Antarctic Ice Loss Big Enough To Cause Measurable Shift In Earth's Gravity

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Antarctic Ice Loss Big Enough To Cause Measurable Shift In Earth's Gravity

Posted by Soulskill on Tuesday September 30, 2014 @04:10PM from the let-the-ice-flow dept.

An anonymous reader writes: Contrary to what we were sometimes taught in high school physics, the Earth's gravity is not constant. It actually shows slight variations on different parts of the Earth's surface, and the variations correlate with the density of the material on that surface. The European Space Agency has been measuring gravity for four years, mapping these variations and recording the changes those variations have undergone. Its data indicates "a significant decrease [in gravity] in the region of Antarctica where land ice is melting fastest. Further analysis is, of course, planned so that the whole of Antarctica can be taken into account and "the clearest picture yet of the pace of global warming" can be determined on that continent.

232 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

The last sentence in the summary... by Bartles · 2014-09-30 16:18 · Score: 0, Troll

...is some kind of joke. Right?
1. Re: The last sentence in the summary... by jovius · 2014-09-30 17:01 · Score: 0
  
  Do you mean to say that ice doesn't meet when its met by warmed air?
2. Re:The last sentence in the summary... by MacDork · 2014-09-30 17:11 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  The whole story is. 4 years != climate. Not by anyone's measure. If skeptics tried to debunk AGW on this board with a 4 year trend, everyone would be all over them like white on rice. But 4 years in favor of AGW in the summary? A O K!
3. Re:The last sentence in the summary... by Gadget_Guy · 2014-09-30 17:37 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  The problem is that this is not intended or presented as a proof of climate change. It is merely measuring recent gravitational changes showing the affect of the reduction in ice. The article does pre-suppose that any melting of ice would be the result of climate change. You could certainly argue against that assumption.
  But what you can't argue against is the fact that the ice is melting at all, although that doesn't stop some people here from cherry-picking one particular type of ice (sea ice), saying that it has expanded as if that is the complete argument against the total ice loss.
4. Re:The last sentence in the summary... by mSparks43 · 2014-09-30 17:42 · Score: 0
  
  No No No No No.
  Typical time frame for the warmists is six months, ending at summer.
  Look how much less ice there is in July 201x compared to December 200x (That was a NASA publication iirc) - give us more money.
5. Re:The last sentence in the summary... by riverat1 · 2014-09-30 18:33 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  The whole story is. 4 years != climate. Not by anyone's measure. If skeptics tried to debunk AGW on this board with a 4 year trend, everyone would be all over them like white on rice. But 4 years in favor of AGW in the summary? A O K!
  Yes but before the ESA satellite there were the GRACE satellites launched in 2002 that also showed West Antarctica losing ice and Antarctica overall is losing ice at a rate of almost 69 GT/year (graph). So it's more like 12 years of data. Even that is a rather short time period compared to the standard climatological period of 30 years. But the standard climatological variables such as temperature, precipitation and wind are very noisy compared the rate of ice loss so it takes longer to discern a significant trend with them than with ice. So 12 years may be long enough for significance. I'm not sure.
6. Re:The last sentence in the summary... by sjames · 2014-09-30 19:13 · Score: 1
  
  Probably because the deniers want to use minuscule blips in the temperature to 'support' a claim that decades of measurements mean nothing. All they're trying to do in TFA is quantify a well supported occurrence using recent data.
7. Re:The last sentence in the summary... by Tyr07 · 2014-09-30 20:18 · Score: 1
  
  Canada...had another record breaking hot summer, and expecting another winter with hardly any snow in the Vancouver region.
  10-15 years ago, we used to actually get snow over here.
  Yeah, it's getting hotter. But keep waving your hands 'It's not me its not me its not me no it not my car not me no its not my oil companies not me not me don't have to stop what I'm doing it's not me no it's not real it's not happening no see look there's ice its fine for me to keep making tons of money off of polluting factories its not me no no not me its fine not me.'
  Looks obnoxious doesn't it? That's because you fucking people who are like that are fucking obnoxious. No one takes fucking responsibility for their shit in anything, this included.
8. Re:The last sentence in the summary... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-30 20:27 · Score: 0
  
  No, actually, the linked article from www.esa.int states
  
  Johannes Bouman from the German Geodetic Research Institute said, “We are now working in an interdisciplinary team to extend the analysis of GOCE’s data to all of Antarctica.
9. Re:The last sentence in the summary... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-30 20:42 · Score: 1
  
  Six months is typical for straw puppets. It seems true when heard by numerous other people also speaking for straw puppets. As a rule of the thumb, it's better to speak your position with logic than put words in the mouths of people you disagree with.
  There are many potential reasons to publish data on ice loss from a winter period to a summer period. I'd be surprised if the actual publication was oozing with bias.
10. Re:The last sentence in the summary... by jandersen · 2014-09-30 21:23 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  The whole story is. 4 years != climate. Not by anyone's measure. If skeptics tried to debunk AGW on this board with a 4 year trend, everyone would be all over them like white on rice. But 4 years in favor of AGW in the summary? A O K!
  Not so. The scientific point of view is that the data speak for themselves; different theories try to make sense of the observed data. Theories are never perfect, but we can make theories better by using the scientific method - and this is where the debate invariably breaks down, not because a secretive conspiracy of climate scientists are suppressing facts, but because those suffering from 'skepticemia' are unwilling to accept reality.
  Weather is what happens locally, in the short time span - the wind in your hair, the sun on your face - climate is the average of the weather over large areas and long periods of time. So, it is perfectly reasonable to observe that the weather has been unusually cold in Canada this summer, and then say that this goes against the idea of global warming, and the observation requires a theoretical explanation, of course. Climatologists have already given very plausible explanations; the problem is that climate deniers don't want to accept the explanation. But just as it is necessary to consider data that go against the theory, it is also necessary to accept the data that support the theory; hence it is reasonable to state that the loss of icemass in Antarctica supports the theory of global warming.
  What I still haven't seen in is just 1 climate model that explains most of the observed current and historical data and doesn't end up concluding that climate change is happening and is caused by human activities. Produce just 1 theory that can stand up the critical efforts of more than a select group of handpicked believers; the truth is that the skeptics are unable to do so, and therefore talk about conspiracies instead. Meanwhile, I think the scientific consensus has moved on, because whether people like it or not, reality keeps happening.
11. Re:The last sentence in the summary... by Mashiki · 2014-09-30 21:59 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  Canada...had another record breaking hot summer, and expecting another winter with hardly any snow in the Vancouver region.
  Really?
  If I take a look at the measurements from EC, I see that most of the country was seasonal or far below seasonal. Including snowfalls in Alberta in June and August. In Southern Ontario where I live, it was on average of 3C lower than the seasonal averages, compared to ~3-6 years ago it was 5C lower. We still had ice on the great lakes in July, that hadn't been seen since the 1970's either. Of course it doesn't help that EC has been shutting down many of the weather stations that have been in use for awhile. And of course we can't forget that in much of the country our temperature records only start in the 1970's. So if you're going to claim "a record breaking hot summer" based on 30ish years of data, you're not doing yourself any favors.
  
  --
  Om, nomnomnom...
12. Re:The last sentence in the summary... by drinkypoo · 2014-09-30 22:19 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  But what you can't argue against is the fact that the ice is melting at all, although that doesn't stop some people here from cherry-picking one particular type of ice (sea ice), saying that it has expanded as if that is the complete argument against the total ice loss.
  It's worse than that. They're actually claiming that extent is counterevidence against loss of ice mass. Some of them don't even realize that's what they're claiming. Either way, this finding proves them wrong.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
13. Re:The last sentence in the summary... by drinkypoo · 2014-09-30 22:29 · Score: 2
  
  What I still haven't seen in is just 1 climate model that explains most of the observed current and historical data
  The reality is that the world is too complex and weather too chaotic to come up with 1 model that you're going to be able to plug what we know of what happened in the weather into and get out a simulation that follows what actually happens. The proof of this is that weather forecasters are commonly completely wrong, and they're dealing with the best-quality records we've got (e.g. the extensive weather doppler radar network in the USA) and only have to make predictions about rainfall, temperature, and cloud coverage for a day or a week in advance.
  Our maps are just barely up to the task of modeling global weather in the way that you want, where we get to make specific predictions. Our understanding of localized weather patterns is inadequate to the task. However, that still doesn't prevent us from being able to make broad, generalized predictions from what we know of physics. And given that what we do know broadly fits the global warming narrative which in turn agrees with what we know of physics, there's no particular reason to doubt the overall picture. The globe is warming, and we're doing things which physics says should warm it. There are natural mechanisms which will serve to bring the system back into balance, like for example spreading extent of sea ice, but these mechanisms have literally never had to clean up a mess like the one we've made and it's unclear whether we're going to make it through the reset process because we don't actually know what that looks like. We've perturbed the regular cycle that we could have expected to survive in a somewhat unpredictable way, but we can still make some predictions. Just as the world is not black-and-white in the way that denialists want it to be when they argue that it's colder where they are so there can't be global warming, our lack of complete certainty does not make us completely unable to make predictions. If it did, then we would never be able to do anything, because we often find that our understanding is superficial — yet our previous models still enabled us to make useful predictions.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
14. Re:The last sentence in the summary... by peragrin · 2014-09-30 22:55 · Score: 1
  
  That is my point. Weather is highly localized. a super cold couple of years in area X means area y was slightly warmer etc.
  We only have accurate data for 60 years, semi accurate data for 50 years before that, and hey this summer is hotter than last for everything before that. Everything else is guess work.
  Is the temperature going up. yes. is cutting down trees and burning carbon bad. yes. is smog bad yes.
  Back in the mid 2000's an ice shelf broke off. At the time the scientists were saying that a 5,000 year old ice shelf had broken off. Okay if it was 5,000 years old what broke it off the last time? the egyptians using slave labor to build the pyramids? The weather changes it goes up and down and side to side.
  looking for a .01 degree change is like looking for a penny to pay a $1,000 bar tab. it matters yes but come on.
  
  --
  i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
15. Re:The last sentence in the summary... by cmdr_tofu · 2014-09-30 23:29 · Score: 2
  
  Looks obnoxious doesn't it? That's because you fucking people who are like that are fucking obnoxious. No one takes fucking responsibility for their shit in anything, this included.
  well since consensus is now that animal agriculture is responsible for most greenhouse gas emissions: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11... One easy thing we can do is stop eating cows, then stop eating all animal products.
  Also even though I bicycle to work, I need to convince my boss to let me work from home "to stop climate change" ;-)
16. Re:The last sentence in the summary... by Truth_Quark · 2014-09-30 23:40 · Score: 1
  
  The article does pre-suppose that any melting of ice would be the result of climate change. You could certainly argue against that assumption.
  How?
  
  Surely from energy considerations, melting ice implies that there's an energy imbalance?
17. Re:The last sentence in the summary... by overpar · 2014-09-30 23:41 · Score: 0, Funny
  
  Tired of this nonsense, call me when the sea level ACTUALLY RISES.
18. Re:The last sentence in the summary... by Truth_Quark · 2014-10-01 00:04 · Score: 2
  
  At the time the scientists were saying that a 5,000 year old ice shelf had broken off. Okay if it was 5,000 years old what broke it off the last time? the egyptians using slave labor to build the pyramids?
  Really?
  
  1) Larson B had been a stable ice shelf 200 metres thick with a surface area of 3,250 square kilometres for at least 10,000 years. (source)
  2) Even if that wasn't the case you can still attribute climate change to a cause, and that cause doesn't have to be the same cause as previous climate change.
  2 b) Climate change one to two orders of magnitude slower than the current climate change would not be expected to have the same mechanism.
  3) It is not believed that Egyptians used slaves to construct the pyramids.
  
