10,000-year-old Antarctic ice shelf will disappear by 2020

[orogenicman]

Land ice affects sea level by melting, the water running off the land and into the sea. When ice sheets like Larsen B collapse, they can release the massive land glacier they are holding back. That glacier then speeds up and flows into the sea, and melts. In response, the seal level increases. This is glaciology 101. If you want anything more advanced, I'm afraid I will have to charge you for it. I'm not your teacher, and I don't work for free.

Floating

The weight of a land glacier is on the LAND, not the sea. That is, until the seaward ice sheet collapses, allowing the land glacier to spread onto the SEA. You must be really dense not to understand this.

then why do they say floating? Me, I'm not there, so I don't know. I expect those professionals discussing will accurately represent the state of it. They write floating, meaning it doesn't touch bottom already submerged occupying water volume. So, are you sure it is all land ice? or are you saying that the continent will split and fall into the ocean?

If a land glacier is not, as you claim, in contact with the land, why do glaciers contain so much rock and soil? Of course it contacts the land, dummy. And even if it did "float" on glacial water beneath, that water is on the land, not the sea, and so the weight of all of it is still on the land, not the sea. You really should stop trying to be something you are not. That is, you should stop pretending that you are a geologist, when you don't know the first thing about the science, and obviously are not very good at it.

first off, again you misrepresent what another poster stated. I think that is now in violation of the new rule in the Environment forum. So please, refrain from reposting my thoughts as yours.

What are you babbling about?

I never said anything about land glaciers. NEVER. You did, not me.

I was talking about land glaciers behind the floating ice sheets. Your response was, and I quote "floating". And I reiterated what I had said about land glaciers, and you responded "then why do they say floating?".

So please straighten that up. I'm asking nicely right now.

Grow up.

Second, I think you are confused on where the ice sheet is floating. It extends into the ocean and it is submerged and not touching the sea floor.

That is the ice sheet/shelf, and it is not all submerged, but it is floating in the ocean. The land glacier behind it is NOT extending into the ocean, and is not floating in the ocean. It sits on dry land and so does not affect sea level until the ice shelf off the coast collapses and allows the land glacier to move into the sea and collapse and melt. What part of this confounds your tiny brain?

 

[westwall]

Updated data from NASA satellite instruments reveal the Earth’s polar ice caps have not receded at all since the satellite instruments began measuring the ice caps in 1979. Since the end of 2012, moreover, total polar ice extent has largely remained above the post-1979 average. The updated data contradict one of the most frequently asserted global warming claims – that global warming is causing the polar ice caps to recede.

The timing of the 1979 NASA satellite instrument launch could not have been better for global warming alarmists. The late 1970s marked the end of a 30-year cooling trend. As a result, the polar ice caps were quite likely more extensive than they had been since at least the 1920s. Nevertheless, this abnormally extensive 1979 polar ice extent would appear to be the “normal” baseline when comparing post-1979 polar ice extent.

Updated NASA satellite data show the polar ice caps remained at approximately their 1979 extent until the middle of the last decade. Beginning in 2005, however, polar ice modestly receded for several years. By 2012, polar sea ice had receded by approximately 10 percent from 1979 measurements. (Total polar ice area – factoring in both sea and land ice – had receded by much less than 10 percent, but alarmists focused on the sea ice loss as “proof” of a global warming crisis.)

Updated NASA Data: Global Warming Not Causing Any Polar Ice Retreat

Updated NASA Data Global Warming Not Causing Any Polar Ice Retreat - Forbes

What a lying little bastard that author is. North Polar ice has went from 5 to 5 1/2 to 2 1/4 to 3 1/2 Km^2 for the last 8 years. That is surface area.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.area.arctic.png

The volume looks even more radical.





Fig.1 Arctic sea ice volume anomaly from PIOMAS updated once a month. Daily Sea Ice volume anomalies for each day are computed relative to the 1979 to 2014 average for that day of the year. Tickmarks on time axis refer to 1st day of year. The trend for the period 1979- present is shown in blue. Shaded areas show one and two standard deviations from the trend. Error bars indicate the uncertainty of the monthly anomaly plotted once per year.

While the Antarctic Sea Ice is gaining, the continent itself is losing ice, as is Greenland. Taylor's whole article is a half lie dedicated to deception on what is happening at both poles. A very dishonest person, indeed.

Mass balance MAY be decreasing. The west is losing ice, the east is gaining ice. The problem is there is so little actual on the ground checking, that the models are the primary source of these studies.

As we have seen on a very regular basis, almost every time the models are checked in the real world the results are either the opposite of what the models have said, or vastly reduced from that which has been stated.

