Antarctic ice shelf melt 'lowest EVER recorded

Theowl32

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2013
Messages
18,371
Reaction score
9,090
Points
1,265
Antarctic ice shelf melt 'lowest EVER recorded


Antarctic ice shelf melt 'lowest EVER recorded, global warming is NOT eroding it' ? The Register


Antarctic ice shelf melt 'lowest EVER recorded, global warming is NOT eroding it'
Human CO2 just not a big deal at Pine Island Glacier
By Lewis Page, 3rd January 2014


Scientists at the British Antarctic Survey say that the melting of the Pine Island Glacier ice shelf in Antarctica has suddenly slowed right down in the last few years, confirming earlier research which suggested that the shelf's melt does not result from human-driven global warming.

The Pine Island Glacier in West Antarctica and its associated sea ice shelf is closely watched: this is because unlike most of the sea ice around the austral continent, its melt rate has seemed to be accelerating quickly since scientists first began seriously studying it in the 1990s.

Many researchers had suggested that this was due to human-driven global warming, which appeared to be taking place rapidly at that time (though it has since gone on hold for 15 years or so, a circumstance which science is still assimilating).

However back in 2009 the British Antarctic Survey sent its Autosub robot probe under the shelf (famously powered by some 5,000 ordinary alkaline D-cell batteries on each trip beneath the ice, getting through no less than four tonnes of them during the research). The Autosub survey revealed that a previously unknown marine ridge lay below the shelf, over which the icepack had for millennia been forced to grind its way en route to the ocean. However in relatively recent times the ice had finally so ground down the ridge that the sea could flow in between shelf and ridge, freeing the ice to move much faster and warming it too.

As we reported at the time, this caused BAS boffins to suggest that the observed accelerating ice flow and melt seen since the '90s was actually a result of the ridge's erosion and sea ingress, rather than global warming.

Now, the latest BAS research has revealed that rather than accelerating, "oceanic melting of the ice shelf into which the glacier flows decreased by 50 per cent between 2010 and 2012".
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Abraham3

Rookie
Joined
Aug 1, 2012
Messages
4,289
Reaction score
164
Points
0
I love the way the Register has to add the unwarranted proviso that "climate variability" means "climate effects not caused by humans" when there is absolutely NOTHING in the study to justify that distinction.

The study finds more cold water under the glacier's ice shelf - deep warm water was being blocked by the ridge. The press release states:

"It’s now known that much of the thinning is due to a deep oceanic inflow of Circumpolar Deep Water (CDW) on the continental shelf neighbouring the glacier. This warmer water then makes its way into a cavity beneath the ice shelf melting it from below."

"Now known". And what warmed the CDW flow? Global warming. And what caused global warming? Human GHG emissions.

The Press Release goes on:

"The observations suggest there is a complex interplay between geological, oceanographic and climatic processes. The study stresses the importance of both local geology and climate variability in ocean melting in this region.
Lead author, Dr Pierre Dutrieux, from British Antarctic Survey (BAS) said: “We found ocean melting of the glacier was the lowest ever recorded, and less than half of that observed in 2010. This enormous, and unexpected, variability contradicts the widespread view that a simple and steady ocean warming in the region is eroding the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. These results demonstrate that the sea-level contribution of the ice sheet is influenced by climatic variability over a wide range of time scales.”
Co-author, Professor Adrian Jenkins, also from BAS, added: “It is not so much the ocean variability, which is modest by comparison with many parts of the ocean, but the extreme sensitivity of the ice shelf to such modest changes in ocean properties that took us by surprise. That sensitivity is a result of a submarine ridge beneath the ice shelf that was only discovered in 2009 when an Autonomous Underwater Vehicle mapped the seabed beneath the ice. These new insights suggest that the recent history of ice shelf melting and thinning has been much more variable than hitherto suspected and susceptible to climate variability driven from the tropics.”

So, the ridge creates sensitivity and high variability. What is it sensitive to? Warm water.

This does help explain the mechanism behind the high rate of ice loss at Pine Island. It does not refute AGW. It does not tell us that we need not worry about accelerated glacial flow and ice shelf melting and breakup in Antarctica. These are still underway. Pine Island is not the only Antarctic glacier experiencing accelerated flow rates.
 
OP
Theowl32

Theowl32

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2013
Messages
18,371
Reaction score
9,090
Points
1,265
I love the way the Register has to add the unwarranted proviso that "climate variability" means "climate effects not caused by humans" when there is absolutely NOTHING in the study to justify that distinction.

The study finds more cold water under the glacier's ice shelf - deep warm water was being blocked by the ridge. The press release states:

"It’s now known that much of the thinning is due to a deep oceanic inflow of Circumpolar Deep Water (CDW) on the continental shelf neighbouring the glacier. This warmer water then makes its way into a cavity beneath the ice shelf melting it from below."

