Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Climate Change Forum Antartica IS Warming

ROTHERA BASE, Antarctica (Reuters) - Antarctica is getting warmer rather than cooling as widely believed, according to a study that fits the icy continent into a trend of global warming.

(With some frightening Sea level rises predicted.)

http://uk.reuters.com/article/scienceNew...l=0&sp=true

(A similar Video here)
http://uk.reuters.com/news/video?videoId=97373

Mike

Great post , I wonder how they determined the volume of ice on the antartic , I had calculated apx 150 meters in an earlier post , using the antartic surface area of 14,000,000 sq miles and a ice thickness of apx 2000 meters
and a earth surface area of 197,000,000 sq miles.

I think the avarage ice thickness in the antartic is 2100 meters.

from my calculations that are probably way off to most people I had estimated a rise of apx 400-500 ft.

today I found a link to the est volume of ice on the antartic , it states that it is 7.5 million cubic miles.

so from this I came up with the following estimates.

7.5 million cubic miles (antartic ice)

= 7.5 million (sq miles) x 5280 (ft high)

= 39,600,000,000 sq miles of 1 ft rise

39.6 billion (sq miles) / 0.197 billion (sq miles earths surface area)= 201 ft rise

which is higher than their estimate.

if the earth was all ocean except that the only continent above the ocean was the antartic then the 201 ft rise should be closely correct.

however there are other continents and the rise would be increased due to the other continents already occupying 30% of the earths surface area.

it would take a computer program to find a close number to use
for the rise level because the variations
of the geography of the many continents , I still believe that at least 300 ft would be a semi close approximation and this would include greenland ice.

this does not include thermal expansion or the decrease in the oceans buldge due to the rotational decrease of the earth caused by the extra force needed to rotate the newly aquired ocean water.

which may even cause the sea levels to rise to apx 400-500 ft from where they are today.

It is astounding how so many warnings are given to us about what we are doing , and yet we cling on to the same old same old that caused the problems.

the work of more and more reputable (smart/smart) scientist and persons such as yourself and samwick and a few others here alone show that the world is learning that something needs to be done , but when will it be done?

lets put it this way , when the sea shore reaches their door step then they might think about getting into that piston powered 6,000 lb 4x4 and going to the mountains , problem is that all the gas pumps and all the buisnesses are all down beyond the sea shore under the water.

and all the rain will just wash the truck back down off the mountain again if they get there...allong with all the roads and houses and gas stations on the mountains...its that serious !!



we have seen a fraction of what the weather can do in the past few years and some were teribly deadly and scary to be caught in , but that is a mere scratch off the surface of what the weather can and will do , if we dont stop burning fuels and making greenhouse gasses !!!

Here's yet another hint at GW http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20090122/nazca_lines_090122/20090122?hub=SciTech

The Nazca Lines in Peru are over 1,000 years old. They are at a great elevation and have suffered little ill effect from erosion...until now.

Really great posting..Its a thing of worry that Antartica is getting hot day by day. Its a very dangerous thing not only to the mankind but also to the whole world. So the scientists have to be really careful about this fact and must get some remedy for this.

Thats funny - I've just done a study and found the opposite. I looked at satellite data of the sea ice coverage and came to the conclusion that more sea ice must mean its NOT warming. Actually it was my 7 year old son who suggested it. Apparently his view (something he learnt in school) is that if there is more ice it means its probably getting colder.

Kind of strange that the 'experts' didn't think of this.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.anom.south.jpg

Not strange at all....

Experts almost always think above the level of a 7-year-old.

You should try that too. Realize that there is more to global ice balance than simply "sea ice" --please.

Ice extent (cover) is a lot different than ice thickness. Is this "more sea ice" explained as due to increased calving from the land-based ice that have been flowing faster over the past few decades, or is it due to the breakup of floating ice shelves? ...or both?

Climate change, especially in a warming world, causes increased precipitation in the colder areas. Is it any surprise that E. Antarctica is seeing increased snow and ice, as W. Antarctic warms faster than anywhere else on Earth?
Overall Antarctica is losing between one-half & one-and-a-half 50-150 Billion Tonnes of Ice per year--net loss.

Next time think about the big picture--after you've "just done a study" and come "to the conclusion" that "its probably getting colder."
Ice will form whether the temperature is minus 40 or just a few degrees below freezing.
What does "sea ice" tell us about temperature? To study "cooling" you'd be better off looking at temperature anomolies and their distribution, extent, and east/west shift in Antarctica.

If you want to learn about how climate change affects temperature, you should study latent heat and sensible heat, heat capacity, and especially the "heat of fusion" --the change in enthalpy for freezing/melting--of ice.
Learn more than a seven-year-old, or at least encourage him to learn more--to see the complexities.

