Comments on: The “Collapse” of the Wilkins ice shelf http://climatesanity.wordpress.com/2008/04/01/the-collapse-of-the-wilkins-ice-shelf/ Thu, 12 Nov 2009 17:43:47 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: John Nicklin http://climatesanity.wordpress.com/2008/04/01/the-collapse-of-the-wilkins-ice-shelf/#comment-73 John Nicklin Fri, 18 Apr 2008 20:39:24 +0000 http://climatesanity.wordpress.com/?p=55#comment-73 Great article, thanks. What we need to keep in mind, and what the media never considers is that the ice sheets are floating, their contribution to sea level rise has already happened, even if it is .0009 inches (nice bit of math, great statistic). This kind of ice sheet breakup may happen fairly frequently, then it may stop for hundreds of years until the sheet is big enough to break up again. Still, its floating ice, it can melt or float away without causing any increase. In order to get an ice sheet in the first place, you have to remove an equivalent amount of water from the oceans to make the snow that makes the ice that flows into the ocean. Great article, thanks.

What we need to keep in mind, and what the media never considers is that the ice sheets are floating, their contribution to sea level rise has already happened, even if it is .0009 inches (nice bit of math, great statistic).

This kind of ice sheet breakup may happen fairly frequently, then it may stop for hundreds of years until the sheet is big enough to break up again. Still, its floating ice, it can melt or float away without causing any increase. In order to get an ice sheet in the first place, you have to remove an equivalent amount of water from the oceans to make the snow that makes the ice that flows into the ocean.

]]> By: Robert M. Marshall http://climatesanity.wordpress.com/2008/04/01/the-collapse-of-the-wilkins-ice-shelf/#comment-70 Robert M. Marshall Sat, 12 Apr 2008 18:27:37 +0000 http://climatesanity.wordpress.com/?p=55#comment-70 No need to pine over media bias on this subject. Recent studies indicate the more people know about Global Warming, the less concern (and interest) they have. That's a good thing. Those that read this and other "Science Sanity" sites are getting the word out in spite of media bias. I got into this debate a little more than a year ago with a local AGW advocate on the local newspaper's community blog. This led to over 130,000 views of the site, a "community conversation" pitting myself and one other "denier" against six or so "Real Climate Scientist" and a running battle of letters to the editor. I am not a climate scientist, but I can read and understand political bias in climate change fear mongering. Apparently others such as yourselves can also see the that the emporer has no clothes. Start stirring it up. See if your newspaper has a blog, start a global warming discussion, write letters to the editor. Keep it sanitary and factual. Avoid hyperbole. Try to avoid personal attacks. It helps to inject a little humor from time to time ("Real Scientists have absolutely no sense irony). Take a look at my (Zed) battles with MRP at the Tri-city Herald community website. If your paper doesn't have a similar site, send them this link so they can see the interest it generates. http://community.tri-cityherald.com/?q=node&from=20 Go to the last page and click on "Fast Focus: What are your thoughts on global warming?" This was a learning experience for me so you'll see a lot of "strategic" and factual errors. But the dialog attracted interest and support. Zed P.S. If you do visit, be sure to give Mr. Powell (MRP) my regards. No need to pine over media bias on this subject. Recent studies indicate the more people know about Global Warming, the less concern (and interest) they have. That’s a good thing. Those that read this and other “Science Sanity” sites are getting the word out in spite of media bias.

I got into this debate a little more than a year ago with a local AGW advocate on the local newspaper’s community blog. This led to over 130,000 views of the site, a “community conversation” pitting myself and one other “denier” against six or so “Real Climate Scientist” and a running battle of letters to the editor. I am not a climate scientist, but I can read and understand political bias in climate change fear mongering. Apparently others such as yourselves can also see the that the emporer has no clothes.

Start stirring it up. See if your newspaper has a blog, start a global warming discussion, write letters to the editor. Keep it sanitary and factual. Avoid hyperbole. Try to avoid personal attacks. It helps to inject a little humor from time to time (“Real Scientists have absolutely no sense irony).

Take a look at my (Zed) battles with MRP at the Tri-city Herald community website. If your paper doesn’t have a similar site, send them this link so they can see the interest it generates. http://community.tri-cityherald.com/?q=node&from=20
Go to the last page and click on “Fast Focus: What are your thoughts on global warming?”

This was a learning experience for me so you’ll see a lot of “strategic” and factual errors. But the dialog attracted interest and support.

Zed

P.S. If you do visit, be sure to give Mr. Powell (MRP) my regards.

]]> By: Sam http://climatesanity.wordpress.com/2008/04/01/the-collapse-of-the-wilkins-ice-shelf/#comment-64 Sam Fri, 11 Apr 2008 19:03:05 +0000 http://climatesanity.wordpress.com/?p=55#comment-64 It is very sad that these alarmist claims are always of the hit and run category. They make them and move on to the next even more hysterical claim. By the time the calm/cool light of reason is shown on them, there are already three more in their place. The Leftists have practiced their fine art of media manipulation (propaganda) for well over 50 years and are very well-versed in how to out maneuver the Right. We only want to be left alone to live our lives and only engage in the political process out of self-defense. We're always on our heels, hence the accurate description of us a Reactionaries. It is very sad that these alarmist claims are always of the hit and run category. They make them and move on to the next even more hysterical claim. By the time the calm/cool light of reason is shown on them, there are already three more in their place.

The Leftists have practiced their fine art of media manipulation (propaganda) for well over 50 years and are very well-versed in how to out maneuver the Right. We only want to be left alone to live our lives and only engage in the political process out of self-defense. We’re always on our heels, hence the accurate description of us a Reactionaries.