 

[orogenicman]

Updated data from NASA satellite instruments reveal the Earth’s polar ice caps have not receded at all since the satellite instruments began measuring the ice caps in 1979. Since the end of 2012, moreover, total polar ice extent has largely remained above the post-1979 average. The updated data contradict one of the most frequently asserted global warming claims – that global warming is causing the polar ice caps to recede.

The timing of the 1979 NASA satellite instrument launch could not have been better for global warming alarmists. The late 1970s marked the end of a 30-year cooling trend. As a result, the polar ice caps were quite likely more extensive than they had been since at least the 1920s. Nevertheless, this abnormally extensive 1979 polar ice extent would appear to be the “normal” baseline when comparing post-1979 polar ice extent.

Updated NASA satellite data show the polar ice caps remained at approximately their 1979 extent until the middle of the last decade. Beginning in 2005, however, polar ice modestly receded for several years. By 2012, polar sea ice had receded by approximately 10 percent from 1979 measurements. (Total polar ice area – factoring in both sea and land ice – had receded by much less than 10 percent, but alarmists focused on the sea ice loss as “proof” of a global warming crisis.)

Updated NASA Data: Global Warming Not Causing Any Polar Ice Retreat

Updated NASA Data Global Warming Not Causing Any Polar Ice Retreat - Forbes

What a lying little bastard that author is. North Polar ice has went from 5 to 5 1/2 to 2 1/4 to 3 1/2 Km^2 for the last 8 years. That is surface area.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.area.arctic.png

The volume looks even more radical.





Fig.1 Arctic sea ice volume anomaly from PIOMAS updated once a month. Daily Sea Ice volume anomalies for each day are computed relative to the 1979 to 2014 average for that day of the year. Tickmarks on time axis refer to 1st day of year. The trend for the period 1979- present is shown in blue. Shaded areas show one and two standard deviations from the trend. Error bars indicate the uncertainty of the monthly anomaly plotted once per year.

While the Antarctic Sea Ice is gaining, the continent itself is losing ice, as is Greenland. Taylor's whole article is a half lie dedicated to deception on what is happening at both poles. A very dishonest person, indeed.

Mass balance MAY be decreasing. The west is losing ice, the east is gaining ice. The problem is there is so little actual on the ground checking, that the models are the primary source of these studies.

As we have seen on a very regular basis, almost every time the models are checked in the real world the results are either the opposite of what the models have said, or vastly reduced from that which has been stated.

The east is gaining snow pack (as opposed to ice) but not in the amounts that the west is losing ice. And the east is only gaining snow because of the poleward shift of the Antarctic Circumpolar Current observed over recent decades, which has a significant human induced component.

 

[westwall]

Updated data from NASA satellite instruments reveal the Earth’s polar ice caps have not receded at all since the satellite instruments began measuring the ice caps in 1979. Since the end of 2012, moreover, total polar ice extent has largely remained above the post-1979 average. The updated data contradict one of the most frequently asserted global warming claims – that global warming is causing the polar ice caps to recede.

The timing of the 1979 NASA satellite instrument launch could not have been better for global warming alarmists. The late 1970s marked the end of a 30-year cooling trend. As a result, the polar ice caps were quite likely more extensive than they had been since at least the 1920s. Nevertheless, this abnormally extensive 1979 polar ice extent would appear to be the “normal” baseline when comparing post-1979 polar ice extent.

Updated NASA satellite data show the polar ice caps remained at approximately their 1979 extent until the middle of the last decade. Beginning in 2005, however, polar ice modestly receded for several years. By 2012, polar sea ice had receded by approximately 10 percent from 1979 measurements. (Total polar ice area – factoring in both sea and land ice – had receded by much less than 10 percent, but alarmists focused on the sea ice loss as “proof” of a global warming crisis.)

Updated NASA Data: Global Warming Not Causing Any Polar Ice Retreat

Updated NASA Data Global Warming Not Causing Any Polar Ice Retreat - Forbes

What a lying little bastard that author is. North Polar ice has went from 5 to 5 1/2 to 2 1/4 to 3 1/2 Km^2 for the last 8 years. That is surface area.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.area.arctic.png

The volume looks even more radical.





Fig.1 Arctic sea ice volume anomaly from PIOMAS updated once a month. Daily Sea Ice volume anomalies for each day are computed relative to the 1979 to 2014 average for that day of the year. Tickmarks on time axis refer to 1st day of year. The trend for the period 1979- present is shown in blue. Shaded areas show one and two standard deviations from the trend. Error bars indicate the uncertainty of the monthly anomaly plotted once per year.

While the Antarctic Sea Ice is gaining, the continent itself is losing ice, as is Greenland. Taylor's whole article is a half lie dedicated to deception on what is happening at both poles. A very dishonest person, indeed.

Mass balance MAY be decreasing. The west is losing ice, the east is gaining ice. The problem is there is so little actual on the ground checking, that the models are the primary source of these studies.

