UK Times : Vast iceberg breaks off Wilkins Ice Shelf in Antarctic

A vast iceberg has broken away from the Antarctic coast, threatening the collapse of a larger ice shelf that is now “hanging by a thread”.

Satellite images have revealed that about 160 square miles of the Wilkins Shelf have been lost since the end of February, suggesting that climate change could be causing it to disintegrate much more quickly than scientists had predicted. “The ice shelf is hanging by a thread,” said David Vaughan, of the British Antarctic Survey(BAS). “We’ll know in the next few days or weeks what its fate will be.”

Professor Vaughan was a member of a BAS team that predicted in 1993 that the Wilkins Shelf could collapse within 30 years, if the pace of global warming continued.

The retreat of the shelf was first spotted from satellite data by Ted Scambos, a glaciologist at the University of Colorado, who alerted Professor Vaughan and his BAS colleagues to the risk.

BAS then sent a Twin Otter aircraft on a reconnaissance mission to assess the extent of the damage.

Jim Elliott, who flew on board the plane to capture video footage of the break-up, said: “I’ve never seen anything like this before — it was awesome. We flew along the main crack and observed the sheer scale of movement from the breakage. Big chunks of ice, the size of small houses, look as though they’ve been thrown around like rubble — it’s like an explosion.”

The Wilkins Shelf is now protected by only a thin thread of ice between two islands. It covers an area of 5,600 square miles (14,500 sq km).

The Antarctic Peninsula, which stretches north from the frozen continent towards South America, has experienced unprecedented warming over the past 50 years, leading to the retreat and collapse of several ice shelves. Six have been lost entirely — the Prince Gustav Channel, Larsen Inlet, Larsen B, Wordie, Muller and Jones shelves.

The Wilkins Shelf is farther south than other ice that has retreated, and should thus be protected by colder temperatures. But Professor Vaughan said: “Climate warming in the Antarctic Peninsula has pushed the limit of viability for ice shelves further south, setting some of them that used to be stable on a course of retreat and eventual loss.

The importance of it is that it’s farther south than any ice shelf we’ve seen retreating before, it’s bigger than any ice shelf we’ve seen retreating before, and in the long term it could be a taste of other things to come. It is another indication of the impact that climate change is having on the region.”

As the shelf is already afloat, it will not affect sea level, but Antarctica’s ice shelves act as buffers for land ice that could lead to dramatic changes in sea level if it melts.

Original press release, photos and further information can be found here.

http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/press/pr...ase.php?id=376

We will then be okay since the snow and ice have increased in the south over the last 20 years (17% above normal this last year) and according to Russian and Australian scientists the climate is cooling for the last ten years! So looks like more sky falling to me! The world is a changing place, always has been always will!

Global Warming? New Data Shows Ice Is Back
Tuesday, February 19, 2008 11:55 AMBy: Phil Brennan Article Font Size
Are the world’s ice caps melting because of climate change, or are the reports just a lot of scare mongering by the advocates of the global warming theory?Scare mongering appears to be the case, according to reports from the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) that reveal that almost all the allegedly “lost” ice has come back. A NOAA report shows that ice levels which had shrunk from 5 million square miles in January 2007 to just 1.5 million square miles in October, are almost back to their original levels.

Moreover, a Feb. 18 report in the London Daily Express showed that there is nearly a third more ice in Antarctica than usual, challenging the global warming crusaders and buttressing arguments of skeptics who deny that the world is undergoing global warming.

The Daily express recalls the photograph of polar bears clinging on to a melting iceberg which has been widely hailed as proof of the need to fight climate change and has been used by former Vice President Al Gore during his “Inconvenient Truth” lectures about mankind’s alleged impact on the global climate.

Gore fails to mention that the photograph was taken in the month of August when melting is normal. Or that the polar bear population has soared in recent years.

You're using the UKs Daily Express (it's a national paper, not just London) as your point of reference? You really need to validate your sources more carefully, it's hardly renown for it's accurate reporting!!

In terms of the arctic circle having increased to be almost as big as it was last year, isn't that the point? It's not as big, it's shrunk a bit. Nobody intelligent is going to quote the seasonal change as a proof of climate change, it's the year by year, decade by decade change in the world, globally, people are looking at.

You're quite fond of quoting the NOAA, it's worth having a good look at their arctic web site, the message there is, IMHO, quite clear and quite consistent.

It's easy to take small snippets to try and prove a point, but it's the whole picture that needs to be looked at. From all that I've read, it's universally agreed that the climate is changing, only the truly naive would try and dismiss that. What remains in debate between pro and anti action groups is how much, if any, our own influences have had, what the long term effect will be on us and the earth, and what, if anything, we can do about it.

And whilst the jury is out, I personally can't see any harm in trying to be a a little more responsible with our utilisation of resources... reducing our consumption is certainly not going to harm anyone or anything (forgiving perhaps a few fat cats and shareholders), however carrying on with our current ways may.

It's called weather. It changes all the time. We have nothing to do with it. The SUN does. These are naturally happing events and talk about lack of evidence you guys on your side can't sight any. No one piece of empirical evidence exists other than a computer model. So what happened in the 1920's? or the 1840's? When you could grow Citrus along the Mississippi River? Now Orlando Florida. In addition there is no correlation between CO2 and so called Global Warming other than the release of free carbon creates more plant growth.

But telling a person that their religion is bunk is a hard thing. When they put their "Mother Earth" above all then "Man is the enemy" and all is our fault!.

Ah, yet again, the true colours come forth. A bit of a challenge, with a bit of backup, and you jump straight in with the direct attacks. And, yet again, you seriously miss the point!

As for being no evidence or data to show that there are problems, that the climate is changing, you know as well as I do what rubiish that statement is, that there's plenty out there. You yourself state that the climate is changing, so let's accept that as fact. The debate is now on about the causes, there are theories and ideas, I'd personally rather be open minded enough to consider all the possibilities from all the experts.

Interesting point you make though, why do you believe that placing an importance on Mother Earth means Man will always be the enemy? Do you really think it's that difficult for man to exist working with and respecting nature? Do you really have that little regard for nature yourself?

There is no personal attack on you, just your so called science. You put down the paper you don't like? So call the editor and challenge there sources not mine. I don't live in your part of the world and have no way of ratting a "Paper" based on what you say.

True, you don't know the UK papers, and more then I do the USA ones, unfair of me to imply that you should... still, made me chuckle that you chose that particular one as your source of The Proof ;)

But you've missed the question, so I'll re ask...

Interesting point you make though, why do you believe that placing an importance on Mother Earth means Man will always be the enemy? Do you really think it's that difficult for man to exist working with and respecting nature? Do you really have that little regard for nature yourself?

This thread has devolved once again into one with inappropriate interaction, so we have edited posts and we're locking it.

There are scuba discussion forums where a haranguing style is allowed and encouraged and as a result there are hardly any women there as we don't like to watch our guys catfighting. ;)

Members are always allowed to diplomatically and civilly debate the merits of a position with grace, composure and dignity, but never to make it personal.

Thanks for your understanding.