Posted on 09/07/2010 10:00:37 AM PDT by Arkancide
Estimates of the rate of ice loss from Greenland and West Antarctica, one of the most worrying questions in the global warming debate, should be halved, according to Dutch and US scientists.
In the last two years, several teams have estimated Greenland is shedding roughly 230 gigatonnes of ice, or 230 billion tonnes, per year and West Antarctica around 132 gigatonnes annually.
Together, that would account for more than half of the annual three-millimetre (0.2 inch) yearly rise in sea levels, a pace that compares dramatically with 1.8mm (0.07 inches) annually in the early 1960s.
But, according to the new study, published in the September issue of the journal Nature Geoscience, the ice estimates fail to correct for a phenomenon known as glacial isostatic adjustment.
This is the term for the rebounding of Earth's crust following the last Ice Age.
Glaciers that were kilometers (miles) thick smothered Antarctica and most of the northern hemisphere for tens of thousands of years, compressing the elastic crust beneath it with their titanic weight.
When the glaciers started to retreat around 20,000 years ago, the crust started to rebound, and is still doing so.
(Excerpt) Read more at physorg.com ...
An aerial view of the Ice glacier of Ilulissat, Greenland in 2009. Estimates of the rate of ice loss from Greenland and West Antarctica, one of the most worrying questions in the global warming debate, should be halved, according to Dutch and US scientists. (AFP/File/Slim Allagui)
“Because of differences in the density and temperature of ice and sea water, the net effect is to increase sea level by 2.6% of this volume, equivalent to 49 micrometers per year spread across the global oceans.”
http://www.leeds.ac.uk/news/article/793/melting_icebergs_causing_sea_level_rise
“Because of differences in the density and temperature of ice and sea water, the net effect is to increase sea level by 2.6% of this volume, equivalent to 49 micrometers per year spread across the global oceans.”
http://www.leeds.ac.uk/news/article/793/melting_icebergs_causing_sea_level_rise
You forget that in “worldview wars”,
facts don’t prove a thing.
I heard the herd @ CRU was spankin their goat with it, and it got mad and trotted off with the adjuster still attached and dragging behind. It's been spotted by the OneWorldLeague, (O.W.L.) but no one could find a CRU, so what do they do?.
Oops.
Even assuming there is no flaw in their data or reasoning, that's half a millimeter. Somehow I don't think that will make much of a difference in my life (or a polar bear's life for that matter), unless leftists are able to use it as an excuse to destroy capitalism.
Hey, that's like saying that Harry Potter never flew a dragon!
Thanks
Estimates of the rate of ice loss from Greenland and West Antarctica, one of the most worrying questions in the global warming debate, should be halved, according to Dutch and US scientists.The snowfall estimates in Antarctica that prevailed prior to very much on the spot research were far too high; funny how newly discovered facts (such as the ozone hole, which is obviously primordial) gets grossly (probably intentionally) misinterpreted in order to grind a political axe. The axe continues to be ground, because it's the grinding that's important to the people doing the grinding.
 |
||
| · join · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post new topic · subscribe · | ||
Global Warming on Free Republic
They don't believe it. It is all part of their plan to grab power by destroying the working/investor class and creating a dependent class. They want to control EVERY aspect of your life.
I was recently asked to give a presentation relating to climate change. I've never disputed that the climate is changing -- climate, by definition, is dynamic, and the planet has (thankfully) been warming ever since the end of the Little Ice Age. However, most of the arguments for public consumption that I've heard from the anthropogenic global warming alarmists have been patently fallacious. Many of their advocates have been talking the talk but not walking the walk. Multiple key scientific contributions to alarmist theory have been generated fraudulently. So-called alarmist climate scientists have attempted to stifle scientific debate in journals and meetings, and policy advocates appear to fear any open debate of the subject. The alarmists never point out the benefits that could be realized from global warming. And, proposed policy solutions are not tailored to solving any problem, but rather are tailored to grow a government that is already too big to succeed. With all this nonsense it was easy for me to dismiss the alarmists.
My recent review of the literature and discussions with local climate scientists have led me to modify my opinion. I'm still not an alarmist in any way, but I realize I fell prey, to some extent, to the fallacist's fallacy -- i.e., I dismissed many or most of the alarmists' arguments because so often they were presented fallaciously. However, just because someone presents a fallacious argument, one in which the reasoning is unsound because it is logically invalid, doesn't mean the fallacious argument's conclusions are not true.
There's little doubt that atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations have steadily increased since the onset of the Industrial Age, and that man's output of carbon dioxide has increased over this time. While increasing temperatures can release more carbon dioxide from the oceans, thus, contributing to the increases in carbon dioxide that are being seen in the atmosphere, increased anthropogenic emissions can also increase the levels, and those increased levels can contribute to an increase in the atmospheric greenhouse effect.
Where I stand now is acknowledging that at least some anthropogenic enrichment of atmospheric carbon dioxide is occurring, and that enrichment of a greenhouse gas has the potential of increasing global temperatures. How much of an increase, and whether the increase is significant or not, however, are still matters for debate in my mind. Also, the spokesmen for anthropogenic global warming need to be scrapped -- they have no credibility. A credible climate scientist who is apolitical and has some decent communications skills should be sought for that role.
“Rumors of our demise have been greatly exaggerated.”
—The Icecaps
/bingo
Rebound might be helpful for northern areas of Europe and America, but I can’t see it doing much for India or South East Asia.
As the air gets warmer, more snow falls, glaciers get bigger, does it all even out in the end?
That's about where I've stood for over 10 years. What I've refined since then is my appreciation of weather which controls climate. The typical Trenberth diagram showing annual net energy flows including back radiation from GHGs is basically useless since changes in water vapor on an hour by hour basis change the numbers. Not to mention seasons, diurnal, cyclical, etc. Anyone saying that backradiation will increase by X with "water vapor feedback" deserves a big "yeah right".
The most important thing to remember is that while the energy exchanged between earth and space (solar in, heat out) is in equilibrium over the long run (which means that increases in GHG cause warming), that energy flow equilibrium means jack for water vapor. Water vapor will always concentrate unevenly and cause more warming here and less there. Without knowing that distribution (i.e. the unevennes of WV), there is no way to estimate the sensitivity. It is completely incorrect to use the energy flow equilibrium to postulate constant RH.
I guess I should mention models: GIGO. They don't depict convection in enough detail to know what latent heat is transfered to the upper atmosphere and what the all-important distribution of water vapor is. Find me a model that does this: http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sfc_con_dewp.html accurately. Or even more importantly, this: http://www.ssec.wisc.edu/data/east/latest_eastwv.jpg
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.
