Antarctic ice flow

[Old Rocks]

NASA has charted the flow of the ice in the Anarctic, a large scale map showing flow at the bottom of the article;

NASA Engineers Map to Track 'Amazing' Antarctic Ice Flow - International Business Times

 

[Trakar]

NASA has charted the flow of the ice in the Anarctic, a large scale map showing flow at the bottom of the article;

NASA Engineers Map to Track 'Amazing' Antarctic Ice Flow - International Business Times

I didn't realize we were seeing significant flow rates that deeply into the interior of the East Antarctic. That is concerning.

 

[gslack]

LOL, oops careful you will give yourself away....

 

[skookerasbil]

I hope these nuts hvae a good supply of Ambien on hand...........

 

[IanC]

doesnt ice always flow because of gravity? are we supposed to be alarmed? did we know what the flow rate was before or are we making predictions on short term observations based on a new technology?

reminds me of how sea level rise doubled at the exact moment that we started measuring by satellite. while it may be true it sure seems improbable, at least to me.

 

[whitehall]

Ice core samples show wild fluctuations in temperature in the last geological age. Why not let China worry about while we get our fiscal act together?

 

[Old Rocks]

doesnt ice always flow because of gravity? are we supposed to be alarmed? did we know what the flow rate was before or are we making predictions on short term observations based on a new technology?

reminds me of how sea level rise doubled at the exact moment that we started measuring by satellite. while it may be true it sure seems improbable, at least to me.

The point is that this is information that we did not have before. If you don't like that information, it fails to make it any less valid.

 

[bripat9643]

The point is that this is information that we did not have before. If you don't like that information, it fails to make it any less valid.

If some climatologist stuck a thermometer up a Craibou's ass, then would have "information that we did not have before." Would that support the bogus theory of manmade global warming? Not a bit.


Ice has always flowed in Antartica. The map proves absolutely nothing about global warming.

 

[IanC]

I bet Old Rock still believes polar bear numbers are shrinking because 'peer review' said so. those pesky Inuits dont know what they're talking about.

 

[gslack]

doesnt ice always flow because of gravity? are we supposed to be alarmed? did we know what the flow rate was before or are we making predictions on short term observations based on a new technology?

reminds me of how sea level rise doubled at the exact moment that we started measuring by satellite. while it may be true it sure seems improbable, at least to me.

The point is that this is information that we did not have before. If you don't like that information, it fails to make it any less valid.

Ah yes the "study it just to be studying it and slap a global warming badge on it when we need money" ploy... LOL

 

[Old Rocks]

Hmmm....... So, a fifteen year study, with many nations providing data concerning the flow and rates of flow of ice in the Antarctic is to be condemned because it also provides data for judging how much the ocean may rise from contribution of Antarctic Ice.

You guys are a hoot. So anti-science that you would condemn any scientific endevour whatsoever.

 

[gslack]

Hmmm....... So, a fifteen year study, with many nations providing data concerning the flow and rates of flow of ice in the Antarctic is to be condemned because it also provides data for judging how much the ocean may rise from contribution of Antarctic Ice.

You guys are a hoot. So anti-science that you would condemn any scientific endevour whatsoever.

No tool, glaciers grow and expand and this causes them to move outward, this is not news. The fact they got a bunch satellite data and a bunch of other organizations around the world to help them chart its growth and movement at I am sure great expense to governments and organizations which lead to great expense on taxpayers, and to justify it they slap global warming on it, is the issue I have...

As a kid I was told the great lakes were formed from glaciers expanding and digging them out a long long time ago. Now, just because its got a global warming badge on it its news?

Dude telling us what we already were pretty sure of before is fine, but trying to say its to study global warming is asinine and a money ploy. Glaciers expand and move due to it all the time, claiming its due to global warming is just ridiculous.

 

[Old Rocks]

Really, G-string, where in the article did it say that the movement was due only to global warming? Just as alpine glaciers melt at their terminus, and with the present warming, that terminus is moving rapidly up in altitude, the Antarctic glaciers are moving down to the ocean, and as the ice shelves break up due to the warming, putting more ice in the ocean than is replaces with snow in the interior. And that creates a rising ocean, as we are presently observing. The glaciers have been moving since they formed. It is simply that the present increase in warmth means that the movement is causing a net decrease in ice and an increase in water in the ocean.

Once again you demonstrate your antipathy to real science.

 

[gslack]

Really, G-string, where in the article did it say that the movement was due only to global warming? Just as alpine glaciers melt at their terminus, and with the present warming, that terminus is moving rapidly up in altitude, the Antarctic glaciers are moving down to the ocean, and as the ice shelves break up due to the warming, putting more ice in the ocean than is replaces with snow in the interior. And that creates a rising ocean, as we are presently observing. The glaciers have been moving since they formed. It is simply that the present increase in warmth means that the movement is causing a net decrease in ice and an increase in water in the ocean.

Once again you demonstrate your antipathy to real science.

Nice try at putting words in my mouth and trying to lie your way into a different argument...

Point to where I said "only due to global warming".

Can't can you... I didn't say that, I said they slap a global warming sticker on their research which they did...

in their first line in the article..

"In a bid to track future sea-level increases from climate change, researchers at NASA have come out with the first complete map of the speed and direction of ice flow in Antarctica."

See that? LOL, now want to say I said something fine just show where I said it moron...

