Slashdot Mirror
Antarctic Ice Is Growing, Not Melting Away, At Davis Station
schwit1 writes "A report from The Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research says that Antarctic ice is growing, not melting away. 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."
People hear "climate change" and "global warming" and think all the ice is going away. Thing is, while there are certain large ice masses that are almost certainly going to melt - the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, for instance - it's an open question how the bulk of Antarctica and Greenland is going to respond to a warmer climate. There will certainly be increased summer melting around the periphery, but there is some speculation that the total ice volume in these places will increase due to warmer (but still below freezing) temperatures. Thing is, for much of the year the air is so cold there that it just doesn't have the carrying capacity for much total water volume. Warmer air can simply carry more water than colder air, which can mean more snow and more ice pack. I say "can mean" because climate change can also affect weather patterns, which can alter the amount of precipitation that falls or even alter the source region for the precipitation that eventually reaches a given location.
However when it comes to smaller glaciers and ice fields, where the average annual temperature was significantly closer to freezing to begin with, it's more obvious that they're shrinking or completely going away.
FWIW up until a few years ago I worked in a climate research lab where we studied the climate records in ice from Greenland and Antarctica.
#DeleteChrome
While the majority of ski resorts have reported a trend of less annual snowfall per year for the past twenty years or so,
Really? Where is that info from?
Because the data I can see says otherwise - like the SNOTEL Precipitation Data Table from Wolf Creek Pass in Colorado. Or Squaw Valley in California. Or Daisy Peak in Montana.
We've had dry years in Colorado over the past decade, but also some banner snow years. Similarly for other places in other states.
So where does the data validating that generally ski resorts have lower snowpack over the last twenty years come from? Or is it just something everyone "knows".
In reality I think that's a data point too variable to indicate anything one way or the other.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
It's scientifically proven that there is a direct inverse correspondence between the number of pirates and global warming. As the number of pirates decreased global warming increased. Now that piracy in Somalia has gone up the ice in that one tiny spot in Antarctica. It'll surely compensate for the rapid flow of glaciers in the West Antarctic icesheet as they flow unimpeded into the sea now that more of the iceshelfs are gone. All hail the Flying Spaghetti Monster in his infinite wisdom for making that happen. He was none to happy about Obama killing those pirates.
"You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"
And -20F is only just starting to get cold for places like Antarctica, (or even continental/northern Canada and Russia). Where I live, we regularly get 2-3 weeks with highs below -20F, and you can depend on those weeks to be sunny and dry.
The Electric Universe people were completely discredited when the NASA probe spawned from Deep Impact collided with the comet Tempel 1. If the Universe were -- as they claim -- made up of anti-matter, the resulting explosion of the probe and comet would have vaporized a fair chunk of the solar system.
Of course, this didn't stop them from saying that the collision actually proved their theory since there was a little explosion.
I believe you're proving my point for me when I say that the people who vehemently oppose the Electric Universe (EU) theory tend not to be familiar with it. I have read their works extensively and have never, ever seen the EU folks make the claim that the Universe is made up of antimatter. If you want to see what they had to say about the Deep Impact collison with Tempel 1, look here and you will find something entirely different from what you just described.
You can also find more on the Deep Impact event in this category of the Thunderbolts site.
To date, I have never once seen an opponent of the EU theory who was thoroughly familiar with it. There is no substitute for your own inquiry.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
"Of course. Because it has never been about global warming or CO2. Otherwise CO2 emitted by India and China would have been as bad as emissions in the 1st world. But Kyoto exempted them."
Yes. But you don't have any clue why.
It has something to do with the fact that it is the industrialized countries that have been emptying CO2 into the atmosphere in ever-greater amounts for the last 2 centuries or so before realizing it might be a problem. The premise of the Kyoto agreement is: they are the ones that have created the problem so far, they're the ones that are already industrialized and have most of the money. They are therefore the ones best positioned to come up with technical solutions and ways to meet lowered targets or at least flatten out production. The race is to do that before countries like India and China ramp up as fast as people are expecting given their populations.
How can we possibly say to countries that are in the early stages of industrialization "Oh, you can't do exactly what we've been doing for the last couple of centuries, or it will be a disaster!" It's like eating 3/4 of the pizza at the party and then telling a skinny latecomer: "Whoa there. Don't go eating all the pizza that's left. It's bad for you and we also have to share", while still stuffing your face as fast as ever.
The whole point was to meet the goals of Kyoto and THEN say to India, China and other developing countries: "See? This can be done. Now it's your turn to meet the same targets." That was the bargain.
Ever since then there has been this myth that India and China are somehow completely and forever off the hook. Well, they probably will be because we're dragging our asses on what we committed to do.
Here's hoping the world can make do without any kind of agreement, and that the predictions expected from that scenario are wrong. Hope really hard.
I remember a quote from the former Indian prime minster Indira Gandhi - "Poverty is the biggest polluter."
Your reference does not support your alledged Fact, and your alledged Fact ignores the concept of adiabatic warming. The poles are colder than the equator because they receive less energy from the sun, not because descending air is colder. This casts a LOT of doubt to the validity of the rest of your arguments as well.
*Note that the adiabatic warming reference is from an education institution site, not a property development site.