Huge Antarctic Ice Chunk Collapses

Hi there Roger Pink,

Do you actually believe we have enough data to a conclusion make?

Yes, I'm fairly certain we can conclude that this ice sheet collapsed. Mainly because it has collapsed.

'Yes, I'm fairly certain we can conclude that this ice sheet collapsed. Mainly because it has collapsed.'

Stating the obvious is the normal rouse of those lacking prowess to define the nature of an event other than to hypothesize upon it's meaning or other impending doom.

A warming trend has been advocated as being of "man's" doing. Really and an increase of CO2 96% which has been broadcast worldwide by volcanic events is some how "man's" doing and "mankind" need address his ways or?????

Give some data of "man's" involvement coinciding with actual fact.

It's ruse, not rouse.

Lets agree to disagree.

bwire,

You seem like a decent guy so I'll try to address your point. If you are interested in the facts regarding volcanic activity, please read the link below from the USGS (United States Geological Survey). It will tell you that the emissions of CO₂ from volcanos are 130th the emissions by humans. If you still don't agree, we can still agree to disagree.

You Wrote: "Really and an increase of CO2 96% which has been broadcast worldwide by volcanic events is some how "man's" doing and "mankind" need address his ways or?????"

The problem is what you wrote isn't true. According to the United States Geological Survey (USGS):

Comparison of CO₂ emissions from volcanoes vs. human activities.
Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO₂ into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1991). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO₂ by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 27 billion tonnes per year (30 billion tons) [ ( Marland, et al., 2006) - The reference gives the amount of released carbon (C), rather than CO₂, through 2003.]. Human activities release more than 130 times the amount of CO₂ emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of more than 8,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 3.3 million tonnes/year)! (Gerlach et. al., 2002)

http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas/volgas.html (Check for yourself)

I guess on average that would be accurate but Mt. Pinatubo released during a 6 month period more greenhouse gases; CO2, fluorocarbons, sulfur etc., than men ever have at anytime. Add that to the average and you have the point I'm making.

And you can disagree

No we are not in a debate and you seem very attuned to this issue but I don't think we have enough data a conclusion to make.

So many elemental levels of our ecosystem have been disrupted by our ignorant and greedy need to control and or replace the natural settings we can not evaluate these debilitating circumstances with merit.

If this chunk of ice is 1500 years old what caused the prior recedance.

Sir:

To add to your question...if this occurred as stated... "Larger, more dramatic ice collapses occurred in 2002 and 1995"....how can it be 1500 years old?

MR. GUY

Just curious as to why you don't believe this occurred as stated? And in answer to your question about how this could have happened, you do realize that Antarctica is some 5.4 million square miles. Three major calving ice sheets haven't completely removed ice from the continent. Here's a pretty good image of the region of disintigration as it is relative to the continent from CNETNews.com.

Good shot!! I saw the close-up pictures in the Sydney Morning Herald. What surprised the heck out of me was how straight the break line was, with perfect 90 degree ends cut neatly. Fell off my royal butt. That was cut.

These danged global warming nuts have no conception of Mother nature, any time reference data that is viable, or even how to find their collective way home at night.

Since when was it decided that the earth is no longer in a state of flux? The constant about the earth is that it is always in a state of flux. Even though it is ever so slightly, the earths rotation is slowing down, the moon is moving away from the earth, and sun spot activity is in a change mode. Its all about the money the do-gooders can take out of our pockets, because they know that 80% of the people are sheep.

Barnum and Bailey are very, very successful with that approach.

We cap 25% of the wells in Texas, refuse to open Anwar and the coasts for drilling, and we have an oil crisis? I drive a Cadillac with a Northstar engine, and I get better mileage than 95% of the other cars out there, yet I get tagged as a gas guzzler.

Check out volcano explosion underneath the ice sheet:

http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Massive_volcano_exploded_under_Antarctic_icesheet_study_finds_999.html

Interesting quote from your article:

"It may be possible that heat from the volcano has caused some of that acceleration," says BAS professor David Vaughan, who stresses though that global warming is by far the greater likelier cause.

Volcanic heat "cannot explain the more widespread thinning of West Antarctic glaciers that together are contributing nearly 0.2mm (0.008 of an inch) per year to sea-level rise," he adds.

It has done it before as the climate has changed. This event does not raise sea levels as this is floating ice. The ice sheet constantly has pieces break off, this is larger than usual, but there may be many causes for it other than a warming trend that has been in effect since 1600. Check the Holocene temperature records that have not been fudged and doctored by the Global Warming crowd.

It is part of a natural change in climate. The GW crowd arbitrarily picked a short period of recent climate and decided that was "normal". Look at the temperature records for the entire 10,500 yrs of the Holocene and decide what 20-30 yr period could be considered "normal" for the entire period. It is better to say "this was an average climate and temperature for the period" and see how we vary from that.

Taganan,

If Carbon Dioxide levels have doubled in the atmosphere in the last 100 years, and Carbon Dioxide absorbs Infrared emitted by the Earth and heats the atmosphere rather than allowing the Infrared light to go into space, why do you believe this would have no warming effect on global climate?

And if you heard that a European country had tripled the size of its army would you expect a war? Liechtenstein went from a 5 man army to a 15 man army. Their army is also the police force. The level may double, but what is normal over the long period of time and how much of that increase comes from nature is the question. I have not yet found anything that proves that it is all the fault of Man. We may contribute a small amount of CO2, but I still think that we are still warming from the coldest point of the Little Ice Age, which is a natural warming.

The Vikings could grow wheat in their colonies on Greenland. We still can't grow wheat in Greenland. So climate has been warmer without Man's influence.

Ooops! You are a True Believer in GW I take it. I also have facts I believe, that make sense to me and I am not about to change unless I find something new. Let's not argue about this.

You Wrote: "I also have facts I believe, that make sense to me and I am not about to change unless I find something new. Let's not argue about this."

That's a very reasonable sentiment. I'll direct my responses to the article itself.

Guest

Thank you for bringing some sanity to these environmental debates. On occasions when I have offered comments here, I have been rebuked on this blog. Partially my own fault for not trying hard enough in developing the case for scientific approach as the basis for policy as you so eloquently point out.

Guest,

You provided 40 links. This isn't debate, this is filibuster. What am I supposed to do, argue every point in you're never ending diatribe? Some of these points have already been discussed in this thread, but you haven't acknowledged that, you present them as if they're brand new. As for the Methane Hydrates, I'll address them in a new post.

Wonderful! You have presented so much evidence and it is so overwhelming to show that climate change is natural that Roger is speechless and angry that you did it and have the proper scientific background too.

I don't think I've ever been speechless

I'm interested in any debate where the person talks to me, not filibusters me. Of course when your goal is to end an argument rather than learn the science, filibustering is extremely effective. Who has the time to respond to all of that? Quantity isn't quality, but it is time consuming.

I'm going to do a post next on blackbody radiation and how it relates to the absorption spectrum of CO2 and Methane. I look forward to your praise and admiration of my post.

Don't care about the subject of blackbody radiation as it is unlikely to create laws to restrict my freedom. You call it a filibuster because there is so much evidence given. If the discussion doesn't go your way just give it a negative connotation. I have looked at the endless "evidence" given which is pro Global Warming, the attempts to say the matter is closed, no more debate is needed, that those who disagree are labeled as "Deniers", fools, non-scientists, phony scientists, corrupt scientists. You also say he gives a lot of evidence, then say it is not good quality because there is so much of it.

I do not disagree that there is Climate Change, but I too think it is mostly natural and that there is nothing we can do to stop it. The time and money would be better spent on stopping real and toxic pollution instead of being hysterical about CO2.

I would be interested to see you rebut him, point by point, with real evidence.

Of course you don't care about blackbody radiation.

I think I stated it before.. it is all about the money. It is also about power over their fellow man. Any time the UN signs on to something, you can bet the farm it is not in our best interests. More times than I care to admit to, I have had to fight stupidity in my profession with supposed intellectuals. The old saying fits, an expert is a person that knows more and more about less and less. Fact for the idiots to consider: since 1999 the earth's temperature rise has been 0 degrees F. The TRW satellite (Aqua) that was launched to do this type of study concludes the same, and sees the outer layer of the atmosphere cooling. Basic tenent of physics as it applies to thermodynamics: heat rises and cold falls, Hmmm!

But then again, the experts will twist this tenent to fit their own agenda. I sure am glad I am not an expert, I am not limited in my knowledge.

You also have to take into account the mindset of educators and democrats: do as I say, not as I do, and I know whats best for you, so just run with it and shut up. Isn't that how Rome fell?

You have it right, curious123. And Roger won't rebut as long as he can insult or change the subject.

It's clear to me, judging by the number of comments given from each side, that the vast majority of people on CR4 must agree with you, that global warming is either a hoax or not caused by man.

So Taganan, Curious123, Guest, eriew, agua_doc, Sparkstation, pheonix911, Dragonsfarm, Dances with Trees, I've appreciated the lively debate and if any of you feel you've been insulted, I apologize. See you around CR4.

Actually Rome fell because they devalued their currency to the point where the military would only accept land as pay. The only way they could be sure they got their land was if their general was in power, so rather than serve the republic, they served Caesar, or Marius, Galba, etc.

I guess this is a perfect example of what I was trying to say. I guess you look at history differently in New York than what we were taught in Texas. Your net result thesis may very well be right, but not the root cause, which is what we as engineers are molded to determine.

Speaking of New York, tell the average Joe that went through this last winter that global warming is here, and he'll laugh you out of the building.

To not engage in Ad Hominem arguments, its still about the money and the power that goes with it. The so called leader of the movement is an ex-presidential candidate that is closer to a used car salesman. Cal Worthington and Tex Earnhardt should be proud of the company they keep. The sad part is that they are Texans by birth. At least they knew that their cow dung wouldn't fly in Texas.

Solicit the root cause of the ice shelf breaking off, and a first year engineering student can answer correctly, provided he didn't sleep through his classes. It had NOTHING TO DO with ambient temperature changes. You don't have to stay at cryogenic temperatures to maintain ice. Maybe, just maybe there were weight and balance issues that came into play? Maybe, just maybe there were issues of the brittleness of the mass and movement underneath it may have played a role? The ice sheets float on the water, and are not anchored. Come on guys, we are supposed to be Engineers, not sheep.

The other facit of the global warming voodoo is that the ocean levels will rise. Try selling that voodoo to ship builders with an ounce of intelligence. The ice that breaks off has already been compensated for (at least the volume) by a factor called displacement. I think that is why we leave engineering to engineers, and selling used cars to used car salesmen.