Climate warning as Antarctic ice bridge shatters
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Twitter
Independent Minds
BRITISH ANTARCTIC SURVEY / AP
Cracks show how the Wilkins Ice Shelf is collapsing rapidly due to increased temperatures. It is one of 10 shelves in the Antarctic that have shrunk in recent years
enlarge
An ice bridge which held a vast Antarctic ice shelf in place shattered at the weekend and could herald a wider collapse linked to global warming, a leading scientist has warned.
"It's amazing how the ice has ruptured. Two days ago it was intact," said David Vaughan, a glaciologist with the British Antarctic Survey.
A satellite picture from the European Space Agency showed that a 25 mile-long strip of ice believed to pin the Wilkins Ice Shelf in place had splintered at its narrowest point, about 500 metres wide.
The Wilkins, now the size of Jamaica, is one of 10 shelves to have shrunk or collapsed in recent years on the Antarctic Peninsula, where temperatures have risen in recent decades apparently because of global warming.
The satellite image showed a jumble of huge flat-topped icebergs in the sea where the ice bridge had been on Friday. Mr Vaughan, who landed on the flat-topped ice bridge in January in a ski-equipped plane said change in Antarctica was rarely so dramatic. It was his first – and last – visit to the area.
In January, the remaining ice bridge had been surrounded by icebergs the size of shopping malls, many of them trapped in sea ice. A few seals were visible lolling on sea ice in the low Antarctic sunshine.
The loss of the ice bridge, jutting about 20 metres out of the water and almost 100km (62 miles) wide in 1950, may now allow ocean currents to wash away far more of the Wilkins shelf. "My feeling is that we will lose more of the ice, but there will be a remnant to the south," said Mr Vaughan. Ice shelves float on the water, and can be hundreds of metres thick.
Nine other shelves have receded or collapsed around the Antarctic Peninsula in the past 50 years, often abruptly like the Larsen A in 1995 or the Larsen B, further north, in 2002. Cores of sediment on the seabed indicate some of these ice shelves had been in place for at least 10,000 years.
Temperatures on the Antarctic Peninsula have risen by up to about 3C in the past 50 years, the fastest rate of warming in the southern hemisphere. "We believe the warming on the Antarctic Peninsla is related to global climate change, though the links are not entirely clear," Mr Vaughan said. Antarctica's response to warming will go a long way to deciding the pace of global sea level rise.
About 175 nations have been meeting in Bonn, Germany, since 29 March 29 as part of a push to negotiate a new treaty ahead of the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, from 7 to 18 December of 2009. The current talks end on Wednesday.
The loss of ice shelves does not affect sea levels – floating ice contracts as it melts and so does not raise ocean levels. But their loss can allow glaciers on land to slide more rapidly towards the sea, adding water to the oceans.
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited
Reduce your global impact.
Comments
Another opportunity for politiicans to ignore what is happening to the planet we live on in their pusuit of business as usual.
Another opportunity for politiicans to ignore what is happening to the planet we live on in their pusuit of business as usual."
Actually,
it sounds like another excuse for politicians to apply more carbon taxes, to curb "climate change".
and another chance for the "climate change denial mob" to point out the motive for manufacturing the fear of global warming.
the glaciers clearly aren't growing, but it is, business as usual.
id also like to point out that the "climate change denial mob" obviously means well,
and if they are in fact, correct... were lucky to have them watching our backs... or at least trying to.
This however doesn't mean that carbon dioxide emission shouldn't be reduced drastically. It is a major issue which has to be quickly addressed with the sense of urgency it deserves. I remember watching a documentary a few months ago which explained that apparently all this climate change was liberating huge quantity of methane they had just discovered "hidden" in the sea.
It appears to me though that:
"id also like to point out that the "climate change denial mob" obviously means well,
and if they are in fact, correct... were lucky to have them watching our backs... or at least trying to."
is quite wrong. All what these politicians are trying to do is stalling. Climate change is not "news", scientists have been warning about it ever since the end of the 1970s, and nobody gave a damn. Now we know we're doomed, all we can do is try to reduce the damages. Do I have to remind you that we already have "climate refugees" ?
It's about time people stopped trusting a bunch of plutocrats who don't give a sh... about us. Who gave us the mad cows? Who promoted biofuel which leads to deforestation, rise in food prices and riots all across the world when they deliberately put an end to electric cars such as the EV1 which worked just fine in 2000? Who gave billions and billions of Euros to Banks while everybody is struggling with unemployment and rise of prices in daily necessities?
