Slashdot Mirror

If there was anyway to definitely prove it. We don't know anything about the entire passage prior to 400 years ago, but people have been interested in trying to find a way through continuously since then. If the passage in the last 400 years was ever as wide as it is now, it would have been easily spotted. Have you seen the satellite pictures? Here's a source that has a history for this summer.

2007 arctic sea-ice is an unprecedented 20% smaller than the previousrecord low year - 2005.

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-macdonald13jul13,1,4424613.story?coll=la-news-comment&ctrack=1&cset=true *shrug*

And produce a report like, say, the upcoming IPCC synthesis report? Where lots of analysts "took a gander"?

Or just the selection of NOAA climate data that's free? Or, did you want to look at, for example, sea ice data?

Reallly, people. There's boats of data out there. Sure, it may not be in a "trusted" place (btw, who exactly would the contrarians consider trusted here?).

Have at it.

But it quickly became apparent that the horrific tale of a melting South Pole was nothing but fiction. The average temperature in the Antarctic is -30 degrees Celsius. Humanity cannot possibly burn enough oil and coal to melt this giant block of ice.

Hello, Spiegel. Let me introduce my friend, the Larsen B ice shelf, along with Journalistic Integrity. No, you haven't met.

You know, like the increase in ocean ice in the south Increases? Are you talking about the increase in free floating ice?

Speaking of "An Inconvenient Truth," this reminded me of all the before and after pictures of glaciers and such. Here are a few: melt

certainly possible. We have what? 140,000,000 square miles of ocean? To raise the sea level by 1 foot suddenly means an event involving 28,000 cubic miles of surface ice falling into the ocean in a short timespan (a year or less, perhaps). Assuming a 100 foot thick ice sheet, we're talking 1,400,000 square miles. Somehow, I don't see that as a reasonable event, GIVEN CURRENT CONDITIONS.

Yes, the conditions will change. But they are unlikely to change in such as a way that a piece of ice 100 feet thick and half the area of CONUS (CONtinental US == USA minus Alaska and Hawaii) might fall from land to sea without a significant warning - decades, most likely. Which gives us the decades needed to do the planning required to deal with it. (Bold emphasis mine)

In 2002, 3250 square km fell off the Larsen B Ice shelf over a 35 day period. That converts to about 1255 square miles while the thickness is hard to determine. Assuming there are 100 feet of ice above sea level, thats a little over half an inch in 35 days from a single ice shelf. Also, that article goes on to explain how the most likely cause of the break is climate change. There are other articles about the Ross Ice Shelf and its possibility of sudden collapse. As I'm sure you know, current conditions aren't the only factors that influence the ice. The 2005 deterioration of the B-15 iceberg off the Ross Ice Shelf is suspected to have been caused by a storm near Alaska that produced waves strong enough to break up the ice. The faster icebergs deteriorate, the faster the their ice is turned to water and added to the ocean's volume. I'm not trying to say that this iceberg could raise the sea level by a foot, I'm just trying to demonstrate how it is surely possible for these things to happen relatively quickly compared to decades or a century, and that 2 billion more industrialized people are not needed to cause it.

Even more so, these icebergs are similar to ice or snow on a roof (think 10 inches). As they melt, the edges fall off first. As the edges melt, due to a variety of reasons including internal temperature, mass, gravity and surface area , the rest of the snow melts and falls off at increasing speeds. The icebergs will not melt at a constant rate.

I'm much more concerned that the changes in salinity caused by massive amounts of land-ice going into the oceans will cause - shutdown of the thermohaline conveyer is not totally impossible.

I agree with you, this is a serious concern. Its also hard to know what the effects would be of combining global warming with a potential ice age due to the conveyer shutting down, or any other effects that might come from that.

Now, do you have a solution?

No, and I don't claim to have one. Again, I was just trying to show why I don't think that an increase in global temperature will produce more habitable and fertile land.

I think its important to again point out how this thread started. I'm not saying that I'm completely right on all of this. My goal to show that he was wrong. If you look at the initial post, I don't think you'll agree with that much of what he said anymore, or at least you won't say that he is right with high certainty.

Three days of unseasonable weather in a single location is now proof for a theory that encompasses an entire planet's climate change that would last for (at least) centuries?

What the fuck has happened that real science being discarded for knee-jerk reactions is commonplace and winked at around here? Knee-jerk? I think people just add it to the already mounting evidence that global warming is as real as it gets. Less anyone else around here thinks that losing 720 billion tons of ice from Antartica in 35 days is natural ...

The Antarctic? Nope. Canada's eastern Arctic Archipelago? Nope. The Western Arctic? Nope. (See previous link) Greenland? Nope.

In a paper titled "The Melting of Floating Ice will Raise the Ocean Level" submitted to Geophysical Journal International, Noerdlinger demonstrates that melt water from sea ice and floating ice shelves could add 2.6% more water to the ocean than the water displaced by the ice, or the equivalent of approximately 4 centimeters (1.57 inches) of sea-level rise.

So if all floating sea ice melted sea level would increase just 4 cm. In contrast, if the glaciers in Greenland melted (which you would think would have to happen if all floating sea ice melted), sea level would increase by an estimated 6.5 meters. Losing the Antarctic ice masses (which again would have to happen for all floating sea ice to melt) would increase sea levels by nearly 75 meters. The 4 cm contribution you point out is completely negligible except from an academic standpoint.

"We can extract ice cores and easily date the layers."

No, actually, we can't. You're thinking _ANTARCTIC_ ice layers, not Arctic. Arctic ice is _sea ice_ and as sea ice, it melts and refreezes and it _moves_ all over the damn place.

Arctic sea ice oscillates twice a day.

"Contrary to historical observations, sea ice in the high Arctic undergoes very small, back and forth movements twice a day, even in the dead of winter. It was once believed ice deformation at such a scale was almost non-existent."

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/releases/2004/107.cfm

And there are larger circulations at work, too.

http://nsidc.org/seaice/processes/circulation.html

And ice cores? The ice at the Arctic was 9 feet thick _at its thickest parts_ back in 1958. Just where are you going to get ice cores?

"http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/prrl/prrl9935.html"

"the rate of change is unprecedented"

Prove it. You just pulled that statement _right out of your behind_.

The rate is unprecedented, because _nobody has measured it before_. We've only been measuring since 1958. We don't know if this is a long term cycle or not. There's _not enough data_. Using your thought process, the "Little Ice Age" was "unprecedented"
  too, and were that happening today, you'd be screaming about how we're all going to die because we'll all freeze to death.

I stand by my statements, as they're backed up by fact. Your post, however, certainly _is_ handwaving.

--
BMO

Okay, so let's see. We have data on both sides of the balance. What can we make of it?

On the one hand, we have ONE group of west Himalayan glaciers which are remaining constant or maybe even growing a bit. Meanwhile, the other NINETY FIVE PERCENT of Himalayan glaciers are retreating. http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story /0,6903,1646656,00.html Also, note that the Himalayas (east and west) have a total of 34000 sq km of glaciers.

On the other hand:

There are 1834000 sq km of glaciers in Greenland, which are shrinking. Oh, and the rate of melt is ACCELERATING. Greenland showed a record melt in 2002 ... followed by an even larger one in 2005. http://images.google.com/images?q=greenland+melt+m ap

And of course there's Antarctica, with the world's largest ice mass, which has been losing thousands of sq km each year. http://nsidc.org/iceshelves/

Hmm, but those are just individual parts of the world. We can't possibly draw a conclusion from such limited data without viewing the overall picture... http://images.google.com/images?q=glacier+mass+bal ance+global+OR+cumulative

So, according to Fragmer, thousands of data points confirming loss of glaciers can be counterbalanced by one study that showed the POSSIBILITY of one glacier growing. What a convenient way to view the world.

Great subject line, by the way, and thanks for finding those WMDs.

We as a race of beings are totally insignificant. period. We possibly could change the climate of the world in a rapid fashion if that was the sole goal of all humanity. But one random belch of unusual solar activity or a volcanic eruption could undo all our efforts, or do the job far better, in half the amount of time.

Other areas that are classic fear tools (such as the polar ice caps) are seeing a net increase in that surface feature which is contrary to public desire/opinion/fear

Hey that that kind of looks like the rocks here or here or here or here.

and check out these regularily "cut" bad boys here.

But how do you explain natural pyramids?
Oh I don't know maybe this quote:

"If the glacier erodes three or more cirques on different sides of the mountain, a peak will begin to form. The peak may be a steep pyramid shaped rock, which is known as a horn. The Matterhorn in the Swiss Alps is a well known horn."

Yah!

The majority opinion isn't always right, this is true.... but anyone who has seen anything at all about, say, receding glaciers link to photo compares (there are several of these sites from the USGS and other associated government groups on the web) knows that something is happening, just not what the consequences of it will be....

• There is an administration in power that is heavily invested in oil.
• Said administration has a history of suppressing scientific data - in fact they have taken it to a new level. Ask the Union of Concerned Scientists what they think.
• Said administration has defined this man's science as policy. It never used to be policy to state such things.

It seems to me that the Bush administration is upset with this scientist because he is interfering with their policy of keeping the truth about climate change from the American public.

That requires accurate measurement of precipitation across (sometimes) many square miles of glacier - something we are not doing. So your 'control' is loose at best.

