Antarctic ice shelf showing signs of breaking away

[Chris]

(CNN) -- Scientists have identified new rifts on an Antarctic ice shelf that could lead to it breaking away from the Antarctic Peninsula, the European Space Agency said.

The Wilkins Ice Shelf, a large sheet of floating ice south of South America, is connected to two Antarctic islands by a strip of ice. That ice "bridge" has lost around 2,000 square kilometers (about 772 square miles) so far this year, the ESA said.

A satellite image captured November 26 shows new rifts on the ice shelf that make it dangerously close to breaking away from the strip of ice -- and the islands to which it's connected, the ESA said.

Scientists first spotted rifts in the ice shelf in late February, and they noticed further deterioration the following week. The period marks the end of the South Pole summer and is the time when such events are most likely, said Ted Scambos, a glaciologist at the National Snow and Ice Data Center at the University of Colorado in Boulder.

Before the new rifts were spotted this week, the last cracks were noticed July 21.

"These new rifts, which have joined previously existing rifts on the ice shelf, threaten to break up the chunk of ice located beneath the 21 July date, which would cause the bridge to lose its stabilization and collapse," said Angelika Humbert, a scientist from Germany's Muenster University who spotted the cracks with Matthias Braun of the University of Bonn.

Wilkins is the size of the state of Connecticut, or about half the area of Scotland. It is the largest ice shelf on the Antarctic Peninsula yet to be threatened.

New rifts form on Antarctic ice shelf - CNN.com

 

[dilloduck]

(CNN) -- Scientists have identified new rifts on an Antarctic ice shelf that could lead to it breaking away from the Antarctic Peninsula, the European Space Agency said.

The Wilkins Ice Shelf, a large sheet of floating ice south of South America, is connected to two Antarctic islands by a strip of ice. That ice "bridge" has lost around 2,000 square kilometers (about 772 square miles) so far this year, the ESA said.

A satellite image captured November 26 shows new rifts on the ice shelf that make it dangerously close to breaking away from the strip of ice -- and the islands to which it's connected, the ESA said.

Scientists first spotted rifts in the ice shelf in late February, and they noticed further deterioration the following week. The period marks the end of the South Pole summer and is the time when such events are most likely, said Ted Scambos, a glaciologist at the National Snow and Ice Data Center at the University of Colorado in Boulder.

Before the new rifts were spotted this week, the last cracks were noticed July 21.

"These new rifts, which have joined previously existing rifts on the ice shelf, threaten to break up the chunk of ice located beneath the 21 July date, which would cause the bridge to lose its stabilization and collapse," said Angelika Humbert, a scientist from Germany's Muenster University who spotted the cracks with Matthias Braun of the University of Bonn.

Wilkins is the size of the state of Connecticut, or about half the area of Scotland. It is the largest ice shelf on the Antarctic Peninsula yet to be threatened.

New rifts form on Antarctic ice shelf - CNN.com

And the problem is ----?

 

[Old Rocks]

And the problem is ----?

None at all. Just continued evidence of the accelerating effects of the warming caused by the burning of fossil fuels.

 

[dilloduck]

None at all. Just continued evidence of the accelerating effects of the warming caused by the burning of fossil fuels.

It's fun to watch--that'll be one hell of a big ice cube !

 

[xsited1]

I've been dropping ice cubes in the Arkansas River. This has the effect of cooling water that will eventually end up in the ocean. Before long, this entire global warming mess will be history. I'm just trying to do my part.

 

[editec]

And the problem is ----?

The problem MIGHT be that the salinity in the ocean changes as that fresh water ice melts thus screwing up the Atlantic currents.

Hey, I watch the mandatory TV ecological disasters movies like a good citizen, too.

 

[dilloduck]

The problem MIGHT be that the salinity in the ocean changes as that fresh water ice melts thus screwing up the Atlantic currents.

Hey, I watch the mandatory TV ecological disasters movies like a good citizen, too.

