Antarctic Ice Discussion

[knocker]

I think he was being sarcastic as you were attributing my reference as garbage/  'denier' speak. 

 

 

Really. When exactly was I supposed to have said that?

 

Just to repeat.

 

I merely quoted from another section from your reference:

 

 

But Dr Claire Parkinson, a senior scientist at Nasa’s Goddard Space Flight Centre, says increasing Antarctic ice does not contradict the general warming trend. Overall the Earth is losing sea ice at a rate of 35,000 sq km per year (13,514 sq miles).

 

“Not every location on the Earth is having the same responses to climate changes. The fact that ice in one part of the world is doing one thing and in another part ice is doing another is not surprising. The Earth is large and as the climate changes it is normal to see different things going on,†says Parkinson.

 

To which 4wd commented that Dr Claire Parkinson was talking a load of garbage. You obviously find that acceptable.

 

Anyway this thread, which should be concerned with scientific discussion about Antarctica which lord knows is interesting enough, has become ridiculous and utterly boring so I'll leave it in the capable hands of you skeptics.

Edited April 13, 2015 by knocker

[stewfox]

 

Anyway this thread, which should be concerned with scientific discussion about Antarctica which lord knows is interesting enough, has become nonsensible and utterly boring so I'll leave it you skeptics.

 

Whats causing the ice growth wind , fresh water , warmer waters ? Why is it 'boring' and I assume you mean 'nonsensical'

 

If a climate model is wrong surely that's worthy of further research ? 

 

Personally i think the comment below from Dr Parkinson is a cop out.

 

""The fact that ice in one part of the world is doing one thing and in another part ice is doing another is not surprising"

 

 I think Dr Parkinson would be more honest if she said we don't know at present the jury is out.

[keithlucky]

No warming in the Antarctic just natural variability finds new paper http://t.co/OgLljpaXe5

[knocker]

No warming in the Antarctic just natural variability finds new paper http://t.co/OgLljpaXe5

 

Keith

 

Although like you I'm confined to reading the synopsis of this paper, it's obviously a useful addition to our knowledge of the complexities of the Antarctic, but why oh why do you prefix the link with, "No warming in the Antarctic just natural variability finds new paper." when it says no such thing.

 

 

“The climate in Antarctica, just like the global climate, tends to be distinctly persistent by nature – it remains in certain temperature ranges for a long time before it changes. This creates a temporal temperature structure of highs and lows,†explains Christian Franzke. “A low, i.e. a longer cold period, will be followed by a longer warm period, and this natural warming has to be differentiated from the superimposed anthropogenic warming,†adds Armin Bunde. The scientists did not only analyze data from individual measuring stations but also generated regional averages. The results show a human influence on the warming of West Antarctica, while this influence is weaker than previously thought. However, the warming of Antarctica altogether will likely increase more strongly soon.

 

For several years temperatures in Antarctica, but also globally, have been increasing less rapidly than in the 1990s. There are a number of reasons for this, e.g. the oceans buffering warmth. The study now published by the German team of scientists shows that man-made global warming has not been pausing - it was temporarily superimposed and therefore hidden by long-term natural climate fluctuations like in Antarctica. “Our estimates show that we are currently facing a natural cooling period – while temperatures nonetheless rise slowly but inexorably, due to our heating up the atmosphere by emitting greenhouse gas emissions,†explains Hans Joachim Schellnhuber. “At the end of this natural cold spell temperatures will rise even more fiercely. Globally, but also in Antarctica which therefore is in danger of tipping.† In fact, in March 2015 two Antarctic measuring stations registered high-temperature records. 

[Midlands Ice Age]

Keith

 

Although like you I'm confined to reading the synopsis of this paper, it's obviously a useful addition to our knowledge of the complexities of the Antarctic, but why oh why do you prefix the link with, "No warming in the Antarctic just natural variability finds new paper." when it says no such thing.

 

To me it looks as though the scientists have split views on the data being presented   (nothing new there then!) 

 

1)  Its mainly showing natural changes

 

2) Its showing natural changes, but west Antartica is warming up and this expected to spread to the rest at some point. (could be fair enough)

 

3) Its all down to anthropegenic and to prove it the last month has seen 2 world records!, presumably this was added as an afterthought as the other two didn't mention it. I guess this refers to the high temps seen off the extreme north side of Antartica. (towards South America). It does look odd to put it in the conclusions when they have analysed the last 50 years of data and chooses to highlight the last month in the summary..

