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."
The audacity of hope.
Don't worry, they are still going to implement the carbon tax. Never let a crisis go to waste.
"It is time for science to be market-driven rather than socialist in nature."
Since IS market driven. There is a BIG BIG market for global warming and that's where the money is so climate scientists focus on global warming and not other topics or (God forbid) the heresy that is global warming denial.
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.
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.
So?
Global warming exists, but it doesn't scare me. The earth wasn't always this temperature, and if things get hotter we will just have to deal. An Ice age would scare me but not global warming, the earth was much warmer than it is now several million years ago, if it gets that warm again it doesn't mean we are all gonna die. Sure things might get hairy for a while but seriously global warming isn't that dangerous to our survival as a race. This how ever doesn't mean we should abandon working towards more energy efficient and cleaner sources of energy. This has to happen for us to progress forward as a race and while it should happen naturally I've no problem with a bunch of alarmists freaking out and spurring the desire for better sources of energy. When these alarmists start infringing upon my freedoms though I'll have a problem.
> Don't worry, they are still going to implement the carbon tax.
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. It is about a once in a lifetime opportunity for the 'enlightened good progressives' to get almost total control over all aspects of life in the West and thus finally stamp out everything they don't like by taxing it out of practicality. And the things they don't like include pretty much all of western civilization.
Democrat delenda est
I don't mean to discredit what you say, but could you possibly give a better explanation of what's occurring and how it's related to global warming.
It seems that some times every event is a sure sign that X is occurring, whether or not there's actually any scientific proof behind it or not. It reminds me of whenever something happened it would be attributed to God, the gods, or some other deity supposedly controlling the fate of mankind depending on the time period.
I just don't want things to devolve to that point. I have no reason to doubt what you're saying, but could you provide some links that explain the science behind your comments or provide a more thorough explanation yourself. I don't mean to call you out as my own knowledge of climate science is largely non-existent, but I still tend to take statements without further explanation with a grain of salt.
Ranting about Kyoto would make a lot more sense if the United States Congress had ratified it.
I really don't think that the current Congress is a whole lot more likely to ratify it than any past Congress, but who knows.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
> he general public apparently has no idea how incredibly dogmatic, religious, > and un-scientific much of modern science has become.
and
> I think the real issue here is that scientists have become another authority.
Or put more simply:
"Scientists don't change their minds, they just die." - Max Planck
And he said that before the politics and money factors entered into science.
I think Carl Sagan neatly addressed that:
In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion.
-- Carl Sagan, 1987 CSICOP keynote address
Especially when he said it doesn't happen as often as it should because change is sometimes painful. I will add one observation to that: what really makes change so painful is when your ego is invested in a particular outcome. When that ego need is replaced by a sense of awe derived from the mystery (and sometimes the absurdity) of the universe, which unfortunately seems rare these days, change can be something you welcome.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
> Besides, the idea of it being too cold to snow is a myth:
The article you quoted says --
Once it drops below -20F, your chances of snow are virtually nil (but still possible).
I will take that "virtually nil (but still possible)" and say that effectively it does get to cold to snow.
I haven't been involved in any climate research, but what matters is WHY this is hapening.
Is it, as suggested above, because water falling there as snow instead of in Australia and Texas as rain is increasing volumes? Other explanations include:
- Thermal expansion of the ice
- Ice melting lubricates glacial movement
- Ice sheets detatching allows faster glacial movement
- Lower temperatures resulting in greater freezing of seawater.
Honestly though, conceptually this isn't amazingly complex. If we see temperatures rising, as measured by reliable equipment, thats called warming. If the ice thickens as the termperatures rise, that means something interesting is happening; It doesn't mean things aren't getting warmer.
When presented with scientific data, vested interests say "Oh yeah!? Prove it!". Instead of simply suggesting that they read the science reports and papers, many have tried to find anecdotes (permafrost, ice sheet collapse, etc etc) but these things don't 'prove' global warming any more than an ice thickening disproves it.
If only the population at large had an education sufficient to allow public discussion of the data found through research, there would be a great deal more consensus on this and other issues.
Science is not subjective.
I bet a climate scientist could have gotten plenty of money from the Bush Administration for arguing that manmade CO2 wasn't causing climate change. Exxon Mobil has plenty of money for anyone who can sow doubt about the anthropogenic climate change hypothesis.
Why not more scientific criticism of the hypothesis, then?
Because scientists went into science instead of law school because they care about reality.
So why in the hell would anyone support polluting this planet?
Because we are the purest form of evil! Anyone who thinks slightly differently from you, must be the spawn of Satan.
You see, no-one wants to "pollute the planet". None of us like it because of the reasons you list. But in the real world it's a complex relationship between people living and the impact they have. Your edict to "reduce pollution" is all well and good, but in what ways? If the way you choose means a 10% increase in job loss, is that really OK? Disallowing all car travel in a state forever and ever would be a great way to reduce pollution - and to really screw over a lot of people.
There are ways to reduce pollution and/or save the environment that are less impactful on people's lives. So rather than claiming everyone really wants to pollute, help people to understand how they can pollute less without losing much in return.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
So from global warming we can actually expect colder winters at the poles.
Truly this is a theory that cannot be disproven.
When we thought the poles were melting, the infamous pictures of a wet polar bear on a little ice shelf were everywhere and we were told that this was the direct result of warming.
So now it seems the global warming theory can have its ice and melt it too.
Where's the logic in this? We can't complain about problems in a treaty unless we ratify it? The problems are the reason not to ratify it.
What makes you think they're wrong? The Earth is not a constant temperature throughout. I can easily imagine an ice cap melting somewhere in the antarctic, raising the humidity, and a good portion of that water vapor attaching and freezing again somewhere else where it's cooler. That doesn't mean that the warm currents aren't having a devastating effect overall.
Actually, this happens often in religion, once you reach a certain level, just like it happens in science once you reach a certain level. Like science, which has those to claim to follow it yet know little, and defend that knowledge incorrectly, you also get people raised with a religion who claim to follow it, defend it illogically because it's all they know, yet fail to understand what real religion is all about.
The climate in Antarctica is shifting all over the place.
It's probably a good idea to keep an eye on these things, and try to figure out what's causing it, and determine if it has any ramifications for the rest of us "up north"
Given that temperatures, weather patterns, and sea levels are extremely important to human activity, we need to get a bearing on what's going on, given that we're observing phenomena that have never been recorded.
If the climate really is changing, we need to know as far in advance as possible so that we can start planning for it, even if we're not causing it.
I've been in research groups who have (successfully) justified funding for research that they knew was a likely dead-end. I don't believe for an instant that climate science is one of those areas.
-- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
This one article is going to get lots and lots of attention, which makes the gp post's point. There is a HUGE market for evidence AGAINST global warming, just as there is a huge market for evidence FOR. How about if we not rush to conclusions from one data point? I would like to know how this fits into global warming, or if it disproves it. It's not like scientists are going to ignore it, don't worry.
Currently hooked on AMP
You must take into account water/air circulation in the whole system at the very least too. Or choose to take the the butterfly or shit happens explanations.
What is clear to me is that our understanding of atmospheric dynamics is so awful (and rightfully so, it's complicated), that an explanation can be cobbled together using pesudo atmospheric lingo to explain any set of data as a result of man made influence.
The truth of the matter is that we don't really know what's going on. But that doesn't stop many people from boldly claiming that "X causes Y" with undeserved confidence.
What's also unscientific about this process is the way that the GW movement latches onto emotionally appealing icons to make their case (e.g. Polar bears, Katrina)
Honestly if we don't stop the up and coming countries from repeating our mistakes then what do we gain? A big fat nothing. A so hate this excuse of its not fair to them, well tough shit. We know better now and they can't claim to not know better either. If we get them off on the right foot it is going to be a lot easier for all of us. If we excuse them then we just push the problem off to the next generation. Of course that seems to be the aim of almost all politicians these days, push off to another generation what we are not willing to do today.
I have a more apt analogy than your pizza one.... just because Jack murders a dozen people doesn't excuse John from killing one.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
The climate changes, because that is what climates do. Not only that, climates do not change in an orderly and expected fashion! The politicians and media pretend that all change is uniform. That if the climate is changing then it will change uniformly warmer and warmer until we all roast to death. Or that it will get cooler and cooler until glaciers roll over the continents. Neither view is correct, yet that is what we are told to believe. It is inconceivable to the politico-media complex that some places my get cooler and others warmer. Inconceivable that the climate has a balancing mechanism that prevents runaway change. Inconceivable that human beings are a part of nature and not an external contagion.
This constant cry that we are "destroying the planet" must stop. It is an absurd claim. Certainly we human beings should be good caretakers of our planet. We should seek to reduce pollution and other environmental externalities. But the fear mongering is not helping, and must stop.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
What's also unscientific about this process is the way that the GW movement latches onto emotionally appealing icons to make their case (e.g. Polar bears, Katrina)
So your counter argument that an observed weather phenomenon on the opposite side of the planet casts into doubt the mountain of data that the north pole is losing its sea ice (to the detriment of Polar Bears) is scientific?
Talk about appealing to false causality. Was Katrina caused by GW? Who knows. One point of data trend does not make. Is the Arctic Melting caused by the fact that it's getting warmer, along with the rest of the planet on average? That's a pretty hard thing to disprove with millions of points of data all pointing to the same thing "The earth is warming."
So your counter argument that an observed weather phenomenon on the opposite side of the planet casts into doubt the mountain of data that the north pole is losing its sea ice (to the detriment of Polar Bears) is scientific?
Did the GGGP of this post not just say that global warming causes COLDER poles?
How can I possibly debate this issue with you or anyone else when the climate change camp gets to count both warmer and colder temperatures at the poles as favorable for their position?
It's an impossible position you've put your opponents in; none of the evidence counts against you.
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!"
Of course we can say that, because if they will do exactly what we've been doing for the last couple of centuries, it will be a disaster. No amount of political correctness bullshit can change that.
Ever since then there has been this myth that India and China are somehow completely and forever off the hook.
There's no myth, because there's no hook. If, as you say, Western countries impose those limits for themselves just to set a righteous example for everyone else to follow, then the most likely reaction you'll get from comrade General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party is, "gee, these guys are even more stupid than we thought". Since there's no obligation for China to follow suit, according to Kyoto, then why would they?
Of course, this all is no excuse for doing some serious changes for the sakes of ourselves - like switching to mostly nuclear, investing heavily into thermonuclear, and using solar/wind/tidal wherever there's opportunity. But that's a whole different kettle of fish; and, I suspect, eventually, when time comes to bring China in line with regard to emissions, it will have to be done at a gunpoint, and no "gestures of goodwill" today will change that.
"Poverty is the biggest polluter."
I love Gandhi, but BS, the US is one of the richest countries in the world, but at the same time for sure the biggest polluter, thanks to ACs, SUVs, etc. and the lack of sidewalks, staircases (you must have been in an office building where people take the elevator from the 8th to the 9th floor), to name a few.
The real fear for the environment is that India and China are coming out of poverty.
Browsers shouldn't have a back button!! It's all about going forward...
It's getting a bit late to ratify it in any case. IIRC its recommendations were supposed to have been put in place by 2012. Now everybody has denied the existence of the problem for so long, the problem has got that much bigger, and Kyoto is not enough, and maybe never was.