Screwing up currents ? Is that something that humans won't be able to adjust to ?

 

[xsited1]

The problem MIGHT be that the salinity in the ocean changes as that fresh water ice melts thus screwing up the Atlantic currents.

Hey, I watch the mandatory TV ecological disasters movies like a good citizen, too.

I forgot to mention that the ice cubes I drop into the Arkansas River contain a pinch of salt.

 

[Steerpike]

None at all. Just continued evidence of the accelerating effects of the warming caused by the burning of fossil fuels.

Assuming you can establish the causal chain, rather than relying on correlation.

 

[Old Rocks]

Assuming you can establish the causal chain, rather than relying on correlation.

That was done over a hundred years ago.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

 

[Missourian]

None at all. Just continued evidence of the accelerating effects of the warming caused by the burning of fossil fuels.

So how did the burning of fossil fuels cause warming and cooling in all the other drastic climate changes in our planets recent history?

Lake Chicago​

"The city of Chicago lies in a broad plain which, hundreds of millions of years ago, was a great interior basin covered by warm, shallow seas. These seas covered portions of North America from the Arctic Ocean to the Gulf of Mexico. Evidence of these seas are found in the fossils of coral, such as those unearthed in Illinois quarries at Stony Island Avenue, Thornton and McCook Avenues, or at 18th Street and Damen Avenue, all in Chicago. Evidence may also be found in the fossils in the Niagara limestone bedrock found throughout the Chicago area and extending all the way to Niagara, New York.

Much later, the polar ice cap crept four times down across the continent, covering the region with ice to a depth of a mile or more. As the climate changed, the ice melted; and the last great ice flow (the Wisconsin Glacier of the Pleistocene period, which covered much of northern half of North America) retreated, and an outlet for the melting water developed through the Sag River and the Des Plaines River Valley around Mt. Forest, Illinois, in the area known as the Palos. Mighty torrents of water poured through those valleys, eventually leaving behind them the prehistoric Lake Chicago, the ancestor of Lake Michigan." Lake Chicago - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lake Bonneville​

"Lake Bonneville was a large, ancient lake that existed from about 32 to 14 thousand years ago. It occupied the lowest, closed depression in the eastern Great Basin and at its largest extent covered about 20,000 square miles of western Utah and smaller portions of eastern Nevada and southern Idaho.

At its largest, Lake Bonneville was about 325 miles long, 135 miles wide, and had a maximum depth of over 1,000 feet. It contained many islands that are the present-day mountain ranges of western Utah. Its relatively fresh water was derived from direct precipitation, rivers, streams, and water from melting glaciers. During the time of Lake Bonneville, the climate was somewhat wetter and colder than now.
" Utah's Great Salt Lake and Ancient Lake Bonneville, PI39 - Utah Geological Survey

California's Ancient Inland Sea ​

"Formed at about the same time as the Sierras, by faulting and down-warping of the earth's crust, Mono Lake has had varying amounts of water in it for about a million years. During the last ice age, about 12,000 years ago, the lake filled the entire basin, 338 square miles, and was in places 900 feet deep. The salt-rimmed 60 square miles of milky water you see now is a briny shadow of the lake's ice age self." California's Ancient Inland Sea - New York Times

Lake Manly​

"Lake Manly was a large freshwater lake which filled the Death Valley (United States) basin prior to the dry climatic period which has prevailed since the last ice age. Lake Manly receded due to increased evaporation, and to isolation from the Colorado River system, to which it was once connected. At its greatest extent Lake Manly was roughly 80 miles long and 800 feet deep.

