Say what???? It is the fifth-largest continent, following Asia, Africa, North America, and South America, but larger than Australia and the subcontinent of Europe.
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.
LOL--I'm saving your graphic to annoy a liberal acquaintance. A Ted Nugent approach to global warming.
Say what???? It is the fifth-largest continent, following Asia, Africa, North America, and South America, but larger than Australia and the subcontinent of Europe.
"They don't mention it because it would be irresponsible. It might cause coastal-dwelling ants to panic and riot."
LOL!!
I suppose they could get their lawyers to sue the United States.
If I understand correctly, the ice melts in Antarctica are primarily from geothermal heat, not from increased air temperatures.
And the odds of the climate staying the same are infinitesimal.
I suspect the media reporters AREN'T, and are over blowing the current conditions.
"Recent" implies current (Summer) conditions. Note also that melting of floating ice shelves does not raise sea level. The ice is already displacing its weight in water.
"Satellite surveys show that ice is melting in Antarctica faster than snow fall replenishes it, which is causing the sea to rise."
====
Well, it turns out this is a seasonal variation, which they are trying to use for their global warming agenda.
Look what I found:
"Sea ice around Antarctica varies from about 8 million square miles in September or October to about 1 million square miles in January or February. This image from the Nimbus 7 Scanning Multichannel Multiwave Radiometer, which operated from 1978 to 1987 shows the sea ice maximum in October. Picture NASA"
http://www.coolantarctica.com/Antarctica%20fact%20file/antarctica%20environment/seaice%20formation.htm
You may be right. But look at it this way where do you think they'll go if NYC and the rest of the cooast disappears. Heck, they'll be up here with us. That is not a goo scenario.
You may be right. But look at it this way where do you think they'll go if NYC and the rest of the cooast disappears. Heck, they'll be up here with us. That is not a good scenario.
Speaking of which, did you see "March Of The Penguins?" It is a must sea (nyuk) - not from just the everyday rigors these wonderful creatures must endure but that 80-mile trek one way on foot that they make several times in the season.
Part of the reason they go so-o-o-o far inland is that the ice beaks up and melts every year so the baby chicks don't fall in and drown.
Here's what you missed
Then hunt down the paper on Google Scholar and see the writer's methodology. Basing your arguments on a lefty web site is plain stupid.
There wasn't any research paper, it was a newspaper article. The Philadelphia Inquirer is known for it's left wing bias.
And assuming the scientist in question is "probably leftist" is childish; if you do not know that he is don't draw conclusions from facts not in evidence.
The scientist that the journalist quoted is a geologist, not a climatologist. His leftist bias was obvious when he used the words "human enhanced global warming". There is still no proof that GW is caused by human activity, yet he presented it as fact!
Don't just claim the data is inaccurate; show, in detail, why this is so and what data is available to counter the researcher's claims
As usual with left wing journalists and scientists, no data was presented for examination, nor was there any sources provided. Which is standard operating procedure for them, they always try to make it hard for anyone to expose them as a fraud.
Investor's Business Daily had an interesting article about Crichton, GW and the infamous "hockey stick"...
Article Title: "Science And Fiction "
Section: Issues & Insights
Date: 2/22/2006
Climate Change: Environmentalists are ridiculing President Bush for meeting with novelist Michael Crichton and for being "in near-total agreement" with his skepticism of global warming. But Crichton isn't just spinning tales.
Fred Barnes' new book, "Rebel in Chief," recounts how Bush avidly read Crichton's "State of Fear," a best-selling novel about global warming hysteria, then met for an hour last year with Crichton at the behest of Karl Rove. The encounter was kept secret, according to Barnes, so as not to enrage environmentalists.
"This shows the president is more interested in science fiction than science," quipped Clear Air Watch's Frank O'Donnell to The New York Times after hearing about the meeting.
In fact, Crichton's fiction over more than 35 years has been based on better research than a lot of today's politicized, government-funded "scientists." Armed with an M.D. from Harvard Medical School, Crichton is no hack. We saw this last fall, when he appeared before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.
"I come from medicine, where the gold standard is the randomized double-blind study, which has been the paradigm of medical research since the 1940s," he told senators. "For a person with a medical background, accustomed to this degree of rigor in research, the protocols of climate science appear considerably more relaxed."
Crichton recounted the debunking of University of Massachusetts geoscientist Michael Mann's "hockey-stick graph" embraced in 2001 by the U.N., in which recent temperature increases seemed to be unprecedented for the last thousand years.