  The weather changes it goes up and down and side to side.
  Yes. And the current going up is primarily due to the enhanced greenhouse effect.
  
  looking for a .01 degree change is like looking for a penny to pay a $1,000 bar tab. it matters yes but come on.
  On the other hand a 0.8 degree rise has put a number of species at extinction risk, has displaced tens of millions of people per year, and kills about 150,000 people annually.
19. Re:The last sentence in the summary... by wes33 · 2014-10-01 00:11 · Score: 2
  
  "Overall, the agricultural sector contributed nearly 7% of total US GHG emissions in 2010"
  that is from http://iopscience.iop.org/1748...; that's just the USA
  but it's indicative that there's something a *little* wrong with your claim
20. Re: The last sentence in the summary... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-01 00:19 · Score: 0
  
  Well, if it is Antarctica you are talking about one would expect lower ice in summer (December) than winter (July), if the opposite were true it would actually be a bigger deal than comparing same months from year to year I would think.
21. Re:The last sentence in the summary... by ganjadude · 2014-10-01 00:52 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  you can eat your tofu if you like. the day you tell me I cant have a hamburger is the day we have a problem
  
  --
  have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
22. Re:The last sentence in the summary... by ganjadude · 2014-10-01 00:55 · Score: 1
  
  and the believers every time this year (hottest summer on record, see global warming!!?!!!) Both sides who focus on this as a major issue go about it the wrong way
  
  --
  have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
23. Re:The last sentence in the summary... by i+kan+reed · 2014-10-01 01:28 · Score: 1
  
  No, see, that tiny patch of the globe representing southern canada and northeastern US where the temperature trendline is actually slightly negative is storing so much hidden cold it completely contradicts any observations that the average temperature of the rest of the planet.
  This is a notion that makes sense and isn't crazy at all.
  But seriously, the easiest answer is that we can measure the heat changes over time themselves. We know the earth is warmer because we've been watching, and you have to go into serious levels of denialism about the validity of very reliable scientific tools like thermometers and IR cameras to twist yourself into a different conclusion about the state of the temperatures compared to 30 or 60 or 90 years ago.
24. Re:The last sentence in the summary... by Pieroxy · 2014-10-01 01:34 · Score: 2
  
  While I'm not denying reality - global warming is happening - I'm questioning the models proposed by the scientists. Let them come up with a model that doesn't completely fall apart 10 years later. So far, all models produced before 2000 have proven to *not* forecast the reality of things.
  I'm not saying those guys are charlatans, but if they try to convince me that the sea level will rise by 2m in 100 years I'll laugh, and pretty hard at that. Nobody is actually able to predict anything beyond a couple of years, so 100 years is well beyond their best effort so far.
  Granted the climate is an extraordinarily complex thing to model and so to predict. What exactly are going to be the consequences of the global warming is yet a thing to discover.
  Now, this doesn't mean that we should do nothing about it and wait & see. But shouting all over that in XX years, YY will change by ZZ is in my view discrediting the cause for the simple reason that those claims have always proved to be just plain wrong. So far.
  
  --
  Write boring code, not shiny code!
25. Re:The last sentence in the summary... by Shortguy881 · 2014-10-01 01:45 · Score: 0
  
  Better yet, didn't we just have an artical on this...
  
  extent-of-antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-record-levels
  
  --
  Brilliance without wisdom, power without conscience. Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants.
26. Re:The last sentence in the summary... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-01 01:52 · Score: 0
  
  It's the volcano, stupid!
27. Re: The last sentence in the summary... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-01 01:52 · Score: 0
  
  Global just doesn't mean why the submitter thinks it means.
28. Re:The last sentence in the summary... by Curunir_wolf · 2014-10-01 01:55 · Score: 1
  
  But what you can't argue against is the fact that the ice is melting at all, although that doesn't stop some people here from cherry-picking one particular type of ice (sea ice), saying that it has expanded as if that is the complete argument against the total ice loss.
  Right. But cherry-picking land ice is perfectly okay (as long as it's melting, of course).
  
  --
  "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
  --- Jerry Garcia
29. Re: The last sentence in the summary... by alfredo · 2014-10-01 01:59 · Score: 1
  
  Only in the mind of the Koch Brothers.
  
  --
  photosMy Photostream
30. Re:The last sentence in the summary... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-01 02:06 · Score: 0
  
  Ring Ring, I have a call for you... They have been rising: http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/f...
  
  While studies show that sea levels changed little from AD 0 until 1900, sea levels began to climb in the 20th century. [...] Records and research show that sea level has been steadily rising at a rate of 0.04 to 0.1 inches per year since 1900.
  You may choose to argue that is too small of a change for you to care, but records say they have been rising. Get your head out of your ass
31. Re:The last sentence in the summary... by Truth_Quark · 2014-10-01 02:06 · Score: 1
  
  No, see, that tiny patch of the globe representing southern canada and northeastern US where the temperature trendline is actually slightly negative is storing so much hidden cold it completely contradicts any observations that the average temperature of the rest of the planet.
  Reading between the lines, you have two points to make. One that you could argue that there isn't global warming while the ice sheets are melting so long as there is a large cooling elsewhere. And two that you don't find that this is a very compelling argument because there isn't such a cooling.
  
  And sure. Ice sheet mass loss is indicative of regional warming, not global warming. 500 cubic kilometres represents about 46 trillion kilowatt hours. Incidentally, at current average Australian electricity prices, that would cost about the same as the GDP of the entire country for about 6.8 years.
  
  It also represents about 0.01 W/m^2 for one year for the entire surface of the earth, or about 1-2% of the total energy imbalance. Possible to hide in other places, in principle, but you'd probably notice. And continued sea level rise is a bit of a cincher.
32. Re:The last sentence in the summary... by Layzej · 2014-10-01 02:08 · Score: 1
  
  Here is a graph of past, present, and future projections. It looks like sea level is already rising, and that the rise is accelerating. http://thebritishgeographer.we...
  If you look into the deep past you find that sea level had been stable for about 10,000 years. Prior to that there was a period of rapid rise during deglaciation: http://thebritishgeographer.we...
33. Re:The last sentence in the summary... by i+kan+reed · 2014-10-01 02:29 · Score: 1
  
  You misread sarcasm. I was absolutely arguing that point sarcastically.
  The serious point is that we can and do measure temperature increases, and while they aren't evenly distributed, there's only a tiny spot where it's not getting warmer.
34. Re:The last sentence in the summary... by drinkypoo · 2014-10-01 03:23 · Score: 1
  
  3) It is not believed that Egyptians used slaves to construct the pyramids.
  I've been bothered by this claim each time I see it. If you're willing to move big rocks for nothing but beer, are you any better than a slave? See also: Illegal immigrants picking lettuce.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
35. Re:The last sentence in the summary... by rgbatduke · 2014-10-01 03:36 · Score: 2
  
  What I still haven't seen in is just 1 climate model that explains most of the observed current and historical data.
  You could have ended this sentence right there and it would be accurate. So of course any additional clause that you append isn't going to change that. However, it does make the argument contained in that clause less compelling.
  rgb
  
  --
  Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.
36. Re: The last sentence in the summary... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-01 03:36 · Score: 0
  
  Do you mean to say that ice doesn't meet(sic) when its met by warmed air?
  Warmed from minus 40 degrees C to minus 38 degrees C? No, of course it doesn't melt. Why would you think it does?
  Its worth noticing that the IPCC report predicted the exact opposite of what the article reports. The Antarctic was supposed to gain ice over the next century, as 'warmer' air carries moisture further inland on the 'worlds driest continent'.
  The article refers to the areas where 'land ice is melting fastest'. It really should have mentioned that those areas all have significant sub-ice volcanic activity.
  it's not that the world hasn't warmed by 0.7 degrees C since the start of the Industrial Revolution. It's just that this warming has had both positive and negative effects. The forecasts are so badly wrong because they only ever took into account the positive effects. Now they are claiming that the record high amount of Arctic Sea Ice extent is caused by Global Warming. Of course it's a record only for the modern satellite era, not historically. The positive and negative effects of Global Warming have cancelled out to leave us back where we started from.
37. Re:The last sentence in the summary... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-01 03:45 · Score: 0
  
  The enitre argument is stupid, and not based in science whatsoever. Gravitational force is a function of MASS and distance.
  This particular piece of pseudo science AGW bullshit has no basis in science what so ever. When ice melts, it turns to water and does not simply disappear. Water has the same mass as ice (only less dense)! As a result, gravity as a whole is unaffected. The only difference in measurement they could possibly get is from being at different elevations from Earth's center of mass. What's the next story? Mt Everest is a giant anti-gravity device purposely being hidden by the government of Nepal? A good reason to invade^H^H^H^H^H^Hliberate them, no?
38. Re:The last sentence in the summary... by rgbatduke · 2014-10-01 04:44 · Score: 1
  
  Excuse me? Seriously? The SLR since roughly 1870 is clearly published in a number of places and amounts to roughly 9 inches. Quite aside from the infinity of statistical fallacies one can generate by fitting linear trends to timeseries data: http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=51..., or if you prefer a longer and much more detailed statistical (Bayesian) explication of the problems: http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=51..., and the fact that those problems are multiplied enormously when you seek to fit a nonlinear trend to the data, to argue that this timeseries reveals "acceleration", presumably correlated with increased CO_2 near the end, in spite of the fact that its greatest visible period of "acceleration" is in the early 20th century when CO_2 levels were nearly irrelevant to any observed climate change in everybody's models is not terribly sensible.
  Then we could analyze the other fallacies in this sort of graph used as an argument for 5 meter SLR by 2100. For example, the current rate of SLR is around maybe 3 cm/decade -- a bit over an inch a decade. In the 8.5 decades left in the century, we might be looking at anywhere from 8 inches to a foot of SLR based on the data as we have it now, foolishly extrapolating a linear trend indefinitely into the future for a highly nonlinear chaotic system that is perfectly capable of things like glacial transitions (either way) or century-scale droughts without any help at all from humans. However, this still doesn't do the problem justice, because of the differential probable error bars visible even in the figure you present, and the fact that the measurement methodology changes near the end, and the fact that to properly account for SLR either way one really has to take gravity and surface deformation into account in multiple ways. In particular, the crust is continuing the process of isostatic rebound resulting from the melting of an ice layer several kilometers thick on the polar regions "only" 12,000 or so years ago. The continents continue to drift. The sea bottom continues to remodel as this occurs. Much of this produces changes that we are only barely able to measure, in some places some of the time, now (mostly with satellites and e.g. GRACE, but there is a bit of chicken and egg problem there as well). There is the fact that an isostatic ocean produces LOCALIZED SLR where warm water floats on cooler water and can produce this sort of SLR in mid-ocean far from any tidal gauges. Tidal gauges in coastal areas are largely locked to local surface temperatures of the water. The satellite record includes this -- the tide gauge record does not, and since 70% of the Earth's surface is ocean, and nearly all of this ocean is "far" from continental boundaries and the comparatively tiny number of measurement stations that go back into the distant past with isostatic changes that are impossible to measure retroactively or correct for in the present, the probable error in global SLR visible in these curves is IMO at least almost certainly significantly underestimated, and that is before one gets to the factor of roughly 10 that Briggs asserts one is likely to underestimate true error by when fitting a linear trend to a timeseries.
  So what the data might justify is this. The "rate" (linear trend) of SLR over the last 145 years is something like 2 plus or minus 2 mm/year -- it could be anywhere from basically 0 to as much as 4 mm/year, and this might well still underestimate the probable error. The "current rate" (measured with much better precision, but beware picking endpoints!) is perhaps order of 3 mm/year, plus or minus what, a mm/year? At least? Well within the long term average, and clearly visible as being (probably) equaled or exceeded in the past in periods with little possible correlation/causality linkage with CO_2, even in so short a record.
  There isn't any conceivable argument that can be made on the basis of either s
  
  --
  Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.
39. Re:The last sentence in the summary... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-01 04:48 · Score: 0
  
  3) It is not believed that Egyptians used slaves to construct the pyramids.
  I've been bothered by this claim each time I see it. If you're willing to move big rocks for nothing but beer, are you any better than a slave? See also: Illegal immigrants picking lettuce.
  The Pharaohs was regarded as a god; so moving big rocks was not for just beer, but also a religious observance.
  Also, if you live near me and need a big rock moved, I will help for nothing but beer.
40. Re:The last sentence in the summary... by drfred79 · 2014-10-01 04:49 · Score: 1
  
  If you have an article that proves net ice loss I'd like to see it. Everything I read says one thing or the other, largest ice surface area of record or Antarctic land ice loss. To me they seem to be equaling each out but if you have a credible link to a net loss of ice I'd love to read it.
41. Re:The last sentence in the summary... by TwoEyedJack · 2014-10-01 05:05 · Score: 0
  
  "Decades" mean nothing in geologic time.
42. Re:The last sentence in the summary... by sjames · 2014-10-01 05:19 · Score: 1
  
  That would be relevant if the subject was geology. However, it is climatology.
43. Re:The last sentence in the summary... by Tyr07 · 2014-10-01 05:20 · Score: 1
  
  First off, you ought to cite resources. You know, because two billion fucking cars wouldn't be higher.
  Second, did I touch a nerve? Did the not me not me not me get to you? Do you not me a lot of the things in your life?
  Time for a little reflection.
44. Re:The last sentence in the summary... by Layzej · 2014-10-01 05:20 · Score: 1
  
