Since people are wanting to talk about the latest events on the Antarctic Peninsula, this is a post for that discussion.
The imagery from ESA (animation here) tells the recent story quite clearly – the last sliver of ice between the main Wilkins ice shelf and Charcot Island is currently collapsing in a very interesting way (from a materials science point of view). For some of the history of the collapse, see our previous post. This is the tenth major ice shelf to collapse in recent times.
Maybe we can get some updates and discussion of potential implications from the people working on this in the comments….?
#191 Dawn
I have an idea, if you are not worried about being stalked or have any other work related problems, etc. with posting your full name. Go ahead and post it.
I find that people that post their full name are more likely to do research before they post something. Not all the time, but it seems to lean to the positive.
You see, if your just Dawn, then it does not matter what you say, no accountability.
But if you post with your real name, then you may be more likely to not want to look unreasonable, or unsubstantial, or irrelevant with your posts. Like I said, in most cases that is a motive factor, not all. Some are fully willing to post conjecture and unsubstantiated opinion devoid of reason and relevant contextual fact.
It is easy to think one knows what one is talking about. I have fallen into that trap in the past as well. It’s just one of life’s lessons that we, as humans, sometimes need to be reminded of.
Wow,
I see the attitude is entirely acceptable when it comes from the appropriate direction.
I had several posts declined that addressed specific responses but they are gone now.
Really this attitude excuse is obviously subjective but I’ll try again an earlier post without a link and whatever was deemed to be “attitude”.
Gavin,
I asked earlier you if you were reading something into the corrected ocean temp process. There is nothing conclusive in that reevaluation. Barely any confidence either.
There’s obviously a significant amount of guesstimating and presumption involved with correcting the problems with the instrumental biases and Argo float data.
At this point they are only offering loosely derived indication of some continued warming. And the justification is vague at best.
Is it attitude to then ask “How do you possibly treat that with such high confidence and certainty?”
I really want to know.
Lawrence,
The ocean sensors said the oceans have been cooling. The temperatures have since been “corrected” as stated above.
IMO without a satisfactory basis or explanation. Frankly I don’t know why anyone would view this treatment of the ocean temperatures as reliable.
Steve Missal,
How is that you are waiting for special delivery of an “optional theory” when you cannot point to any meaningful data which substantiates the AGW cause?
I suggested we be consistent.
5 or 10 years a long term trend does not make. Neither does a 30 year trend.
And neither does faulty sensors and corrected readings.
If the overriding interest is valid science then how can you trust the current approach to “official temperature record”?
Additionally, if you want to simply choose to treat the ocean temperature trend and Antarctic ice shelf-AGW connection as reliable and conclusive go ahead.
But I see neither any reliability or anything conclusive.
To borrow a line [edit–no cherry-picked, out-of-context, and misleading quotations of our colleagues please]
SecularAnimist,
Nice attitude.
It is not “my accepting any fake, phony, ExxonMobil-scripted, pseudo-scientific denialist bunk” that leaves me skpetical. It is the repeated absence of sound science to link AGW to observations as demonstrated in this discussion of ocean temperature trends and Wilkens Ice shelf.
Moreover I have never “dogmatically refused to look at any information that might contradict my skepticism.
That’s why I am here.
From my perspective it is you et al who refuses to look at the extensive information that calls into question many of the methods that attribute observations to AGW.
Let’s face reality. You must acknowledge that there are many claims being made that have no substantiating basis in science at all.
In contrast to the presumption that the Wilkens event is a sign of AGW is a thorough explanation over at icecap but I am not allowed to post a link.
And we should try and be friends with some standards in seeking the truth.
