Forum

TruthMove Forum

TruthMove Forum » TruthMove Main Forum

The WAIS collapse "could take months, even weeks." (11 posts)

  1. chrisc
    Member

    Scary article about the the West Antarctic Ice Sheet: http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2008/06/25/...

    According to Opdyke, data from deep sea sediment cores suggests that Antarctic ice sheets have collapsed several times in the last 75,000 years.

    Some warming periods were probably only decades long, yet may have corresponded to a sea level rise of many metres.

    "When ice melts, it tends to melt in a hurry," Opdyke says.

    He believes the WAIS collapse "could take months, even weeks."

    By examining conditions during previous events, Opdyke predicts that a sea level rise of 50 to 100 centimetres above the 1920 level may be enough to "unpin" the ice sheets, leading to a collapse of the WAIS.

    "Since 1920, sea levels have risen about 23 centimetres," he says.

    "We're now experiencing an annual sea level rise of 3.3 millimetres, from alpine and Greenland glacier ice melt and thermal expansion of the oceans.

    "In 10 years time we expect the rise to be over 6 millimetres per year and by 2028, over 1 centimetre per year."

    Professor Malcolm McCulloch, also from the ANU, agrees that a WAIS collapse is a key threat.

    "Satellite images have revealed there's already melt-water beneath some of the ice sheets" he says. "If the WAIS collapses, sea levels will rise between four and six metres."

    Posted 16 years ago #
  2. chrisc
    Member

    However according to the article in the New Scientist:

    Detlaf Stammer of Hamburg University, Germany, says that most of the melted water will stay in the Atlantic for at least 50 years, where sea levels will rise much faster as a result. Only small amounts will make it into the Pacific Ocean in that time.

    ...

    Fifty years after the meltwater is released from Greenland, Stammer's model predicts, sea-level rise could be 30 times greater around Greenland and down the eastern side of North America, including the Gulf of Mexico, than in the Pacific Ocean.

    Meanwhile, sea-level rises in Europe are around six times that of the Pacific, but only a fifth as great as on the opposite shore of the Atlantic.

    ...

    Stammer's model indicates that meltwater from Antarctica's ice sheets would spread more slowly still. The strong currents in the Southern Ocean could prevent substantial sea-level rise from reaching much of the world for centuries. He found that after 50 years, rises from Antarctic meltwater in the northern Atlantic and Pacific would be "barely measurable".

    http://environment.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=...

    This is very hard to believe, I expect someone could walk faster than this.... weird.

    Posted 16 years ago #
  3. chrisc
    Member

    I'm trying to understand more about the WAIS and how it's collapse could make such a big difference to sea levels, this paper:

    Global Estimates Of The Impact Of A Collapse Of The West Antarctic Ice Sheet: An Application Of Fund
    Robert J. Nicholls
    Richard S.J. Tol () (Economic and Social Research Institute, Dublin)
    Athanasios T. Vafeidis
    http://ideas.repec.org/p/sgc/wpaper/78.html
    http://www.fnu.zmaw.de/fileadmin/fnu-files/publica...

    Contains:

    The WAIS comprises about 10% by volume of the entire Antarctic ice sheet, and in volume is equivalent to a 5- to 6-m rise in sea level (Vaughan and Spouge, 2002; Oppenheimer and Alley, 2004). It is maintained by a balance of precipitation across the sheet, and seaward flow across the ice sheet, to the floating ice shelves. Here there is melting on the underside of the ice shelf, or iceberg calving at the periphery. Mercer (1978) caught the attention of policymakers when he speculated that human-induced global warming could cause the ice shelves of West Antarctica to disintegrate during the 21st Century, allowing the ice sheet to be catastrophically released into the ocean by a sliding mechanism (see also Oppenheimer, 1998). This would raise global-mean sea level by displacement alone, and there is no requirement for the ice to melt. Thus, the resulting rise could be much faster than for example the loss of the Greenland ice sheet, which would require melting of the ice to raise sea level, taking many hundreds or even thousands of years (Gregory et al., 2004). (Note that the WAIS would also take a long time to melt, taking hundreds or thousands of years, even if the ice was floating). Recent observations of the break up of smaller ice shelves in Antarctica has maintained concern about WAIS collapse (Oppenheimer and Alley, 2004).

    And this paper:

    Adaptation to Five Metres of Sea Level Rise
    Journal of Risk Research
    Vol. 9, No. 5, 467–482, July 2006
    http://www.fnu.zmaw.de/fileadmin/fnu-files/publica...