~

p.s.
Whoops, I guess I meant 50 to 150 Billion Tonnes of Ice melting/year in Antarctica (not 0.5-1.5 Gt).

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v1/n2/abs/ngeo102.html
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2006-028
http://www.bristol.ac.uk/news/2008/5767.html
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?old=2006030221819
last updated: March 18, 2009

I hope you don't mind if I save this comment ..... when the so called consensus on this ridiculous AGW scare collapses (which is already underway) ... your comment may be just about perfect ...

For some real science ... let me direct you to a recent paper by Dr. Syun AkaSofu. a summary is below and the full paper can be downloaded from :

http://people.iarc.uaf.edu/~sakasofu

THE IPCC’S FAILURE OF PREDICTING THE TEMPERATURE CHANGE DURING THE FIRST DECADE

Syun Akasofu
International Arctic Research Center
University of Alaska Fairbanks
Fairbanks, AK 9977507340

The global average temperature stopped increasing after 2000 against the IPCC’s prediction of continued rapid increase. It is a plain fact and does not require any pretext. Their failure stems from the fact that the IPCC emphasized the greenhouse effect of CO2 by slighting the natural causes of temperature changes.

The changes of the global average temperature during the last century and the first decade of the present century can mostly be explained by two natural causes, a linear increase which began in about 1800 and the multi-decadal oscillation superposed on the linear increase. There is not much need for introducing the CO2 effect in the temperature changes. The linear increase is the recovery (warming) from the Little Ice Age (LIA), which the earth experienced from about 1400 to 1800.

The halting of the temperature rise during the first decade of the present century can naturally be explained by the fact that the linear increase has been overwhelmed by the superposed multi-decadal oscillation which peaked in about 2000.*

This situation is very similar to the multi-decadal temperature decrease from 1940 to 1975 after the rise from 1910 to 1940 (in spite of the fact that CO2 increased rapidly after 1946); it was predicted at that time that a new Big Ice Age was on its way.

The IPCC seems to imply that the halting is a temporary one. However, they cannot give the reason. Several recent trends, including the phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), the halting of sea level increase, and the cooling of the Arctic Ocean, indicate that the halting is likely to be due to the multi-decadal change.

The high temperatures predicted by the IPCC in 2100 (+2~6°C) are simply an extension of the observed increase from 1975 to 2000, which was caused mainly by the multi-decadal oscillation. The Global Climate Models (GCMs) are programmed to reproduce the observed increase from 1975 to 2000 in terms of the CO2 effect and to extend the reproduced curve to 2100.

It is advised that the IPCC recognize at least the failure of their prediction even during the first decade of the present century; a prediction is supposed to become less accurate for the longer future.

imrancan

I found the exact wording in several other forums so I
suppose that you forgot to place your wording in quotes.


http://boards.msn.com/MSNBCboards/thread.aspx?threadid=1016904

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/20/dr-syun-akasofu-on-ipccs-forecast-accuracy/

anyway , I downloaded the pdf file of Dr Akasofu.

Two Natural Components of the Recent Climate Change:
(1) The Recovery from the Little Ice Age
(A Possible Cause of Global Warming)
and
(2) The Multi-decadal Oscillation
(The Recent Halting of the Warming)
Syun-Ichi Akasofu
International Arctic Research Center
University of Alaska Fairbanks
Fairbanks, Alaska
Abstract

and could not find many of the words used in the summary
you posted , is the link you posted to the correct document?

or has someone summarized his paper , adding a little effect along the way!

some of the search words I used were

FAILURE OF PREDICTING
stopped increasing
halting of the temperature rise
It is advised that the IPCC

adobe reader was not able to find any of the above?

this is why I question if the link you provided is to the correct document.

........................................................
I also thought I would post this find.
........................................................

Human-induced global warming is real, according to a recent U.S. survey http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/01/19/eco.globalwarmingsurvey/index.html






now who would have figured that!

The end is coming. Antarctica is warming.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7984054.stm

[quote=Mike Kremer]Yep. The end is coming even quicker now.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUKTRE5363MV20090407?sp=true

yet more proof that global warming is undeniable:

more ice caps melting

when will we finally start taking action?

So presumably, parts of the ice cap will break off and float elsewhere. These bits of ice will cool seas in other parts of the globe.

The climate changing in one part of the world can have an opposite effect on the climate in other patrs.

The climate won't just redistribute itself and "have an opposite effect."
Maybe I can offer a little perspective here, Andist.

The difference between heat and temperature is a common source of misunderstanding in all this climate change stuff.

The idea that "ice will cool seas in other parts of the globe," is a good example of this sort of misunderstanding.

Remember, the total heat balance for the planet needs to be kept in mind as you look at the "temperature" of various parts.