 

[mal]

Hmmm....... So, a fifteen year study, with many nations providing data concerning the flow and rates of flow of ice in the Antarctic is to be condemned because it also provides data for judging how much the ocean may rise from contribution of Antarctic Ice.

You guys are a hoot. So anti-science that you would condemn any scientific endevour whatsoever.

15 years is an Atom's Atom's Atom's Atom's Atom in the bigger picture of the Evolution of this Rock.

Seriously?...



peace...

 

[IanC]

doesnt ice always flow because of gravity? are we supposed to be alarmed? did we know what the flow rate was before or are we making predictions on short term observations based on a new technology?

reminds me of how sea level rise doubled at the exact moment that we started measuring by satellite. while it may be true it sure seems improbable, at least to me.

The point is that this is information that we did not have before. If you don't like that information, it fails to make it any less valid.

actually I do like the information. the animation was very cool to watch. I just dont think that it is 'new'. glaciologists already knew that glaciers flow due to gravity and could have predicted the flows quite well, especially after the underlying mountain ranges were imaged.

"The map points out something fundamentally new: that ice moves by slipping along the ground it rests on," said Thomas Wagner, NASA's cryospheric program scientist in Washington, in a statement.

hahaha, did this guy come to the party late or what!?!

"That's critical knowledge for predicting future sea level rise. It means that if we lose ice at the coasts from the warming ocean, we open the tap to massive amounts of ice in the interior."

scaremonger much?

I have no problem with collecting data and refining understanding. my problem with releases like this is the tone and attitude with which they are written, plus the throw-away remarks that are unsubstantiated by the actual subject of the study.

 

[Old Rocks]

SOTC: Ice Shelves

Ice Shelves

An ice shelf is a thick slab of ice, attached to a coastline and extending out over the ocean as a seaward extension of the grounded ice sheet. Ice shelves range in thickness from about 50 to 600 meters, and some shelves persist for thousands of years. They fringe the continent of Antarctica, and occupy a few fjords and bays along the Greenland and Ellesmere Island coasts. (An ice shelf occupying a fjord is sometimes called an ice tongue.) At their seaward edge, ice shelves periodically calve icebergs, some the size of a small U.S. state or European country. Because they are exposed to both warming air above and warming ocean below, ice shelves and ice tongues respond more quickly than ice sheets or glaciers to rising temperatures.

Most ice shelves are fed by inland glaciers. Together, an ice shelf and the glaciers feeding it can form a stable system, with the forces of outflow and back pressure balanced. Warmer temperatures can destabilize this system by increasing glacier flow speed and—more dramatically—by disintegrating the ice shelf. Without a shelf to slow its speed, the glacier accelerates. After the 2002 Larsen B Ice Shelf disintegration, nearby glaciers in the Antarctic Peninsula accelerated up to eight times their original speed over the next 18 months. Similar losses of ice tongues in Greenland have caused speed-ups of two to three times the flow rate in just one year.

While calving or disintegrating ice shelves don't raise ocean level, the resulting glacier acceleration does, and this poses a potential threat to coastal communities. More than 100 million people currently live within 1 meter of mean sea level. Greenland contains enough ice to raise sea level by 7 meters, and Antarctica holds enough ice to raise sea level by 57 meters. While these ice sheets are unlikely to disappear anytime soon, even partial loss of the grounded ice could present a significant problem. In the coming decades of a climate warming era, ice shelves and ice tongues are likely to play a prominent role in changing the rate of ice flow off the major ice sheets.

 

[IanC]

were those your own words Old Rocks? impressive

mind you it just makes my point. 7 meters sea rise for Greenland and 57 meters for Antarctica arent realistic for any reasonable time frame are they? ice shelves have been retreating since the Little Ice Age havent they? oh wait ... you dont believe in the LIA because Mann proved it didnt happen with his graph made from bristlecone pines and 'new and improved' methodology that produces hockey sticks from any kind of data.

you know, I would probably be more worried about AGW if there wasnt so much exaggeration and distortion being used to sell the idea. many of the scientists sound like lawyers shilling for a guilty client.

there is a huge difference between the natural recovery from the LIA (aided in small part by land use issues and fossil fuel consumption) and the catastropic scenarios dreamed up by scientists following the latest fad and pointing to their fatally flawed climate models as proof. there were no tipping points in the Medieval, Roman or Minoan warm periods. the positive feedback for CO2 espoused by the IPCC is ridiculous because it doesnt hold true for the past and positive feedbacks are as rare as hen's teeth in the earth's natural systems. the whole increase of knowledge and science has been a constant process of putting mankind further and further away from the centre of the universe but now we are being told we hold the balance in our hands by which type of car we drive. I dont want to go through another Dark Ages, I prefer to think technological progress will ameliorate present problems so that we can move on to the next set of challenges to be met.

 

[Old Rocks]

LOL. Still playing the dumb ass, Ian, old boy? A one meter rise in sea level would be catastrophic in several respects. And we will almost certainly see at least that by the end of this century.

 

[IanC]

LOL. Still playing the dumb ass, Ian, old boy? A one meter rise in sea level would be catastrophic in several respects. And we will almost certainly see at least that by the end of this century.

more than 10% of the century done and sea levels are lower than all of the models. it will be a push just to get a foot of sea rise let alone a meter.