Wilkins Ice Shelf Set To Collapse Due To Global Warming

Reuters reports that a major Antarctic ice shelf, the Wilkins Ice Shelf, will collapse soon due to global warming:

WILKINS ICE SHELF, Antarctica (Reuters) - A huge Antarctic ice shelf is on the brink of collapse with just a sliver of ice holding it in place, the latest victim of global warming that is altering maps of the frozen continent.

"We've come to the Wilkins Ice Shelf to see its final death throes," David Vaughan, a glaciologist at the British Antarctic Survey (BAS), told Reuters after the first -- and probably last -- plane landed near the narrowest part of the ice.

The flat-topped shelf has an area of thousands of square kilometers, jutting 20 meters (65 ft) out of the sea off the Antarctic Peninsula.

Penguins are getting lost, Antarctica is falling apart... time to read up:

::What You Need To Know About Rising Sea Levels
::Mid-Atlantic US States Threatened By Rising Sea Levels
::Melting Arctic Ice Forces Tourist Evacuation

Comments

[eewhiz]

04:47 PM on 01/22/2009

Nobody wants to really admit whose to blame here...the sun has been documented as getting hotter than it was 10 yrs ago...therefore the climate of the earth can become progressively hotter also.
Climate change theory is just that...theory. Much like M. Crichton's book "State of Fear" you can arrange global warming studies to defend whatever viewpoint you want. If the sun is getting hotter, there's not much as humans that we can do to change that....just wait another 11 yrs and the sun spot cycle will shift in the other direction.

[BLinCincinnati]

05:08 PM on 01/22/2009

Small problem with your theory....

We are currently in the solar minimum, reaching the low point last summer. So that would mean the solar radiation hitting the earth is at it's minimum, not maximum. Even then, the variation is only 0.1% difference. Even if we ignore that fact, then if it's only due to the solar cycle, then you'd be seeing the same effects every 11 years, but we haven't. We are seeing an increase over time, not a cyclical effect that your theory would suggest.

[Exusian]

05:30 PM on 01/22/2009

No, the sun has not been documented as getting hotter than it was 10 yrs ago.
Where do you get such nonsense?

In fact, since the sun is just past the low point in the nominal 11-year sun spot cycle, and remains unusually quiet with few sun spots, the sun is actually cooler than it was 10 years ago.

[rblackbird]

07:41 PM on 01/22/2009

Thank you for proving my point.

[Exusian]

07:54 PM on 01/22/2009

You're welcome. It is, after all, a point of fact.

No climate scientist that I know of asserts that the greenhouse effect alone influences climate. Nor would they contend that natural variability, including variations in solar intensity, can not overwhelm greenhouse gas induced warming at times. Virtually all of Earth's energy budget comes from solar insolation, after all. Reduce that insolation and there will be less energy entering the system. But when the sun returns to normal levels greenhouse warming will return, even stronger since in the meantime they will have risen even higher.

Also in the meantime, the other threat of higher CO2 levels will continue unabated even during cooler temperatures, namely acidification of the ocean as it absorbs more CO2.
That's the downside of higher CO2 levels that few people even know about, let alone talk about.

[plantguy]

02:10 PM on 01/22/2009

Blame power plantsof course we must blame someone. Why dont americans stop using so much energy and conserve.

[rshrink]

02:15 PM on 01/22/2009

Lets try again; Pollution = Really BAD
Not polluting = Really GOOD

Okay, now?

[OneVoiceInACrowd]

02:25 PM on 01/22/2009

We will when the price of energy is truly realized and there is no subsidizing.

[rshrink]

03:21 PM on 01/22/2009

Now you are talking. Real costs = polluted water, death of wildlife, aqauatic life, eventually water shortage, costs of treating asthma and upper respiratory illnesses, cancer and death of humans as a result of all of these other things.

[rshrink]

01:55 PM on 01/22/2009

Let's try this. Pollution is BAD. It hurts people's health. It poisons the air and water, therefore, we don't want it. Fossil fuels cause pollution, which remember is BAD. It causes the death of plants, wildlife and illness and death of human beings. Again, pollution is BAD. If we stop fossil fuel pollution, it improves health, of humans and other earthly life forms. That is GOOD. If it stops CO2 too, and then we start to notice a reduction of climate change, or global warming if you prefer, then we might also all agree that that is also GOOD. Now, can we all just get along?

