ICEBREAKER Nathaniel B. Palmer takes scientists across the Weddell Sea near the coast of the Antarctic Peninsula.
In Brief
- Massive ice shelves that cling to the edges of Antarctica are breaking apart, and their collapse is allowing enormous glaciers behind them to slide into the ocean, raising sea level.
- Scientists need to better understand why and how fast the ice shelves are disintegrating so that they can better estimate future sea-level rise.
- Satellite data about glaciers are not detailed enough for accurate estimates. Scientists have made recent expeditions to Antarctica to install instruments that will give them the information they need. Author Douglas Fox accompanied them on an eventful eight-week trip and documents that experience here. He also describes the data now streaming in and what they predict for the planet.
More In This Article
In 1995, 10 argentine soldiers witnessed a cataclysm that no other humans have ever seen, one that has since altered our understanding of climate change.
The men were stationed at Matienzo Base, a dreary cluster of steel huts that sat atop a wedge of volcanic rock jutting from the sea, 50 kilometers off the coast of Antarctica. The island was surrounded by a plain of glacial ice covering 1,500 square kilometers—25 times the area of Manhattan. Although the ice shelf floated on the sea, it was 200 meters thick—as solid as bedrock. Yet Captain Juan Pedro Brückner sensed that something was wrong. Meltwater had formed ponds that dotted the ice. He could hear a gurgling sound as the water seeped down into a network of descending cracks. Day and night, Brückner's men heard deep convulsions that sounded like subway trains passing underneath their beds. The rumbles grew more and more frequent.
Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
If your institution has site license access, enter here.
See what we're tweeting about
12 Comments
Add CommentHey, wait a minute - this is about SOLDIERS, not scientists, and they didn't TREK anywhere! They were standing around, listening! WHO writes these horrendous and misleading headlines anyway?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPreview, more like a warning - avoid this article!
Perhaps you should read the entire article prior to commenting.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCollapsing Glaciers
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAntarctica’s Meltdown
Sea-Level Rise
And that was only the headline. Do we really need to read further? SSDD. GK
G Kardst...true. Conclusions already decided... this is not science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo then, following this article to its logical conclusion, glaciers never, ever calved before the discovery of CAGW. Interesting.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThen what did the Titanic hit?
Put the blame on Al Gore.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSadly the flat earthers have invaded again.
If you can't understand the fact that since WW2 temps have been seriously rising. Now add so many mademade factors proven both in basic science that predicted it, which actually is turning out to be understating, not overstating.
In the US the temp line has moved 300 miles north and has been spreading the SW deserts north and east will hit you pocketbook, especially food budget even more than the already doubling in food prices these last 3 yrs.
I can go on but I ask those here to honestly look in your hearts why you believe the way you do? Is it about political fights? Or can't you put 2 and 2 together? Why do you fight facts so hard? Cherry picking yrs, other data, etc is a tactic, not honesty.
Climate is over time like a decade vs weather is what you get today, this yr. Manmade change is on top of normal change and no one who thinks denies this. The facts are clear whether you want to believe them or not.
I live in Fla where we like the gulf, east coast that are low and flat have lost at least 1,000 sq miles because mostly the ocean heating up and expanding though with both Anartic and Greenland melting, floating ice melting doesn't count, speeding up, I'll be glad I'm moving back on a boat.
So try to be a honest person and look beyond political movtives to all the facts then follow then without bias for everyones sake.
Here is some new facts for you to consider:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNew paper blames about half of global warming on weather station data homgenization.
Steirou, E., and D. Koutsoyiannis, Investigation of methods for hydroclimatic data homogenization, European Geosciences Union General Assembly 2012, Geophysical Research Abstracts, Vol. 14, Vienna, 956-1, European Geosciences Union, 2012.
http://itia.ntua.gr/getfile/1212/1/documents/2012EGU_homogenization_1.pdf
The abstract: http://itia.ntua.gr/getfile/1212/2/documents/EGU2012-956-1.pdf
Steirou and Koutsoyiannis, after taking homogenization errors into account find global warming over the past century was only about one-half [0.42°C] of that claimed by the IPCC [0.7-0.8°C].
of 67% of the weather stations examined, questionable adjustments were made to raw data that resulted in:
“increased positive trends, decreased negative trends, or changed negative trends to positive,” whereas “the expected proportions would be 1/2 (50%).”
And…
“homogenation practices used until today are mainly statistical, not well justified by experiments, and are rarely supported by metadata. It can be argued that they often lead to false results: natural features of hydroclimatic times series are regarded as errors and are adjusted.”
Since solar effects account for another third,(and then there is aerosols, ozone, etc) it just doesn't leave much room for CO2.
I admire your attempt to get a handle on climate, but you are only getting part of the story (bias) here. There are many scientists submitting evidence, ignored by the politically motivated MSM (main stream media). GK
"New paper blames about half of global warming on weather station data homgenization."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is not a peer reviewed paper. see http://variable-variability.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/investigation-of-methods-for.html
dkahn400:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs far as I know:
Received 1 March 2012. Revised 2 July 2012. Accepted 8 July 2012. Available online 15 July 2012. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.palaeo.2012.07.003
Your link seems to be some sort of critique of Anthony Watts (not interested) but does not really deal with the paper, except as an opinion piece.
Full paper is behind a paywall here ($37.95) if you're interested in providing critique on the paper. I would certainly be interested in your opinion. I would leave Anthony Watts out of your review, as I don't see him connected in any way. GK
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0031018212003926
GK thanks for the intelligent comments and good links.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSee this graph from NSIDC (Oct 2, 2012)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRecord ice in Antarctica! How could it be so alarming.