The map from that article- compare to the one below it, while not exactly the same location, perhaps there is another volcanic process nearby?
There is other support for that idea:
New paper finds West Antarctic glacier likely melting from geothermal heat below
One major contributor to fast glacial flow is the presence of subglacial water, the production of which is a result of both glaciological shear heating and geothermal heat flux.
Here is the PR from Princeton:

During the past decade, Antarctica’s massive ice sheet lost twice the amount of ice in its western portion compared with what it accumulated in the east, according to Princeton University researchers who came to one overall conclusion — the southern continent’s ice cap is melting ever faster.
The researchers “weighed” Antarctica’s ice sheet using gravitational satellite data and found that from 2003 to 2014, the ice sheet lost 92 billion tons of ice per year, the researchers report in the journal Earth and Planetary Science Letters. If stacked on the island of Manhattan, that amount of ice would be more than a mile high — more than five times the height of the Empire State Building.
The vast majority of that loss was from West Antarctica, which is the smaller of the continent’s two main regions and abuts the Antarctic Peninsula that winds up toward South America. Since 2008, ice loss from West Antarctica’s unstable glaciers doubled from an average annual loss of 121 billion tons of ice to twice that by 2014, the researchers found. The ice sheet on East Antarctica, the continent’s much larger and overall more stable region, thickened during that same time, but only accumulated half the amount of ice lost from the west, the researchers reported.
“We have a solution that is very solid, very detailed and unambiguous,” said co-author Frederik Simons, a Princeton associate professor of geosciences. “A decade of gravity analysis alone cannot force you to take a position on this ice loss being due to anthropogenic global warming. All we have done is take the balance of the ice on Antarctica and found that it is melting — there is no doubt. But with the rapidly accelerating rates at which the ice is melting, and in the light of all the other, well-publicized lines of evidence, most scientists would be hard pressed to find mechanisms that do not include human-made climate change.”
Compared to other types of data, the Princeton study shows that ice is melting from West Antarctica at a far greater rate than was previously known and that the western ice sheet is much more unstable compared to other regions of the continent, said first author Christopher Harig, a Princeton postdoctoral research associate in geosciences. Overall, ice-loss rates from all of Antarctica increased by 6 billion tons per year each year during the 11-year period the researchers examined. The melting rate from West Antarctica, however, grew by 18 billion tons per year every year, Harig and Simons found. Accelerations in ice loss are measured in tons per year, per year, or tons per year squared.
Of most concern, Harig said, is that this massive and accelerating loss occurred along West Antarctica’s Amundsen Sea, particularly Pine Island and the Thwaites Glacier, where heavy losses had already been recorded. An iceberg more than 2,000 square miles in size broke off from the Thwaites Glacier in 2002.
In Antarctica, it’s the ocean currents rather than air temperatures that melt the ice, and melted land ice contributes to higher sea levels in a way that melting icebergs don’t, Harig said. As the ocean warms, floating ice shelves melt and can no longer hold back the land ice.
“The fact that West Antarctic ice-melt is still accelerating is a big deal because it’s increasing its contribution to sea-level rise,” Harig said. “It really has potential to be a runaway problem. It has come to the point that if we continue losing mass in those areas, the loss can generate a self-reinforcing feedback whereby we will be losing more and more ice, ultimately raising sea levels by tens of feet.”
The Princeton study differs from existing approaches to measuring Antarctic ice loss in that it derives from the only satellite data that measure the mass of ice rather than its volume, which is more typical, Simons explained. He and Harig included monthly data from GRACE, or the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment, a dual-satellite joint mission between NASA and the German Aerospace Center. GRACE measures gravity changes to determine the time-variable behavior of various components in the Earth’s mass system such as ocean currents, earthquake-induced changes and melting ice. Launched in 2002, the GRACE satellites are expected to be retired by 2016 with the first of two anticipated replacement missions scheduled for 2017.
While the volume of an ice sheet — or how much space it takes up — is also crucial information, it can change without affecting the amount of ice that is present, Simons explained. Snow and ice, for instance, compact under their own weight so that to the lasers that are bounced off the ice’s surface to determine volume, there appears to be a reduction in the amount of ice, Simons said. Mass or weight, on the other hand, changes when ice is actually redistributed and lost.