"Now known". And what warmed the CDW flow? Global warming. And what caused global warming? Human GHG emissions.

The Press Release goes on:

"The observations suggest there is a complex interplay between geological, oceanographic and climatic processes. The study stresses the importance of both local geology and climate variability in ocean melting in this region.

Lead author, Dr Pierre Dutrieux, from British Antarctic Survey (BAS) said: “We found ocean melting of the glacier was the lowest ever recorded, and less than half of that observed in 2010. This enormous, and unexpected, variability contradicts the widespread view that a simple and steady ocean warming in the region is eroding the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. These results demonstrate that the sea-level contribution of the ice sheet is influenced by climatic variability over a wide range of time scales.”

Co-author, Professor Adrian Jenkins, also from BAS, added: “It is not so much the ocean variability, which is modest by comparison with many parts of the ocean, but the extreme sensitivity of the ice shelf to such modest changes in ocean properties that took us by surprise. That sensitivity is a result of a submarine ridge beneath the ice shelf that was only discovered in 2009 when an Autonomous Underwater Vehicle mapped the seabed beneath the ice. These new insights suggest that the recent history of ice shelf melting and thinning has been much more variable than hitherto suspected and susceptible to climate variability driven from the tropics.”

So, the ridge creates sensitivity and high variability. What is it sensitive to? Warm water.

This does help explain the mechanism behind the high rate of ice loss at Pine Island. It does not refute AGW. It does not tell us that we need not worry about accelerated glacial flow and ice shelf melting and breakup in Antarctica. These are still underway. Pine Island is not the only Antarctic glacier experiencing accelerated flow rates.
This illustrates one of the worst tendencies of alarmism: the assumption that *any* instance of temperature increase is caused by AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming), with *no* attempt to actually test that assumption. It is only when the catastrophist assumption is counter-indicated that any attempt is made to find an explanation -- and then the purpose of the explanation is to save the contradicted theory.

Observations of a glacier melting, or Oz having a warm year, or the Arctic ice cap retreating, are taken *by themselves* as sufficient evidence of AGW. This is much in the same way that old-style Marxists take every instance of labor unrest as a sign of the coming Revolution, or religious Apocolyptoes take every bit of bad news as signaling the start of End Times. Only when an observation seems to falsify the orthodox theory does one need to look any further, and the reason to do this is to explain it away.

Then, of course, believers discover that La Nina did it, or "regional wind patterns", or whatnot. Need one point out that science proceeds by strong tests and attempted falsification?

AGW catastrophists avoid strong tests and try to protect their theory from falsification. If system integration testing proceeded using catastrophist methods, we'd be producing lists of thousands of successes and deep explanations of why we can ignore those few dozen failures. Come to think of it, that explains ObamaCare...
 

Abraham3

Rookie
Joined
Aug 1, 2012
Messages
4,289
Reaction score
164
Points
0
Wrong.

AGW is a theory to explain GLOBAL warming. It is based on observations of GLOBAL warming, the presence of increasing GHG levels of human origin, the calculations that show greenhouse warming from those GHGs to match the observed warming and the complete LACK of any other warming function that IS sufficient or DOES match.

THAT is why AGW is accepted by 97% of the world's climate scientists.
 
OP
Theowl32

Theowl32

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2013
Messages
18,371
Reaction score
9,090
Points
1,265
Wrong.

AGW is a theory to explain GLOBAL warming. It is based on observations of GLOBAL warming, the presence of increasing GHG levels of human origin, the calculations that show greenhouse warming from those GHGs to match the observed warming and the complete LACK of any other warming function that IS sufficient or DOES match.

THAT is why AGW is accepted by 97% of the world's climate scientists.
The *worst* thing is the death of The Scientific Method at the hands of the AGW Alarmists. They *repeatedly and consistently* invoke the rhetoric of religious fanaticism into the debate at all levels. Anyone that dares to point out even the most obvious flaws in their logic or evidence is labled a "denier" and accused of "disbelief". They're no better than any other religious extremist, going right back to the Spanish Inquisition. It's a very poor scientist that ever dares to attempt to shut down debate. The AGW crowd are consistent in this.


The second page of the article pretty much nails it. I pretty much understand that you did not read it or you totally ignore it. We can accept that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, while much of what is claimed to follow is deeply, deeply flawed. Their computer models are garbage; they need to read Chaos. They've got zero skills on performing Cost Benefit analysis. Their arguments are flawed. They ignore the Low Hanging Fruit, while mandating Haiur Shirts and Greenwash BS. All this is fine. Invoking religious rhetoric and attempting to murder The Scientific Method is criminal.
 
OP
Theowl32

Theowl32

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2013
Messages
18,371
Reaction score
9,090
Points
1,265
The fact that all climate models are wrong and that any teenager alive today hasn't seen warming and in fact has seen slight cooling since 2007 is how badly science has been perverted by the Al Gore crowd. The models ignore water vapor and consider our sun as a constant source of energy. Now they can't explain the 17+ years without warming. Meanwhile our sun is declining into its 200 year cooling cycle. I do fear global cooling when we are in the teeth of cycle 25.
 

Abraham3

Rookie
Joined
Aug 1, 2012
Messages
4,289
Reaction score
164
Points
0
Where did I do ANY of the things you mention?

And are you now attacking the very study that you claimed showed Pine Island was not responding to AGW?
 
OP
Theowl32

Theowl32

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2013
Messages
18,371
Reaction score
9,090
Points
1,265
Where did I do ANY of the things you mention?

And are you now attacking the very study that you claimed showed Pine Island was not responding to AGW?
No, I am referring to conclusions made by you and your types based on clearly flawed studies done by AGW. You back their findings, it has been documented over and over again to show these flaws.

Combined by a manipulative world community who is pushing this global warming scam for nefarious reasons is also lost on you. You dismiss the countless emails that are deliberately ignored also. Thrown out as if they never existed. They did exist. They were caught. Ignoring it, or denying they existed is where the "deniers" are.

The same world community that saw fit to award Obama the "Nobel Peace prize" before he ever took office. It is a global scam. The information passed on is all manipulated back and forth for obvious reasons that usually means something in the form of ancillary benefits and brand new coffers being set up to catch the loot and distributed among those world leaders.

You should be rather offended you are so used as a pawn to promote their scams. Anyone ever find out where all of those billions of dollars went that was set aside for Solyndra or all of those other fraudulent green companies? No? Yes? Vanished like a big fart in the wind? Who cares? Exactly, who cares? Me and people who think like me. That is who cares.
 
Last edited:

Abraham3

Rookie
Joined
Aug 1, 2012
Messages
4,289
Reaction score
164
Points
0
You have provided nothing more than a long list of unsubstantiated assertions. Try presenting a little evidence now and then. The search should do you a world of good.
 
OP
Theowl32

Theowl32

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2013
Messages
18,371
Reaction score
9,090
Points
1,265
You have provided nothing more than a long list of unsubstantiated assertions. Try presenting a little evidence now and then. The search should do you a world of good.
Actually what we have been posting is substantiated. Then again, virtually nothing made by AGW is substantiated. I submit they do that on purpose so they can always change as the data changes.

You ignoring all of the credible information put forth by either me or Jim Bowie or others does not make what you claim here valid. It makes what you say almost totally illegitimate.

Let us know when you find out where the money went that was wasted on Solyndra along with the countless other "green companies" that were "bailed out."

You making no comment about those scams does not mean it did not happen. That is you avoiding a subject or an issue that simply cannot be defended. So, in a classic liberal MO, you obfuscate the subject.

In the case of the global warming scientists that went to Antarctica to specifically PROVE man made global warming, and them being stuck and in peril in giant thick layers of ice that they said was not suppose to be there, YOU make the claim that the thick layer is proof that global warming is happening.

You claim stuff about the winds, blah blah blah. You ignore all of the data. All of the SUBSTANTIATED data.


Also, you ignoring or wishing those emails that were intercepted which proved there was indeed a scam does not make it go away. I mean in your mind it does, and in the minds those that think like you it does. It doesn't. The emails were caught.

Unsubstantiated? Get real man. If that is in any way possible.
 

Abraham3

Rookie
Joined
Aug 1, 2012
Messages
4,289
Reaction score
164
Points
0
You have provided nothing more than a long list of unsubstantiated assertions. Try presenting a little evidence now and then. The search should do you a world of good.
Actually what we have been posting is substantiated. Then again, virtually nothing made by AGW is substantiated. I submit they do that on purpose so they can always change as the data changes.
That, I'm afraid, is complete bullshit. Read the reference sections to the last five IPCC reports. Read the 12,000 peer reviewed publications reviewed by the Consensus Project. And then provide the substantiation you claim exists for your contentions.

You ignoring all of the credible information put forth by either me or Jim Bowie or others does not make what you claim here valid. It makes what you say almost totally illegitimate.
Please point me to any such posts.

Let us know when you find out where the money went that was wasted on Solyndra along with the countless other "green companies" that were "bailed out."
What does that have to do with the validity of AGW? Nothing.

You making no comment about those scams does not mean it did not happen. That is you avoiding a subject or an issue that simply cannot be defended. So, in a classic liberal MO, you obfuscate the subject.
I have made numerous comments about them, but I was using a different forum at the time. I have made no attempt to avoid the subject. It simply hasn't come up being old news. And explain how, in your view, failing to make any comment constitutes obfuscation?

In the case of the global warming scientists that went to Antarctica to specifically PROVE man made global warming, and them being stuck and in peril in giant thick layers of ice that they said was not suppose to be there, YOU make the claim that the thick layer is proof that global warming is happening.
I contend that it is irrelevant in the big picture. The ice that trapped them was the result of a storm and shift of winds, NOT due to any flaw in AGW theory. And AGW science HAS predicted increase snowfall and ice buildup in Antarctica for decades. Increased temp->increased evap->increased precip.

You claim stuff about the winds, blah blah blah. You ignore all of the data. All of the SUBSTANTIATED data.
HAHAHAHaaaaa. I don't claim "stuff about the winds". The people THERE tell us that the ice resulted from winds. I at least have evidence for that. You have NONE for your position (whatever it might be since you seem a bit loathe to actually assemble a fixed position)

Also, you ignoring or wishing those emails that were intercepted which proved there was indeed a scam does not make it go away. I mean in your mind it does, and in the minds those that think like you it does. It doesn't. The emails were caught.
Did you just get your scattergun out of storage? Unless you've recently changed nicks, you and I have "known" each other here for less than two days. Yet you seem to have had conversations with me on a wealth of topics - conversations of which I have no recollection. Have you just changed nicks?

Eight different reviews have been conducted on the various participants of the stolen CRU emails. They have found NO conspiracy, NO wrongdoing, NO attempt to deceive. But you will simply ignore that and say that all eight reviews were flawed. Well, in my world, that's what they call a preconceived supposition or PREJUDICE. Not a proper exercise of the scientific method, the exercise of a lynch mob.

Unsubstantiated? Get real man. If that is in any way possible.
Again, I have five IPCC reports and nearly 12,000 peer reviewed studies to support my position. So far, the ONLY thing you've presented is a CLAIM that you and poster Bowie have put something up.

Let's see it.
 
Last edited:

jasonnfree

Gold Member
Joined
May 23, 2012
Messages
9,454
Reaction score
1,550
Points
280
Where did I do ANY of the things you mention?

And are you now attacking the very study that you claimed showed Pine Island was not responding to AGW?
No, I am referring to conclusions made by you and your types based on clearly flawed studies done by AGW. You back their findings, it has been documented over and over again to show these flaws.

Combined by a manipulative world community who is pushing this global warming scam for nefarious reasons is also lost on you. You dismiss the countless emails that are deliberately ignored also. Thrown out as if they never existed. They did exist. They were caught. Ignoring it, or denying they existed is where the "deniers" are.

The same world community that saw fit to award Obama the "Nobel Peace prize" before he ever took office. It is a global scam. The information passed on is all manipulated back and forth for obvious reasons that usually means something in the form of ancillary benefits and brand new coffers being set up to catch the loot and distributed among those world leaders.

You should be rather offended you are so used as a pawn to promote their scams. Anyone ever find out where all of those billions of dollars went that was set aside for Solyndra or all of those other fraudulent green companies? No? Yes? Vanished like a big fart in the wind? Who cares? Exactly, who cares? Me and people who think like me. That is who cares.
Why would all these climate scientists lie? Are 97% willing to lie or are they incompetent? Just asking, my being not sure which side is correct.
 

CrusaderFrank

Diamond Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
114,668
Reaction score
26,811
Points
2,220
Location
Location, location
Wrong.

AGW is a theory to explain GLOBAL warming. It is based on observations of GLOBAL warming, the presence of increasing GHG levels of human origin, the calculations that show greenhouse warming from those GHGs to match the observed warming and the complete LACK of any other warming function that IS sufficient or DOES match.

THAT is why AGW is accepted by 97% of the world's climate scientists.
No. No. NO!!

It's the lowest melt BECAUSE of AGW, just as predicted by Hanson and backed up by the computer models

Sheesh
 

Abraham3

Rookie
Joined
Aug 1, 2012
Messages
4,289
Reaction score
164
Points
0
Frank, you may have noticed that I don't often respond to your posts. That's because you're one of the first people here that I put on my ignore list. Occasionally, I run out of other people's posts to reply to and will open one of yours. But, almost without fail, I find that my initial choice was the correct one.
 

whitehall

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2010
Messages
46,280
Reaction score
10,068
Points
2,040
Location
Western Va.
It's summer in the Antarctic and a Russian ship is stuck in the ice. Does that sound like a case of global warming?
 

Old Rocks

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2008
Messages
59,352
Reaction score
7,232
Points
1,840
Location
Portland, Ore.
It's summer in the Antarctic and a Russian ship is stuck in the ice. Does that sound like a case of global warming?
No, it sounds like a case of someone quite ignorant of weather in that area making unwarrented assumptions.
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top