As Lake Manly evaporated to the surface of Death Valley, it left a remarkable legacy. Under the surface of Death Valley is one of the world's largest underground reservoirs (aquifers). Being fed by the Amargosa River and Salt Creek, this aquifer is barely visible above ground at Badwater, the lowest point in the valley (282 feet below sea level)." Lake Manly - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lake Lahontan​

"Ancient Lake Lahontan was a large endorheic lake that existed during the ice age, covering much of northwestern Nevada, extending into northeastern California and southern Oregon. At its peak approximately 12,700 years ago (during a period known as the "Sehoo Highstand"), the lake had a surface area of over 8500 square miles, [1] with its largest component centered at the location of the present Carson Sink. The depth of the lake was approximately 900 feet[2] (290 m) at present day Pyramid Lake, and 500 feet (150 m) at the Black Rock Desert. Lake Lahontan, during this earlier ice age, would have been one of the largest lakes in North America.[3]

Climate change around the end of the Pleistocene epoch led to a gradual desiccation of ancient Lake Lahontan. The lake had largely disappeared in its extended form by approximately 9,000 years ago." Lake Lahontan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[del]

(CNN) -- Scientists have identified new rifts on an Antarctic ice shelf that could lead to it breaking away from the Antarctic Peninsula, the European Space Agency said.

The Wilkins Ice Shelf, a large sheet of floating ice south of South America, is connected to two Antarctic islands by a strip of ice. That ice "bridge" has lost around 2,000 square kilometers (about 772 square miles) so far this year, the ESA said.

A satellite image captured November 26 shows new rifts on the ice shelf that make it dangerously close to breaking away from the strip of ice -- and the islands to which it's connected, the ESA said.

Scientists first spotted rifts in the ice shelf in late February, and they noticed further deterioration the following week. The period marks the end of the South Pole summer and is the time when such events are most likely, said Ted Scambos, a glaciologist at the National Snow and Ice Data Center at the University of Colorado in Boulder.

Before the new rifts were spotted this week, the last cracks were noticed July 21.

"These new rifts, which have joined previously existing rifts on the ice shelf, threaten to break up the chunk of ice located beneath the 21 July date, which would cause the bridge to lose its stabilization and collapse," said Angelika Humbert, a scientist from Germany's Muenster University who spotted the cracks with Matthias Braun of the University of Bonn.

Wilkins is the size of the state of Connecticut, or about half the area of Scotland. It is the largest ice shelf on the Antarctic Peninsula yet to be threatened.

New rifts form on Antarctic ice shelf - CNN.com

<yawn>
that's nice
any guns involved?

 

[DavidS]

None at all. Just continued evidence of the accelerating effects of the warming caused by the burning of fossil fuels.

You made three statements. The first statement you made was that an ice shelf from Antarctica was breaking off. I've found a much better article than the one you posted that discusses this.

ESA - Observing the Earth - Understanding Our Planet - Wilkins Ice Shelf under threat

Notice the part where it says "floating ice shelf." This isn't part of the antarctican continent, this is part of a floating ice shelf. But I digress.

The second statement you made, and I did not realize you were an expert climatologist, was that a piece of this floating shelf was breaking off due to the Earth warming.

Let's assume you're going to live to 75 years of age. This would mean you would live 2,365,200,000 seconds. If I were to observe you for 11,826 seconds (.0005%), I would be observing you for a little over 3 hours. Within that 3 hour time period, if I were to be as detailed as possible in my notes, there is no way I could make an educated guess as to who you are and have a full psychological profile.

The same is to be said about Antarctica. We've been studying climatology in antarctica for 50 years. Compared to the hundreds of millions of years that our continents have been the way they are, with minor variances in sea levels, is nothing - absolutely nothing. In fact, if the continents were 100 million years old, 1% of that would be 1 million years. 1% of the 1 million years would be 10,000 years. 1% of that would be 100 years. So we've been studying climate in Antarctica for .0005% of the time it's existed in the current form that it's in, assuming that the current continental arrangment is only 100 million years old and we know it's quite longer, probably about 300 million years. We have no direct evidence that the warming of 2.5 degrees celcius is abnormal, since we've only been taking temperatures in the antarctic for 50 years.