[OneVoiceInACrowd]

02:08 PM on 01/22/2009

but burning fossil fuel gives us cheap energy, which allows us to have cheaper innovation. there are the tradeoffs-

We have come accustomed to this cheap energy/cheap innovation- Now that we understand the damage it is causing should we really consider it cheap?

defining the damage is what we are in the midst of now, in a strange kind of way.

[rshrink]

02:12 PM on 01/22/2009

Pollution = BAD
Not Polluting = GOOD

Okay?

[rshrink]

11:17 AM on 01/22/2009

These damn scientists. Next they will be saying we can send people to the moon. They think we can cure diseases and actually remove diseased body parts and do liver transplants and nonsense like that. Who do these people think they are, God? Hell, I can find water with a tree branch. Check that out.

[JustAHumanOnEarth]

12:37 AM on 01/22/2009

And NASA finally admitted that the oceans are cooling....but of course it's due to global warming...they hope.

http://www.examiner.com/x-1586-Baltimore-Weather-Examiner~y2009m1d21-Oceans-are-cooling-according-to-NASA

[sonofsamphm1c]

01:07 AM on 01/22/2009

Finally? Wong is speculating.

Global warming is supposedly melting the ice. See, that is what causes melt water. He's speculating that melt water, caused by global warming, might explain the ocean heat content found missing by Willis.

Here's a little experiment. Put a pan of water on a burner and set it at its lowest temp. Let the water get to the point that it feels warm to the touch. Leaving the pan on the burner, drop around 7 ice cubes into it. Wait until much of it is melted. Carefully check the temp. It should be cooler. See, even with a heat source , the melt water cooled the water in the pan. Now, have you proven that the burner has stopped warming the water? Of course not. Leave the pan for about 15 minutes. Does Einstein expect the water to be warming again, or not?

When Willis found that ocean heat content had gone down, he found out something else that contradicted his findings. Sea level rise had not gone down. The final solution to the puzzle is not in yet, but measurement errors have been discovered and I believe far less ocean heat was missing. That is how science is done. They never stop observing and correcting.

All of the scientists mentioned in that article agree the earth is warming, and that man is causing the warming by burning fossil fuels, which emits CO2 into the atmosphere. Okay?

Guess what? It warm again.

[rblackbird]

03:27 AM on 01/22/2009

Your example begs the question. You assume that the heat source will be constant. However, if the stove is turned off, the temperature of the water will drop, even if you have placed a lid on the pan. The only heat source for Antarctic water is the sun. Unlike your example where the burner temperature is set at a definite, lowest level, there is no "lowest level" that the sun can not go below. This is why the earth at times has been trapped in ice "ages."

More recently, in human history, when the sun has entered inactive phases, denominated as "minimums," the earth's temperature cools substantially. An example is the Little Ice Age. "Solar activity" in this context refers to the radiation of charged particles from the sun. When sunspots appear frequently, the flow of charged particles ("solar wind") through the solar system increases. These particles slow down the flow of cosmic rays into the solar system. When sunspots diminish or disappear, cosmic rays flow more freely into the solar system. Why is this important? Cosmic rays provide the stimulus for condensation of water vapor in the atmosphere leading to the formation of clouds. As solar rays diminish and cosmic rays increase, cloud cover grows and the earth cools.

In 2008 there was a substantial drop-off in sunspots. In fact, 2008 showed fewer sunspots for any year since 1900, save for one.

[Yaaawn]

09:49 PM on 01/21/2009

We must sequester water vapor, lord knows it's worse than Co2. That ice shelf will then reattach itself and not float in the water anymore.

[fumes]

09:59 PM on 01/21/2009

never mess with the lord's

water vapor

if ya know what's good for ya!

[MGhamma]

11:28 PM on 01/21/2009

The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is determined by how warm that atmosphere is. It"s a result of warmer temps, not a cause. CO-2 is a cause.

