Thursday, April 24, 2014

On hold for 15 years


Antarctic ice shelf melt 'lowest EVER recorded, global warming is NOT eroding it'

Human CO2 just not a big deal at Pine Island Glacier



Scientists at the British Antarctic Survey say that the melting of the Pine Island Glacier ice shelf in Antarctica has suddenly slowed right down in the last few years, confirming earlier research which suggested that the shelf's melt does not result from human-driven global warming.
The Pine Island Glacier in West Antarctica and its associated sea ice shelf is closely watched: this is because unlike most of the sea ice around the austral continent, its melt rate has seemed to be accelerating quickly since scientists first began seriously studying it in the 1990s.
Many researchers had suggested that this was due to human-driven global warming, which appeared to be taking place rapidly at that time (though it has since gone on hold for 15 years or so, a circumstance which science is still assimilating).
However back in 2009 the British Antarctic Survey sent its Autosub robot probe under the shelf (famously powered by some 5,000 ordinary alkaline D-cell batteries on each trip beneath the ice, getting through no less than four tonnes of them during the research). The Autosub survey revealed that a previously unknown marine ridge lay below the shelf, over which the icepack had for millennia been forced to grind its way en route to the ocean. However in relatively recent times the ice had finally so ground down the ridge that the sea could flow in between shelf and ridge, freeing the ice to move much faster and warming it too.
As we reported at the time, this caused BAS boffins to suggest that the observed accelerating ice flow and melt seen since the '90s was actually a result of the ridge's erosion and sea ingress, rather than global warming.
Now, the latest BAS research has revealed that rather than accelerating, "oceanic melting of the ice shelf into which the glacier flows decreased by 50 per cent between 2010 and 2012".
The BAS goes on to explain:
Observations made in January 2012, and reported now in [hefty boffinry mag] Science, show that ocean melting of the glacier was the lowest ever recorded. The top of the thermocline (the layer separating cold surface water and warm deep waters) was found to be about 250 metres deeper compared with any other year for which measurements exist.
This lowered thermocline reduces the amount of heat flowing over the ridge. High resolution simulations of the ocean circulation in the ice shelf cavity demonstrate that the ridge blocks the deepest ocean waters from reaching the thickest ice ...
In January 2012 the dramatic cooling of the ocean around the glacier is believed to be due to an increase in easterly winds caused by a strong La NinĂ£ event in the tropical Pacific Ocean.
Dr Pierre Dutrieux of the BAS adds, bluntly:
"We found ocean melting of the glacier was the lowest ever recorded, and less than half of that observed in 2010. This enormous, and unexpected, variability contradicts the widespread view that a simple and steady ocean warming in the region is eroding the West Antarctic Ice Sheet."
The Science paper can be read by subscribers to the journal here. The BAS announcement of the results can be read here. Readers unfamiliar with the rules of the climate game should note that the term "climate variability" as used in those documents means for this purpose "climate effects not caused by humans". ®

9 comments:

  1. I can only hope we use this information to cease and desist any attempts to reduce emissions from anything.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why exaggerate Max. We all want a clean environment. Some of us just don't want to dance to junk science is all.

      Delete
    2. The problem is this William, you and I perhaps do want a clean environment, but at the moment, and I chided Jimbo for this on the other thread, there is an all or nothing attitude about this that just pisses me off to no end. If any piece of the science doesn't stand up to scrutiny, all related science is bullshit and must be discarded. I read an awesome article that I can't seem to find right now that talked about how front line Marine outposts were extensively using solar to help reduce the amount of fuel that needed to be shipped to them through hostile territory. Inhofe, during a hearing, basically grilled the representative from the military about whether this push was because of belief in climate change.

      The left, IMO, way over hypes the potential of alternative energy that would cause less pollution. The right, on the other hand, perpetually just digs its feet in and offers some all or nothing variant. If global warming from pollution is not 100% true, then we must reject all claims that we need to reduce C02 emissions. If solar panels can't power a house 365 days a year in Chicago, then we must call bullshit on the belief that creating fields of solar panels in Nevada is a good idea. If our electrical grid, in its current state is not ready to handle inclusion of wind or solar power and if these alternative sources are not mind bogglingly more efficient than a barrel of oil, we must not invest a dime of tax payer money on improving the technology, because of course, Solyndra PROVES such investment is bullshit and negates decades of data that shows otherwise.

      I'll stop the rant there, I'm sure you get the point.......and disagree. Without government rules, we would pollute indiscriminately. Period. I want less pollution period and my desire is driven by a sense of not wanting to see my generation crap on the world like its an outhouse and leave the crap for someone else to clean up. Belief in global warming is the least of my motivations.

      Delete
  2. First the science is climate change. Second you still haven't figured out the difference between weather and climate change William.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. One thing I can't figure out is with China and India ramping up major industrial bases over the past 15 years why there hasn't been an increase in global warming.

      Please enlighten me ric.

      Delete
    2. Easy, because China and India (and Brazil) are on some other globe....

      Oh wait.

      Delete
  3. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Coal_plant_retirements#South_Carolina:_Grainger_Generating_Station

    Let me impart some real life facts into this discussion. So hopefully people will realize the folly for what it is.

    I can't speak for everything on that list, but I'm pretty well abreast of the plants in SC as my employer is the largest electricity consumer in the state.

    What you will notice is that the site I linked is a list of coal plants across the US and their fate due to EPA consent decree and among the complaints is...remember this part...Global Warming.

    There were a few plants that were shut down in DEC 2013 bringing the total MR generated by SCEG to zero. In January, everyone knows we had record cold and ice all across the East Coast. Well, in SC, we could not generate sufficient power to supply the increased demand. So we had rolling black outs. There are a few nuke plants (is that really better for environmentalists? ) in construction due to generate in 2016-2017 if all goes well. So maybe we won't have that many deaths associated with loss of power before then, but we will see.

    Now here's the fun part. What do you reckon happens when you shut down a perfectly good power station? It seems the correct answer is dismantle it and ship it to Brazil. I promise you, they will run the crap out of it.

    Can the EPA reach Brazil? Would Brazil operating these plants impact the Earth any less than if SC did? Quite the opposite.

    Can you see that it is at least possible that there are forces at work that are intentionally destroying you?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete