Arctic Meltdown: Newsweek Interview With Robert Corell

I'm amazed at our stupidity. Even an animal doesn't go to the toilet where it eats and sleeps. We are supposed to be intelligent and we dirty the very air we breathe and the water we drink.

robert corell is a tect/scientist and is only repeating what was said in the uk in 1988,
you can melt all the snow and ice in the world and it would only give you about 1/2 meter sea level rise,but if the world seas was to warm up 2% it could put on has 3x has much and he dont take into account that north america is moving away from europe at a rate of 2cm a year has the gap becomes bigger so more warm sea water from the gulf stream will get into the arctic

"you can melt all the snow and ice in the world and it would only give you about 1/2 meter sea level rise"

You must be kidding.

Melting of the current Greenland ice sheet would result in a sea-level rise of about 6.5 meters; melting of the West Antarctic ice sheet would result in a sea-level rise of about 8 meters (table 1).

http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs2-00/

how deep do you think all that ice and snow is in greenland and in antartica

@southerner

The thickness of the GIS is generally more than 2 km and over 3 km at its thickest point.

See:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/16/Gree...

AIS at its thickest point is 4,776 meters deep. It averages 2,160 meters thick

http://www.nsf.gov/od/opp/antarct/science/icesheet.jsp

But why did you ask this?

try again but this time but dont inclued the rock thats under all that ice

i been to antartica, a few times, the deepest known spot is near vodstock base station,the ice there just under 1000 feet and under that about another 75 feet of super chilled water,up on the plateau therea about 200 feet of ice

@southerner

LOL, rocks were not included. Just the ice sheet -- as stated on the NSF's website I cited:

These two ice sheets cover all but 2.4 percent of Antarctica's 14 million square kilometers. At its thickest point the ice sheet is 4,776 meters deep. It averages 2,160 meters thick, making Antarctica the highest continent.

http://www.nsf.gov/od/opp/antarct/science/icesheet.jsp

Other sources:

During the onset of glaciation ice flow across Lake Vostok would have been more akin to flow across an ice marginal trough such as the Astrolabe Subglacial Basin, which holds the thickest ice in Antarctica: 4776 m where the bed is over 2 km below the sea level.

http://ppg.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/29/2/156
The mean thickness of the icecap is 2.16 kilometers; the maximum known thickness of the ice cap is 4776 m (Terre Adelie).

http://www.aad.gov.au/default.asp?casid=5548

The average thickness of the ice sheet on Antarctica is 2.3km (1.5 miles). The thickest ice sheet can be found at Wilkes Land - where it reaches a depth of 4,776 meters (15,669 feet).

http://antarctica.mir.com.my/about/geo.html

Maximum ice thickness:
4776 m
(Near Dome C, 69°56? S, 135°12?E: see map)
http://lima.nasa.gov/pdf/A4_context.pdf

"the deepest known spot is near vodstock base station,the ice there just under 1000 feet and under that about another 75 feet of super chilled water,up on the plateau therea about 200 feet of ice"

I guess you are talking about Base Vostok. I don't know about Base Vodstock. Actually, the thickest ice is much closer to Dome C than Base Vostok but even there it's much thicker than 1000 feet. Drilling there stopped just above Lake Vostok.

At the Russian-maintained Base Vostok, some thousand kilometers from the South Pole, scientists used radar and and artificially-generated seismic waves to discovered a vast warmwater lake. Lake Vostok lies under nearly 4000 meters (approximately two and a half miles deep) of solid ice but is warm enough to remain liquid.

http://www.resa.net/nasa/antarctica.htm

In January 1998, the collaborative ice-drilling project between Russia, the United States, and France at the Russian Vostok station in East Antarctica yielded the deepest ice core ever recovered, reaching a depth of 3,623 m (Petit et al. 1997, 1999).

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/antarctica/vosto...

U.S., French and Russian scientists have studied fragments taken from an ice core drilled 3,600 meters (about 11,700 feet) into the ice covering the lake. Drilling has been halted roughly 120 meters (393 feet) above where the ice and liquid water meet, to prevent possible introduction of material that would contaminate the water, while scientists debate how to proceed.

