Posted on 03/04/2006 9:14:55 PM PST by quantim
AXcess News) Houston, TX - Satellite surveys show that ice is melting in Antarctica faster than snow fall replenishes it, which is causing the sea to rise.
Two seperate studies showed varying results. But both studies drew the same conclusion, that the ice in Antarctica is melting rapidly. The only difference between the studies was the amount the sea was rising.
The authors work in both studies added weight to the evidence that global warming was affecting sea levels.
Earlier estimates were that global warming was causing an increase in rain fall that would generate more snow fall in Greenland and the Antarctic, replacing the ice that was grumbling into the sea.
"Snowfall will matter less and less," said Robert Bindschadler, an expert on polar ice at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Bindschadler was not involved in either study.
Satellite images show that most of the ice is being lost in western Antarctica, where warming air and seawater have recently broken up huge floating shelves of ice.
A survey led by H. Jay Zwally, a NASA scientist, used satellites and aircraft to measure changes in the height of ice sheets in Antarctica and Greenland over the decade ended in 2002.
A second study by scientists at the University of Colorado looked at changes from 2002 to 2005 using a pair of NASA satellites that detect subtle changes in Earth's gravitational field that can be used to estimate the weight of water in an ice sheet.
Zwally's study found a loss of volume in Antarctica and a small overall gain in Greenland, where inland snows have outpaced ice flowing into the sea. Zwally published his findings in the Journal of Glaciology.
Scientists at the University of Colorado found that changes in the ice were a good indicator of the changing climatic conditions there. Their study was published in the Journal of Science.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said the Colorado team's estimate that 35 cubic miles of ice was being lost annually in Antarctica fit well with current ideas about what was causing the rise.
Oliver Stone's "JFK" is another example of a work of fiction that contains facts and cites published reports to build its story.
Greenland_Ice_Cap_Growing_Thicker
Also see "Antarctic_Ice_Cap_Growing_Thicker" on the same page.
FYI, use Scholar Google. It has the benefit of allowing you to at least read the abstract of actual research papers. Using someone's personal website to support a point is rather amateurish.
"Sure a lot of folks on these threads who seem to hate science. "
That was the most illogical statement yet. I am a scientist and I and many other of my fellow scientists cannot stand the sell-outs who will take money so long as they are performing a "study" that supports a left-wing political ideology. That is not a hatred of science.
You couldn't possibly be a scientist since you think it is logical to conclude that anyone who doubts the left-wing "mankind is killing the planet" reports is against science.
"Satellite images show that most of the ice is being lost in western Antarctica, where warming air and seawater have recently broken up huge floating shelves of ice."
This ice won't change the sea levels. The stuff that is on land can raise sea levels. Let's suppose for a moment that it all melts. How much will sea levels raise?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Yes, I'm aware of this - I read it too fast and too late into the night last night (with about another dozen things on my mind) - Explained this in a later post -
I thought the author was referring to an ice glacier off the cost of Antarctica....(my mistake).
As for Global Warming.....there is nothing more complex then trying to avoid the obvious.
The obvious being that global warming is simply a naturally occurring event....in which man has virtually no impact over.
On the other end of the extreme, the Earth used to be pretty much a tropical jungle at times - all the way up to the Arctic Circle.
Point being that it is normal for the Earth's climate to change radically over time. Our current civilization (again, just the tiniest blink of an eye in the Earth's history) just happened to evolve during a time of relative tranquility.
SO at some point in time, our civilization is going to have to deal with massive climatological change. It may even wipe out our species. It has absolutely nothing to do with greenhouse gases, fossil fuel burning and all of that other nonsense the nutjobs on the Left try to blame it on.
Yes, except where it doesn't appear to be happening, which is my point. Which data is relevant? Yours? NASAs? Who gets to develop the model? Why not show 1000 years of data? Who chooses the period of time? More importantly, who decides how to extrapolate (shudder)?
You ask good questions that are rarely asked. I think it is important to say what we know, what we predict, and what we suspect. Unfortunately, too many papers and articles mix these.
Finally, please remember that NASA is the same organization who's director resigned after it was discovered he was injecting religious beliefs (concerning the Big Bang) into organizational press releases and the website, and limited reporters access to one of its climate scientists.
