Starship Asterisk*

jlfonz wrote:... a temperate climate in Greenland ...

Please explain how you tell local climate variation from global climate variation.

jlfonz wrote:... other planets in our solar system are sharing the same percentages of polar melting ...

Other planets? Please name two.

Years of listening to quacks with flimsy evidence alternately predicting the next ice age and catastrophic greenhouse effect led many of us to view all such claims with cynicism. But quackery has been replaced by better science and more measurements. It is time to take the modern view of global warming seriously.

I'm unclear as to when the picture was taken. Is this current or is it 1994? If it is current, this year,then I would like to see contrasting pictures from previous years as someone else suggested.

Rocky Planet wrote:

jlfonz wrote:... a temperate climate in Greenland ...

Please explain how you tell local climate variation from global climate variation.

jlfonz wrote:... other planets in our solar system are sharing the same percentages of polar melting ...

Other planets? Please name two.

The temperate climate on Greenland was during the time referred to as the Medieval Warming Period (MWP). This was a time of prosperity for the Viking Colonists there but only lasted a few hundred years before the onset of the Little Ice Age (LIA). The LIA brought about glacial advance in Europe and the Scandinavian countrise that covered entire villages. It brought Sea Ice back to Greenland and Iceland effective cutting off the Viking colonists in Greenland and led to their demise. It also led to a dramatically shortened growing perion in Northern Europe ane other northern areas leading to many deaths from disease and starvation. The Villages being uncovered bt glacial retreat today are likely those covered by glacial advance during the LIA.

The only other terrestrial planet with Ice Caps is Mars and it has a largely CO2 based atmosphere. I would find it strange if the ice caps didn't behave like those of Earth given the tenuous atmosphere and relative ammount of CO2.

holonomy wrote:I'm unclear as to when the picture was taken. Is this current or is it 1994? If it is current, this year,then I would like to see contrasting pictures from previous years as someone else suggested.

I believe that the picture was taken in 1994, 15 years ago. I too would like to see an image from today showing the changes.

I am saddened to see such blatant, gorebull-warming propaganda on what is usually a fairly straight, scientific (factual) site... so here are a few sites to counter it.

http://www.icecap.us/
http://www.co2science.org/index.php
http://www.climateaudit.org/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/
http://www.climate4you.com/
http://iceagenow.com/

Sometimes the truth can be pretty cooling.

http://images.google.com/images?q=antarctic+ice+loss



The picture above shows the Ross Ice Shelf as having an area of about 473,000 square kilometers. The area of Earth's oceans is about 361,000,000 square kilometers. That makes the area of the oceans 763 times the area of the Ross Ice Shelf. If dropping the entire shelf in the drink and melting it would raise sea level 5 meters, then the amount of the Ross Ice Shelf standing above sea level must be 763x5 or about 3800 meters. The maximum thickness of the Ross Ice Shelf is less than 1000 meters, the average thickness is less than that, and most of it is already under water and so would not raise sea level if melted. So is my arithmetic wrong, or is the 5 meter claim a gross exaggeration? I've left the density of the ice out of the calculation, but it shouldn't account for the difference.

Pops wrote:I am saddened to see such blatant, gorebull-warming propaganda on what is usually a fairly straight, scientific (factual) site... so here are a few sites to counter it.

http://www.icecap.us/
http://www.co2science.org/index.php
http://www.climateaudit.org/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/
http://www.climate4you.com/
http://iceagenow.com/

Sometimes the truth can be pretty cooling.

Are you then insisting that there is no global warming even though there has been a vast reduction in summer (residual) polar sea ice over the last 30% years? If not Global Warming, then What is melting the sea ice to a greater extent than any time since the Medieval Warming Period?

What your "Ice Age Now" website indicates to me is that the warming that has occured over the last 30 years has likely interrupted the Thermohaline Circulation Currents in the North Atlantic leading to a shifting of Ocean Currents that pulls the Warm Gulfstreem waters away from the northern continents and allows for the glaciation process to begin. But I hope this is incorrect.

Edited to include:

From your CO2 Science link
“Elevated CO2: How Sweet it is ... for Sugarcane!: (Uploaded 12 January 2009)
We all learned back in grade school that CO2 is good for vegetation, and that plants need it to grow and construct their tissues. Might not the extra CO2 projected to be in the air by the end of the century therefore actually be beneficial for the planet's vegetation?”

The short answer is likely…yes. Increased CO2 levels would be good for some plant life.
However, Millions of years ago, when the CO2 levels were 2000+ppm and even as high as 6-7000ppm the flora was vastly different. Plants had very large broad leaves so as to be able to process more CO2 and the fauna was also significantly larger due in part to the enhanced vegetation. But Man was nowhere to be found. We could not in face have survived then as the air would have been toxic to us. We would, in fact, have difficulty breathing if you raised the CO2 levels to anything above 600ppm. We would be forced into needing a breathing apparatus just to go outside and also needing sealed internal environs so as to avoid CO2 entering our living spaces.
So while elevated CO2 levels might be good for some plants, it has a net negative impact on humans.