  Whoa there cowboy! There is no curve fitting here. The instrumental record is just measurements. Future projections are based on physics. No curve fitting.
45. Re:The last sentence in the summary... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-01 05:31 · Score: 0
  
  one reason its eaier with ice is the sheer amount of melting.
  Imagine a block of ice the size of Manhattan.
  and 3 miles thick.
  That's the amount of ice Antarctica is losing every year to melting.
46. Re:The last sentence in the summary... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-01 05:35 · Score: 0
  
  actually weather forecasters have pretty good accuracy, >90%, out to abot four days.
47. Re: The last sentence in the summary... by Bartles · 2014-10-01 06:06 · Score: 1
  
  No, I mean to say that "global" does not mean what the submitter thinks it means. You can not measure global warming by looking exclusively at a portion of the globe.
48. Re:The last sentence in the summary... by Kernel+Kurtz · 2014-10-01 06:14 · Score: 1
  
  It sure was no record hot summer here in Manitoba, and last winter was the coldest since the late 1800s.
49. Re: The last sentence in the summary... by tmosley · 2014-10-01 07:23 · Score: 1
  
  "When the same argument can be used to equally explain all potential outcomes, you have zero knowledge."
50. Re:The last sentence in the summary... by rgbatduke · 2014-10-01 07:34 · Score: 1
  
  I was replying to "Here is a graph...". It states that it LOOKS like SLR is already happening (duh!) and that the rise is accelerating.
  As to whether or not the future projections are based on physics: How, exactly? Do you mean that there is physics in the models used to make those projections? No argument. Are the models capable of using the physics that are in them to make a prediction of future SLR that can be falsified? Not in any possible way. Hence one integrates the models (contingent on the assumptions that go into the "physics" inside, which is often in the form of semi-empirical formulae that kind-of-work for short-run weather forecasting in the models from whence the GCMs are descended until chaos makes these predictions worthless) , observes a staggering range of possible future climates, assumes further that in this case -- more or less uniquely in the general class of problems "like" this in mathematics and physics -- it's OK to solve the problem on a spatiotemporal granularity close to 10^30th larger than the Kolmogorov scale, assumes further that even though the resulting bundle of trajectories is so broad as to be nearly useless and each one is a "possible" future history of the climate, that the mean of this bundle is a number that is somehow relevant to the future behavior of the actual climate as a single realization of a space of possibilities that is almost certainly far larger than the model space given the coarse graining and smoothing, goes one step beyond that and average over many models that aren't even independent and what -- pray to a benign deity that these are good numbers on which to bet trillions of dollars and millions of lives on right now to -- perhaps -- avoid a catastrophe later?
  What part of this makes sense?
  rgb
  
  --
  Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.
51. Re:The last sentence in the summary... by TwoEyedJack · 2014-10-01 07:55 · Score: 0
  
  So the climate is a relatively new phenomena? Who knew ...
52. Re:The last sentence in the summary... by jafac · 2014-10-01 08:07 · Score: 1
  
  As far as "displaced tens of millions of people per year" goes, this includes Syrian refugees who were forced off of their farms due to climate-change induced drought; triggering the Syrian civil war.
  We're willing to spend billions on bombing the militants that arose from this war.
  We're not willing to spend a dime to address climate change (carbon reduction and sequester).
  
  --
  
  These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
53. Re:The last sentence in the summary... by drinkypoo · 2014-10-01 08:47 · Score: 1
  
  actually weather forecasters have pretty good accuracy, >90%, out to abot four days.
  For who? For how much of the land? In any case, that's not even possible, because if I check three sources for my area, they will say three different things at least two days out of three.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
54. Re:The last sentence in the summary... by ndogg · 2014-10-01 10:15 · Score: 1
  
  It's the redistribution of that mass that is the problem. It wasn't about the mass disappearing. That's a strawman that wasn't even being brought up.
  
  --
  // file: mice.h
  #include "frickin_lasers.h"
55. Re:The last sentence in the summary... by Truth_Quark · 2014-10-01 10:36 · Score: 1
  
  I've been bothered by this claim each time I see it. If you're willing to move big rocks for nothing but beer, are you any better than a slave?
  This is not the case with Egyptian Artisans. They were working for a salary or as part of their tax.
  
  But to answer the question, yes, willing voluntary work is better than being a slave.
56. Re:The last sentence in the summary... by Truth_Quark · 2014-10-01 10:41 · Score: 1
  
  As far as "displaced tens of millions of people per year" goes, this includes Syrian refugees who were forced off of their farms due to climate-change induced drought; triggering the Syrian civil war.
  I think you might be mistaken about that.
  The 2014 report doesn't mention Syria at all.
57. Re:The last sentence in the summary... by sumdumass · 2014-10-01 10:55 · Score: 1
  
  So what are you doing about it?
  I mean if everyone who was worried about AGW reduced and sequestored carbon, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Why is it that others need to be forced into it too?
58. Re:The last sentence in the summary... by Layzej · 2014-10-01 11:56 · Score: 1
  
  I was replying to "Here is a graph...". It states that it LOOKS like SLR is already happening (duh!) and that the rise is accelerating
  And so it does. the mean rate of global averaged sea level rise was 1.7 [1.5 to 1.9] mm/yr between 1901 and 2010, 2.0 [1.7 to 2.3] mm/yr between 1971 and 2010, and 3.2 [2.8 to 3.6] mm/yr between 1993 and 2010. http://thebritishgeographer.we... You may think that it is obvious but the person I was responding to was unaware.
  
  As to whether or not the future projections ... What part of this makes sense?
  
  None of it. See for instance: Meehl et al. 2005, Rahmstorf 2007, Jevrejeva et al. 2009, Grinsted et al. 2010, Horton et al., 2008; Vermeer and Rahmstorf 2009, Rahmstorf et al. 2012, Jevrejeva et al. 2010, Jevrejeva et al. 2012, Marzeion et al. 2012, Radic et al. 2013, Slangen and van de Wal 2011, Giesen and Oerlemans 2013, Machguth et al. 2013, Meier et al. 2007, Pfeffer et al. 2008, Jeverjeva et al. 2012, Bengtsson et al. 2011, Fettweis et al. 2008, Mernild et al. 2010, Rae et al. 2012, Yoshimori and Abe-Ouchi 2012, etc, etc, etc.
  Can you cite any studies that find otherwise? (or is your plan to simply dismiss the science with a wave of your hand?)
59. Re:The last sentence in the summary... by Truth_Quark · 2014-10-01 13:25 · Score: 1
  
  I mean if everyone who was worried about AGW reduced and sequestored carbon, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
  
  There is a limit to current sequestration technologies. You can't keep planting trees, because you run out of space.
  To achieve the 80-90% reductions required to halt the growth of atmospheric CO2, in the medium term, you need to clean the grid, and use electricity for transportation.
  And the latter does very little without the former.
  An individual cannot clean fossil fuel power generation off the grid. Government has to be involved.
60. Re:The last sentence in the summary... by Tyr07 · 2014-10-01 22:09 · Score: 1
  
  Overall, temperature is going up.
  You know how dumb that is, when you go 'All these cold places are getting warmer, but a few places are still cold or even slightly colder now, so clearly, everything is fine'
  Here, let me use your logic on something else!
  People around me are not being raped and murdered, therefore the rest of the world is fine and in other countries are not getting raped in murdered either.
61. Re:The last sentence in the summary... by dave420 · 2014-10-01 23:00 · Score: 1
  
  Because it takes more than just those who haven't been poisoned by the Koch brothers to make a change. We need a concerted effort by all those who can in order to achieve the best results. The only reasons for not wanting to help are ignorance or selfishness. Your pick.
62. Re:The last sentence in the summary... by dave420 · 2014-10-01 23:02 · Score: 1
  
  What? A denier had his facts wrong and guessed a bunch of stuff which turned out to have never even been claimed in the first place? No waaaay!
63. Re:The last sentence in the summary... by dave420 · 2014-10-01 23:04 · Score: 1
  
  No, just that in climatology periods of ~30 years are used to measure differences. It has nothing to do with the age of a phenomenon, but how quickly it changes. I think you can understand that the climate can change a lot quicker than geological processes can.
64. Re:The last sentence in the summary... by dave420 · 2014-10-02 00:31 · Score: 1
  
  The silence is deafening.
65. Re:The last sentence in the summary... by TwoEyedJack · 2014-10-02 02:21 · Score: 0
  
  There is no real evidence one way or another on the rate of change of climate. Tree rings and ice cores are influenced by factors besides temperature, like precipitation. 30 years is an completely arbitrary choice. I could just as easily defend 3000 years as 30.
66. Re:The last sentence in the summary... by sumdumass · 2014-10-02 03:29 · Score: 1
  
  Wow.. i love how you worked the koch bros in there like it actually means something. But i'm not so sure you beed to force others into conserving abd sequestoring. It would appear that you are simply too selfish to go the extra mile for someone else who might not want to jump in the band wagon.
  So qhy exactly is it that you think everyone else has to jump through your hoops too?
67. Re:The last sentence in the summary... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-02 04:32 · Score: 0
  
  My plan is to dismiss the statistics with a wave of my hand. Meh, I say.
  You might as well try to scry the future by reading entrails as extract a meaningful "acceleration" this timeseries, especially a supposedly causally linked acceleration when the acceleration in question isn't even particularly well resolved from the other periods of high "acceleration" visible in the record. You can cherrypick any intervals you like (as can any or all of the authors above) that prove acceleration and more power to you, but seriously, you need to read Briggs comments on the subject. Forget acceleration -- worry about whether or not you can meaningfully differentiate the linear trend or whether or not the linear trend has any fundamental predictive skill.
  Aside from the statistical nonsense of inferring a quantitative acceleration in a timeseries by picking interval endpoints that show acceleration (so little surprise when you find it!) one has the difficulty of ascribing causes. If you look at this (for example):
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Trends_in_global_average_absolute_sea_level,_1870-2008_%28US_EPA%29.png
  then I can play the cherrypicking game too. The single interval of fastest SLR visible in the curve was the period 1930 to 1950, with around a 2.5 inch rise in twenty years (and I'm carefully not reading off of the little peak in 1950 or the little trough in 1929, but not too carefully as this is cherrypicking, after all, and to quote some climate savant or other, "You have to pick cherries if you want to make cherry pie). The best 20 year interval you can find in the latter half of the 20th century is 2 inches in 20 years, which happened twice. The "acceleration" of this curve was far greater between (cherrypicked) segments from 1910 to 1930, where SLR was almost flat, to 1930 to 1950 at 2.5 inches -- an "acceleration" of anywhere from 1.25" per decade to as big as you want to make it if you choose shorter intervals, as the mean slopes change pretty abruptly in 1930. There is very little 20 year acceleration visible in the latter half of the 20th century.
  This merely illustrates the problem to you. First of all, none of these "accelerations" are particularly meaningful withing the timeseries. On the one hand, you don't need to "fit" the data on carefully selected endpoints, you can just look at the data and see what it is, not what it supposedly says. The only reason to fit a linear trend is if you think it has predictive skill, and this curve illustrates lots of great reasons to think that linear trends have little skill in climate science. Second, suppose you want to say "Yes, well, but we have additional Bayesian knowledge. We know that the general trend of global temperature was rising over this interval and, since SLR largely reflects what is happening with mean SSTs as surface waters expand with increasing temperatures, and we think that increasing global temperatures (including SSTs) are caused by increasing CO_2, we expect to see an acceleration caused by CO_2 in the latter half of the twentieth century, so when we look for it it isn't really cherrypicking, it's using Bayesian priors."
  Or it is until you note that the period of greatest linear trend and period of greatest "acceleration" all occurred in the incorrect half of the 20th century, the half that preceded any meaningful increase in greenhouse forcing due to CO_2. As a physicist, I have a strong feeling that causes should precede effects. I also dislike the open abuse of statistics, and cherrypicking events to support a conclusion that is pure confirmation bias.
  If you handed this data to a statistician and without telling them what it was, or even lying about it -- stating that it is a graph of adjusted gold prices in Malaysia or something -- and asked them to extract all of the statistical "juice" they could from it, their conclusions would be vastly more conservative than the conclusions arrived at in the climate community. If
68. Re:The last sentence in the summary... by rgbatduke · 2014-10-02 04:40 · Score: 1
  