Lastly, we've only been able to accurately measure our Earth's temperature for 50 years as well. Yes, there were thermometers back in the early 20th century, but they were not as accurate as they are today and if you're going to make statements that the Earth is 1 degree warmer today than it was 100 years ago, then you would have to make the assumption that the way we kept records 100 years ago was accurate - and it wasn't.

The third statement you made was that the burning of fossil fuels has contributed to an increase in temperatures over the past 100 years. I would assume you're using the CO2 theory that postulates increased CO2 in our atmosphere is causing our climate to warm. The accuracy of this statement would be dependent upon the second statement being true - that our earth is warming. We do not have nearly enough data to say whether or not this is true. We also do not have enough data to say that if the Earth is indeed warming, if this is natural or not. There are SEVERAL other sources of CO2 besides man-made CO2 that could be contributing to an increase of CO2 in our atmosphere.

In conclusion, we do not have nearly enough data to say whether or not our Earth is warming and if it is the warming is natural or unnatural and if it is unnatural it is being harmful to our planet and if it is how harmful it's being and if it's being very harmful a reduction in burning fossil fuels will reduce, overall, the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere and if it does if removing CO2 from our atmosphere is actually a GOOD thing. We are like 5 year old children thinking we can perform quadruple bypass surgery. We have no idea. And we had better back the fuck off because we have no idea if what we're doing to solve the problem will actually solve the problem or make it worse, if there is indeed a problem at all.

 

[DavidS]

That was done over a hundred years ago.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

You're relying on scientific data from over a hundred years ago? Please tell me you're joking. There isn't one scientific community that relies on data from 20 years ago, some 10 and even further some 5 years ago because of the technological advancements we keep making.

Is it possible that the people advancing and promoting this idea of global warming are making hundreds of billions of dollars from the "Green Industry?"

 

[dilloduck]

You're relying on scientific data from over a hundred years ago? Please tell me you're joking. There isn't one scientific community that relies on data from 20 years ago, some 10 and even further some 5 years ago because of the technological advancements we keep making.

Is it possible that the people advancing and promoting this idea of global warming are making hundreds of billions of dollars from the "Green Industry?"

OF COURSE it is. Besides being the new secularist dogma of course.

 

[Sunni Man]

But Al Gore said it was true. So it must be true!!!

 

[Old Rocks]

So how did the burning of fossil fuels cause warming and cooling in all the other drastic climate changes in our planets recent history?

Lake Chicago​

"The city of Chicago lies in a broad plain which, hundreds of millions of years ago, was a great interior basin covered by warm, shallow seas. These seas covered portions of North America from the Arctic Ocean to the Gulf of Mexico. Evidence of these seas are found in the fossils of coral, such as those unearthed in Illinois quarries at Stony Island Avenue, Thornton and McCook Avenues, or at 18th Street and Damen Avenue, all in Chicago. Evidence may also be found in the fossils in the Niagara limestone bedrock found throughout the Chicago area and extending all the way to Niagara, New York.

Much later, the polar ice cap crept four times down across the continent, covering the region with ice to a depth of a mile or more. As the climate changed, the ice melted; and the last great ice flow (the Wisconsin Glacier of the Pleistocene period, which covered much of northern half of North America) retreated, and an outlet for the melting water developed through the Sag River and the Des Plaines River Valley around Mt. Forest, Illinois, in the area known as the Palos. Mighty torrents of water poured through those valleys, eventually leaving behind them the prehistoric Lake Chicago, the ancestor of Lake Michigan." Lake Chicago - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lake Bonneville​

"Lake Bonneville was a large, ancient lake that existed from about 32 to 14 thousand years ago. It occupied the lowest, closed depression in the eastern Great Basin and at its largest extent covered about 20,000 square miles of western Utah and smaller portions of eastern Nevada and southern Idaho.

