Environment Forum
Global environmental challenges
Antarctica’s wandering ice shelf
GPS markers usually pinpoint a spot on the earth’s surface to help everything from map-making to navigation.
This one (left) spectacularly didn’t.
In fact, it wandered hundreds of miles (km) this year on an iceberg, blown by winds or carried by ocean currents in huge pirouettes off the coast of Antarctica.
When glaciologist David Vaughan (above) of the British Antarctic Survey stuck the pole holding the GPS (global positioning system) tracking device into the Wilkins Ice Shelf in Antarctica in January, the ice felt solid as rock.
Stuart McDill of Reuters TV and I had landed with him in a small plane mounted with skis on a 40-km-long floating ice bridge which had been in place probably for thousands and thousands of years. But it was weakening and about to snap in what Vaughan said was a sign of global warming.
In Antarctica, Wilkins Ice Shelf snaps
It’s not often you go to a part of the world that disappears from the map a few weeks later.
Luckily we weren’t on the Wilkins Ice Shelf (above) in Antarctica on April 4, when an ice bridge that may be holding ice the size of Jamaica in place shattered into dozens of giant pieces (story here).
The break-up was captured on satellite images by the European Space Agency (below left from today, with an image of the ice bridge intact from April 2, below right)
But we were there in January — Stuart McDill of Reuters TV and I travelled with a group of scientists from the British Antarctic Survey who landed on the flat-topped ice in sunshine in a bright red Twin Otter plane. (main photo above: the ice cliff at the front is about 20 metres high. Photo below left shows the plane on the ice).
It was the first, and last, visit by anyone to an area that has now cracked into a chaos of giant icebergs. We landed just by the narrowest part of the strip that stretched from Charcot Island southeast to the coast of Antarctica.
Even in January, the scientists led by David Vaughan of BAS were reluctant to linger because of a risk of cracks in the ice. The shelf may well have been there for thousands of years.
Yes, sometimes something snaps. Great post and great snaps, sir. My graduation speech to the class of 2099 is about a snap of a different kind, about climate: see here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-wnrm2jE -E&feature=channel_page
In Antarctica, Wilkins Ice Shelf to break up: a victim of warming
You have to feel sorry for Australian aviator George Hubert Wilkins, one of the pioneers of flying in Antarctica who lived from 1888 to 1958 – and whose name is commemorated in an Antarctic Ice Shelf that is about to vanish into the ocean.
We landed near the narrowest point of the Wilkins Ice Shelf in a plane with a group of scientists from the British Antarctic Survey – who reckoned it was the first time anyone had visited within tens of kilometres (miles).
And it will probably be the last visit since the shelf is poised to collapse into the sea (for a story, click here).
Canadian pilot Steve King skimmed the Twin Otter plane in low over the ice and let the skis on the undercarriage slide over to test the surface for crevasses without committing to landing. We then swooped around and landed on the slushy ice — it’s scary enough landing on a runway in a small plane; here there was nothing but trackless white.
Glaciologist David Vaughan (pictured above) reckons the breakup could be days, weeks or months away – it is connected to Antarctica by a strip of ice that is just 500 metres wide at the narrowest point – in 1950 it was almost 100 kms wide. We landed a few km away from the narrowest point (shown in the picture on the right — the ice cliff at the front is about 20 metres high).
My colleague Stuart Mc Dill from Reuters TV and I then watched with alarm as Vaughan forced a long metal pole deep into the ice to set up a GPS monitoring device. ‘Um, David, are you sure that’s a good idea?’
Oh, this was named after my boyfriends great grand father – what a shame 
I like the Wilkins Bay idea!
Russ and Kyle,Firstly, if you take 1998 as your starting point it does appear that there has not been warming over the last 10 years. But as you should know that would be cherry picking data and 1998 was also known as the time when the world’s largest el nino occurred which is why it was the warmest ever recorded. In terms of the overall trend it is still on the order of 0.19 C per decade which is consistent with predictions. In fact if you checked out some actual scientific literature instead of internet blogs you might know that. Secondly for Russ, there is no distinct evidence of falsified data. The adding in the real temperatures onto the 1960′s dataset in order to “hide the decline” is simply putting on actual temperature data in place of data which cannot be used. The reason it couldn’t be used was because after 1960 that particular tree ring set diverged from recorded temperatures so the original author advised against using post-1960 tree ring data…. that would also be something you would know if you had any clue about things before you mouthed off. So sick of people who are so quick to jump on bandwagons without actually doing the research themselves. Nowmatter what I say you are going to think you’re right… that’s the difference between actual degrees in climate science and degrees from the University of Google.