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=266

At the floor of the Antarctic ice sheet, 4 km below the Russian research base Vostok Station, lies a 2,000 km3 body of water, comparable in size to Lake Ontario.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?
db=pubmed&uid=11077478&cmd=showdetailview&indexed=google

Both the Vostok and the EPICA ice cores are a "little bit" longer than 1000 feet.

The record presented by Jouzel et al. (1987), based on data in a 2083-meter ice core from the Russian Vostok station in central east Antarctica, was the first such record to span a full glacial-interglacial cycle. Drilling continued at Vostok until January 1998, reaching a depth of 3623 m, and a corresponding time of ~420 kyr BP.

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/temp/domec/domec.html


The frozen record of the Earth's atmosphere is 3270 metres long and covers the last 650,000 years ? 50% longer than before. It was obtained from the tiny air bubbles trapped in a deep ice core from Antarctica.

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8369

But again: why did you ask this? You still think that the complete melting of GIS and AIS (WAIS and EAIS combined) would only "give you about 1/2 meter sea level rise"?

3770 metres long and out of 10 bole holes
what i trying to tell ya its not the melting of all the ice and snow, that will make sea level rise,that would only be about half a metre, the big problem will be the heating up of the worlds seas,you can work that for your self just look at how much water there is on this world and take in to account that salt water expans more than fresh water thats where the real problem is not the melting of the ice caps
oh just to bring you up to date on vodstock nasa ask british and norway if they can use the lake at vodstock to test out a craft, that permission has been giving 6 years ago and that lake is now being research

@southerner

"3770 metres long and out of 10 bole holes"

Which ice core is 3770-meter long and which 10 boreholes are you talking about?

They drilled a number of holes at Vostok. The deepest is 5G-1, 3660.97 m as of 10 June, 2007. I find it unlikely that they have drilled down to 3770 m since June especially since the planned maximum depth was 3723 m but if you have a more recent report I'd like to see it.

Anyway, whether it's 3660 m deep or 3770 it debunks what you said earlier about the thickness of the AIS.

Vostok research station has operated year-round for more than 37 years. In the 1970s, researchers from the Soviet Union drilled a set of holes 500?952 m deep in the ice (see figure 2). These holes have been used to study the oxygen isotope composition of the ice, which showed that ice of the last glacial period was present below about 400 m depth. Then three more holes were drilled: in 1984, Hole 3G reached a final depth of 2202 m; in 1990, Hole 4G reached a final depth of 2546; and in 1993 Hole 5G reached a depth of 2755 m. The station was temporarily closed in January 1994, but it reopened last November and drilling continued during the winter of 1995. The core, the longest ever drilled, has now reached 3100 m. It is 50 m longer than the core from Greenland that previously held the record.

Earth in Space, Vol. 8, No. 3, November 1995, p. 9. © 1995 American Geophysical Union.
http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/vostok.html

Since 1990, the Russian Antarctic Expedition Program has drilled more than 3600 m of ice with additional support from the French and U.S. Antarctic programs between 1993 and 1998. The present borehole, 5G-1, was started in 1992 from a deviation along the previous borehole (5G) at depths of 2232-2246 m. By 1993 the coring had reached 2755 m in borehole 5G-1. After a one-year hiatus, drilling reached a depth of 3100 m in September 1995. Drilling continued during the 1995−1996 field season and was intended to continue through the 1996 winter to reach 25 m above the surface of the subglacial lake beneath Vostok (at ~3,650 m depth in accordance with the guidelines recommended by SCAR during the Lake Vostok Workshop, Cambridge 1995). However, when the station closed for the 1996 winter, drilling had reached 3350 m depth. A seismic survey was undertaken during the 1995−1996 field season in an area about 2 km2 around the borehole. A depth of 3623 m was reached in hole 5G-1 in 1998. After an eight-year hiatus, drilling resumed in 2005-2006, reaching a depth of 3650 m.

Exploration of Antarctic Subglacial Aquatic Environments:
Environmental and Scientific Stewardship
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11886&p...

On 1 June, new drilling operations were started in the deep borehole 5G-1 from a depth of 3658.2 m by
means of a modified drill. As of 10 June, the borehole depth comprised 3660.97 m, and so as of this time,
2.77 m of the new ice core was obtained. The drilling operations are being continued.

Preliminary results of Russian expedition studies of the subglacial Lake Vostok in
2006-2007
http://scarsale.tamu.edu/meetings/meeting-3-june-2007/s...

Depth of 3660.97 m.
So according to you that means "the deepest known spot is near vodstock base station,the ice there just under 1000 feet and under that about another 75 feet of super chilled water,up on the plateau therea about 200 feet of ice ".

Well...don't you think it would be time to admit you were wrong?

"what i trying to tell ya its not the melting of all the ice and snow, that will make sea level rise,that would only be about half a metre,"

1. No that's not all you tried to say. You also said that the thickest ice on Antarctica is ~ 1000 feet which is bullshit.

2. You may be trying to tell me that "the melting of all the ice and snow would raise sea levels by only about half a metre" but you shouldn't tell this to anyone as it is nonsense.
Look what happened during the last interglacial, around 125,000 years ago.

West Antarctic Ice Sheet Stability and Global Sea Level
http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/1996/nstc96rp/sb4.htm

Scientists have long recognized that global sea levels were 5 to 6 meters higher during the last interglacial warm period, about 125,000 years ago, than they are today. It is also estimated that the west Antarctic ice sheet contains ice which, if it were incorporated into the oceans, would cause global sea levels to rise about 6 meters. It has been suggested that the West Antarctic ice sheet might be responsible for the higher sea level during the last interglacial period. Future global warming could result in the disappearance of the West Antarctic ice sheet and a substantial rise in global sea level.

And it's just WAIS. Add GIS and EAIS and sea levels would rise by more than 75 meters.

Polar Ice Sheets, Melting, and Sea Level Change
http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2004/0615Oppenheimer....

Greenland:7 meters
West Antarctica (WAIS): 5 meters
East + West Antarctica: 70 meters

"the big problem will be the heating up of the worlds seas,you can work that for your self just look at how much water there is on this world and take in to account that salt water expans more than fresh water thats where the real problem is not the melting of the ice caps"

Fortunately the IPCC already looked at the impact of thermal expansion and the big problem with GIS and WAIS is not melting per se but potentially
rapid non-linear disintegration. You heard about those icequakes in Greenland, didn't you?

If radiative forcing were to be stabilized in 2100 at A1B levels, thermal expansion alone would lead to 0.3 to 0.8 m of sea level rise by 2300 (relative to 1980?1999).

http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf

0.3 to 0.8 m of sea level rise by 2300 is nothing compared to the sea level rise we would see if GIS and/or WAIS melted or broke up and slipped into the sea.
It's one thing to believe that it's highly unlikely that will occur, say, within this century. (Actually noone knows that at this point.)
It's quite another to claim that if they melted or disintegrated that would only raise sea levels by 0.5 m. That's utter nonsense if you look at
the size of those ice sheets.

In short, you exaggerate the potential impact of thermal expansion and vastly underestimate the impact of potential rapid dynamical
changes in ice flow because apparently you don't have a clue how big those ice sheets are.

" oh just to bring you up to date on vodstock nasa ask british and norway if they can use the lake at vodstock to test out a craft, that permission has been giving 6 years ago and that lake is now being research"

It's called Vostok not vodstock. Russian: Станция Восток. It was named for the corvette of Fabian Gottlieb von Bellingshausen, a 19th-century Russian explorer. If you were indeed there at least you should know its name.

vodstock location in between two mountains ranges the first 2 bore holes hit solid rock, at a elevsion of 35% from vertictel
if you want to see all the facts about every single ice station in antartica have a look at bas offices in cambridge or another good place for info is nerc offices they use to be at port barry in wales those two companys are the oldest envirament research people going when they say some thing it will be closer to the truth

@southerner

"vodstock location in between two mountains ranges"

Wow, that's an accurate description indeed.
Between two mountain ranges. Which mountain ranges?