 

To me this again looks like a botched up job to produce a 'flysheet' by a summarizer to stick on the report to show some anthro-warming.

 

It would be very interesting to see the actual report with the range of views expressed   in the summary!

 

MIA.

Edited April 17, 2015 by Midlands Ice Age

[knocker]

Just a reminder that your fellow skeptic posted the Potsdam Institute's summary of their own paper, not me. I was merely pointing out that the accompanying 'spin' was, not only unnecessary, but inaccurate.

 

Just to add the summary seemed quite clear and non contradictory to me.

[knocker]

Shrinking Antarctic has us skating on thin ice

 

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/shrinking-antarctic-has-us-skating-on-thin-ice-20150419-1mmvh4.html?stb=twt

[Midlands Ice Age]

Shrinking Antarctic has us skating on thin ice

 

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/shrinking-antarctic-has-us-skating-on-thin-ice-20150419-1mmvh4.html?stb=twt

 

 

Knocker ....

 

 A little bit alarmist don't you think?

 

30 Meters of sea level rise caused by Antarctica in the forseeeable !

 

I think it just as likely we will have an Ice age by the time that happens.

 

I suppose we must expect more of this bs before the Paris Conference. He clearly is after his share of the spoils.

 

Also no mention of the recent discovery of the ice being much thicker  than was anticipated and extending downwards much deeper under the ocean. Definately no menton of the Australian cruise down there a couple of years back.

 

MIA

Edited April 20, 2015 by Midlands Ice Age

[stewfox]

Shrinking Antarctic has us skating on thin ice

 

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/shrinking-antarctic-has-us-skating-on-thin-ice-20150419-1mmvh4.html?stb=twt

 

 

 

Antarctica sea ice now at a record (for time of year)

 

https://ads.nipr.ac.jp/vishop/vishop-extent.html?S

 

Is there any updated research that could explain this ie wind or fresh water melt ??

 

I would have through fresh water would have been mixed out when it was hundreds of miles out at sea  ?

 

The article refers to """""grounded ice of Antarctica is flowing into the ocean faster than snowfall replenishes it"" 

 

Would have thought there would be some research by now, same for wind to explain why there is so much sea ice these days ie 2 million above the 1980's figures already. That's 4 times the area of France and the re freeze had just started.

 

ie 8768603 at 19/4 cf 6887436 (average 1980s) .

Edited April 20, 2015 by stewfox

[Devonian]

Knocker ....

 

 A little bit alarmist don't you think?

 

30 Meters of sea level rise caused by Antarctica in the forseeeable !

 

....

MIA

Read the article again and don't mislead us please. The article did not, nor did the author, say that...

[BARRY]

That claim consists of about 30 metres of potential sea-level rise. Most of that sea level is safe for millennia, but perhaps not all of it. Indeed, we now know that two huge areas of potential instability sit, almost unstudied by anyone, within the Australian Antarctic Territory.?

[Devonian]

That claim consists of about 30 metres of potential sea-level rise. Most of that sea level is safe for millennia, but perhaps not all of it. Indeed, we now know that two huge areas of potential instability sit, almost unstudied by anyone, within the Australian Antarctic Territory.?

Right!

[Midlands Ice Age]

Read the article again and don't mislead us please. The article did not, nor did the author, say that...

 

Ok Then...

 

Why did he mention it ?.   Oh, I see, you do not think it was put in the paper for effect then, you think it is realistic!!??  Why else would he put it there?

 

So you do not think the figure was included to scare people, with Paris coming up??

 

'The Australian sector of the Antarctic continent (about 40% of the total) has the potential to raise the sea level by 30 meters.'  'A further area of substantial instability has been found which increases the chances of substantial sea level rise in the future'..  These are not the statement of an unbiased scientific researcher, before any scientific work has started. 

 

My point is that there is as much potential for the next ice age to occur in the foreseeable as his prediction of future widespread inundations from Antarctic sea ice.

 

So why not explain your view so that we can all debate and you can proudly proclaim you were right. Or is he talking about 500 - 1000 years time?

 

MIA

 

Edit

 

Barry - Just seen your post, why do you think he came up with the number !

Edited April 20, 2015 by Midlands Ice Age

[Devonian]

Ok Then...

 

Why did he mention it ?.   Oh, I see, you do not think it was put in the paper for effect then, you think it is realistic!!??  Why else would he put it there?

 

So you do not think the figure was included to scare people, with Paris coming up??

 

'The Australian sector of the Antarctic continent (about 40% of the total) has the potential to raise the sea level by 30 meters.'  'A further area of substantial instability has been found which increases the chances of substantial sea level rise in the future'..  These are not the statement of an unbiased scientific researcher, before any scientific work has started.  Whats the point in doing the work  when  he knows its going to happen?

 

My point is that there is as much potential for the next ice age to occur in the foreseeable as his prediction of future widespread inundations from Antarctic sea ice.

 

So why not explain your view so that we can all debate and you can proudly proclaim you were right. Or is he talking about 500 - 1000 years time?

 

MIA

The full paragraph said:

 

"Australia should not stand back and wait for other nations to do the work for us. Our Antarctic claim, frozen under the Antarctic Treaty, is to 44 per cent of the continent. That claim consists of about 30 metres of potential sea-level rise. Most of that sea level is safe for millennia, but perhaps not all of it. Indeed, we now know that two huge areas of potential instability sit, almost unstudied by anyone, within the Australian Antarctic Territory."

 

He is a scientist - and a damn good one by the looks of it. Scientists are interested in their field of study. If it's particle physics they want to go to CERN, if it's rockets to NASA, if it's ice sheets to Antarctica. He wants to learn about it. Why? Because humans are curious about things and knowledge is good. Because the knowledge we already have leads scientists to think there is a risk (a RISK) our actions might destabalise some ice sheets. When particle physicists or rocket scientist want to know that's fine because no vested interest get worried, but when the climate is a scientists interest then some people know better because....

Edited April 20, 2015 by Devonian

[Midlands Ice Age]

The full paragraph said:

 

"Australia should not stand back and wait for other nations to do the work for us. Our Antarctic claim, frozen under the Antarctic Treaty, is to 44 per cent of the continent. That claim consists of about 30 metres of potential sea-level rise. Most of that sea level is safe for millennia, but perhaps not all of it. Indeed, we now know that two huge areas of potential instability sit, almost unstudied by anyone, within the Australian Antarctic Territory."

 

He is a scientist - and a damn good one by the looks of it. Scientists are interested in their field of study. If it's particle physics they want to go to CERN, if it's rockets to NASA, if it's ice sheets to Antarctica. He wants to learn about it. Why? Because humans are curious about things and knowledge is good. Because the knowledge we already have leads scientists to think there is a risk (a RISK) our actions might destabalise some ice sheets. When particle physicists or rocket scientist want to know that's fine because no vested interest get worried, but when the climate is a scientists interest then some people know better because....

 

So Dev,  he is taking the worst case for his figures and presenting them as a possibililty. 

 

Thats like in your example saying lets use the hadron collider at CERN to produce a black hole!!

Or even the extremes of the climate models showing a 6C warming by 2100!!!

 

The chances of 33 meters happening are minute, but it is the only figure he has presented in his overview of the work.

 

If he stated that the  increase measured  so far was about 16 inches in one hundred years, it would be sensible and realistic,  he could even suggest that the trend may be upwards, but to quote 33meters, is simply scare-mongering and sensationalism, not science.

 

The guy is clearly a salesman NOT a scientist.

 

Maybe you think this is the way to present scientific research (for climate change). . I do not.

 

MIA.

Edited April 20, 2015 by Midlands Ice Age

[Devonian]

So Dev,  he is taking the worst case for his figures and presenting them as a possibililty.

 

Well, his mind isn't closed. 'tis true...

 

Thats like in your example saying lets use the hadron collider at CERN to produce a black hole!!

Or even the extremes of the climate models showing a 6C warming by 2100!!!

 

The chances of 33 meters happening are minute, but it is the only figure he has presented in his overview of the work.

 

If he stated that the  increase measured  so far was about 16 inches in one hundred years, it would be sensible and realistic,  he could even suggest that the trend may be upwards, but to quote 33meters, is simply scare-mongering and sensationalism, not science.

 

The guy is clearly a salesman NOT a scientist.

 

Maybe you think this is the way to present scientific research (for climate change). . I do not.

 

MIA.

I'm glad you know what the risks are. Personally, I'd rather a scientists expert in the field of ice sheet and how they work gave me advice - thanks. Edited April 20, 2015 by Devonian

[Gray-Wolf]

Until folk see a rapid 'collapse' in Greenland ( Jakobshavn this summer?) folk will hide behind their "it can't happening so fast" . Then they will retreat to the " it won't be the same in Antarctica" meme but , of course, it will.