And this from “What’s up with that” web link
“NASA’s Dr. James Hansen once again goes over the top. See his most recent article in the UK Guardian. Some excerpts:
“The trains carrying coal to power plants are death trains. Coal-fired power plants are factories of death.”
And this:
Clearly, if we burn all fossil fuels, we will destroy the planet we know. Carbon dioxide would increase to 500 ppm or more.
Only one problem there Jimbo, CO2 has been a lot higher in the past. Like 10 times higher.”

Only one problem there too, Man cannot survive in an environment where CO2 ppm levels are “10 times greater than that.”

And this
”Redoing Steig et al, with simple data regrouping, gives half the warming result in Antarctica
Gee half the warming but still ALL the sea ice melt. Hmmmm

And this
”‘Apocalyptic climate predictions’ mislead the public, say experts’
Experts at Britain’s top climate research centre have launched a blistering attack on scientific colleagues and journalists who exaggerate the effects of global warming. The Met Office Hadley Centre, one of the most prestigious research facilities in the world, says recent “apocalyptic predictions” about Arctic ice melt and soaring temperatures are as bad as claims that global warming does not exist. Now I happen to agree with this statement because I think that global warming (and you would have to be crazy to deny its existence) won’t mean a catastrophic melt down in northern ice fields/sheets/etc.but rather the return to another Little Ice Age or possible Major Ice Age.

I'm not sure what this APOD has to do with astronomy. I've noticed that you have very few pictures of the spotless sun recently on APOD. It is probably THE environmental story due to all of its inplications.This is perhaps more topical as the peak average temp of the earth was in 1999 (I meant to say 1998 but then I remembered that NASA had a methodology error and when they recalculated it was 1934) and it has been cooling since. 2008 witnessed the largest drop in average (global) temp on record erasing most of the warming in this century. NASA did anounce October was the hottest on record, they were grossly mistaken or worse. (That's two gross errors on Hansen's watch.)

I was hoping someone could point me to a picture of what that region looks like at the moment. Preferably from the same viewpoint.
It seems pointless to use a 15 year old picture and say that the ice has all gone, but not give a link to a picture of what it looks like right now.
Any takers please?

Warming planets? Mars, Jupiter, Pluto and even triton, a moon of Neptune have had "coincidental" warming cycles.

I wonder what the mid evil-ites called mid-evil warming?

I got it **WTG** (stands for Whew--Thank God)

I wonder what they called little Ice Age when it came like "waves from the ocean" paraphrase from Greenland wine grape growers journal.

I wonder if the people of Greenland would like it to be green----again?

I wonder why the vast majority of AGW beleivers voted for Obama? (I truly wonder why)

IRT Chris Peterson, Argue the facts Chris, don't call names.

jlfonz wrote:poles of other planets in our solar system are sharing the same percentages of polar melting

jlfonz wrote:Warming planets? Mars, Jupiter, Pluto and even triton, a moon of Neptune have had "coincidental" warming cycles.

Mars is planet number one.
Jupiter has nothing solid at the poles to melt.
Pluto, in case you haven't heard, is no longer considered a planet.
Triton is not a planet.
I'm still waiting for planet number two.
The criterion you put forth yourself said "melting", not "warming".
Cycles that affect the whole solar system in no way negate the possibility of other phenomena affecting Earth as well.
Study logic as well as science.

---

And just for the sake of argument, suppose that something other than man or something that affects the whole solar system is completely responsible for global warming. That should take the politics out of your answer. Does that mean we should sit by and drown in melt-water because we didn't cause it, or do you think we should try to do something about it anyway?

Like debating a third grader about going out to play

"but Mom--you said I could go outside today!"

"Johnny--its lightning and thunder out there"

After reading your first arguement YOU tell ME to use logic---laughable especially the Pluto thing.

And then-----We humans are supposed to figure out how adjust the thermometer---of the Sun

good grief

I obviously struck cord with the Obama thing----

Enjoy your continuous life of misery---Why do I say that?--because the vast majority of people that voted for PO are all ways unhappy--Just a fact.

PS to any moderator---I'm done here. I apologize if I've created YOU any angst. I just like debates with facts on my side---not feelings.

jlfonz wrote:I'm done here.

Don't give up now. You're this week's entertainment.

In the animation it appears that the Ice shelf is on water. If ice is on water it cannot raise the level of the water when it melts.

You can demonstrate this fact by filling a container with ice, & adding water until it comes to the top of the container without going over the top. The ice will float on the water ,& be above the top of the container. When the ice melts the water will still be at the top of the container, but will not have run over.

When water freezes it expands & has a larger volume than the water from which it was created had. That's why it is able to float.

Only ice that is on land above sea level can raise the sea level if it melts. Now a question: Why is it so cold in the northern hemisphere this Winter? The Ice there is getting thicker, & expanding in area.

