[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

You Know What Happens Next

Cash Jordan: Half-Built Tower Abandoned… as ICE Deports Entire ‘Migrant Workforce’

Heavy rainfall causes flash flooding Tuesday night, some cars stuck in high water on Chicago's West

Biden Doctor PLEADS THE FIFTH, Refuses To Testify To Congress, Biden Pardons ARE VOID

Joe Rogan says FBI director Kash Patel played him for a fool and maga for fools with the Jeff Epstein files

Elon's AI System "Grok" Went Rogue And Has Been SHUT DOWN in an Emergency!

Earthquake Swarms at One of the MOST DANGEROUS Volcanoes in the USA

Ben Shapiro Declares Epstein Case CLOSED: ‘Facts on the Ground Have Changed’

Iran receives 40 Chinese J10-C Fighter Jets

China’s Railgun Is Now Battle-Ready, Thanks to Nuclear Power

Chinese Hypersonic Advancements! Deadly new missile could decimate entire US fleet in 20 minutes

Iran Confirms Massive Chinese HQ 9 B Missile Deal

Why Is Europe Hitting 114°F And Still Rising?

The INCREDIBLE Impacts of Methylene Blue

The LARGEST Eruptions since the Merapi Disaster in 2010 at Lewotobi Laki Laki in Indonesia

Feds ARREST 11 Leftists For AMBUSH On ICE, 2 Cops Shot, Organized Terror Cell Targeted ICE In Texas

What is quantum computing?

12 Important Questions We Should Be Asking About The Cover Up The Truth About Jeffrey Epstein

TSA quietly scraps security check that every passenger dreads

Iran Receives Emergency Airlift of Chinese Air Defence Systems as Israel Considers New Attacks

Russia reportedly used its new, inexpensive Chernika kamikaze drone in the Ukraine

Iran's President Says the US Pledged Israel Wouldn't Attack During Previous Nuclear Negotiations

Will Japan's Rice Price Shock Lead To Government Collapse And Spark A Global Bond Crisis

Beware The 'Omniwar': Catherine Austin Fitts Fears 'Weaponization Of Everything'

Roger Stone: AG Pam Bondi Must Answer For 14 Terabytes Claim Of Child Torture Videos!

'Hit Us, Please' - America's Left Issues A 'Broken Arrow' Signal To Europe

Cash Jordan Trump Deports ‘Thousands of Migrants’ to Africa… on Purpose

Gunman Ambushes Border Patrol Agents In Texas Amid Anti-ICE Rhetoric From Democrats

Texas Flood

Why America Built A Forest From Canada To Texas


Science/Tech
See other Science/Tech Articles

Title: Escalating Ice Loss Found in Antarctica
Source: The Washington Post
URL Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy ... 008011302753.html?hpid=topnews
Published: Jan 14, 2008
Author: Marc Kaufman
Post Date: 2008-01-14 10:27:14 by robin
Ping List: *Global Climate Change*     Subscribe to *Global Climate Change*
Keywords: None
Views: 692
Comments: 43

Escalating Ice Loss Found in Antarctica
Sheets Melting in an Area Once Thought to Be Unaffected by Global Warming

By Marc Kaufman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, January 14, 2008; A01

Climatic changes appear to be destabilizing vast ice sheets of western Antarctica that had previously seemed relatively protected from global warming, researchers reported yesterday, raising the prospect of faster sea-level rise than current estimates.

While the overall loss is a tiny fraction of the miles-deep ice that covers much of Antarctica, scientists said the new finding is important because the continent holds about 90 percent of Earth's ice, and until now, large-scale ice loss there had been limited to the peninsula that juts out toward the tip of South America. In addition, researchers found that the rate of ice loss in the affected areas has accelerated over the past 10 years -- as it has on most glaciers and ice sheets around the world.

"Without doubt, Antarctica as a whole is now losing ice yearly, and each year it's losing more," said Eric Rignot, lead author of a paper published online in the journal Nature Geoscience.

The Antarctic ice sheet is shrinking despite land temperatures for the continent remaining essentially unchanged, except for the fast-warming peninsula.

The cause, Rignot said, may be changes in the flow of the warmer water of the Antarctic Circumpolar Current that circles much of the continent. Because of changed wind patterns and less-well-understood dynamics of the submerged current, its water is coming closer to land in some sectors and melting the edges of glaciers deep underwater.

"Something must be changing the ocean to trigger such changes," said Rignot, a senior scientist with NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory. "We believe it is related to global climate forcing."

Rignot said the tonnage of yearly ice loss in Antarctica is approaching that of Greenland, where ice sheets are known to be melting rapidly in some parts and where ancient glaciers have been in retreat. He said the change in Antarctica could become considerably more dramatic because the continent's western shelf, an expanse of ice and snow roughly the size of Texas, is largely below sea level and has broad and flat expanses of ice that could move quickly. Much of Greenland's ice flows through relatively narrow valleys in mountainous terrain, which slows its motion.

The new finding comes days after the head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said the group's next report should look at the "frightening" possibility that ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica could melt rapidly at the same time.

"Both Greenland and the West Antarctic ice sheet are huge bodies of ice and snow, which are sitting on land," said Rajendra Pachauri, chief of the IPCC, the United Nations' scientific advisory group. "If, through a process of melting, they collapse and are submerged in the sea, then we really are talking about sea-level rises of several meters." (A meter is about a yard.) Last year, the IPCC tentatively estimated that sea levels would rise by eight inches to two feet by the end of the century, assuming no melting in West Antarctica.

The new Antarctic ice findings are based on mapping of 85 percent of the continent over the past decade using radar data from European, Japanese and Canadian weather satellites. Previous studies had detected the beginning of ice loss in West Antarctica and substantial loss along the peninsula, but the current research found significantly greater changes.

Rignot and his team found that East Antarctica, which holds a majority of the continent's ice, has not experienced the same kind of loss -- probably because most of the ice sits atop land rather than below sea level, as in the west. In several coastal areas of East Antarctica, however, small but similar losses have been detected, he said.

In all, snowfall and ice loss in East Antarctica have about equaled out over the past 10 years, leaving that part of the continent unchanged in terms of total ice. But in West Antarctica, the ice loss has increased by 59 percent over the past decade to about 132 billion metric tons a year, while the yearly loss along the peninsula has increased by 140 percent to 60 billion metric tons. Because the ice being lost is generally near the bottom of glaciers, the glacier moves faster into the water and thins further, as a result. Rignot said there has been evidence of ice loss going back as far as 40 years.

The new findings come as the Arctic is losing ice at a dramatic rate and glaciers are in retreat across the planet. At a recent annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union, Ohio State University professor Lonnie Thompson delivered a keynote lecture that described a significant speed-up in the melting of high-altitude glaciers in tropical regions, including Peru, Tibet and Mount Kilimanjaro in Kenya.

Thompson, who has studied the Quelccaya glacier in the Peruvian Andes for 30 years, said that for the first half of that period, it retreated on average 20 feet per year. For the past 15 years, he said, it has retreated an average of nearly 200 feet per year.

"The information from Antarctica is consistent with what we are seeing in all other areas with glaciers -- a melting or retreat that is occurring faster than predicted," he said. "Glaciers, and especially the high-elevation tropical glaciers, are a real canary in the coal mine. They're telling us that major climatic changes are occurring."

While the phenomenon of ice loss worldwide is well documented, the dynamics in the Antarctic are probably the least understood. Glaciers and ice sheets are sometimes miles deep, and researchers do not know what might be happening at the bottom of the ice -- but it clearly is being lost along the peninsula and West Antarctic coast.

Rignot theorizes that the warmer water of the Antarctic Circumpolar Current is the cause. Douglas Martinson, a senior research scientist fellow at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University, has studied the issue and agrees.

Martinson said the current, which flows about 200 yards below the frigid surface water, began to warm significantly in the 1980s, and that warming in turn caused wind patterns to change in ways that ultimately brought more warm water to shore. The result has been an increased erosion of the glaciers and ice sheets.

Martinson said researchers do not have enough data to say for certain that the process was set in motion by global warming, but "that is clearly the most logical answer."

Pachauri, the IPCC's chief of climate science, will visit Antarctica this week with Norwegian Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg to get a firsthand view of the situation.

"You can read as much as you want on these subjects, but it doesn't really enter your system. You don't really appreciate the enormity of what you have," Pachauri said.


Poster Comment:

Inhofe's 400 Global Warming Deniers Debunked List of "Scientists" Includes Economists, Amateurs, TV Weathermen and Industry Hacks Subscribe to *Global Climate Change*

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 43.

#10. To: robin (#0)

The Antarctic ice sheet is shrinking despite land temperatures for the continent remaining essentially unchanged, except for the fast-warming peninsula.

The fact is, the Sun itself is probably emitting more intense energy than it used to, and the ozone layer is thinner than before (due in part to fluorocarbons in the atmosphere).

That there ARE natural causes does not exonerate mankind from being part of the problem however, as anything that adds to the problem is part of the problem itself.

Those that ignore these facts and attempt to ridicule those that voice concerns over the situation, are certainly not acting in the best interest of mankind.

One must wonder what motivates such a person...

FormerLurker  posted on  2008-01-14   14:08:56 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: FormerLurker (#10)

There are no doubt natural cycles involved as well. Whatever the cause, we need to keep an open mind and look at all possibilities. But denying that there is any global climate change is propaganda, IMO.

robin  posted on  2008-01-14   14:10:28 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: robin (#11)

But denying that there is any global climate change is propaganda, IMO.

No one has denied climate change, only that man is the cause. AGW is full of propaganda. Climate models are not science yet they are being pushed as fact. Follow the money.

farmfriend  posted on  2008-01-14   14:18:57 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#14. To: farmfriend (#12)

The rate of change has increased, so what is new?

To keep an open dialog all options must be looked at. The consensus among scientists is that global warming is being caused by man.

Do check the Inhofe list, all bought and paid for or not scientists.

How can you swear that you know it is not manmade? You can't but you do anyway.

robin  posted on  2008-01-14   14:21:25 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#15. To: robin (#14)

The consensus among scientists is that global warming is being caused by man.

No, it's not. Propaganda.

Do check the Inhofe list, all bought and paid for or not scientists.

I talk to them personally. I've read the papers they have written. David Wojick is the moderator of the forum we all post on. You'll note his name there. If you are that concerned about where the money comes from then you will be checking the funding sources of the AGW side won't you? Do you think they are altruistic?

farmfriend  posted on  2008-01-14   14:31:33 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#16. To: farmfriend (#15)

The consensus among scientists is that global warming is being caused by man.

The vast, overwhelming majority of scientists worldwide agree. A small bought and paid for by Big Oil disagree.

www.motherjones.com/news/.../05/some_like_it_hot.html

News: Forty public policy groups have this in common: They seek to undermine the scientific consensus that humans are causing the earth to overheat. And they all get money from ExxonMobil.

EXXONMOBIL’S FUNDING OF THINK TANKS hardly compares with its lobbying expenditures—$55 million over the past six years, according to the Center for Public Integrity.

Inhofe's 400 Global Warming Deniers Debunked
List of "Scientists" Includes Economists, Amateurs, TV Weathermen and Industry Hacks

Inhofe's list includes 413 people. (Score one Inhofe; the math holds up.)

Before we get ahead of ourselves, here are some concessions and explanations:

robin  posted on  2008-01-14   14:52:18 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#38. To: robin, formerLurker, *Agriculture-Environment* (#16) (Edited)

EXXONMOBIL’S FUNDING OF THINK TANKS hardly compares with its lobbying expenditures—$55 million over the past six years, according to the Center for Public Integrity.

Really?

Try reading this on just how much money the Pew foudation has put into AGW. Pew money is all oil money.

Co-opting Big Business: The Business Environmental Leadership Council To implement its upbeat little-by-little strategy Pew has assembled a thirty-eight member “Business Environmental Leadership Council” (BELC) to carry its message.

Pew, the Energy Foundation and the Turner Foundation spent $400,000 to organize the council from 1998 to 2000.

BELC members have included Lord John Browne, group chief executive of British Petroleum (BP); Sir Phillip Watts, chairman of Royal Dutch Shell before he was forced to resign in a scandalous overstatement of oil and gas reserves; George David, CEO of United Technologies Corporation; and John G. Drosdick, CEO of Sunoco. Ironically, Sunoco is the restructured successor to Sun Oil, the source of the $3.7 billion endowment that powers the Pew Charitable Trusts’ opposition to fossil fuels.

This is just a drop in the bucket. The US has spent billions on AGW.

farmfriend  posted on  2008-01-14   22:59:58 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#40. To: farmfriend (#38)

Gee, that proves it then. It's perfectly fine to pollute the earth till the sky is brown, and it's perfectly ok to rely on oil for virtually everything.

Of course the kind hearted oil companies are truly concerned about our health, and have our best interests in mind, because YOU say so.

Uh huh.

FormerLurker  posted on  2008-01-15   1:41:48 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#41. To: FormerLurker (#40)

Gee, that proves it then. It's perfectly fine to pollute the earth till the sky is brown, and it's perfectly ok to rely on oil for virtually everything.

Of course the kind hearted oil companies are truly concerned about our health, and have our best interests in mind, because YOU say so.

Uh huh.

You really don't understand what it is I'm telling you do you? Or what game is being played? It's not about pollution, never has been. It's about government regulation and the control of natural resources.

farmfriend  posted on  2008-01-15   2:37:00 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#42. To: farmfriend (#41)

It's not about pollution, never has been. It's about government regulation and the control of natural resources.

So what sort of regulation are you complaining about, and what sort of conservation do you have a problem with?

FormerLurker  posted on  2008-01-15   5:22:48 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#43. To: FormerLurker (#42)

So what sort of regulation are you complaining about, and what sort of conservation do you have a problem with?

I don't have a problem with conservation. I have a problem with government, the UN and NGOs.

I have a problem with "charitable" foundations who are energy investors using government regulations to eliminate competition and control supply. I have a problem with them funding lawsuits and buying politicians to force regulations. I have a problem with them buying scientists favorable to their ends. They have done it in industry after industry, AGW is just the latest. It's a vertically integrated protection racket.

Post by Carry_Okie

The supply regulation game is at least as old as the Dutch East India Company's manipulation of coffee prices by controlling access to the plants. Understanding that sorry history of economic tyranny by European corporate royalty, the founders of this nation tried to design a limited government, one that didn't have the power to control private property or have control of resources. Control of access to resources is too much temptation for the wealthy to purchase corrupt influence that depresses everybody else. They Founders failed.

The key to cracking the Constitutional system was international law, a loophole in Article VI Clause 2 of the Constitution, governing the adoption of treaties and the scope of their powers (IMO the rat Patrick Henry and others smelled only too clearly; if you want a good chuckle read Hamilton's defense of the manner of treaty ratification in Federalist #75). To implement the plan European investors needed a foothold in the US before they could get into the market. Until the Civil War, corporations were haltered in the US because they were not allowed to own land and were not protected under the Constitution in a manner co-equal to citizens. After the Civil War the US was deeply in debt to that very European investor class. The 14th Amendment changed that balance of power between the individual and corporate. Once the appropriate Supreme Court cases were in place interpreting persons "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" as including corporate persons, corporations then derived equal protection under the laws and could own property, the investment floodgates opened, and that not only created an American industrial colossus, it produced an American investor class owning enormously influential private tax-exempt foundations.

So it isn't exactly by coincidence that it is those same colossal foundations that are making all those "charitable" donations to those icky Greens. The Environmental Grantmakers Association? That's Rockefeller. The Pew Charitable Trusts? That's Sunoco. W. Alton Jones? That's Citgo. The World Wildlife Fund? BP and Shell. You do see a pattern, don't you?

These are more than investors in energy, their assets include timber, mining, banking, food production… They aren't fools. They use the same simple and ancient recipe as did their European forbears by which to manufacture a predictable return: Kill the competition with regulations, create a shortage, and cash in. It's become so common there is even an excellent book out on the topic that I suggest you read, .

It's a simple process that has accelerated over the last five decades.

  1. Foist the necessary treaty law via (primarily American) NGOs at UN environmental agencies (largely funded by the US government).
  2. Get the implementing legislation through Congress.
  3. Use lawsuits by those same NGOs in federal courts to alter the meaning of the law.
  4. Overwhelm the agencies with graduates brainwashed by professors who subsist of government and foundation grants.
  5. Establish the regulatory power on the local level to control the decision- making with the cheapest politicians money can buy.
It's a vertically integrated racketeering system that extends over the entire planet. American investors in multinational operations are perfectly happy taking a hit on US operations destroying domestic production because their investments abroad get the business. They either convert domestic resource land to real estate or mothball it under tax exempt conservancies, Federal monuments, and such.

It's been done in industry after industry: timber, energy, mining, beef, fish, agriculture, real estate development, soon water… ALL taking advantage of economies of scale in environmental compliance and sometimes selective enforcement. Tax-exempt foundations buy the research "data" they need, fund a few ideological groups trained by the same professorate that lives off their grant money, and not a word need be breathed to the companies in which they are invested.

CO2 is not a pollutant. Logging didn't hurt the salmon or the owls. Grazing didn't hurt the environment, the plains were adapted to grazing by buffalo.

Now you have Arnold putting one fifth of our state into a conservancy. Over 60% of the water comes off those mountains. His enviro policy was written by Robert Kennedy Jr and the NRDC. The same people who needed Kyoto to mine methane hydrates. Check out the funding charts Carry has in that post. Where do you think Arnold was going to get his hydrogen for his hydrogen highway? Why do you think he has been so practive in cutting emissions?

It's not about the environment, it's about the energy market. Always!

farmfriend  posted on  2008-01-15   5:44:36 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 43.

        There are no replies to Comment # 43.


End Trace Mode for Comment # 43.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest


[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]