I'll admit, this one rocked me. Are you suggesting that the scientists at NASA fudged the data as their director's stooges? I thought science kept this from happening. Even if true, why would you think that such behavior would be limited to people with religious beliefs. Wouldn't people with anti-religious beliefs have the same urges?
Sorry, I too am a scientist. And I seem to spend most of my time at FR on the creation-evolution threads; I see a lot of anti-science attitudes there. Perhaps I am overly sensitive.
My reaction was to the comment:
Like where to find the grant monies. "global warming" and hating mankind is the biggest seller of funds right now. 15 years ago it was the "Ozone Hole".
That seemed pretty negative to me (and it was the third such comment I had seen on this thread), hence my response, "Sure a lot of folks on these threads who seem to hate science."
I do archaeology now, but for the Ph.D. exams I also included fossil man, human osteology, and some related fields; this puts me in the crosshairs for a lot of anti-science comments on the creation-evolution threads. That is perhaps why I am more sensitive to what appear to be attacks on science.
I would be interested on your take of this article especially the global warming summary:
Being neither a professional scientist, nor a professional poster, I guess I can be forgiven for being amateurish.
I must have missed the big disclaimer at the top of this thread forbidding non-scientists from posting here.
Notice, your report, such as it is, is dated nearly six months ago
And 6 month difference in scientific observation reflects climate, not weather? Gee, this amateur thought a six month time scale would be weather, not climate.
--------------------------------------
The existing Halley base - the fifth to occupy the spot since 1956 - has been a tremendous success.
It, too, has been jacked up on extendable legs to keep it above an accumulated snowfall of 1.5m (5ft) a year (the previous four bases were all buried).
The Halley VI base will provide a refuge for scientists, engineers, carpenters and chefs as they work in an environment which experiences whiteouts, temperatures down to -40C, 130km/h (80mph) winds and more than 50 days of near total darkness.
There should be empirical evidence as to sea levels that produce verifiable results. Otherwise we're just guessing.
From my background I can only comment on the historical aspects: global warming has been going on since the end of the last glacial episode, with sea level rises on the close order of 130-140 meters in the past 15,000 or so years.
We now live in a quite favorable climate, but perhaps it is just a warm period between two glacial episodes. If the historical record teaches anything, it is that climate changes. (And this was all before the advent of SUVs and other man-made pollutants.)
"Snow and ice content has switched from the west to east side of the continent with actually an increase that has decreased the ocean level. I'll see if I can find the article."
Perhaps that explains the conflicting claims (ice is getting thicker, ice is melting). I hope you find the article.
Fer cryin' out loud -- nothing we do can inhibit or increase "global warming". We would do better to put our resources into learning to cope with it.
Ghost of Philip Marlowe
Never mind. I see that you found it in post 56. Thanks!
"Like where to find the grant monies. "global warming" and hating mankind is the biggest seller of funds right now. 15 years ago it was the "Ozone Hole"."
That statement is so true, though. I was doing my field studies in 1989 when the funds started to dry up in the aerospace industry. A few years later we started hearing about the "Ozone Hole" and then "Global Warming". All of a sudden, one grant after another came about and people that I knew, being short on funds, took those grants. One researcher stated it clearly, "Well, we all know this is nothing but liberal junk-science, but it pays the bills, so why not? Where’s the harm?"
So, while my comment is "negative", it is nothing but the messenger stating the negativity of the junk-science/grant studies industry.
Your posted article concludes the following:
"Most of the carbon dioxide in the air comes from (a) the oxidation and exhalations of every plant and animal on earth, (b) volcanic eruptions, and (c) forest fires. The volume of carbon dioxide emissions from industry and cars is the fourth and least material source of carbon dioxide.
"
That statement is dead on. "Greenhouse gasses" are, indeed, natural and mankind produces so little of it compared to the natural sources as to be insignificant.
First off, no global warming study that tries to prove global warming is a scientific study. Every report warning about global warming has been filled with anecdotal evidence and not scientific evidence, like this study that only reports part of the picture.
In order to show that there is less ice on the planet one must first measure all the ice on the planet then contrast that measurement to a measurement taken at an earlier point in time.
Instead, we get measurements of small sections of the planet that say the ice is melting, although just a few miles away there is an increase in the ice mass. Again, political results.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.