[doriath22]

08:52 PM on 01/21/2009

In order for the climate change denial crowd to face reality, they would have to admit that the much-maligned Al Gore was right and they were wrong, which would surely produce a rupture in the time/space continuum

[fumes]

09:07 PM on 01/21/2009

define: ''reality''

hint: http://gizmodo.com/5055160/24-hour-air-traffic-around-the-world-blows-minds-eyeballs?autoplay=true

[fumes]

09:39 PM on 01/21/2009

add to that: McDonnell-Douglas MD-11:

Fuel usage during taxi 16 usg per minute
Fuel usage during Take-off 2.6 usg per sec
Average fuel usage during flight 2575 usg p/hour (42.9 G/min)

and doriath22 you got reality! what do you think can be done to stop all that co2 being generated?

[rshrink]

01:58 PM on 01/22/2009

Webster says, the quality or fact of being real. I would go along with that.

[Exusian]

09:39 PM on 01/21/2009

I love that video, fumes.

Thanks for reminding me about it and for linking to it.

[fumes]

09:40 PM on 01/21/2009

that's some serious co2 there being generated exusian!

[Exusian]

09:44 PM on 01/21/2009

It sure is, fumes. That's why heavier-than air travel as we know it will come to an end in the not too distant future.

[totaldisbelief]

07:33 PM on 01/21/2009

I can't wait to see what's hidden under all the Antarctic ice.

[johnnyjust]

06:40 PM on 01/21/2009

One word: Greenland.

Why was it named thus if it's always been covered with ice? Was it because "Iceland" was taken?

Bonus Question: How could the Vikings have found enough grapes in Newfoundland to name it Vinland when it's too cold for grapes? Did they mistake snowballs for grapes? Gee, weren't they dumb.

[OneVoiceInACrowd]

07:08 PM on 01/21/2009

One word : Iceland

Why name a island Iceland when less than 11% of it is ice?

If it was so green why did the vikings go extinct?

What tribes lived there before the vikings? How did they survive?

[totaldisbelief]

07:34 PM on 01/21/2009

one word, Pittsburgh... is it full of pits?

[Exusian]

08:02 PM on 01/21/2009

Because Erik the Red wanted settlers to join him in his exile from Iceland (he had killed another landowner there) and he knew it would appeal to the gullible, just like it still does to you.
Most of Greenland was covered by an ice sheet then, just as it is today.

They didn't find any grapes in Newfoundland, and the ruse didn't work very well the second time around.
There is no evidence that grapes have grown in Newfoundland in the past 100,000 years or more.

Eric was a shrewd real estate developer. It's you who are just plain dum b.

[OneVoiceInACrowd]

04:53 PM on 01/21/2009

Are the Saudis still in need of fresh water?

[OneVoiceInACrowd]

04:33 PM on 01/21/2009

Ahhh but doesn't a million year old ice shelf the size of Connecticut break off into the sea every year? This is part of a natural cycle. Wasn't there some other ice shelf, Larsen 'B', i think that broke off a few years ago? This is common, right?

[mamacat]

05:36 PM on 01/21/2009

No.

[SeaKitten]

05:40 PM on 01/21/2009

Shhhh. You're not supposed to ask those kinds of questions, you heretic.

[Greenguy25]

04:20 PM on 01/21/2009

I made the mistake of turning on Fox News yesterday, hoping that they would tone down their overly conservative standards to actually provide something "Fair & Balanced", but to my dismay, there was some pinhead named Glenn Beck picking apart the presidents inaugural speech.

In the 5 minutes I allowed myself to be subjected to this Rush Limbau (sp?) wanna be, he made it very clear that their is no such thing as global warming. So that's it, no more dicussion, Glenn Beck has spoken.

http://www.mygreenscene.com

[johnnyjust]

02:40 PM on 01/21/2009

Wow, that picture proves it!

Now I'm convinced. Still don't care, though.

[emily00011]

03:17 PM on 01/21/2009

cared enough to comment :p

[johnnyjust]

06:33 PM on 01/21/2009

Not really.

[Exusian]

06:37 PM on 01/21/2009

Twice now.