As we have seen on a very regular basis, almost every time the models are checked in the real world the results are either the opposite of what the models have said, or vastly reduced from that which has been stated.

The east is gaining snow pack (as opposed to ice) but not in the amounts that the west is losing ice. And the east is only gaining snow because of the poleward shift of the Antarctic Circumpolar Current observed over recent decades, which has a significant human induced component.

Maybe. We honestly don't know. That's the problem with these studies. Is they rely far too much on non properly calibrated remote sensing, and there is very little on the ground checking of the models these studies are based on. As I said previously, when they have been checked, they have been found inaccurate at best and completely off the mark at worst.

And snow pack changes to ice with time.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Changes are coming fast, less them 5 years. What warming?


One of the last remaining sections of Antarctica's Larsen B Ice Shelf is dramatically weakening, according to a new NASA study.

The study predicts that what remains of the once-prominent ice shelf, a thick floating platform of ice, most likely will "disintegrate completely" before the end of this decade

NASA Antarctica s Larsen B Ice Shelf to disappear - CNN.com

Yeah, we heard about that. It's because of a volcano underneath.

Don't you feel stupid now?

Wrong part of Antarctica, shit for brains.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Wow...

A Glacial remnant of the last ice age is about to break up because it has been eaten out from underneath by..... wait for it..... Volcanically warmed water... While the rest of Antarctica ice is growing massively.

Yawn..... Nothing to see here... the dam thing was melting at 1,200 meters per year in the 1800's far faster than today... same old failure to research and then scream at the top of your lungs alarm.... ding ding ding....

That's not even true. I think you just made it up.

 

[orogenicman]

Updated data from NASA satellite instruments reveal the Earth’s polar ice caps have not receded at all since the satellite instruments began measuring the ice caps in 1979. Since the end of 2012, moreover, total polar ice extent has largely remained above the post-1979 average. The updated data contradict one of the most frequently asserted global warming claims – that global warming is causing the polar ice caps to recede.

The timing of the 1979 NASA satellite instrument launch could not have been better for global warming alarmists. The late 1970s marked the end of a 30-year cooling trend. As a result, the polar ice caps were quite likely more extensive than they had been since at least the 1920s. Nevertheless, this abnormally extensive 1979 polar ice extent would appear to be the “normal” baseline when comparing post-1979 polar ice extent.

Updated NASA satellite data show the polar ice caps remained at approximately their 1979 extent until the middle of the last decade. Beginning in 2005, however, polar ice modestly receded for several years. By 2012, polar sea ice had receded by approximately 10 percent from 1979 measurements. (Total polar ice area – factoring in both sea and land ice – had receded by much less than 10 percent, but alarmists focused on the sea ice loss as “proof” of a global warming crisis.)

Updated NASA Data: Global Warming Not Causing Any Polar Ice Retreat

Updated NASA Data Global Warming Not Causing Any Polar Ice Retreat - Forbes

What a lying little bastard that author is. North Polar ice has went from 5 to 5 1/2 to 2 1/4 to 3 1/2 Km^2 for the last 8 years. That is surface area.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.area.arctic.png

The volume looks even more radical.





Fig.1 Arctic sea ice volume anomaly from PIOMAS updated once a month. Daily Sea Ice volume anomalies for each day are computed relative to the 1979 to 2014 average for that day of the year. Tickmarks on time axis refer to 1st day of year. The trend for the period 1979- present is shown in blue. Shaded areas show one and two standard deviations from the trend. Error bars indicate the uncertainty of the monthly anomaly plotted once per year.

While the Antarctic Sea Ice is gaining, the continent itself is losing ice, as is Greenland. Taylor's whole article is a half lie dedicated to deception on what is happening at both poles. A very dishonest person, indeed.

Mass balance MAY be decreasing. The west is losing ice, the east is gaining ice. The problem is there is so little actual on the ground checking, that the models are the primary source of these studies.

As we have seen on a very regular basis, almost every time the models are checked in the real world the results are either the opposite of what the models have said, or vastly reduced from that which has been stated.

The east is gaining snow pack (as opposed to ice) but not in the amounts that the west is losing ice. And the east is only gaining snow because of the poleward shift of the Antarctic Circumpolar Current observed over recent decades, which has a significant human induced component.

Maybe. We honestly don't know. That's the problem with these studies. Is they rely far too much on non properly calibrated remote sensing, and there is very little on the ground checking of the models these studies are based on. As I said previously, when they have been checked, they have been found inaccurate at best and completely off the mark at worst.

And snow pack changes to ice with time.

Unless it evaporates in the ever blowing polar wind.

And it amazes me when people suggest that our remote sensors aren't properly calibrated, and then suggest that they are the best measurements we have, all the while complaining that scientists are "falsifying data" by calibrating it. There is simply no end to the craziness. You can't have it both ways.