  Was that to me? Sorry, I have physics classes to teach and am insanely busy teaching them, and there is no point in posting a short answer to a difficult or subtle question. I had time to answer this morning and did so. Not that I expect my reply to make any difference in your beliefs. If you wish to accept the word of the climate "oracles" as god-descended truth instead of something that, well, could easily be doubted on multiple grounds I doubt that pointing those grounds out will change your beliefs. I'll merely point out that actual statisticians often make fun of climate scientists (see e.g. William Briggs' blog and his patient, detailed posts on the subject), and for pretty good reasons. Making reliable inferences from computational models in this class is something I've done a fair bit of work in, and it is very, very difficult. This isn't computing the trajectory of a baseball.
  rgb
  
  --
  Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.
69. Re:The last sentence in the summary... by doccus · 2014-10-02 06:28 · Score: 1
  
  It's no joke to the Emperor penguins, you know.. ;-)
70. Re:The last sentence in the summary... by Layzej · 2014-10-02 07:57 · Score: 1
  
  My plan is to dismiss the statistics with a wave of my hand. Meh, I say.
  I never claimed to have statistically rejected a linear trend. I simply pointed out that the sea level rise appears to be accelerating. That is certainly true. Sea level was flat for thousands of years after deglaciation. It rose slowly in the 19th century. Faster in the 20th century. Faster still in the 21st (so far). On the surface, SLR appears to be accelerating. Reevaluation may be required if future data deviates, but based on the data available it is hard to reject acceleration. This agrees with the physics so even without statistical significance, a cohesive picture begins to emerge.
  Regarding sensitivity, it would be nice if we could further constrain the confidence intervals on this. I'm not convinced that we can, but I am hopeful that sensitivity lies somewhere closer to the bottom or "most likely" value. I'm also optimistic about the progress that we are already making in addressing the issue, although I believe that a market driven the solution would be more efficient than feed in tariffs.
  Regarding models predicting ENSO and PDO. There is no expectation that they will. Nor can they predict large volcanic eruptions. I think you may have missed the point of the recent paper that "threw out the crap models". The retained model runs were not necessarily more skillful and did not differ in their long term projections. They just happened to start from a similar phase in ENSO, but this was not due to skill. GCM’s cannot currently predict the relative timing of El Niños and La Niñas, which are known to be chaotic .
  
  Every year without statistically significant warming that stretches out the "hiatus" has a small incremental negative effect on the best estimate of TCS
  
  That is true, however we are currently in a negative phase of the PDO. As this reverses and temperature rise accelerates we will see that the opposite is true. Which is why it is hard at this point to narrow the confidence intervals further. I'm not sure that I want to delve too deeply into the fantastic paragraphs near the end of your essay but I do believe that we should base our decisions on our best available science.
71. Re:The last sentence in the summary... by Layzej · 2014-10-03 01:24 · Score: 1
  
  Hi rgb, I've replied to your anonymous response. I'm replying to you here so that it shows up in your notifications.
72. Re:The last sentence in the summary... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-03 03:15 · Score: 0
  
  "For who?"
  For the weather forecasters. See "weather forecasters have pretty good accuracy".
  "For how much of the land?"
  For all the land and sea that they predict the weather for. See the weather forecasts.
  "In any case, that's not even possible, because if I check three sources for my area, they will say three different things at least two days out of three."
  Please show proof. After all, this is not possible since failing to get at least 85% accuracy in weather forecasts over a year must be reported to the government and requires government action to redress the failures.
73. Re:The last sentence in the summary... by david_thornley · 2014-10-03 04:00 · Score: 1
  
  At a rough guess, he sees us all doing harm to global climate, and wants everybody to at least slow down the harm. Or he sees it as a variation of the prisoner's dilemma: any individual is better off not trying to cut his or her own carbon emissions regardless of what the population as a whole does, while we're all better off if the population as a whole cuts carbon emissions. Alternately, he doesn't want to see the ignorant and uncaring living better than those who actually know what's going on and care.
  After all, I don't believe in committing violent crime, so I don't have to. I do, however, believe in government action against people who do want to commit violent crime.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
74. Re:The last sentence in the summary... by rally2xs · 2014-10-05 00:59 · Score: 1
  
  Global warming whiners have ABSOLUTELY NO solution to the problem, no actual thing we can do that will SOLVE the problem. They have ways of making life more miserable, like skateboards with Thimble Dromes instead of cars, but no real solution. The FACT is that we HAVE to burn fossil fuels in the developed countries because their populations are so large that to not do so would kill a significant portion of their people from starvation when the food is not delivered by trucks that are no longer burning fossil fuels.
  I think they should stop whining and WORK ON A REAL SOLUTION, and cease doing things that impede progress and create poverty, like carbon taxes and the like. Create as much prosperity in society as possible, even tho it involves a little more carbon fuel use, and maybe the money will be available for the right person to make the discovery that enables the magic battery that will enable the use of electricity for transportation.
  Transportation is the key. We burn something like 13.02 million barrels of petroleum a day in the USA. If we could stop doing that entirely, and use electricity, that would make a dent. If we could make it cheap enough for the rest of the world, that would likely be the solution. But it isn't going to happen with the current whining about CO2 causing widespread poverty that consumes billions of dollars to deal with, which are billions of dollars that could otherwise be used on research for the magic battery, solar energy conversion efficiency, and so forth.
75. Re:The last sentence in the summary... by cmdr_tofu · 2014-10-05 02:48 · Score: 1
  
  Interesting. Your reference does seem to claim only 7%. However it does claim that animal agriculture is the most significant fraction of the 7%:
  
  Although the scientific literature points to reduced meat consumption as an effective mitigation strategy in regards to climate change?[25, 30, 31, 38, 39], to date, agricultural production has been largely ignored in climate policy [40, 41]. A study by Wiresenius, Hedenus, and Mohlin concludes that implementing an emissions tax of ?60 per tonne CO2e ($77 per tonne CO2e in 2012 USD) on animal food products would reduce agricultural CO2e emissions in the EU by 32 million metric tons annually, which represents approximately 7% of the EU?s total, annual agricultural GHG emissions?[40]. An emissions price on the downstream consumption of GHG-intensive agricultural goods (i.e. a GHG emission tax or emissions trading scheme) is one means of implementing a CO2e construct using price signals and market forces to implement diet shifts as a climate mitigation strategy.
  The UN study (which supports my claim) factors in things like methane emissions not only from cattle grazing but from anaerobic decomposition of livestock "waste pools", livestock processing and refrigerated transport. Also slash and burn of rainforests (60% of which is claimed to be for cattle). The full study is here:
  http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/...
76. Re:The last sentence in the summary... by Tyr07 · 2014-10-05 19:08 · Score: 1
  
  Actually there's a lot of fucking solutions, and we have a right to complain.
  Utility companies are freaking out over people using alternative power like solar panels because it cuts into their profit.
  Oil companies buyout alternative car fuel sources and have shut them down repeatedly in the past to protect their oil profits
  They're now embracing some of this technology because they have enough subsidiaries to make money. E.G they also own stakes in the electric company, and the hydrogen extraction company etc.
  We want people to OPT into alternative technologies, and have us move forward as a society, instead of being thwarted by companies who wants 5 private jets instead of 1.
  We want business models to either ADAPT or FAIL if they are no longer valid, to let society progress.
  We have new technology, socially it's changing us, but it's time for industry to move along with it, in every day aspects of normal citizens.
  Our staple - you must pay for a normal life- living costs, should be going down, not up.
  We've invented a ton more ways to product a ton more of the things we need cheaper, but they're hanging on to older models to gouge us and pretend they have justification to charge what they do.
  Solar power should continue to be subsidiezed, by the government, which CITIZENS pay for, in TAXES, so that we can all benefit from lower utility costs, making such usage not as much of a concern, lowering our costs, and lowering the effects of dirty energy burning. Re-using old solar panels will help offset the manafacturing imprint, as once enough are made, it will be refined to be cheaper, and there will be spare ones around, decreasing demand but providing ample power.
77. Re:The last sentence in the summary... by Layzej · 2014-10-14 06:10 · Score: 1
  
  New paper in PNAS: We see no evidence in the geological record from about 6000 years ago to 100-150 years that resembles the rise that we see in the last 100 years. Compared against this 'background' signal the recent rise of about 20 centimetres in 100 years recorded by tide gauges is anomalous, - http://www.pnas.org/content/ea...
Gravity of Earth = variable = anomaly... by UnknownSoldier · 2014-09-30 16:20 · Score: 2

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...
The Gutenberg Discontinuity, is the boundary, as detected by changes in seismic waves, between the Earth's lower mantle and the outer core about 1800 miles below the surface. It is also called the core-mantle boundary.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...
"Contrary to what we were sometimes taught" by aepervius · 2014-09-30 16:21 · Score: 5, Informative

I can't speak for all country, but in France you are taught 1) that gravity constant used varies and we get the values at equators, pole, (iirc 9.78 to 9.83 while we used 9.81) and our lattitude, altitude

2) but afterward to make it simpler we always assume it is a constant because we do not have the math tool to integrate with g(r,theta, rho) over complex surface.

At no point we were taught that gravity is a constant. What we were taught is to use it as constant in simplified problems. That is a difference. I would wagger it is the samer in the country of the submitter, only he missed the important semantic difference.

--
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
1. Re:"Contrary to what we were sometimes taught" by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-30 16:46 · Score: 1
  
  I don't think the submitter was ever taught high school physics.
2. Re:"Contrary to what we were sometimes taught" by timeOday · 2014-09-30 16:50 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  More fundamentally, ALL equations are only approximations. They are just models of reality that fit well enough to suit the purposes, or as well as we can currently measure. The Laws of Physics are our current understanding of the truth, not the truth itself.
3. Re:"Contrary to what we were sometimes taught" by antifoidulus · 2014-09-30 16:50 · Score: 0
  
  We were taught that in high school physics where I grew up too(the US, though admittedly a richer part of the US). The weaker gravity is the reason space missions are launched from places that are close to the equator, Florida in the US and French Guiana for the ESA. Though granted the reason for this discrepancy(distance to the center of the earth is greater near the equator due to the earth not being a perfect sphere) is different than the reasons for this most recent change
  
  --
  Monstar L
4. Re:"Contrary to what we were sometimes taught" by pepty · 2014-09-30 17:07 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Actually, the reason why space missions are launched from places closer to the equator is that missions are cheaper there: money near the equator is moving at a higher percentage of escape velocity than money at the poles. That's why the tax havens are frequently in those latitudes.
5. Re:"Contrary to what we were sometimes taught" by phantomfive · 2014-09-30 17:18 · Score: 1, Offtopic
  
  More fundamentally, ALL equations are only approximations.
  There's truth and falseness in every sentence.....including this one.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
6. Re:"Contrary to what we were sometimes taught" by Anonymous+Freak · 2014-09-30 17:32 · Score: 1
  
  Agreed. I learned about the Gravitational constant and the variability of gravity in high school physics in the US.
  One of my proudest moments in high school physics was running a "measure gravity" experiment 3 times, getting to within 0.005 m/s^2 of the right answer all 3 times - for where I was! I thought for sure I was doing it wrong, until the teacher said "and if some of you are getting a number other than a simple 9.8, it's because the local gravity here is actually ." Mine averaged to 0.002 off.
  
  --
  Another non-functioning site was "uncertainty.microsoft.com."
  The purpose of that site was not known.
7. Re:"Contrary to what we were sometimes taught" by nedlohs · 2014-09-30 17:41 · Score: 2
  
  Wowsers, I wonder what else in your high school physics was completely made up garbage. Because that one is a doozy!
8. Re:"Contrary to what we were sometimes taught" by PolygamousRanchKid+ · 2014-09-30 18:04 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  but in France
  We've discussed these issues in France for Google and Amazon already. If gravity is doing business in France, gravity is subject to the laws of France. The French government can tax gravity to pay for subsidies of other weaker forces in France.
  
