Possible other factors besides AGW causing this shelf to break? How can that be? I am shocked! Shocked that this even got published.
LOL- The only thing constant is change.

Interesting.

According to the BBC report Prof Glasser acknowledged that global warming had a major part to play in the collapse.

Most people realize that human emissions of CO2 has become the predominate driver of global warming since the 1950's (before that natural causes were dominate).

So, while many of the changes in the structure of the Larsen B ice shelf developed over a period of 20 years, changes in the temperature of ocean currents and precipitation over that period are related to global warming anyways.

Never the less, one can imagine that the skeptics will jump to conclusions and seek to distort this "news item" in their vain attempts to mislead others.

The skeptics have all types of tricks. One of their favorites is to remind people that natural causes can lead to global warming as well as man made. Yes, it's true that the world was warmer millions of years ago when the continents were in different positions or the earth orbit had shifted. But, neither of those have happened in the last 50 years and besides there weren't 6.6 Billion people back then. Everybody needs to eat. So, let us all hope that agriculture productivity can keep pace with the both population growth and global warming.

The ice shelf is on the east side of the peninsula, and is not directly influenced by currents approaching from the west. East of the ice shelf is perennial ice.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/antarctic.jpg

So where did the warm water come from? Most likely explanation is from underneath. The Antarctic Peninsula is an active volcanic ridge, and is likely influenced by geothermal waters from below.

How many thousands of news stories have been written blaming the Larsen Ice Shelf breakup on "global warming?"

I find it encouraging that the BBC seems to be regaining a more objective stance on the subject of climate change. Since this story they have also posted a "global warming will save lives" story. Have they discovered Bjorn Lomborg?
With the current media and UK Met acknowledgement of the role of La Nina teleconnnections in interpreting present global weather we could be seeing a distancing from the AGW stance.
Much egg on many faces methinks.
If this bandwagon continues we might get some real scientific debate from those too timid at present.

Patrick Henry (cont.) unh huh, not like industry which has a record as pure as the driven snow. But you must not be doing MUCH work for industry as you had time to respond 9 times yesterday. I have a small retail business (we don't put up with no "misbehavin" here, either!) and I barely have time to read the blog and respond once. You must be the one who is driving up productivity in the US! I have family members who work (very hard, I must say) in academia - herpitology and forest biology, to name two - and I know how hard they work to ensure funding for their departments and programs. They do it because they believe in their work and the students they are teaching, not because they want to get rich. But when you and many other deniers talk about them you make them sound dirty and criminal. It is undeserved. If you have a problem with the science, state your evidence and leave it at that.

Has anyone considered the possibility that there might have been an unusually high amount of ice when they started taking these measurements?
An unusual high amount of ice would explain the unstable - brink of collapse for decades.

And that anything after that would show a decline?

Even if the decline just means it's going back to NORMAL.

If polar bears are any indication. Their population was estimated at around 5,000 - 10,000 in the 1970's, and about 25,000 now.
If they need ice, doesn't that mean the ice was less, then increased,
and the population of polar bears increased with it?

This shelf was on its way out before we ever knew it. The warmer weather was just the "straw that broke the camel's back".

There is so much we don't know. Until we have a much better understanding of the natural processes in this world, we will never really know what part, if any, we play.

Those that jumped to conclusions about this event being are fault are looking a little foolish in my opinion. The dynamics of ice sheets are not that simple.

The Earth is not the center of the universe, nor are we.

I agree with Stephen Pasek. The BBC does seem to be backing away from its former rabid support of articles which saw warming everywhere and in everything. I wonder what is causing the change in the climate of the newsroom?

Hi kevinag,

If you worked on a computer about 12-18 hours a day, I suspect you would find more time to post.

kevinag,

It isn't about "getting rich." Rather, it is about survival.

http://lanl-the-rest-of-the-story.blogspot.com/2007/11/los-alamos-lab-braces-for-layoffs.html

Los Alamos lab braces for layoffs

By The Associated Press
Article Launched: 11/20/2007 06:34:58 AM MST

ALBUQUERQUE Los Alamos National Laboratory, one of the nation's premier nuclear weapons labs, is preparing to lay off hundreds of people because of anticipated federal budget cuts and other factors, lab officials say.

The northern New Mexico lab, where the atomic bomb was born, expects to cut between 500 and 750 positions, said spokesman Kevin Roark. About 12,000 people work at the lab.

Andrew:

According to the BBC report Prof Glasser acknowledged that global warming had a major part to play in the collapse."

What else could he say and get heard on the BBC?

kevinag:

Patrick Henry... ...must not be doing MUCH work for industry...

I do not believe that insults or the use of the term 'deniers' belong in a rational discussion, especially one so politicized as Climate; perhaps the moderator could exorcise any future messages that use that derogatory term?

A quick check of snowfalls in my area reveal above average levels for the last three years - If I worked for NASA and could cheerfully cherry-pick data, I can show that the next Ice Age will occur before any Kyoto goals take effect. Which brings up a question I posed on another thread - "When does weather become climate?" Three years, 10 years, 100 years? Take a look at the following, and please don't come back with "that's weather, not climate" until my question is answered.

February 1
Snow packs on the Vancouver Island and Coastal regions are well above normal as of February 1st, and have increased significantly from January 1st. The Vancouver Island snow water index is 141% of normal (111% at Jan 1st), while the South Coast index is 133% of normal (113% at Jan 1st). On Vancouver Island, the Jump Creek (3B23P) snow pillow is 161% of normal, and the Forbidden Plateau (3B01) snow course is 157%. With the cold weather for the past 6-7 weeks, low elevation snow on Vancouver Island is particularly well developed. Elk River (3B04) at 270 metres elevation is 248% of normal.
(248% of normal is clearly NOT normal and it's not warm!)
On the South Coast, the Grouse Mountain (3A01) and Dog Mountain (3A10) snow courses are 152% and 168%, respectively. The Upper Squamish (3A25P) snow pillow is 113% of normal. Callaghan Creek (3A20), a 2010 Olympic venue location, is 125% of normal.

Aviator

Patrick: There also appears to an upwelling of warm water on the east coast of the Antarctic Peninsula. Refer to http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/climon/data/tgrid/1969/17.gif
That's the CRUTEM gridded map of temperature anomalies for 1969. Refer to the southern polar projection. Nice big red sguare there on the east side of the peninsula. A warm anomaly also shows up there in 64,70,72,74,79,83,85,and 02. Some years in between (twenty out of fourty-eight, or more that 40% of the time) there's no measurement, which is a problem with trying to figure out what's going on there.
Those CRUTEM gridded maps have three projections: an equidistant Mercator, and two polars, which help bring the high latitudes back into perspective.

Read one comment that said I hope agriculture can keep up with population and global warming, well you better hope for more global warming so we can grow crops in more areas. But that global warming stuff will probably depend on the sun, just ask planet mars, ice caps there have also been shrinking.

(Off Topic)
Here something that bears closes watching.
Seems that more than just melting Ice is being questioned. Finally!

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0801/S00246.htm
Excerpt:
Time for Aust-NZ Commission on Global Warming
A group of Australian and New Zealand organisations and scientists today called on the governments of Australia and New Zealand to set up an Australia New Zealand Royal Commission on the Science of Global Warming (to be known as �the ANZIG Royal Commission� � the Australia New Zealand Inquiry into Global Warming)���
And:
Mr Forbes said that it is clear there is growing concern among the world scientific community about the conclusions being promoted by the IPCC.
�In contrast to the 2000 or so scientists who are claimed to have contributed to the IPCC (many of whom do not support the extremist political conclusions promoted by the IPCC) there are at least 20,000 scientists who have signed their names in public opposition to the IPCC.

As Brett pointed out, there seems to be three sides to this discussion: 1) AGW opponents who absolutely disbelieve in AGW and who are unwilling to consider any new information that might come along. 2) Skeptics who aren't sure one way or the other, but look for new information to help them make informed decisions. 3) AGW proponents who believe absolutely in AGW and for who no amount of new information will convince them that there is even the slightest chance that they are wrong.

Of these three groups, it seems to me, that only the AGW proponents have resorted to name calling and personal smears. They subscribe to the Bushism "if you're not with us, you're against us". This is somewhat ironic as nearly all of them hate the president with every fiber of their beings. They have also taken to using the term "denier" to describe anyone in disagreement with their beliefs in a not so subtle attempt to compare those who don't agree with those who deny the fact that Nazi Germany was responsible for the extermination of six million Jews, ethnic minorities, intellectuals, and political adversaries. It's an ugly term, and personally I find it's use to be quite offensive. In response, about the best the skeptics and AGW opponents can respond with is "Global Warming Alarmist" which isn't a comparison to anything, but entirely accurate.

So, in the spirit of fairness, I'm proposing that a new term be adopted to describe AGW proponents: Goebbelites. I've seen the term goebbelsian used in another context, but I prefer Goebbelites. It will be used to describe anyone who can be described as adhering to the following quotation from Joseph Gobbles:

�If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.�

You can substitute "radical environmental movement" or "United Nations" for the term: State, and the whole thing just sort of rings like something out of today's paper.

Civil discourse is essential to the solution of any problem, and the use of derogatory and offensive terms to describe those who disagree with you isn't civil.

All the best from beneath record snow depth midway through the winter in Wisconsin,

Aaron

According to the BBC report Prof Glasser acknowledged that global warming had a major part to play in the collapse

Hi Andrew,

Originally the story was that global warming caused the collapse, which spawned 16,000 Google hits. Now it has been downgraded to one of many causes.