 

[westwall]

Updated data from NASA satellite instruments reveal the Earth’s polar ice caps have not receded at all since the satellite instruments began measuring the ice caps in 1979. Since the end of 2012, moreover, total polar ice extent has largely remained above the post-1979 average. The updated data contradict one of the most frequently asserted global warming claims – that global warming is causing the polar ice caps to recede.

The timing of the 1979 NASA satellite instrument launch could not have been better for global warming alarmists. The late 1970s marked the end of a 30-year cooling trend. As a result, the polar ice caps were quite likely more extensive than they had been since at least the 1920s. Nevertheless, this abnormally extensive 1979 polar ice extent would appear to be the “normal” baseline when comparing post-1979 polar ice extent.

Updated NASA satellite data show the polar ice caps remained at approximately their 1979 extent until the middle of the last decade. Beginning in 2005, however, polar ice modestly receded for several years. By 2012, polar sea ice had receded by approximately 10 percent from 1979 measurements. (Total polar ice area – factoring in both sea and land ice – had receded by much less than 10 percent, but alarmists focused on the sea ice loss as “proof” of a global warming crisis.)

Updated NASA Data: Global Warming Not Causing Any Polar Ice Retreat

Updated NASA Data Global Warming Not Causing Any Polar Ice Retreat - Forbes

What a lying little bastard that author is. North Polar ice has went from 5 to 5 1/2 to 2 1/4 to 3 1/2 Km^2 for the last 8 years. That is surface area.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.area.arctic.png

The volume looks even more radical.





Fig.1 Arctic sea ice volume anomaly from PIOMAS updated once a month. Daily Sea Ice volume anomalies for each day are computed relative to the 1979 to 2014 average for that day of the year. Tickmarks on time axis refer to 1st day of year. The trend for the period 1979- present is shown in blue. Shaded areas show one and two standard deviations from the trend. Error bars indicate the uncertainty of the monthly anomaly plotted once per year.

While the Antarctic Sea Ice is gaining, the continent itself is losing ice, as is Greenland. Taylor's whole article is a half lie dedicated to deception on what is happening at both poles. A very dishonest person, indeed.

Mass balance MAY be decreasing. The west is losing ice, the east is gaining ice. The problem is there is so little actual on the ground checking, that the models are the primary source of these studies.

As we have seen on a very regular basis, almost every time the models are checked in the real world the results are either the opposite of what the models have said, or vastly reduced from that which has been stated.

The east is gaining snow pack (as opposed to ice) but not in the amounts that the west is losing ice. And the east is only gaining snow because of the poleward shift of the Antarctic Circumpolar Current observed over recent decades, which has a significant human induced component.

Maybe. We honestly don't know. That's the problem with these studies. Is they rely far too much on non properly calibrated remote sensing, and there is very little on the ground checking of the models these studies are based on. As I said previously, when they have been checked, they have been found inaccurate at best and completely off the mark at worst.

And snow pack changes to ice with time.

Unless it evaporates in the ever blowing polar wind.

And it amazes me when people suggest that our remote sensors aren't properly calibrated, and then suggest that they are the best measurements we have, all the while complaining that scientists are "falsifying data" by calibrating it. There is simply no end to the craziness. You can't have it both ways.

One of many studies showing that the GRACE results have been poor because of calibration problems. This study actually addresses possible fixes though. That's a step in the right direction.



[1] The GRACE satellite mission is mapping the Earth's gravity field at monthly intervals. The solutions can be used to determine monthly changes in the distribution of water on land and in the ocean. Most GRACE studies to-date have focussed on producing maps of mass variability, with little discussion of the errors in those maps. Error estimates, though, are necessary if GRACE is to be used as a diagnostic tool for assessing and improving hydrology and ocean models. Furthermore, only with error estimates can it be decided whether some feature of the data is real, and how accurately that feature is determined by GRACE. Here, we describe a method of constructing error estimates for GRACE mass values. The errors depend on latitude and smoothing radius. Once the errors are adjusted for these factors, we find they are normally-distributed. This allows us to assign confidence levels to GRACE mass estimates.

Accuracy of GRACE mass estimates - Wahr - 2006 - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library

 

[westwall]

Maybe. That is certainly a untested theory.

 

[orogenicman]

What a lying little bastard that author is. North Polar ice has went from 5 to 5 1/2 to 2 1/4 to 3 1/2 Km^2 for the last 8 years. That is surface area.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.area.arctic.png

The volume looks even more radical.





Fig.1 Arctic sea ice volume anomaly from PIOMAS updated once a month. Daily Sea Ice volume anomalies for each day are computed relative to the 1979 to 2014 average for that day of the year. Tickmarks on time axis refer to 1st day of year. The trend for the period 1979- present is shown in blue. Shaded areas show one and two standard deviations from the trend. Error bars indicate the uncertainty of the monthly anomaly plotted once per year.

