Larsen Ice Shelf Collapses

Cally writes in: "The BBC reports that the Larsen B Ice Shelf in Antarctica, a 200m thick ice floe covering 3,250 sq km, has disintegrated. This is terrible news. The widely respected British Antarctic Survey are quoted as saying "We knew what was left would collapse eventually, but the speed of it is staggering[...] [It is hard] to believe that 500 billion tonnes of ice sheet has disintegrated in less than a month." As a Greenpeace member who's been following the debate for over a decade, it's hard not to feel aggrieved at those with their own agenda who have pushed the theory that global climate change isn't happening. Risk = probability x consequence..." The big iceberg is a separate event.

Comments

Weather patterns

[reachinmark]

It bothers me that people think they can make assumptions about the Earth's weather patterns based on roughly 100 years (NASA: Surface Temperature Analysis) of temperature data.

Given that we are constantly learning about various cycles in global climate, some of which seem to span over thousands of years ( E.g. NASA: The Sun-Weather connection), you can't possibly claim for certain that any temperature fluctuations over the past 10, 20 or 50 years are due exlusively to our behaviour.

I'm not against cleaning up the earth, I just think that global warming isn't a good argument.

Re:Weather patterns

[Cally]

It bothers me that people think they can make assumptions about the Earth's weather patterns based on roughly 100 years (NASA: Surface Temperature Analysis [nasa.gov]) of temperature data.

We don't. We use proxy measurements such as bubbles of air trapped in ice core samples, sediments from lake beds, tree rings, etc etc etc. using many different measurements, which often overlap (and hence correlate each other) we have a fairly good idea of the paleoclimate back to several billion years ago.

Re:Oh my goodness no!

[Denito]

Your post is typical of the 'skepticism by convience' found so often in this debate..

Here are some resources:

BBC Report

EPA website on global warming

Union of concerned scientists.

btw, you forgot to post your evidence.. (typical skeptic evidence: We don't know for 10000000000% sure, so this must be environmentalist propoganda"

-D

p.s. Ok, I'll say It. You, are a mo-ron.

Re:Oh my goodness no!

[general_re]

I'm in, then.

John Daly's massive clearinghouse, Still Waiting for Greenhouse
An article by MIT meteorology professor Richard Lindzen.

There's lots more, but others might want to play.

Two graphs to consider.

[e_lehman]

If you're unsure where you stand on the issue of global warming, you might want to look at the following two graphs. The first shows that carbon dioxide levels are rapidly rising. There is no real question that this is much human induced. At the same time, global temperatures are also dramatically rising. Here the extent of human influence is more debatable. It is possible that an apparent cause (rising CO2) and an apparent effect (rising temperatures) are both happening independently but, coincidentally, at the same time. And, also at the same time, there is some other, unknown force causing the entire planet to heat. It truly is possible. But I wouldn't personally bet the world on that.

Re:Two graphs to consider.

[winwar]

"Who are you going to believe - fat cats with strong financial interest in doing nothing to halt CO2 production, or imkpartial scientists whose career and reputation rests on the validity of their findings, models, and predictions?"

Well, certain well respected scientists (Dr. S. Fred Singer) have a healthy scepticism towards many claims of global warming.

Second, scientists tend not to be impartial either. I work with them all the time (I'm a graduate geology student at the Ohio State University). Their success is dependent upon funding and publishing, validity and accuracy much less so. What do you think is more likely to get funding-screaming human induced global warming is going to destroy us all or saying that we don't really know how humans are/or if they are influencing global warming?

Finally, I am perfectly qualified to judge whether a model is bad. If you have a basic understanding of models, their limits, and science, you can do it too. It is fairly easy to point out errors in a model (it is much more difficult to determine if it is good). Does it account for all of the variables (never seen one that could or did)? If it doesn't, can they prove it isn't important? Can it predict the past? If it can't, then how can it predict the future? Etc.

Re:Two graphs to consider.

[speedbump]

i have a basic scientific training also, so your assertions that I'm not qualified to understand the topic and make a judgement, based on the information presented, is insulting.

If we really want to get hard-core scientific here, we've got to say that climate prediction is not a 'science' until we can accurately predict weather in any part of the globe, at least three days in advance. We can't do that yet, let alone in a hundred or a hundred thousand years.

"Who are you going to believe - fat cats with strong financial interest in doing nothing to halt CO2 production, or imkpartial scientists whose career and reputation rests on the validity of their findings, models, and predictions?"

It isn't just impartial scientists who are lobbying for climate control. The Greenies definately have an agenda, and I do not trust their 'science' any more than I do the nitwits who implanted lynx fur.

If you don't want a civilization to continue to rely on carbon-based fuels, then stop using related products, or better yet, invent a cheap, renewable energy source yourself and release it into the public domain. I'll buy you as many beers as you want if you do that.

Re:Two graphs to consider.

[jerryasher]

a small nit:

If we really want to get hard-core scientific here, we've got to say that climate prediction is not a 'science' until we can accurately predict weather in any part of the globe, at least three days in advance. We can't do that yet, let alone in a hundred or a hundred thousand years.

When I pedal down the road, or when I examine a topo map, over large distances I can accurately predict whether the road will be rising or falling. But I can't tell you what the road will be doing for the next 100 feet.

Who was Larsen? What lessons to learn from him?

[geoswan]

I am guessing that the Larsen this shelf is named after was the Captain of the St Roch, the second vessel to traverse the NW passage, and the first to do so from West to East. Here is a link and another one.

The St Roch, commanded by Sergeant Larsen, needed 28 months to complete its first traverse of the NW passage, during WW2. (Basically defending the Canadian Arctic from our insensitive American allies.) The recreation of its voyage, in 2000, encountered clear sailing in waters that had been choked with ice sixty years earlier, providing very clear evidence of global warming.

Meanwhile, In other news ...

[gewalker]

According to most scientistics, the retreat in the West Antarctic ice sheet has been occuring for 10,000 years.

Also on BBC, Ice thickens in West Antarctica

Sun is hotter, but shrinking (mass energy conversion, you know).

Maybe we should realize that perhaps some of the global warming hype is just hype. Everytime there is a heat wave on the news coasts, there a new round of global warming stories. Normal climate variability is large, and modern winters are not the warmest ever (or even in modern history). Check out Minnesota 1877. The observed long-term warming trend since 1900 is not unusual in terms of climate history.

BTW, risk of Kyoto protocol is followed in 100% of the expected cost, because it is certain damage to world economy.

Re:Who caused the Ice Age?

[goober]

>Finally, who caused the last Ice Age?

One new theory, the Raymo-Chambelin Hypothesis, suggests that the last ice age was triggered by the collision of the Indian subcontinent and Asia, and the subsequent uplift of the Himalayan plateau. This caused a sharp increase in chemical weathering in Southeast Asia which removed CO2 from the atmosphere (reverse greenhouse effect) and dropped temperatures. Cool!

Not based on the last 100 years at all.

[Moderation abuser]

The trends have been measured over several thousand years using ice cores and sediment analysis.

Re:The Earth's temperature has ALWAYS fluctuated.

[mwillis]

Actually, another ice age has been theorized. Europe could enter another ice age because of global warming.

Worldwide ecology is a complicated system, and Europe owes much of its warmth to actions of salty atlantic ocean currents. We don't know if the North Atlantic thermohaline circulation locations will move farther from europe... but if it did, let's just note that in Canada, there are polar bears at Edinburgh's latitude. Of course, it might also move closer, and europe could get even warmer.

Some more information: Natural Science Article, The Atlantic Online

ps - I'm not sure if I really buy all this, but the lack of certainty does inspire some concern.

Re:Not that much water

[iceT]

Talk about checking your math... You're proposing that the DRY surface area of the planet is 361,000,000 million meters square? There are million square-foot BUILDINGS in the world. Doesn't that seem a little LIGHT to you?

When I square 6,376,000, I get 4.06e+13. Now, times 3.142 = 1.277e+14. And, times 4, I get 5.10e+14.

That's 510,000,000,000,000 meters square. Times .25, you get 127,700,000,000,000 square meters of dry land.

Colder and Thicker

[carbon3C]

I've heard several reports that we may be on the upward curve of an earthy cycle towards another ice age. This article mentions that the Antarctic ice sheet is actually getting thicker and colder.

Creating yet another challenge for global climate change modelers to consider, scientists report that the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is not thinning as previously believed, but is instead growing thicker. This finding, suggest Ian Joughin of the California Institute of Technology and Slawek Tulaczyk of the University of California--Santa Cruz, may indicate an end to the Holocene retreat of the region's Ross Ice Streams.

Although previously reported analyses of ice thickness indicate a long-term, ice-thinning trend, those results, the two scientists explain, were based on limited, in situ measurements of ice flow velocity. In contrast, Joughin and Tulaczyk's analysis takes advantage of the much-expanded database available from ice-flow velocity measurements obtained using Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar.

The new data, which provide the best assessment yet of the mass balance of the Ross Ice Streams, indicate the ice sheet is growing by 26.8 gigatons annually, in contrast to older estimates that there has been an ice mass shrinkage of 20.9 gigatons annually. The researchers say that stagnation of some of the region's ice stream flows is the primary contributor to the ice buildup.

There are, however, numerous uncertainties. Most notably, the ice flow in the region of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is extremely complex, and the data that have been obtained so far do not suggest clearly how the ice sheet will evolve over the next few centuries. Although the thickening could in fact be a decadal-scale fluctuation, Joughin and Tulaczyk contend that current thermodynamic models and data suggest ice stream flow could continue to slow, and possibly even stagnate, leading to further ice buildup. (Science 2002, 295, 476-480).

Re:The earth changes..

[MtViewGuy]

BINGO!!

I think too many environmentalists ignore the fact that human activity is nothing compared to what Nature can do. Do you know that a single hurricane can cause destruction on a scale that makes even our biggest nuclear bombs look puny? Look at what hurricane Camille did in 1969--destruction on an unimaginable scale. Or the fact that a single major volcanic eruption can cause climate changes, as witnessed by the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in the Philippines in 1991, which actually cooled the atmosphere for over a year? We know that the eruption of Mt. Tambora in what is now Indonesia in 1815 (which sent 15 cubic miles of volcanic ash into the atmosphere) caused much of the Northern Hemisphere to cool quite rapidly--indeed, there are records of blizzards in the upper Hudson River Valley in early July 1816!

For everyone looking at that book

[mikosullivan]

in which the author systematically demolishes most of the non-scientific arguments of the "green" lobby

... only for certain values of "demolish" and "most". Be sure to look at these opposing views as well as the book itself:

• UCS examines The Skeptical Environmentalist
• Nine things journalists should know about The Skeptical Environmentalist

As a long time skeptic on many issues myself (just ask my friends who have asked me what sign I am) skepticism is a good thing. Just remember that it goes both ways.

-Miko

Graphs and Statistics

[Dante Aliegri]

I won't bother arguging one way or other,
but I'd like to mention a very intersting book
that everyone should at least take a look at
in regards to this topic --
the Skeptical Enviromentalist
by Bjorn Lomborg.
Just pick it up at your local Barnes and Nobles
and leaf through it. You won't be dissapointed you did.

--Dante

More Info

[Alien54]

RFN had this last night. But here is a page with some other photos.

RFN had links to other research sites, some of which have pics every week or two for the past two months.

Re:Please explain

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right about the ice cup expirement. Icebergs, ice shelfs, the northern ice pack.. are all already displacing water.. so if they melt, sea level would be unchanged.

The issue is truely the ice caps and glaciers. As those melt, that water will end up in the oceans everywhere. Either via the water cycle, or directly via a stream/river etc.

I'm not sure what you mean by Antartica being the first to flood. When you add water to the ocean, it adds watter to all the oceans. it doesn't stay confined to one area.

Re:Oh my goodness no!

