Talk:West Antarctic Ice Sheet

Link to meters?

Seriously. I suppose for an American the meter is something strange and unknown, but this link is a bit insulting to the reader. I mean, you could link to the number 5 too. Piet 09:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5_(number)

There you go.

173.62.181.145 (talk) 21:56, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Wiki is BS

I haven't been here a while but after drifting around it looks like the fanatics had nothing to do this summer. Unfortunately this winter will put it away. Chears, Wiki=CRAP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Itsonlysteam (talk • contribs) 05:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Metric units, please?

This article is on a scientific topic, and is not specifically US-related. The Manual of Style recommends that metric units are used in both cases (with imperial conversions if desired). Since there is little activity on this page at the moment, I am taking the liberty of making some minor alterations to bring it into line with Wikipedia house style. (As a trainee science teacher in the UK, I am increasingly aware of the confusion caused when pupils who are taught in metric start injecting occasional imperial units into assignments, and Wikipedia is often their first port of call.) Please let me know if you think my alterations do not achieve this... I appreciate the time that others have spent developing the article. Peter Barber 11:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem in the next 100 years?

THE WAIS has been retreating 1200 km since the end of the last ice age http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn1806 It's solid work," says Robert Bindschadler of the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center. Bindschadler had previously warned that the West Antarctic ice sheet could melt in 4000 years if long-term trends continued, leading to significant rises in sea level.

The original research was published in Science (vol 295, p 476) whereas A non published report to the British Government hardly qualifies as anything more than chatter. 07:33, 15 September 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.89.57.223 (talk • contribs)

The link you provided is bad. But here's a 2001 article from that magazine: [1] that says The new research shows that the largest glacier in the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is now losing far more ice than is being replenished by snow. "In terms of ice discharge, this is nothing like anyone has seen before - it's a huge amount of ice," says Andrew Shepherd at the Centre for Polar Observation and Modelling, University College London.

And here's a 2005 article from the magazine: [2]: The massive west Antarctic ice sheet, previously assumed to be stable, is starting to collapse, scientists warned on Tuesday. John Broughton 12:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, the January 2002 article you cited finally did appear. It describes this: A new radar study shows that the ice sheet feeding the Ross Ice Streams is growing. And here's what Ian Joughin, the author of the study, said (quoted in the article): two nearby West Antarctic glaciers are thinning rapidly, so the trend cannot be extended across the continent.

In short, you've cited a four-year-old article about a study of PART of the WAIS, a study done bby someone who is quoted as directly disagreeing with what you seem to arguing. John Broughton 16:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I misunderstood the inclusion of Greenlands ice sheet in an article about Antarctica. The Times article refers to Coral reef studies (the data) which show an extra increase of 9-11 ft ( not 20ft). There is no 'data' supporting instability of below sea level Antartic ice sheets ( which have retreated 1200km since the end of the last ice age and continue to do so). Other areas had continental ice sheets , I understand Britain alone had an ice sheet up to 2km thick which could also account for the missing '10ft'( how this becomes 20 ft worries me). This just as likely an hypothesis , Britain being very likely to follow melting in Greenland

Your statement that This just as likely an hypothesis is problematical, given Wikipedia:No original research. If you can cite a source that says that Greenland melt could have resulted in British melt which would explains the extra sea rise, then fine, put that text and its source into the article. Otherwise, please leave the article as is (supported by its cites). John Broughton 18:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your patience with my clangers - obviously Britain would not be under ice if Greenland was warmer than now-. I will be getting full copies of the 2 articles in Science about the Greenland ice sheets and sea levels to understand further any limitations about this reserch . Often in reporting 'could be' and 'possibly' become certainties . Plus an extra section on the 1200km retreat of the WAIS since the end of the last ice seems to be needed as its still happening at a rate of 120m or so per year. This idea of a continuos process of retreat ( but not steady) between climate maximums may be raised in other published research.

picture

It might be a good idea to label the satellite picture that's currently there. Otherwise, what's the point? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.83.244 (talk) 14:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The assertion that the melting of the WAIS could result in a 5 metre increase in sea levels and the following even more aggressive assertion is not backed by the citation which mentions only a .3 metre increase due to the melting Pennisula ice. Unless a new citation can be given tosupport this data I will be removing those figures. Boris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.57.96.1 (talk) 12:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

At the moment the figures we give appear contradictory. If the WAIS contains only 10% of the ice in Antarctica, and if the COMPLETE melting of ALL the ice in Antarctica would raise sea levels by only about 60 m (a figure I find at the Sea level rise article), how is it that the maximum estimated sea level rise from WAIS collapse is as high as 15 m? Is it because a larger percentage of the EAIS is below sea level and thus is already displacing water? Or is some other mechanism at work that accounts for the 15 m figure? It would be nice if we explained that more clearly, and included a link to a source for the 15 m estimate. 65.213.77.129 (talk) 18:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorted. 15 m is incorrect. Maybe someone once estimated it at that, thanks for spotting it Polargeo (talk) 10:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

This article is extremely biased

It comes from just a single source - a meeting from UT Austin involving explorational geophysicists. Most of the attendees are from just this one place, with a few invited speakers from elsewhere. They are all close associates, involved in this WAIS cores project. None are climatologists. Check it out !

I could cite several sources that would dispute the statement about marine sediements being at the bed of the ice streams. This was never remotely demonstrated to be true, and in fact, there is a considerable amount of contrary evidence, not to mention common sense that glacier sliding produces sediments due to friction, rather than sliding on pre-existing marine sediments.

The attendees are not climate specialists. They are all involved in exploration geophysics and remote sensing. Their statement about the warm air creating a collapse of Antarctica is "stupid" and totally unsubstantiated. Warm air would only superficially warm the thinnest edge of Antarctica, whereas warm water carried far more energy and is more likely to be substantiated. Neither of these datasets were consulted by this group to make these assertions.

The main convener of the meeting is involved in supporting an ice-core project, and they are trying to use the idea of "climate studies" to add punch to an otherwise stupid project. They have nothing to do with Hansen, and have never participated in a climate study. They reference their ice core project, but have no climate study references.

I humbly request that the editor of this page remove or alter its content, or state forthrightly that it is high disputable and highly questionable in its conclusions. As it stands, it is highly misleading. Editor, I can supply many references and additional information if desired. What would you need/like - in order to get rid of this dreadful article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.69.143.129 (talk • contribs) 2008

This isn't a great article, but its not all from a single source. You've also misunderstood bits of it: Their statement about the warm air creating a collapse of Antarctica is "stupid" and totally unsubstantiated. The article is talking about ocean upwelling at that point. That said, if you think it can be improved (and it can be) please have a go, cautiously: thats what the "edit" tab is for William M. Connolley (talk) 07:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Sea Level Change Question

I've seen discussion of the sea level impact of melted ice but nothing about what would happen if the entire shelf effectively calved in a geological instant. Can anyone comment on this? I submit this would be an excellent addition to the article, especially if it is at all possible.

David L. Craig (talk) 18:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Risks to civilization, humans and planet Earth mentions that this would result in a global megatsunami. Narssarssuaq (talk) 07:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Reverse slope

"Large parts of the WAIS sit on a reverse-sloping bed below sea level. The reverse slope" might be more clear. Which way is it sloping? Midgley (talk) 03:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay I've had a go. I certainly didn't write this in the first place. I don't even understand the following sentence but I'll have a go at that too if I have time. Polargeo (talk) 10:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)