]]> By: tommoriarty http://climatesanity.wordpress.com/2008/04/01/the-collapse-of-the-wilkins-ice-shelf/#comment-63 tommoriarty Fri, 11 Apr 2008 17:54:40 +0000 http://climatesanity.wordpress.com/?p=55#comment-63 Idlex, thank you for pointing this out. I have now corrected the link. Best Regards, Tom Idlex,

thank you for pointing this out. I have now corrected the link.

Best Regards,
Tom

]]> By: tommoriarty http://climatesanity.wordpress.com/2008/04/01/the-collapse-of-the-wilkins-ice-shelf/#comment-61 tommoriarty Fri, 11 Apr 2008 16:53:53 +0000 http://climatesanity.wordpress.com/?p=55#comment-61 Jim, Of course, you are absolutely correct. However, the ice shelves consist of ice that was once on the land and has subsequently "slid" into the sea. As it moved from land to sea it contributed mass to the sea. Thatis why I say "over the course of time that it took this 80 km³ volume of ice to move from the land to the sea it contributed to the sea level..." The point is that this chunk of ice contributed 0.009 inches worth of water to the sea (a very small amount) over the course of years that it took to slide into the sea. So, if that chunk took, say, 10 years to move from land to sea, than the average yearly contribution was only 0.001 inches per year. I appologize if I did not make that clear enough in the original post. Thanks for your comment. Best Regards, Tom Jim,

Of course, you are absolutely correct. However, the ice shelves consist of ice that was once on the land and has subsequently “slid” into the sea. As it moved from land to sea it contributed mass to the sea. Thatis why I say

“over the course of time that it took this 80 km³ volume of ice to move from the land to the sea it contributed to the sea level…”

The point is that this chunk of ice contributed 0.009 inches worth of water to the sea (a very small amount) over the course of years that it took to slide into the sea. So, if that chunk took, say, 10 years to move from land to sea, than the average yearly contribution was only 0.001 inches per year.

I appologize if I did not make that clear enough in the original post.

Thanks for your comment.

Best Regards,
Tom

]]> By: Jim http://climatesanity.wordpress.com/2008/04/01/the-collapse-of-the-wilkins-ice-shelf/#comment-60 Jim Fri, 11 Apr 2008 16:11:48 +0000 http://climatesanity.wordpress.com/?p=55#comment-60 Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't understand how the melting of floating ice causes sea level to rise. Doesn't the volume displacement of the ice already contribute to sea level "rise"? Please correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t understand how the melting of floating ice causes sea level to rise. Doesn’t the volume displacement of the ice already contribute to sea level “rise”?

]]> By: Jim Webb http://climatesanity.wordpress.com/2008/04/01/the-collapse-of-the-wilkins-ice-shelf/#comment-59 Jim Webb Fri, 11 Apr 2008 16:04:34 +0000 http://climatesanity.wordpress.com/?p=55#comment-59 Your calculations for 80 sq. km. of water raising the sea level about .22 mm may be correct, but this is floating "ICE" , it will occupy about 77.8% of it's space when in liquid form (water).....check it with a glass of water and some ice cubes......Soooo, when 80 sq. km. of ice melts it will occupy "less" space and sea level should drop by a miniscule amount......hmmmm? This is also true about all that floating Arctic Ice.... Your calculations for 80 sq. km. of water raising the
sea level about .22 mm may be correct, but this is
floating “ICE” , it will occupy about 77.8% of it’s space
when in liquid form (water)…..check it with a glass of
water and some ice cubes……Soooo, when 80 sq. km.
of ice melts it will occupy “less” space and sea level
should drop by a miniscule amount……hmmmm?

This is also true about all that floating Arctic Ice….

]]> By: idlex http://climatesanity.wordpress.com/2008/04/01/the-collapse-of-the-wilkins-ice-shelf/#comment-58 idlex Fri, 11 Apr 2008 14:55:01 +0000 http://climatesanity.wordpress.com/?p=55#comment-58 Your link to "Snowfall-Driven Growth in East Antarctic Ice Sheet Mitigates Recent Sea-Level Rise" doesn't work. Your link to “Snowfall-Driven Growth in East Antarctic Ice Sheet Mitigates Recent Sea-Level Rise” doesn’t work.

]]> By: Beverly Cleary, Goosebumps and … Al Gore?!? « Climate Sanity http://climatesanity.wordpress.com/2008/04/01/the-collapse-of-the-wilkins-ice-shelf/#comment-45 Beverly Cleary, Goosebumps and … Al Gore?!? « Climate Sanity Sun, 06 Apr 2008 19:53:59 +0000 http://climatesanity.wordpress.com/?p=55#comment-45 [...] Kids are attracted to the “Gee Whiz” effect of big numbers precisely because they don’t understand them. Neither do many adults.  (For example, people are impressed by statements like “Seven times the size of Manhattan” when talking about a piece of collapsing ice shelf, until the numbers are put in perspective.)  [...] [...] Kids are attracted to the “Gee Whiz” effect of big numbers precisely because they don’t understand them. Neither do many adults.  (For example, people are impressed by statements like “Seven times the size of Manhattan” when talking about a piece of collapsing ice shelf, until the numbers are put in perspective.)  [...]

]]> By: Andy http://climatesanity.wordpress.com/2008/04/01/the-collapse-of-the-wilkins-ice-shelf/#comment-41 Andy Fri, 04 Apr 2008 19:56:53 +0000 http://climatesanity.wordpress.com/?p=55#comment-41 Hello. Interesting post. Do you know how often chunks of ice that big break off the shelf? What's the precedent? Hello. Interesting post. Do you know how often chunks of ice that big break off the shelf? What’s the precedent?

]]>