Simons equated the difference between measuring ice volume and mass to a person weighing himself by only looking in the mirror instead of standing on a scale.
“You shouldn’t only look at the ice volume — you should also weigh it to find the mass changes,” Simons said. “But there isn’t going to be a whole lot of research of this type coming up because the GRACE satellites are on their last legs. This could be the last statement of this kind on these kinds of data for a long time. There may be a significant data gap during which the only monitoring available will not be by ‘weighing’ but by ‘looking’ via laser or radar altimetry, photogrammetry or field studies.”
Harig and Simons developed a unique data-analysis method that allowed them to separate GRACE data by specific Antarctic regions. Because the ice sheet behaves differently in different areas, a continent-wide view would provide a general sense of how all of the ice mass, taken together, has changed, but exclude finer-scale geographical detail and temporal fluctuations. They recently published a paper about their computational methods in the magazine EOS, Transactions of the American Geophysical Union, and used a similar method for a 2012 paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that revealed sharper-than-ever details about Greenland’s accelerating loss of its massive ice sheet.
Robert Kopp, a Rutgers University associate professor of earth and planetary sciences and associate director of the Rutgers Energy Institute, said the analysis method Harig and Simons developed allowed them to capture a view of regional Antarctic ice loss “more accurately than previous approaches.” Beyond the recent paper, Harig and Simons’ method could be important for testing models of Antarctic ice-sheet stability developed by other researchers, he said.
“The notable feature of this research is the power of their method to resolve regions geographically in gravity data,” Kopp said. “I expect that [their] technique will be an important part of monitoring future changes in the ice sheet and testing such models.”
###
The paper, “Accelerated West Antarctic ice mass loss continues to outpace East Antarctic gains,” was published in the April 1 edition of Earth and Planetary Science Letters. The research was supported by the National Science Foundation (grant nos. PLR-1245788 and EAR-1014606).
Abstract
While multiple data sources have confirmed that Antarctica is losing ice at an accelerating rate, different measurement techniques estimate the details of its geographically highly variable mass balance with different levels of accuracy, spatio-temporal resolution, and coverage. Some scope remains for methodological improvements using a single data type. In this study we report our progress in increasing the accuracy and spatial resolution of time-variable gravimetry from the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE). We determine the geographic pattern of ice mass change in Antarctica between January 2003 and June 2014, accounting for glacio-isostatic adjustment (GIA) using the IJ05_R2 model. Expressing the unknown signal in a sparse Slepian basis constructed by optimization to prevent leakage out of the regions of interest, we use robust signal processing and statistical estimation methods. Applying those to the latest time series of monthly GRACE solutions we map Antarctica’s mass loss in space and time as well as can be recovered from satellite gravity alone. Ignoring GIA model uncertainty, over the period 2003–2014, West Antarctica has been losing ice mass at a rate of −121±8 Gt/yr and has experienced large acceleration of ice mass losses along the Amundsen Sea coast of −18±5 Gt/yr2, doubling the mass loss rate in the past six years. The Antarctic Peninsula shows slightly accelerating ice mass loss, with larger accelerated losses in the southern half of the Peninsula. Ice mass gains due to snowfall in Dronning Maud Land have continued to add about half the amount of West Antarctica’s loss back onto the continent over the last decade. We estimate the overall mass losses from Antarctica since January 2003 at −92±10 Gt/yr.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012821X15000564
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Evidence for elevated and spatially variable geothermal flux beneath the West Antarctic Ice Sheet
http://www.pnas.org/content/111/25/9070
Edited by Mark H. Thiemens, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, and approved May 8, 2014
“Thwaites Glacier is one of the West Antarctica’s most prominent, rapidly evolving, and potentially unstable contributors to global sea level rise. Uncertainty in the amount and spatial pattern of geothermal flux and melting beneath this glacier is a major limitation in predicting its future behavior and sea level contribution. In this paper, a combination of radar sounding and subglacial water routing is used to show that large areas at the base of Thwaites Glacier are actively melting in response to geothermal flux consistent with rift-associated magma migration and volcanism. This supports the hypothesis that heterogeneous geothermal flux and local magmatic processes could be critical factors in determining the future behavior of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. “
After sending three e-mails to the University of Illinois Polar Research Group, I finally got a reply regarding the reason for the sudden cessation of Arctic, Antarctic and Global sea ice daily updates since April 11th:
“From: Chapman, William L Today at 11:44 AM
To: xxxxxx xxxxx
Thanks for writing, Steve. We are having server problems right now. Hopefully back soon.
