The news comes two weeks after another study, also published in Nature, concluded that deep, warm ocean currents are driving ice loss in Antarctica. Researchers at the British Antarctic Survey said the warm water that is reaching Antarctica's western coast is carving out the bottoms of the floating ice shelves that help hold back the flow of glaciers in land (ClimateWire, April 26).
That the new papers suggest the same process could begin in the Weddell Sea by the end of the century is a surprise to researchers who have long considered the Filchner-Ronne Ice Shelf to be a relatively stable portion of the vast Antarctic ice sheet.
"This particular paper takes another part of West Antarctica that is generally thought of to be very safe and demonstrates that is not at all the case," said David Holland, an oceanographer at New York University.
"The word I would use myself is 'shocking,'" he said. "It doesn't mean this will happen this century, but these papers present the realistic possibility that it will."
Ted Scambos, senior scientist at the University of Colorado's National Snow and Ice Data Center, agreed. "I think it is a fairly profound discovery," he said. "What the study is showing is that new areas of Antarctica that we thought were slow and stable could be vulnerable by the end of the century."
Harder to determine is just how quickly the sea level would rise if warm water does begin to erode the ice shelf, experts said.
Because the ice shelf itself is already floating, its melt would not raise sea level. Thawing the portion of the ice sheet grounded on the newly discovered subglacial basin would raise the seas by centimeters, Siegert said.
But eventually, if the flow of ice from areas well-grounded on land begins to accelerate, that could have major consequences for sea level, he predicted, potentially causing ice streams in other areas to respond by speeding up or changing direction.
It is still a guessing game, said Scambos, who said looking that far into the future depends on a lot of "what-ifs."
Asked to hazard his own guess, he estimated that the process of melting and ice loss described in the new analyses could raise seas 2 to 3 meters (6.5 to 10 feet) over thousands of years.
"There's a lot of potential sea-level rise tied up in that area," Scambos said. "And once these things begin, they are very hard to undo."
Reprinted from Climatewire with permission from Environment & Energy Publishing, LLC. www.eenews.net, 202-628-6500
See what we're tweeting about
41 Comments
Add CommentBefore anyone starts wining about the warmist religion or politburo or whatnot, check this out:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://climate.nasa.gov/
The big question that this all points too is how will it affect the oceans thermohaline currents. These currents are heat driven and transport warm and cold water on a global level. These currents affect local weather far more then climate change itself.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Linking to the Nasa site was meaningful how? "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLOL. That's like asking what the bible has to do with Jews and Christians. You will never know unless to read it.
If you think NASA is a communist plot to overthrow capitalism, don't waste your time.
I believe the best thing we could do with our debate is to shift from bickering and partisan side taking, in a misguided replay of the folksy Creationist debate, to a serious debate and a search for the truth, or for the facts at least. I strive to site credible sources that few would consider biased.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDo you personally consider NASA and NOAA credible sources, or do you believe them to be biased as well?
A solid belief . . . however, presenting individuals who fervently seek the opposite of truth with the opportunity to gain insight or real knowledge will fail. First, they would have to gain a desire to be informed. You can provide them with all pertinent factual information, but to no avail. It's MUCH simpler for them to grab the coattails of blowhards who have no scientific understanding. [cite]
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs to the poker's questions, the planet is both warming, AND the ocean currents are changing. Yes, the sea level has risen, but not dramatically or generally noticeably - unless your home happens to be on one of the South Pacific atolls.
Some of my ancestors walked from Siberia to Alaska on land that is now 280 feet under water. I understand there will be a tremendous problem if the oceans rise another 10 feet. In the history of the earth, the oceans have risen higher and fallen lower. They will in the future. If humans expect to keep them at a stagnant point, they are crazy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI do not understand the problem.
I see that the fake skeptics are here peddling there misinformation, again.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPoker Player has made a number of demonstrably false statements that he has been shown to be false, before.
Human induced global warming is ALREADY acting as drag on agriculture:
Climate Trends and Global Crop Production Since 1980:
From the Abstract:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/333/6042/616.abstract
"Climate trends were large enough in some countries to offset a significant portion of the increases in average yields that arose from technology, carbon dioxide fertilization, and other factors."
And what is the fake skeptic response to the science? To simply respond with a a "Not so!"
The pseduoskeptics have claimed that sea level rise is not accelerating. Yet, the science says differently:
"The computed rate of global mean sea level rise from the reconstructed time series is 1.97 mm/yr from 1950 to 2009 and 3.22 mm/yr from 1993 to 2009."