What evidence is there that "global" warming had anything to do with it? There is one small spot on the Antarctic Peninsula which has warmed, but the rest of Antarctica has been neutral or gotten colder over the last 30 years. From reading this report, it is obvious that there is a severe lack of understanding about Antarctic climate processes. Why do you cling so tightly to the words of anyone invoking "global warming?"

Anonymous: I believe a major portion of the rebound in polar bear population was a result of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, the International Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears and their Habitat signed in 1973 by Canada, the U.S., Denmark, Norway and the U.S.S.R., and any subsequent treaties.

And, if Arctic temperature can be used as an indicator of Arctic sea ice extent, for lack of long-term sea ice measurement, then the 70s would've had more ice than today, so your logic seems faulty.

Here is a good graphic showing one of those mid-summer Antarctic heat waves, as discussed in the article.
http://climate.uah.edu/maps/0108big.jpg

I can certainly see from that map how Hansen concluded that January was above normal. He must have the bulk of his thermometers on one small island north of Siberia. BTW - Here is a good read on how alarmists use distorted map projections to keep the funding coming in.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2721#comments

"Most people realize that human emissions of CO2 has become the predominate driver of global warming since the 1950's (before that natural causes were dominate)."

I do not believe there has yet been a direct correlation proven between humans and their influence on climate change. This brings me to a thought I had this afternoon. So much of this global debate is politically divided with one side chastising the other for jumping the gun, while the other side is predicting a critical point soon that will not allow us to turn back the clock. So regarding this particular issue the Al Gore followers are behaving in a manner that can be called a preemptive policy that is trying to galvanize the masses to do a set of things that will prevent us all from perishing. Along with those preemptive actions that group wants us to trust that some radical ideas with perhaps serious consequences need to be enacted because looking the other way is just burying our heads in the sand. The "deniers" are taking apart each and every bold statement that comes along from the alarmists and breaking them down in an attempt to weed out truth from fiction. The climate change debate is exactly like the ME debate only the two sides have switched positions. Those strongly opposing the Iraq war and our ME policies are now the very supporters advocating strict global policy changes regarding global warming without allowing dissenting voices to be heard. This group has made up its mind and come h... or high water they want to dive in without knowing if the policy changes are necessary or will even do any good at all or in fact will cause more harm than good. The "deniers" are equally digging in with a lot of resistance because for them the case of humans being linked to CO2 increase, and thus the culprit and contributing to some sort of global warming has not been made.

BTW - we are expecting yet another snow storm tonight with temps to dip to about -14 with high winds. A friend that grew up in Chicago just called me and told me she believes they have not seen this sort of harsh winter since the 60s. This cold snap is considered a clipper and so it will be fast moving and by the weekend we should warm up a bit. We are all exhausted by this severe winter.

Aaron,

Most of the "skeptics" on this forum fit your first description: they absolutely disbelieve in AGW and who are unwilling to consider any new information that might come along.

Hence, that's why they are called deniers. It's not an offensive term. Rather, it's an accurate term. Deniers are in "denial" because mitigation of AGW requires actions that are inconvenient to their political ideological beliefs.

Skeptics are welcomed; unfortunately, there just aren't many of them here.

UK might be on verge of recession, says King
Governor issues warning on inflation and growth
Rate cuts unlikely while food and fuel prices rise

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/feb/14/bankofenglandgovernor.economics

A brilliant time to raise fuel and carbon taxes, and convert farmland into biofuels. After all, we have more important things to worry about - like making sure that some bird doesn't migrate a day or two earlier than someone thinks it did in the 1960s.

Mayor Ken's $18,000 per year tax on drivers in London will surely stimulate the economy too - in Bejing.

Patrick Henry: Actually I'm very happy that I have a life and don't spend that many hours at the computer. As to your second point,I don't know what lay offs at Los Alamos have to do with global warming scientists. My relatives are tenured professors who have worked incredibly hard to get where they are and are extremely dedicated. And, yes they are concerned when funding for programs and students is threatened, but that doesn't mean that they would ever undertake anything unprofessional. It seems to me that you and several other contributors to this site are making statements about the motives and intentions of educators and scientists that you have no evidence to sustain. As I said, if you have a problem with the science, state what it is, but don't demonize proponents of the opposite position without any proof. I'm sure you would not care for it if it were done to you.

Mumbai experienced its coldest winter ever. And the city is literally waking up to brutally cold mornings.

On February 9, Mumbai's minimum temperature was 8.5 degrees Celsius .... Note the date - the coldest day in 47 years.

http://www.merinews.com/catFull.jsp?articleID=130101

No wonder Dr. Hansen keeps saying temperatures are above normal. Dr. Hansen is an honorable man.