– Bill”
Hmmmmm…. A 3-week problem with….. their Internet server… Color me skeptical…
BTW, Mr. Chapman’s e-mail address is: wlchapma@illinois.edu
If others wish to keep pressure on them to get the daily sea ice updates restarted, please feel free to send Mr. Chapman an e-mail.
Do you think they could be adjusting data while using a downed server as a delaying tactic?
Hmm.
Patrick– I think that the UI’s cryosphere dept is “adjusting” their sea ice algorithms to show less sea ice, similar to what JAXA did a few years ago.
I notice that JAXA’s daily sea ice updates also stopped last month at about the same time as UI’s…
Coincidence?? I doubt it.
Looking at what daily sea ice data is available, the global ice extent is roughly 1.25 million KM^2 above the 30-yr average, which the CAGW alarmists don’t like to see; especially with the November Paris Conclave coming.
We’ll see,…
Pic Research by the British Antarctic Survey has found that volcanos played a crucial role in preserving life when our world went through one of its periodic ice ages.
From time to time in Earth’s history, the planet cools and an ice cover extends from the poles to cover large sections of the planet’s surface. It’s even hypothesized that about 650 million years ago the entire world was covered with an ice sheet – the Snowball Earth scenario.
Current scientific thinking is that as ice extends from the poles, plant and animal life migrate towards the equator. The British Antarctic Survey team’s research, however, shows that – for Antarctica at least – volcanoes help keep life going while freezing conditions persist.
“Nearly 60 per cent of Antarctic invertebrate species are found nowhere else in the world but Antarctica,” said Professor Peter Convey from the British Antarctic Survey.
“They have clearly not arrived on the continent recently, but must have been there for millions of years. How they survived past ice ages – the most recent of which ended less than 20,000 years ago – has long puzzled scientists.”
The team has compiled a survey of over 39,000 organisms on Antarctica, comprising 1,823 taxa, across the icy continent. They found that by far the most populated areas of the continent were around volcanoes that are either active today, or which have been active since the last glacial maximum 20,000 years ago.
“Our spatial modeling of Antarctic biodiversity indicates that some terrestrial groups likely survived throughout intense glacial cycles on ice-free land or in sub-ice caves associated with areas of geothermal activity, from which recolonization of the rest of the continent took place,” the team said in a paper (PDF) published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
“These results,” the paper notes, “provide unexpected insights into the responses of various species to past climate change and the importance of geothermal regions in promoting biodiversity. Furthermore, they indicate the likely locations of biodiversity ‘hotspots’ in Antarctica, suggesting a critical focus for future conservation efforts.”
http://regmedia.co.uk/2014/03/12/antarctic.jpg
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/03/12/survey_shows_volcanoes_help_nurture_life_during_global_cold_snaps/
“Using radar data from satellites in orbit, the researchers were able to figure out where these subglacial streams were too full to be explained by flow from upstream. The swollen streams revealed spots of unusually high melt, Schroeder said. Next, the researchers checked out the subglacial geology in the region and found that fast-melting spots were disproportionately clustered near confirmed West Antarctic volcanoes, suspected volcanoes or other presumed hotspots.
“There’s a pattern of hotspots,” Schroeder said. “One of them is next to Mount Takahe, which is a volcano that actually sticks out of the ice sheet.”… “It’s pretty hot by continental standards,” he said.”
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/volcano/antarctic-volcano-twaites.gif
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/06/surprise-west-antarctic-volcano-melts-ice/
Since you are quoting Schroeder…
Leo, what about this?
