Massive Crevasses and Bendable Ice Affect Stability of Antarctic Ice Shelf

[Catawba]

"Dec. 7, 2012 — Gaping crevasses that penetrate upward from the bottom of the largest remaining ice shelf on the Antarctic Peninsula make it more susceptible to collapse, according to University of Colorado Boulder researchers who spent the last four Southern Hemisphere summers studying the massive floating sheet of ice that covers an area twice the size of Massachusetts."

"The Larsen C Ice Shelf is all that's left of a series of ice shelves that once clung to the eastern edge of the Antarctic Peninsula and stretched into the Weddell Sea. When the other shelves disintegrated abruptly -- including Larsen A in January 1995 and Larsen B in February 2002 -- scientists were surprised by the speed of the breakup.

Researchers now believe that the catastrophic collapses of Larsen A and B were caused, at least in part, by rising temperatures in the region, where warming is increasing at six times the global average. The Antarctic Peninsula warmed 4.5 degrees Fahrenheit since the middle of the last century."

"McGrath worked with CIRES colleagues over the last four years to study the Larsen C shelf in order to better understand how the warming climate may have interacted with the shelf's existing structure to increase its vulnerability to a catastrophic collapse."

Massive crevasses and bendable ice affect stability of Antarctic ice shelf



Any guesses as to the last time the planet heated up this quickly?

 

[The Giant Noodle]

Hey, its 2012. Everyone is breaking up. :2razz:

 

[sawyerloggingon]

The sky is falling, the ice is melting, birds will soon fall from the sky and the earth will swallow us all up.:roll:

 

[Deuce]

The sky is falling, the ice is melting, birds will soon fall from the sky and the earth will swallow us all up.:roll:

Did you care to discuss the topic at hand or are we inflating things into strawmen again today?

 

[wolfman24]

One more fact for the anti GW people to ignore. After all delusions are not subject to being contested just ask one.

Maybe when Atlanta is beach front property they might see it but I doubt it.

 

[Catawba]

One more fact for the anti GW people to ignore. After all delusions are not subject to being contested just ask one.

Maybe when Atlanta is beach front property they might see it but I doubt it.

I'm sure you are right, the climate change deniers use ideology rather than science to form their opinions.

What has scientists so concerned is the speed with which this warming period is occurring. According to ice core analysis going back hundreds of thousands of years, there has never been another global warming period that happened this quickly.

 

[wolfman24]

I'm sure you are right, the climate change deniers use ideology rather than science to form their opinions.

What has scientists so concerned is the speed with which this warming period is occurring. According to ice core analysis going back hundreds of thousands of years, there has never been another global warming period that happened this quickly.

It is not idelogy its incrinology. Thats an old geologist term used about 100 years ago for the study of crynoids. they really did not know what they were looking at so they thought it was plant fossils or debris of some organic kind. IOW missed the point completely.

 

[sawyerloggingon]

It's fun to watch you warmer cultist talk among yourselves. Only a matter of time until you start knocking on doors, " do you know the earth is warming, do you accept AGW as your personal lord and savior".:lol:

 

[Deuce]

It's fun to watch you warmer cultist talk among yourselves. Only a matter of time until you start knocking on doors, " do you know the earth is warming, do you accept AGW as your personal lord and savior".:lol:

It's fun to watch someone repeatedly whine about wanting to find reasonable discussion and then posting things like this.

NO YOUR JUST A CULT NEENER NEENER PPBBPTPT

 

[sawyerloggingon]

Even more fun to watch you grovel for my attention.:lol:

 

[Catawba]

"Any guesses as to the last time the planet heated up this quickly?"

Anyone? (except Sawyer)

 

[Fisher]

Since seaboard areas tend to be liberals, I am not so concerned about rising sea levels yet....

 

[Deuce]

Even more fun to watch you grovel for my attention.:lol:

:lamo yeah how did you arrive in this thread again?

It's fun to watch you warmer cultist talk among yourselves. Only a matter of time until you start knocking on doors, " do you know the earth is warming, do you accept AGW as your personal lord and savior".:lol:

Hmmm. Attention-seeking, you say.

 

[sawyerloggingon]

"Any guesses as to the last time the planet heated up this quickly?"

Anyone? (except Sawyer)

I'll bite, medieval warming period?