[Response: Ah I see. Because people working in a subject you know nothing about have, after many years, corrected the data to deal with obvious inconsistencies that have been discussed in many papers (none of which you appear to have read), we are supposed to simply throw up our hands and declare that we know nothing and that since it wasn’t perfect first time round it must be useless now. Got it. (And you think this is a substantive argument? Oh dear.) – gavin]
I think there are natural cycles on this planet that our models are incapable of capturing. There are feedback mechanisms yet to be discovered. IPCC predictions for global temperatures are off at least 1 standard deviation. This does not prove that CO2 does not cause the warming but it does prove that the existing models lack predictive merit. Using the Wilkins collapse as an indicator of AGW is cherry picking.
Dawn says, “I’ll have to imagine that the more germane and well said arguements a skeptics posts the least likely they will show up.”
Ooh! A testable hypothesis! Try posting something germane and cogent. Just once. Pretty please!
Dawn, please either visit me at realskeptic.blogspot.com or email me at wbennettjr@yahoo.com and send me what you tried to post.
I’m interested in discussing it with you.
Walt, To contend that finding errors in data and correcting them is somehow an indication of incompetence or conspiracy is simply ignorant and irresponsible. Every data set has errors. More than half of science is estimating and modeling errors. It is normal. It is expected. If one does not understand this or cannot communicate it, one isn’t ready to try to communicate scientific results to the world.
Climate science is progressing just like any other science does. People investigate what they don’t understand, posit and test theories, argue a lot and eventually reach a consensus about what works. In terms of the science, the whole climate change debate is a sideshow. It barely registers. Climate change is merely an inescapable consequence of the portion of the science that is settled. If you don’t understand that, you don’t understand the situation.
Hank Roberts (#125) and Marcus (#141),
Thanks for the background info and discussion.
#194 Walt Bennett
For perspective, I for one have no problem with what Gavin said, especially in consideration of his knowledge, understanding and the context involved.
For example, here is what I consider rude. Coming to a blog that is dedicated to science and spouting garbage that is scientifically un-substantiable and claiming it is relevant.
That is rude… Calling a person an idiot for doing so, that is not rude, that is relevant reasonable assessment and virtually fact.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/idiot
1usually offensive : a person affected with extreme mental retardation
2: a foolish or stupid person
In other words, if the shoe fits…
By extrapolation, one can clearly see that the application of the word ‘idiot’ in the context and use in question, is reasonably applicable.
But hey, that’s just my opinion and I can be an idiot too once in a while… call me human. In my world, we should try not to be offended, but rather considerate of our potentials either way, at any given point in time.
Accelerated ice discharge from the Antarctic Peninsula following the collapse of Larsen B ice shelf
E. Rignot,1,2 G. Casassa,2 P. Gogineni,3 W. Krabill,4 A. Rivera,2 and R. Thomas4,2
Received 7 June 2004; revised 9 July 2004; accepted 12 August 2004; published 22 September 2004.
Interferometric synthetic aperture radar data collected by ERS-1/2 and Radarsat-1 satellites show that Antarctic Peninsula glaciers sped up significantly following the collapse of Larsen B ice shelf in 2002. Hektoria, Green and Evans glaciers accelerated eightfold between 2000 and 2003 and decelerated moderately in 2003.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/imap/2600/B/
For an overview of anthropogenically driven polar warming:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~nathan/pdf/ngeo338.pdf
“Attribution of polar warming to human influence, Gillett et al. Nature 2008”
Ray, what was your comment in #205 in reference to?
#176; also #179 and similar posts, worth also looking work by Peter Mayhew, York University (U.K.), and his assessment of extinction rates and biodiversity in response to palaeoclimate change. He’s a good speaker and presenter, by the way, if you ever get a chance to attend one of his talks, and the results are very striking.
# 145 – Mauri – interesting comments, particularly contrasting Wilkins with Wordie etc. What do you make of the features extending at about 2 o’clock from Latady (using ESA images as the ref. frame)? Anyone actually out there at the moment measuring these things (depth, width etc.), or likely to do a fly-by for more detailed photogrammetry? Presumably the form and fabric/till structure of the bed will be a major factor in what happens and where.
JPR, way OT and not very important either, but that hair up your butt that gives you the obsession with full names ought to be cut out. You’re saying 99% of blog posts are worthless. That’s silly and tiresome. Find better ways to chastise folks that disagree with you.