Evidence for elevated and spatially variable geothermal flux beneath the West Antarctic Ice Sheet
“Edited by Mark H. Thiemens, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, and approved May 8, 2014
Abstract
Heterogeneous hydrologic, lithologic, and geologic basal boundary conditions can exert strong control on the evolution, stability, and sea level contribution of marine ice sheets. Geothermal flux is one of the most dynamically critical ice sheet boundary conditions but is extremely difficult to constrain at the scale required to understand and predict the behavior of rapidly changing glaciers. This lack of observational constraint on geothermal flux is particularly problematic for the glacier catchments of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet within the low topography of the West Antarctic Rift System where geothermal fluxes are expected to be high, heterogeneous, and possibly transient. We use airborne radar sounding data with a subglacial water routing model to estimate the distribution of basal melting and geothermal flux beneath Thwaites Glacier, West Antarctica. We show that the Thwaites Glacier catchment has a minimum average geothermal flux of ∼114 ± 10 mW/m2 with areas of high flux exceeding 200 mW/m2 consistent with hypothesized rift-associated magmatic migration and volcanism. These areas of highest geothermal flux include the westernmost tributary of Thwaites Glacier adjacent to the subaerial Mount Takahe volcano and the upper reaches of the central tributary near the West Antarctic Ice Sheet Divide ice core drilling site.”
http://www.pnas.org/content/111/25/9070
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_daily_extent_hires.png
“The fact that West Antarctic ice-melt is still accelerating is a big deal because it’s increasing its contribution to sea-level rise,” Harig said. “It really has potential to be a runaway problem. It has come to the point that if we continue losing mass in those areas, the loss can generate a self-reinforcing feedback whereby we will be losing more and more ice, ultimately raising sea levels by tens of feet.”
Interesting in light of the fact that the rate of sea level rising is slowing in recent years, not speeding up. So if antarctica lost more then other estimates then what lost less ice then we thought? or perhaps less ocean warming then thought? Has to be one or the other.
I looked on the WUWT reference pages for sea level info and came across this comment on Climate4You , supporting Randy’s comment above , and based on data from the University of Colorado:
“The 12-month global sea level change display significant variations, apparently with an approximate 4 year period. These variations are seen to be superimposed on a general falling trend. Overall, since initiation of these satellite measurements, the 12-month sea level rise has decreased from about 4 mm/yr to about 2 mm/yr (using the 3 yr average).”
Why the 4 year period?
Janice (bless her heart!) got this thread off to an awful start. Siberian Huskie could have been a bit more civil in calling her our. Hiser comments do not a troll make.
What the paper actually said is that the ice loss in West Antarctica has been larger than the gain in East Antarctica, a proposition with respect to which I have no informed opinion. Sounds at least possible, even reasonable.
Leo Geiger’s cross section explains much. The current record Antarctic sea ice extent is, at least partially,
a result of floating ice sheets breaking off. Presumably (think gravity) these lost shelves will be replaced by continental glaciers moving onto the sea and either floating or grounding, depending upon local geology.
The shelves and bergs will unquestionably contribute to sea level rise, as the ice of which they consist fell originally as snow on the continent, not frozen from cold seawater. But no sane person would deny that sea level has been rising since the dawn of the Holocene. Where the hell else could SLR be coming from?
And we should expect exactly that in a gradually warming world. The essential questions are 1), is any of this outside reasonable expectations, given what we “know”? And 2) Is it a problem? No to both.
Spend your intellectual energy flogging the warmunists, not combating sensible observations. Look back up at the title of this article… L
Larry Wirth
No, because just the “excess” Antarctic sea ice last June was equal to the entire area of Greenland. Compared to that, these three glaciers that are claimed melting so dramatically are in the wrong place to cause the expanded Antarctic sea ice (wrong side of the Antarctic Peninsula!); and the sea ice expansion is occurring all year for many years in a row now. Sea ice expansion down south is occurring at all ties of the year uniformly and evenly – during winter freeze up, durng spring land ice maximum, and duirng summer “melt”.