The precision of the data constrains the precision of the conclusion, yes that is true in all science. It does not necessarily invalidate all conclusions. Estimating your potential error is part of doing research.

No, this means that less snow is falling than is required to replenish the glacier. The historical average is meaningless in this instance.

Actually it does not necessarily mean that--did you read what I wrote? A glacier can shrink regardless of how much snow falls on it, if the rate of melting exceeds the rate of replenishment.

Further, the rate of down-valley movement, location of the terminus, location of firn line, and the shape of the glacier can tell you a lot about what is causing the retreat. A glacier with a low firn line, thin firn, and low rate of advance is probably retreating because of decreased precipitation. A glacier with a high firn line and high rate of advance, but retreating terminus and losing mass, is more likely to be retreating due to increased melting.

Certainly it's a clue that something is changing. The question confronting scientists is this; what is changing in the local enviroment and is it representative of a change in the global enviroment? Is is part of a trend? Is it part of a cycle? Once cannot simply say; "the glaciers are retreating! the sky is falling!"

All good questions if you are considering one glacier. But the data shows that alpine glaciers all over the world are retreating. The Global Glacier Mass Balance shows negative mass change for all but 3 of the years since 1960! There is simply no way you can ask if there is a global trend if you're aware of the data. It's blatantly obvious--across the world, alpine glaciers are in retreat.

And I'll point that I did not say anything like "the sky is falling." I said alpine glaciers are retreating, and they're doing it in a way that points the finger at melting due to higher temps.

And in the Year Without A Summer there were hundred of reports of crops freezing, rivers frozen in unexpected places and times, etc... Layman's testimony is essentially meaningless as human memory is extremely plastic

Memory may be plastic but photographs and printed climbing route descriptions are not. I have a copy of Climbing Magazine from the early 90's with an article about climbing in Peru's Cordilla Blanco. Many of those routes are now unclimbable because what was clean ice and snow fields is now crumbly exposed rock. This is also occurring in the Alps, in North America, in New Zealand, in Africa (where the "snows of Kilimanjaro" are almost gone), and even in Asia, where the Khumbu glacier on Mt. Everest is in retreat.

If scientists were really as responsible as they claim - there would be calls from them for $MEGA dollars for increased research. There would be concrete plans being laid for a global monitoring network in order to provide the fine grained data we need.
Instead we get articles about Kyoto and simulations. No wonder even intelligent people don't trust them anymore.

Uh, there ARE those calls and plans. The problem isn't that the scientists aren't ringing the warning bell, the problem is so-called "intelligent people" like yourself who refuse to educate yourself and who ignore the problem. Try digging a little deeper and caring a little more.

"Massive flooding along costal areas "

Well of your un-substantiated claims lets look at this one.

http://nsidc.org/sotc/sea_level.html

So we are looking at 0.42mm a year, due to glacial melt. To reach the claimed 80 Meters of sea level rise that is bandied about for all the claims of coastal flooding it would take 190,000 years to reach that level, since your worried about warming to increase, let's halve that to 95,000 years.

EVERYONE RUN WE'RE GOING TO FLOOD, YOU ONLY HAVE 94,999 years, 11 MONTHS AND 364 DAYS LEFT!!!!!!!

Hell in 100 years we are going to have 4 CENTIMETERS RISE IN SEA LEVELS!!!!!!!!

I'm not worried about it. I expect we'll have evolved gills or wings or something by then, and I'm sure we'll run out of fossil fuels by then, unless Gold is right.

And to shrinking food supplies. Can I ask why food output has steadily increased during the supposed dangerous warming for the 20th century. Hint: Plants love CO2 and warmth, expect bumper crop report again this year, and as we go forward into the future.

The volumes are not the same, due to density differences. See http://nsidc.org/news/press/20050801_floatingice.h tml

This URL has a couple of photos demonstrating it it--ice cube in a beaker.

Also from that URL: "In a paper titled "The Melting of Floating Ice will Raise the Ocean Level" submitted to Geophysical Journal International, Noerdlinger demonstrates that melt water from sea ice and floating ice shelves could add 2.6% more water to the ocean than the water displaced by the ice, or the equivalent of approximately 4 centimeters (1.57 inches) of sea-level rise."

Happy now? Time to stop the denial then.

Ice drilling polar bears?

A few things that you may have missed:
1) Record high temperatures in Europe causing drought and an estimated 35,000 deaths.
2) Global mean surface temperatures have increased 0.5-1.0F since the late 19th century. see here
3) Sea level has risen 4-8 inches over the past century, not good for coastal habitats (Same source at #2).
4) The Larsen B Ice Shelf Collapsed dumping some 720 Billion Tons of Ice into the sea.
Based upon these, arguing that nothing has or will happened is a little foolish don't you think?

