We will turn the place into a tropical vacation resort instead of a frozen hell-hole.
Study Predicts Antarctica Ice Melt if All Fossil Fuels Are Burned
- Thread starter futurecurrents
- Start date
We will turn the place into a tropical vacation resort instead of a frozen hell-hole.
Note: Unlike others I will post articles that are of general interest to those following the topic even when I disagree with some of the assertions made in the article.
This is an interesting article from the NYT and I urge everyone to read it...
Greenland Is Melting Away
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/27/world/greenland-is-melting-away.html
This is an interesting article from the NYT and I urge everyone to read it...
Greenland Is Melting Away
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/27/world/greenland-is-melting-away.html
Remember how the melting Antarctic ice sheet is in danger of imminent collapse, raising sea levels 200 feet? Yeah, about that...
NASA Study: Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses
http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses
A new NASA study says that an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is currently adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning glaciers.
The research challenges the conclusions of other studies, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) 2013 report, which says that Antarctica is overall losing land ice.
According to the new analysis of satellite data, the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001. That net gain slowed to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008.
A new NASA study says that Antarctica is overall accumulating ice. Still, areas of the continent, like the Antarctic Peninsula photographed above, have increased their mass loss in the last decades.
Map showing the rates of mass changes from ICESat 2003-2008 over Antarctica. Sums are for all of Antarctica: East Antarctica (EA, 2-17); interior West Antarctica (WA2, 1, 18, 19, and 23); coastal West Antarctica (WA1, 20-21); and the Antarctic Peninsula (24-27). A gigaton (Gt) corresponds to a billion metric tons, or 1.1 billion U.S. tons.
(More at above url)
In summary 2% of the Antarctic land mass is losing ice, 98% is gaining ice.
So when is the Church of Gorebull Warming going to burn these NASA heretics at the stake?
NASA Study: Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses
http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses
A new NASA study says that an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is currently adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning glaciers.
The research challenges the conclusions of other studies, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) 2013 report, which says that Antarctica is overall losing land ice.
According to the new analysis of satellite data, the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001. That net gain slowed to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008.
A new NASA study says that Antarctica is overall accumulating ice. Still, areas of the continent, like the Antarctic Peninsula photographed above, have increased their mass loss in the last decades.
Map showing the rates of mass changes from ICESat 2003-2008 over Antarctica. Sums are for all of Antarctica: East Antarctica (EA, 2-17); interior West Antarctica (WA2, 1, 18, 19, and 23); coastal West Antarctica (WA1, 20-21); and the Antarctic Peninsula (24-27). A gigaton (Gt) corresponds to a billion metric tons, or 1.1 billion U.S. tons.
(More at above url)
In summary 2% of the Antarctic land mass is losing ice, 98% is gaining ice.
So when is the Church of Gorebull Warming going to burn these NASA heretics at the stake?
Last edited:
First, I knew this was coming, As soon as one thread on AGW drops of the end of a page FC feels the needs to start a new one in order to cut and paste the same old studies and charts or post new ones. This seems to fulfill his need to appear intellectual.
Second, Is it really possible for man to "Burn" ALL the worlds deposits of coal, oil, and natural gas?
More great examples of the "Chicken Little" nature of the AGW crowd. Evidence, that during the Medieval Warm Period things were quite nice. (Note: Even the AGW crowd acknowledges this period, but states that worldwide on average temps were cooler, and this only effected Europe and the North Atlantic) When you're looking for Grant funding, it's much better to pound your fist and make predictions of disaster. "...a foot per decade!!!...rapid retreat!!!..." True, If one says "not much" is going to happen, and it might be pleasant, who'd listen? (or provided funding).
Watermelons', against capitalism, growth and freedom.
And lastly we have a another great example of another affliction universal amongst Liberals, any time they're in a debate about something, the discussion always degenerates into their string of name calling and expletives. If you disagree with the economic policies of Obama, rather than converse, it's ".....you're a Racist ....." If you really wish that some solution, other than abortion could be reached for unwanted pregnancies, "......... you're a Christian moron....." If the Chicken Little attribute of the AGW crowd gives you cause for skepticism, ".... you're a deluded, ignorant, right wing homophobic Christian moron......" ( I'm sure there's some well educated, Democratic voting, I don't really care about your sexual orientation, Atheists out there who don't believe in AGW) It would seem that somehow they feel as if they've won by lumping you into every anti-social catch-phrase, negative group they can think of "off the cuff". To me it doesn't matter if you stand on the left, or stand on the right, but if that's all you have to offer......well.....I recall the old saying....."A Mind is a Terrible thing to Waste" ..I would agree, I would add.... "And the Only one who can Waste it is the Owner".
^ I didn't read it but did you disprove that CO2 is an important greenhouse gas? Because that's the only way that AGW could not be happening.
NO? Didn't think so.
Does that mean Al Gore's beach front mansion will get wiped out? If so, what are we waiting for? Lets pull a Saddam Hussein and lite some oil wells on fire, just for fun.
I never expected you to read it. You've already made it clear that you refuse to read, review or even consider ANY examination on ANY subject that's not passed down from the Liberal On High. For you it's as if every statement from the AGW crowd comes complete with a burning bush. Your are indeed a sorry little man.
You didn't answer my question. If CO2 is greenhouse gas than manmade globla warming must be true. It's that simple. Have you disproven the greenhouse gas properties of CO2?
The raw DATA has disproven that increased CO2 from man is significantly warming the earth in any manner that is dangerous to the planet.
Why don't we get back to the above incorrect fundamental assertion of you and your ilk... and stop the absurd, meaningless misdirection asking if CO2 is a greenhouse gas.