John,
Why bother defending rudeness?
Were you on the high school debate team?
And did I catch you using Gavin’s position and acclaim as a justification?
Really?
#190 John P. Reisman
John, you are an idiot sometimes.
You posted: “Current multiyear ice is 9.8%”
but you forgot to give it context ;)
So here:
Current multiyear ice >2 Years Old is in contrast to the evidence of ice >2 Years Old from between 1981 and 2000
I stand corrected by myself :)
Okay, maybe I’m being hard on myself, maybe I was just sloppy, or inconsiderate of the context at the moment, but I don’t want to rule out my potential for idiocy.
BTW, I’m ignoring other related factors to this for the sake of economy.
#200 Philip
A magnitude 5.8 quake hit Antartica on Sunday, November 4, 2007. See link at
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Rare_earthquake_strikes_Antarctica
Here is another link to the USGS regarding earthquakes in Antartica. http://earthquake.usgs.gov/learning/faq.php?categoryID=1&faqID=138
Here is a link to an explanation about “glacial” earthquakes caused by ice movement. http://www.livescience.com/environment/080606-glacial-earthquakes.html
Here is a link to a Nov 3 2007 Antartic earthquake
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-11/03/content_7003963.htm
Here is an article about an Antartic glacier moving 2 feet a day in a earthquake like pattern linked to tides.
http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=111647
Based on a cursory reading of what is found on google, there is a lot to be learned regarding, volcanos, earthquakes and the movement of ice sheets in Antartica. Can anyone state definitively what the causation was for the collapse of the Wilkins Ice Sheet? Based on my reading of the news reports I have not seen a cause attributed to the collapse just speculation.
Thanks
William
Walt, can you see if you can get “Global Cooler” straightened out about seeing trends at your site?
That same NASA link is posted a lot of other places on the Intartubes, you can search for it — by people making the same mistaken claim about it.
Ray,
It is germane to point out the lack of substantiating scientific support for a theory. In this thread it is the supposed theory that the Wilkins Ice shelf event is related to AGW.
Also the notion that ocean temperature readings that showed cooling have been corrected lacks substantiation as well.
Yet, as I stated above, the “correction” is being accepted as reliable. Why?
IMO you mischaracterized, to Walt, the concern about the errors in data and how they are handled.
I am not, and I suspect Walt too, so ignorant or irresponsible as to contend either incompetency or conspiracy. Rather I am pointing out that the corrections were made with some pretty vague and unsubstantiated assumptions. That’s what I am reading in the report that describes those corrections.
If you see some specificity that I am missing please point it out.
Obviously “Every data set has errors.”
Who doesn’t understand “estimating and modeling errors”?
But both the errors and the corrections must be adequately and accurately identified with an acceptable level of confidence.
My pitch here is that you and yours are granting that level confidence when it is NOT deserving.
And all the while you appear summarily dismiss most if not all opposing and contradictory considerations.
Yes “Climate science is progressing just like any other science does”.
But for some reason you broad brush all contributing skeptics as lacking understanding.
Despite this approach of yours there are abundant skeptics with expertise and extensive scientific work in this progressing field of climate science.
IMO you are neglecting to consider a vast portion of this “sideshow” debate.
Attempting to sweep it all under the rug with your own declarations about what Climate change ultimately means is no substitute for inclusive and objective study.
Now try and be nice.
Re:#191 states in part-“I’ll have to imagine that the more germane and well said arguements a skeptics posts the least likely they will show up.”
I don’t see that that’s the case- People on the other side of this issue post here constantly, and are welcomed, otherwise we’d have a pretty dull time of it constantly nodding to each other in agreement. It’s poaaible to learn from opposing views if the arguments are well substantiated.
ref #199 No Mark I have no interest in trying again. I am confident that volcanic eruptions release aerosols. I am confident these reflect light. I am confident that plants require light for photosynthesis. I am confident that so2 released by volcanoes cause acid rain. I am fairly confident that adding nutrient rich soil to water causes anoxia. I am fairly confident that volcanic discharge is nutrient rich which would explain why it is sold as fertilizer. I am confident that volcanic eruptions cause global cooling.
