ELEPHANT SEAL
Posted on 12/20/2006 11:43:29 AM PST by neverdem
Elephant Seals? Obviously Republican Seals and thus can be totally ignored..........
"harpooned by giant Elephant Seals"
Ah-ha! Revenge of the Elephant Seals! The harpoons and the tables they were on are turned.
Al Gore lies - People Die
We show that southern elephant seal (Mirounga leonina) colonies existed proximate to the Ross Ice Shelf during the Holocene, well south of their core sub-Antarctic breeding and molting grounds. We propose that this was due to warming (including a previously unrecognized period from 1,100 to 2,300 14C yr B.P.) that decreased coastal sea ice and allowed penetration of warmer-than-present climate conditions into the Ross Embayment. If, as proposed in the literature, the ice shelf survived this period, it would have been exposed to environments substantially warmer than present.
You can get the crux of what the science shows but its like pulling teeth! Probably would have been clearer if the scientist, Brenda Hall, had written her own article.
Has anyone explained to AlGore what an ice age is, and how the advent of homo sapien HASN'T changed the earth's climate-the ice ages will continue to come and go.
ELEPHANT SEAL
btt
That wouldn't matter. Ice flows under sufficient pressure -- more precipitation in Antarctica would simply push the ice sheets out to sea a bit faster, thus keeping the total size of the ice cap more or less constant.
Wait just one minute!!!!
Are you suggesting that Global Warming is not man made? You are using "fuzzy science" to suggest that Al Gore's book is science fiction.
BTW - In some circles Al Gore is credited with inventing the internet. I think it is only appropriate that we also credit him with inventing Global Climate Catastrophe.
It's not floating (on water), it's a continent. I understand the displacement effect but it does not apply to Antarctica in general.
[Has anyone explained to AlGore what an ice age is, and how the advent of homo sapien HASN'T changed the earth's climate-the ice ages will continue to come and go.]
Good luck. You will have to start by explaining to him what ICE is.
Explain to Algore what ICE is? Algore INVENTED ice.
That would be Boyle's Law that you are alluding to.
That's a different issue. The one I'm talking about is why all the water on Earth doesn't slowly accumulate into the ice caps -- when the ice gets thick enough, it flows out to sea, drifts into warmer regions, and melts.
Better yet, next time ask a Moonbat why the Sun is yellow. They usally answer that it's irrelevent. No, it's not. The Sun is yellow because it is burning Hydrogen. When it has exhausted its Hydrogen fuel it will start to burn Helium. This is when a star becomes a Red Giant. All the Inner Planets will go whoosh.
Similar concept.
Somebody call Drudge!
The stuff his former boss recommended putting on it?
Then we went on to Charles' Law and I couldn't take the heat.
Garde la Foi, mes amis! Nous nous sommes les sauveurs de la République! Maintenant et Toujours!
(Keep the Faith, my friends! We are the saviors of the Republic! Now and Forever!)
LonePalm, le Républicain du verre cassé (The Broken Glass Republican)
The relevant dynamics are:
1. Precipitation falls on the ice cap at a certain rate and freezes (if it wasn't frozen already). This increases the size of the ice cap.
2. When the ice cap gets thick enough to flow under pressure, parts of it get pushed out to sea, break off as icebergs, drift out into the ocean, and melt when they reach warmer regions. This decreases the size of the ice cap.
In the long term, these two processes balance out in equilibrium. If (for example) precipitation increases, the ice cap will thicken, build up more pressure, and flow faster, thus increasing the rate of iceberg formation and re-balancing the equilibrium.
Soon real estate in Greenland will become very attractive.
Bookmarked
Everyone would get one's own penguin.
So? It's not as if Earth were one of the major planets.
I was getting into Snell's Law, but I think he was a little crooked.
Interesting article.
I think, based on a lot of what I've read, that the main concern is Greenland, not Antarctica. I'd like to see Michaels provide some support for his opening statement.
I think you're forgetting Cole's Law.
Garde la Foi, mes amis! Nous nous sommes les sauveurs de la République! Maintenant et Toujours!
(Keep the Faith, my friends! We are the saviors of the Republic! Now and Forever!)
LonePalm, le Républicain du verre cassé (The Broken Glass Republican)
There's something fishy about Sturgeon's law, too.
And didn't Isaac Asimov propose Three Laws of Rebootics?
(By the way, I think Bode's Law has been repealed.)
I used to play golf at Drumlins, a course in central NY. The Drumlins were little hills left when a glacier shoved rocks, gravel and sand in front of it, and then left the pile when it melted.
Ice ages are really bad, and a little warmth that prevents one is a easy thing to tolerate. There is a stable climate: the iceball, where the earth is covered by snow and ice, there is no carbon dioxide, and most sunlight is reflected back into space.
Realism, Iraq, and the Bush Doctrine - Some clarification is desperately needed.
“Saddam's Iraq and Islamic Terrorism: What We Now Know”
From time to time, I’ll ping on noteworthy articles about politics, foreign and military affairs. FReepmail me if you want on or off my list.
"It's not floating (on water), it's a continent. I understand the displacement effect but it does not apply to Antarctica in general."
I'd like to see what it looks like without the ice. I wonder if the ice was gone there would be some kind of rebound effect in the crust and it would rise?
Interesting, it probably would rise a little.
Thanks for the ping!
Yes it would balance, but the ice cap would be thicker than before the snowfall rate increased. If it wasn't thicker, it couldn't produce the higher flow rate that balances the higher snowfall rate.
The article link you provided does not address the substance of my comment. In terms of the next 100-200 years, the main concern of catastrophic climate change with respect to major sea level change is the melting of the Greenland ice sheet. Continental Antarctica is considered to be somewhat (though not entirely) insulated from rising global temperatures. The "exposed" Antarctic Peninsula, however, is not.
Did manmade phenomena cause the place to be named Greenland? There are multiple arguments with physical evidence supporting the arguments to believe that the warming that is occuring is just a natural phenomena, not anthropogenic. And while increased atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations sounds like a plausible reason for increased temperature, the historical record from geological investigations show that the increased carbon dioxide concentrations occred after periods of warmer temperature, not before. Do you need more links?
"n 960, Thorvald Asvaldsson of Jaederen in Norway killed a man. He was forced to leave the country so he moved to northern Iceland. He had a ten year old son named Eric, later to be called Eric Rohde, or Eric the Red. Eric too had a violent streak and in 982 he killed two men. Eric the Red was banished from Iceland for three years so he sailed west to find a land that Icelanders had discovered years before but knew little about. Eric searched the coast of this land and found the most hospitable area, a deep fiord on the southwestern coast. Warmer Atlantic currents met the island there and conditions were not much different than those in Iceland (trees and grasses.) He called this new land "Greenland" because he "believed more people would go thither if the country had a beautiful name," according to one of the Icelandic chronicles (Hermann, 1954) although Greenland, as a whole, could not be considered "green." Additionally, the land was not very good for farming.
There are multiple arguments with physical evidence supporting the arguments to believe that the warming that is occuring is just a natural phenomena, not anthropogenic.
Any of these arguments is flawed in some manner. What's your favorite?
And while increased atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations sounds like a plausible reason for increased temperature, the historical record from geological investigations show that the increased carbon dioxide concentrations occred after periods of warmer temperature, not before. Do you need more links?
I am totally and repetitively familiar with this flawed argument, and I've got all the links I need. Such as this one:
What does the lag of CO2 behind temperature in ice cores tell us about global warming?
"A close examination of the CH4, CO2 and temperature fuctuations recorded in the Antarctic ice core records does in fact reveal that yes, the temperature moved first in what is, when viewed coarsely, a very tight correlation. But what it is not correct, is to say the temperature rose and then 800 years later the CO2 rose. These warming periods lasted for 5000 to 10000 years (the coolings lasted ~100kyrs) so for the majority of that time (~90%) temperature and CO2 rose together. This means that this wonderful archive of climatological evidence clearly allows for CO2 acting as a cause while also revealing it can be an effect."
"The current understanding of those cycles is that changes in orbital parameters (Milankovich and other cycles) caused greater amounts of summer sunlight in the northern hemisphere. This is a very small forcing. But it caused ice to retreat in the north which changed the albedo increasing the warmth in a feedback effect. Some ~800 years after this process started, CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere began to rise and this also amplified the warming."
Next?
That's your opinion.
What's your favorite?
Take your pick.
The truth about global warming - it's the Sun that's to blame
Global Warming on Pluto Puzzles Scientists
THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE OF EARTH'S UNSTOPPABLE 1,500-YEAR CLIMATE CYCLE
In Ancient Fossils, Seeds of a New Debate on Warming
Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels for the last 500 million years
Evidence for decoupling of atmospheric CO2 and global climate during the Phanerozoic eon
Evolution of the Sun's large-scale magnetic field since the Maunder minimum.
As physicist Edward Teller reminded us: "Highly speculative theories of worldwide destruction—even of the end of life on Earth—used as a call for a particular kind of political action serve neither the good reputation of science nor dispassionate political thought."
The debate reminds me about the former medical truism that ulcers are mainly caused by stress and spicy foods. A recent winner of the Nobel for Medicine proved that the major cause, 80 - 90 perent, for gastrointestinal ulcers is Helicobacter Pylori. I'm sure I could have found more links to illustrate other variables we don't understand. Proponents of anthropogenic global warming would be wise to heed the advice of Dr. Teller, IMHO.
What hat did you pull that out of? I am looking at a few Charts none are even close to 90%.
I was going to say about why it was called Greenland, but Codge beat me to it...
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.