[Cally]

Some more sources.



http://www.pewclimate.org/
http://www.marshall. org/
http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/welcome.html
http: //www.scienceforum.net/
http://www.rivm.nl/env/in t/ipcc/tar.html
http://www.worldwatch.org/
http: //www.epa.gov/globalwarming/index.html
http://www .ipcc.ch/
http://www.unep.org/unep/eia/geo2000/
http://www.earthdot.org/
http://www-climate.mcs.a nl.gov
http://wwwghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/Model/model.h tml
http://www-unix.mcs.anl.gov/acpi/



And some (mostly BBC) stories related to climate change:


http://news.bbc.co.uk/low/english/sci/tech/newsi d_ 1880000/1880566.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/low/eng lish/sci/tech/newsid_ 1833000/1833902.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/low/eng lish/sci/tech/newsid_ 1528000/1528348.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/low/eng lish/in_depth/sci_tec h/2002/boston_2002/newsid_1825000/1825283.stm
htt p://news.bbc.co.uk/low/english/world/americas/n ewsid_1820000/1820584.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/l ow/english/sci/tech/newsid_ 1804000/1804467.stm
http://science.nasa.gov/headl ines/y2002/15jan_gree nhouse.htm?list98953
http://news.bbc.co.uk/low/en glish/sci/tech/newsid_ 1782000/1782691.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/low/eng lish/sci/tech/newsid_ 1779000/1779619.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/low/eng lish/sci/tech/newsid_ 1718000/1718183.stm
http://www.spacedaily.com/new s/early-earth-01k.htm l
http://news.bbc.co.uk/low/english/world/america s/n ewsid_1375000/1375089.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/l ow/english/sci/tech/newsid_ 1664000/1664887.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/low/eng lish/sci/tech/newsid_ 1706000/1706823.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/low/eng lish/uk/england/newsi d_1661000/1661560.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/low/e nglish/sci/tech/newsid_ 1643000/1643156.stm
http://science.nasa.gov/headl ines/y2001/ast07sep_1 .htm?list98953

Re:I wouldn't tak eGreenpeace's word for it.

[Cally]

...and by the way the quotes are from the British Antarctic Survey who, as I said in the story, are respected around the world - what with having been there since 1912, and all. THEY are not sandal-wearing hippie museli munchers: they'r PhDs, grad students, professors etc who spend 6 months a year living on the ice.

Re:Greenhouse Gasses

[suitti]

For any heat base power generation system, like nuclear, gas, coal, oil, the best efficiency that thermodynamics allows is 50%. So, a 1 Gigawatt power plant must produce at least 1 gigawatt of heat. We used to dump this into our rivers. But a 10 megawatt plant on the Connecticut river would raise the temperature of the river by 10 degrees F, forever. This is an ecological disaster, not because it's 10 degrees, but because it's instant. Ecosystems require more time than instant to adapt.

Dumping the heat into the air gets rid of the heat pretty well. That's what the hyperbolic towers are for. Most of the heat radiates into space.

A Nuke plant's pollution is thus mainly a little waste heat. Of course, the gigawatt of electrical power eventually is turned into heat, too.

Nuke plants are pretty expensive to operate. You have to be extremely careful, which costs money. The cost of fuel is quite low - nearly insignificant, like $10/megawatt hour.

There is a hidden cost, and I'm not sure that it has been paid yet. Once the fuel is consumed, it must be disposed of. At the moment, we're storing the spent fuel at the Nuke plant. This is a short term stopgap proceedure. We need a longer term solution. The current proposed solution in the US is very late, and way over budget. Since you must store the spent fuel for a million years, you must store it in a geologically benign place. Since a million years is a long time, I'd argue that no such place exists. So, you have to design it so that it is possible to move the fuel from time to time. This will provide us with an additional cost stream forever.

The other cost is that, statistically, there will be other 3 Mile Island, Chernobyl, etc., incidents. The more plants you run, the higher the chances.

The UK is talking about ramping up to 10% of their power derived from wind energy. It is expected to be competitive with other power types.

Solar power isn't currently considered viable, but should become so pretty soon.

At the moment, we heat our houses by burning more fossile fuels. We could heat them by using waste heat from electrical power plants. Purdue University runs it's own electrical power plant, and heats the campus as a side effect. It's not a new idea.

Conservation provided the US most of the way out of the 70's energy crisis. Reducing the highway speed limit saved about 15% in fuel. And, it happens instantly - despite what President Bush said.

We don't really have to drive gas guzzling SUVs. My primary car averages about 33 MPG. It's a 4 door sedan, about 14 years old. I'd like to replace it with something more efficient. Several products are available and affordable.

I've started replacing incandescant lights in the house with screw-in flouresant bulbs. These last longer, produce the same light but use much less power and produce less heat. I'm finding that I can't use them everywhere, but they work in most places. My electric bill is lower.

Re:The earth changes..

[Znork]

Yep, 2001 is warmer than 1653, however, 1500-1600 was the coldest period in the last 2000 years, and it's still far colder than it used to be between 0 and 1000 AD. Take a look at this link for a graph of the last 10K years of temperature history.Another interesting link would be this one.

There is no doubt the climate is getting warmer, but if CO2 is the reason, why was the earth far warmer than today when we had no CO2 emissions at all?

Personally I doubt the CO2 theory. It doesnt explain earlier climate changes. And if the CO2 theory is invalid, it takes resources away from dealing with the actual problems a climate change we can do nothing about will cause.

(Of course, there are many reasons why we should decrease CO2 emissions anyway, but I dont think global warming is one of them.)

Re:Oh my goodness no!

[letxa2000]

Temperatures recorded worldwide by satellites have shown no global warming in the 23 years they've been operating (since 1979).

The satellite record is much more accurate because it covers 90%+ of the earth whereas the surface record only covers a small fraction of the earth. I.e., where there are cities, mostly in the northern hemisphere, and almost no constant readings from the high seas.

Further, the surface record is heavily biased due to the fact that urban sprawl has created "heat islands" around cities. Recording stations that used to be out in the fields are now in the middle of parking lots.

While the greenies have tried to discredit the satellite record, they haven't succeeded, and the satellite record is the most reliable and accurate information we have about global temperatures. And they haven't increased in 23 years.

Those of us that don't believe in human-caused global warming are NOT living in denial nor is it that we could care less about the planet. Those of us who don't believe in global warming have taken the time to study the facts and come to a conclusion which is very unpopular in today's culture.

But, say this to yourself until you understand what you means: THERE HAS BEEN NO GLOBAL WARMING IN THE 23 YEARS WE'VE HAD SATELLITES MONITORING GLOBAL TEMPERATURES.

Re:Oh my goodness no!

[rm-r]

Actually science shows us how global temperatures DROP after major volcano blasts. By comparing thr rings on tree trunks (thiner in cold years, wider in warm years) to a record of big blasts (such as here.)

Your turn.

PS why should I blind believe you over 'the greenies'? No doubt you have an agenda to, yet you seem to think you are the only one who knows theirs

Re:Oh my goodness no!

[Not2Bryt64]

Umm, actually plant growth is much more related to the amount of sunshine that the plant gets over the course of it's active cycle. The longer and sunnier a summer is, the more growth that occurs. The diminished growth observed in the years following a major volcanic event could probably be better tied to the amount of ash in the upper atmosphere, which blocks the sunlight. Cooler temperatures are a byproduct of this, and are thus _indirectly_ related to the amount of growth recorded in the trees. The localized (localized by a few years) effect of lowered temperatures is not an indication of whether or not the volcanic event has effected "global warming" as even the greenies point to the fact that global warming is a gradual effect which can only be seen over the course of decades. Of course they only point that out when it helps their argument.

Warm/Cold

[The Asmodeus]

When I was growing up, they where talking about the upcoming New Ice Age. There where scientists on TV telling about why this was coming and how bad it was going to be. Then, people started talking about global warming with the same dire predictions.

I have a hard time giving any credit to the "scientists" who reverse themselves every 30 or so years. The planet goes through cycles. Sure we need to stay as clean as possible and I'm all for protecting our home. But this Chicken Little routine is getting old.

Re:The Earth's temperature has ALWAYS fluctuated.