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/content/reconstructing-sea-level-using-cyclostationary-empirical-orthogonal-functions
Now I could go on and on about the level of deception (self-deception?) being perpetuated by the deniers but I do not want to be labor the obvious.
No evidence of coastal water levels changing on my coast. If it does, it just continues a trend over centuries.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo evidence of coastal water levels changing on my coast. If it does, it just continues a trend over centuries.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Navy has been deceived by an Admiral with a degree in Oceanography, meteorology, and other science?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHe says a large port in Greenland will occur, and the Navy will have to watch the NW passage soon.
http://blogdredd.blogspot.com/2012/05/has-navy-fallen-for-greatest-hoax.html
Where do you live? In Kansas?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is indeed physical and observable evidence of rising sea levels in Hawaii. The fact is that some ares of the world have higher rates of rising sea level then others, but they all have one thing in common, they are all rising in the long run. There was a slight drop in the graphs last two years in some areas of the pacific (Hawaii was one of those areas)that has been attributed to La Nina which causes cooler water which also causes a slight contraction, but that is why it is called an average.
A good site to check out is: http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/coasts/sealevel/
Don't bother if you believe that The University of Hawaii (one of the best oceanography programs in the country) is also a communist plot to destroy capitalism.
Now we are making progress. Asking and answering questions is better than
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiscalling names and sticking tongues out.
Gaul, we have to believe in the human being. People have a right to be
skeptical.
>>Do you see ANY evidence of a change in the rate of sea level rise over
the last 20 years due to all this increased warming?<<
Tuvalu.
There is a country relocating as we speak, called Tuvalu, an island in the
Pacific. As you know the water is flat, it went up the same amount here,
too.
You can see more about Sea Level in
http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/
on the key indicators: Carbon Dioxide, Surface Temperature, Arctic Sea
Ice, Land Ice, and Sea Level.
Among these indicators, I have been emphasizing arctic sea ice because it
is the most easy to measure and thus which we have the longest datsets,
back to 1885.
Also, it is related to the phenomena that, according to my hypothesis, may
cause a runaway effect from a 16 (as today) to a 23 degree average world
temperature, reverting to the World Tropic of the Dinos: the positive
(runaway) feedback loops of the albedo (white ice reflects sunlight much
more) and the Artic Fart, the methane outgassing from the peat permafrost.
This last has not been counted in by any scientist yet (a serious study
takes months or a year) but will certainly have a strong effect, because
of the humongous amounts being released and that will continue to be
released, and the fact that methane is 20 times stronger as a warming
agent than CO2.
I hate to sound alarmist, but this has every material element required,
and may cause the runaway effect I have described, because there is simply
nothing going on that would stop this polar thaw now once it has started.
This is what Scambos meant by "And once these things begin, they are very
hard to undo."
>>Hurricane activity has not risen due to the human influance
Severe weather has not increased<<
I am really glad there is nothing wrong over in your area. Yet. But New
Orleans was struck by the most damaging hurricane in history. In South
America, a hurricane struck Brazil for the first time ever in recorded
history (the correct name being cyclone, because it spins the other way)
and a crazy freak rain, in which a half semester of rain fell in one day,
killed 1000 people near Rio.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Katrina
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclone_Catarina
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_2011_Rio_de_Janeiro_floods_and_mudslides
(continues)
(continuation)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this>> Please, tell me the evidence do you have that a warmer world is so terrible?<<
The long explanation to that is in
http://climate.nasa.gov/kids/bigQuestions/climateChanging/
Then there is that thing I explained above. The planet has almost always been at either 12 to 15, or then 25 to 27 degrees, or in quick transition.
See Contrarian sites for their prehistorical temperature graphs:
http://strongasanoxandnearlyassmart.blogspot.com.br/2011/01/for-several-years-i-have-immersed.html
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/01/co2_fairytales_in_global_warmi.html
http://www.stuffintheair.com/ancient-climates.html
http://earthintime.com/earthintime.html
http://www.nctimes.com/app/blogs/wp/?p=5373
We would be uncomfortable in the much warmer world of the dinos, is all.
Ask anyone who has lived in the tropics.
There are also several non climatic reasons to not pump up the last drop of oil in a few decades, but to save some for our descendants.
Many synthetic materials are required for space flight that are not, and may never be, synthesizable without oil. Also, civilization may regress to
a point where oil is required to rebuild technology again. Forever is a long time.