You said "the deepest known spot is near vodstock base station".
Aside from the fact that the depth of the deepest borehole is not the same as the maximum ice thickness
the deepest borehole in fact was drilled at Base Vostok, as you can see in the above cited papers.

Disagree? If so, would you please introduce your sources and explain why we should trust them instead of NASA, MAE, NSF, the Bristol Glaciology Centre,
AGU, or the very scientists who worked at Vostok?

You also suggested that the thickest ice is ~1000 feet thick not 4,776 m as those fools at NASA and the NSF believe, and then you yourself discredited that claim by talking about an ice core that is supposedly 3770 m long and which somehow came out of not less than 10 boreholes. Since I know that the deepest borehole is 5G-1 and as of June 10 it was only ~3660 m deep I asked which ice core and which boreholes you were referring to and then you dodged the questions.


"the first 2 bore holes hit solid rock, at a elevsion of 35% from vertictel "

Which boreholes? And how is this relevant -- even if true?
BTW "at a elevsion of 35% from vertictel" doesn't make a freaking sense, but nevermind.

"if you want to see all the facts about every single ice station in antartica have a look at bas offices in cambridge or another good place for info is nerc offices they use to be at port barry in wales those two companys are the oldest envirament research people going when they say some thing it will be closer to the truth"

I didn't ask you about all the facts about every single ice station in Antartica and if I want to know that I know where to look, thanks.
Don't try to change the subject.
Yeah, BAS is a very good place to get info. So then why don't you listen to them?

I searched both BAS's and NERC's websites for this mysterious "vodstock".

The results are:

on http://www.antarctica.ac.uk

Did you mean: woodstock

on www.nerc.ac.uk

Did you mean: vostock

You click on 'vostock' and you get one result that includes a referrence to Vostock research station:

http://www.nerc.ac.uk/research/areas/polar/ipy/facts.as...

The Vostock research station recorded Antarctic's lowest temperature (minus 89°C).

Yes that's the Vostok research station not vodstock. It's either a typo or the person who typed it didn't in fact know the correct spelling.

The coldest temperature ever recorded on Earth was
-89.2°C at the Russian station Vostok in 1983.

http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/about_antarctica/
geography/weather/temperatures.php

By contrast 'Vostok' gives 27 results on NERC's website and 41 results on BAS's website.

Not coincidentally you won't find a station called vodstock here, either:

Research Stations in Antarctica
http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/living_and_working/
research_stations/index.php

Nor here:

List of research stations in Antarctica
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
List_of_research_stations_in_Antarctica

There is no vodstock base station or vodstock location. It's not "between two mountains ranges" because it doesn't exist.
There's a base called Vostok, however.
Furthermore, the deepest borehole is not 1000 feet deep and the max. ice thickness is not 1000 feet, either.
And just in case you care, complete melting of GIS and AIS would raise sea levels by more than 75 meters, not 0.5 meter.
All right?
Or am I dealing with a complete idiot here?

stardate try this at home
take a cubic foot of water and a cubic foot of ice,find out if theres any weight diffrence, then bring both to the same temp and see if there's any volume diffrence,
then think of icebergs,2/3 is under water,all that water displacement, look back say to 1900 how much ice has gone from then to now and then look at how much the sea level has gone up
boring holes into ice is not quick and easy to do if you want to keep records the drill head has to be kept around 32f/0c give or take a degree to cold and the drill head become jam up to warm and it melts the ice and mix up the records and they dont drill straight down they driil on a angle it shows up the ice rings better
we know its not the first time that the ice in antarctica has melted
between 1800 to 2000 years ago was the last time there was warm period and between 1600 to 1800 the earth went though a cold period, each time we go though a warm period it a little bit warmer than the last one and the cold period was not so cold
oh the highest point in antarctica is 5140 metres above sea level and is 3450 metres above antarctica plateau (mt vinson massif) theres been 70 fresh water lakes been found and every one of them is classed has land lock ( meaning they are surrounded by rock and would not be open to the sea has if there was no ice)