Try to look at it this way.
If the ice is cooling other parts of the globe, as you say, then that ice is not cooling the Antarctic anymore. Warm water (or air) has moved in to replace the lost ice--helping to melt more of the recently exposed ice, right?

Or, try this perspective...
...on the ice that floated elsewhere and "will cool" the seas....

I think it's more like the ice will keep the seas from warming as fast as they are without any extra ice from Antarctica.
But icebergs aren't going to make up for the extra heat being trapped globally.

That extra heat will continue to warm the air ...and melt the ice--wherever that ice might be.

I see what you're saying. On a larger scale though, some scientists predict another Ice age. The carbon emmisions which now cause "global warming" by causing the greenhouse effect will eventually block out the sun.

There is a theory that the Biblical flood (or the Deluge)was cause went a passing planet came to close to Earth and a large section of Antarctica slipped in to the ocean. The ice rests on a gelatinous layer that is formed by the friction of ice/water and earth. The scary thing is that the planet (Planet X, Eris, Nibiru) is already on its way back towards Earth and is due to be at it's closest in 2012. Some say it is already visible in the southern hemisphere if you take a picture of the sun you can see it.

Andist, there are several silly comments I thought about making on your 'blocking out the sun' point, but I think probably I just don't understand what you are referring to. Can you elaborate?
===

But....

About the "ice age" point. YES!!! This is a very likely scenario!

Since Earth basically has two modes of climate--cold ice-age or hot greenhouse--it's pretty rare that we can enjoy a happy medium like we have now for many mellennia.

The point that seems obvious to many scientists is that--as with any quasi-stable system--if you add extra energy or in any way imbalance the system, it is going to readjust and reorganize itself into one of the more common, stable modes (if not develop into some pathological--unsustainable--mode). Robust, resilient systems like the Earth or living systems usually readjust, even if they endure some pathological episode, eventually reorganizing and falling back to a basic, "ground" state where they can "start over" to again continue with "normal" development.

In the case of Earth's climate system, that most common stable "ground-state" mode is "Ice Age." Hence there are many paths to another ice age, and earth-science folks easily see the looming likely danger.

Now I know that I've oversimplified this snippet on bi-stable modes--overlooking the distinction between ice-ages and glaciations, that we are in an Ice-Age now, ...interglacials periods, etc., but the main point remains:

If you're adding extra energy to a system, it'll eventually reorganize itself.

~

"Blocking out the sun" was a stupid way of wording it, fair enough! On the oter hand, some scientists believe that the last ice age was due to volcanic activity which caused smoke and debris which did block out the sun, quite literally.

The thing is, whilst people in the more "developed" countries can be persuaded to drive cars with lower carbon emmisions and burn "smokeless coal", in "developing" countries, it will be difficult to p-ersuade farmers, who havbe been ploghing fields manually for generations to refrain from buying tractors to assist them now that they can afford them.

Will the system reorganise itself if we keep adding the pollutants which have caused the lack of organisation in the first place?

Instead of adding a link to argue my point for me, I'll go one step further on the scale of cheekyness and consult an emeritas professor I know who specialises in this sort of thing. He'll be at work now but I'll try to be back with a very smart reply as soon as he is home!

I just had a high speed conversation with above mentioned professor so I'm sure to have my facts mixed up a bit but here are some scary facts as I remember them:

1) Evaporated water is a greenhouse gas in itself.

2)If the ice in Siberia melts, a lot of CO2 beneath will be released aswell.

3)If the freshwater on Greenland melts, we will have a 7 meter sea-level rise.

4)over the last 50 years, there has been an approximate rise in CO2 from 300pts per million in the air to 400 parts per million.

As Ice masses melt, the white reflective coulour is replaced by a sea-green, heat absorbing colour

AND LAST BUT BY NO MEANS LEAST FOLKS:

HAVING ABSOLUTELY NO LAND-MASS BENEATH IT, IF THE SOUTH POLE MELTS WE WILL HAVE A SEVENTY, YEP, SEVEN ZERO METER RISE IN SEA LEVELS.

Sleep tight now folks and remember that it will be some time 'til you need those water-wings at the ready!!

Andist



the south pole / antartica does have a land mass beneath it , and plenty of it at that.

below is a map of the antartic land mass along with elevation data , the green , yellow , and orange parts depict land above sea level.



almost all of the land on the antartic is covered by an average of 2000 meters of ice , there is very little land visible which speaks for itself.

if when greenland and the south pole ice melts we will have an apx 500 ft sea level rise , if not more !!!

Well that's probably enough sea-level rise to be going on with!

An odd fact, I think, is that the Antarctic land mass is the driest continent on the planet. That seems counter-intuitive to me.