" He estimated that temperatures then were 1-2 ° C above the normal period of 1931-1960. In the high North, it was even up to 4 degrees warmer. The regular voyages of the Vikings between Iceland and Greenland were rarely hindered by ice, and many burial places of the Vikings in Greenland still lie in the permafrost.

Glaciers were smaller than today

Also the global retreat of glaciers that occurred in the period between about 900 to 1300 [2] speaks for the existence of the Medieval Warm Period. An interesting detail is that many glaciers pulling back since 1850 reveal plant remnants from the Middle Ages, which is a clear proof that the extent of the glaciers at that time was lower than today [3].

Furthermore, historical traditions show evidence of unusual warmth at this time. Years around 1180 brought the warmest winter decade ever known. In January 1186/87, the trees were in bloom near Strasbourg. And even earlier you come across a longer heat phase, roughly between 1021 and 1040. The summer of 1130 was so dry that you could wade through the river Rhine. In 1135, the Danube flow was so low that people could cross it on foot. This fact has been exploited to create foundation stones for the bridge in Regensburg this year [4].

Clear evidence of the warm phase of the Middle Ages can also be found in the limits of crop cultivation. The treeline in the Alps climbed to 2000 meters, higher than current levels are [5]. Winery was possible in Germany at the Rhine and Mosel up to 200 meters above the present limits, in Pomerania, East Prussia, England and southern Scotland, and in southern Norway, therefore, much farther north than is the case today [6]. On the basis of pollen record there is evidence that during the Middle Ages, right up to Trondheim in Norway, wheat was grown and until nearly the 70th parallel/latitude barley was cultivated[4]. In many parts of the UK arable land reached heights that

 

[Deuce]

I'll bite, medieval warming period?

" He estimated that temperatures then were 1-2 ° C above the normal period of 1931-1960. In the high North, it was even up to 4 degrees warmer. The regular voyages of the Vikings between Iceland and Greenland were rarely hindered by ice, and many burial places of the Vikings in Greenland still lie in the permafrost.

Glaciers were smaller than today

Also the global retreat of glaciers that occurred in the period between about 900 to 1300 [2] speaks for the existence of the Medieval Warm Period. An interesting detail is that many glaciers pulling back since 1850 reveal plant remnants from the Middle Ages, which is a clear proof that the extent of the glaciers at that time was lower than today [3].

Furthermore, historical traditions show evidence of unusual warmth at this time. Years around 1180 brought the warmest winter decade ever known. In January 1186/87, the trees were in bloom near Strasbourg. And even earlier you come across a longer heat phase, roughly between 1021 and 1040. The summer of 1130 was so dry that you could wade through the river Rhine. In 1135, the Danube flow was so low that people could cross it on foot. This fact has been exploited to create foundation stones for the bridge in Regensburg this year [4].

Clear evidence of the warm phase of the Middle Ages can also be found in the limits of crop cultivation. The treeline in the Alps climbed to 2000 meters, higher than current levels are [5]. Winery was possible in Germany at the Rhine and Mosel up to 200 meters above the present limits, in Pomerania, East Prussia, England and southern Scotland, and in southern Norway, therefore, much farther north than is the case today [6]. On the basis of pollen record there is evidence that during the Middle Ages, right up to Trondheim in Norway, wheat was grown and until nearly the 70th parallel/latitude barley was cultivated[4]. In many parts of the UK arable land reached heights that

Global temperatures, sawyer. Not scattered anecdotes mostly from Europe. How were North and South America doing at the time? Asia-pacific? How about a global, quantitative analysis of temperature rather than "hey some wheat was grown here."

Also rate of change, not absolute temperatures.

And something we have to remind "skeptics" every winter: Precipitation is not temperature.

 

[flogger]

"

Any guesses as to the last time the planet heated up this quickly?

Oh many times

Any guesses what happened to Antarctica before the satellite record began in 1979 .... no ?

More alarmist twaddle :roll:

 

[Catawba]

Oh many times

Any guesses what happened to Antarctica before the satellite record began in 1979 .... no ?

More alarmist twaddle :roll:

Please show us your evidence? And also explain to us why satellites are needed to drill and analyze ice cores dating back hundreds of thousands of years?

 

[flogger]

Please show us your evidence? And also explain to us why satellites are needed to drill and analyze ice cores dating back hundreds of thousands of years?

No problem. Heres the Vostok Antarctic ice Core record for the last 10,000 years.