At its largest, Lake Bonneville was about 325 miles long, 135 miles wide, and had a maximum depth of over 1,000 feet. It contained many islands that are the present-day mountain ranges of western Utah. Its relatively fresh water was derived from direct precipitation, rivers, streams, and water from melting glaciers. During the time of Lake Bonneville, the climate was somewhat wetter and colder than now.
" Utah's Great Salt Lake and Ancient Lake Bonneville, PI39 - Utah Geological Survey

California's Ancient Inland Sea ​

"Formed at about the same time as the Sierras, by faulting and down-warping of the earth's crust, Mono Lake has had varying amounts of water in it for about a million years. During the last ice age, about 12,000 years ago, the lake filled the entire basin, 338 square miles, and was in places 900 feet deep. The salt-rimmed 60 square miles of milky water you see now is a briny shadow of the lake's ice age self." California's Ancient Inland Sea - New York Times

Lake Manly​

"Lake Manly was a large freshwater lake which filled the Death Valley (United States) basin prior to the dry climatic period which has prevailed since the last ice age. Lake Manly receded due to increased evaporation, and to isolation from the Colorado River system, to which it was once connected. At its greatest extent Lake Manly was roughly 80 miles long and 800 feet deep.

As Lake Manly evaporated to the surface of Death Valley, it left a remarkable legacy. Under the surface of Death Valley is one of the world's largest underground reservoirs (aquifers). Being fed by the Amargosa River and Salt Creek, this aquifer is barely visible above ground at Badwater, the lowest point in the valley (282 feet below sea level)." Lake Manly - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lake Lahontan​

"Ancient Lake Lahontan was a large endorheic lake that existed during the ice age, covering much of northwestern Nevada, extending into northeastern California and southern Oregon. At its peak approximately 12,700 years ago (during a period known as the "Sehoo Highstand"), the lake had a surface area of over 8500 square miles, [1] with its largest component centered at the location of the present Carson Sink. The depth of the lake was approximately 900 feet[2] (290 m) at present day Pyramid Lake, and 500 feet (150 m) at the Black Rock Desert. Lake Lahontan, during this earlier ice age, would have been one of the largest lakes in North America.[3]

Climate change around the end of the Pleistocene epoch led to a gradual desiccation of ancient Lake Lahontan. The lake had largely disappeared in its extended form by approximately 9,000 years ago." Lake Lahontan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You ignored Lake Missoula. I feel slighted.

As for your statement concerning climate changes in the past, yes, there have been many. And for many causes.Here is where you can begin real research on them, just one of many good sites;
World Data Center for Paleoclimatology - Climate Reconstructions

The present cycle of continental glaciers and interglacial periods are due to the Milankovic Cycles. There have been times of great catastrophe in prior periods where the influx of greenhouse gases, initiated by trap volcanics, created climatic conditions that resulted in major extinctions. The Perimian-Triassic was the worst of them, a 95% of species dieoff.

 

[Neubarth]

You're relying on scientific data from over a hundred years ago? Please tell me you're joking. There isn't one scientific community that relies on data from 20 years ago, some 10 and even further some 5 years ago because of the technological advancements we keep making.

Is it possible that the people advancing and promoting this idea of global warming are making hundreds of billions of dollars from the "Green Industry?"

The Earth is presently warming, but we do not know if that is a normal thing. I know in researching the history of Greenland for my book Newbeard the Great, I found out that there were reports of people being able to circumnavigate Greenland prior to the voyage of Columbus. Today that is impossible because of the ice sheet to the north of Greenland. Could it be that conditions in that area were warmer a thousand years ago???

 

[Old Rocks]

You made three statements. The first statement you made was that an ice shelf from Antarctica was breaking off. I've found a much better article than the one you posted that discusses this.

ESA - Observing the Earth - Understanding Our Planet - Wilkins Ice Shelf under threat

Notice the part where it says "floating ice shelf." This isn't part of the antarctican continent, this is part of a floating ice shelf. But I digress.