    Contains another version of this paragraph:

    The WAIS comprises about 10% by volume of the entire Antarctic ice sheet, and in volume is equivalent to a 5–6 m rise in sea level (Lythe et al., 2001; Vaughan and Spouge, 2002; Oppenheimer and Alley, 2004). The volume of ice it contains is controlled by the balance of precipitation across the sheet, and seaward flow of ice through the ice sheet, to the floating ice shelves. Here there is melting on the underside of the ice shelf, or iceberg calving at the periphery. Mercer (1978) caught the attention of policymakers when he speculated that human-induced global warming could cause the ice shelves of West Antarctica to disintegrate during the twenty-first century, allowing the ice sheet to be catastrophically released into the ocean by a progressive inland retreat of the ice sheet grounding line. This dynamic retreat through increased rates of ice flow could happen much faster than could be achieved by melting of the ice in situ. Thus, the resulting rise in sea level could be much faster than for example the loss of the Greenland ice sheet, which would require melting of the ice, taking many hundreds or even thousands of years (Gregory et al., 2004; Lowe et al., 2005). Although people often speak about a ‘‘WAIS collapse’’, meaning the loss of most or all of the WAIS land- based ice, this process would in fact be slower that collapse might imply. It is difficult to postulate significant loss occurring in less than a few hundred years (Vaughan and Spouge, 2002).

    Incidentially I think the article from the New Scientist cited in the comment above is total and utter nonsense -- I have been thinking about it on-and-off for a while and I can't believe it actually got published.

    Posted 16 years ago #
  4. chrisc
    Member

    The volume of frozen fresh water is less than that of salt water, so as the ice melts it adds a further 2.5% to sea level rises according to:

    The Melting of Floating Ice Raises the Ocean Level
    Peter D. Noerdlinger1, 2 & Kay R. Brower3
    http://home.comcast.net/~pdnoerd/NoerdlingerBrower...

    Let us construct a plausible scenario to examine how big the delayed effect could be. First, note that large ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica are in faster motion in recent times than heretofore (Zwally et al 2002, Siegert et al 2004, Bindschadler 2006, Hulbe 2001, Rignot & Kanagaratnam 2006, Bamber et al 2000, Payne et al 2004, Blankenship et al 2006) due to penetration of surface melt, undermining ice or water streams, and loss of buttressing or closer contact with warmer ocean water (Alley et al 2005, DuPont & Alley 2005, Rignot et al 2004). The West Antarctic Ice Sheet has volume 26,000,000 km3. Suppose a 5% chunk slid into the sea in a short time period (say a few years). The sea level rise would be about 4 m. But 2.5% of that or 10 cm would appear gradually as the ice melted (we ignore a small compensating thermosteric volume decrease). Admittedly, a 4 m sea rise is a disaster, but if one is dealing with it, one should realize that even without more ice release, another 10 cm is coming.

    Time to get a calculator out to check these figures I think....

    This contradicts:

    The WAIS comprises about 10% by volume of the entire Antarctic ice sheet, and in volume is equivalent to a 5- to 6-m rise in sea level (Vaughan and Spouge, 2002; Oppenheimer and Alley, 2004).

    Posted 16 years ago #
  5. truthmod
    Administrator

    Yes, confusing, contradictory information. Ice melting for hundreds or thousands of years, terrestrial vs. oceanic ice, slow moving melt water...?

    I admit that I am much quicker to believe those with dire analyses (because the general environmental situation is so clearly dire), but making or promoting sloppy predictions can always be used to dismiss us.

    http://www.theage.com.au/environment/rising-sea-co...

    The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicts sea levels could rise between 0.18 metres and 0.59 metres over the next 100 years.

    http://www.antara.co.id/en/arc/2008/10/10/one-metr...

    "We now have to expect that the sea level will rise by a metre this century," Schellnhuber was quoted by DPA as saying in Berlin.

    Posted 16 years ago #
  6. chrisc
    Member

    I did some back-of-an-envelope calcs last night with a friend and based on the area of the worlds oceans (omitting the fact that this surface area increases as it rises) and an average of 500m thickness of ice on the West Antarctic land sliding into the sea would roughly increase the global sea levels by 5m.

    The ice on land is only going to slide into the sea at the rate of flow of a glacier, which of course can vary, lots have been speeding up.

    One variable which would seem to delay sea level rise is in increase in snowfall in the Antarctic -- a meter of extra ice on the West Antarctic alone would reduce sea levels by roughly 2mm assuming all the water comes from evaporation from the sea. And over 1m per year has been measured according to this paper:

    A doubling in snow accumulation in the western Antarctic Peninsula since 1850
    Elizabeth R. Thomas British Antarctic Survey, Cambridge, UK
    Gareth J. Marshall British Antarctic Survey, Cambridge, UK
    Joseph R. McConnell Desert Research Institute, Reno, Nevada, USA
    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2007GL032529...

    Which has been written about here:

    Thomas et al. analyzed a medium depth ice core drilled at a high accumulation site (Gomez) on the south-western Antarctic Peninsula (73.59°S, 70.36°W, 1400 m) (see map , Figure 1). If you want the details, the core was drilled in January 2007 using an electromechanical, 104 mm diameter drill to a depth of 136 m. As seen in the figure below, the snow accumulation (measured in meters of water equivalent per year, mweq y-1), has as the title of the article suggests, been rising like a rocket. In their own words, the authors state “Annual accumulation has more than doubled in the last 150 years: the mean for 1855–1864 was 0.49 mweq y-1while for 1997–2006 it was 1.10 mweq y-1. At the beginning of the record annual accumulation is relatively stable until about 1930 when it begins to increase steadily. Following a slight reduction in accumulation in the late 1960s, the most rapid increase occurs in the latter part of the record with the mean accumulation rate from the mid-1970s onwards increasing to 0.95 mweq y-1. Note that for the post-1980 period even the lowest annual accumulation values are still greater than the highest accumulation values from the first half of the record (1855–1924).” This huge increase may be unique to the Gomez area, but other cores sites certainly show increases in accumulation as well.

