Community | December 04, 2010 | 245 comments

The Warming of Antarctica: A Citadel of Ice Begins to Melt

source: http://e360.yale.edu/feature/the_warming_of_antarctica_a_citadel_of_ice_begins_to_melt_/2342/

Image
JanforGore
The fringes of the coldest continent are starting to feel the heat, with the northern Antarctic Peninsula warming faster than virtually any place on Earth. These rapidly rising temperatures represent the first breach in the enormous frozen dome that holds 90 percent of the world’s ice.
by fen montaigne

In 1978, when few researchers were paying attention to global warming, a prominent geologist at Ohio State University was already focused on the prospect of fossil fuel emissions trapping heat in the Earth’s atmosphere. His name was John H. Mercer, and when he contemplated what might be in store for the planet, his thoughts naturally gravitated to the biggest chunk of ice on Earth — Antarctica.

“If present trends in fossil fuel consumption continue...” he wrote in Nature, “a critical level of warmth will have been passed in high southern latitudes 50 years from now, and deglaciation of West Antarctica will be imminent or in progress... One of the warning signs that a dangerous warming trend is under way in Antarctica will be the breakup of ice shelves on both coasts of the Antarctic Peninsula, starting with the northernmost and extending gradually southward.”

Mercer’s prediction has come true, and a couple of decades before he anticipated. Since he wrote those words, eight ice shelves have fully or partially collapsed along the Antarctic Peninsula, and the northwestern Antarctic Peninsula has warmed faster than virtually any place on Earth.

The question as humanity pours greenhouse gases into the atmosphere at an accelerating rate, is not whether Antarctica will begin to warm in earnest, but how rapidly. The melting of Antarctica’s northernmost region — the Antarctic Peninsula — is already well underway, representing the first breach in an enormous citadel of cold that holds 90 percent of the world’s ice.

Much attention has rightly been paid to the precipitous warming of the Arctic, where Arctic Ocean ice is rapidly shrinking and thinning, Greenland’s large ice sheets are steadily melting, and permafrost is thawing from Alaska, to Scandinavia, to Siberia.

But none of the earth’s ice zones, or cryosphere, can compare with Antarctica, which is 1 ½ times the size of the United States — including Alaska — and is almost entirely covered in ice, in places to a depth of three miles. The Antarctic accumulated this unfathomable volume of ice because it is a continent surrounded by ocean — the Southern Ocean — which acts like a great, insulating moat around the South Pole. The Arctic, by contrast, is an ocean surrounded by continents, whose landmasses moderate the polar climate.

How cold is the Antarctic? How about -128.6 degrees F cold, which is the lowest temperature ever recorded on Earth, as measured at the Soviet Antarctic base, Vostok, on July 21, 1983. The polar plateau, where legendary explorers such as Robert Falcon Scott perished, routinely records temperatures of -70 or -80 degrees F in winter. So it will be quite some time before the heart of Antarctica’s vast ice dome begins to melt.

The periphery, however, is another matter, and steady warming there has the potential to raise global sea levels many feet and to affect global ocean circulation.

No place on the fringes of Antarctica has warmed with the swiftness of the Antarctic Peninsula, a crooked, 900-mile finger of land that juts toward the tip of South America. A 60-year temperature record on the

‘We are going to get to a point where sea ice won’t form anymore, and that could be catastrophic.’northwestern Antarctic Peninsula, taken at a research base originally built by the British and now run by the Ukrainians, paints a stark picture: Winter temperatures have increased by 11 degrees F and annual average temperatures by 5 degrees F. Ninety percent of 244 glaciers along the western Antarctic Peninsula have retreated since 1940. Sea ice now blankets the Southern Ocean off the western Antarctic Peninsula three fewer months a year than in 1979, according to satellite data.

In addition, ice shelves — large slabs of ice that flow off the land or out of submarine basins and float atop the ocean — have been disintegrating up and down the peninsula. The most notable breakup occurred in early 2002, when several summers of warm weather heated up the surface of the Larsen B Ice Shelf, creating countless melt ponds that enabled warmer water to seep down into the ice shelf. That led in March 2002 to what’s known as a “catastrophic” break-up; the ice shelf, once the size of Connecticut, shattered in a matter of days.

“We are already at the point where the changes we’re seeing in this part of Antarctica are unprecedented throughout the entire period of human civilization,” said Ted Scambos, the lead scientist at the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colo.

The level of warming in Antarctica is far more severe than global warming of the past century, which has been about 1.4 degrees F. One major cause is that the warming of landmasses and oceans to the north has set up a sharper contrast with Antarctica’s intense cold. That has led to a strengthening of northerly winds, pulling far warmer air down from the south Pacific and south Atlantic onto the Antarctic Peninsula.

“One of the fundamental laws of thermodynamics is that heat always goes from warm to cold,” said Douglas Martinson, an oceanographer and Antarctic specialist at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory.

cont.
  1. groups:
    Community,   News and Politics,   Green,   Current Tonight,   6 more
  2. tags:
    Environment,  Earth,  Glacier Melt,  Antarctica,  4 more
  3. recommended by:
    Vierotchka
  4.     
    |

245 comments // The Warming of Antarctica: A Citadel of Ice Begins to Melt

  • Wetdog
    • +1
      Wetdog  

    • ----------" You surely don't want me to spend the next few hours explaining about measuring techniques, how atmospheric CO2 varies throughout the day, and time of year. "----------

      We run a beam of infrared light through a sample of gas. The amount of infrared light that is absorbed by the gas is directly proportional to the amount of CO2 in the sample. The more infrared that is absorbed, the more CO2 there is.

      Not so hard to do. I use it everyday to measure how much CO2 is in the exhaled gas on ventilator patients to see whether I need to give them more or less air.

      When infrared rays are absorbed, it produces heat. When you go out in the sun, you get hot---because you are absorbing infrared radiation from the sun. More CO2 in the atmosphere, more infrared radiation is absorbed, and the atmosphere gets warmer. There is no where else for the heat to go.

      That is all there is to it. The more CO2 there is in the atmosphere, the faster it warms.

    • 1 year ago
  • IceKat
  • Wetdog
  • IceKat
    • -1
      IceKat  
    • Wetdog:

      How do we measure CO2 in the atmosphere?" - Wetdog
      Take your index finger, lick it and hold it into the wind... Come on, seriously? You want me to go into all that here? Why don't you read one of the many books or websites that will tell you all you need to know.
      You surely don't want me to spend the next few hours explaining about measuring techniques, how atmospheric CO2 varies throughout the day, and time of year.
      Did you know that during the Late Ordovician Period, which was an ice age, CO2 levels were at 4400ppm? CO2 levels have been much higher than they are today, even during cold periods.
      I suspect you're not asking me to explain all about CO2 measurements because you value my input, there must be some motive behind you asking.

      Go on, have fun, do some reading, preferably from a few different sources, you might learn more than you expected.

    • 1 year ago
  • Wetdog
    • +1
      Wetdog  
    • IceKat:

      At a CO2 level of 4400 ppm = 4.4% CO2, you would have died within a few minutes if you had been around.

      Your blood pH level would have plummeted to less than 7 within a few seconds and you would have died of heart failure and asphyxiation.

      Of coarse, you would have been the only creature around, life would not move from the sea to land for another 150 million years.

      Yeah, let's go back to the good ole days.

    • 1 year ago
  • IceKat
    • -1
      IceKat  
    • Wetdog:

      "At a CO2 level of 4400 ppm = 4.4% CO2, you would have died within a few minutes if you had been around."
      Not so. You just make things up!

      On CO2, "The MNDOLI has set workplace safety standards of 10,000 ppm for an 8-hour period and 30,000 ppm for a 15 minute period. "

      You need to get around 40,000ppm to achieve death within a few minutes.
      Humans can stand hours of 5,000ppm albeit with headaches, nausea and dizziness.
      CO2 poisoning is very rare.

      You also need to get a pencil and paper out and work out what percentage 4400ppm actually is - it is not 4.4%!

    • 1 year ago
  • Wetdog
  • congoboy
  • congoboy
  • IceKat
  • IceKat
  • congoboy
    • -1
      congoboy  
    • IceKat:

      generally leftylibs prefer to ignore facts to the contrary in their attempts to push forward their progressive agenda's. if they cant get what they want with the truth then lying is thier viable option. and thus the ignorant and close minded sheeple follow.

    • 1 year ago
  • Vierotchka
    • 0
      Vierotchka  
    • IceKat:

      And what was the level of methane in the atmosphere during the Late Ordovician Period? After all, methane is over 20 times more "potent" of a greenhouse gas, and during an ice age, the vast expanses of ice and snow reflect heat back out of the atmosphere, and C02 levels at that time were far too low to counteract this effect.

    • 1 year ago
  • IceKat
    • -1
      IceKat  
    • Vierotchka:

      Maybe you could spend some time reading and then tell me what CH4 levels were during the Late Ordovician Period, it'll save me the time.
      I assume you're trying to tell me that CH4 was responsible for bringing us out of that cold period, and that CH4 is now going to cause us problems in the near future. I know, we all have to become vegetarians to save the world.

      Maybe you can explain to me why there has been no increase in atmospheric CH4 over the past ten years, except for one event a few years ago, even though man has been producing the stuff.
      Then you can tell me what caused that sudden CH4 release a few years ago, and why this didn't cause an increase in global temperatures - in fact it actually coincided with a drop in global temperatures.
      "and C02 levels at that time were far too low to counteract this effect."? Were they really?

    • 1 year ago
  • Vierotchka
  • IceKat
  • Vierotchka
  • congoboy
  • tommic
    • +1
      tommic  

    • Free Speech?? Congoboy and IceKat you two write what you want be it fact or fiction, ( mostly Fiction) without anyone deleting you rhetoric. Immature is the best adjective to describe both of you. Sources used that could never be used in a research paper or bibliography. Both of you berate the New York Times as lefty lib but its the ONLY major newspaper allowed to be used and listed in a bibliography. Jan does not nor do any of us need to delete you to show how insignificant your views are. Thats what they are views or opinions because the majority of what you both cite are opinions or views. Scientific facts coming from either of you two means that the scientist quoted is the outside 1 or 2 or 5 percent who says everyone else is wrong. Its actually too bad freedom of speech allows people to stand on a soapbox and spew lies and vitrol, hate and intolorance. An open and honest debate is impossible with people of your caliber, open and honest are words both of you use only as you see fit which is an oxymoron in your case. Better tune into your local FOX news show for more right wing propaganda masquerading as news

    • 1 year ago
  • IceKat
    • -1
      IceKat  
    • tommic:

      As a lot of my data comes from NASA, NOAA, NCDC, NSIDC, DMI and other well known organisations, why do you then state that my sources could never be used in a research paper or bibliography.
      Basically, all you're doing here is spurting a load of your opinion.

      "Its actually too bad freedom of speech allows people to stand on a soapbox and spew lies and vitrol, hate and intolorance." - tommic

      I disagree. I think everyone has the basic right to be heard, no matter what their views. I would never censor your vitriol and hate, nor that of the other posters here who constantly attack the person rather than the message. But we all know that you have lost the argument already, and that is the reason why JanforGore sees fit to censor messages that she does not agree with. What sort of person does that?

    • 1 year ago
  • Vierotchka
  • IceKat
    • -1
      IceKat  
    • Vierotchka:

      I only "pooh pooh" the results that people cherry-pick from those sources to make up flawed statistics to attempt to prove a point. However, if you would care to show me where I have rejected data from those organisations I'll explain to you my reasons.

    • 1 year ago
  • Vierotchka
  • congoboy
  • congoboy
    • -1
      congoboy  
    • tommic:

      wow! so youre scientific facts trump ours? i think with your opinion of the way things should be that you'd make a better resident of nicaragua or cuba. america can use fewer narrow minded leftylibs like yourself. you make the rest of the country look bad.

    • 1 year ago
  • Wetdog
  • Wetdog
    • +2
      Wetdog  

    • By my count----ice and congo account for 78 out of 239 posts, more than anyone else.

      I'd say you have plenty of freedom of speech.

      So, congoboy, what is your occupation and what makes you qualified to determine what is good science and what isn't?

    • 1 year ago
  • congoboy
  • Vierotchka
  • Wetdog
  • congoboy
  • Wetdog
  • Wetdog
    • 0
      Wetdog  

    • Well IceKat, what is your occupation and what makes you qualified to decide what is good science and what isn't?

    • 1 year ago
  • congoboy
  • Wetdog
  • IceKat
    • -2
      IceKat  

    • So Jan, can you tell us why you didn't delete this thread, or did the comments posted here satisfy your strict code of ethics?
      Will you be deleting further stories unless you get the comments you approve of, or will people who don't agree with you be allowed to have their say too?
      Why do you not believe in free speech? Is free speech only for people who agree with you?

      "BTW, I deleted the previous entry on this because I was tired of coming into the thread and seeing the same disruptors and the same fights. So thanks Current for providing that option. ;-) " - JanforGore

      http://current.com/green/92860282_the-food-and-climate-connection.htm#92860439

      JanforGore does not support FREE SPEECH.

    • 1 year ago
  • congoboy
    • -2
      congoboy  
    • IceKat:

      ice, its pretty typical of the average leftylib to spout freedom of speech. (translation... i believe in freedom of speech only if it agrees with my point of view.) i see it all the time. another regular leftylib tactic is to change the subject when they are on the losing end of an argument. do your own testing, its a fun project. peace

    • 1 year ago
  • IceKat
  • congoboy
  • IceKat
    • -2
      IceKat  
    • Image

    • The NSIDC graph shown here shows an upward trend in Antarctic Sea Ice. Some recent years have shown anomalies as high as +30%.

      As we already know, the ice on the interior of Antarctica is not melting.

      Current temperature at Vostok -24 °C, and don't forget it's nearly midsummer down there.
      Chart shows southern hemisphere ice extent anomalies as of November 2010.

    • 1 year ago
  • JanforGore
  • congoboy
  • IceKat
    • -2
      IceKat  
    • JanforGore:

      From the article, "The Antarctic Peninsula, experiencing some of the most dramatic warming anywhere on the globe..."
      And that's it. One line and we're supposed to take it on-board without question? Still, it's widely understood that they have to include lines like this in order to secure funding.

      NSIDC: "Sea ice extent in the Antarctic has been unusually high in recent years, both in summer and winter. Overall, the Antarctic is showing small positive trends in total extent. For example, the trend in February extent is now +3.1% per decade. However, the Amundsen and Bellingshausen Seas show a strong negative trend in extent. These overall positive trends may seem counterintuitive in light of what is happening in the Arctic. Our Frequently Asked Questions section briefly explains the general differences between the two polar environments. A recent report (Turner, et. al., 2009) suggests that the ozone hole has resulted in changes in atmospheric circulation leading to cooling and increasing sea ice extents over much of the Antarctic region."

