From SWANSEA UNIVERSITY and the “if ice cracked in the Antarctic before airplanes and satellites existed, did it make a visual?” department.
New branch revealed in latest data from ice shelf
The rift in the Larsen C ice shelf in Antarctica now has a second branch, which is moving in the direction of the ice front, Swansea University researchers revealed after studying the latest satellite data.
The main rift in Larsen C, which is likely to lead to one of the largest icebergs ever recorded, is currently 180 km long. The new branch of the rift is 15 km long.
Last year, researchers from the UK’s Project Midas, led by Swansea University, reported that the rift was growing fast. Now, just 20km of ice is keeping the 5,000 sq km piece from floating away.
Professor Adrian Luckman of Swansea University College of Science, head of Project Midas, described the latest findings:
“While the previous rift tip has not advanced, a new branch of the rift has been initiated. This is approximately 10km behind the previous tip, heading towards the ice-front.
This is the first significant change to the rift since February of this year. Although the rift length has been static for several months, it has been steadily widening, at rates in excess of a metre per day.
It is currently winter in Antarctica, therefore direct visual observations are rare and low resolution. Our observations of the rift are based on synthetic aperture radar (SAR) interferometry from ESA’s Sentinel-1 satellites. Satellite radar interferometry allows a very precise monitoring of the rift development”.
Researchers say the loss of a piece a quarter of the size of Wales will leave the whole shelf vulnerable to future break-up. Larsen C is approximately 350m thick and floats on the seas at the edge of West Antarctica, holding back the flow of glaciers that feed into it.
Professor Luckman said:
“When it calves, the Larsen C Ice Shelf will lose more than 10% of its area to leave the ice front at its most retreated position ever recorded; this event will fundamentally change the landscape of the Antarctic Peninsula.
We have previously shown that the new configuration will be less stable than it was prior to the rift, and that Larsen C may eventually follow the example of its neighbour Larsen B, which disintegrated in 2002 following a similar rift-induced calving event.
The MIDAS Project will continue to monitor the development of the rift and assess its ongoing impact on the ice shelf. Further updates will be available on our blog (projectmidas.org), and on our Twitter feed”
###
The entirety of Climate Science and related published claims have collapsed into the abyss of “need to publish –> need impact to get published—> for that one needs to find wild, alarmingly scary results —> funding odds increased for next grant submission with impact articles –> so of course wild, scary things will be the conclusion of those studies.”
That is the causal chain of events in Climate and related fields today.
Funding drives the dishonesty.
Dr Lindzen is correct that climate science related funding needs to br cut 90% for next few years to clean out the dishonesty.
There is drought in Africa. Maybe a few Russian nuclear ice breakers could tow that lump of ice there.
IT’S THE BLIMEY CRACK IN THE WORLD HE SAYS!
Well I always said ‘renewable’ energy was a total disaster…..
Obligatory “Day After Tomorrow” quote…
Wow you did have a lot of snow in New York last month – love the spelling “Tomarrow”.
So nice to realize that there is beautiful dramatic music as the world ends. Makes me feel a lot better about everything:)
I wonder what such ice is supposed to do.
I see N possibilities:
a. It will do the thing we see it doing over and over;
b. It will do nothing forever;
c. It will melt when the temperature gets above freezing;
…
n-1. It will sublimate if the temperature stays below freezing;
N …
My computer just flashed the answer: n = 42
Now working on the time to accomplish each; that answer also looks to be 42
Now checking to see if the OS needs an update …
Check the Improbability Drive John. It seems to be frozen. If it thaws out you just may find yourself on Vogsphere being slapped in the face for thinking how to get home.
Whatever you do, don’t panic. And remember to bring a towel.
If ice cracked before aircraft and satellites were invented did it make a visual. If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it did it make a sound. If a man talks alone in the wilderness and no woman hears him is he still wrong?
Wow. What is in effect a super massive giant grounded iceberg is going to crack and calve off a merely giant iceberg. Will someone please explain how this is part of a crisis?
In the UK, “an area the size of Wales” has traditionally been used as a unit of measurement of loss of Amazon Rain Forest. I guess they’re moving with the times.
You know if I add ice to my glass of tea, the tea gets colder. The ice melts, of course, which opens up that whole business of heat transfer, which is the whole point to dropping ice into your iced tea. But if you tell these ‘climate guys’ about the physics involved in transfer of thermal energy, will their eyes glaze over? Or will they have hysterical fits and start screaming foul epithets at you?
Perhaps they will make it into a theme park ride. Should be exciting when it rides the circumpolar current all the way round, and reaches the tip of South America.
OMG change is happening!
Argentina got jealous of the Canadian iceberg and wanted its own.
Gosh, I wonder what will happen when Warmists discover the San Andreas Fault?
I can see the headlines in a few years.
” Unprecedented 7.0 earthquake shakes California. CO2 blamed.”
Too Late! – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gixWSojcUkE
At the flow rates charted the ice of the shelf is only two or three centuries old, and nobody knows how long the shelf has been there except as may be inferred by sea level reconstruction, GIA, and assumptions of climate stability. Jansen et al considered Larsen C to be stable back in 2010 ( https://www.igsoc.org/journal/56/198/j10J001.pdf ), and this rift has little bearing on that assumption–the shelf will be replenished.
BTW, even these WAIS modeling doomsayers took the LIA for granted back in 1981 (p.521): http://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1155&context=ers_facpub
That is, like all glaciologists, they paid no attention to the hockey stick. –AGF
I visited Wales many years ago as a practically penniless student and was severely short-changed in a shop in Cardiff. I then found that I had insufficient funds to buy a rail ticket to London. I had to spend a day and a half hitch-hiking in the rain to get there. So I am praying that this article is wrong and it is actually Wales splitting off from England with the former eventually floating off in the Gulf Stream to Iceland!
Actually what I dont quite understand is:-
if the ice shelf breaks up, it is because of glacial movement, which in turn is caused by the pressure of snow accumulation over the catchment area.
Therefore if the snow in the catchment area, which gradually turns to ice, is accreting, surely the flow to the sea and the pressure on the ice shelf must increase the likelihood of the iceshelf calving.
The whole thing seems just as likely that Antarctica is growing which it appears it is.
I mean thats what wikipedia is saying. How can we argue with that?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_ice_sheet
Cheers
Roger
http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com
” the flow to the sea and the pressure on the ice shelf must increase the likelihood of the iceshelf calving”
Indeet. The probability is exactly 100%. Otherwise the whole southern ocean would be covered by shelf-ice
Thanks, that much I understand.
What the question is:- Is the rate increase of calving of an ice shelf a symptom of warming temperatures and the glaciers flow faster or slower because of less snow in the catchment or is it a symptom of an increase of snow accretion in the catchment area and a build up of pressure which increases the glacial pressure at sea level?
I suppose one could simplify the question to “is an increase in calving rate good or bad”.
Cheers
Roger
“…holding back the flow of glaciers that feed into it.”
I don’t see how that is mechanically possible. If it is breaking AWAY then it is clearly NOT holding back the flow and never was.