- Joined
- Aug 26, 2007
- Messages
- 50,241
- Reaction score
- 19,243
- Location
- San Antonio Texas
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Climate: New study slashes estimate of icecap loss - Yahoo! Singapore NewsPARIS (AFP) - – Estimates of the rate of ice loss from Greenland and West Antarctica, one of the most worrying questions in the global warming debate, should be halved, according to Dutch and US scientists.
In the last two years, several teams have estimated Greenland is shedding roughly 230 gigatonnes of ice, or 230 billion tonnes, per year and West Antarctica around 132 gigatonnes annually.
Together, that would account for more than half of the annual three-millimetre (0.2 inch) yearly rise in sea levels, a pace that compares dramatically with 1.8mm (0.07 inches) annually in the early 1960s.
But, according to the new study, published in the September issue of the journal Nature Geoscience, the ice estimates fail to correct for a phenomenon known as glacial isostatic adjustment.
This is the term for the rebounding of Earth's crust following the last Ice Age.
Glaciers that were kilometers (miles) thick smothered Antarctica and most of the northern hemisphere for tens of thousands of years, compressing the elastic crust beneath it with their titanic weight.
When the glaciers started to retreat around 20,000 years ago, the crust started to rebound, and is still doing so.
Yes, the ice sheet loss isn't as bad as previously calculated. This is good.
Just waiting for the GW crowd to start bashing this and calling it "junk science"
Notice what it does NOT say? It does not say that global warming is not happening - simply that we overestimated the ice loss because of the flexing of the crust.
As deuce says THIS is how science works - now THIS datum will be included in future IPCC reports
Yahoo Singapore News = 1 notch above pulling stories out of one's ass
as with a lot of the other "evidence" supporting MMGW. if you overestimate enough, you can prove anything.
This, from the guy that relies on Mediamatters? ROFL.
Do you have any science to counter the article, some peer reviewed papers? Didn't think so. Shoo fly.
People with no understanding of the scientific process commenting on a scientific issue are fun
We've got Oscar here acting like this was something scientists were deliberately exaggerating the ice sheet loss and hiding this crust flexing issue.
Oscar, my rate was AG, I did it for 10 years. I have training and real life experience with the SCIENCE of Meteorology and Climatology, yet that doesn't seem to matter to the AGW'ers. Their internet PhD's in Climate Science Trump real world. IF I were an AGW'er though I'd be THE FORUM Guru and they'd all bow to me because of my Experience.
Funny how that works eh?
yeah. I happened to have a MS in chemical engineering and I took several courses in environmental and atmospheric chemistry. but apparently I still don't know how scientific issues work. gotta love it.
you and i are heretics to the church of gaia, and it's holiness algore has commanded his followers to not listen to our blaspheme!
Look, i read their case, i agree man can do better about the crap we do, but reality check is 99% of what man effects is local not global. That 1% is minuscule in the grand scheme of things. I'm all for more efficient and less polluting ways of doing business, but not at the cost of our standard of living. That sort of common sense is antithesis to their fear mongering ways.
Oscar, my rate was AG, I did it for 10 years. I have training and real life experience with the SCIENCE of Meteorology and Climatology, yet that doesn't seem to matter to the AGW'ers. Their internet PhD's in Climate Science Trump real world. IF I were an AGW'er though I'd be THE FORUM Guru and they'd all bow to me because of my Experience.
Funny how that works eh?
You and I are heretics to the Church of Gaia, and it's Holiness algore has commanded his followers to not listen to our Blaspheme!
Look, I read their case, I agree Man can do better about the crap we do, but reality check is 99% of what man effects is local not global. That 1% is minuscule in the grand scheme of things. I'm all for more efficient and less polluting ways of doing business, but not at the cost of our Standard of Living. That sort of common sense is antithesis to their fear mongering ways.
yeah. I happened to have a MS in chemical engineering and I took several courses in environmental and atmospheric chemistry. but apparently I still don't know how scientific issues work. gotta love it.
So, show me some science instead of conspiracy theories. You know that stuff they call evidence?
to what point? I have learned over the past few years that you guys are totally closed minded against anything that doesn't agree with your POV and to try to logically, scientifically argue with you is an extreme exercise in futility. you simply don't want to hear it. all it does is get my BP up. Therefore, I have resigned myself to pointless and much more entertaining button pushing and rabblerousing.
So, show me some science instead of conspiracy theories. You know that stuff they call evidence?
"I have nothing to back up what I'm saying so I'll just make up an argument that you haven't actually put forth and attack it without vague conspiracy theories." Uh huh. Well, good job putting all that expert scientific knowledge to use.
Did anyone happen to notice how nobody is actually disputing the conclusions of this study?
I suppose that thread in my signature is just me being close minded and unscientific.
to what point? I have learned over the past few years that you guys are totally closed minded against anything that doesn't agree with your POV and to try to logically, scientifically argue with you is an extreme exercise in futility. you simply don't want to hear it. all it does is get my BP up. Therefore, I have resigned myself to pointless and much more entertaining button pushing and rabblerousing.
Moderator's Warning: |
Oscar, my rate was AG, I did it for 10 years. I have training and real life experience with the SCIENCE of Meteorology and Climatology, yet that doesn't seem to matter to the AGW'ers. Their internet PhD's in Climate Science Trump real world. IF I were an AGW'er though I'd be THE FORUM Guru and they'd all bow to me because of my Experience.
Funny how that works eh?
yeah. I happened to have a MS in chemical engineering and I took several courses in environmental and atmospheric chemistry. but apparently I still don't know how scientific issues work. gotta love it.
Whereas I have none of those things but DO know about science and the academic process.
So, this being the internet anyone can claim to be the illegitimate heir to Frankenstein's castle. The point is proving it.
And unless the person making the claim is willing to back their qualifications with links to a real name (not recommended by the way) then the only way of proving knowledge level is by demonstration.
You want us to acknowledge your "experience" (which could range from reading a barometer to designing and running research projects) and knowledge then show us. Demonstrate you know the difference between a peer reviewed paper and an opinion blog - show us you understand about scientific validity. Tell us how you give weighting to research. Describe what is meant by a meta-analysis.
THESE are the essential tools to navigate through any science. with them you can learn to differentiate truth from crap (which does exist in any field)
But most of all READ what the other side is presenting. I do and I know most deniers do not. I know they do not because I have deliberately linked to something different and they have not picked me up on it - preferring instead to sit back and go nyah nyah!
I have several times proven I am exactly whom I claim and my credentials are legit.
I state quite clearly that I have read the arguments from your side, and I agree man needs to always strive to find the most clean and efficient means of living as possible. However I do not find the science of AGW to be compelling nor do I find the presented solutions to have merit. I base this on personal experience and knowledge, peer reviewed science, logic and common sense.
For example, we know that the Earth's climate is always in flux. This is not up for debate, it ALWAYS changes. Not too long ago Man experienced a mini-Ice Age, and before that was a warming period, and before that cooling and so on and so forth.
This reality tells us that the Climate is going to alter no matter what we are doing. Man's small input into the Climatic System through chemicals and gases is very slight. So small in fact it is foolhardy to claim the Planetary Ecosystem is so fragile that man is altering it.
What proof is there man's activities are damaging anything? We know that there is a slight warming, that's normal. The 1940-1970 period was a bit on the cool side, now it's warm. Guess what, it's gonna go back to being cool again. That's how the cycle works. At some point it's gonna get REALLY HOT for a while, then it'll get really cold again.
Welcome to the Earth.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?