 

Some indicators , though small, show us what is coming.

 

 I always use the 'Dam' to illustrate and we have been measuring  'cracks' along the face of the dam since the turn of the century. We know its 'warm water' that is doing the damage and whilst the naysayers have been applauding the slowdown in atmospheric temp gains they balked at the notion that the bulk of any warming ends up in the oceans ( seeing as they cover so much of the planet and have such a huge heat capacity) and so they ignore the data showing a rise in the rate of the warming of the upper oceans ( from the Argo array) and fail to link this with impacts like we saw on North Svalbard since 2012.

 

The major calve of Jakobshavn in Feb sets us up to witness this marine terminating glacier move upstream of the 'lip' it's grounding line currently sits on ( so allowing ocean inundation to the valley beyond and rapid retreat of the grounding line into Greenland). With Antarctica's Pine Glacier in the same position we will see just what we are to expect over the coming decades ( when Totten will also begin its retreat)

 

When we look at our measures of both Greenland darkening or Arctic Sea ice losses we see our modeled plots of change start off matching observation but then the observations plummet whilst modeled response plods along above. I would guess that mass loss from both Greenland and Antarctica will take the rapid loss path rather than the slow 'drip,drip' modeled path?

[Gael_Force]

The ice extent has been running a bit below the figure for 2014 but a surge yesterday sees a new daily record.

 

Previous for 20th - 8.901 in '14; yesterday the figure was 8.911

 

Figures from the links on previous pages.

 

Is this supposed to be growing because of the rapid melt in the land ice as mentioned in last couple of posts?

[4wd]

I fail to see how there is 'rapid land melt' when the temperatures are declining or at least barely changed.
There's more ice because it's colder - simple as that.

[Gray-Wolf]

I fail to see how there is 'rapid land melt' when the temperatures are declining or at least barely changed.

There's more ice because it's colder - simple as that.

 

Well there you go!

 

If you do not understand how 'land ice' ends up melted then you do not understand how the ice sheet operates do you? 

 

The doubling of mass loss does not mean that vast swathes of the continent has suddenly gone above freezing but that the 'buttresses' holding the ice back on land are failing allowing the ice to naturally 'drain' , under gravity, into the fluid ocean ( and ice in a fluid does what?)

[keithlucky]

Antarctic sea ice on a steady rise a daily record set 1.6 million above the mean 1981-2000

[mikeworst]

"

The doubling of mass loss does not mean that vast swathes of the continent has suddenly gone above freezing but that the 'buttresses' holding the ice back on land are failing allowing the ice to naturally 'drain' , under gravity, into the fluid ocean ( and ice in a fluid does what?)"

Rubbish, what is supposed to be melting these so-called buttresses of yours when temperatures are stable (cold) as are sst? Sea ice in Antarctica is expanding year by year and cannot physically do so with warm seas or land temperatures. 

[4wd]

 ( and ice in a fluid does what?)

Chills it mainly.

All speculation and cortorted posturing in the rest of the post, because it's politically unacceptable to believe the unchanged chilly state of Antarctica

[stewfox]

"

 

Rubbish, what is supposed to be melting these so-called buttresses of yours when temperatures are stable (cold) as are sst? Sea ice in Antarctica is expanding year by year and cannot physically do so with warm seas or land temperatures. 

 

It is a tough one for the warmest. winds ,melt water etc. We really need to move on from 'we don't know' cira 2007 its grown much more since summer and winter.

------------------------

"""Antarctic sea ice is complex and counter-intuitive. Despite warming waters, complicated factors unique to the Antarctic region have combined to increase sea ice production. The simplistic interpretation that it's caused by cooling is false""

 

https://www.skepticalscience.com/increasing-Antarctic-Southern-sea-ice-intermediate.htm

[knocker]

 

For those that caught my newest “This is Not Cool† video of last week, Trouble at Totten Glacier, you saw clips of my recent interview with Jamin Greenbaum of the University of Texas Center for Geophysics.

I’ve selected some more in depth clips to share here for some deeper understanding. This is part one, about 4 minutes.

 

http://climatecrocks.com/2015/04/20/jamin-greenbaum-on-totten-glacier-part-one/

 

 

Below, the Totten video for anyone that missed it.