Warm ocean drives most Antarctic ice shelf loss, research shows

Jun 13, 2013
Credit: Ted Scambos, University of Colorado, NSIDC

Ocean waters melting the undersides of Antarctic ice shelves, not icebergs calving into the sea, are responsible for most of the continent's ice loss, a study by UC Irvine and others has found.

The first comprehensive survey of all discovered that basal melt, or ice dissolving from underneath, accounted for 55 percent of shelf loss from 2003 to 2008 – a rate much higher than previously thought. Ice shelves, floating extensions of glaciers, fringe 75 percent of the vast, frozen continent.

The findings, to be published in the June 14 issue of Science, will help scientists improve projections of how Antarctica, which holds about 60 percent of the planet's freshwater locked in its massive ice sheet, will respond to a warming ocean and contribute to .

It turns out that the tug of seawaters just above the matters more than the breaking off of bergs.

"We find that iceberg calving is not the dominant process of ice removal. In fact, ice shelves mostly melt from the bottom before they even form icebergs," said lead author Eric Rignot, a UC Irvine professor who's also a researcher with NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena. "This has for our understanding of interactions between Antarctica and climate change. It basically puts the Southern Ocean up front as the most significant control on the evolution of the sheet."

Ice shelves grow through a combination of land ice flowing to the sea and snow falling on their surfaces. The researchers combined a regional model and a new map of Antarctica's bedrock with ice shelf thickness, elevation and velocity data captured by Operation IceBridge – an ongoing NASA of Greenland and the South Pole. (Rignot will host a planning session of Operation IceBridge scientists at UC Irvine on June 17 and 18.)

Ocean melting is distributed unevenly around the continent. The three giant ice shelves of Ross, Filchner and Ronne, which make up two-thirds of Antarctica's ice shelves, accounted for only 15 percent. Meanwhile, less than a dozen small ice shelves floating on relatively warm waters produced half the total meltwater during the same period.

The researchers also compared the rates at which the ice shelves are shedding ice with the speed at which the continent itself is losing mass and found that, on average, the shelves lost mass twice as fast as the Antarctic ice sheet did.

"Ice shelf melt can be compensated by ice flow from the continent," Rignot said. "But in a number of places around Antarctica, they are melting too fast, and as a consequence, glaciers and the entire continent are changing."

Explore further: Tropical depression 21W forms, Philippines under warnings

More information: "Ice Shelf Melting Around Antarctica," by E. Rignot et al. Science, 2013.

Related Stories

More ice loss through snowfall on Antarctica

Dec 12, 2012

Stronger snowfall increases future ice discharge from Antarctica. Global warming leads to more precipitation as warmer air holds more moisture – hence earlier research suggested the Antarctic ice sheet ...

Recommended for you

Better forecasts for sea ice under climate change

19 hours ago

University of Adelaide-led research will help pinpoint the impact of waves on sea ice, which is vulnerable to climate change, particularly in the Arctic where it is rapidly retreating.

User comments : 51

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Maggnus
4.5 / 5 (16) Jun 13, 2013
This would seem to correlate with the findings of several studies that the bulk of current warming is taking place in the ocean, not the atmosphere. Seems to me this would be a temporary condition; eventually the heat in the ocean will affect the atmosphere, and then we'll see surface temperatures really take off.
QuixoteJ
2.4 / 5 (13) Jun 14, 2013
This would seem to correlate with the findings of several studies that the bulk of current warming is taking place in the ocean, not the atmosphere. Seems to me this would be a temporary condition; eventually the heat in the ocean will affect the atmosphere, and then we'll see surface temperatures really take off.
The bulk of heat from global warming goes directly into the oceans before it goes into the atmosphere?
Neinsense99
3.7 / 5 (16) Jun 14, 2013
This would seem to correlate with the findings of several studies that the bulk of current warming is taking place in the ocean, not the atmosphere. Seems to me this would be a temporary condition; eventually the heat in the ocean will affect the atmosphere, and then we'll see surface temperatures really take off.
The bulk of heat from global warming goes directly into the oceans before it goes into the atmosphere?

Maggnus said the bulk of current warming (as in temperature increase right now), not the majority of heating from greenhouse effect in general. Too different things. Keep in mind, too, that most of the Earth's surface is covered by ocean, so it shouldn't be a surprise to find that warming, especially as reduced sea ice coverage exposes more open water to sunlight for longer periods.
runrig
4.7 / 5 (13) Jun 14, 2013
The bulk of heat from global warming goes directly into the oceans before it goes into the atmosphere?


Yes. Oceans comprise ~70% of the Earth's surface and because of water's ability to spread incoming energy through greater depth - and therefore store that energy in a more *permanent* form rather than radiate the diurnal warmth so easily to space as does land. The specific heat of H2O also ensures that as it takes ~4x the energy to heat it to the same temp as does air then it is also 4x slower to cool than air.

"Also because of the huge discrepancy in volumetric thermal capacities, the influence of water on air is very much greater and more immediate than air on water. A change in atmospheric temperatures might take decades to affect the oceans, but the flip of an anomaly of an ocean pool of water has an almost immediate effect on the air."
http://icecap.us/...mate.pdf
antigoracle
1.7 / 5 (22) Jun 18, 2013
With global temperatures dropping the AGW Alarmist are desperate to save face. There latest fabrication is that the oceans have suddenly decided to absorb all the heat or as one paper so scientifically declared - the climate has paused for breath.
ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (21) Jun 18, 2013
Warm ocean drives most Antarctic ice shelf loss, research shows
And yet for years, more and more of the ocean is freezing into sea ice around the Antarctic.

http://arctic.atm...ctic.png

http://arctic.atm...ctic.png

http://arctic.atm...ive.html

So how does this supposed ice shelf melting work? is it magic?

ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (20) Jun 18, 2013
Warm land must contribute. Rivers of ice are sliding to the ocean riding on a liquid water. And Antarctica is geologically active. Ice is a good insulator.
antigoracle
1.5 / 5 (22) Jun 18, 2013
Warm ocean drives most Antarctic ice shelf loss, research shows
And yet for years, more and more of the ocean is freezing into sea ice around the Antarctic.

http://arctic.atm...ctic.png

So how does this supposed ice shelf melting work? is it magic?


Absolutely. Now that reality reveals AGW for the lie it is, the cult's last hope is magic.

ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (19) Jun 18, 2013
Warm ocean drives most Antarctic ice shelf loss, research shows
And yet for years, more and more of the ocean is freezing into sea ice around the Antarctic.

http://arctic.atm...ctic.png

http://arctic.atm...ctic.png

http://arctic.atm...ive.html

So how does this supposed ice shelf melting work? is it magic?
Absolutely. Now that reality reveals AGW for the lie it is, the cult's last hope is magic.
LOL. One has to wonder about these pseudoscientists who fail to perform even the most basic empirical research before making these ridiculous claims.

deepsand
3.5 / 5 (19) Jun 19, 2013
With global temperatures dropping the AGW Alarmist are desperate to save face.

Repeating that lie will not make it true.
deepsand
3.5 / 5 (19) Jun 19, 2013
And yet for years, more and more of the ocean is freezing into sea ice around the Antarctic.

As you've been told before, that's not the whole story.

http://www.skepti...iate.htm
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (18) Jun 19, 2013
And yet for years, more and more of the ocean is freezing into sea ice around the Antarctic.
As you've been told before, that's not the whole story.
It is the whole story.

First, in the context of this article, they're claiming a warm Antarctic Ocean is undermining the shelf ice. As the Antarctic ocean is freezing more, and the melting/freezing temperature of sea ice is lower than shelf ice, this simply isn't possible.

Second, the claim that Antarctic ice mass is decreasing is crap. There's no mechanical reason for this, as the Antarctic interior remains below freezing year round. If the outflow has increased, it can only be because the precipitation, and therefore discharge, has increased.

And ICESat has shown the ice is actually increasing:

NASA: Mass Gains of the Antarctic Ice Sheet Exceed Losses

And a subsequent ice core study backs this up.

continued...

ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (19) Jun 19, 2013
Continued from above:

Antarctica gaining Ice Mass — and is not extraordinary compared to 800 years of data

But of course we all know AGWites like you only believe what you want to believe.

Sinister1811
3.6 / 5 (14) Jun 19, 2013
People like antigoracle, ubavontuba and ryggesogn2 must be trolling. There's no way you can still believe that rubbish. NASA has well over decades of data on how the Antarctic is gradually losing ice (albeit at a slower pace than the Arctic). The debate is over, and we are moving on.
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (19) Jun 19, 2013
People like antigoracle, ubavontuba and ryggesogn2 must be trolling. There's no way you can still believe that rubbish. NASA has well over decades of data on how the Antarctic is gradually losing ice (albeit at a slower pace than the Arctic). The debate is over, and we are moving on.
Like I said above, AGWites will believe only what they want to believe. Empirical evidence to the contrary, simply doesn't phase them.

Sinister1811
3.6 / 5 (14) Jun 19, 2013
Like I said above, AGWites will believe only what they want to believe. Empirical evidence to the contrary, simply doesn't phase them.


Why did you go through and downrank every one of my other posts? I gave you a 1 because I completely disagree with your opinions on this particular topic. It was nothing personal. I have noticed that people like you, NotParker, antigoracle, gregor1 etc seem to be comment a lot on climate change articles and nothing else. This leads me to conclude that people like you come to this site to troll these articles and are probably far right extremists, sponsored by oil companies.
Sinister1811
3.7 / 5 (15) Jun 19, 2013
With global temperatures dropping the AGW Alarmist are desperate to save face.

Repeating that lie will not make it true.


Yeah, I agree man. They're trolls. Can't back up anything with facts.
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (19) Jun 19, 2013
Why did you go through and downrank every one of my other posts?
Why do you do this to me?

I gave you a 1 because I completely disagree with your opinions on this particular topic.
B.S.. You even recently downranked me for complimenting the work of the California Air Resources Board.

It was nothing personal.
B.S.. We've discussed your cyberbullying before. You've long since made it personal.

I have noticed that people like you, ...seem to ...comment a lot on climate change articles and nothing else.
B.S. You obviously and regularly search my account and downrank me without regard to subject or content.

This leads me to conclude that people like you come to this site to troll these articles and are probably far right extremists, sponsored by oil companies.
LOL. So people who don't agree with you MUST be part of a conspiracy now? Paranoid much?

FYI. I'm a lifelong Democrat. And my posting here is strictly recreational.

Why are you here?

antigoracle
1.6 / 5 (21) Jun 19, 2013
I have noticed that people like you, NotParker, antigoracle, gregor1 etc seem to be comment a lot on climate change articles and nothing else. This leads me to conclude that people like you come to this site to troll these articles and are probably far right extremists, sponsored by oil companies.

And this leads me to conclude that you need to up your meds, otherwise you need to educate yourself, as that's the only cure for stupidity.
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (19) Jun 19, 2013
Yeah, I agree man. They're trolls. Can't back up anything with facts.
LOL. This just serves to demonstrate that like I said above, AGWites will believe only what they want to believe. Empirical evidence to the contrary, simply doesn't phase them.

Sinister1811
3.6 / 5 (14) Jun 19, 2013
And this leads me to conclude that you need to up your meds, otherwise you need to educate yourself, as that's the only cure for stupidity.


That's hilarious coming from the poster who is constantly labeling other users "turds". I don't need to educate myself, because I'm not denying anything. And mainstream science supports the stance of AGW.
Sinister1811
3.6 / 5 (14) Jun 19, 2013
Why do you do this to me?


Because you did it to me.

B.S.. You even recently downranked me for complimenting the work of the California Air Resources Board.


Only after you did it to me. Before that, it was just your comments relating to climate science, which are, as always, a load of crap.

B.S.. We've discussed your cyberbullying before. You've long since made it personal.


Well, if that's the way you want it played.

B.S. You obviously and regularly search my account and downrank me without regard to subject or content.


That's nonsense. I have never done that. I only ever see your comments on climate change articles, I disagree with them, and thus give you the rating they deserve.

LOL. So people who don't agree with you MUST be part of a conspiracy now? Paranoid much?


You're one to talk. You're always going on about "the lies" and how Al Gore is running a "conspiracy". So take your own advice. Hypocrite.
Sinister1811
3.6 / 5 (14) Jun 19, 2013
FYI. I'm a lifelong Democrat. And my posting here is strictly recreational.

Why are you here?


I'm guessing "strictly recreational" is a euphemism for "trolling". However, I signed up to this website because it interested me.
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (19) Jun 19, 2013
I don't need to educate myself, because I'm not denying anything. And mainstream science supports the stance of AGW.
Hobbes: "Is it a right to remain ignorant?"

Calvin: "I don't know, but I refuse to find out!"

http://www.gocomi...13/01/08

ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (19) Jun 19, 2013
Why do you do this to me?
Because you did it to me.
B.S.. You've been at it far longer, and much more pervasively.

B.S.. You even recently downranked me for complimenting the work of the California Air Resources Board.
Only after you did it to me. Before that, it was just your comments relating to climate science, which are, as always, a load of crap.
More B.S.. This just serves to show your statement above about it only being this particular subject, is a lie. And as I've said, you've been at it far longer and much more pervasively.

B.S.. We've discussed your cyberbullying before. You've long since made it personal.
Well, if that's the way you want it played.
Typical bully, blaming the victim, crap. Grow up.

ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (19) Jun 19, 2013
B.S. You obviously and regularly search my account and downrank me without regard to subject or content.
That's nonsense. I have never done that. I only ever see your comments on climate change articles, I disagree with them, and thus give you the rating they deserve.
More B.S.. You typically hit me on any and every topic. And you blindly hit me on climate articles too, without even bothering to understand the content.

LOL. So people who don't agree with you MUST be part of a conspiracy now? Paranoid much?
You're one to talk. You're always going on about "the lies" and how Al Gore is running a "conspiracy". So take your own advice. Hypocrite.
This just serves to prove my statement above, and your lies. I never go on about conspiracies or Al Gore.

But I find it interesting my little (and rare) retaliation effort has affected you so. Sadly, I don't expect this conversation to have a positive effect, as you have clearly demonstrated an inability to learn.

ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (19) Jun 19, 2013
FYI. I'm a lifelong Democrat. And my posting here is strictly recreational.

Why are you here?
I'm guessing "strictly recreational" is a euphemism for "trolling".
There's no euphemism intended or implied. I simply enjoy reading the articles and enjoy commenting, particularly in regards to bad science practices.

However, I signed up to this website because it interested me.
How so? You've shown almost no interest in learning anything new. Even going so far as to state you aren't interested in being educated. So what's the point? Are you here simply to troll for AGW?

Howhot
4.3 / 5 (12) Jun 20, 2013
The ubbatubba say:
simply enjoy reading the articles and enjoy commenting, particularly in regards to bad science practices.

Yeah, that's because you wouldn't know science if it walked up and smacked you in the face, like your girl/boy friend does daily. No means No dope!

Neinsense99
3.6 / 5 (14) Jun 20, 2013
This would seem to correlate with the findings of several studies that the bulk of current warming is taking place in the ocean, not the atmosphere. Seems to me this would be a temporary condition; eventually the heat in the ocean will affect the atmosphere, and then we'll see surface temperatures really take off.
The bulk of heat from global warming goes directly into the oceans before it goes into the atmosphere?

Maggnus said the bulk of current warming (as in temperature increase right now), not the majority of heating from greenhouse effect in general. Too different things. Keep in mind, too, that most of the Earth's surface is covered by ocean, so it shouldn't be a surprise to find that warming, especially as reduced sea ice coverage exposes more open water to sunlight for longer periods.

Two, not too. Need more sleep....
Neinsense99
3.4 / 5 (15) Jun 20, 2013
I have noticed that people like you, NotParker, antigoracle, gregor1 etc seem to be comment a lot on climate change articles and nothing else. This leads me to conclude that people like you come to this site to troll these articles and are probably far right extremists, sponsored by oil companies.

And this leads me to conclude that you need to up your meds, otherwise you need to educate yourself, as that's the only cure for stupidity.

The OP was not ad hominem (it was based on actual observation), but your retort was directly personal and evasive.
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (19) Jun 20, 2013
This would seem to correlate with the findings of several studies that the bulk of current warming is taking place in the ocean, not the atmosphere. Seems to me this would be a temporary condition; eventually the heat in the ocean will affect the atmosphere, and then we'll see surface temperatures really take off.
The bulk of heat from global warming goes directly into the oceans before it goes into the atmosphere?
Maggnus said the bulk of current warming (as in temperature increase right now), not the majority of heating from greenhouse effect in general. Two different things. Keep in mind, too, that most of the Earth's surface is covered by ocean, so it shouldn't be a surprise to find that warming, especially as reduced sea ice coverage exposes more open water to sunlight for longer periods.
LOL. Okay, I'll bite. If the "bulk of current (ocean) warming" isn't a result of the greenhouse effect, where's the extra energy supposedly coming from?

Howhot
4.3 / 5 (12) Jun 20, 2013
Ubbatuba; I know your very anti-global warming and all, deniers have their reasons I guess. But consider the effects of excessive atmospheric CO2 levels in simple chemistry. Most all the CO2 released is being absorbed by the oceans. There it is chemically transformed H2O+CO2 -> H2CO3 to carbolic acid. Here is a cool video demonstrating that chemistry.
http://sciencehac...8j2wHUrs

What is bad is that shell fish, diatoms and other creatures with calcium shells are dissolved and killed in water like that. Did you know that since the beginning of the industrial age the WORLDS oceans have become ~35% more acidic? Yow! A massive shell fish/(diatom) die off is very likely in the next 50 years if we don't stop fossil fuel burning.

It's a very serious situation certainly more dangerous than average global warming trends.
We could loose entire food chains from acidification way before global average temps top a 1C rise.

deepsand
3.4 / 5 (18) Jun 21, 2013
I have noticed that people like you, NotParker, antigoracle, gregor1 etc seem to be comment a lot on climate change articles and nothing else. This leads me to conclude that people like you come to this site to troll these articles and are probably far right extremists, sponsored by oil companies.

And this leads me to conclude that you need to up your meds, otherwise you need to educate yourself, as that's the only cure for stupidity.

You lack the humour to be entertaining, the knowledge to be informative, and have all the charm and attraction of a deceased rat which suffered from leprosy and incontinence.
deepsand
3.5 / 5 (19) Jun 21, 2013
And yet for years, more and more of the ocean is freezing into sea ice around the Antarctic.
As you've been told before, that's not the whole story.
It is the whole story.

Repeating that claim will not make it so.

The NASA report that you cited does not tell the whole story. You've simply picked something with a headline that you think makes your point.

I'm am not going to attempt to explain your errors to you, as that would obviously be to engage on a fool's errand, given that such has been tried by others on many occasions to no avail.

You cannot learn what you do not want to know.
.
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (19) Jun 21, 2013
Did you know that since the beginning of the industrial age the WORLDS oceans have become ~35% more acidic?
Idiot. The oceans are alkaline, not acidic. At worst, they are becoming slightly less alkaline.

It's a very serious situation certainly more dangerous than average global warming trends.
We could loose entire food chains from acidification way before global average temps top a 1C rise.
The great switcheroo strikes again. First it was called "Global Warming!" and it was about unprecedented heat and desertification. Then when that didn't pan out it was changed to "Climate Change!" and was about worsening weather. Now since that hasn't panned out, it's being changed to "Ocean Acidification!"

Do AGWite Chicken Little doomsayers ever learn? Apparently not.

The shellfish are fine.

ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (19) Jun 21, 2013
And yet for years, more and more of the ocean is freezing into sea ice around the Antarctic.
As you've been told before, that's not the whole story.
It is the whole story.
Repeating that claim will not make it so.

The NASA report that you cited does not tell the whole story. You've simply picked something with a headline that you think makes your point.
Did you try actually reading it?

I'm am not going to attempt to explain your errors to you, as that would obviously be to engage on a fool's errand, given that such has been tried by others on many occasions to no avail.
In other words, you haven't a valid argument to make.

You cannot learn what you do not want to know.
You should know. Like I said above, AGWites will believe only what they want to believe. Empirical evidence to the contrary, simply doesn't phase them.

Howhot
4.3 / 5 (12) Jun 21, 2013
The super prick Ubbatuba just continues to be a constant buffoon with little scientific aptitude and claims without any proof, that he know anthropogenic global warming (AGW) enough to dismiss it! And like a false prophet, claims the scientist are lying about the state of affairs in the global environment. Ubba, no the shellfish are not going to be fine! You can include most species of coral and entire food chains that depend on calcium or calcium diatoms.

I know you have no reason other than to be a contrarian denier to say what you say, but I've yet to hear you make a logical argument as to why the polar bears will be fine or why the shellfish will be fine. I guess the oil companies won't be? I guess the coal and natural gas companies won't be fine, is that your arguement? Your argument is that global warming will just go away? You have no empirical evidence supporting your stance.

To bad you weren't born a polar bear, or a mollusk!
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (18) Jun 22, 2013
You have no empirical evidence supporting your stance.
Denying that I have empirical data when I clearly have, makes you the fool.

Here's more:

http://www.woodfo....3/trend

SteveS
4.6 / 5 (11) Jun 22, 2013
You have no empirical evidence supporting your stance.
Denying that I have empirical data when I clearly have, makes you the fool.

Here's more:

http://www.woodfo....3/trend


Somebody looking at the data in 1975 may have concluded that global warming stopped in 1944

http://www.woodfo.../to:2013

but they would have been wrong.

What makes you so sure based on just 12 years data?
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (18) Jun 22, 2013
Somebody looking at the data in 1975 may have concluded that global warming stopped in 1944

http://www.woodfo.../to:2013

but they would have been wrong.

What makes you so sure based on just 12 years data?
When did I claim to be so sure?

The cooling period you referenced has generally been attributed to aerosols. This is not the case today.

And climate scientists today speak of feedback loops which should make increasing CO2 induced warming self-reinforcing (ever more apparent). Obviously, this isn't currently observed.

But I certainly don't claim to know what's going to happen in the future. I just feel the current disconnect between increasing CO2 and decreasing temperatures suggests a problem of understanding.

deepsand
3.5 / 5 (19) Jun 22, 2013
Did you know that since the beginning of the industrial age the WORLDS oceans have become ~35% more acidic?
Idiot. The oceans are alkaline, not acidic. At worst, they are becoming slightly less alkaline.

You are the true idiot. Becoming less alkaline is quite properly known as acidification.

And, in this case, what you call "slightly less alkaline" is not with severe consequences.

You are an intellectual fraud.
deepsand
3.4 / 5 (18) Jun 22, 2013
And climate scientists today speak of feedback loops which should make increasing CO2 induced warming self-reinforcing (ever more apparent). Obviously, this isn't currently observed.

The claimed observational defect is an artifact of your self-induced blindness.

I just feel the current disconnect between increasing CO2 and decreasing temperatures suggests a problem of understanding.

Indeed it does; and, the problem with understanding lies with you and your ilk.
deepsand
3.4 / 5 (17) Jun 23, 2013
And yet for years, more and more of the ocean is freezing into sea ice around the Antarctic.

As you've been told before, that's not the whole story.

It is the whole story.

Repeating that claim will not make it so.

The NASA report that you cited does not tell the whole story. You've simply picked something with a headline that you think makes your point.

Did you try actually reading it?

Of course I read it.
I'm am not going to attempt to explain your errors to you, as that would obviously be to engage on a fool's errand, given that such has been tried by others on many occasions to no avail.

In other words, you haven't a valid argument to make.

Asked and answered.

Your inability or unwillingness to understand does not warrant endless repetition.
deepsand
3.4 / 5 (17) Jun 23, 2013
Did you know that since the beginning of the industrial age the WORLDS oceans have become ~35% more acidic?
Idiot. The oceans are alkaline, not acidic. At worst, they are becoming slightly less alkaline.

You are the true idiot. Becoming less alkaline is quite properly known as acidification.

And, in this case, what you call "slightly less alkaline" is not with severe consequences.

You are an intellectual fraud.

CORRECTION: The final sentence should read '""slightly less alkaline" is not WITHOUT severe consequences."
ubavontuba
1.3 / 5 (16) Jun 23, 2013
The final sentence should read '""slightly less alkaline" is not WITHOUT severe consequences."
Idiot. Seawater pH varies significantly, naturally.

deepsand
3.1 / 5 (15) Jun 23, 2013
The final sentence should read '""slightly less alkaline" is not WITHOUT severe consequences."
Idiot. Seawater pH varies significantly, naturally.

Neither makes your comments any the less incorrect nor negates the fact that anthropogenic CO2 contributes to said acidification.
SteveS
4.6 / 5 (9) Jun 24, 2013
ubavontuba
...And climate scientists today speak of feedback loops which should make increasing CO2 induced warming self-reinforcing (ever more apparent). Obviously, this isn't currently observed.

But I certainly don't claim to know what's going to happen in the future. I just feel the current disconnect between increasing CO2 and decreasing temperatures suggests a problem of understanding.

So how unusual is the last 12 years?
http://www.woodfo...mean:144
By taking a 12 year running mean it can be seen that the current 12 year period is not that unusual over the last 40 years. The fact is that 12 years is too short a period to filter out many of the short-term interannual fluctuations and anomalies, which is why the International Meteorological Conference in Warsaw in 1933 selected the 30 year period.
http://www.woodfo...mean:360
Howhot
4 / 5 (8) Jun 24, 2013
The fact is that 12 years is too short a period to filter out many of the short-term interannual fluctuations and anomalies...

True, but add in, this May (*last month*) was the 3rd hottest global monthly average temperature ever recorded. And it's been going like this for a while now. You have to wonder when these screw-up nut jobs will finally get the picture about global warming?

The ubb and denier troops need to get a handle how dangerous man's denial is on this issue and how we are going to develop a strategy to mitigate the AGW damage.

Maggnus
4.1 / 5 (9) Jun 25, 2013
So how does this supposed ice shelf melting work? is it magic?

•Despite a large increase in heat being absorbed by the Earth's climate system (oceans, land & ice), the first decade of the 21st century saw a slowdown in the rate of global surface warming (surface air temperatures).
•A climate model-based study, Meehl (2011), predicted that this was largely due to anomalous heat removed from the surface ocean and instead transported down into the deep ocean. This anomalous deep ocean warming was later confirmed by observations.
•This deep ocean warming in the model occurred during negative phases of the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation (IPO), an index of the mean state of the north and south Pacific Ocean, and was most likely in response to intensification of the wind-driven ocean circulation.
Maggnus
4.1 / 5 (9) Jun 25, 2013
•Meehl (2013) is an update to their previous work, and the authors show that accelerated warming decades are associated with the positive phase of the IPO. This is a result of a weaker wind-driven ocean circulation, when a large decrease in heat transported to the deep ocean allows the surface ocean to warm quickly, and this in turn raises global surface temperatures.
•This modelling work, combined with current understanding of the wind-driven ocean circulation, implies that global surface temperaures will rise quickly when the IPO switches from the current negative phase to a positive phase.
Maggnus
4.1 / 5 (9) Jun 25, 2013
Research on the causes of slowed surface air warming is of course ongoing. The question remains how much other factors have contributed to the surface warming slowdown. For example, aerosols and low solar activity over the past decade likely played a role as well. However, Watanabe et al. (2013) suggests that these factors can't explain most of the slowed surface warming, which his study attributes to a more efficient transfer of heat to the deep oceans. This result is consistent with the 'hiatus decades' found in Meehl et al. (2011) and (2013).

So what this all means l^l dumdum, is that the ice buildup around Antarctica, which is another, different, manifestation of global warming, is still being offset from underneath by the heating of the ocean below it. The result is a net LOSS of ice MASS. I know this is too complicated for you, so no doubt you'll repost the cherry-picked HADCRUT data you don't actually understand or post another of your previously debunked zombie arguments.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.