Why is today so alarming again ?

 

[Catawba]

No problem. Heres the Vostok Antarctic ice Core record for the last 10,000 years.

View attachment 67139301

Why is today so alarming again ?

I can't read anything from your graph and you provide no reference for it.

However, I did find an inaccuracy in my previous posting that I will correct here:

"The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is very likely human-induced and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented in the past 1,300 years."



Climate Change: Evidence

 

[flogger]

I can't read anything from your graph and you provide no reference for it.

However, I did find an inaccuracy in my previous posting that I will correct here:

"The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is very likely human-induced and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented in the past 1,300 years."



Climate Change: Evidence

Your info clearly shows CO 2 cannot be the culprit then otherwise polar temperatures would be at thier highest ever which of course they arent . They are in fact nowhere near.

Ice Cores

 

[Catawba]

Your info clearly shows CO 2 cannot be the culprit then otherwise polar temperatures would be at thier highest ever which of course they arent . They are in fact nowhere near.

Ice Cores

"The initial changes in temperature during this period are explained by changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun, which affects the amount of seasonal sunlight reaching the Earth’s surface. In the case of warming, the lag between temperature and CO2 is explained as follows: as ocean temperatures rise, oceans release CO2 into the atmosphere. In turn, this release amplifies the warming trend, leading to yet more CO2 being released. In other words, increasing CO2 levels become both the cause and effect of further warming. This positive feedback is necessary to trigger the shifts between glacials and interglacials as the effect of orbital changes is too weak to cause such variation. Additional positive feedbacks which play an important role in this process include other greenhouse gases, and changes in ice sheet cover and vegetation patterns.

A 2012 study by Shakun et al. looked at temperature changes 20,000 years ago (the last glacial-interglacial transition) from around the world and added more detail to our understanding of the CO2-temperature change relationship. They found that:

* The Earth's orbital cycles trigger the initial warming (starting approximately 19,000 years ago), which is first reflected in the the Arctic.

* This Arctic warming caused large amounts of ice to melt, causing large amounts of fresh water to flood into the oceans.

* This influx of fresh water then disrupted the Atlantic Ocean circulation, in turn causing a seesawing of heat between the hemispheres. The Southern Hemisphere and its oceans warmed first, starting about 18,000 years ago.

* The warming Southern Ocean then released CO2 into the atmosphere starting around 17,500 years ago, which in turn caused the entire planet to warm via the increased greenhouse effect.

Overall, about 90% of the global warming occurred after the CO2 increase (Figure 2).

CO2 lags temperature - what does it mean?

 

[Deuce]

Your info clearly shows CO 2 cannot be the culprit then otherwise polar temperatures would be at thier highest ever which of course they arent . They are in fact nowhere near.

Ice Cores

This statement of yours would require that CO2 is the only factor in determining global temperatures, which is a pretty ridiculous claim to make. Nobody has ever argued that, and you damn well know it. So why the dishonesty?

 

[flogger]

This statement of yours would require that CO2 is the only factor in determining global temperatures, which is a pretty ridiculous claim to make. Nobody has ever argued that, and you damn well know it. So why the dishonesty?

Nonsense. Many here have asserted the primacy of CO 2 in this regard and its far from dishonest to draw attention to that fact

 

[Deuce]

Nonsense. Many here have asserted the primacy of CO 2 in this regard and its far from dishonest to draw attention to that fact

I'll clarify for you.

1) Primary is not the same thing as Only.
2) CO2 is only cited as the primary drive of the current trend in temperatures. Historically this has not been the case, the glaciation periods appear to have started and stopped based on changing insolation due to orbital changes. In those cases, CO2 acts as a feedback, amplifying the temperature change caused by the changing orbit.

The post I quoted only makes sense if you assume CO2 is the only factor in determining temperatures. Which nobody has ever argued.

But you knew all of that, right?

 

[flogger]

I'll clarify for you.

1) Primary is not the same thing as Only.
2) CO2 is only cited as the primary drive of the current trend in temperatures. Historically this has not been the case, the glaciation periods appear to have started and stopped based on changing insolation due to orbital changes. In those cases, CO2 acts as a feedback, amplifying the temperature change caused by the changing orbit.

The post I quoted only makes sense if you assume CO2 is the only factor in determining temperatures. Which nobody has ever argued.

But you knew all of that, right?

Now you're just wriggling .....