NASA: Antarctic ice IS melting

Tucker

Lion Rampant
#1
I know that there's a thread about Antarctic ice already. However, I feel that its factually incorrect title of "Antarctic ice is NOT melting" does a disservice to members who might see it and believe that it is true without investigating any further. There's already enough misinformation on the Internet without this site becoming a source of it. Therefore, I have provided this scientific data in its own thread for our members' benefit. If you don't trust NASA to get it right, I don't know what to tell you except for that I'm sorry that your politics are getting in the way of your learning.

Here are the facts about the Antarctic ice sheets, as copied from an official NASA webpage at NASA - NASA Provides New Perspectives on the Earth's Changing Ice Sheets

"It's widely documented that climate change is causing the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets to shrink. Air temperatures in many parts of the polar regions have increased and waters that surround parts of the ice sheets have warmed up. What most do not know is that until just six years ago, we had no real way of measuring whether the ice sheets were shrinking or growing, or at what rate.

[...]

Today, advances in remote sensing, the use of highly sensitive instruments aboard satellites and aircraft, have enabled scientists to examine the mass balance of the ice sheets and to determine just where and how quickly the ice is growing or shrinking. Of particular importance is the mass balance of the ice sheet, which is the difference between how much ice it has lost versus gained over a period of time, and is a direct measure of an ice sheet's contribution to sea level rise.

[...]

In Antarctica, these observations tell us that the West Antarctic ice sheet is currently shrinking substantially, and has been for the last decade. They also tell a story of a second much larger ice sheet in East Antarctica that has been growing slowly. The net result in Antarctica is that the ice sheet as a whole has been shrinking, contributing to rising sea levels, and probably much more so in recent years."

Comments are welcome but, as this is a science forum, let's try to keep any discussion rooted in fact, rather than in opinion or ideology. If you want to dispute NASA's findings, please provide links to source materials so all can have opportunity to determine their validity.
 

Blueyes

Registered Member
#2
That story from NASA is about 2 years old though. I'll have to dig to find the newer one. It is actually growing not melting away as people keep claiming even if you compare both the east and west sides. The portions that sliver off do so because they are too heavy to sustain. It happens because there is regrowth of the ice.
 

PretzelCorps

Registered Member
#3
Coincidentally, I just saw some similar pictures and data on the telly. :rolleyes:

NASA - Antarctic Ice Loss Speeds Up, Nearly Matches Greenland Loss

Here is a more recent article ^




While I am not skeptical of 'climate change' at all (it's inevitable), I am skeptical of:

  1. The world is going to end within 10 years, as a result of 'Global Warming'
  2. CO2 and human actions are primarily at fault for 'Global Warming'
  3. That both science and the media have approached this problem objectively and unbiased.
With regards to number 3 --> Why is any opposition completely disallowed, in the case of Anthropogenic (human-caused) Global Warming? In political debates, there is always an opposition, regardless of how fantastic or controversial it is, to state clearly the points of the other side (in this case, those points being that the world has had 'climate change' since the beginning of time), especially when all of our actions and reactions are to be based on, not fact, but theory and theory alone.
 

Jeanie

still nobody's bitch
V.I.P.
#4
re: "theory"

Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature supported by facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact
the assertion that we shouldn't act based on "theory" fails. This isn't something that we would want to be proven.
 

PretzelCorps

Registered Member
#5
re: "theory"

the assertion that we shouldn't act based on "theory" fails. This isn't something that we would want to be proven.
You would bet Biological Evolution against Human-Caused Global Warming?

The assertion that we should act based on "theory" alone fails --> What if the CO2 we produce (this is hypothetical) is all that is keeping the Earth from falling into another ice age? Wouldn't it be hilarious if we reduced our emissions, then all died because of it.

Edit - That's not an argument against reducing emissions --> It's an argument against acting too radically, too fast.



All that aside; evidently an Italian Climate conference (Epica 2008: "Quaternary Climate") has established that our current climate fits the prehistorical climate pattern that naturally occurs on Earth.

Two-Mile-Deep Antarctic Ice Core Reveals Stupidity of AGW Catastrophism The Unbearable Nakedness of CLIMATE CHANGE

  1. the Earth’s climate has been wildly oscillating between cold and warmth for at least 800,000 years, long before any sizable man-made intervention
  2. during that period, the record minimum has been reached around 20,000 years ago (10C less than today’s); that’s before agriculture
  3. the record maximum still belongs to around 120,000 years ago (+5C more than today’s); and that’s before agriculture, too
  4. the concentrations of CO2 have depended on the amounts of iron in dust, with higher availability of iron resulting in lower amounts of atmospheric CO2
  5. and whilst temperatures have been at times warmer than today’s, and at other times much colder, corals, mammals, birds, trees and the rest of the biosphere have chugged along nicely (in a relative way)
I was very hesitant to trust such a biased article.... Until I searched for a translation or any media coverage at all --> There is absolutely none.

For now, it's just speculation I suppose --> If anyone finds an actual summary of this conference, I'd be very interested in reading it.
 
Last edited:

Merc

Certified Shitlord
V.I.P.
#6
However, I feel that its factually incorrect title of "Antarctic ice is NOT melting" does a disservice to members who might see it and believe that it is true without investigating any further.

Sorry Tuck, but something about the way that is worded makes it sound condescending. No offense really, but if some dolt is going to read a thread title and move on, don't they deserve the ignorance they're allowing to grow?

I'd bet the ice is both regrowing and melting and it's basically because it's not global warming or even global cooling, it's global "holyshitwhyiseverythingshifting?"
 

Tucker

Lion Rampant
#7
PretzelCorps said:
While I am not skeptical of 'climate change' at all (it's inevitable), I am skeptical of:

1. The world is going to end within 10 years, as a result of 'Global Warming'
As well you should be, since no one of letters has proposed any such scenario. (Yes, I know you were being hyperbolic, but the fact remains that it is gross exaggeration.)