The second statement you made, and I did not realize you were an expert climatologist, was that a piece of this floating shelf was breaking off due to the Earth warming.

Let's assume you're going to live to 75 years of age. This would mean you would live 2,365,200,000 seconds. If I were to observe you for 11,826 seconds (.0005%), I would be observing you for a little over 3 hours. Within that 3 hour time period, if I were to be as detailed as possible in my notes, there is no way I could make an educated guess as to who you are and have a full psychological profile.

The same is to be said about Antarctica. We've been studying climatology in antarctica for 50 years. Compared to the hundreds of millions of years that our continents have been the way they are, with minor variances in sea levels, is nothing - absolutely nothing. In fact, if the continents were 100 million years old, 1% of that would be 1 million years. 1% of the 1 million years would be 10,000 years. 1% of that would be 100 years. So we've been studying climate in Antarctica for .0005% of the time it's existed in the current form that it's in, assuming that the current continental arrangment is only 100 million years old and we know it's quite longer, probably about 300 million years. We have no direct evidence that the warming of 2.5 degrees celcius is abnormal, since we've only been taking temperatures in the antarctic for 50 years.

Lastly, we've only been able to accurately measure our Earth's temperature for 50 years as well. Yes, there were thermometers back in the early 20th century, but they were not as accurate as they are today and if you're going to make statements that the Earth is 1 degree warmer today than it was 100 years ago, then you would have to make the assumption that the way we kept records 100 years ago was accurate - and it wasn't.

The third statement you made was that the burning of fossil fuels has contributed to an increase in temperatures over the past 100 years. I would assume you're using the CO2 theory that postulates increased CO2 in our atmosphere is causing our climate to warm. The accuracy of this statement would be dependent upon the second statement being true - that our earth is warming. We do not have nearly enough data to say whether or not this is true. We also do not have enough data to say that if the Earth is indeed warming, if this is natural or not. There are SEVERAL other sources of CO2 besides man-made CO2 that could be contributing to an increase of CO2 in our atmosphere.

In conclusion, we do not have nearly enough data to say whether or not our Earth is warming and if it is the warming is natural or unnatural and if it is unnatural it is being harmful to our planet and if it is how harmful it's being and if it's being very harmful a reduction in burning fossil fuels will reduce, overall, the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere and if it does if removing CO2 from our atmosphere is actually a GOOD thing. We are like 5 year old children thinking we can perform quadruple bypass surgery. We have no idea. And we had better back the fuck off because we have no idea if what we're doing to solve the problem will actually solve the problem or make it worse, if there is indeed a problem at all.

We have ample data, from dendochronology to ice cores that go back further than 650,000 years. We also have proxy data from isotopes of oxygen and carbon that go back hundreds of millions of years.

The earth is warming, and warming with a rapidity only matched in periods that in prior geologic history led to a time of major extinction. The only other major source of CO2 in the atmosphere is volcanos, and, at present, their contribution is less than 1/130th that of man. That is a USGS figure.

Today, virtually all the alpine glaciers are in rapid retreat on all the inhabited contintents. The major ice caps, Greenland and Anarctica, are losing ice mass at the rate of tens of cubic miles per year. The Siberian and North American permafrost areas are melting and beginning to outgass CO2 and CH4. The physical evidence of the warming is undeniable.

As far as the scientific community is concerned, there is an overwhelming consensus that the earth is warming and that the burning of fossil fuel is the primary cause. Every single scientific society on earth states this in it's policy statement concerning global warming. As does every National Academy of Science, as does every major university.

 

[Old Rocks]

You're relying on scientific data from over a hundred years ago? Please tell me you're joking. There isn't one scientific community that relies on data from 20 years ago, some 10 and even further some 5 years ago because of the technological advancements we keep making.

Is it possible that the people advancing and promoting this idea of global warming are making hundreds of billions of dollars from the "Green Industry?"

And you are flapping your yap without ever bothering to read the information in the article. Not something that speaks highly of your intellect.