  --
  Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
9. Re:"Contrary to what we were sometimes taught" by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-30 18:39 · Score: 0
  
  You are confusing the gravitational constant with the gravitational pull of the earth, two very different things. "Big G" is a measure of the strength of the gravitational force and is for all purposes constant (intrinsic strength of the force). While the gravitational pull experienced in the surface of the earth is a product of the strength of the field and the distance been you and the masses. This value is impossible to calculate but easy to measure, and varies everywhere (at no two points is it the same). This is because of the unequal distribution of mass in the earth. G =/ g.
10. Re:"Contrary to what we were sometimes taught" by riverat1 · 2014-09-30 18:45 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  The weaker gravity is the reason space missions are launched from places that are close to the equator, Florida in the US and French Guiana for the ESA.
  You'll notice that most space missions are launched toward the east as well. This is mainly because the rotational velocity of the Earth is greatest at the Equator (~1,040 mph or 1,674 km/h) which means less fuel is needed to reach orbital velocity. I doubt gravity has a lot to do with it but it probably helps a bit as well.
11. Re:"Contrary to what we were sometimes taught" by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-30 20:23 · Score: 0
  
  Given that the article this summary is based on actually states, "Though we all learned in high-school physics that gravity is a constant...", I'm willing to bet that most of America wasn't ever taught high school physics. Appalled by American scientific ignorance? Yeah, it's pretty scary. Even scarier when Americans can't read. Reading is way easier than physics, am I right?
12. Re:"Contrary to what we were sometimes taught" by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-30 21:13 · Score: 0
  
  The author of the original Slate article was Eric Holthaus, a meteorologist from Wisconsin. And yes, he did actually write,
  
  Though we all learned in high-school physics that gravity is a constant...
  You're kind to give him and the summary writer the benefit of the doubt, but no, I don't think it's a misunderstanding rooted in semantics. How can he have become a meteorologist without having cleared up his misunderstanding?
13. Re:"Contrary to what we were sometimes taught" by Yoda222 · 2014-09-30 22:26 · Score: 1
  
  The "gravity constant" that you are describing is the gravity acceleration at the earth surface due to the earth (where you may or may not have subtracted the centripetal acceleration due to the earth rotation) which changes with the position on earth mainly due to the fact that the distance from the surface to the center of the earth is changing (due to flattened at the poles and bulges at the equator). So this is more a change with location than a change with time. The ESA studies is more about the measurement of the earth gravitation from "outside" the earth, to create a model for orbit evolution with time. (Jn parameters, with n>= 2) And they study this evolution in time, for all location. So it's not exactly the same.
  (Anyway, the g that you talk about can be seen as an evaluation of the Jx modelisation at earth surface so this is of course related. Bu the study is more about time change than space change)
14. Re: "Contrary to what we were sometimes taught" by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-30 22:38 · Score: 0
  
  I was learning high school physics almost 30 years ago in Ohio and yes its still taught today. Same thing in the state I live now. My wife is a teacher and we have 5 kids all in the same district.
15. Re: "Contrary to what we were sometimes taught" by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-30 22:40 · Score: 0
  
  I learned physics 30 years ago in high school back in Ohio.
16. Re:"Contrary to what we were sometimes taught" by Pro-feet · 2014-09-30 23:43 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Blowing karma on being pedantic: gravity is by far the weakest force known!
17. Re:"Contrary to what we were sometimes taught" by StrangeBrew · 2014-10-01 01:52 · Score: 1
  
  "only he missed the important semantic difference." Not surprising. The submitter is a known anti-semantic. Which is really weird, because he's obviously not part of the 'denier' camp.
18. Re:"Contrary to what we were sometimes taught" by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-01 03:35 · Score: 0
  
  No, it is because they are launched towards Mecca.
  As we all know, launching towards Mecca pleases Allah, and so he grants the launch vehicle an energy boost.
19. Re:"Contrary to what we were sometimes taught" by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-02 05:12 · Score: 0
  
  So long as all launches face to the left. Otherwise you lose all your latitudinal gains to the coriolis force.
20. Re:"Contrary to what we were sometimes taught" by riverat1 · 2014-10-02 13:59 · Score: 1
  
  So, do China and India launch their rockets to the west toward Mecca?
21. Re:"Contrary to what we were sometimes taught" by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-04 02:28 · Score: 0
  
  Gravity is THE reason you have escape velocities.
  We would be escaping with no effort/work otherwise.
So when I visit Antarctica... by spud_boy_65986534 · 2014-09-30 16:25 · Score: 0

...I'll be .00000001 oz. lighter than without global warming. We're doomed!
isnt ice less dense? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-30 16:31 · Score: 1

I thought ice was less dense than water or most rock/soil. so if that was the case the loss of less dense ice for water or soil would increase the gravity no?
1. Re:isnt ice less dense? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-30 16:53 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Freezing water expands and takes up more volume which makes it less dense, yes, but it still has the same overall mass as when it was liquid. The idea here would be that the water runoff goes into the surrounding oceans, so mainland Antarctica would be losing overall mass.
2. Re:isnt ice less dense? by barfy · 2014-09-30 17:03 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  The Ice melts and the water physically goes elsewhere. Less stuff, less gravity.
3. Re:isnt ice less dense? by popo · 2014-09-30 17:50 · Score: 1
  
  But help me out here. the water is still in the oceans of the Earth. So what causes the net gravitational change? The change in density from less-dense ice to more-dense water?
  I would guess that results in a gravitational increase. Where is the net loss coming from?
  
  --
  ------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
4. Re:isnt ice less dense? by Bomazi · 2014-09-30 18:15 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  There is no net change. Local gravity becomes weaker where the ice was and stronger where the melted ice now is.
5. Re:isnt ice less dense? by sjames · 2014-09-30 19:25 · Score: 1
  
  No, because when the ice melts from the land, it flows away into the ocean leaving less total mass in that location.
6. Re:isnt ice less dense? by Arethan · 2014-09-30 19:27 · Score: 2
  
  Stop being logical - society doesn't care as long as they have a 4 second headline for CNN's morning recap. Science is old school.
7. Re:isnt ice less dense? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-30 20:29 · Score: 0
  
  What is this, the law of conservation of Earth's gravity? Did you take high school physics in the U.S.?
8. Re:isnt ice less dense? by Bomazi · 2014-09-30 22:09 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Not exactly and no. When mass is redistributed (due to ice melting, plate tectonics, mantle convection, etc...) the shape of the geoid changes. However the total mass of the Earth is conserved. So if you are far enough away from the Earth to make it indistinguishable from a point mass, Earth's gravity remains constant.
9. Re:isnt ice less dense? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-01 01:27 · Score: 0
  
  Let be the density of water and m be mass of ice
  Before Melting
  By Archimedes Principle
  mass of water displaced = mass of ice = m
  vol of ice submerged under water = vol of water displaced = m/
  After Melting
  mass of melted ice = m
  vol of melted ice = m/
  Hence, volume of ice submerged under water before melting is exactly equal to volume of water formed after melting. Therefore, since volume remains constant, the water level within the cup also remains constant.
10. Re:isnt ice less dense? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-01 02:44 · Score: 0
  
  No, because when the ice melts from the land, it flows away into the ocean leaving less total mass in that location.
  I am curious if there's any way to do science on the impact of the fact that "everything floats on liquid rock at some point". This could be a lay-person's understanding of the physics involved though...
11. Re:isnt ice less dense? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-01 07:45 · Score: 0
  
  But help me out here. the water is still in the oceans of the Earth. So what causes the net gravitational change? The change in density from less-dense ice to more-dense water?
  I would guess that results in a gravitational increase. Where is the net loss coming from?
  I had trouble wrapping my head around this once so let me explain why you weigh more standing on top of a mountain than at sea level.
  While you ARE farther from the center of the Earth, the Earth has a radius of ~4k miles or so and a 5 mile high mountain isn't changing your big G very much. If you stand on a giant pyramid of dense rock (aka a mountain), you get a bit of gravitational pull from the pyramid. Let's call it 0.1G. So while you might lose 0.01G due to a small (5 mile) altitude change from the Earth, your net gain from the dense mountain is more.
  The big sheet of ice has a similar, though less geometrically platonic impact.
  Also, it is NOT a net loss, it is just redistributed.
12. Re:isnt ice less dense? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-01 08:40 · Score: 0
  
  As a result of this, if all of it melted the rise in sea level would be very different in different parts of the world. I've seen calculations showing that the rise in my area of the world (North-western Europe) would be around 3 meter whereas near the equator it would be more than twice that. Of course the absolute numbers in these predictions are to be taken with a grain of salt as it is impossible to accurately account for all effects (think for example the rebounding of the earth's crust due to the lost weight of the ice caps), but it indicates the order of magnitude in the gravitational effect that the ice caps have on the ocean waters.
Re:Chicken Little Global Warming nuts by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-30 16:37 · Score: 0

Wow. In complete denial of the FACT that Antarctic sea ice is at the HIGHEST LEVEL in decades, these Global warming cult members keep spreading the blatantly false propaganda. Now they are saying that if I don't drive a Prius, that the earths gravity will fail. ...and the gullible liberal Gore-sheep keep lapping it up like the good little useful idiots they are

Wow. In complete denial of the FACT that Antarctic sea ice is at the HIGHEST LEVEL in decades, these Global warming cult members keep spreading the blatantly false propaganda. Now they are saying that if I don't drive a Prius, that the earths gravity will fail. ...and the gullible liberal Gore-sheep keep lapping it up like the good little useful idiots they are
Sarah Palin?
anti-science idiocy by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-30 16:44 · Score: 0

The anti-science idiocy on Slashdot is really reaching new proportions.
Yes, melting ice results in measurable changes in gravity. Lots of things do. People use these techniques to detect oil fields, ground water, and lots of other things.
1. Re:anti-science idiocy by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-30 16:49 · Score: 0
  
  > The anti-science idiocy
  > the Earth's gravity is not constant
  How is it anti-science, when it's a trivially true statement?
2. Re: anti-science idiocy by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-30 18:44 · Score: 0
  
  The suggestion that "being big enough to cause a measurable shift in earth's gravity" is something worthy of note is the anti science idiocy. This is not something that matters.
3. Re: anti-science idiocy by chipschap · 2014-09-30 18:50 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  The suggestion that "being big enough to cause a measurable shift in earth's gravity" is something worthy of note is the anti science idiocy. This is not something that matters.
  You don't understand. It is politically correct to tie this to global warming.
4. Re: anti-science idiocy by sumdumass · 2014-09-30 21:35 · Score: 1
  
  How else can we get rid of capitalism and institute communism against the will of the majority of people?
5. Re: anti-science idiocy by Cenan · 2014-09-30 22:55 · Score: 1
  
  You mean like the government enacts the will of the people now? Oh the horror if all that were to stop.
  
  --
  ... whatever ...
6. Re: anti-science idiocy by sumdumass · 2014-09-30 23:15 · Score: 1
  
  Exactly. Get the people to want something they have previously rejected and witnessed most previous attempts turn into violent oppressive regimes that failed to progress much through fear and contrived disdain.
  All hail the stupidity of the crowd. Er i mean the will of the people.
7. Re: anti-science idiocy by Cenan · 2014-09-30 23:36 · Score: 1
  
  Rejecting capitalism does not automatically make soviet style communism, or any derivative thereof, the only alternative left.
  
  --
  ... whatever ...
8. Re: anti-science idiocy by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-01 03:53 · Score: 0
  
  Government shouldnt enact the will of the people any more than the referees in a football game should enact the will of the players.
  The "will of the people" is just the disparate behavior of all the individuals within a given radius taken in aggregate.
9. Re: anti-science idiocy by sumdumass · 2014-10-01 04:08 · Score: 1
  
  You are right. There is always the north korean style, the chinese style, vietnamese/cambodian style, german style, and a few others i missed.
  Communism has and likely will always devolve into oppresive styles of ruling over the people with brushes against mass murder because everyone has to either agree with the results of it, be forced to agree with it, or eliminated from innfluencing it at all. Every single conversion to communism we have witnessed has either mass murdered some of the people who rejected it or imprisoned them. This is just history and no one has ever pointed to anytjing that would change it in the future. There has however been plenty of people claiming it was never true communism and thinking it would somehow be different if we just tried again. Unfortunately, everyone looks like a scottsman to them.
10. Re: anti-science idiocy by dywolf · 2014-10-01 05:48 · Score: 1
  
  Spoken like a true oligarch.
  
  We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed [..]
  The Declaration of Independence
  
  Government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the Earth [..]
  Abraham Lincoln
  
  The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves - in their separate, and individual capacities.
  Abraham Lincoln
  Government SHOULD enact the will of the people, because it IS the people.
  Government as practiced in a free society is the collective will of the citizenry.
  This is first day material of Civics 101. Which like most modern wingnuts on this site you apparently slept through.
  
  --
  The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
11. Re: anti-science idiocy by dave420 · 2014-10-02 00:57 · Score: 1
  
  No, it's scientifically correct to tie this to global warming, if global warming has something to do with it. Politics has nothing to do with it - that is a different discussion entirely.
12. Re: anti-science idiocy by sumdumass · 2014-10-03 08:07 · Score: 1
  
  Abraham Lincoln was wrong about a lot of things. Or do you think blacks are not equal but should be treated humanely but separate from whites and shipped back to africa? That is after all, some of the things Lincoln said.
  And no, civics 101 in the USA would spell out the difference between the government constituted between the several countries (the federal government) and the state and local governments. The op is correct, government should not enact the will of the people. In just a few generations, the will of the people could bring back slavery, it could demand you be killed along with all your family for spouting such nonsense, the will of the people could be a lot of things that no government has a legitimate right to enact. At one time, the will of the people was that gays cannot marry. The will of the people did not change so much as the government was forced to not follow the will of the people. Is that a bad thing- that gays in many states and soon likely all of the states can marry or is it a bad thing because the will of the people was ignored?
Beware the headlines by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-30 16:47 · Score: 0

"Measurable Shift" could mean "Not noticeable by any living organism."
1. Re:Beware the headlines by Russ1642 · 2014-10-01 01:49 · Score: 1
  
  Yes. We can measure extremely small changes. Measurable in no way means significant.
Re:Chicken Little Global Warming nuts by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-30 16:49 · Score: 0

gr8 b8 m8, im ir8
i r8 8/8
From the article by the_Bionic_lemming · 2014-09-30 16:52 · Score: 1

The shift is very small.
Of course, the instruments measuring it can never ever be faulted ?

--
_ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
1. Re: From the article by jovius · 2014-09-30 17:11 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  The shift is small but the mass loss is real. Last three year average in the measured area has been 185 gigatonnes/year. It has an effect on the gravity, that's clear. The question is how much, and it seems it can actually be measured by instruments. Not anywhere in the world there's a constant loss of this magnitude, and as the trend goes on the change in gravity will also become more distinct.
2. Re:From the article by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-30 17:55 · Score: 1
  
  No, nobody making precision measurements of well-measured properties like gravitational acceleration considers how the margin of error of their instruments compares to the apparent signal.
  It must be those nasty, tricky environmental hobbitses^W scientists massaged the gravitmetric readings to show that Antarctica is losing ice... *eyeroll*
3. Re:From the article by tinkerton · 2014-09-30 20:23 · Score: 1
  
  Of course, the instruments measuring it can never ever be faulted ?
  On the contrary, an alternate title for the article could have been "Measurement of gravity is now so incredibly precise that it can detect the effect of Antarctica melting away." . But that was too long.
4. Re:From the article by rsaralegui · 2014-09-30 21:09 · Score: 0
  
  In fact, the gravity field of monuments can be measured and its internal structure deduced from minor variations in that field. It was used for trying to deduce the internal sctructure of the Cheops pyramid.
  From a quick google search: http://books.google.com/books?... and http://www.springer.com/engine...
  PS: NASA uses the term "microgravity" for almost-zero-G, which is a different concept.
5. Re: From the article by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-30 22:43 · Score: 0
  
  Unless meltwater is floating into outer space there is no "mass loss." It's a relocation of mass on Earth.
6. Re:From the article by tinkerton · 2014-10-01 01:09 · Score: 1
  
  Oh you made me remember reading about it. Microgravimetric analysis of Cheops in 1980. Of course the Cavendish experiment required only 300 kg of material two centuries ago, so I suppose the whole thing about precision is how far away you are when doing the measuring. So my initial point remains: the title isn't saying much. Not like "Gravitational change now big enough to cause some people to have to update their tables".
7. Re: From the article by hxnwix · 2014-10-01 02:19 · Score: 1
  
  Unless meltwater is floating into outer space there is no "mass loss." It's a relocation of mass on Earth.
  Mass loss from that area of the planet to other areas of the planet, retard.
8. Re: From the article by dywolf · 2014-10-01 06:10 · Score: 1
  
  thats why its called "local gravity".
  
  --
  The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
global warming... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-30 16:58 · Score: 0

the next big diet fad.
Next weight watchers meeting,,, by barfy · 2014-09-30 17:02 · Score: 0

At the club in Mcmurdo Station....
Lol by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-30 17:06 · Score: 0

"the clearest picture yet of the pace of global warming"
So the clearest picture of global warming is in area very small compared to the whole globe?
Get your hand off it.
OMG! Now the climate crazies want me to believe... by QuietLagoon · 2014-09-30 17:10 · Score: 0

... that the gravitational constant is not a constant!?!?!?
Re:Getting kinda tired.... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-30 17:39 · Score: 4, Insightful

Ladies and gentlemen, the Gish Gallop.
Re:Chicken Little Global Warming nuts by Gadget_Guy · 2014-09-30 17:44 · Score: 4, Informative

In complete denial of the FACT that Antarctic sea ice is at the HIGHEST LEVEL in decades, these Global warming cult members keep spreading the blatantly false propaganda.
Does the expansion of sea ice mean that the total volume of sea and land ice has gone up? Does it even mean that the volume of sea ice has gone up or is it just being spread thin?
You have cherry-picked a single variable that has gone up and ignored the bigger picture, and then made the outrageous claim that it is the people who actually measure the total ice that are spreading false propaganda.
Answer one question: has the volume of land ice gone up or down? If the answer is down, why is it so unimportant for you to mention this inconvenient fact?
On second thoughts, we can ask an even easier question. Has the total volume of ice gone up or down? According to the article, the gravitational measurements show that it has gone down. Why are you in complete denial of this FACT?
Re:Whoah, wait a minute... by nedlohs · 2014-09-30 17:46 · Score: 4, Insightful

What conclusions are we supposed to draw from that? Well, other than that you don't know the difference between "land" and "sea".
Re:Getting kinda tired.... by Gadget_Guy · 2014-09-30 17:50 · Score: 4, Insightful

I'm getting tired of hearing about how all life on Earth will end in a few years unless we vote for just one political party and their pet doomsday cult.
I'm sorry that you are getting tired of this, but in this case you can rejoice! Because nowhere in the article did they state such an absurd line.
There is no point making up quotes to get offended by when you could just comment on the actual story at hand. Your entire post has absolutely nothing to do with measuring the gravitational changes of melting ice.
Loss? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-30 17:50 · Score: 0

Here's wapo two weeks ago telling me Antarctic ice is increasing — because of AGW.
The pause is a skeptic fraud. The pause is real and caused by AGW.....
"We Have Always Been At War With Eastasia"
Fuck off with your head games.
1. Re:Loss? by Truth_Quark · 2014-09-30 19:16 · Score: 2
  
  Here's wapo [washingtonpost.com] two weeks ago telling me Antarctic ice is increasing — because of AGW.
  I think you are confusing sea ice with the ice sheet.
  
  The Antarctic Sea ice is the ice that is floating on the sea around Antarctica. It grows in winter, and nearly disappears in summer, because there's a big continent where the pole is.
  
  The Antarctic Ice sheet is the much larger slab of ice sitting on Antarctica. It is about 60% of all the fresh water on the planet, and consists of 26.5 million cubic km of ice. This is losing mass at an accelerating rate. The study in the OP finds that it is currently losing 125 cubic kilometres a year.
  
  Fuck off with your head games.
  It's not that bad. Sea ice sits on the sea. Ice sheets cover the land.
so which is it? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-30 17:54 · Score: 0

I read just the other day that Antarctica has more ice than ever!
1. Re:so which is it? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-30 18:39 · Score: 0
  
  Sea Ice!
  What is measured is the lost of LAND Ice, which is far more important...
  Some people do not seem to get it, and probably never will because they can or will not understand simple things I guess....
2. Re:so which is it? by Truth_Quark · 2014-09-30 19:18 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I read just the other day that Antarctica has more ice than ever!
  I suspect you read that there the sea ice around Antarctica is more than ever. Antarctica has been losing huge volumes of ice for some decades.
Less 'stuff' might not mean less ice by Roger+W+Moore · 2014-09-30 17:58 · Score: 2

It is not necessarily as simple as that. For example the gravitation field near mountains is actually less that that further away from them. Mountains are areas of thicker continental crust and this displaces the denser underlying mantle meaning that there is actually less mass near mountains despite appearances to the contrary.

In this case it looks like the hots spots are right on the coast so is it possible that the ice has actually thickened and displaced more of the denser sea water? This might also cause a decrease in the gravitational field there. It would be nice if articles actually discussed some details of the science and some of the effects which researchers have considered.
1. Re:Less 'stuff' might not mean less ice by thrich81 · 2014-10-01 02:22 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  "is it possible that the ice has actually thickened and displaced more of the denser sea water?" -- not in this case. The geographic precision of these satellite gravity surveys and complementary ground and airborne surveys in the area constrain the loss of mass to ice over the land. In addition it is possible to estimate the change in ice mass on the land by other techniques and they are in agreement with the gravity. There is a good (but long) discussion of the recent observational techniques and results for the ice sheet mass balances in Greenland and Antarctica here: http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/so...
Ugh... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-30 18:28 · Score: 0

Honestly, when the fuck are people going to be done banging the fucking global warming bell? We've gone from global warming to global climate change to global wow the ice caps are bigger than we remember from last 10 years. Give it a fucking rest already. The damn naturally occuring volcanoes give off more greenhouse gasses in a week than 50 years of modern innovation has ever produced. Honestly. Enough. Tired of it now. Can I vote against you all? Somehow? I want to. Seriously.
1. Re:Ugh... by Arethan · 2014-09-30 18:44 · Score: 1
  
  Sounds about right. Do you have a newsletter? I would like to subscribe.
2. Re:Ugh... by dave420 · 2014-09-30 19:19 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  1. Global warming = the world getting hotter
  2. Climate change = the changes to the climate due to the increased amount of energy due to warming
  3. The land ice is melting, causing it to flow into the sea, where some of it re-freezes. It is expected if warming occurs.
  4. Volcanoes release between 65 and 319 million tonnes of CO2 per year. Industry releases ~29 billion tonnes per year. So it takes ~19 hours for industry to release as much CO2 as all the volcanoes do per year.
  Maybe people will keep "banging the bell" until people like you actually learn what's happening. You suck as a conscientious individual.
3. Re:Ugh... by Truth_Quark · 2014-09-30 19:26 · Score: 1
  
  Honestly, when the fuck are people going to be done banging the fucking global warming bell?
  Do you have a problem with us using our best understanding to make decisions?
  
  We've gone from global warming to global climate change to global wow the ice caps are bigger than we remember from last 10 years.
  Both the terms global warming and global climate change are in current use in the literature. The ice caps are smaller now than they have been in the recent past, as studies like this one show.
  
  Give it a fucking rest already.
  It is kind of important. If Antarctic ice sheet mass loss is accelerating, it is critical to know how fast, as it is closely related to sea level rise, which in turn takes large engineering projects to adapt to.
  
  The damn naturally occuring volcanoes give off more greenhouse gasses in a week than 50 years of modern innovation has ever produced.
  This would be bullshit.
  The burning of fossil fuels and changes in land use results in the emission into the atmosphere of approximately 30 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide per year worldwide, according to the EIA. The fossil fuels emissions numbers are about 100 times bigger than even the maximum estimated volcanic CO2 fluxes.
  Atmospheric CO2 does not even blink at large volcanic eruptions.
  
  Honestly.
  That would help. But truthfully is more important, and for that you'd have to know what you're taking about.
  
  Enough. Tired of it now. Can I vote against you all? Somehow? I want to. Seriously.
  If you've got enough mod points you can.
4. Re:Ugh... by Arethan · 2014-09-30 19:30 · Score: 0
  
  My sources suggest differently. Would you care to share yours? URLs please. After all, I want to be conscientious - high-five / thanks much.
5. Re:Ugh... by Dadoo · 2014-09-30 21:26 · Score: 1
  
  http://www.skepticalscience.co...
  Also, if you had any interest in actually looking, all the numbers you need to do the math are available on the Internet.
  