Remember Easter Island, who built those Maori statues. They had a thriving civilization until they cut the last canoe worthy tree, then underwent a long, agonizing, grueling decline until they were discovered as cavemen who swam shark-infested waters for two or three gull eggs. Now replace tree for oil, and canoe for spacecraft.
Human induced global warming is already a drag on agriculture is a fact? Sorry, it is Only in your computer models which use your "computed" rate of global mean sea level rise". Let me know when you measure something for real and use something other that pure statistics based on guesses and wishes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYet more guessing and the warmists finding more fabricated reasons to support their beliefs.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow about publishing this total theory as fact, when someone actually goes out to that ice sheet and confirm if anything is really happening out there that would support what the prediction made by the model. Unlike you wamists, I dont declare something is a fact based from computer models designed to always prove a belief in warming. Maybe it is true and the model is right, if we are going to spend money and time mitigating this effect, then you warmists need to actually go out to Antarctica and find out what is real. If something is happening that indicates the model is in fact correct or at least feasible, then publish and start talking about causes.
Prideseren Says: Human induced global warming is already a drag on agriculture is a fact?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTrent Says: Yes, that is what the OBSERVATIONS say. Which part of analyzing the crop RECORDS from 1980 to 2008 do you not understand?
Pridesucker Says: Only in your computer models which use your "computed" rate of global mean sea level rise".
Trent Says: Holy Cow. When someone "computes" 1+2 for you that must mean the answer comes into doubt for you too. That has got to be one of the thickest rebuttals ever conceived (aborted?)
Which part of using observed data do you not understand?
Pridesucker Says: Let me know when you measure something for real and use something other that pure statistics based on guesses and wishes.
Trent Says: Yo, Mcfly. Those links I put up? They were just that. Thicko
The article states:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Radar mapping shows the ice sheets that flow into the Filchner-Ronne Ice Shelf are perched over a massive basin that measures 60 miles long, 125 miles wide and up to 1.25 miles deep in some places."
All I want to know is why the "massive basin" shouldn't measure 125 miles long by 60 miles wide?
"Let me know when you measure something for real and use something other that pure statistics based on guesses and wishes."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGood grief dude. Do you read anything not parroted by the Drudge Report, Brietbart or Alex Jones?
There is mountains of real data from observations that have been made first hand for decades. Open your eyes! There is none so blind as one who refuses to open his eyes.
6. pokerplyer in reply to Mark665165165 01:32 PM 5/10/12
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat's a swing in verbal tennis, at most, because you refused to answer the two direct questions posed.
Your grade in basic reasoning for today: F
"It's MUCH simpler for them to grab the coattails of blowhards who have no scientific understanding."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe dishonesty and stupidity is so profound at times that one is tempted to address the blowhards with hard blows!
11. geojellyroll 05:03 PM 5/10/12
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"No evidence of coastal water levels changing on my coast. If it does, it just continues a trend over centuries."
12. geojellyroll 05:04 PM 5/10/12
"No evidence of coastal water levels changing..."
There is clear evidence that your sea level post just doubled.
4. singing flea
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo you think NASA is infallible. There utterances are unassailable.
Aliens Could Attack Earth to End Global Warming, NASA Scientist Frets
Read more: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1104/1104.4462.pdf
I have just had a skim through these posts. No sea rise beyond historic average at two of the oldest tide gages, thousands of miles apart in Australia, one on the Pacific Ocean & one on the Indian Ocean nor at a New Zealand, thousands of miles to the east. Tuvalu is fine & building a massive new airport for the tourist trade I believe. A few million dollars from gullible governments is bound to help.
14. singing flea
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat on earth are you talkig about. This from your site. In other words, no increase.
Sea level has risen in Hawai’i at approximately 1.5 mm/yr (0.6 in/decade) over the past century27 and probably longer28.
So you think NASA is infallible. There utterances are unassailable.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAliens Could Attack Earth to End Global Warming, NASA Scientist Frets
---
"There" should be spelled 'their', for starters. Then there is the little fact that you are cherry picking and omitting important context to manufacture a straw man argument.
10. Trent1492"Climate trends were large enough in some countries to offset a significant portion of the increases in average yields that arose from technology, carbon dioxide fertilization, and other factors."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo there has been an increase in agricultural production everywhere but in some countries, although it increased, it was not as big an increase. Lets blame global warming for the lower yeilds in these countries but fertiliser & other things for the increases.
You do not seem to understand the weakness of your argument.
So, your model is that sea level rise is slow and steady as the earth goes from one glacial state to another.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLooking at global history
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sea_level_temp_140ky.gif
when has it ever been slow and steady in the past?