Mann failed to record the Medieval Warm Period or the Little Ice Age of the 16th century. "But real fireworks began when two Canadian researchers, McIntyre and McKitrick, attempted to replicate Mann's study," Crichton pointed out.
"They found grave errors in the work . . . calculation errors, data used twice, data filled in and a computer program that generated a hockey stick out of any data fed to it - even random data." And Mann's mistakes were caught not by fellow climate scientists, but by an economist and a mathematician.
In a 2003 address to the California Institute of Technology, Crichton called the repeated declarations of a consensus existing among scientists about global warming disturbing - and, in the end, unscientific.
"Let's be clear," he said. "The work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. . The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus."
One of Crichton's examples was Ignaz Semmelweiss, a Hungarian physician who in 1849 proved that puerperal fever could be eliminated through sanitary techniques - and was dismissed from his post as thanks.
As Crichton said: "The consensus took 125 years to arrive at the right conclusion. . The examples can be multiplied endlessly: Jenner and smallpox, Pasteur and germ theory, saccharine, margarine, repressed memory, fiber and colon cancer, hormone replacement therapy." Consensus, he said, " is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough."
He bemoaned "individual investigative teams vying for funding from organizations which all too often have a clear stake in the outcome of the research - or appear to, which may be just as bad. This is not healthy for science." And he called for double-blinded research to be expanded in scientific research.
Michael Crichton may make his living writing popular fiction, but he's shown wisdom and integrity regarding the facts that question global warming, facts unpopular with scientific researchers living off the government dime.
That's exactly the kind of critical perspective that makes for someone with whom a president should be keeping company.
I like and appreciate your responses. I think the criticism of these GW articles are not against scientists in general but against the junk science writers who spew this stuff. One recent article countering the posted article stated the Antartic ice over the landmass was getting thicker but there was a reduction in sea ice as in the Ross Iceshelf which perodically breaks off large chunks seasonally. Also, the shelf breaks periodically as it gets too big and ocean currents and water temperature effect it. I always questioned how a 2 or 3 degree increase in Earth's temperature would effect Antartica; instead of 22 degrees below zero it could rise to 20 degrees below. Major thawing at 20 below?? Please correct my number here, but isn't approximately 60 to 70% of the Earth's ice in the Antartic ice fields. Another observation. The Pacific coral islands that will be "inundated by catastrophic flooding" as noted in some of these scare articles, fails to mention that coral islands are formed UNDER the ocean which is where the were at one time before the ocean levels lowered or the islands were raised by some geological event. Maybe the islands are just returning to their humble beginnings. Besides, wouldn't these enviro-zealots want to keep evil people off the fragile coral islands! A good flood could get them moving so the US taxpayer doesn't pay to have them relocated to California. Keep the real science coming, CodeToad. Any references to articles or publications would be appreciated, we all need the factual ammunition to educate the junk science followers.
"Major thawing at 20 below??"
Excellent observation. The sun can melt ice in atmospheric conditions below freezing temperatures but you are right that -22F versus -20F isn't going to make that difference. Water temperatures that vary 2 degrees would be a huge difference as the energy to make that change would melt plenty more ice.
""The work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics."
Exactly. Unfortunately, scientists live off of free money and must appease their givers. This time the givers want to hear about global warming.
Thanks for the link! I was 'deeply concerned' (as Demonrats like to say) about a 'scientific' report based on measuring the gravitational field of a continent to weigh it's mass. Great potential for error as usual in these enviro-whacko articles used to create fear and subsequently funding for their biased conclusions.
From the article: "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."
Not all the ice referred to in this article is on land. I'm surprised they didn't omit the mention of 'floating shelves of ice'. Floating ice that melts does not increase sea levels. This article is just more selective GW journalism with an agenda.
The 'story' was pretty lame. Interestingly enough with the lightning creation, that is something that can be done and researchers do regularly in Tampa, FL (I think that is the 'lightning capital' of the US).
Cherry picking data holds true for the libs though too, particularly with the global warming scare and Kyoto.
The ending chapter and the suggestions to have a research body to control environmental issues is rather lame too.
Read the profile for FReeper carrie_okie, he wrote a book regarding environmental legislation that is supposed to be pretty good. Its still on my 'to read' list.
Alright, so ice has melted and the sea has risen.
BY HOW MUCH HAS IT RISEN?
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.