I am also fairly confident that if an objective person takes the discussion on Laki from J. Gratten: Lithos 79 2005 and instead of saying what if for an entire year said what if for a million years they would see that the preponderance of proof lies with those who do not believe that volcanism was the primary cause of the Permian extinction:
Fissure maintained its peak output for an entire year,
the environmental consequences would have led to an
environmental crisis. Rather than most of the damage
to the environment being confined to a brief period
between June and July, acid rain and aerosols would
have been deposited repeatedly. Between June 8th
1783–June 8th 1784 stable high-pressure systems
dominated the weather of Europe on 11 separate
episodes totalling 147 days, during which volatile
gases and aerosols could have been delivered to the
surface. Assuming the intensity of each episode to be
comparable to that which actually occurred in 1783,
severe acid damage to the environment could be
predicted on 10 further occasions with inevitable
intense modification of ecosystems.
Taking the climatic and environmental modifications
together, it is plain that a single CFB lava flow
over a single year would be a powerful environmental
forcing mechanism. It is clear from the actual
events which occurred in 1783 that such volcanic
activity may wield a direct influence on distant
environments on at least a continental scale. This
350 J. Grattan / Lithos 79 (2005) 343–353
influence is severe and includes the impacts of
extreme weather and climate plus acid deposition.
Taking the impacts of these processes upon plants
over several years, we may predict a severe reduction
in their range and an impairment of their ability to
reproduce themselves, there would be an inevitable
further impact upon the animals which relied on
them. The lesson which the Laki Fissure eruption
may contribute to CFB studies is therefore one of
sudden, extreme impacts of acid fallout and contamination
over a wide area, which would be repeated
throughout the life of the flood basalt eruption over
many thousands of years. Inevitable in such a
scenario critical environmental thresholds would be
crossed, from which recovery would be limited and
significant long term environmental change could
ensue (Skiba et al., 1989; Smith et al., 1993
Raw temperature data is all that is required to prove or disprove the AGW theory. All this stuff about glaciers and iceshelves is not proof, it is more of an overused distraction, and for some, a deception.
AGW alarmists still haven’t come close to proving that global warming will be apocalyptically detrimental to mankind. The mild warming of Earth, most strongly felt in the higher latitudes, will probably benefit mankind.
The Atlantic Chronozone, Medieval Warm Period, and even the Eocene give examples of what Earth will be like, were some of the more extreme predictions for AGW to be realized. We certainly have sufficient time to absorb negative GW effects, given the gradual nature of the change.
I see that some of the President’s top advisors are thinking of geoengineering to fight AGW. More research should be applied to this, but also for preventing catastrophic cooling, such as a new glacial period, which would be far worse than GW.
Walt and John Reisman: I would also note that there is a difference between calling someone an idiot and saying “Don’t be an idiot.” I think I can safely assume none of us considers Theo to be an idiot, but that to imply conspiracy or incompetence based on finding errors in data is not a defensible position.
#212 Ray Ladbury
Good point, gives better context.
Regarding Dawn et al, is there some reliable diagnostic available for the purpose of distinguishing intellectual laziness vs. garden variety stupidity vs. disingenuity?
As a case in point, Dawn’s presentation is a confusing mixture of defects. Some of her beliefs appear anachronistic, frozen and insusceptible to improvement, other things she explains to us appear wholly organic and even original while always wrong, yet at the same time she shows a strong tendency to parrot demagogic spouting she’s apparently been able to memorize.
All that being the case, it’s hard to tell if Dawn is truly ignorant and simultaneously too shiftless to grow, is congenitally incapable of forming an useful understanding of the topic of climate change, or is having a bit of fun at everybody’s expense.