  --
  Sit, Ubuntu, sit. Good dog.
6. Re:Ugh... by Des+Herriott · 2014-10-01 01:31 · Score: 1
  
  The damn naturally occuring volcanoes give off more greenhouse gasses in a week than 50 years of modern innovation has ever produced.
  Is that why global carbon emissions briefly decreased when Eyjafjallajokull erupted in 2010, grounding the majority of European flights?
  Yeah, you've bought the bullshit and are trying to peddle it on. http://tamino.wordpress.com/20...
7. Re:Ugh... by Dixie_Flatline · 2014-10-01 02:49 · Score: 1
  
  While we're at it, maybe you should share your sources so they can be cross-checked.
8. Re:Ugh... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-01 07:56 · Score: 0
  
  While we're at it, maybe you should share your sources so they can be cross-checked.
  His ass doesn't have an internet connection. You'll have to go down there and pull the figures out yourself.
Re:Whoah, wait a minute... by Ottibus · 2014-09-30 18:32 · Score: 3, Informative

The cryosphere page at University of Illinois-Champagne shows that we are currently seeing more sea ice than the average, and the levels have been sharply rising the last few years.
It is the same effect: The ice on the land is melting and flowing into the sea where some of it re-freezes.
The area of ice is increasing, the mass of ice is decreasing.
Re:OMG! Now the climate crazies want me to believe by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-30 18:37 · Score: 0

Actually, yes. Remember to vote; I'm sure the coat-tail-campaigner can change things within their term - after all, they claimed they'd make a difference.
Re:Chicken Little Global Warming nuts by Truth_Quark · 2014-09-30 18:52 · Score: 3, Informative

In complete denial of the FACT that Antarctic sea ice is at the HIGHEST LEVEL in decades, these Global warming cult members keep spreading the blatantly false propaganda.
This would be wrong. It has been known from the older GRACE satellites that Antarctic Ice has been losing mass from the ice sheet.

In Antarctica the mass loss increased from 104 Gt/yr in 2002–2006 to 246 Gt/yr in 2006–2009, i.e., an acceleration of 26 ± 14 Gt/yr2 in 2002–2009. (Increasing rates of ice mass loss from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets revealed by GRACE, I. Velicogna, Geophysical Research Letters, (2009))

You might be thinking of the Antarctic Sea Ice.

Now they are saying that if I don't drive a Prius, that the earths gravity will fail.
I don't think that that's what they're saying.

My reading of it is that they're saying that Antarctica and Greenland together are now losing 500 cubic kilometers of ice per year. They don't mention what will be the effect on that of you driving a prius, but I suspect not a lot.

This was measured using Gravity. I don't think that they say that gravity is failing.
Re:Whoah, wait a minute... by riverat1 · 2014-09-30 18:58 · Score: 5, Insightful

The article barks at the wrong tree. The cryosphere page at University of Illinois-Champagne shows that we are currently seeing 1.3 million sq. km more sea ice than the average, and the levels have been sharply rising the last few years.
There is a fine balance between trying to increase awareness and being a downright propagandist. Unfortunately, this article doesn't help the cause. This is exactly the kind of thing that make people believe environmentalists are exaggerating and grasping at straws.
Wired: Stop. You are not helping.
Before you go on you really should learn the difference between ice sheets, ice shelves and sea ice. They are not the same thing. Talking about sea ice in response to this article about the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is a non-sequitur.
Re:Getting kinda tired.... by Required+Snark · 2014-09-30 19:01 · Score: 1

You know why the appropriately named Anonymous Coward is whining about "one political party or another"? It's because he, she, or it is pathologically paranoid about any statement that might conflict with it's deep insecurity. Any statement that can be construed in any way as a disagreement must be attacked.
And then there's the pretense of not naming a specific political group. Hmm, I wonder who they heck it is referring to? The Amerian Conservative Party (2008), American Freedom Party (2010), Justice Pary (2011), Objectivist Party (2008), Pirate Party (2008), or Unity Party of America (2004)?
If the list seems biased to the right, it's because I decided to pick political groups that were started in the 21st century, and you have to go back to the 1980's to find anything left wing.
So who could it be? Starts with a D, ends with a C, has 10 letters including the vowels a,e,i, and o: D-m-cr-t-c Party. I'd like to buy a vowel, Pat.

--
Why is Snark Required?
Re:Getting kinda tired.... by Truth_Quark · 2014-09-30 19:09 · Score: 2, Insightful

I'm getting kinda tired of the Global Warming doomsday cult
Good marketing there, mate. The PR professionals of the denialist movement like to throw around words like "cult" or "religion" for the scientific movement that they are trying to attack.

Casting the scientific position as religious attacks it's greatest strength, that it is scientific, and therefore our best guess of truth.

While I don't ignore the fact that man can alter the weather to some degree.
Okay.

I'm getting tired of hearing about how all life on Earth will end in a few years unless we vote for just one political party and their pet doomsday cult.

The article is about ice loss on the Antarctic. It doesn't discuss who you should vote for. It doesn't even assume the reader is in any country or democratic precinct.

Apparently, the sun has nothing to do with climate.
The current warming is not due to the sun. This can be shown because the current warming is occurring more in winter and night, as you would expect from greenhouse warming which slows the rate of heat loss. The sun would warm more when it is shining.
It can also be shown by the cooling of the stratosphere, showing that less heat is reaching the stratosphere from below. The sun would increase the temperature of the whole atmosphere.

But also Solar activity does not correlate with the current warming.

Also, all global warming and ice age events for that last 100 million years were caused by present day American pollution but non-American pollution doesn't do anything....especially is it comes from China and India.

I think that this would be wrong.
Do you have a source?

So just remember, Al Gore has a carbon footprint 10000 times larger than you and is swimming in millions of oil dollars from the Middle East.
I believe that Al Gore is carbon neutral.
Re:Whoah, wait a minute... by Arethan · 2014-09-30 19:24 · Score: 0

Maybe the real problem is that we didn't have significant historical data available for us to originally start claiming an arctic-melt-crisis when we did oh so many years ago, but we did anyways, and it now that the data doesn't line up it's incredibly unpopular for us to point out the obvious. Seriously, Bob - are you done making us look bad, or what?
Science reporting fail. Seriously. When you're wrong, or shit doesn't line up like you predicted, you point it out with a big, red marker. "We found unexpected deviation right fucking here, and we don't yet know why." Science is a community, and we learn as a community through collective experience. The argumentists in this emotional case are the ass hats that are still infuriatingly mad that their original predictions aren't still becoming reality. (To those people, I say: "Reality is allowed to change, that's the point, and you're actually not as smart as you thought-and-suggested that you were. Welcome to life.")
Quite honestly, the scientist in these researchers should be sparking the question "why", not the questions "what can I say to save face" or "why don't these fools agree with me"...
Re:OMG! Now the climate crazies want me to believe by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-30 20:36 · Score: 0

Hey, everyone! I found another American. You can tell by the fact that he doesn't know that gravity fluctuates.
Oi, American, read the Frenchie's expose on what he was taught in high school physics. You can catch up with what the rest of the world knows.
Am I doin it rite? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-30 21:16 · Score: 0

We broke the motherfucking planet! We broke themotetrfukcing Planet! zOMG!!!! And it's because we're teh suxxors! It's OUR FAULT!! !!!! :: runs around the room flapping my arms like a faggot ::
We're doomed, i say! Doomed!
Al Gore, save us!
Another Climate Change article, shocker by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-30 21:58 · Score: 0

Wow, another climate change article on what used to be a tech-oriented site but is now the "personal agenda with only minimally justification via tech" site. Color me surprised.
Oh no by StripedCow · 2014-09-30 22:08 · Score: 1

We have to tear down all buildings, as they're slanted now.
On the bright side, perhaps the tower of Pisa will one day be straight again.

--
If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
is Antarctic ice volume decreasing or increasing? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-30 22:09 · Score: 0

The article says: "They (scientists) have found that the loss of ice from West Antarctica between 2009 and 2012 caused a dip in the gravity field over the region."
Loss of ice is mentioned as a well-known fact, no proof is given.
However, Antarctic ice surface is growing (http://news.slashdot.org/story/14/09/15/1158253/extent-of-antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-record-levels). The ice volume is probably more difficult to determine, so there are less scientific papers about volume, however, according to this model: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00301.1?af=R&#.Uvnt2RsanUw.twitter Antarctic ice volume is increasing and not decreasing.
What if gravity changes have other reason than the loss of ice? In my opinion, the topic is very controversial, it is far from being as clear as article suggests...
What is New in slashdot.org by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-30 22:36 · Score: 0

Can any one tell me what is new in slashdot.org?....
Re: Getting kinda tired.... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-30 22:48 · Score: 0

Lost it when you said you believe Gore is "carbon neutral." Just because one buys carbon credits doesn't mean that all the carbon one released magically goes away! Hahahahaha. You are seriously a dumbass to swallow that shit.
Re: OMG! Now the climate crazies want me to believ by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-30 22:54 · Score: 0

Never trust the French. They give up too easily.
Article is about Measurement by retroworks · 2014-09-30 23:40 · Score: 1

"Scientists are now armed with the most accurate gravity model ever produced."
Unfortunately "global warming" has become politicized to the extent that it's really hard to follow the science and technology being discussed. For me the original article is about measurement and our ability to detect minute changes in gravity. There is no "global threat" from the ebbs of gravity. But the scientists behind the satellite gravity monitoring probably figured that introducing the findings with "reveals" and relating the tools to "climate" would find a "hook" in the global warming debate. Not dismissing the debate, and this new ability to measure the ebbs and flows of gravity may well tell us something about "global warming". We just don't know what that would be yet, but the tool gets pulled into the shouting match.
Science is like "South Park". Science is not your Political Ally, no matter what you believe. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/... South Park

--
Gently reply
1. Re:Article is about Measurement by thrich81 · 2014-10-01 03:58 · Score: 2
  
  You aren't quite right that the satellite gravity scientists are just using climate as a "hook" to display their techniques. A major reason for the launch of these very precise gravity satellites is to use gravity to monitor the movement of water (not just ice) in and around the Earth. Hence the name of the GRACE satellite -- Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment. The NASA GRACE fact sheet is at -- http://earthobservatory.nasa.g... with more details.
2. Re:Article is about Measurement by retroworks · 2014-10-01 11:13 · Score: 1
  
  Use your points to mod him up (not mine down)
  
  --
  Gently reply
Re:Getting kinda tired.... by SternisheFan · 2014-09-30 23:46 · Score: 1

FWIW, Stephen Colbert recently said that he doesn't deny that the climate is changing. His opinion is that we shouldn't do anything about it.
ok, got it. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-01 01:02 · Score: 0

So when everyone says I'm getting heavier, they really mean Antarctica melted a bit more?
Re: OMG! Now the climate crazies want me to believ by ganjadude · 2014-10-01 01:18 · Score: 1

sad thing is over the past 4 or 5 years, at least based on american media it looks like the french have more balls than we do at this point in time.

--
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Re: Getting kinda tired.... by Truth_Quark · 2014-10-01 01:36 · Score: 1

Lost it when you said you believe Gore is "carbon neutral."
Thanks for reading the whole thing, but that wasn't the most important point. I hope you also noted how we know that it is the enhanced greenhouse effect and not the sun that is causing the current warming. Perhaps you even noticed that some of your language is the same as that developed by PR groups with a counter-scientific agenda to market.

Just because one buys carbon credits doesn't mean that all the carbon one released magically goes away!

No, it doesn't go away. But if you sequester the same amount of CO2 that you emit, then the net effect on the atmospheric concentration of CO2 is zero.