Further, the overall air temperature over Antarctica is going down, not “up” – and certainly not “up” far enough to melt enough land ice to dilute 17 million sq kilometers of well-mixed ocean waters at the same rate it dilutes 2 million sq kilometers of ocean water.
Their theory is wrong.
Dear R. A.,
Thanks.
#(:))
Janice
******************************************
Re: “… the ice loss in West Antarctica has been larger than the gain in East Antarctica, … Sounds … reasonable.” Mr. Larry Wirth
Really? After reading the majority of the comments on this thread, you can still say that??
Oh, Larry. Dear me. Well, bless your heart, you’re trying. 😉
Ice sheets / ice shelves do not turn into sea ice. They are different things. Sea ice is ocean that has been frozen into a (relatively) thin sheet of ice by cold air. Ice sheets / shelves break off to form icebergs.
RACookPE1978
Which is why no one is saying local air temperatures are a driving force behind ice sheet melting (what you meant by “land ice” I presume) in West Antarctica, but instead it is the observed ocean currents at the submerged face of the terminating ice shelves.
Leo,you wrote:
“Which is why no one is saying local air temperatures are a driving force behind ice sheet melting (what you meant by “land ice” I presume) in West Antarctica, but instead it is the observed ocean currents at the submerged face of the terminating ice shelves.”
Thank you for making sure CO2 is NOT the cause of the melting, since the postulated warm forcing effect, is too small to warm up the Southern Ocean sufficiently.
as the ice of which they consist fell originally as snow on the continent..
…and that water came from where?
Where the hell else could SLR be coming from?….
..mostly erosion and sedimentation…..but that’s no fun
I must confess. On more than one occasion I have peed while swimming in the sea. I apologize to those who have purchased sea-front property.
“We have a solution that is very solid, very detailed and unambiguous,”
First question how many years of data do we actually have on the ice thickness of the Antarctic, and given this how do we know that current ice loss , if there is any , is in any way unusual in the history of the Antarctic ?
If a tree falls in forest and no one is around does it make a sound , or if ice melts but no one measures it is there still less ice ?
Close, but no cigar. I estimate the power requirement to do this at 1.2 watts per square meter if Agw melting occurred 24x7x365 and evenly over the entire 2 million square km of the Western shelf. But it doesn’t so a more realistic estimate of the power requirements allowing for reflective losses time when melting is possible and an affected area of 500 square km would be about 24 watts per square meter. Now since the imbalance energy is only 0.6 watts, I now declare that Princeton is making application to repeat the law of conservation of energy
Why do these clowns never check causality!
It is physically impossible for AGW to have made any measurable difference to ocean temps over such a short period of time.
If the waters around West Antarctica really are getting warmer, some other factor must be involved.
In reality, West Antarctica glaciers ahve been retreating since the Ice Age.
Yes but these 6 glaciers are 2 km thick and each about the size of New York State. The height loss averages to be less than 1/5th of my height.
haven’t seen one of these since well since 1893- Wonder what size it was when it started out.
” In 1893 (after arriving in Nelson in September 92), the iron sailing ship “Margaret Galbraith” was homeward bound around Cape Horn. Mr. N.H. Burgess the 2nd Officer reported that from three days north of the Falklands to about one weeks sailing north of the Falklands they were “among the ice,” which culminated with a days sailing past a single giant berg “40 to 50 miles long,” The account suggest the ship may have been only making 3 to 5 knots around this time, certainly at night one would expect them to throttle back. They had a close call on first encountering the ice north of the Falklands.
It may be partly by chance that the length of this iceberg was reported because the sailing people seemed more impressed by the height of ice encountered than the extent of any particular piece. The 40 to 50 mile long berg mentioned above was reported as being 1000 ft asl at the NE end.”
haven’t seen so many icebergs since 1894.
“The 1000 ton plus iron sailing ship “Himalaya”, on a 109 day voyage from Liverpool to Wellington, departed 9, November 1894 and arrived 25, February, 1895. The captain reported seeing several icebergs off the Cape (of Good Hope) and then, “.. that from the Cape to the Crozets was a most trying time as icebergs were in sight for a distance of two thousand miles.”