As others have pointed out the term Global Warming connotates a rise in average temperature overall not a rise in every local temperature. The 'fact' that it may or may not be colder in some parts of the world now than it was previously does not disprove the theory by any means.

If you have references for your assertions I would be glad to see them.

the movie was quoting something that actually happened

Hate to disappoint you, but Antarctica has been cooling for years:

In Alaska, we often see a hazy sky, caused by pollution from Siberia and points east.

For the long term, we should probably be more worried about the Soviet nuclear waste the Soviets and now the Russians have accumulated in the Arctic and Pacific Oceans. Then there's the nuclear plants, two of them in Siberia, that we're down wind of. They were built by the same government which brought us Chernobyl.

If you're looking for things to worry about, you'll never run out.

Like I said before, the Larsen B Ice Shelf in Antarctica collapsed in 2002, and exposed glaciers have had accellerated movements and melting. Could all this melted ice have affected the carbon sink capacity of the oceans, since this unexplained leap in CO2 coincidentally started around the same time?

Oh, and I just watched The Day After Tomorrow on DVD, and it was all about cataclysmic natural disasters, and the movie began with the collapse of the Larsen B Ice Shelf. Coincidentally, I watched it after my previous post about the ice shelf, without knowing the movie was going to mention it. Kind of wierd.

Like I said before, the Larsen B Ice Shelf in Antarctica collapsed in 2002, and exposed glaciers have had accellerated movements and melting. Could all this melted ice have affected the carbon sink capacity of the oceans, since this unexplained leap in CO2 coincidentally started around the same time?

Oh, and I just watched The Day After Tomorrow on DVD, and it was all about cataclysmic natural disasters, and the movie began with the collapse of the Larsen B Ice Shelf. Coincidentally, I watched it after my previous post about the ice shelf, without knowing the movie was going to mention it. Kind of wierd.

Could this have something to do with the increasing collapse of ice shelves in the Antarctic? Perhaps there is some relationship between the Ozone hole beginning to shrink and the collapse of the Larsen B Ice Shelf, which both coincidentally happened in 2002. Maybe the collapse and accellerated glacier movements triggered some environmental chain reaction that affected the Ozone hole, but in a superficial way that temporarily masks a continued climate change.

Could this have something to do with the increasing collapse of ice shelves in the Antarctic? Perhaps there is some relationship between the Ozone hole beginning to shrink and the collapse of the Larsen B Ice Shelf, which both coincidentally happened in 2002. Maybe the collapse and accellerated glacier movements triggered some environmental chain reaction that affected the Ozone hole, but in a superficial way that temporarily masks a continued climate change.

Could this have something to do with the increasing collapse of ice shelves in the Antarctic? Perhaps there is some relationship between the Ozone hole beginning to shrink and the collapse of the Larsen B Ice Shelf, which both coincidentally happened in 2002. Maybe the collapse and accellerated glacier movements triggered some environmental chain reaction that affected the Ozone hole, but in a superficial way that temporarily masks a continued climate change.

When the ice shelf breaks off, we'll have bigger problems than a new Antarctic base. Like Manhattan transformed into a 3rd Millennium Venice.

...to put it in physics terms, her displacement is zero, but the amount of power that she put out...

since we started measuring (~100 years)

last thousand years (p.4)

On geological timescales

420,000 years BP
Particularly interesting is perhaps this bit:

The recent completion of drilling at Vostok station in East Antarctica has allowed the extension of the ice record of atmospheric composition and climate to the past four glacial-interglacial cycles. The succession of changes through each climate cycle and termination was similar, and atmospheric and climate properties oscillated between stable bounds. Interglacial periods differed in temporal evolution and duration. Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and methane correlate well with Antarctic air-temperature throughout the record. Present-day atmospheric burdens of these two important greenhouse gases seem to have been unprecedented during the past 420,000 years.

Nature has published a lot of interesting reports on the subject over the years and they have an excellent search engine. Give it a shot.

Bonus info on the recession of the world's glaciers. Just because you asked nicely. :-)

And I leave you with this:

These ice cores show a 20th century isotopic enrichment that suggests a large scale warming is underway at low latitudes. The rate of this isotopically inferred warming is amplified at higher elevations over the Tibetan Plateau while amplification in the Andes is latitude dependent with enrichment (warming) increasing equatorward. In concert with this apparent warming, in situ observations reveal that tropical glaciers are currently disappearing.
Tropical glacier and ice core evidence of climate change on annual to millennial time scales..

weird snow pictures from afar and up close.

At least they didn't put the highway across the Larsen ice shelf. Then it would become the mickey mouse water show.

After seeing this Ice Berg from Ross Shelf I'm not sure thats such a good idea at that location if things keep warming up.