    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2007GL032529...

    So this increase in snowfall is potentially (probably?) offsetting the rise in sea levels by something in the order of mm's per year and currently the sea level is rising at the rate of about 3mm per year -- so a more rapid rise is being stored up for the future -- when the ice slides into the sea.

    The issue with the predictions of between 0.5m or 1m of global sea level rise in the next hundred years is I'm not sure if these figures take into account the effect of an extra 27cm rise, which could happen in 40 years, unpinning the WAIS (as the first article in this thread proposed) and then this triggering an increased glacial flow which could lead to a more rapid rise in sea levels?

    This article on Real Climate, about a recent paper which I think might try to take this into effect, includes:

    In summary, they estimate that including dynamic ice sheet processes gives projected SLR at 2100 somewhere in the 80 cm to 2 meter range, and suggest that 80 cm should be the 'default' value. This is remarkable in a number of ways - first, these are the highest estimates of sea level rise by 2100 that has been published in the literature to date, and secondly, while they don't take into account the full uncertainty in other aspects of sea level rise considered by IPCC, their numbers are significantly higher in any case.

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008...

    The 382 comments on that article are also interesting.

    Posted 16 years ago #
  7. chrisc
    Member

    From James Hansen's presentation to the US Congress earlier this year, Global Warming Twenty Years Later: Tipping Points Near:

    West Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets are vulnerable to even small additional warming. These two-mile-thick behemoths respond slowly at first, but if disintegration gets well underway it will become unstoppable. Debate among scientists is only about how much sea level would rise by a given date. In my opinion, if emissions follow a business-as-usual scenario, sea level rise of at least two meters is likely this century. Hundreds of millions of people would become refugees. No stable shoreline would be reestablished in any time frame that humanity can conceive.

    http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/TwentyYearsLate...

    Posted 16 years ago #
  8. chrisc
    Member

    A consensus was reached at a workshop earlier this year that lots more research (and therefore funding I guess) was needed to study this, because there are "very large uncertainties":

    Statement: Thinning of West Antarctic Ice Sheet Demands Improved Monitoring to Reduce Uncertainty over Potential Sea-Level Rise
    March 28, 2007
    http://www.jsg.utexas.edu/walse/statement.html

    Posted 16 years ago #
  9. chrisc
    Member

    This is a background article, which several photos and diagrams, which goes into lots more details about the WAIS and this workshop:

    The Future of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet
    Exploring ice thickness, melting and global climate change
    By Marc Airhart, Jackson School of Geosciences, The University of Texas at Austin
    http://geology.com/research/west-antarctic-ice-she...

    Posted 16 years ago #
  10. truthmod
    Administrator

    Yosemite glacier on thin ice
    http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/1325423.html

    As signals of climate change begin to come into focus in the Sierra Nevada, its melting glaciers spell trouble in bold font. Not only are they in-your-face barometers of global warming, they also reflect what scientists are beginning to uncover: that the Sierra snowpack – the source of 65 percent of California's water – is dwindling, too.

    More of the Sierra's precipitation is falling as rain instead of snow, studies show, and the snow that blankets the range in winter is running off earlier in the spring. And snow in the Sierra touches everything. Take it away and droughts deepen, ski areas go bust and fire seasons rage longer.

    Posted 16 years ago #
  11. chrisc
    Member

    Melting ice now main driver of rising sea levels: study

    PARIS (AFP) – Runoff from ice caps in Antarctica and Greenland along with melting mountain glaciers have replaced expanding oceans as the main driver of rising sea levels, according to a new study.

    The new study, drawing on data from two new observational systems, shows that thermal expansion -- which is cyclical over periods measured in decades -- essentially stopped after 2003.

    But sea levels continued to rise, though at the slightly diminished rate of 2.5 millimetres (0.1 inches) per year.

    Which left scientists wondering: if the water had stopped expanding, what was now driving the continuing elevation of the world's oceans?

    The answer, it turns out, are the only two masses of ice on Earth big enough to qualify as ice sheets: Greenland and Antarctica. Both are up to three kilometres (two miles) thick, and Greenland -- the smaller of the two -- is about the size of Mexico.

    "During the last decade, Antarctica and Greenland only contributed about 0.5 mm (0.02 inches) per year to rising sea levels whereas today it is about 1.0 mm (0.04 inches) per year," said Anny Cazenave, a scientist at France's National Centre for Space Studies and lead author of the paper.

    The new study was published in the peer-reviewed journal Global and Planetary Change.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20081119/sc_afp/climat...

    Posted 16 years ago #

Reply

You must log in to post.