[Mark Pearce]

NASA claims Black Ice is causing the global melting. According to them soot gets in the air and deposits on the ice caps. This then prevents sunlight from reflecting bacl into space and is absorbed.  I'm not sure if that's the problem but I'm fairly certain Al Gore is full of greenhouse gases. What really strikes me as odd in reading the responses to the article is how many seem to think its non-fiction.

Adam,

No-one has suggested the article is non-fiction.  Not even the mad professor. 

[Mark Pearce]

Not all the icecaps are melting, Mark.  By far the largest one (the Eastern Antarctic, containing >75% of the world's ice) is in fact growing, and has been for years.

Rich,

Have you got a source for that - I'd be interested to read more.

Mark

[Rich Goodale]

Hi Mark

I've heard this claim for several years now and have never seen it rebutted.  A quick Google search brought up the following:

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/environment/waterworld.html

I have no idea as to the reliability of those data, but the fact that they are referenced and (to my knoweldge) not ever rebutted makes me think that they are "real."    As to why they may not ever have been rebutted, who knows?  Maybe it is because it's easier and more newsworthy to fly to Greenland and see a glacier calving than it is to schlep to the middle of Antarctica and watch the snow fall and glacially accumulate.  Regardless, any view of global maps in a neutral (i.e. non-Mercator) projection will show that the volume of ice-covered land and sea is vastly bigger in the southern hemisphere than the northern one.

Of course, most of us live in the northern hemisphere, don't we?  So what does it matter what happens in areas which are effectively inaccesible and unknown to us, particularly if what happens there is contrary to our parochial experiences and or prejudices?

Cheers

Rich

[Mark Pearce]

I'll try some debunking, then. 

First, there appears to be a 4.25 million km cubed margin of error in the figure for mass of the East Antarctic sheet, how an increase of 10,000 km cubed can be given any real credence with that sort of margin of error is beyond my  mathematical comprehension. 

Second, if you look at Johnston's totals, you see that even he records a reduction in the total ice mass of 9,000 km cubed.  So even this evidence suggests that, contrary to your earlier assertion, the ice caps are, indeed, melting.  The good news, so far as those stats are accurate seems to be that the fastest rate of melt is in floating ice, which is bad news for polar bears but has no affect on sea levels.  The melting of grounded ice (and again even Johnston's stats show that there is a melting of grounded ice) will, however, lead to sea level rises.

This article from the British Antarctic Survey seems to summarise things fairly: http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/press/journalists/resources/science/sealevelbriefing.php

[Rich Goodale]

Mark

You do numbers, I do words.

I never said:

"...the ice caps are, indeed (not), melting."

Rather, I said:

"Not all the icecaps are melting, Mark."

What I cited proves my point and disproves yours (Damn, I shoulda been a lawyer...... )....

You are right that the data I cited implies absolute net melting over a specific period, but that was not my or even your point.  As Jack Webb used to famously say, "Let's deal with the facts, Ma'am.  Just the facts."  Not that what either of us has cited or referred to are facts, at least relevant to these arguments.....

Cheers

Rich

[Melvyn Morrow]

Confusion reigns here.

Antarctica had no ice once, the Constantinople map of 1513 known as the Piri Reis maps allegedly shows part of Antarctica without ice. If today the ice is thousands of feet thick why was the rest of the African & South American cost not under water from the excessive water that should be around – or was that by then frozen up into the ice sheets of the Arctic re our Ice Age in the Northern Hemisphere?



As I mentioned that many things have occurred on this planet of ours for tens of thousand of years which cannot be blamed on Man. Lets find out what is going on before jumping into fixing something that is not broken, lease we do more damage. Yes we should also take some precautions that may also help, but let’s get the facts first that all agree on.

[Kalen Braley]

Confusion reigns here.

Antarctica had no ice once, the Constantinople map of 1513 known as the Piri Reis maps allegedly shows part of Antarctica without ice. If today the ice is thousands of feet thick why was the rest of the African & South American cost not under water from the excessive water that should be around – or was that by then frozen up into the ice sheets of the Arctic re our Ice Age in the Northern Hemisphere?



As I mentioned that many things have occurred on this planet of ours for tens of thousand of years which cannot be blamed on Man. Lets find out what is going on before jumping into fixing something that is not broken, lease we do more damage. Yes we should also take some precautions that may also help, but let’s get the facts first that all agree on.

Melyvn,

I don't know that I can agree more with you last statement, and in the end, thats all I'm really advocating.  Lets gather the facts and establish some actual cause and effect relationships before we lose our heads and start mandating costly alternatives that will be as useful as lipstick on a pig.

Interesting you point out Antartica.  Another little tidbit is Greenland.  While its mostly covered in year round ice, once upon a time it actually was a green vibrant place devoid of such, hence its name.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Kalen

Greenland was the base for the Viking invasion of North America just under a 1,000 year ago and was a pleasant land for the Viking who settled for around 100-150 years. I believe they went to the States and did not get on with the locals (nothing new there then ) and retreated back to Greenland.

They seem to do well until the weather changed and those that stayed on died as it got colder around the 1300’s. Seems that Greenland had a mini warm period for a few hundred years.

Nothing is certain in this old world of ours

[Kalen Braley]

Kalen

Greenland was the base for the Viking invasion of North America just under a 1,000 year ago and was a pleasant land for the Viking who settled for around 100-150 years. I believe they went to the States and did not get on with the locals (nothing new there then ) and retreated back to Greenland.

They seem to do well until the weather changed and those that stayed on died as it got colder around the 1300’s. Seems that Greenland had a mini warm period for a few hundred years.

Nothing is certain in this old world of ours

Perhaps thier womens heart turned "cold" and caused the place to become a big ice sheet.  That sounds like a pretty reasonable explanation right?     

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()