[rshrink]

01:15 AM on 01/23/2009

You know, all this nonsense about fossil fuels causing pollution, health problems, k ill ing off plants and fish and wildlife, causing water shortages, ruining national parks, it is all a bunch of bologna. I see no reason to worry about increasing deaths of humans due to canc er, toxic spills, like our kids and grandkids are going to care. Likely, they will evolve to not be effected by such things. The stronger species will survive, just as it is supposed to be. Maybe, in our next lives, we will come back as insects that eat toxins like pudding. I see no reason to set about to pollute as much as we can. In the long run, it will just make us tougher. Yes, now I see. Conservatives have convinced me now. I love Limbaugh. He is great and I don't even notice how rich and f at he is anymore. I will watch him with reli gious fer.vor and read the bi ble afterwards.

[Exusian]

02:16 PM on 01/21/2009

Antarctic Warming
Nature 457, 459-462 (22 January 2009)

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v457/n7228/full/nature07669.html

Warming of the Antarctic ice-sheet surface since the 1957 International Geophysical Year
Eric J. Steig, David P. Schneider, Scott D. Rutherford, Michael E. Mann, Josefino C. Comiso & Drew T. Shindell

Abstract:
Assessments of Antarctic temperature change have emphasized the contrast between strong warming of the Antarctic Peninsula and slight cooling of the Antarctic continental interior in recent decades1. This pattern of temperature change has been attributed to the increased strength of the circumpolar westerlies, largely in response to changes in stratospheric ozone2. This picture, however, is substantially incomplete owing to the sparseness and short duration of the observations. Here we show that significant warming extends well beyond the Antarctic Peninsula to cover most of West Antarctica, an area of warming much larger than previously reported. West Antarctic warming exceeds 0.1 °C per decade over the past 50 years, and is strongest in winter and spring. Although this is partly offset by autumn cooling in East Antarctica, the continent-wide average near-surface temperature trend is positive. Simulations using a general circulation model reproduce the essential features of the spatial pattern and the long-term trend, and we suggest that neither can be attributed directly to increases in the strength of the westerlies. Instead, regional changes in atmospheric circulation and associated changes in sea surface temperature and sea ice are required to explain the enhanced warming in West Antarctica.

[MGhamma]

11:17 PM on 01/21/2009

Exusian, you're doing it again. You're using the facts. Have the facts ever put a dent in these peoples opinions?

[eewhiz]

05:01 PM on 01/22/2009

The problem with these studies are that they do not take in to account the increasing temperature of the sun, and the outer cloud formations (caused by COsmic rays) that keep the earth cool. If sun is changing in character and the earth is warming because of this phenomena, we need to look to the real culprit and stop blaming MAN for these changes.
BTW, the ozone layer hole (over the Antartcic) was discovered by the french in 1957, when freon was not even invented. It has cost he USA billions to remove Freon 12 (and other variants) from our planet. No one has yet to explain why there is a hole in Antartica where there are no cars or trucks or carbon producing power plants!! If that was the case, we should have big ozone layer holes over China and India and US????
Again don't bring any real facts into the discussion...

[Exusian]

05:55 PM on 01/22/2009

But, as I pointed out to you at the top of this thread, the temperature of the sun is not increasing. (Other than a very long-term and thus very slow increase in the solar constant.) In fact it has decreased since we are at the bottom of the sun spot cycle and currently there are very few sun spots.

In any case, since the greenhouse effect is completely independent of solar luminance, increasing levels of greenhouse cases will still make it warmer than if there was no increase.

As for the ozone hole, it was discovered in 1985 by members of the British Antarctic Survey, although satellite measurements detecting it earlier had been dismissed as errors, and freon was invented in the 1920s. Again where are you getting your misinformation???

And yes, it has been explained why the ozone hole is located over the Antarctic: the chemical process that destroys ozone takes place at very cold temperatures (below -78C/-109F) only in the presence of sunlight. It only gets cold enough for the reaction over Antarctica during the first sunlight of the southern hemisphere spring, which is why the hole is where it is. Thank your lucky stars it doesn't get cold enough over the Arctic as many more people would be directly affected.

You know, you can look these things up before you make yourself look foolish in public.

[Exusian]

01:26 PM on 01/22/2009

Nope, not once that I can recall.

But it's not for them that I post the facts, it's for those who would be swayed by the disinformation and lies.

[StopGlobalWarmingBeVegan]

02:01 PM on 01/21/2009

The only way to solve this is by more people going veg everday.