Since air temperatures have not risen appreciably in the Antarctic--at least not yet--compared to a fairly dramatic rise in the Arctic, scientists had not expected to find much in the way of melting to the South. It turns out, however, that because the ocean itself is getting warmer, the portion of ice in Antarctica that sits on the water is melting, more so than previously thought.
Significantly, in the most recent IPCC report on global warming, the forecast sea level rise by the end of the century, which was modest, excluded any contribution from melting in Antarctica and Greenland, the two potentially largest contributors to rising oceans. By the time of the next IPCC report, additional data may merit some rather dramatic revisions to the predictions for coastal flooding.
We do wish, however, that the Post's article--similar ones in other publications--had addressed the data from this past summer (the Antarctic winter) reporting that sea ice formation was at a record high, which is certainly different than one would expect with warming. There may be reasonable explanations for both the observed melting and the anomolous record ice formation, but we'd like to hear them, and, at a minimum, have the ice formation story acknowledged when reading stories about melting in Antarctica.
As for the Curmudgeon, we're sticking to mountain properties for our old age.
4 comments:
Ever since record collecting of the Antartic sea ice began in 1979, peak ice increased since 2002, insomuch that 2007 was the highest level of sea ice recorded.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.area.south.jpg
Could it be that the dramatic loss of ice is relative to the amount of total ice recorded in the same cycle, while still being proporitional to previous cycles?
With dramatic cuts in GHG not expected to make much impact for another 5 or 7 years, it will be interesting to see how ice behavior, air temps, tropical activity, etc, develops into the future.
X, here's another chart showing how Antartic ice is still well above the mean average.
Do you have any idea why the recent study in the WAPO is more relevant than both charts. Seems as though the data, on the surface, points in a different direction?
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.365.south.jpg
Thanks Floodguy--we're not sure what's up here; we certainly aren't global warming deniers, but we do think the press has an obligation to report the whole story when it comes to warming in the Antarctic. We're keeping our eye out for a good scientist who can reconcile the data and give us a sound explanation of what's happening down under. Let us know if you see anything else.
I saw a very enlightening CBS 60 minutes piece on this - but as I see now it was a re-run. Definitely worth a look for those who haven't seen it.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/16/60minutes/main1323169.shtml
Post a Comment