2. CO2 and human actions are primarily at fault for 'Global Warming'
If we're fouling our own proverbial nest by creating an O2/CO2 imbalance (and I do suspect that we are, to say nothing for now of the unnatural toxins we brew up and toss around), then of what real relevance is the extent to which other factors are in play?

3. That both science and the media have approached this problem objectively and unbiased.
Do you know how science works? Every two-bit jerk in a lab coat is just itching for a chance to gain a cred point by shooting down someone else's errant conclusions. That keeps the community as a whole very diligent and honest. And the media may be somewhat sensationalistic in their determination of what is "newsworthy" but they do as a rule tend to report things more or less the way they hear them. That is, after all, their function.

With regards to number 3 --> Why is any opposition completely disallowed, in the case of Anthropogenic (human-caused) Global Warming?
This is why I quoted your post, because I'm agog at this conspiratorial accusation. In addition to what I've said above, let me riddle you this: how in the blue nutsack would such a massive conspiracy work? Are there subterranean meetings? Secret memos? And why? Why would anyone, let alone virtually everyone who was involved in Earth Sciences, endeavor to foist a global untruth upon the people? Because they're all Leftists and mesmerized by the hippie ethos to the total exclusion of fact, reason and due empirical process? Could you swallow that hypothesis on examination? Really?

Sorry Tuck, but something about the way that is worded makes it sound condescending. No offense really, but if some dolt is going to read a thread title and move on, don't they deserve the ignorance they're allowing to grow?
Obviously I don't feel that way. Knowledge, wisdom, love; however little or much we may have of these things we can give away freely without losing any. To the contrary, we often find that we gain more of same in the process. That's the one true alchemy in this life, Cons, the only real magic that exists. Why allow anyone to remain in darkness, or worse, point people away from light? It doesn't cost us a thing except a moment of time to bring a person a new fact (or a new word, which is one of the reasons behind my sprinkling my speech with the occasional less common one) that might someday serve him or her (or us) well.

Every one of us is more doltish than not, when you get right down to it, but if we all piss together on the fires of ignorance and misinformation--and I might add 'unhappiness' to that list as well--we may just find in the end that we've left the world better than we found it. Dig?
 
Last edited:

PretzelCorps

Registered Member
#8
Do you know how science works? Every two-bit jerk in a lab coat is just itching for a chance to gain a cred point by shooting down someone else's errant conclusions. That keeps the community as a whole very diligent and honest. And the media may be somewhat sensationalistic in their determination of what is "newsworthy" but they do as a rule tend to report things more or less the way they hear them. That is, after all, their function.
Actually, science is suspect, in my opinion --> The world of science is a very volatile place, and like you said, they love 'getting cred points by shooting down someone else's errant conclusions.'

It's important to remember that an 'errant conclusion' is not necessarily determined by truth, but rather by general consensus (Galileo was shot down in flames his entire life).

It's also important to remember that these young scientists have families to feed and reputations to build/protect. They DO have the option of leaping into a field where they will likely never make any real discoveries in their lifetime, essentially starving and dying unheard of.... Or, they can make one little discovery regarding some glacier melting in some obscure place, and receive all the publications they want and tons of grant money from environmental groups.

This is why I quoted your post, because I'm agog at this conspiratorial accusation. In addition to what I've said above, let me riddle you this: how in the blue nutsack would such a massive conspiracy work? Are there subterranean meetings? Secret memos? And why? Why would anyone, let alone virtually everyone who was involved in Earth Sciences, endeavor to foist a global untruth upon the people? Because they're all Leftists and mesmerized by the hippie ethos to the total exclusion of fact, reason and due empirical process? Could you swallow that hypothesis on examination? Really?
Actually, if you look at all the railroads in Russia, they bend and curve to write the letters "xaoh a si gingmarw labolg", in shorthand.....



:lol: Seriously, though --> I never once said "conspiracy".

If there is a conspiracy, it's not one that anyone knows they are a part of. Basically, my attitude comes down to this: There are simply far too many people that benefit from the world believing in AGW, for me to just benignly accept it as plain-as-day truth, without challenging it a little.

  • Obviously, first and foremost are the environmental groups that spent the first few decades of their inception in exile, shunned by all people alike --> These days, they recieve more respect and financial "aid" than they ever wetdreamed of; certainly, they've recieved quite a bounty in AGW.
  • Al Gore made a movie right after losing an election... Would I be surprised to see him in the running again 4 or 8 years from now, once people have forgotten his promise "never to run in politics again"? --- "I know I once promised never to run in politics again... But this is just too much! I can no longer stand idly by, and let these people destroy the world! It is my duty to be president! I'll let my Nobel Prize do the talking."
  • As I mentioned, there is a benefit to scientists --> Easy grant money from environmental groups and even easier reputation.
  • The media gets the benefit of people buying their printings --> Its's undeniable that people would much rather spend their money reading about how they're going to die terrible deaths in a few years, than how safe they are, and they'll read it over, and over, and over...
  • Some governments get a stake by putting up "incentives" and carbon-taxes, and all sorts of other revenue-boosters.
I'm not saying all these people get together every wednesday in a cathedral, wearing weird-ass costumes, and chant "coo-rah-kah, coo-rah-kah, the conspiracy goes well today!"

What I am saying, is that if there is enough of a benefit to some folks; "Well, where's the harm in little 'ol me doing this and that"

In the end:


If my doubts are wrong, we all die brutally horrible deaths, because by this point, there is not a damn thing we can do about it --> Cutting all the carbon emissions in the world won't stop a thing.

If my doubts are founded, I get a century's worth of bragging rights. :lol:
 
Last edited: