holidays_and_Party/champagne-088.gif

Swagman wrote on Apr 20^th, 2012 at 3:42pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Apr 20th, 2012 at 2:33pm: Swagman wrote on Apr 20th, 2012 at 12:59pm: We should be under water. :( Swagman, your kind can only hide their greedy attitudes behind impotent Nuclear Weapons because you sure can't hide it in your social life!! How does it feel getting laughed at by your own reflection? :-* :-* http://www.anchoredbygrace.com/smileys/party.gif http://smileys.on-my-web.com/repository/Holidays_and_Party/fireworks-074.gif http://smileys.on-my-web.com/repository/Holidays_and_Party/champagne-088.gif

Told your grandkids about voting for Largesse all your life yet???

Swagman wrote on Apr 6^th, 2012 at 2:01pm:

So why aren't we under water? :-/

when ice melts in water the surface level doesnt rise at all.

one thing worth mentioning from this cherry picked data is that this is ONE SHELF - not the entire antartic which satellites confirm has not lost gross ice are at all. being ice, some melts and other parts grow. Eastern Antarctica has melted some while western antartica has grown.

in other words... nothing happening here folks. and before you losers start your predictable worrying about the melting of antartica here is a thought for you to ponder. the temperateur in most of antarctica is -40 decrees C. so imagine your worst case scenario and temperatures rose to -36C. How much ice will melt then? HINT: the answer is none because ice doesnt melt below zero.

Longy, where are you getting this information. Could you link us to the satellite evidence showing Antarctica has not lost "gross ice".

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 20^th, 2012 at 6:35pm:

in other words... nothing happening here folks. and before you losers start your predictable worrying about the melting of antartica here is a thought for you to ponder. the temperateur in most of antarctica is -40 decrees C. so imagine your worst case scenario and temperatures rose to -36C. How much ice will melt then? HINT: the answer is none because ice doesnt melt below zero.

You're trying to reason with AGW disciples by using facts?

LOL, good luck.   ;)

Do you honestly believe that climate scientists don't know the temperature at which ice melts, because that seems to be the implication of your post. Here is an abstract from a paper published last year in nature geoscience. Your simplistic view of Antarctica does not do justice to the intricacies of this amazing continent.

Stronger ocean circulation and increased melting under Pine Island Glacier ice shelf (Stanley S. Jacobs, Adrian Jenkins, Claudia F. Giulivi & Pierre Dutrieux)


Quote:

In 1994, ocean measurements near Antarctica’s Pine Island Glacier showed that the ice shelf buttressing the glacier was melting rapidly. This melting was attributed to the presence of relatively warm, deep water on the Amundsen Sea continental shelf. Heat, salt and ice budgets along with ocean modelling provided steady-state calving and melting rates. Subsequent satellite observations and modelling have indicated large system imbalances, including ice-shelf thinning and more intense melting, glacier acceleration and drainage basin drawdown. Here we combine our earlier data with measurements taken in 2009 to show that the temperature and volume of deep water in Pine Island Bay have increased. Ocean transport and tracer calculations near the ice shelf reveal a rise in meltwater production by about 50% since 1994. The faster melting seems to result mainly from stronger sub-ice-shelf circulation, as thinning ice has increased the gap above an underlying submarine bank on which the glacier was formerly grounded. We conclude that the basal melting has exceeded the increase in ice inflow, leading to the formation and enlargement of an inner cavity under the ice shelf within which sea water nearly 4 °C above freezing can now more readily access the grounding zone.

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v4/n8/full/ngeo1188.html

Here is one of the observations made by the research team.


Quote:

One day, near the southern edge of Pine Island Glacier Ice Shelf, the researchers directly observed the strength of the melting process as they watched frigid,  seawater appear to boil on the surface like a kettle on the stove. To Jacobs, it suggested that deep water, buoyed by added fresh glacial melt, was rising to the surface in a process called upwelling. Jacobs had never witnessed upwelling first hand, but colleagues had described something similar in the fjords of Greenland, where summer runoff and melting glacier fronts can also drive buoyant plumes to the sea surface.

I'm quite happy to discuss the facts, are you?

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 20^th, 2012 at 6:35pm:

Swagman wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 2:01pm: So why aren't we under water? :-/ when ice melts in water the surface level doesnt rise at all. one thing worth mentioning from this cherry picked data is that this is ONE SHELF - not the entire antartic which satellites confirm has not lost gross ice are at all. being ice, some melts and other parts grow. Eastern Antarctica has melted some while western antartica has grown. in other words... nothing happening here folks. and before you losers start your predictable worrying about the melting of antartica here is a thought for you to ponder. the temperateur in most of antarctica is -40 decrees C. so imagine your worst case scenario and temperatures rose to -36C. How much ice will melt then? HINT: the answer is none because ice doesnt melt below zero.

If the climate changed by 4 degrees in a localtion- which is the thought experiment you are proposing- wouldn't you expect something to happen somewhere or do you actually live in whackoville where the laws of thermodynamics do not apply?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kht8LAdpyMI

Breaking! Head Climate Monger Jumps Ship: Marc Morano Reports

By Marc Morano -- Climate Depot
MSNBC, perhaps the most unlikely of news sources, reports on what may be seen as the official end of the man-made global warming fear movement.

MSNBC April 23, 2012: 'Gaia' scientist James Lovelock reverses himself: I was 'alarmist' about climate change & so was Gore! 'The problem is we don't know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago'

Contrast Lovelock's 2012 skeptical climate views with his 2007 beliefs during the height of the man-made climate fear movement. [ Flashback 2007: Lovelock Predicts Global Warming Doom: 'Billions of us will die; few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in Arctic' ]

How fitting that a major organ of the man-made climate fear promotion, MSNBC, would deliver one of the final and most dramatic death knells to the climate movement. One of the founders of climate alarm bails out with help from the media that helped hype and propel the movement.

More MSNBC article excerpts: Lovelock pointed to Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" and Tim Flannery's "The Weather Makers" as other examples of "alarmist" forecasts of the future..."The problem is we don't know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books -- mine included -- because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn't happened," Lovelock said. "The climate is doing its usual tricks. There's nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now," he said. "The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time... it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising -- carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that," he added...Asked if he was now a climate skeptic, Lovelock told msnbc.com: "It depends what you mean by a skeptic. I'm not a denier." He said human-caused carbon dioxide emissions were driving an increase in the global temperature, but added that the effect of the oceans was not well enough understood and could have a key role. "It (the sea) could make all the difference between a hot age and an ice age," he said. 'I made a mistake' As "an independent and a loner," he said he did not mind saying "All right, I made a mistake." He claimed a university or government scientist might fear an admission of a mistake would lead to the loss of funding."

Climate Depot began reporting on Lovelock's conversion away from climate fears in 2010 as he began reconsidering the alleged 'settled science." See below for Climate Depot's reporting on the evolution of James Lovelock's climate views.

MSNBC April 23, 2012: 'Gaia' scientist James Lovelock reverses himself: I was 'alarmist' about climate change & so was Gore! 'The problem is we don't know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago'

__________

as the bulldust from global warming and

leaked emailgate settles,the top guy says its a scam

a carbon scam by corporations who pollute

not humanity

namaste

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 20^th, 2012 at 6:35pm:

Swagman wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 2:01pm: So why aren't we under water? :-/ when ice melts in water the surface level doesnt rise at all. one thing worth mentioning from this cherry picked data is that this is ONE SHELF - not the entire antartic which satellites confirm has not lost gross ice are at all. being ice, some melts and other parts grow. Eastern Antarctica has melted some while western antartica has grown. in other words... nothing happening here folks. and before you losers start your predictable worrying about the melting of antartica here is a thought for you to ponder. the temperateur in most of antarctica is -40 decrees C. so imagine your worst case scenario and temperatures rose to -36C. How much ice will melt then? HINT: the answer is none because ice doesnt melt below zero.

Whats a poor hand wringing left wing bedwetter worry wart to do when you plop that choice little fact out on the table like that LW.
This thread is another Falah dud rubber.

I'm glad you are calling it a "choice fact" because that is exactly what it is. I'm not sure where Longy got his information from but the fact they want us to look at gross ice rather than land ice tells us much about their agenda. Satellite data tells us Antarctic land ice is decreasing at an accelerating rate. Sea ice in increasing. Can you tell us why sea ice is increasing while southern ocean temperatures have been increasing 0.17°C per decade over the last 60 odd years, chickenlips?

Extra Extra read all about it--------> warming causes increase in sea ice to form.......... :D :D

WTF? :(

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 20^th, 2012 at 6:35pm:

Swagman wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 2:01pm: So why aren't we under water? :-/ 1. when ice melts in water the surface level doesnt rise at all. 2. one thing worth mentioning from this cherry picked data is that this is ONE SHELF - not the entire antartic which satellites confirm has not lost gross ice are at all. being ice, some melts and other parts grow. Eastern Antarctica has melted some while western antartica has grown. in other words... nothing happening here folks. and before you losers start your predictable worrying about the melting of antartica here is a thought for you to ponder. the temperateur in most of antarctica is -40 decrees C. so imagine your worst case scenario and temperatures rose to -36C. How much ice will melt then? HINT: the answer is none because ice doesnt melt below zero.

1. That's approximately correct. Technically icebergs are fresh water and sea water contains salt, so there is a very slight increase in level, but it's a fair approximation to say no "significant" level increase. Any ice melting off the Antarctic Peninsula itself will contribute to the rise.   

2. That's correct too. It will be several hundred years at current predictions before Western Antarctica starts to melt. The main reasons for the increased deposition in Western Antarctica is shifting wind patterns.

There is some evidence of increased ice flow rates in Antarctica, which would have the same effect of reducing total ice. I haven't seen the latest research on this yet, but it's not conclusive as far as I understand.   

LOL - swagman's last comment about sea ice is actually spot on.  ;D  MOTR's points about increased calfing of ice ties in with that.

On the other hand, the Greenland ice sheet is a much bigger concern.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcOVRRjxDw0&sns=em


Warm ocean currents attacking the underside of ice shelves are the dominant cause of recent ice loss from Antarctica. This animation shows the circulation of ocean currents around the western Antarctic ice shelves. The shelves are indicated by the rainbow color; red is thicker (greater than 550 meters), while blue is thinner (less than 200 meters). 


Quote:

Hamish Pritchard, a glaciologist at the British Antarctic Survey, said research using an ice-gazing NASA satellite showed that warmer air alone couldn't explain what was happening to Antarctica. A more detailed examination found a chain of events that explained the shrinking ice shelves. Antarctica's massive ice shelves are shrinking because they are being eaten away from below by warm water, a new study finds. That suggests that future sea levels could rise faster than many scientists have been predicting. The western chunk of Antarctica is losing 23 feet (seven metres) of its floating ice sheet each year. Until now, scientists weren't exactly sure how it was happening and whether or how man-made global warming might be a factor. The answer, according to a study published Wednesday in the journal Nature, is that climate change plays an indirect role — but one that has larger repercussions than if Antarctic ice were merely melting from warmer air. Twenty ice shelves showed signs that they were melting from warm water below. Changes in wind currents pushed that relatively warmer water closer to and beneath the floating ice shelves. The wind change is likely caused by a combination of factors, including natural weather variation, the ozone hole and man-made greenhouse gases, Pritchard said in a phone interview. As the floating ice shelves melt and thin, that in turn triggers snow and ice on land glaciers to slide down to the floating shelves and eventually into the sea, causing sea level rise, Pritchard said. Thicker floating ice shelves usually keep much of the land snow and ice from shedding to sea, but that's not happening now. That whole process causes larger and faster sea level rise than simply warmer air melting snow on land-locked glaciers, Pritchard said.