While the Antarctic Sea Ice is gaining, the continent itself is losing ice, as is Greenland. Taylor's whole article is a half lie dedicated to deception on what is happening at both poles. A very dishonest person, indeed.

Mass balance MAY be decreasing. The west is losing ice, the east is gaining ice. The problem is there is so little actual on the ground checking, that the models are the primary source of these studies.

As we have seen on a very regular basis, almost every time the models are checked in the real world the results are either the opposite of what the models have said, or vastly reduced from that which has been stated.

The east is gaining snow pack (as opposed to ice) but not in the amounts that the west is losing ice. And the east is only gaining snow because of the poleward shift of the Antarctic Circumpolar Current observed over recent decades, which has a significant human induced component.

Maybe. We honestly don't know. That's the problem with these studies. Is they rely far too much on non properly calibrated remote sensing, and there is very little on the ground checking of the models these studies are based on. As I said previously, when they have been checked, they have been found inaccurate at best and completely off the mark at worst.

And snow pack changes to ice with time.

Unless it evaporates in the ever blowing polar wind.

And it amazes me when people suggest that our remote sensors aren't properly calibrated, and then suggest that they are the best measurements we have, all the while complaining that scientists are "falsifying data" by calibrating it. There is simply no end to the craziness. You can't have it both ways.

One of many studies showing that the GRACE results have been poor because of calibration problems. This study actually addresses possible fixes though. That's a step in the right direction.



[1] The GRACE satellite mission is mapping the Earth's gravity field at monthly intervals. The solutions can be used to determine monthly changes in the distribution of water on land and in the ocean. Most GRACE studies to-date have focussed on producing maps of mass variability, with little discussion of the errors in those maps. Error estimates, though, are necessary if GRACE is to be used as a diagnostic tool for assessing and improving hydrology and ocean models. Furthermore, only with error estimates can it be decided whether some feature of the data is real, and how accurately that feature is determined by GRACE. Here, we describe a method of constructing error estimates for GRACE mass values. The errors depend on latitude and smoothing radius. Once the errors are adjusted for these factors, we find they are normally-distributed. This allows us to assign confidence levels to GRACE mass estimates.

Accuracy of GRACE mass estimates - Wahr - 2006 - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library

Well, thanks for telling the rest of us what we've been saying to you people, like, forever. "Once the errors are adjusted for these factors, we find they are normally-distributed. This allows us to assign confidence levels to GRACE mass estimates."

 

[PredFan]

Yeah and there won't be any snow by 2010.

 

[jc456]

Credit National Snow and Ice Data Center.

19 March 2002
Larsen B Ice Shelf Collapses in Antarctica
Satellite imagery analyzed at NSIDC revealed that the northern section of the Larsen B ice shelf shattered and separated from the continent.

View a series of satellite images of the 2002 Larsen B breakup.

6 January 2001


Antarctic Ice Shelf Collapse Triggered by Warmer Summers
Research indicates that ice shelves are particularly sensitive to climate change.

22 March 2001


Monitoring of Pine Island Glacier, Antarctica, Reveals Wide New Crack
Pine Island Glacier has undergone a steady loss of elevation, with retreat of the grounding line in recent decades. Satellite imagery revealed a wide crack that some scientists think will result in a calving event.

7 April 1999


Breakup of the Larsen B Ice Shelf: 15 February 1998 to 18 March 1999
Two ice shelves on the Antarctic Peninsula known as the Larsen B and Wilkins have lost nearly 3,000 square kilometers of their total area from February 1998 to March 1999. Browse images showing the evolution of the Larsen B ice shelf from February 15, 1988 to March 18, 1999.

View a series of satellite images of the 1998 to 1999 Larsen B breakup.

24 March 1998
Breakup of Larsen B Ice Shelf Underway
The Larsen B Ice Shelf began breaking up, receding past its historical minimum extent, and past the point where modeling suggested it could maintain a stable ice front. The breakup appeared closely associated with the areas over which melt ponding was observed during warmer summer seasons.

January 1995
Events in the Northern Larsen Ice Shelf and Their Importance
In late January of 1995, a large area of about 2,000 square kilometers (770 square miles) disintegrated into small icebergs during a storm. At the same time, farther south, a large iceberg broke off the ice shelf front. While large iceberg calving events are routine for ice shelves, disintegration is not.

So look how many times the Larsen Ice Shelf has had a chunk or two fall off, and where is the sea rise due to the back pressure run off of the land ice? Look over seven years and nothing indicating that the back pressure ice mass will just fall into the sea. I think you all are nuts.

Again, recorded facts that disprove all of your fear mongering.

 

[orogenicman]

Credit National Snow and Ice Data Center.