    • 1 year ago
  • congoboy
    • -1
      congoboy  
    • IceKat:

      yeah, sorta like spending billions on never ending research for a cure for cancer. cancer's a big money maker for lots of folks. finding a cure would put them out of business.

    • 1 year ago
  • JanforGore
    • +2
      JanforGore  
    • Image

    • http://www.desmogblog.com/antarctica-losing-ice-quickly-melting-away-another-cli...

      Melting Away Another Climate Skeptic Myth.

      "Two popular climate skeptic "facts" which are claimed to disprove anthropogenic global warming are:

      1. Surface ice melting on Antarctica is decreasing.

      2. Sea ice around Antarctica is increasing.

      Despite what climate skeptics assert, neither of these arguments disprove global warming. Actually, they highlight quite the contrary: Antarctica is in fact losing mass (ice). Even more, ice is melting and breaking away from the continent at an incredibly accelerating rate.

      This isn't opinion, there is data to prove it.

      A recent article published by NASA thoroughly explains why these arguments are misleading. The article also offers multiple streams of scientific data to show how alarming the rate of glacial retreat on Antarctica is.

      Data from NASA's Grace satellite shows that Antarctica is losing 100 cubic kilometers (24 cubic miles) of ice per year. More alarming, still, is the increase in the rate of disintegration. The article points out that ice can flow without melting, which illuminates how moot the skeptics' first argument is, as well as clarifying the reason behind their second claim.

      The majority of the melting of the Antarctic ice sheet is occurring in Western Antarctica. Western Antarctica is a series of islands covered by ice, which NASA describes as a "frozen Hawai'i." According to data accumulated by NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Western Antarctica's largest ice stream, the Pine Island Glacier is retreating. This year a British scientific group not only verified NASA's data, but also showed that the retreat of the Pine Island Glacier quadrupled between 1995 and 2006. If this glacier melts, scientists estimate it would raise sea levels by 1.6 to 2.3 feet.

      A major reason for the accelerating retreat of Western Antarctica's glaciers is the warming of the sea water surrounding Antarctica. Warm water is highly problematic for ice shelves. Ice shelves are the portion of a glacier that extends beyond land mass and out into the water. As a result, their intrinsic icy structures are highly vulnerable to warm water--problem number one.

      Problem number two: ice shelves act as a buffer wall which slows the flow of ice toward the water. So, eliminating a glacier's ice shelve is like removing the door from an over-stuffed closet--most of the contents spill out. In the case of Western Antarctica this is a very scary prospect considering if the ice covering Western Antarctica melted, it would raise sea levels 16 to 23 feet. Later this year, NASA will undertake an expedition to rigourously test if Antarctica's warmer water is undermining its ice shelves.

      But, don't worry, "sea ice around Antarctica is growing," exclaim climate skeptics.

      Yes, because it is spilling forth from the mainland.

      The growth of ice surrounding Antarctica reflects a scary global warming trend since it is a result of the Antarctic ice sheet losing mass. And, as Isabella Velicogna of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory and the University of California, Irvine, says, "The important message is that it is not a linear trend. A linear trend means you have the same mass loss every year. The fact that it’s above linear, this is the important idea, that ice loss is increasing with time."

    • 1 year ago
  • JanforGore
    • +2
      JanforGore  

    • http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-12-heaven-earth.html

      Heaven on Earth Melting Away

      December 3, 2010 By Fen Montaigne

      On a November evening, with the spring sun in northern Antarctica slowly setting about 11 p.m., the view from the top of the Marr Ice Piedmont - a glacier nearly 40 miles long by 20 miles wide - was all ice and sky. Through the dust-free atmosphere, I gazed at mountain peaks 120 miles to the south, their summits enveloped in rivers of ice that dropped sharply to the Southern Ocean. The sea itself was frozen, its surface studded with countless icebergs. The scene in front of me, devoid of any sign of man, glowed with a cool, blue purity. And as the mountains that form the spine of the 900-mile Antarctic Peninsula were lit with a pale golden light, two thoughts ran through my head: This is as close to heaven as I'll ever get on Earth, and if all this ice starts to melt in earnest, the world will be a sorry place in which to live.

      The truth is, this ice-bound world has already begun to waste away. In the last 60 years, the northwestern Antarctic Peninsula has warmed faster than virtually any place on Earth. Winter temperatures have soared by 11 degrees Fahrenheit. Year-round temperatures have climbed by 5 degrees Fahrenheit, and ocean temperatures are gradually rising. Ninety percent of the region's glaciers are in retreat. Sea ice now blankets the Southern Ocean off the western Antarctic Peninsula nearly three months less a year than in 1979.

      If such profound changes had come to our temperate zones over the last few decades - if average winter temperatures in New York City had soared a dozen degrees, if our oaks and maples were being replaced by palm trees, if sea levels had risen half a dozen feet - chances are the public would not be so indifferent to our warming world and many politicians would not be denying that the climate is changing because of human activity.

      But the warming outside of the poles and the world's mountain ranges is more subtle, and so we carry on as if nothing is happening, as if the stable climate that has given rise to human civilization was not in a state of rapid flux.

      The rate of change along the Antarctic Peninsula is shocking. Over the last few years, I have spent a total of six months at a 40-person U.S. science base, Palmer Station, on the western Antarctic Peninsula. On my first visit in 2004, a gaping hole opened up in a section of the retreating Marr Ice Piedmont, connecting two bays that probably hadn't been linked for thousands of years. Scientists who have been at Palmer since the mid-1970s have seen the Marr glacier withdraw 1,500 feet behind the station. The disappearing sea ice has caused populations of ice-dependent Adelie penguins near the station to plummet from more than 30,000 breeding pairs in 1975 to roughly 5,000 pairs today.

      Why should we care? First, although much has rightly been made of warming in the Arctic, the mother lode of ice on the planet is Antarctica, where ice as deep as three miles covers a continent 1 1/2 times the size of the United States. The warming of the Antarctic Peninsula represents the first breach in this enormous, frozen citadel. Already, rising air and sea temperatures are nibbling away at the Western Antarctic Ice Sheet, the loss of which could boost global sea levels by 16 to 20 feet. And should we continue to pour greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, the far larger ice sheets of eastern Antarctica will begin to melt. If you live anywhere near the world's coastlines, you don't want to contemplate that eventuality.

      But the melting of Antarctica's ice is disturbing for another reason. The presence of vast amounts of ice at the poles and in the mountains has been a fixture of this planet since the dawn of civilization. Even as explorer Ernest Shackleton's ship, Endurance, was trapped in the ice of the Weddell Sea, the men's fate uncertain, photographer Frank Hurley was overcome by the beauty of his surroundings. "There were times," he wrote, "when the sky was a rainbow, flaming with radiant mock suns, and one's very heart and soul cried out in rapture, 'These things are not earthly; this is heaven.'"

    • 1 year ago
  • JanforGore
    • +2
      JanforGore  
    • Image

    • http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/20100108_Is_Antarctica_Melting.html

      THIS is the topic.

      " The continent of Antarctica has been losing more than 100 cubic kilometers (24 cubic miles) of ice per year since 2002.

      There has been lots of talk lately about Antarctica and whether or not the continent's giant ice sheet is melting. One new paper 1, which states there’s less surface melting recently than in past years, has been cited as "proof" that there’s no global warming. Other evidence that the amount of sea ice around Antarctica seems to be increasing slightly 2-4 is being used in the same way. But both of these data points are misleading. Gravity data collected from space using NASA's Grace satellite show that Antarctica has been losing more than a hundred cubic kilometers (24 cubic miles) of ice each year since 2002. The latest data reveal that Antarctica is losing ice at an accelerating rate, too. How is it possible for surface melting to decrease, but for the continent to lose mass anyway? The answer boils down to the fact that ice can flow without melting.

      The Antarctic ice sheet. East Antarctica is much higher in elevation than West Antarctica.

      Two-thirds of Antarctica is a high, cold desert. Known as East Antarctica, this section has an average altitude of about 2 kilometer (1.2 miles), higher than the American Colorado Plateau. There is a continent about the size of Australia underneath all this ice; the ice sheet sitting on top averages at a little over 2 kilometer (1.2 miles) thick. If all of this ice melted, it would raise global sea level by about 60 meter (197 feet). But little, if any, surface warming is occurring over East Antarctica. Radar and laser-based satellite data show a little mass loss at the edges of East Antarctica, which is being partly offset by accumulation of snow in the interior, although a very recent result from the NASA/German Aerospace Center's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (Grace) suggests that since 2006 there has been more ice loss from East Antarctica than previously thought 5. Overall, not much is going on in East Antarctica -- yet.

      A Frozen Hawaii

      West Antarctica is very different. Instead of a single continent, it is a series of islands covered by ice -- think of it as a frozen Hawaii, with penguins. Because it's a group of islands, much of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS, in the jargon) is actually sitting on the floor of the Southern Ocean, not on dry land. Parts of it are more than 1.7 kilometer (1 mile) below sea level. Pine Island is the largest of these islands and the largest ice stream in West Antarctica is called Pine Island Glacier. The WAIS, if it melted completely, would raise sea level by 5 to 7 meter (16 to 23 feet). And the Pine Island Glacier would contribute about 10 percent of that.

      West Antarctica is a series of islands covered by ice. Think of it as a frozen Hawaii, with penguins. (Image credit: National Science Foundation)
      Larger Image

      Since the early 1990s, European and Canadian satellites have been collecting radar data from West Antarctica. These radar data can reveal ice motion and, by the late 1990s, there was enough data for scientists to measure the annual motion of the Pine Island Glacier. Using radar information collected between 1992 and 1996, oceanographer Eric Rignot, based at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), found that the Pine Island Glacier's "grounding line" -- the line between the glacier's floating section and the part of the glacier that rests on the sea floor -- had retreated rapidly towards the land. That meant that the glacier was losing mass. He attributed the retreat to the warming waters around West Antarctica 6. But with only a few years of data, he couldn't say whether the retreat was a temporary, natural anomaly or a longer-term trend from global warming.

      Rignot's paper surprised many people. JPL scientist Ron Kwok saw it as demonstrating that "the old idea that glaciers move really slowly isn't true any more." One result was that a lot more people started to use the radar data to examine much more of Antarctica. A major review published in 2009 found that Rignot's Pine Island Glacier finding hadn't been a fluke 7: a large majority of the marine glaciers of the Antarctic Peninsula were retreating, and their retreat was speeding up. This summer, a British group revisited the Pine Island Glacier finding and found that its rate of retreat had quadrupled between 1995 and 2006 8.

      How the Ice Shelf Crumbles

      The retreat of West Antarctica's glaciers is being accelerated by ice shelf collapse. Ice shelves are the part of a glacier that extends past the grounding line towards the ocean they are the most vulnerable to warming seas. A longstanding theory in glaciology is that these ice shelves tend to buttress (support the end wall of) glaciers, with their mass slowing the ice movement towards the sea, and this was confirmed by the spectacular collapse of the Rhode Island-sized Larsen B shelf along the Eastern edge of the Antarctic Peninsula in 2002. The disintegration, which was caught on camera by NASA's Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) imaging instruments on board its Terra and Aqua satellites, was dramatic: it took just three weeks to crumble a 12,000-year old ice shelf. Over the next few years, satellite radar data showed that some of the ice streams flowing behind Larsen B had accelerated significantly, while others, still supported by smaller ice shelves, had not 9. This dynamic process of ice flowing downhill to the sea is what enables Antarctica to continue losing mass even as surface melting declines.

      Michael Schodlok, a JPL scientist who models the way ice shelves and the ocean interact, says melting of the underside of the shelf is a pre-requisite to these collapses. Thinning of the ice shelf reduces its buttressing effect on the glacier behind it, allowing glacier flow to speed up. The thinner shelf is also more likely to crack. In the summer, meltwater ponds on the surface can drain into the cracks. Since liquid water is denser than solid ice, enough meltwater on the surface can open the cracks up deeper down into the ice, leading to disintegration of the shelf. The oceans surrounding Antarctica have been warming 10, so Schodlok doesn't doubt that the ice shelves are being undermined by warmer water being brought up from the depths. But he admits that it hasn't been proven rigorously, because satellites can’t measure underneath the ice.

      Glaciologist Robert Bindschadler of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center intends to show just that. He's leading an expedition scheduled to start in 2011 to drill through the Pine Island Glacier and place an automated buoy into the water below it. According to Bindschadler, Pine Island Glacier "is the place to go because that is where the changes are the largest. If we want to understand how the ocean is impacting the ice sheet, go to where it's hitting the ice sheet with a sledgehammer, not with a little tack hammer."

      Meanwhile, measurements from the Grace satellites confirm that Antarctica is losing mass 11. Isabella Velicogna of JPL and the University of California, Irvine, uses Grace data to weigh the Antarctic ice sheet from space. Her work shows that the ice sheet is not only losing mass, but it is losing mass at an accelerating rate. "The important message is that it is not a linear trend. A linear trend means you have the same mass loss every year. The fact that it’s above linear, this is the important idea, that ice loss is increasing with time," she says. And she points out that it isn’t just the Grace data that show accelerating loss; the radar data do, too. "It isn't just one type of measurement. It's a series of independent measurements that are giving the same results, which makes it more robust."

      For more information about this topic, visit NASA's Global Climate Change website.

    • 1 year ago
  • IceKat
    • -2
      IceKat  
    • Image
    • JanforGore:

      "Gravity data collected from space using NASA's Grace satellite show that Antarctica has been losing more than a hundred cubic kilometers (24 cubic miles) of ice each year since 2002."

      And there's the problem. GRACE is a gravity monitoring system not an ice measuring system. Results have been widely misinterpreted.

      As researcher Bert Vermeersen, a professor at Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands, told the AFP, the earlier estimates failed to account for glacial isostatic adjustment—the rebounding of the Earth’s crust after the end of the last Ice Age.

      Ocean Mass Trends (and Sea Level Estimates) from GRACE Reference
      Quinn, K.J. and Ponte, R.M. 2010. Uncertainty in ocean mass trends from GRACE. Geophysical Journal International 181: 762-768.
      “…non-ocean signals, such as in the Indian Ocean due to the 2004 Sumatran-Andean earthquake, and near Greenland and West Antarctica due to land signal leakage, can also corrupt the ocean trend estimates.”

      It's amazing how some people will present misinterpreted and wrongly derived results and use it as proof of something we already know is a failed theory.

      From the article, "The oceans surrounding Antarctica have been warming"
      Then why is Antarctic sea ice increasing? Wait, it tells you, "The article points out that ice can flow without melting" Aha... couldn't it be true that Antarctic ice is increasing and pushing the central ice into the surrounding ocean?

      Quinn and Ponte state that “over the last century, the rate of sea level rise has been only 1.7 ± 0.5 mm/year, based on tide gauge reconstructions (Church and White, 2006),” it seems a bit strange that one would ever question that result on the basis of a GRACE-derived assessment, with its many and potentially very large “errors and biases.”

      Don't worry, Antarctica isn't about to melt anytime soon. Chart shows cooling sea surface temperatures around Antarctica.
      http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.html

    • 1 year ago
  • tommic
    • +2
      tommic  

    • the proliferation of idiots is overwhelming here on current. The vast majority of people here could not even get their insane posts printed online in the New York Times, Washington Post, Boston Globe or any credible news organization online. Its comical that the trolls and deniers come here to current for the sole reason of the hatred for AL Gore and the Progressive movement. My question is why aren't all these trolls and idiots online with their right wing rags that claim to be news, I know why, those news organization have NO credibility. and even fewer intelligent people writing. Keep up with your lies, disinformation, culled facts, and your inane comments and posts. YOU ARE THE PROBLEM.

    • 1 year ago
  • congoboy
  • congoboy
    • -2
      congoboy  
    • Image

    • The Little Ice Age (LIA) was a period of cooling that occurred after the Medieval Warm Period. While not a true ice age, the term was introduced into scientific literature by François E. Matthes in 1939.[1] It is conventionally defined as a period extending from the 16th to the 19th centuries,[2][3][4] though climatologists and historians working with local records no longer expect to agree on either the start or end dates of this period, which varied according to local conditions. It is generally agreed that there were three minima, beginning about 1650, about 1770, and 1850, each separated by intervals of slight warming.[5] The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) describes areas affected by the LIA:

      Evidence from mountain glaciers does suggest increased glaciation in a number of widely spread regions outside Europe prior to the 20th century, including Alaska, New Zealand and Patagonia. However, the timing of maximum glacial advances in these regions differs considerably, suggesting that they may represent largely independent regional climate changes, not a globally-synchronous increased glaciation. Thus current evidence does not support globally synchronous periods of anomalous cold or warmth over this time frame, and the conventional terms of "Little Ice Age" and "Medieval Warm Period" appear to have limited utility in describing trends in hemispheric or global mean temperature changes in past centuries... [Viewed] hemispherically, the "Little Ice Age" can only be considered as a modest cooling of the Northern Hemisphere during this period of less than 1°C relative to late 20th century levels.[6]

      Several causes have been proposed: cyclical lows in solar radiation, heightened volcanic activity, changes in the ocean circulation, an inherent variability in global climate.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

    • 1 year ago
  • Wetdog
    • +2
      Wetdog  

    • @ those who deny that global warming is happening.

      Do you support a ban on oil drilling and coal mining in all publicaly owned waters and lands, including the ANWR?

      Do you support a law requiring that all new vehicles sold in the US be multi-fuel and biofuel capable, like the Fiat Siena Tetrafuel? The Fiat Siena Tetrafuel can run on gasoline, gasoline and ethanol mixtures, pure hydrous ethanol, and/or compressed natural gas.

      Do you support an import duty on crude oil and finished petroleum products?

      Do you support the immediate start of a national program with wartime priority to produce, make widespread distribution and use available to advanced biofuels?

      Do you support the replacement of coal power generation with natural gas and other renewable sources?

    • 1 year ago
  • congoboy
    • -2
      congoboy  
    • Wetdog:

      no. no, not a law but possibly incentives to automakers and consumers. no. yes, as long as it doesnt drive up food prices again, and yes as long as its an well thought out, intelligent, slow progression that wont negitively affect the common mans pocket book

    • 1 year ago
  • Wetdog
    • +2
      Wetdog  
    • congoboy:

      Well, it seems to me that if automakers want to sell cars in the US market, they have to be able to use multiple fuels seems about the right level of incentive to me.

      Allowing oil and coal companies to exploit public lands for private profits is just plain wrong---especially given the callous disregard for environmental and safety regulations that have been demonstrated over and over again. Even now----BP lawyers are wiggling and squirming like a handful of nightcrawlers trying to get them out of taking responsibility for their blunders. Responsibility that we were assured of over and over again when they were caught red handed with the headlights on them.

      ------" as long as it doesnt drive up food prices again,"------

      We can make biofuels out of any plant material at all. We can make ethanol out of cellulose(wood, grass, anything) using two different processes---and we have been able to since the 1890s. Both processes were used extensively during WW1 and WW2.

      NREL made plant lipids(biodiesel) from algae as far back as the 1970s---and even ran a pilot project that produced 3,000 gallon per acre yields in New Mexico in the early 1990s.

      How much dead tree limbs and pond scum do you eat?

      ------"..... and yes as long as its an well thought out, intelligent, slow progression that wont negitively affect the common mans pocket book"--------

      The common man's pocket book? Meaning yours? Gasoline is now selling at 4X the amount it was in 1990----and natural gas is selling at about the same price it was in 1990. THAT is affecting your pocket book. If you converted a car to run on natural gas as well as gasoline, you'd be able to drive over twice as far using compressed natural gas as you are able to using gasoline----and you would produce over 1/3 less CO2 and almost no other pollutants at all by doing so.

      Slow progression? We've had since the 1970s to make progress and we have no progress whatever to show for it. Is THAT slow enough for you?

      Saving money, reducing pollution, gaining energy independence, providing domestic jobs, reducing the national debt and deficit spending, saving the lives and preventing the maiming of our service men and women for no good reason other than to defend oil supplies from countries that want to kill us-----isn't THAT intelligent enough for you? It is for me.

      I'm sorry, but it seems to me that your commitment to the environment, national security, our active military and veterans, national economic survival and well being, and the well being of your fellow citizens seems to be trumped by your concern to keep change in your pocket and maintain a status quo that is not working no matter WHAT level you look at it on.

    • 1 year ago
  • congoboy
    • 0
      congoboy  
    • Wetdog:

      U.S. Price of Natural Gas Delivered to Residential Consumers (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
      Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9
      1960's 1.04 1.04 1.05
      1970's 1.09 1.15 1.21 1.29 1.43 1.71 1.98 2.35 2.56 2.98
      1980's 3.68 4.29 5.17 6.06 6.12 6.12 5.83 5.54 5.47 5.64
      1990's 5.80 5.82 5.89 6.16 6.41 6.06 6.34 6.94 6.82 6.69
      2000's 7.76 9.63 7.89 9.63 10.75 12.70 13.73 13.08 13.89 11.97

    • 1 year ago
  • congoboy
    • -2
      congoboy  
    • Wetdog:

      you sound like an obama parrot, do some real research for a change. so you want to pay for my cars conversion to natural gas, or should the government do it for me? i am not so much worried about change in my pocket as i am for the poorer folks of this country. half the population has enough trouble just feeding their families. i'm all for alternative fuels based on shit we dont sustain ourselves on. as technology improves hopefully the price of these alternatives from solar to wind to biofuels will become affordable to the average consumer. unfortunately as with all things, there are plenty of greedy corporate hags over pricing and gouging the average consumer even in the green market. so much for altruistic greenies. until then i would prefer we continue to use, while at the same time slowly diminish our need for cheap fossil fuels. none of the alternatives are affordable to the average american at this time. there is plenty of blame and guilt to spread around. you might want to check into a few of your favorite leftylib leaders and find out who and what theyve supported over the years.

    • 1 year ago
  • littlwarrior
    • 0
      littlwarrior  
    • congoboy:

      To be honest I think that the Obama aproach is at this point the best aproach so far to global warming, and judging from what you just said you agree. Provide tax cuts to both sellers and buyers for more eco freindly vehichles. Provide funding for scintists and inventors making greener houses and methods of energy harvesting. Give people a financial gain for going green and then watch as the world goes green. forceing people to do it will just piss them off and in the end the uproar will put a stop to any programs you could have wanted. Make it the best thing for the common mans wallet though and it will make a world of difference. Ah but what am i saying I live in Idaho, im pro global warming! jk, but really if it could warm up just a wee bit more, say like the 20's id be happy. Im freezing my ass off up here.

    • 1 year ago
  • Wetdog
    • +1
      Wetdog  
    • congoboy:

      Natural gas at Henry Hub has varied between $3.50 to $4.00 per MMBtu throughout the month of Nov. There are 5.8 MBtu per barrel of crude oil. Rounded off to 6MBtu that makes the comparative energy in natural gas equivalent to $24 per barrel of crude oil. Crude oil has been selling in the $75 to $85 range. An equivalent amount of energy in natural gas sells for less than 1/3 what it costs to purchase the same amount of energy in crude oil.

      This doesn't even make allowance for the fact that not all of the energy in a barrel of crude oil is recoverable as energy due to refining loss. Natural gas has no refining loss because natural gas is not refined---you get 100% of the energy you pay for.

      Natural gas powered vehicles have been around for 90 years and are used extensively in areas that require ultra low emissions such as forklifts and service vehicles in enclosed warehouses, mines and tunnels----and where low fuel costs and clean engine operation to reduce engine maintainance are important factors, such as bus and taxi fleets.

      Why don't you ask some of your right wing conservative pundits why they want you to continue paying through the nose for gasoline when you could be driving your vehicle for less than 1/2 the amount it costs you to drive the same distance using gasoline.

      For someone who is so concerned about price and brags about how smart he is, you are not a very astute judge of value are you?

    • 1 year ago
  • congoboy
    • 0
      congoboy  
    • Wetdog:

      i have nothing against natural gas, although your historical price rhetoric comes into question. i'm all for the use of natural gas, diesel, conventional gas, bio fuels, electricity, solar. they all have their uses and places. and as soon as science can come up with affordable alternatives that wont starve the 3rd world when implemented and it can realistically replace fossil fuels then i'll be all for the change over. if the government can afford to give us all electric replacement cars and provide us with the infrastructure to use them, then sign me up. in the mean time im pretty cool with whats currently available.

    • 1 year ago
  • Wetdog
    • +2
      Wetdog  
    • congoboy:

      ------" if the government can afford to give us all electric replacement cars and provide us with the infrastructure to use them, then sign me up."--------

      What it all boils down to with you. You are pissed off because Al Gore had the foresight invest in what he believed in-----he worked hard at it and now his work and his foresight are paying off.

      All you want to do is piss and moan around, and throw rocks because you are jealous that Al Gore is making money and you aren't.

      "Give me something for nothing." is your motto.

    • 1 year ago
  • congoboy
    • -4
      congoboy  
    • Wetdog:

      no, that is the leftylib motto. i believe in hard work and earning my way. its the dems who think the government owes them and that they deserve this and that. and no, i am not pissed off, actually i am at a great level of peace with myself. but i am irritated just a little that people still believe in al gore. many of us saw through his shit when he was vp. that fuck hasent worked a hard day in his life. ahh i take that back, he's worked overtime trying to keep america convinced of his care of its people and the environment. sure he makes money, dirty money and a lot more money than i'll ever see but i can feel comfortable that i make an honest living. beware of prophets seeking profit!

    • 1 year ago
  • Wetdog
    • +1
      Wetdog  

    • OK, down to the nitty gritty.

      Oil is running out. Demand is exceeding supply now----and demand keeps growing.

      Oil is going to get more expensive. MUCH more expensive.

      We will stop using oil, one way or another.

      We can switch to biofuels. We can build vehicles that run on petroleum, petroleum and biofuel mixes, or no petroleum at all. All in the same vehicle. We can go on doing exactly the same thing we have always done with biofuels. The difference is, biofuels are clean----they don't pollute the air, and biofuels are made from carbon that is removed from the atmosphere in order to make them. It is impossible to raise atmospheric CO2 using biofuels----if plants do not remove carbon from the atmosphere, you have no plants to make the biofuel from. And we can keep on making more biofuels as long as we want.

      So either we plan now---and start making biofuels and vehicles that can use them.

      Or, we can wait until the price of gasoline goes so high, the only way anyone can afford to go from New York to Los Angeles is by bicycle or skate board. It is a LONG way from New York to Los Angeles by skate board.

      So, what's it going to be? A comfortable ride, or a skate board?

    • 1 year ago
  • IceKat
    • -1
      IceKat  
    • Wetdog:

      "The difference is, biofuels are clean----they don't pollute the air, and biofuels are made from carbon that is removed from the atmosphere in order to make them. It is impossible to raise atmospheric CO2 using biofuels..."

      More hilarity from Wetdog! Not many people seem to agree with you.

      "Transforming ecosystems into farms for biofuel crops will increase global warming and result in net increases in carbon emissions, according to a study. "
      http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/feb/08/scienceofclimatechange.biofuels

      "In response to the increased demand for maize, farmers convert additional land to crops, and this conversion can boost carbon dioxide emissions."
      http://www.aibs.org/bioscience-press-releases/100311_more_maize_ethanol_may_boos...

      "EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS - An EU target to produce 10 percent of transport energy needs from renewable sources by 2020 will actually increase the level of greenhouse gas emissions produced by the bloc unless changes are made, an independent study has said. "
      http://euobserver.com/885/31210

      "There was a study published that looked at biofuels and how their use/production is related to carbon emissions, and what this study found was that biofuels could create up to a whopping extra 56m tonnes of CO2 every year. To put this figure into perspective, it was likened to have up to an extra 26m cars on the roads of Europe by the target date of 2020."
      http://onefaceinamillion.com/uk-biofuel-plan-will-increase-carbon-emissions/1661...

      Then I got bored. There are so many references to biofuels increasing CO2 emissions (not that that bothers me).

    • 1 year ago
  • Wetdog
    • +1
      Wetdog  
    • IceKat:

      -------" Not many people seem to agree with you."------

      Only the intelligent ones.

      ---------" "Transforming ecosystems into farms for biofuel crops will increase global warming and result in net increases in carbon emissions, according to a study. "-----

      A study is only worth what goes into it. A study by an idiot produces idiot results.

      ------" "EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS - An EU target to produce 10 percent of transport energy needs from renewable sources by 2020 will actually increase the level of greenhouse gas emissions produced by the bloc unless changes are made, an independent study has said. " ------

      Like I said. It is impossible to raise atmospheric CO2 levels with biofuels. CO2 must be removed from the atmosphere by the plants the biofuels are made from before the fuel is made. Otherwise, you have no plants to make the biofuel from. Therefore, it is impossible to raise atmospheric CO2 using biofuels

      ------" "There was a study published that looked at biofuels and how their use/production is related to carbon emissions, and what this study found was that biofuels could create up to a whopping extra 56m tonnes of CO2 every year. To put this figure into perspective, it was likened to have up to an extra 26m cars on the roads of Europe by the target date of 2020." -------

      True or False----------X False.

      -------" Then I got bored. There are so many references to biofuels increasing CO2 emissions (not that that bothers me)."-------

      Because there are a lot of parrots around does not mean that you will have an informative conversation.

    • 1 year ago
  • IceKat
    • -1
      IceKat  
    • Wetdog:

      Oh well, if you say biofuels cannot raise CO2 levels then it must be true!
      I love your counterargument, based entirely on your say-so.
      Even The UK paper, The Guardian, which is an ultra-left paper goes along with all the other reports, and for The Guardian that's unusual. But... you know best!!!

    • 1 year ago
  • Vierotchka
  • larrysnotes
  • JanforGore
    • +1
      JanforGore  

    • A look at West Antarctica and introduction to Operation Ice Bridge which will give more precise measurements of depth, reflectivity, ice mass loss and crevices. This is very important in regards to global warming and sea level rise.

    • 1 year ago
  • congoboy
  • congoboy
    • -3
      congoboy  
    • Image

    • Scientists from the Norwegian Polar Institute reported that they'd measured sea temperatures beneath an East Antarctic ice shelf and found no signs of warming whatsoever. And while the discovery's corollaries remain mostly blurred by the few rogue mainstream media outlets actually reporting it, the findings are in fact yet another serious blow to the sky-is-falling-because-oceans-are-rising prophecies of the climate alarm crowd.

      For years now, alarmists have insisted that Antarctica is thawing thanks to man-made global warming. They warn that such melting of a frozen continent containing 90 percent of all the ice on the planet would inevitably lead to a cataclysmic sea level rise (SLR). Scary stuff, indeed.

      However, there are several problems with their assertions, not the least of which is that all evidence of melting selectively focuses on the only area of the continent satellite evidence confirms is warming -- the western region in general, and the Antarctic Peninsula in particular.

      But as ICECAP's Joe D'Aleo observed in 2008 [PDF], the relatively small area of the peninsula offers an extremely poor representative sample, as it juts out well north of the mainland into an area of the South Atlantic well known for its "surface and subsurface active volcanic activity." And in the greater scheme, adds D'Aleo, "the vast continent has actually cooled since 1979." http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/01/antarctica_and_the_myth_of_dea_1.html

    • 1 year ago
  • congoboy
    • -3
      congoboy  
    • Image
    • congoboy:

      its fuckin cold down there so even if man made global warming werent a myth i am sure many local residents wouldnt mind some extra heat. maybe we could even expand crop production to help feed the world!

    • 1 year ago
  • JanforGore
    • +4
      JanforGore  
    • congoboy:

      Already posted about East Antarctica and already know about it. We are talking about West Antarctica.... want to comment on that? Always mentioning East Antarctica is a false denier meme. It is higher altitude. And American Thinker? The rag that trashes purely based on political pretense? Where is YOUR peer reviewed journal?

      http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=atJRfSKS0cOA

      Antarctica is losing ice from its larger eastern side as well as the western part, an indication the southernmost continent may add “significantly more” to rising seas, researchers in Texas said.

      The eastern sheet, 10 times the size of the western one, lost about 57 billion metric tons of ice a year from 2002 to 2009, contributing to the continent’s total annual average loss of about 190 billion tons, scientists at the University of Texas at Austin said in the journal Nature Geoscience.

      United Nations scientists in 2007 said most of Antarctica’s contribution to rising sea levels amid global warming comes from the western sheet, with the eastern side either holding steady or gaining mass. The continent holds enough ice to raise sea levels by about 57 meters (187 feet), though melting isn’t likely for thousands of years, according to the UN.

      “The east Antarctic ice sheet is the largest chunk of ice on Earth,” the study’s lead author, Jianli Chen, a geophysicist at the University of Texas, said today in a telephone interview. “If the current signal is confirmed in the future, it could pose a more significant contribution to global sea level.”

      Since 2006, Antarctica’s ice loss may be as high as 220 billion tons a year, the University of Texas scientists said in the paper. Ice loss for the 2002 through 2005 period averaged 144 billion tons a year, Chen said.

      The findings for East Antarctica are “surprising” because they differ from other estimates, said glaciologist Jonathan Bamber, who wasn’t involved in the study.

      ‘I’m Surprised’

      “I’m surprised because other studies for slightly different time periods have come up with values that are very close to zero,” Bamber, professor of physical geography at the University of Bristol in England, said in a telephone interview. “This result really confirms that there are very substantial inconsistencies between different estimates.”

    • 1 year ago
  • IceKat
    • -2
      IceKat  
    • JanforGore:

      "And American Thinker?" Oh look, JanforGore attacking the source rather than the information it contains. Now who was it who wrote this to me in a previous thread:

      "Right, so when you cannot discuss the topic look to discredit the source. Typical."

      Here's a clue: JfG :)

    • 1 year ago
  • JanforGore
  • JanforGore
    • +1
      JanforGore  
    • Image
    • congoboy:

      http://www.science20.com/news_releases/antarctica_warming_or_cooling_yes

      You just don't get it.

      "The study found that warming in West Antarctica exceeded one-tenth of a degree Celsius per decade for the last 50 years and more than offset the cooling in East Antarctica. The researchers devised a statistical technique that uses data from satellites and from Antarctic weather stations to make a new estimate of temperature trends.

      "People were calculating with their heads instead of actually doing the math," Steig said. "What we did is interpolate carefully instead of just using the back of an envelope. While other interpolations had been done previously, no one had really taken advantage of the satellite data, which provide crucial information about spatial patterns of temperature change."

      Satellites calculate the surface temperature by measuring the intensity of infrared light radiated by the snowpack, and they have the advantage of covering the entire continent. However, they have only been in operation for 25 years. On the other hand, a number of Antarctic weather stations have been in place since 1957, the International Geophysical Year, but virtually all of them are within a short distance of the coast and so provide no direct information about conditions in the continent's interior.

      The scientists found temperature measurements from weather stations corresponded closely with satellite data for overlapping time periods. That allowed them to use the satellite data as a guide to deduce temperatures in areas of the continent without weather stations.

      "Simple explanations don't capture the complexity of climate," Steig said. "The thing you hear all the time is that Antarctica is cooling and that's not the case. If anything it's the reverse, but it's more complex than that. Antarctica isn't warming at the same rate everywhere, and while some areas have been cooling for a long time the evidence shows the continent as a whole is getting warmer."

    • 1 year ago
  • IceKat
    • -3
      IceKat  
    • JanforGore:

      Sour grapes? Absolutely not old girl, just a little tit-for-tat. Good fun though, wouldn't you say :)
      I hope you're looking forward to your upcoming cold spell?

    • 1 year ago
  • IceKat
    • -2
      IceKat  
    • Image
    • JanforGore:

      The satellite temperature record doesn't appear to match your picture, and it's also misleading, giving the viewer an image of a hot western Antarctic.

      Eric Steig claimed that Antarctica is in fact warming, but his findings have been trashed and even some IPCC members remain highly sceptical of his claims.

      "A few weeks ago, a study led by Professor Eric Steig caused some excitement by claiming that actually West Antarctica was warming so much that it more than made up for the cooling in East Antarctica. Warning bells should have sounded when Steig said

      "What we did is interpolate carefully instead of just using the back of an envelope".

      To those of us who have been following this scam for the past two decades, ‘interpolate carefully’ makes us suck our teeth. And so it has proved. Various scientists immediately spotted the flaw in Steig’s methodology of combining satellite evidence since 1979 with temperature readings from surface weather stations. The flaw they identified was that, since Antarctica has so few weather stations, the computer Steig used was programmed to guess what data they would have produced had such stations existed. In other words, the findings that caused such excitement were based on data that had been made up."

    • 1 year ago
  • congoboy
    • -3
      congoboy  
    • JanforGore:

      and so what makes your sources any more or less legitimate than mine. this inane argument could go on forever. or at least until one of us is proven right or wrong and neither one of us may live long enough to see that day. or at least lets hope so

    • 1 year ago
  • JanforGore
  • congoboy
    • -4
      congoboy  
    • JanforGore:

      Washington – With Al Gore getting so much mileage from his fame as both a former vice president and now Oscar winner to advance his ideological (if not personal) agenda of getting people to use less energy, it’s worth reviewing the global warming debate to clarify a few misconceptions.

      First, we are not in imminent danger of massive sea-level rises. In his movie “An Inconvenient Truth,” Gore warns of seas rising by 20 feet, and shows a dramatic image of lower Manhattan flooded by the swollen Hudson River.

      But this will only happen if the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets disappear overnight—a highly unlikely event. The collected scientists of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, whose word climate alarmists preach as gospel when convenient, estimates only 17 inches of sea-level rise this century.

      Melting sufficient to flood New York would take millennia, never mind centuries. We should have plenty of time to build flood defenses.

      Second, if global warming is as big a threat as claimed, it will not be averted by minor steps like changing a few light bulbs, buying carbon offsets or driving hybrid cars. Gore himself has talked of a “wrenching transformation” in our lifestyles (I won’t mention his heated pool).

      That’s because everyone acknowledges that the Kyoto Protocol, even when fully and successfully implemented by all its parties, will avert a barely measurable 0.07°C of warming by 2050.

      To stop the more extreme estimates of warming, we would need something like 30 Kyotos. President Bush pulled the United States out of the Kyoto process because of its likely cost of $100 billion to $400 billion annually to the U.S. economy.

      Third, some national security hawks argue that we must reduce American use of petroleum because it funds Middle Eastern terrorists. This argument is overblown. America actually imports more oil from Africa than it does from the Middle East, which supplies only about 20 percent of our oil imports.

      Yet the Middle East produces oil more cheaply than anywhere else. That means that, if we were to use less gasoline, it would be the more expensive producers, like Canada and those African states, that would be the first to be hit by falling demand. If that made production in those countries uneconomic, there’s actually a chance that our supply of gas from the Middle East would rise.

      Fourth, polar bears are not becoming extinct as a result of decreasing Arctic ice. We know that polar bears have survived warmer periods in the past, so there is no reason to suspect they will suffer a threat of extinction now.

      The chief polar bear biologist for the Canadian province of Nunavut recently wrote: “Of the 13 populations of polar bears in Canada, 11 are stable or increasing in number. They are not going extinct, or even appear to be affected at present.”

      Yet if the polar bear is listed as “threatened” under the Endangered Species Act because of global warming, environmentalists will be able to block the new power stations and refineries the nation desperately needs.

      Finally, the rest of the world is not waiting for America’s lead on climate change. Europe has attempted to put a price on carbon and has failed to reduce emissions because of its internal tensions. Measures attempted in Canada, Japan and New Zealand have also failed.

      China, India, and the G-77 group of developing nations have outright refused to accept any restriction on their emissions (China could overtake the U.S. as the world’s leading greenhouse gas emitter later this year).

      The rest of the world has two reasons for demanding American action: First, blaming America absolves them of responsibility and, second, emissions restrictions will hobble America’s economy, allowing the rest of the world to play catch-up.

      For climate alarmists, these are harsh realities, inconvenient truths if you will. The global warming debate is rife with confusion and misunderstanding. As a thorough review of the implications of the science, economics and geopolitics of the debate shows, the supposed cure is worse than the disease.http://cei.org/op-eds-and-articles/five-biggest-myths-about-global-warming

    • 1 year ago
  • congoboy
    • -3
      congoboy  
    • IceKat:

      yeah, and back in the 70's the alarmists were predicting the coming ice age. go figure. myself, i wouldnt mind a few more degrees of warmth. that with a little more carbon dioxide would create a more fertile climate that could help feed and sustain the worlds hungry.

    • 1 year ago
  • JanforGore
  • congoboy
    • -3
      congoboy  
    • JanforGore:

      where else can i go with al gore? honey i look forward to the day that his fiction writing becomes a deniable truth to you. you should really stick with monsanto, its your forte and a tangible realistic world problem.

    • 1 year ago
  • IceKat
    • -2
      IceKat  
    • congoboy:

      The alarmists have been predicting catastrophes for centuries, only now they have access to the Internet instead of wandering around streets with banners and placards reading "The end is nigh".

    • 1 year ago
  • congoboy
  • JanforGore
    • +1
      JanforGore  
    • congoboy:

      The deforestation Monsanto and agribusiness on the whole cause through fossil fuel agriculture exacerbates climate change. You are absolutely a political stooge if you cannot see that. And Al Gore is a visionary man who knows more about this than you ever will. So don't hold your breath waiting for anything.... you will most certainly turn blue.

    • 1 year ago
  • congoboy
    • -3
      congoboy  
    • Image
    • JanforGore:

      a visionary of deceit. so whats your excuse for his own carbon foot print, can you justify the do as i say and not as i do philosophy? here's the only thing turning blue around here, and its not from lack of use!

    • 1 year ago
  • Wetdog
  • JanforGore
  • congoboy
    • -4
      congoboy  
    • JanforGore:

      no doubt. you really should clean up your act honey. by the way you never did answer my question about al gores do as i say and not as i do policy. why does he get a pass on such a big carbon foot print? he's a bigger abuser of of what he rally's against than the average american. more hypocrisy on the left? i really dont care if youre a leftylib jan but you should at least try to find more ethical leadership to follow, even though that may be an oxymoron

    • 1 year ago
  • JanforGore
    • +1
      JanforGore  
    • congoboy:

      I can't speak for his personal life, and frankly it's none of your damn business. He would be attacked no matter what he did so why even ask? But hell, he's the right's whipping boy.. what would they do without him to attack right? Pathetic that's all you have. But that's the RW for you... they know nothing but bullying, intimidation, and character assassination because it is a mechanism to hide their immense ignorance. And FYI, I am not a "lefty" and have some beefs with politics on all sides. I am a HUMANITARIAN. You need to clean up your own house before continuing to spew your partisan BS at me. And don't call me honey.

    • 1 year ago
  • tverdell
  • tverdell
  • congoboy
    • -2
      congoboy  
    • tverdell:

      well i do believe that mankind definitely has some effect on a local scale. such as ground water pollution, mine tailings etc. as far as earths climate change, my belief is that its cyclical. there have been multiple ice ages and warming trends and times when carbon dioxide exceeded current levels during the earths history. and all before the industrial revolution and mankinds alleged climate changing technology.

    • 1 year ago
  • congoboy
  • congoboy
    • -3
      congoboy  
    • JanforGore:

      as far as his personal life goes, i dont care who he sleeps with. but the mans only vision is to make millions off millions of patsy's like you with his misrepresented junk science. i find it admirable that you are a humanitarian and your monsanto cause is a worthy one as is your desire for a healthy environment. but this al gore infatuation in nauseating. he is a criminal low life who is getting away with bilking the world with his fictitious sky is falling routine. someday karma will catch up with him and he will be exposed for the charlatan that he is. and honey, i live a clean and wholesome lifestyle and my house not perfect but in pretty damn good order. if you can continue to believe in a man who refuses to live the life he professes everyone else should then its really more your problem and not his.

    • 1 year ago
  • JanforGore
  • congoboy
  • sdfdgf
  • Wetdog
123
1 - 100 of 245
more from Community:
from the community

top videos