Other than pegging Dawn as boring friction, what can we reliably say about her that is helpful to the debate?
#213 Walt Bennett
I am not defending rudeness, I am defending relevance.
I did not mention Gavin’s position, but neither would I rule it out as a factor. He is a respected scientist. He has heard, by now, so many silly arguments and is, in my opinion, extremely tolerant with people that simply don’t understand the relevant contexts, and scientifically well understood evidence.
So my justification is the context of his (in my opinion) exceptional management of this blog, his tremendous efforts and time spent here, and his willingness to keep this blog relevant and avoid tired, old, out of context, or irrelevant arguments from wasting everyone’s time, including yours.
Ray’s point is sound, imo. I can be an idiot sometimes, but that does not mean that I am an idiot. I can’t imagine going through life and never doing something idiotic.
Steve #181 (following #178):>>”The Siberian Traps would almost certainly have been episodic, but the amount of discharge would be equivalent to turning Mount St Helens on and leaving it on for a million years.”
Wrong by a factor of about a 1000!
The main Plinian eruption of Mt. St. Helens on May 18, 1980 lasted about 9 hours. If “turned on” in the Plinian phase for an entire year, it would have ejected 2,285 km3 (assuming the 2.9 km3 you cited occurred entirely during the 9-hour climactic Plinian eruption phase). The Siberian Traps volume of 3M km3 would be reached in 1,062 years at this ejection rate.
Dawn: “Also the notion that ocean temperature readings that showed cooling have been corrected lacks substantiation as well.
Yet, as I stated above, the “correction” is being accepted as reliable. Why?”
A number of us do try to note that the science of ocean heat uptake is still in flux, and the figure that I personally cited does include all 3 recent ocean heat content reconstructions to show the continuing differences.
However, your original statement on ocean heat content, stated: “You need to get current. The oceans are not warming.”
This statement had two problems: one was that it was based on a short term trend (2003 to 2008). The second was that it was based on a news article from the Baltimore Weather Examiner (not the best of scientific sources). This news article cited an article on “Correcting Ocean Cooling” featuring the research of Josh Willis. The news article included a couple of figures from the article: of course, these figures were the “before” figures, and, as the article title might suggest, Willis was correcting his previous analysis that had suggested Ocean Cooling as the figures from the 2nd half of the “Correcting Ocean Cooling” article showed.
So effectively, neither you nor the news article writer was “current”.
Now, having come in with a “definitive” statement that was proved wrong, you are attempting to defend yourself by noting that there are still uncertainties in the science – and yes, there are, but that doesn’t make your original, very clear statement any less false.
dawn,
forgive them dawn. the reason they get frustrated is they’ve heard all the buzz words you use and the standard skeptic criticisms. they have looked into them all. the criticisms have all, so far, been addressed to the satisfaction of almost all climate scientists. see if any of these sound familiar: http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
> some reliable diagnostic available
> for the purpose of distinguishing
There is, as Dano pointed out long ago, no ‘Wisdom’ button on the Internet. Having said that, teh Google can sometimes be helpful in this, if you study the return and sort out who might be who and who isn’t.
You can of course search within results* to sort’em:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%2B%22Dawn+said%22+%2Bclimate+%2Bwarming+%2Bcooling
_________________
*This suggestion added after I was reminded:
“taketh recounts” says ReCaptcha
Doug,
That’s quite the attitude.
Your psychoanalyzing leaves me almost feeling violated. But not quite.
I think you could have done a much better job of pointing out how my impressions of the Wilkens event and cooling ocean corrections had you simply stayed with climate science.
Perhaps you are working on that part now that you’ve vented?
I find this debate interesting despite the occasional tantrums.
And thank you Gavin for clearing my way to contribute.
if all of antarctica’s ice melted what would we find? any interesting mountains? canyons? volcanos? how much of it would remain above water if the ice all melted (initially, and “after full rebound”)? hhmmm…
ref #219 obviously my statement should have said “the preponderance of the burden of proof” but I felt I should correct this least it come back to haunt me
> what can we reliably say
Rely on the journal articles, not on the ‘icecap’ blog, for credible information you can check for yourself.
“they’ve heard all the buzz words you use and the standard skeptic criticisms. they have looked into them all.”
And seemingly never heard.
If they’d been heard, these old hashed out memes would be dead.
But they aren’t.
#225 oops! valid point Brian my error
“Raw temperature data is all that is required to prove or disprove the AGW theory. ”
How raw is raw?
The readout count from the CCD, unaltered for any element? The raw GPS signal, before corrections are made to turn it in to position? The laser gyroscope readings before they are turned into angle position?
HOW RAW IS RAW?
And if raw data about sea ice isn’t proof of AGW, what are you expecting from this raw data? That it too will not be proof of AGW?
You have that horse so far behind the cart, they’re on different continents.
AGW theory says that the amount of CO2 production from human sources should create a larger and increasing change upward in the world’s average temperature.
That’s all.
One result of this is that glaciers melt.
Having seen glaciers melt, this is corroborating evidence (note, not proof, but nobody outside of a media journal says it’s proof).
But answer how raw is raw?
“ref #199 No Mark I have no interest in trying again”
What do you mean “trying again”. You haven’t tried the first time, yet.
“I am confident that volcanic eruptions release aerosols. I am confident these reflect light. …”
Yup, I’m confident these do them too.
But are they enough to kill off all the plants and animals?
You seem oddly confident they are, despite having NO EVIDENCE of it. Heck, you have NO EVIDENCE you’ve even looked seriously.
Try a FIRST time, then you can say “I’m not going to try again”.
“It is germane to point out the lack of substantiating scientific support for a theory. In this thread it is the supposed theory that the Wilkins Ice shelf event is related to AGW.”
Well, here’s the link:
AGW means climate temperatures will go up.
When temperature goes UP, ice near the melting point will warm and melt.
Here we have a lot of ice that is melting.
See the connection?
No?
“Can anyone state definitively what the causation was for the collapse of the Wilkins Ice Sheet? Based on my reading of the news reports I have not seen a cause attributed to the collapse just speculation.”
I can answer this one: melting.
Ice melting is the cause of collapse.
“You’re saying 99% of blog posts are worthless.”
That’s probably an underestimate, RodB.
But as Pauli said: the best way to get good ideas is to have lots of ideas.
Unfortunately, without people knowing which ideas are yours, the best way of having lots of ideas is to have lots of stupid ones. You don’t have to sweat thinking then.
> if all of Antarctica melted
You can look it up.
Google can become your friend.
When you want a picture, use the Image Search link:
http://images.google.com/images?q=if%20all%20of%20Antarctica%20melted
Then look at the results til you see a good one, like this one
http://www.ig.utexas.edu/outreach/wiredantarctica/lessons/sci_lessons/meltant.jpeg
You’ll find that a little ways down this page:
http://www.ig.utexas.edu/outreach/wiredantarctica/lessons/sci_lessons/lesson6s.htm
(the other pictures there are likely to interest you also)
Hank Roberts — Thanks for the info. Yes, I’ll posit increased basal inflow helped promote Wilkins breaks.
“Raw temperature data is all that is required to prove or disprove the AGW theory. All this stuff about glaciers and iceshelves is not proof, it is more of an overused distraction, and for some, a deception.” – MiltonFyke
On the contrary, as has been pointed out in this thread, glaciers and iceshelves are excellent integrators of climatic effects. The consilience of the temperature data (never, of course, raw) with the retreat of glaciers and collapse of ice-shelves greatly increases climate scientists’ confidence that rapid warming is happening. What grounds have you for your claim of deception?
“AGW alarmists still haven’t come close to proving that global warming will be apocalyptically detrimental to mankind. The mild warming of Earth, most strongly felt in the higher latitudes, will probably benefit mankind.”
Well of course, benevolent aliens could come and save us, or the sun could suddenly cool very sharply. You really ought to take a look at the IPCC AR4 WGII report on impacts – it might disabuse you of your complacent illusions. At anything above 2 degrees C above pre-industrial temperatures, the effects will almost certainly be strongly negative – and even below that, there will be serious problems for the billion and more people dependent on glaciers and snowpack for their water supply, and for low-lying areas.
“The Atlantic Chronozone, Medieval Warm Period, and even the Eocene give examples of what Earth will be like, were some of the more extreme predictions for AGW to be realized.”
No, they don’t. Of these, only the Eocene had temperatures anywhere near the 6 degrees C above pre-industrial levels that are predicted by many if BAU continues – and it may have escaped your notice, but at that time there was not a human civilisation of several billions adapted to current temperatures, sea-level, and water-availability patterns.
“I see that some of the President’s top advisors are thinking of geoengineering to fight AGW. More research should be applied to this, but also for preventing catastrophic cooling, such as a new glacial period, which would be far worse than GW.”
I stand to be corrected by experts, but it seems to me geoengineering against cooling would be much easier than against warming: release quantities of a highly-effective greenhouse gas such as one of the HCFCs.
#236 Mark, in case it has escaped you the extinction event happened 250 million years ago. There is limited evidence to support any hypothesis which is why there are still so many in play. The volcanism hypothesis does have one advantage over the others and that is that it has a test case in Laki. Now I am done with this conversation and will gladly declare you the winner. congratulations
Re: Phil Felton at #195
I’ve made a (crude) animation of the two most recent ESA images here. It’s clear that with the “pin” gone, a very large area of ice is on the move — mainly northwards.
Say, Gavin, back to the original topic — you mentioned the interesting thing about this collapse from a materials science point of view. I haven’t heard anyone comment who’s working on this, have you any pointers to published work while we wait and hope for visitors to comment?
The sequence is documented
http://www.esa.int/images/wilkins26nov2008timeline_H.jpg
The shape of the breaks has been described a bit (find “disintegration” earlier).
I don’t find any maps of the underlying seabottom, but I wondered if there’s a shallow stretch underlying the former ice bridge. I’ve noticed in puddles that where water rises and falls under ice, or where ice freezes and melts and refreezes, the area that is in close contact with the bottom seems to ‘jack itself up’ a bit with each freeze, maybe ratcheting up and down as the frozen part grounds out while the floating part doesn’t. Just speculating.
[Response: Well, I think it interesting that most of the faults were either parallel to the bridge or orthogonal implying a mechanically induced failure rather the surface melt induced collapse seen at Larson B. It should be a good case study for ice modellers in the future. – gavin]
#242 Nick Gotts
I think it’s pretty well established that you don’t need to resort to fluorines, just burning fossil fuels is sufficient to stave off cooling for the the near future up to an including possibly 20k yrs, possibly more, but as I’ve heard in the past, it’s not nice to upset mother nature :)
How does the collapse square with the latest NSIDC data which shows an increasing Antartic ice coverage?
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/s_plot.png
Jim N
[Response: Look in the region where this is happening. – gavin]
Mark (#239):
<But as Pauli said: the best way to get good ideas is to have lots of ideas.>
You paraphrase, perhaps accidentally, what has been said of Churchill during the war years: He had hundreds of ideas every day, and, most days, one of them was good.
John@246,
I was envisaging some completely unexpected and drastic drop in solar output – or at any rate, the amount reaching Earth – due to, say, a thick dust cloud enveloping us. Sure, fossil fuels could do it, but they have other nasty effects, principally acidifying the ocean. AFAIK, HCFCs don’t – they don’t damage the ozone layer much, and are non-toxic. I’d assume there are many other possible candidates.
walter crain asked: “if all of antarctica’s ice melted what would we find?”
Hank Roberts replied: “You can look it up. Google can become your friend.”
Well, that’s more practical than my suggestion which would be to read H.P. Lovecraft’s novella At The Mountains Of Madness: