Antartic ice not melting at amazing speed

[BlasterBates]

The collapse of the Larsen ice shelf (a tiny shelf in Antarctica) was probably as much due to a process that has been going on for centuries, as it was to warmer ocean temperatures.

It's likely that melting from higher ocean temperatures, or even a gradual decline in the ice mass of the peninsula over the centuries, was pushing the Larsen to the brink

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larsen_Ice_Shelf

There are glaciers that have been receding since the 17th century, due to natural climate change and I suspect this is true of the Larsen ice shelf.

The other interesting point is that they blame it on receding Antarctic sea ice, which did retreat in the 1990's but is now advancing again. Now what does that mean?

[doodab]

Larsen Ice Shelf - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Interesting quote, did you bother to read the article?

The Larsen disintegration events were unusual by past standards. Typically, ice shelves lose mass by iceberg calving and by melting at their upper and lower surfaces. The disintegration events are linked to the ongoing climate warming in the Antarctic Peninsula, about 0.5 °C per decade since the late 1940s, which is a consequence of localized warming of the Antarctic peninsula.[4]

Recent data collected by an international team of investigators through satellite-based radar measurements suggests that the overall ice-sheet mass balance in Antarctica is increasingly negative

[BlasterBates]

did you bother to read the article?

Yes obviously I did, otherwise I wouldn't have been able to quote that relevant sentence that you chose to ignore:

gradual decline in the ice mass of the peninsula over the centuries, was pushing the Larsen to the brink

Ask yourself this question. What was causing a gradual decline of the ice mass over centuries, because whatever that process was it wasn't CO2 was it.

You see it's the way they spin the story. The calving was "unusual", and therefore some people jump to a conclusion that the ice shelf was stable for "thousands of years". Well that's blatantly untrue, because the ice loss has been going on for centuries.

[doodab]

You see it's the way they spin the story. The calving was "unusual", and therefore some people jump to a conclusion that the ice shelf was stable for "thousands of years". Well that's blatantly untrue, because the ice loss has been going on for centuries.

You mean it's the way you don't actually read it properly then accuse them of spin?

The calving wasn't unusual (it says this is how they normally lose ice). The rapid and total collapse was. They know it was there for 10000 years before hand because of the sediment cores taken from underneath it.

[BlasterBates]

You mean it's the way you don't actually read it properly then accuse them of spin?

The calving wasn't unusual (it says this is how they normally lose ice). The rapid and total collapse was. They know it was there for 10000 years before hand because of the sediment cores taken from underneath it.

What was causing the loss of ice over the last few centuries? (not 30 years).

If you'd have bothered to read the paper on the stability of the Larsen Glacier then you would have come accross this sentence:

They discovered that while there has been considerable long-term thinning in the ice over the past several thousands of years

[DodgyAgent]

What was causing the loss of ice over the last few centuries? (not 30 years).

If you'd have bothered to read the paper on the stability of the Larsen Glacier then you would have come accross this sentence:

I am beginning to think that you are as obsessive as PJ Clarke

[Doggy Styles]

I am beginning to think that you are as obsessive as PJ Clarke

That name invokes the Godwin's law of climate change threads.

Excellent poaching dodgy, you've sneaked in and lost an argument you weren't even involved in!

[DodgyAgent]

That name invokes the Godwin's law of climate change threads.

Excellent poaching dodgy, you've sneaked in and lost an argument you weren't even involved in!

I dont mind losing an argument

[doodab]

What was causing the loss of ice over the last few centuries? (not 30 years).

If you'd have bothered to read the paper on the stability of the Larsen Glacier then you would have come accross this sentence:

If you had bothered to read what you'd quoted you'd have noticed that it's only half a sentence. Why don't we look at the whole thing:

They discovered that while there has been considerable long-term thinning in the ice over the past several thousands of years, it has been the recent warming over the Antarctic peninsula that triggered the collapse. They note that the event is unprecedented in the past 11,500 years – during which entire period the ice shelf has been quite stable.

If you are going to quote things to support your point of view, try quoting things that do actually support it.

[BlasterBates]

If you had bothered to read what you'd quoted you'd have noticed that it's only half a sentence. Why don't we look at the whole thing:



If you are going to quote things to support your point of view, try quoting things that do actually support it.

That's fine just making it clear that you have a prejudiced view. No problem with that.

A balanced scientific view would be that it's unclear as the ice sheet has been thinning for thousands for years, so it was going to collapse at some point wasn't it. Krakatoa was stable for thousands of years but then blew up suddenly at the end of the 19th century.

The Larsen B ice sheet is tiny. Most of the Larsen ice shelf is prefectly stable.

Climate changes are natural, there was a stable ice sheet over Europe for thousands of years as well.

Yes of course you maybe right. Just nice to get the facts straight, i.e. that most of that ice shelf is prefectly stable and that particular part of the ice shelf has been thinning for thousands of years and hence would have collapsed "naturally".