19 March 2002
Larsen B Ice Shelf Collapses in Antarctica
Satellite imagery analyzed at NSIDC revealed that the northern section of the Larsen B ice shelf shattered and separated from the continent.

View a series of satellite images of the 2002 Larsen B breakup.

6 January 2001


Antarctic Ice Shelf Collapse Triggered by Warmer Summers
Research indicates that ice shelves are particularly sensitive to climate change.

22 March 2001


Monitoring of Pine Island Glacier, Antarctica, Reveals Wide New Crack
Pine Island Glacier has undergone a steady loss of elevation, with retreat of the grounding line in recent decades. Satellite imagery revealed a wide crack that some scientists think will result in a calving event.

7 April 1999


Breakup of the Larsen B Ice Shelf: 15 February 1998 to 18 March 1999
Two ice shelves on the Antarctic Peninsula known as the Larsen B and Wilkins have lost nearly 3,000 square kilometers of their total area from February 1998 to March 1999. Browse images showing the evolution of the Larsen B ice shelf from February 15, 1988 to March 18, 1999.

View a series of satellite images of the 1998 to 1999 Larsen B breakup.

24 March 1998
Breakup of Larsen B Ice Shelf Underway
The Larsen B Ice Shelf began breaking up, receding past its historical minimum extent, and past the point where modeling suggested it could maintain a stable ice front. The breakup appeared closely associated with the areas over which melt ponding was observed during warmer summer seasons.

January 1995
Events in the Northern Larsen Ice Shelf and Their Importance
In late January of 1995, a large area of about 2,000 square kilometers (770 square miles) disintegrated into small icebergs during a storm. At the same time, farther south, a large iceberg broke off the ice shelf front. While large iceberg calving events are routine for ice shelves, disintegration is not.

So look how many times the Larsen Ice Shelf has had a chunk or two fall off, and where is the sea rise due to the back pressure run off of the land ice? Look over seven years and nothing indicating that the back pressure ice mass will just fall into the sea. I think you all are nuts.

Again, recorded facts that disprove all of your fear mongering.

Erm, your post shows that the ice shelf has been breaking up since 1995. The OP says the rest of it will be gone by 2020. So what, exactly, do you believe you've disproven?

 

[jc456]

Credit National Snow and Ice Data Center.

19 March 2002
Larsen B Ice Shelf Collapses in Antarctica
Satellite imagery analyzed at NSIDC revealed that the northern section of the Larsen B ice shelf shattered and separated from the continent.

View a series of satellite images of the 2002 Larsen B breakup.

6 January 2001


Antarctic Ice Shelf Collapse Triggered by Warmer Summers
Research indicates that ice shelves are particularly sensitive to climate change.

22 March 2001


Monitoring of Pine Island Glacier, Antarctica, Reveals Wide New Crack
Pine Island Glacier has undergone a steady loss of elevation, with retreat of the grounding line in recent decades. Satellite imagery revealed a wide crack that some scientists think will result in a calving event.

7 April 1999


Breakup of the Larsen B Ice Shelf: 15 February 1998 to 18 March 1999
Two ice shelves on the Antarctic Peninsula known as the Larsen B and Wilkins have lost nearly 3,000 square kilometers of their total area from February 1998 to March 1999. Browse images showing the evolution of the Larsen B ice shelf from February 15, 1988 to March 18, 1999.

View a series of satellite images of the 1998 to 1999 Larsen B breakup.

24 March 1998
Breakup of Larsen B Ice Shelf Underway
The Larsen B Ice Shelf began breaking up, receding past its historical minimum extent, and past the point where modeling suggested it could maintain a stable ice front. The breakup appeared closely associated with the areas over which melt ponding was observed during warmer summer seasons.

January 1995
Events in the Northern Larsen Ice Shelf and Their Importance
In late January of 1995, a large area of about 2,000 square kilometers (770 square miles) disintegrated into small icebergs during a storm. At the same time, farther south, a large iceberg broke off the ice shelf front. While large iceberg calving events are routine for ice shelves, disintegration is not.

So look how many times the Larsen Ice Shelf has had a chunk or two fall off, and where is the sea rise due to the back pressure run off of the land ice? Look over seven years and nothing indicating that the back pressure ice mass will just fall into the sea. I think you all are nuts.

Again, recorded facts that disprove all of your fear mongering.

Erm, your post shows that the ice shelf has been breaking up since 1995. The OP says the rest of it will be gone by 2020. So what, exactly, do you believe you've disproven?

first that the back pressure is a myth. that whole land glaciers falling into the sea causing a six foot rise. didn't happen how many times now?

that the shelf is still there after breaking how many times?

That fear mongering is just fear mongering.

 

[westwall]

Image 2 of 4 (play slideshow) Download

Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag

Right on the edge of two standard deviations, about 2 1/2 % chance of being natural.

Why do you say that? It's been much lower in the last 50 years.

The lowest it has been in recorded history was in 2007.

Oh, I wouldn't bet on that. The record keeping started in 1970 and amazingly enough those records are never shown but they were lower than the present day, and by quite a bit. And then we have this study, one of many that say otherwise.


Arctic Ocean sea ice proxies generally suggest a reduction in sea ice during parts of the early and middle Holocene (∼6000–10,000 years BP) compared to present day conditions. This sea ice minimum has been attributed to the northern hemisphere Early Holocene Insolation Maximum (EHIM) associated with Earth's orbital cycles. Here we investigate the transient effect of insolation variations during the final part of the last glaciation and the Holocene by means of continuous climate simulations with the coupled atmosphere–sea ice–ocean column model CCAM. We show that the increased insolation during EHIM has the potential to push the Arctic Ocean sea ice cover into a regime dominated by seasonal ice, i.e. ice free summers. The strong sea ice thickness response is caused by the positive sea ice albedo feedback. Studies of the GRIP ice cores and high latitude North Atlantic sediment cores show that the Bølling–Allerød period (c. 12,700–14,700 years BP) was a climatically unstable period in the northern high latitudes and we speculate that this instability may be linked to dual stability modes of the Arctic sea ice cover characterized by e.g. transitions between periods with and without perennial sea ice cover.

Arctic Ocean perennial sea ice breakdown during the Early Holocene Insolation Maximum

 

[orogenicman]

Image 2 of 4 (play slideshow) Download

Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag

Right on the edge of two standard deviations, about 2 1/2 % chance of being natural.

Why do you say that? It's been much lower in the last 50 years.

The lowest it has been in recorded history was in 2007.

Oh, I wouldn't bet on that. The record keeping started in 1970 and amazingly enough those records are never shown but they were lower than the present day, and by quite a bit. And then we have this study, one of many that say otherwise.


Arctic Ocean sea ice proxies generally suggest a reduction in sea ice during parts of the early and middle Holocene (∼6000–10,000 years BP) compared to present day conditions. This sea ice minimum has been attributed to the northern hemisphere Early Holocene Insolation Maximum (EHIM) associated with Earth's orbital cycles. Here we investigate the transient effect of insolation variations during the final part of the last glaciation and the Holocene by means of continuous climate simulations with the coupled atmosphere–sea ice–ocean column model CCAM. We show that the increased insolation during EHIM has the potential to push the Arctic Ocean sea ice cover into a regime dominated by seasonal ice, i.e. ice free summers. The strong sea ice thickness response is caused by the positive sea ice albedo feedback. Studies of the GRIP ice cores and high latitude North Atlantic sediment cores show that the Bølling–Allerød period (c. 12,700–14,700 years BP) was a climatically unstable period in the northern high latitudes and we speculate that this instability may be linked to dual stability modes of the Arctic sea ice cover characterized by e.g. transitions between periods with and without perennial sea ice cover.

Arctic Ocean perennial sea ice breakdown during the Early Holocene Insolation Maximum

Proxies are not part of recorded human history, though they are part of natural history. Moreover, the sea ice minimum discussed in the paper above is associated with Earth's orbital cycles. The present day reduction in Arctic sea ice is not.

 

[westwall]

Image 2 of 4 (play slideshow) Download

Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag

Right on the edge of two standard deviations, about 2 1/2 % chance of being natural.

Why do you say that? It's been much lower in the last 50 years.

The lowest it has been in recorded history was in 2007.

Oh, I wouldn't bet on that. The record keeping started in 1970 and amazingly enough those records are never shown but they were lower than the present day, and by quite a bit. And then we have this study, one of many that say otherwise.


Arctic Ocean sea ice proxies generally suggest a reduction in sea ice during parts of the early and middle Holocene (∼6000–10,000 years BP) compared to present day conditions. This sea ice minimum has been attributed to the northern hemisphere Early Holocene Insolation Maximum (EHIM) associated with Earth's orbital cycles. Here we investigate the transient effect of insolation variations during the final part of the last glaciation and the Holocene by means of continuous climate simulations with the coupled atmosphere–sea ice–ocean column model CCAM. We show that the increased insolation during EHIM has the potential to push the Arctic Ocean sea ice cover into a regime dominated by seasonal ice, i.e. ice free summers. The strong sea ice thickness response is caused by the positive sea ice albedo feedback. Studies of the GRIP ice cores and high latitude North Atlantic sediment cores show that the Bølling–Allerød period (c. 12,700–14,700 years BP) was a climatically unstable period in the northern high latitudes and we speculate that this instability may be linked to dual stability modes of the Arctic sea ice cover characterized by e.g. transitions between periods with and without perennial sea ice cover.

Arctic Ocean perennial sea ice breakdown during the Early Holocene Insolation Maximum

Proxies are not part of recorded human history, though they are part of natural history. Moreover, the sea ice minimum discussed in the paper above is associated with Earth's orbital cycles. The present day reduction in Arctic sea ice is not.

One of many graphs that show lower sea ice in the late 60's, early 70's. Then there was a deluge of sea ice that topped out in 1978. Funny how your alarmist graphs never include the earlier dated material.

 

[orogenicman]

Image 2 of 4 (play slideshow) Download

Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag

Right on the edge of two standard deviations, about 2 1/2 % chance of being natural.

Why do you say that? It's been much lower in the last 50 years.

The lowest it has been in recorded history was in 2007.

Oh, I wouldn't bet on that. The record keeping started in 1970 and amazingly enough those records are never shown but they were lower than the present day, and by quite a bit. And then we have this study, one of many that say otherwise.


Arctic Ocean sea ice proxies generally suggest a reduction in sea ice during parts of the early and middle Holocene (∼6000–10,000 years BP) compared to present day conditions. This sea ice minimum has been attributed to the northern hemisphere Early Holocene Insolation Maximum (EHIM) associated with Earth's orbital cycles. Here we investigate the transient effect of insolation variations during the final part of the last glaciation and the Holocene by means of continuous climate simulations with the coupled atmosphere–sea ice–ocean column model CCAM. We show that the increased insolation during EHIM has the potential to push the Arctic Ocean sea ice cover into a regime dominated by seasonal ice, i.e. ice free summers. The strong sea ice thickness response is caused by the positive sea ice albedo feedback. Studies of the GRIP ice cores and high latitude North Atlantic sediment cores show that the Bølling–Allerød period (c. 12,700–14,700 years BP) was a climatically unstable period in the northern high latitudes and we speculate that this instability may be linked to dual stability modes of the Arctic sea ice cover characterized by e.g. transitions between periods with and without perennial sea ice cover.

Arctic Ocean perennial sea ice breakdown during the Early Holocene Insolation Maximum

Proxies are not part of recorded human history, though they are part of natural history. Moreover, the sea ice minimum discussed in the paper above is associated with Earth's orbital cycles. The present day reduction in Arctic sea ice is not.

One of many graphs that show lower sea ice in the late 60's, early 70's. Then there was a deluge of sea ice that topped out in 1978. Funny how your alarmist graphs never include the earlier dated material.

Care to explain what that graph is suppose to be showing? Watt? Really? Got anything that is peer reviewed?

 

[Old Rocks]

Were a student in any class that I have attended to try to use Watt, Drudge, or Briebart as a referance, it would be an automatic fail on the paper. Yet we have someone that is suppose to be a Phd Geologist doing just that. Hmmmmm..........................................?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Image 2 of 4 (play slideshow) Download

Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag

Right on the edge of two standard deviations, about 2 1/2 % chance of being natural.

Why do you say that? It's been much lower in the last 50 years.

The lowest it has been in recorded history was in 2007.

Oh, I wouldn't bet on that. The record keeping started in 1970 and amazingly enough those records are never shown but they were lower than the present day, and by quite a bit. And then we have this study, one of many that say otherwise.


Arctic Ocean sea ice proxies generally suggest a reduction in sea ice during parts of the early and middle Holocene (∼6000–10,000 years BP) compared to present day conditions. This sea ice minimum has been attributed to the northern hemisphere Early Holocene Insolation Maximum (EHIM) associated with Earth's orbital cycles. Here we investigate the transient effect of insolation variations during the final part of the last glaciation and the Holocene by means of continuous climate simulations with the coupled atmosphere–sea ice–ocean column model CCAM. We show that the increased insolation during EHIM has the potential to push the Arctic Ocean sea ice cover into a regime dominated by seasonal ice, i.e. ice free summers. The strong sea ice thickness response is caused by the positive sea ice albedo feedback. Studies of the GRIP ice cores and high latitude North Atlantic sediment cores show that the Bølling–Allerød period (c. 12,700–14,700 years BP) was a climatically unstable period in the northern high latitudes and we speculate that this instability may be linked to dual stability modes of the Arctic sea ice cover characterized by e.g. transitions between periods with and without perennial sea ice cover.

Arctic Ocean perennial sea ice breakdown during the Early Holocene Insolation Maximum

Proxies are not part of recorded human history, though they are part of natural history. Moreover, the sea ice minimum discussed in the paper above is associated with Earth's orbital cycles. The present day reduction in Arctic sea ice is not.

One of many graphs that show lower sea ice in the late 60's, early 70's. Then there was a deluge of sea ice that topped out in 1978. Funny how your alarmist graphs never include the earlier dated material.

The graph you linked doesn't show sea ice levels. It shows sea ice export rates through the Fram Strait.