How about living rooms for a unit of measurement – say, 250 sq. feet. Then we get, if that amount of ice was stacked on top of my living room it would reach a height close to 16 times the distance of the moon!
If divided into 16 inch tiles that are 1/4 inch thick, this much ice could be used to build a bike path to Mars.
Why do they always stack the ice on Manhattan? Why don’t they stack it on Hollywood…then leave it there?
Gunga Din. That is the best art critic suggestion all week!
Reblogged this on Head Space and commented:
Another Climate Change “hot spot”
GRACE was launched in 2002. How can we know if this is unique or business as usual as ocean currents go through cycles of change ?
In 2009, they told us that Pine Island glacier would melt in 100 years.
From 2009:
Satellite measurements of the Pine Island glacier in West Antarctica have revealed that the surface of the ice is dropping at a rate of up to 16 metres a year and since 1994, has lowered by as much as 90 metres. Fifteen years ago, it was estimated that the rate of ice melt would see the glacier disappear within 600 years. Now, the data suggests it could be gone in little more than 100.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/antarctica/6026029/One-of-Antarcticas-largest-glaciers-thinning-four-times-faster-than-ten-years-ago.html
But then in 2014, they noted the melting in 2012 was the lowest ever recorded due to La Nina.
From 2014:
Pine Island Glacier has thinned continuously during past decades driven by an acceleration in its flow. The acceleration is thought to be caused by thinning of the floating ice shelf created as the glacier slides into the sea. Understanding the processes driving ice shelf thinning and the glacier’s response is key to assessing how much it will contribute to rising sea levels. It’s now known that much of the thinning is due to a deep oceanic inflow of Circumpolar Deep Water (CDW) on the continental shelf neighbouring the glacier. This warmer water then makes its way into a cavity beneath the ice shelf melting it from below.
The passage of this warmer water was made easier by the unpinning of the ice shelf from an underwater ridge. The ridge had, in effect, acted as a wall preventing warmer water from getting to the thickest part of the shelf. This ungrounding event was one of the major driving forces behind the glacier’s rapid change.
In 2009, a higher CDW volume and temperature in Pine Island Bay contributed to an increase in ice shelf melting compared to the last time measurements were taken in 1994. But observations made in January 2012, and reported now in Science, show that ocean melting of the glacier was the lowest ever recorded. The top of the thermocline (the layer separating cold surface water and warm deep waters) was found to be about 250 metres deeper compared with any other year for which measurements exist.
The fluctuations in temperature recorded by the team may be explained by particular climatic conditions. In January 2012 the dramatic cooling of the ocean around the glacier is believed to be due to an increase in easterly winds caused by a strong La Ninã event in the tropical Pacific Ocean. Normally the winds flow from the west.
http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/press/press_releases/press_release.php?id=2452
It’s interesting that this new paper has an observation date starting at 2008, as it seems that 2009 had very rapid melting with a slowdown in 2012.
Zonal Mean [-90,-60].
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_AMJ_SH_2015.gif
Hmmmm. Where was the circumpolar wave during this melting event? What was the Antarctic Oscillation doing? Where is the section of the paper that rules out these sources of temperature variation to the extent that there MUST be another reason for mass loss?
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/aao/aao.shtml
http://das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap11/ant_wave.html
Nawww. Who needs to research no stinkin atmospheric/oceanic teleconnection oscillation 1000’s of kilometers wide and integral to the ice area under study. It is MUCH more likely that teeny tiny molecules of CO2 anthropogenically added to the atmosphere during the time being studied is MUCH more powerful than mother nature.
Idiots.
How about we take a look at a map of all the places that have changing gravity signals?
That way we can all have a look at decide if melting ice is the only plausible explanation for the data they are getting for this particular location.
The location of these volcanic tremors (not eruptions) is in a very different location than the areas that are losing mass. The meltwater flow that will occur due to an eventual eruption in this region will move into the Ross ice shelf, not west toward the Pine Island and Thwaites Glaciers.
see image location here:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/37/Ellsworth-Mountains-location-map.png
Glaciers grow at the top where the snow falls, and melt at the bottom where the heat rises.
Whether a glacier or ice cap is growing or shrinking overall depends on which of those two processes is winning.
Its sad that even Stanford scientists get sucked into this infantile nonsense about runaway climate change. How many times in the earth’s history has there been runaway climate change? Zero. There is just oscillation between maxima and minima over a fractal range of scales – the only behaviour you would expect in such a system.
What else do they teach them at Princeton, apart from how to deliver results that keep the cash coming in?
Yes I meant Princeton, thanks.
There was a collapse of the Antarctic ice sheet during the Bolling Allerod at the start of the Holocene inception. Paradoxically the large freshwater pulse resulting from this collapse interfered with Atlantic circulation with the result that the gulf stream was switched off, climate warming was temporarily reversed and glacial conditions returned for a thousand years – the Younger Dryas.
link to the research please
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/97GL02658/full
Also:
http://m.sciencemag.org/content/299/5613/1709.short
Read the first one. it reported a rather convoluted method of dating Antarctic ice cores (not that it was bad, just convoluted). I still do not see support for your cause and effect contention.
Can’t read the other link. Paywalled. So I’ll not comment on it. You have not adequately supported your contention.
Pamela
Here is a better (non-paywalled) link to the Weaver paper;
http://rockbox.rutgers.edu/~jdwright/GlobalChange/Weaveretal_Science_2007.pdf
The discussion especially of the Weaver paper combines ice core and other sediment data with computer modelling of oceanographic bipolar seesawing between the NH and SH. The overall picture obtained by Weaver et al 2007 is the same as Blunier et al 1997. That is, that warming leading to the Holocene started as early as ~20,000 years ago in the south around Antarctica. By contrast at this time the NH was cooling. The prolonged Antarctic ocean warming led by 14.5 kya to a partial collapse of the Antarctic ice sheet.
I was mistaken in my first comment in saying that this Antarctic ice collapse led immediately to the YD and cooling. It did eventually cause this but only after a delay of 1800 years. The initial, proximal effect was the opposite – and was opposite in the two hemispheres. The pulse of fresh water from the Antarctic collapse – called the AAIW or Antarctic intermediate water, at first kick-started the meridional overturning circulation in the NH – the formation of NADW or north Atlantic deep water, which up to then was switched off. This caused very abrupt warming of the start of the Bolling-Allerod, in which sea level rose about 20 meters in a few centuries. As this happened however Antarctica itself changed from warming to cooling – the ACR or Antarctic cold reversal. (You will notice a pattern that the NH and SH nearly always move in opposite directions – this is the bipolar seesaw.)
But after the sharp warming at the start of the Bolling Allerod there is immediately sustained cooling leading less than 2000 years later to the start of the Younger Dryas interval. This cooling is also caused by the same freshwater AAIC pulse that was released by the Antarctic ice collapse, continuing to circulate in the ocean system and cause ongoing downstream effects. This Antarctic melt pulse thus causes both the Bolling Allerod immediate warming and the subsequent cold Younger Dryas. As the NH cools in the YD, the SH and Antarctics, needless to say, warm.
It is also notable that during the YD, global atmospheric CO2 slowly rises. The north Atlantic cooling of the YD is too small globally to counteract an ongoing Antarctica and southern ocean warming which accounts for a larger volume of water. This fact is exploited in a fraudulent way by Shakun et al of Oregon who merged many proxies and used the rise of CO2 during the YD (actually caused by the simultaneous warming in the southern ocean at the same time involving a larger water volume) to argue spuriously for this CO2 rise to cause the end of the YD. But it was oceanographic process driving this whole sequence, with meltwater from both Antarctic and Arctic playing the leading role and CO2 a totally passive bystander.
Another paper on the subject:
http://epic.awi.de/15280/1/Lam2004a.pdf
Here Chilean and Patagonian sediments show that Antarctic warming began as early as 22 kya, however these data do not show the ACR so clearly as other ice core data.
A British Antarctic survey in Nov 2014 ,using submarine measurements , found that the sea ice thickness was far greater than previously believed , proving that the total amount of ice was increasing by a larger amount than was known from satellite data .
http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/news-stories/article/antarctic-sea-ice-thicker-than-thought.html