Behind every single promotion - however well-intentioned they appear - there is a lobby and you can do nothing about it except getting informed and consume according to your beliefs. Take meat for instance. It's an industry that takes a third of the world production of cereals ( 50% in 2050 according to the FAO), yet we consume three times more than what we need in proteins. In fact, eating meat or fish once a week is more than enough but no: Let's promote meat 2 to 3 times a week... No need to mention that 1kg of meat is 10kg of wheat, no need to mention that is 12000 to 13000 litters of water against 1000 to 2000 for the same amount of cereals etc etc.
Each industry its bullshit to tell. The only solution, and the only way to act is though money. Money is the key: Let go of your consumption frenzy, be it food, clothes or whatever, and you'll spare some money while helping Planet Earth.
I believe we have to encourage a smooth transition towards another system of consumption. this whole capitalist system has brought nothing but trouble, the ship is sinking and our politicians are trying to stuff too many holes at the same time. When you know a ship is sinking, you don't stay on it idiotically, you try to find another solution to escape, get a lifeboat... may be a bit rocky in the beginning, but it's just temporary until you arrive on a safe shore.
PS: I'd like to add that among all the "great stuffs" these politicians have come out with, Biofuel is certainly one of the best. It led to political instability all around the globe. One of the major key reason why the former Malagasy president has been evicted is because there were rumours he was about to sign a deal with the Korean enterprise Daewoo, to give the enterprise the right to exploit 90% of the cultivable lands for 99 years to grow vegetable oil. Fortunately, as far as I know, it didn't pass... The Mozambique wasn't so lucky.
... Yet, associations have been warning against those as early as 2001...
I remember the cartoon of Andy Cap and Flo.
Let us clean our mates first then try to clean the mates of others.
Of course this is very good idea however this goes into effect if I put this into practice first. It is same in the global warming. We do not want to anything yet we want others to reduce the carbon emissions.
I thank you
Firozali A. Mulla
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosp
So the only conclusion is that the break up of ice shelfs on the peninsula is more likely to be a natural event, unconnected to so-called global warming.
Naturally ice melts in the summer, and especially so at the end of an Antarctic summer.
Climate Change rastionalists are always being accused of cherry picking individual events or short term trends to make a case. Well, the graph linked to by calum100 demonstrates there is clearly no 'global warming' trend in the Antarctic. The broken ice shelf is simply an individual event that the AGW faithfull chose to present as further 'proof'.
The 'science' of global warming is a shame to the scientific establishment.
your saying that if this 25 mile long iceburg splinters up and melts within.. what? a few years?,
it wont add as much water to the oceans as a glacier moving at a few metres a year?
how fast can a "free flowing" glacier slide?
hey Alister Doyle, if you actually belive in what your saying, prove it. go to your fridge, grab a bunch of ice cubes
and put them in a glass of water,
then, hold the glass of water over your head.
your saying that if this 25 mile long iceburg splinters up and melts within.. what? a few years?,
it wont add as much water to the oceans as a glacier moving at a few metres a year?
how fast can a "free flowing" glacier slide?
hey Alister Doyle, if you actually belive in what your saying, prove it. go to your fridge, grab a bunch of ice cubes
and put them in a glass of water,
then, hold the glass of water over your head.
Any chance you can name the day so that I can plan my holiday calender.
You are so right, Ice melts in the summer and who would have thunk - if the summers are getting hotter, more ice will melt, ain't it so?! Did we read why we all should worry about such:
... their loss can allow glaciers on land to slide more rapidly towards the sea, adding water to the oceans.
And this, my friend, is the "Great Opener" to Pandora's box: less reflection of sunlight - ergo more heat, more melting ice, rising sea levels, desalination of the oceans, stronger storms, interruption of plankton flow (thats a doozie all by its little lonesome: think food chain!), and on and on and on - a nice little witches brew, a perfect storm.
We know that we are contributing to the problem big time, but sadly the biggest flaw of our species is that we are very much inclined to deny truths to terrible to bear, and anyway: It's not our fault and why don't the others do something about it.
