ICE is expanding in much of Antarctica, contrary to the widespread public belief that global warming is melting the continental ice cap.
The results of ice-core drilling and sea ice monitoring indicate there is no large-scale melting of ice over most of Antarctica, although experts are concerned at ice losses on the continent's western coast.
Antarctica has 90 per cent of the Earth's ice and 80 per cent of its fresh water, The Australian reports. Extensive melting of Antarctic ice sheets would be required to raise sea levels substantially, and ice is melting in parts of west Antarctica. The destabilisation of the Wilkins ice shelf generated international headlines this month.
However, the picture is very different in east Antarctica, which includes the territory claimed by Australia.
East Antarctica is four times the size of west Antarctica and parts of it are cooling. The Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research report prepared for last week's meeting of Antarctic Treaty nations in Washington noted the South Pole had shown "significant cooling in recent decades".
Australian Antarctic Division glaciology program head Ian Allison said sea ice losses in west Antarctica over the past 30 years had been more than offset by increases in the Ross Sea region, just one sector of east Antarctica.
"Sea ice conditions have remained stable in Antarctica generally," Dr Allison said.
The melting of sea ice - fast ice and pack ice - does not cause sea levels to rise because the ice is in the water. Sea levels may rise with losses from freshwater ice sheets on the polar caps. In Antarctica, these losses are in the form of icebergs calved from ice shelves formed by glacial movements on the mainland.
Last week, federal Environment Minister Peter Garrett said experts predicted sea level rises of up to 6m from Antarctic melting by 2100, but the worst case scenario foreshadowed by the SCAR report was a 1.25m rise.
Mr Garrett insisted global warming was causing ice losses throughout Antarctica. "I don't think there's any doubt it is contributing to what we've seen both on the Wilkins shelf and more generally in Antarctica," he said.
Dr Allison said there was not any evidence of significant change in the mass of ice shelves in east Antarctica nor any indication that its ice cap was melting. "The only significant calvings in Antarctica have been in the west," he said. And he cautioned that calvings of the magnitude seen recently in west Antarctica might not be unusual.
"Ice shelves in general have episodic carvings and there can be large icebergs breaking off - I'm talking 100km or 200km long - every 10 or 20 or 50 years."
Ice core drilling in the fast ice off Australia's Davis Station in East Antarctica by the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Co-Operative Research Centre shows that last year, the ice had a maximum thickness of 1.89m, its densest in 10 years. The average thickness of the ice at Davis since the 1950s is 1.67m.
A paper to be published soon by the British Antarctic Survey in the journal Geophysical Research Letters is expected to confirm that over the past 30 years, the area of sea ice around the continent has expanded.
john9blue wrote:Yeah, and the rise in temperatures is just... umm... a fluke.
One of the main arguments we hear is that the Antarctic is melting and will raise the levels of the oceans. What this article, and the upcoming report, points out is that while the Western area is melting, the Eastern area is gaining ice, even at a faster rate than ice is melting.
Night Strike wrote:One of the main arguments we hear is that the Antarctic is melting and will raise the levels of the oceans. What this article, and the upcoming report, points out is that while the Western area is melting, the Eastern area is gaining ice, even at a faster rate than ice is melting.
I suppose. There are other pieces of evidence that have to be dealt with before you can dismiss global warming altogether, though.
natty_dread wrote:Do ponies have sex?
Army of GOD wrote:the term heterosexual is offensive. I prefer to be called "normal"
john9blue wrote:Yeah, and the rise in temperatures is just... umm... a fluke.
One of the main arguments we hear is that the Antarctic is melting and will raise the levels of the oceans. What this article, and the upcoming report, points out is that while the Western area is melting, the Eastern area is gaining ice, even at a faster rate than ice is melting.
Truth is nobody can really say for sure what will happen. What we know is that the climate is changing (and that we're burning away the ozone layer); we're fairly certain that's because of greenhouse gas emissions.
Even if the sea level doesn't rise significantly, it's in our best interest to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
john9blue wrote:Yeah, and the rise in temperatures is just... umm... a fluke.
One of the main arguments we hear is that the Antarctic is melting and will raise the levels of the oceans. What this article, and the upcoming report, points out is that while the Western area is melting, the Eastern area is gaining ice, even at a faster rate than ice is melting.
No, this is largely a case of "deceiving with the truth".... sort of like when McDonald's put out its nutritional information for a short while and claimed it showed "healthy eating".
Part of the Antarctic may be growing, but significant portions of it are melting. Further, the Polar Ice Cap in the north IS melting. Penguins, Polar bears, some seals, etc are being threatened by these changes. This is no way, shape or form any kind of proof that Global warming isn't happening. (or "weirding, more accurately because not every place will be warmer)
The article is wrong on one major point. The north pole floats. Much of the south pole is on land. Also, its not just the poles where the ice will melt. As to whether the sea will rise.. it already is in some places.
john9blue wrote:Yeah, and the rise in temperatures is just... umm... a fluke.