[Reziac]

As you say, global climate shifts have always happened, and our piddly couple hundred years of records are nothing against the overall patterns, which probably have more to do with orbital wobbles and variations in the sun's output than anything that happens on the microcosm of the Earth's surface. Even relatively massive surface events like Krakatoa (which IIRC put out more dust and "greenhouse gasses" in one swell foop than all of humanities' efforts combined) don't have a lasting effect against the overall patterns of climate.

Not only that, but per studies that didn't have an axe to grind, it turns out natural sources of "greenhouse gasses" -- swamps and such -- outstrip humanity's production by several orders of magnitude.

Furthermore, that the biggest human-caused waste-gasses and general-atmospheric-pollutants production spike took place about 1890 (during the major spasms of the Industrial Revolution) and has dropped ever since.

Methinks coincidence is being taken for causation again.

Re:Greenhouse Gasses

[matthewd]

This FAQ may be helpful on the question of when Uranium will run out:

http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/nucl ea r-faq.html

I thought it was interesting that the naturally occuring uranium impurities in coal could produce more power via fission than burning the coal itself.

This page also has some interesting points:

http://pw1.netcom.com/~res95/energy/nuclear.html

Re:The Earth's temperature has ALWAYS fluctuated.

[zudark]

"Even relatively massive surface events like Krakatoa (which IIRC put out more dust and "greenhouse gasses" in one swell foop than all of humanities' efforts combined)".

This "volcanos are worse greenhouse emitters than humanity" bit keeps popping back up ever since Rush was spouting about it for a while in the early/mid 90's. In fact, total global volcanic C02 output is estimated to be about 1/150th that of athropogenic C02 output [Gerlach, T.M., 1991, Present-day CO2 emissions from volcanoes: Transactions of the American Geophysical Union (EOS), v. 72, p. 249, and 254-255.]

Sulfer is a slightly different story -- volcanos actually make up around 50% of natural sulfer emmisions! This is still only about 1/10 as much as human activity produces, however.

About the only area of concern in which volcanos outstrip human emissions are stratospheric injection of various aerosols and dusts during explosive erruptions (rare!) and emmissions of certain heavy metals like selenium. Not lead though -- we still win there :)

Going beyond that to your several orders of magnitude swamps... anthropogenic C02 emmissions total somewhere around 5 to 10Gigatons of carbon per year... gross terrestrial biosphere carbon release is somwhere around 60GT/year, which is in fact less than one order of magnitude. Couple that with the fact that gross terrestrial biosphere _uptake_ of carbon is quite close the emissions, and the net effect on the atmosphere from anthropogenic sources is greater.

-Ethan O'Connor

So lets feed the troll

[ramb]

The petition was something between fraudulent and a horrible joke. Robinson's co-authors included his home-schooled son, 22 at the time, and two astrophysicists. None of the authors had ever done any climate work.

The Oregon Petition, sponsored by the OISM, was circulated in April 1998 in a bulk mailing to tens of thousands of U.S. scientists. In addition to the petition, the mailing included what appeared to be a reprint of a scientific paper. Authored by OISM's Arthur B. Robinson and three other people, the paper was titled "Environmental Effects of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide" and was printed in the same typeface and format as the official Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. A cover note from Frederick Seitz, who had served as president of the NAS in the 1960s, added to the impression that Robinson's paper was an official publication of the academy's peer-reviewed journal.

The NAS(USA) eventually sent out a public rebuke disavowing involvement and pointing out that it's own committee had reached the opposite conclusion.

"The NAS Council would like to make it clear that this petition has nothing to do with the National Academy of Sciences and that the manuscript was not published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences or in any other peer-reviewed journal," it stated in a news release. "The petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy." In fact, it pointed out, its own prior published study had shown that "even given the considerable uncertainties in our knowledge of the relevant phenomena, greenhouse warming poses a potential threat sufficient to merit prompt responses. Investment in mitigation measures acts as insurance protection against the great uncertainties and the possibility of dramatic surprises."

Re:The earth changes..

[Kintanon]

Bad me for replying to myself, but here is a link to check out if you don't believe me.
Climate Study

Kintanon

Re:Mirror

[Spagornasm]

Actually, the article said 500 billion, NOT 500 million billion tons of ice. The two numbers certainly make a world a difference.