We are a pretty pathetic bunch, do not trust our lying eyes on the one hand and on the other we are trying to save the planet! Reality is - the planet does not need saving - our species does! The planet has all the time in the world. We do not. If we do not act now, right now, together, as one, never mind whose fault this whole mess is or not or even if we should still mindboggingly think we are not at fault (we are allowed too, it's a free country), we will sweep ourselves from this cozy little planet. We will wipe ourselves out - and not for oil but for water, food and shelter, and not in the distant future at that.
Over the decades no change, neither an upward trend nor a downward trend.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosp
That means that so-called global warming is NOT to blame, it has to be a localised effect.
Being the peninsula that means the combination of Sourthern Ocean and the Sun. Antarctic sea ice forms at latitudes of about 55-75 degrees, whereas most Arctic ice forms closer to the pole at latitudes of 70-90 degrees. That means that Antarctic sea ice receives significantly more solar radiation in summer making it more sensitive to slight changes in sea temperature caused by the Sourthern Ocean going through cyclical warming and cooling phases. As a result sea ice changes in the Antarctic tend to be dramatic come late summer, especially in and around the peninsula.
Ice does Melt in Summer - it's natural - get over it.
According to NOAA GISS data winter temperatures in the Antarctic have actually fallen by 1 degree fahrenheit since 1957, with the coldest year being 2004 and all the while CO2 levels have been going up. Antarctic sea shelfs regularly break up this being a normal process but this fact is never reported by the media like The Independent.
Antarctic Sea Ice for March
Extent Concentration
2009 5.0 million sq km 2.9 million sq km
1997 3.8 million sq km 2.2 million sq km
1980 3.5 million sq km 2.0 million sq km
The above data indicates a 43% increase in sea ice from 1980. This 43% increase of sea ice is Highly Significant for sea ice is caused by COLDER TEMPERATURES, not by increased snow fall. This newspaper has failed to report this dramatic increase in sea ice, this ice over the ocean. WHY?
In Antarctica severe low temperatures vary with latitude, elevation, and distance from the ocean. East Antarctica is colder than West Antarctica because of its higher elevation; Antarctic Peninsula has the most moderate climate.
Antarctic Sea Ice for March
Extent
2009 5.0 million sq km
1997 3.8 million sq km
1980 3.5 million sq km
Concentration
2009 2.9 million sq km
1997 3.8 million sq km
1980 2.0 million sq km
Concentration
1997 2.2 million sq km instead of 3.8 sq km
your saying that if this 25 mile long iceburg splinters up and melts within.. what? a few years?,
it wont add as much water to the oceans as a glacier moving at a few metres a year?
how fast can a "free flowing" glacier slide?
hey Alister Doyle, if you actually belive in what your saying, prove it. go to your fridge, grab a bunch of ice cubes
and put them in a glass of water,
then, hold the glass of water over your head...
In response....
Try it...... you should remain dry! just like a glass of your favourite tipple, cotaining ice cubes won't overspill when the ice melts, floating sea ice won't raise ocean levels when it melts as the volume of ice displaces the amount of liquid it contains, so when it melts it neither adds to or reduces the level of the ocean. Land glaciers on the other hand are a different thing, and they will add to sea level rise when they melt, hence the concern about Wilkins melting resulting in the land based glaciers behind to start to melt, adding to sea levels as they do so....
S Rosser- Author- A-Z of Global Warming
I must stop reacting to these type of people.
The problem that you AGW fanatics have, is that it has become akin to a religion to you, so you only see what you want to see in these news articles, and you have totally closed your minds to new research which does not fit in with your faith.
When surface temperature increases the upper ocean warms and ice growth decreases. This leads to a decrease in salt rejection from new ice. Warmer and fresher water lowers the water density in the upper ocean. With a change in the density of the upper water we are seeing an increased stratification of ocean layers which means less ocean heat is being transported upwards. The increase in sea ice is because less heat is being carried up by ocean convection to melt it. In addition to this a feedback process is occurring. Warm air increases upper ocean temperature which affects air temperature through air sea interactions. An increase in sea ice means less atmospheric heat penetrates the water. Do not confuse sea ice with ice shelves. They react in very different ways to changes in temperature.
You also mention the fact that the Southern Ocean is warming at a faster rate than the globe. There is no way that fits in with the conventional global warming theory, which indicates to me that climate scientists do not actually have a clue what is really happening. Couple that with the fact that the Earth's temperature levelled off since 1998, and has been cooling since 2002, despite a 5% increase in CO2, and the whole of the IPCC's conjecture is exposed as junk science. There is nothing in the climate now or in the recent past which can be demonstrated to be outside the normal variation which has pertained over thousands of years since the end of the last ice age. There is no evidence to support the idea of runaway global warming caused by human output of CO2. Almost weekly new evidence emerges to show that the assumptions made are incorrect. For example, the shrinking of Alpine glaciers is uncovering ancient forests and ancient human settlements.
You write about The Wilkens Shelf but fail to mention
1)...wind and wave conditions
2)...volcanic activity
3)... stress caused by ice growth
4).. natural process.
5) .. Also you fail to mention the earthquake on the Pacific-Antarctic Ridge 3930 km South East of Wellington, New Zealand which occurred on 17 March 2008.
Also you fail to mention that the average monthly temperature in Antarctica in 1958 was -48.92C and 50 years later the average monthly temperature in Antarctica was -48.96C. Statistically identical. These temperatures were recorded at The Amundson-Scott South Pole Station. The average temperature over all Antarctica has actually fallen by one degree fahrenheit even though atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have increased over that time.
So where is the carbon dioxide induced Global Warming that you refer to?
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4
So there you have it folks open water at the North pole this summer. Only 5 months to get your cruise to North Pole organised.
I only hope that Santa has a pair of water wings
ptstroud is correct, the problems with the Steig et al paper's flawed statistical interpolation methods are detailed here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/02/28/s
Nature should be ashamed of itself for publishing such bad science.
As drahcir38 says "the planet doesn't need us to save it, it is perfectly able to save itself, it is us who are in danger of dying back..."
This means we do have to make some effort to adjust our lifestyles, way of thinking and adapt to what will in the future be a very different planet to that we are used to. Perhaps we need to relable global warming as climate instability? If you are argueing from a purely human standpoint then yes, we are entering a period of climate instability.. get used to it. However, taking the Gaia standpoint, the planet will naturally adjust to change and this becomes an argument about whether or not we are capable of changing to adapt.
The purpose of newspaper articles such as this one, the piece on Channel 4 news and other media articles is to make mankind aware that change is happening in the natural world. These changes will keep happening, get worse and eventually wipe us out if nothing changes. They are in all fairness not "alarmist", they are made to educate and inform. If you think they are "alarmist" then that points to the fact that you yourself are scared so why not make some changes? Any bias from the media depends on the prevailing political ideology of the program makers or journalists in question. The point is not to quibble over who is right and who is wrong. From their perspective, they report on what is happening and then it is up to us as a global community to respond.
This is why community values, lifestyle and direct action are so important to bring about a change. It is not about "fanaticism", "faith" or whether the science is right or wrong. It is about everyone making small changes and informing those in a position of power that certain things need to be done. In this way we as a species not only survive but keep the planet in a state within which other living organisms can survive.
Until questions like these are answered (or even asked) I hold any 'scientific knowledge' about this land mass in very low regard.
here's the proof from unclassified NSA documents. click here
Global warming is not about right or wrong. Global warming is a scam where a number of prominent people and entire segments of society are bullied into silence. The threats, fraud and deception used by global warming alarmists to keep one misinformed is very well described in the book "Red Hot Lies" by Christopher Horner. The tools of the bully are many used against those who question the hypothesis that humans are responsible for global warming. Some tools are
1) Expropriating the moral high ground of environmentalism. If you dont agree with their hypothesis you stand accused of not caring for this planet and its future.
2) Questioning the credentials of those who speak out against the hypothesis and belittling world renowned and respected scientists.
3) The name calling of opponents like deniers, flat-earthers, tobacco scientists etc. Or in the pocket of Big oil.
And then there is the role of the media in perpetuating the myth that carbon dioxide drives climate. I think the following quotations sums it up perfectly
Stanley B. Goldenberg
"It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem that there are only a fringe of scientists who dont buy into anthropogenic global warming."
And
Peer reviewed U.S government scientist, Dr Mark Campbell who recently has joined the growing ranks of dissenting scientists who has had enough of the biased media reporting, and accuses the media of 'journalistic malpractice'.
And so you can see that global warming is not about being right or wrong. Global warming is a Scam.
here's the proof from unclassified NSA documents. click here
So remember folks it's not "Global Warming" anymore as that would require some... ummm actual... warming. It is now "Climate Change" makes it much easier for us to adjust to "cooling means warming" and other such Owellian concepts.
Ignorance is Happiness