Hmm...never.
What makes you think it will be slow and steady this time?
"So in fact, there is virtually no reliable evidence of any of the potential harms that Hansen and those that believe in his cAGW religon fear."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCompletely false. In a GHG-charged world, the Arctic is in freefall climate meltdown; heat-waves and drought/drench cycles have hit with record-setting extremes, and the growing migration/dislocation of species is documented. If there's any religious fakery going on, it's the priests of pollution claiming the Greenhouse Effect and ocean pH balance can't be affected by a 40% super-charge to the concentration. That's the kind of non-effect that needs the in(ter)vention of a Deity.
The failure to find a 'credible' source due to 'universal bias', is more likely an opinion failing to find Science-supported evidence. Much of the debate is actually the nanny-whining of the "I-don't-want-it-to-be-true" demanders.
The study claims to be profound, but that's overshoot. End of this century, for the effect beginning to destabilize East Antarctica, is actually a middle-of-the-road projection. The study looks at the possibility the process chiseling the WAIS could be the mechanism that destabilizes the EAIS.
@carlyle
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFrom the site: http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/coasts/sealevel/
"In summary, it is widely agreed among researchers that the rate of global mean SLR has accelerated (approximately doubling) over the 20th and 21st centuries and reached approximately 3.2 mm/yr. Since the beginning of satellite altimetry (1992) there is no sign of further acceleration. The rate of global mean SLR will have to increase if the predictions of 32 cm (1 ft) by 2050 and 75 to 190 cm (2.5 to 6.2 ft) by the end of the century are to be realized."
This summary concludes that the rate of sea level rise has "approximately doubled" over the 20th and 21st centuries.
Your reading and comprehension skills have been hijacked by your political convictions. Don't worry though, half the country has been hoodwinked too.
The reason why most climatologists say the rise by 2100 will be higher then the current rate suggests is because negative feedback effects from methane release as the permafrost melts and darker water and land masses as the ice melts will speed up this process in the later half of the century and possibly sooner.
This is not a difficult concept to understand. What is difficult to accomplish is educating people who cherry pick science articles to arrive at a non-scientific conclusion.
The people who have taken a stand by teaching the rest about climate changes are the ones in the lime light (Al Gore and Jim Hansen for example). The people who are opposed to AGW science are hiding behind corporate cloaks. There is no credible climatologist who are deniers that will stick their head up unless they are being paid by special interests.
It is easy to tell who is getting paid by who. Just look at the source of the sites they use as their pulpit.
"Do you see ANY evidence of a change in the rate of sea level rise over the last 20 years due to all this increased warming?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this--------
Global average sea level rose at an average rate of around 1.7 ± 0.3 mm per year over 1950 to 2009 and at a satellite-measured average rate of about 3.1 ± 0.4 mm per year from 1993 to 2009, so yes, we've seen an increased rate of sea level rise over the past 20 years.
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
@Singing Flea,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCarlyle claims to be from Australia.
re THE master ocean current system, which is generated by the Antarctic (the Dynamo of Earth's climate) just take a peek at ESA's Planet Earth, current & archived, data through from ALL satellites, Geosat, Envisat, Gmes, etc, etc, etc .... if only the data from the N pole was an "addenda" to that of the S pole (& don't forget what's happening to the Wilkins Shelf over the last 15 yrs, & the ozone layer over the N pole)& the RISE in temperature of ALL the oceans ... why oh why have the "ologies" of the earth not got together for a Think Tank Jam Session & pooled their data????? @_@ maybe being me, I should perhaps pester you leading "earth 'ology" theorists to do just that! Would be worth a try, no???? (mustn't forget JSA, etc either) ^_~
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this31. singing flea 12:58 PM 5/11/12v
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou stated that there had been an increase in the rate of sea level rise in Hawaii didnt you? Your source says the rate has remained constant. The section you refer to in your last pst states that most scientists believe etc. Notice how often scientists at these institutions refer to what is happening somewhere else, according to the models. It is also interesting that where there are tide gauges a century or more old, unlike the satellite measurements, no increase above long term averages can be determine. By the way, the satellite measurements we get are not the raw data. As usual, they are adjusted figures & some of them from an ailing satellite that may not be accurate anyway. It has now failed totally. More massaging will solve that.
27. thevillagegeek
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisin reply to Carlyle
09:38 AM 5/11/12
The only thing out of context is their claim. Out of reality context. If not, explain to us, how my post was taken out of context. Better still posters, read it for yourselves. Of course it will make no difference to those who regard NASA as one of their appostles.
We need no apostles, but if this debate is to have any meaning, we need to define acceptable sources. The only criteria I propose is that it is a government agency, major university, or scientific journal (where incorrect theories may be of course be published, but there is the attempt to be serious), but not a blog.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe article you posted in order to ridicule NASA, which never claimed infallibility BTW, is not “Aliens Could Attack Earth to End Global Warming, NASA Scientist Frets” but “Would Contact with Extraterrestrials Benefit or Harm Humanity? A Scenario Analysis”, a discussion wherein a central concern is to avoid a Cortez Event like what the Spaniards did to Amerindian civilizations, once it seems there are no Vulcans out there, but rather varieties of not particularly benevolent species.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this>>Tuvalu is fine & building a massive new airport for the tourist trade I believe.<<
Tuvalu has not been abandoned, but the population has started to emigrate. All the small Pacific nations are working out emigration alternatives. If this is all imaginary, then why are they doing so?
“Tuvalu’s Environmental Migration to New Zealand” http://www.efmsv2008.org/file/A6+Shen
“Climate change, migration and adaptation in Funafuti, Tuvalu”
http://www.landfood.unimelb.edu.au/rmg/geography/papers/barnett13.pdf
http://business-standard.com/india/news/ajay-chhibber-asia-pacifics-triple-challenge/474175/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brook-meakins/nothing-is-immune-to-ocean_b_1443090.html
http://www.indianweekender.co.nz/Pages/ArticleDetails/7/2912/New-Zealand/Nadi-under-water-by-2030
http://www.towardfreedom.com/home/asia/2816-ready-or-not-can-bangladesh-cope-with-climate-change
http://www.trust.org/alertnet/news/qa-protecting-oceans-equals-protecting-our-planet
http://www.stuff.co.nz/science/6858916/Super-moon-to-rise-over-New-Zealand
http://www.digitaljournal.com/pr/685599
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/17790014
There is a large economic driver for all small Pacific Islanders with high birth rates & low employment opportunities. The same forces applied to earlier migrations from Ireland. The rate of migration is no higher from low coral islands than from high volcanic islands. Of course where poor people see a treasure chest they are going to try & get their share of it whether it is employment opportunities in Australia or New Zealand or money from foreign nations for alternative energy schemes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this>> How about someone actually goes out to that ice sheet and confirm if anything is really happening out there.<<
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOK, just the facts.
Arctic ice sheet extent data is actually measured since 1885, notice the reduction:
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/detect/ice-seaice.shtml
Methane and other gas measurements go back to 1978, notice the increase:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/
Antarctic minimum sea ice has been increasing for the past thirty years & Arctic minimum sea ice ceased declining five or six years ago. Notice that? The lowest ice extent in the Arctic was measured in the summer of 2007 & has not retreated below that level since.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDear Carlye,
I am glad you mentioned this; Antarctica’s absence of thaw is a common misconception.
What happens is that, as I have explained in prior posts, global warming is not everything as it was but a few degrees warmer in a uniform manner, but rather should be called Global Climatic Dynamization. This can be better understood by an example. When we put a pan of water to boil for noodles, much before it boils, the water begins to churn furiously. Everything will more dynamic and unpredictable rather than uniformly warmer and localized cold spells are quite to be expected.
As to Antarctica, recall the icebergs the size of Belgium that are every once on a while cracking off over the last decade.
In fact, Antarctica IS thawing, but being ice over land surrounded by liquid, thawing in a more complex manner than the Arctic, which is mere ice over water (much simpler system, physically)
“The continent of Antarctica has been losing more than 100 cubic kilometers (24 cubic miles) of ice per year since 2002”
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/20100108_Is_Antarctica_Melting.html
And I never tire recommending currently the coolest (pun) site ever. Seriously, this site just keeps getting better and better.
http://climate.nasa.gov/
see Global Ice Viewer / Antarctica
I am sure wind turbine and solar panel manufactures have bribed all the scientists in the world simultaneously, and they are all in it together to undermine wise, kindly Big Oil.
PS
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBeing a member of the Commonwealth, you may feel more comfortable with, and afford greater credibility to, the Royal Society. Their (Transactions) latest special edition on Climatic Change, wherein the central topic is preparing for warming over 4 degrees, is available in full (albeit having to download each article separately) for free at
http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/369/1934.toc
I love you guys. The skeptics ask questions and demand data and the Alarmists trot out computer models and projections as proof.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this