Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The thing to keep in mind about ANY discussion about shrinking/growing glaciers and/or icepacks is that it's NOT just a function of how warm or how cold it is - it's ALSO a function of HOW MUCH MOISTURE gets dumped on the area in question. It can be warmer and glacier/icepack still grow if there is more snow dumped in the winter than there used to be. Even if the winter temps are warmer than previously, if weather patterns changes so that there is more precipitation in the winter than there used to be then the glacier/icepack can still grow. Conversely the opposite is ALSO true - a glacier/icepack can SHRINK even if the temps are cooler - providing there is less snow dumped in the winter than their used to be. Any time more snow melts in the summer than gets deposited in the winter a glacier/icepack will shrink. Any time less snow melts in the summer than gets deposited in the winter a glacier/icepack will grow. Neither case is PURELY a function of temperature - it's also a function of PRECIPITATION.
Is it just me or was there MORE ice in 1959 than in 1923? Natural climate change is a certainty. AGW? Not so much.
The two photos were taken from slightly different angles. If you look closely at the 'curly-Q' at the base of the 1928 photo, it's all ice. In the 1959 photo, it's a melt pond.
Please do! Or post a link to a scientific article that backs up what you're saying. Because it seems that claims of Antarctic ice "growing" are deceptive, at best.
Please do! Or post a link to a scientific article that backs up what you're saying. Because it seems that claims of Antarctic ice "growing" are deceptive, at best.
My friend read more closely. that link, links to hard data that refutes the statements by the author!
Just about everything from IPCC AR4 has been shot full of holes. this particular set of comments from 2008, is out of date and does not jive with the satellite data.
sorry, just because you can google, doesn’t mean you can find good data and hard evidence.
Don't you notice that I post glaciers shrinking from 5 different continentals?
Will this mean a little bit representative than here and there?
Look glaciers are overrated any how, I mean really, snow and ice, once they are gone maybe we can grow more food and drill for more oil, for that huge population explosion all the chicken littles are sqwaking about!
And what exactly does post 12 prove? Looks like a series of blurry images to me.
Ken
if you were the real LordBalfor, you would know....
since you need glasses, it shows satellite data from 1979 and 2008.
The first set of images from 1979 shows sea ice extent of 18.0 million sq km and sea ice concentration total area 13.6 million sq km
The second set shows 2008 sea ice extent of 18.1 million sq km and total sea ice concentration total area 13.9 million sq km.
Proof of growth in the Antarctic Ice pack over the last 30 years. Add to that the 2009 melt season saw the smallest amount of melt in 30 odd years according to scientists.
It is quite problematic for those who are suggesting that Antarctica is losing ice. That simply is not in the data and I don’t care how many PhD’s you can find to say otherwise.
IPCC is once again foiled by the actual factual SCIENCE. (for a group of scientists, the sure get bullywoogered by the science)
You know what? If it is caused by the human race and I believe that man is destroying our planet, then we deserve to die by the sword. When people are fighting wars over water, they might admit that things could have been different. If nothing else...
Gases fast destroying oceans’ pH
Human-produced carbon dioxide is acidifying the world’s oceans, which is just one more reason to reduce emission levels now.
That “greenhouse gases” are responsible for the current rise in global mean temperature is both widely accepted and scientifically validated. However, the absorption of billions of tons of carbon dioxide by the world’s oceans remains absent from public discussion.
this has also been debunked. This assumes an increase of hydrogen to produce carbonic acid. hydrogen is not increasing in the oceans thus the cycle is not exactly what is being stated.
all of the CO2 that could be pumped into the worlds oceans would not lower the PH of the oceans below 7 (which is the neutral point).
the worlds oceans are basic and will remain basic. there might be a slight PH change from where it is now (around 8.3 or so) to around 8.1 or some such but it certainly is not becoming acidifed.
more junk science! go forth and study the science and stop reading political hacks speading nonsense.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