Chris Peterson wrote: "Your comment, however, wonderfully demonstrates the grave risk we face having such a scientifically illiterate populace. We no longer live in a world where a lack of understanding of science (in its true sense, as a method of understanding) can be tolerated."

This from a professional astronomer? No wonder the "scientifically illiterate populace" is so upset over the Congress of the United States passing the largest science research funding bill in the history of the country. That's a pretty elitist attitude for someone that claims to be a scientist. When you look at the APOD's references you will find that it references Wikipedia for its reference for "global sea levels". My son's seventh grade science class will not allow him to use Wikipedia as a reference for any of his written papers and reports. As a member of the "scientifically literate populace" I was quite surprised that APOD allowed it as a reference. However, if you check out the "global sea levels" article on Wikapedia, you will see that the author has a lot of problems with his article that would indicate the subject is far from being either well understood or debunked. But in any case, this country of "scientifically illiterates" is getting ready to spend $300,000,000 to study it with satellites. Are we to believe that this funding will put elitist scientists back to work?

How disappointing to see the once-respectable NASA still trying to peddle the ridiculously moonbatty anthropogenic global warming "theory." Please, APOD "editors," leave the political nonsense out of my beloved astronomy.

Personally, global warming could be caused by people or sun or magma, I don't care. I don't deny that there is an average increase in temperature. That much is likely, though I have found reasons to doubt weather station reports especially considering that many of them are placed near urban areas which are susceptible to the urban heat island effect. But with all the arguments aside over who or what is causing it, the part which disturbs me are the predictions about what will RESULT from global warming, or climate change, whichever you call it.

Everything from increased kittens, the fires in California, to children dying in Africa and the collapse of civilization as we know it have been attributed to this phenomenon. This is the most unscientific part about it. This is where the apparent control mechanism is and where objective, logical thought seems to go straight out the window. The fact is, nobody knows what will happen. I can tell you one thing I do know. That is that it can not possibly be 100% bad. So I avoid investing any time reading any essays which do not address both the possible pitfalls as well as the benefits.

As it stands, agriculture has destroyed countless habitats around the entire world. So many species have been wiped out by it and human consumption. Global warming is not the biggest threat to our planet's wonderful diversity. Our existence is. And it's not solely because we emit tons of CO2. It's because we simply exist. The most terrible thing is for global warming to become the scapegoat. If we were to suddenly stop emitting all CO2 and other gases we would still exist. We would still eat. And we would not have addressed the most important problem. Us.

Take a look at Google Earth. The land is dithered with farms. You will find very few natural places left. These are my observations.

Most readers hereabouts know that the Wikipedia is a convenient reference used for its breadth and accessibility, not an authoritative one. Information can often be verified by authoritative sources that are not available for linking, whereas a Wikipedia article containing the same information is easily found and linked. So serious contributors may be expected only to link to Wikipedia articles that contain information that they have corroborated for the occasion or in the past.

Zeke wrote:In the animation it appears that the Ice shelf is on water. If ice is on water it cannot raise the level of the water when it melts.

That's not correct. The ice that is melting is fresh water, and it is melting into salt water. Fresh water is less dense than salt water, so it has a larger volume than the equivalent mass of salt water. When freshwater melts into salt water, the level rises.

You can demonstrate this fact by filling a container with ice, & adding water until it comes to the top of the container without going over the top. The ice will float on the water ,& be above the top of the container. When the ice melts the water will still be at the top of the container, but will not have run over.

Now do the experiment again, but use fresh water ice in salt water. The container will overflow. I've done this in the classroom.

Buckaroo Banzai said what the scriptwriter wrote:Don't tug on that, you never know what it might be attached to.

geckzilla wrote:Everything from increased kittens, the fires in California, to children dying in Africa and the collapse of civilization as we know it have been attributed to this phenomenon. This is the most unscientific part about it. ... The fact is, nobody knows what will happen. ... So I avoid investing any time reading any essays which do not address both the possible pitfalls as well as the benefits.

The "problem" and its "causes" as well as the "solution" and its "consequences" are intertwined sets of phenomena. It is the job of science and scientists to sort it out. Cable tv "scientific documentaries" that link every popular topic to apocalypse and cataclysm are not a good tool to help the informed or uninformed populus sort it out.

Your use of quotation marks confuses me.

If one makes the assumption that the Ross Ice Shelf melted in its entirety, along with the balance of the other Ice Shelves in Antarctica, then a total of 1,183,590 sq. Km's of ice would melt. Using Rocky's figure for the total area of the oceans and dividing by the total area of the ice shelves in Antarctica would give 305 times more area. 305 x 5 = 1,525 meters of ice depth would be required to raise the level of the oceans by 5 meters. So I guess that pretty much debunks that theory!

geckzilla wrote:Your use of quotation marks confuses me.

Easily explained.

I essentially agree with what you said.

The first four terms are in quotes because I used them loosely and don't care to defend them.

The term "scientific documentaries" is in quotes because IMO they are really neither.