One of the main arguments we hear is that the Antarctic is melting and will raise the levels of the oceans. What this article, and the upcoming report, points out is that while the Western area is melting, the Eastern area is gaining ice, even at a faster rate than ice is melting.
No, this is largely a case of "deceiving with the truth".... sort of like when McDonald's put out its nutritional information for a short while and claimed it showed "healthy eating".
Part of the Antarctic may be growing, but significant portions of it are melting. Further, the Polar Ice Cap in the north IS melting. Penguins, Polar bears, some seals, etc are being threatened by these changes. This is no way, shape or form any kind of proof that Global warming isn't happening. (or "weirding, more accurately because not every place will be warmer)
The article is wrong on one major point. The north pole floats. Much of the south pole is on land. Also, its not just the poles where the ice will melt. As to whether the sea will rise.. it already is in some places.
Where is it that the ice will melt... Oh, and what is it that caused global warming again... I forget... carbon something?
Greenhouse gas emissions. Simplistic explanation is that carbon dioxide (I think that's the gas) is emitted by polluting factories, cars, etc, which get trapped in the atmosphere and burn away the ozone layer at the poles. Since the ozone layer protects us from UV rays, the ice caps are exposed to more sunlight, and thus melt, causing sea levels to rise.
Again, very simplistic explanation, but that's basically it (as I understand it anyway).
InkL0sed wrote:Greenhouse gas emissions. Simplistic explanation is that carbon dioxide (I think that's the gas) is emitted by polluting factories, cars, etc, which get trapped in the atmosphere and burn away the ozone layer at the poles. Since the ozone layer protects us from UV rays, the ice caps are exposed to more sunlight, and thus melt, causing sea levels to rise.
Again, very simplistic explanation, but that's basically it (as I understand it anyway).
Co2? That stuff that plants absorb and change into oxygen? seriously?
InkL0sed wrote:Greenhouse gas emissions. Simplistic explanation is that carbon dioxide (I think that's the gas) is emitted by polluting factories, cars, etc, which get trapped in the atmosphere and burn away the ozone layer at the poles. Since the ozone layer protects us from UV rays, the ice caps are exposed to more sunlight, and thus melt, causing sea levels to rise.
Again, very simplistic explanation, but that's basically it (as I understand it anyway).
Co2? That stuff that plants absorb and change into oxygen? seriously?
Ya, we cut down all the trees and burned a lot of trapped hydrocarbons, so now we have an excess of CO2 in our atmosphere.
In heaven... Everything is fine, in heaven... Everything is fine, in heaven... Everything is fine... You got your things, and I've got mine.
InkL0sed wrote:Greenhouse gas emissions. Simplistic explanation is that carbon dioxide (I think that's the gas) is emitted by polluting factories, cars, etc, which get trapped in the atmosphere and burn away the ozone layer at the poles. Since the ozone layer protects us from UV rays, the ice caps are exposed to more sunlight, and thus melt, causing sea levels to rise.
Again, very simplistic explanation, but that's basically it (as I understand it anyway).
Co2? That stuff that plants absorb and change into oxygen? seriously?
Ya, we cut down all the trees and burned a lot of trapped hydrocarbons, so now we have an excess of CO2 in our atmosphere.
That's funny... I have 2 trees in my back yard. Oh! and one in the front. But what about the rest of the vegetation in the world? hmmm... I think that something may be fishy about the global warming thing... either the carbon dioxide argument needs further explaining, or... maybe... Its a LIE!
InkL0sed wrote:Greenhouse gas emissions. Simplistic explanation is that carbon dioxide (I think that's the gas) is emitted by polluting factories, cars, etc, which get trapped in the atmosphere and burn away the ozone layer at the poles. Since the ozone layer protects us from UV rays, the ice caps are exposed to more sunlight, and thus melt, causing sea levels to rise.
Again, very simplistic explanation, but that's basically it (as I understand it anyway).
Co2? That stuff that plants absorb and change into oxygen? seriously?
Ya, we cut down all the trees and burned a lot of trapped hydrocarbons, so now we have an excess of CO2 in our atmosphere.
That's funny... I have 2 trees in my back yard. Oh! and one in the front. But what about the rest of the vegetation in the world? hmmm... I think that something may be fishy about the global warming thing... either the carbon dioxide argument needs further explaining, or... maybe... Its a LIE!
no... well, actually, yes... because that, becomes this:
Usually... but I was referring to the billions of other acres around the globe that actually do have vegetation. Not to say that I don't think that slash and burn isn't wrong... but the earth is not hurting for vegetation, not yet.
InkL0sed wrote:Greenhouse gas emissions. Simplistic explanation is that carbon dioxide (I think that's the gas) is emitted by polluting factories, cars, etc, which get trapped in the atmosphere and burn away the ozone layer at the poles. Since the ozone layer protects us from UV rays, the ice caps are exposed to more sunlight, and thus melt, causing sea levels to rise.
Again, very simplistic explanation, but that's basically it (as I understand it anyway).
Co2? That stuff that plants absorb and change into oxygen? seriously?
Ya, we cut down all the trees and burned a lot of trapped hydrocarbons, so now we have an excess of CO2 in our atmosphere.
That's funny... I have 2 trees in my back yard. Oh! and one in the front. But what about the rest of the vegetation in the world? hmmm... I think that something may be fishy about the global warming thing... either the carbon dioxide argument needs further explaining, or... maybe... Its a LIE!
You don't think that simultaneously releasing massive amounts of CO2 from combustion in factories and power-plants wolrdwide (not to mention cars, and other sources that are "new: to the industrial age), while clear-cutting huge expanses of rain forest, and old-growth forest (which help turn CO2 back into O2) , would affect the atmosphere's make-up?
InkL0sed wrote:Greenhouse gas emissions. Simplistic explanation is that carbon dioxide (I think that's the gas) is emitted by polluting factories, cars, etc, which get trapped in the atmosphere and burn away the ozone layer at the poles. Since the ozone layer protects us from UV rays, the ice caps are exposed to more sunlight, and thus melt, causing sea levels to rise.
Again, very simplistic explanation, but that's basically it (as I understand it anyway).
Co2? That stuff that plants absorb and change into oxygen? seriously?
Ya, we cut down all the trees and burned a lot of trapped hydrocarbons, so now we have an excess of CO2 in our atmosphere.
That's funny... I have 2 trees in my back yard. Oh! and one in the front. But what about the rest of the vegetation in the world? hmmm... I think that something may be fishy about the global warming thing... either the carbon dioxide argument needs further explaining, or... maybe... Its a LIE!
You don't think that simultaneously releasing massive amounts of CO2 from combustion in factories and power-plants wolrdwide (not to mention cars, and other sources that are "new: to the industrial age), while clear-cutting huge expanses of rain forest, and old-growth forest (which help turn CO2 back into O2) , would affect the atmosphere's make-up?
I am not convinced that global warming, (oh, sorry, its been changed to Climate Change... Sorry Word Police... I forgot you all changed it... Please forgive me) is the result of "greenhouse gasses." It has been reported by the beloved science community that Mars and several other of our planets are also warming... and now, we find out that some parts of the earth are actually cooling? Yeah, I'm not convinced... especially when there have been documents about the Club of Rome (www.clubofrome.com) actually releasing statements on the order of inventing scare tactics such as global calamity to curb pollution. Basically, if the truth doesn't stop people from pollution, then its okay to make up some big fucking lie to scare them to death. Who cares, they will believe it anyway, since they are mostly medicated out of their skulls.
captain.crazy wrote:no... well, actually, yes... because that, becomes this:
Usually... but I was referring to the billions of other acres around the globe that actually do have vegetation. Not to say that I don't think that slash and burn isn't wrong... but the earth is not hurting for vegetation, not yet.
It's not that it's hurting for vegetation, but it has less. That alone means more carbon dioxide in the air, which throws the equilibrium off balance.
And no, it's not made up for by farms of these puny plants. That land probably had vegetation to begin with, and doesn't even come near the amount of deforestation (and just think of the relative size of those trees) that's going on in the Amazon alone.
And then, of course, there's about a century and a half of pollution.
We are currently emitting more CO2 than ever in the history of humans, correct? We are also clear cutting land at a rate never before seen. How can you attempt to deny that the composition of the atmosphere will be altered by this combination of events? Or am I misunderstanding you, and you're saying that the increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere are not going to cause any change to our environment?
InkL0sed wrote:Greenhouse gas emissions. Simplistic explanation is that carbon dioxide (I think that's the gas) is emitted by polluting factories, cars, etc, which get trapped in the atmosphere and burn away the ozone layer at the poles. Since the ozone layer protects us from UV rays, the ice caps are exposed to more sunlight, and thus melt, causing sea levels to rise.
Again, very simplistic explanation, but that's basically it (as I understand it anyway).
Co2? That stuff that plants absorb and change into oxygen? seriously?
Ya, we cut down all the trees and burned a lot of trapped hydrocarbons, so now we have an excess of CO2 in our atmosphere.
That's funny... I have 2 trees in my back yard. Oh! and one in the front. But what about the rest of the vegetation in the world? hmmm... I think that something may be fishy about the global warming thing... either the carbon dioxide argument needs further explaining, or... maybe... Its a LIE!
wow i sure would be worried about your vicious deconstruction of 60 years of rigorous research by the global scientific community but I happen to own a magical amulet that protects me against arguments from incredulity
SultanOfSurreal wrote:wow i sure would be worried about your vicious deconstruction of 60 years of rigorous research by the global scientific community but I happen to own a magical amulet that protects me against arguments from incredulity
I'm jealous. Where did you get one of those?
natty_dread wrote:Do ponies have sex?
Army of GOD wrote:the term heterosexual is offensive. I prefer to be called "normal"
CO2 is not the only grenhouse gas that's being emitted.
saxitoxin wrote:Your position is more complex than the federal tax code. As soon as I think I understand it, I find another index of cross-references, exceptions and amendments I have to apply.
Timminz wrote:Yo mama is so classless, she could be a Marxist utopia.