Hahahahaha. You are seriously a dumbass to swallow that shit.
...
Re:Chicken Little Global Warming nuts by i+kan+reed · 2014-10-01 01:39 · Score: 1

It's not that they cherry picked(in this particular case). For once I'm willing to give the deniers some credit. Extent was the only meaningful objective metric we had about Antarctic ice until climate change research raised the question of thickness, and some very smart people went looking for ways to tell.
Extent's easy, you just take satellite images(okay, without space tech this would be impossible), apply some transforms to make them properly proportional, run a quick area approximation, and poof, you've got your number.
We've had that for decades. And we had no way to tell how thick it was until experiments like this one. So rather than cherrypicking, they were looking at the only numbers we had available, which is actually moderately reasonable.
Re:Getting kinda tired.... by Oligonicella · 2014-10-01 01:43 · Score: 1

It's worth nothing. He's a damn comedian.
Re:Chicken Little Global Warming nuts by i+kan+reed · 2014-10-01 01:43 · Score: 1

So we have to prove we're not "chicken littles" or whatever these guys call us by pointing out the fairly obvious fact that sea ice melting doesn't mean the end of gravity as we know it. I mean, it's hard enough that we have to deal with those couple of non-scientists who are actually making unreasonable dire predictions(unlike the reasonable very very very concerning ones based on objective assessment), but we also have to deal with this completely imagined alarmism.
Time to get out the flood pants by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-01 01:45 · Score: 0

Possible 0.4mm global sea level rise. Very scary.
University of Colorado, Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences and Department of Physics, University Campus Box 390, Boulder, CO 80309-0390, USA.
Science (Impact Factor: 31.2). 04/2006; 311(5768):1754-6. DOI: 10.1126/science.1123785
Source: PubMed
ABSTRACT Using measurements of time-variable gravity from the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment satellites, we determined mass variations of the Antarctic ice sheet during 2002-2005. We found that the mass of the ice sheet decreased significantly, at a rate of 152 +/- 80 cubic kilometers of ice per year, which is equivalent to 0.4 +/- 0.2 millimeters of global sea-level rise per year. Most of this mass loss came from the West Antarctic Ice Sheet.
Re: Getting kinda tired.... by Oligonicella · 2014-10-01 01:47 · Score: 1

Al Gore isn't sequestering anything. He's running a scam to increase his wealth.
how soon for a major earthquake? by WindBourne · 2014-10-01 01:53 · Score: 1

Seriously, just like China's massive earthquake caused by their dams and reservoirs, the loss of land ice will very likely cause a major Antarctica earthquake. Upon happening, that will likely crack open a number of glaciers.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Re:is Antarctic ice volume decreasing or increasin by WindBourne · 2014-10-01 01:54 · Score: 1

land ice decreasing, while sea ice increasing.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Where did the author go to school? by Runaway1956 · 2014-10-01 02:01 · Score: 1

"Contrary to what we were sometimes taught in high school physics, the Earth's gravity is not constant."
I began my education in 1961. That's pretty far back, I guess. I learned a little about gravity before I left elementary school. Then, a bit more in junior high school. Junior high didn't teach me that gravity is constant on the earth's surface. I was exposed to the idea that gravity varies from one place to another, and we were taught that our weight might vary by a couple of pounds depending where we stood on the earth. Cool idea, we were moderately impressed. In high school, the idea was given to us again.
Now, I suppose that SOME schools might teach that gravity is a constant, independent of elevation, or anything else. I believe that most parents would want to keep their children far away from any such schools.

--
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Re: Getting kinda tired.... by Truth_Quark · 2014-10-01 02:27 · Score: 1

Al Gore isn't sequestering anything.
No, he's buying offsets from companies that are sequestering.

He's running a scam to increase his wealth.
He made a lot of money from when he was working for Apple. And the movie was a bit of a blockbuster. He has made some savvy investments in green companies too, but he's also donated millions to the Alliance for Climate Protection.
Re:Chicken Little Global Warming nuts by Truth_Quark · 2014-10-01 02:34 · Score: 1

This study doesn't show a thinning of the sea ice, but of the ice sheet. It would be tricky to measure the thickness of sea ice using gravity variations, because in only barely floats.

The reason the deniers are wrong about sea ice extent is because they're choosing to only look at the southern hemisphere, where there is nearly no sea ice. The global trend in sea ice is downwards. I think that that does count as cherry picking.
is Antarctic ice volume decreasing or increasing? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-01 02:35 · Score: 0

Once again, someone thinks they're smarter (and more rigorous) than the scientists who are actually doing the measuring, but is incapable of distinguishing the difference between *LAND* ice and *SEA* ice. As the land ice melts, an increase in sea ice is expected, because the melting land ice dumps *fresh* water into the adjacent oceans, thereby reducing the salt concentration, and raising the freezing point of said water.
Unfortunately for your presumption, the very *second* sentence of the paper you linked to ("However, observations of decadal trends in Antarctic ice thickness, and hence ice volume, do not currently exist.") pretty much kills your claim that "Antarctic ice volume is increasing". A few sentences later in the abstract of the paper, which discusses a proposed *model* to provide estimates of volume based on known factors, your claim is put to rest.
"The model suggests that overall Antarctic sea ice volume has increased by approximately 30 km3 yr-1 (0.4% yr-1) as an equal result of areal expansion (20 x 103 km2 yr-1 or 0.2% yr-1) and thickening (1.5 mm yr-1 or 0.2% yr-1). This ice volume increase is an order of magnitude smaller than the Arctic decrease, and about half the size of the increased freshwater supply from the Antarctic Ice Sheet."
Reading comprehension for the win!
is Antarctic ice volume decreasing or increasing? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-01 02:41 · Score: 0

Just to make the above statement more clear, your claimed Antarctic ice volume increase is a modeled *sea* ice volume increase roughly equivalent to roughly *half* of the *land* ice loss. (That's still a net loss equal to 50% of the measured land ice loss.) It's also an Antarctic sea ice volume increase equivalent to roughly 10% of the measured Arctic sea ice loss.
So, your vaunted "Antarctic ice increase" means that the ice loss to ice gain ratio is roughly 12:1. (12 times as much ice is lost as is gained through the increase in Antarctic sea ice.)
Teaching is not the same... by ExXter · 2014-10-01 02:46 · Score: 1

everyhwhere. Sorry but i was taught that the earth-axis shifts (depending on many things, not only melting ice-cream) and that as early as the 5th grade. Thank you germany for being good to my knowledge...I feel sorry for nowadays pupils though since their teachings have degraded to a level at which it is are compareable with the authors. So rise up! and fight for your knowledge!
Re:Whoah, wait a minute... by Layzej · 2014-10-01 02:48 · Score: 1

Here is a graph of arctic melting relative to models. You will note that the Arctic has melted much faster than the models predicted. We've already seen melting that we didn't anticipate until 2050. So perhaps some introspection is in order, but not quite the way you are suggesting: http://icons.wxug.com/metgraph...
Re:Getting kinda tired.... by Layzej · 2014-10-01 02:56 · Score: 1

Apparently, the sun has nothing to do with climate.
Not sure I should engage with the "Science=cult" crowd, but... Of solar output affects surface temperatures, just not enough to counter the warming effect of CO2. Solar output has been dwindling since the 80's while global temperatures have been rising: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/p...
Re:Chicken Little Global Warming nuts by i+kan+reed · 2014-10-01 03:20 · Score: 1

Oh, yeah, they're absolutely shit about intellectual honesty in the general course of events. I was just trying to helpfully clarify.
Re:A question for the 'climate change' fraudsters. by sound+vision · 2014-10-01 03:36 · Score: 2

I can't speak on the first or third claims (nor can I recall ever hearing them) but I was recently researching various solvents for a particular application, some of which were CFCs, so I do have some information regarding those-
Although the Montreal Protocol limiting CFC use began to come into force in 1989, it is implemented gradually, and the last of the provisions won't come into effect until 2030. Then you have the fact that decades of damage will take decades of recovery; the recovery is estimated to be complete around 2050-2070. You're about half a century too early to start talking about "proven lies". Despite the timetable involved, as of 2010 the ozone layer had already began a measurable recovery.
Wikipedia is a good place to start researching these issues, particularly the article on the Montreal Protocol contains citations to primary sources on all the facts I have mentioned here. If the other two claims you take issue with aren't strawmen, I imagine you can find more information on those as well.
PLEASE READ by nagromlt · 2014-10-01 03:57 · Score: 1

Doesn't "liquid" water have a higher density than "solid" water/ice (ice "floats" on water)... Wouldn't (theory) more water mean "more" density, i.e. more gravity... Maybe the liquid is dispersed easier/faster around globe (which would cause a locaized decrease in mass), but I would think it would be absorbed in the local strata/ecology which would add mass. Just a thought.
1. Re:PLEASE READ by fluffy99 · 2014-10-01 04:23 · Score: 1
  
  A portion of that ice is sitting above sea level, so as it melts and the liquid water flows away there's less total water in the area.
Weight loss guaranteed by CosaNostra+Pizza+Inc · 2014-10-01 04:10 · Score: 1

Its the Global Warming diet. Weight loss is guaranteed!
1. Re:Weight loss guaranteed by ThatOneSDGuy · 2014-10-03 01:31 · Score: 1
  
  I see this article as a confirmation that gravity is conserved. Since America is becoming more obese, all that mass gained has to be offset by loss elsewhere. More workouts= more Antarctic land ice !!?!
Re:Misinterpretation by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-01 04:36 · Score: 0

I'm afraid this is all a misunderstanding. The shift in gravity was your mom rolling over in bed. I'm just glad I got out of the way in time unlike the other eight guys.
To get off you have to bang the slut that bangs eight other guys at the same time? Ew, you must be the world's biggest loser, bro. She's problem a mom to a lot of your loser kids, too.
Bang your mom? Not me.
Did you ever wonder who is holding the camera? It is I.
Re:Chicken Little Global Warming nuts by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-01 04:39 · Score: 0

Now they are saying that if I don't drive a Prius, that the earths gravity will fail
You appear to be getting your advice from used-car salesman. Or was that your parents trying to sell their Prius to you?
Weight Loss - a benefit of global warming! by drGreg · 2014-10-01 05:23 · Score: 1

Now I don't have to lose as much weight as I thought. I feel lighter already. I can put my gym fees toward supporting global warming...
The clearest picture yet of global warming by rs79 · 2014-10-01 05:34 · Score: 1

Because this is clearly inferior. Play with it a bit. Play spot the warming.
https://www.climate.gov/news-f...
Note:
1) 1998 - 2015
2) 1880 - 2015
3) 1978 - 1998
4) 1947 - 1957 - this is when all that sea ice grew.[1]
Odd is was so cold at a time of peak smog.[2]
[1]"In the early 1920s and 1930s, temperatures were high, similar to that of the present, and this affected the glacial melt. At the time many glaciers underwent a melt similar or even higher than what we have seen in the last ten years. When it became colder again in the 1950s and 1960s, glaciers actually started growing," says Dr. Kurt H. Kjær - in http://www.nature.com/ngeo/jou...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...

--
Need Mercedes parts ?
1. Re:The clearest picture yet of global warming by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-01 06:51 · Score: 0
  
  Odd is was so cold at a time of peak smog.[2]
  Why is that odd? Smog is particulate pollution + ozone. If particulates get into the upper atmosphere and have a cooling effect. The most extreme example probably being Mt. Tambora and the Year Without Summer.
Re:Chicken Little Global Warming nuts by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-01 05:37 · Score: 0

actually, it was global warming theory that predicted that sea ice would increase.
Re:Whoah, wait a minute... by dywolf · 2014-10-01 05:53 · Score: 1

The entire continenet is losing mass.
It's simply several magnitudes larger on the western subcontinent beacuse of the weather patterns and ocean circulation (etc) that side is exposed to.
And again: WHAT MONEY?!? There is no money money rolling in.
I direct you to: http://arstechnica.com/science...

--
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Re:Getting kinda tired.... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-01 05:57 · Score: 0

Well, maybe if the other side stopped denying it even exists, they might be worth voting for. I dont "believe" (as much as one can "believe" in science) in global warming because it's "my party's platform" (and actually it's not my party, im registered indepenedent). I vote for that party party because their goals coincide with mine.
Re:Chicken Little Global Warming nuts by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-01 06:02 · Score: 0

Did you know that if you drop a spoon into a sink of water, a drop can rise higher then the initial height of hte spoon ?
for many years, the parents of warming deniers said this was not true
Attention: it is actually quite easy to produce models where global warming = more wind = circular wind that isolate warm tropic air from antarctic = more antarctic sea ice (you may notice, looking a map of the world, that distribution of water and land is not the same at N and S poles)
Place your bet: Should we spend 1% of global GDP (~ 900 billion/year) on anti climate change or not ?
If you bet NOT, and are wrong, boy, are we gonna pay for it
Re:A question for the 'climate change' fraudsters. by dywolf · 2014-10-01 06:03 · Score: 1

1) It didnt happen because they reduced emissions and began filtering out the chemicals that would lead to the majority of it.
2) We banned CFC's, and the ozen hole is indeed shrinking. What, you thought after 50 years of use and just dumping it straight into the air, the effect would be instantaneous?
3) The Sahara HAS expanded. The tropics (the longitudinal bands that define them) are getting larger.
The only one being dishonest here is your ignorant self.

--
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Re:A question for the 'climate change' fraudsters. by dywolf · 2014-10-01 06:05 · Score: 1

just to be clear the definition of a "desert" has to do with its annual precipitation, not "how green it is".

--
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Re:Chicken Little Global Warming nuts by Gavagai80 · 2014-10-01 17:13 · Score: 1

Most likely, people are confused by the fact that arctic sea ice extent is considered a measure of global warming. They expect to use the same metric in the antarctic, not understanding that it's the melting of land ice (and thus reduction of salinity) which causes the larger extent of sea ice in the antarctic.

--
This space intentionally left blank
Heat bomb by NewYork · 2014-10-02 17:55 · Score: 1

What will happen when a https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_bomb is dropped on https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_ice_shelves

--
Casteism