Antarctic Ice Is Growing, Not Melting Away, At Davis Station 633
schwit1 writes "A report from The Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research says that Antarctic ice is growing, not melting away. Ice core drilling in the fast ice off Australia's Davis Station in East Antarctica by the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Co-Operative Research Centre shows that last year, the ice had a maximum thickness of 1.89m, its densest in 10 years. The average thickness of the ice at Davis since the 1950s is 1.67m. A paper to be published soon by the British Antarctic Survey in the journal Geophysical Research Letters is expected to confirm that over the past 30 years, the area of sea ice around the continent has expanded."
Temperature (Score:5, Interesting)
The antarctic is supposed to be a desert because it is too cold to snow.
The fact the central area is now accumulating snow points to warming and accompanying increased precipitation.
The ice sheets have increased their outward flow. Also another indicator of increased precipitation and warmth.
One has to be very careful what one looks at for indicators of global warming/cooling.
Good data point, does not reverse slope of line (Score:5, Interesting)
Global warming is not a powerful enough trend to counteract all other factors- it still get colder in fall and winter in temperate zones, and it's often colder from one day to the next. While the majority of ski resorts have reported a trend of less annual snowfall per year for the past twenty years or so, some individual years buck the trend, and some resorts (like Holiday Valley in New York) have experienced the opposite trend. It's a hugely complex system with a lot of random variation and unknown factors. While the satellite data tells us that the average temperature of the earth is increasing every year, that leaves a lot of room for variation from the mean, and some parts of the world are actually getting colder. Due to the complexities of weather, some areas may experience more snowfall when the temperature rises. So don't make this out to mean more than it is.
But it is very interesting, and could force changes to models claiming rapidly rising sea levels due to global warming.
Re:Temperature (Score:4, Interesting)
West-Antarctica (Score:5, Interesting)
To my knowledge, it is already known, that the ice thickens in West-Antarctica (News from 2002 [bbc.co.uk]). Davis-Station seems to be located there.
I am interested, what new findings in West-Australia lead to Dr Allison's evaluation on the development of the whole continent of Antarctica. The posted article itself is a bit sparse on facts.
Re:Separation of Science and States (Score:5, Interesting)
That's not a bad point.
For the last few years, guys with the slightest connection to anything even remotely connected to the climate and weather are being called "climate scientists" or "climate change expert." Huh?
Re:Separation of Science and States (Score:4, Interesting)
s/ego/reputation/g
Re:Temperature (Score:4, Interesting)
Let's forget the environment for a momnet... (Score:5, Interesting)
With that in mind there is still no reason not to be more green.
Pollution shortens your life: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7946838.stm [bbc.co.uk]
Pollutionis linked to Pneumonia: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7347065.stm [bbc.co.uk]
Pollution affects birth weight: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7988619.stm [bbc.co.uk]
Pollution alters brain function: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7288176.stm [bbc.co.uk]
So why in the hell would anyone support polluting this planet?
Installing solar panels and using water butts and various other green things can save money so why wouldn't people want to save money?
You can't (shouldn't) drive while intoxicated so increased public transportation makes it better for me when I want to socialise with my friend with alcohol and what not. Riding on buses and trains I can sleep, read or use my laptop while going to work rather than just sitting behind the wheel stressing out. Those who insist on driving get the benefit of less traffic when more people use the train or bus So it's nothing but a benefit all around
My main concern is looking out for number one and looking out for the environment results in nothing but benefits for me as it does for most people. Ignorant people should realise this and stop focusing on just the planet. This isn't about tree huggers. This is about saving money and improving your life. So even if you have a "fuck the planet" attitude making certain change benefits yourself as well as the tree huggers.
You have to HAVE a line... (Score:4, Interesting)
So, where does your line come from? Show it to me, please. Credible data from one or more credible sources clearly showing this trend you claim.
By the way, according to your pet satellite data, the upper atmosphere has not been warming in the way predicted by any of the greenhouse-gas warming models.
When it was warmer in the past (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:how bout them apples (Score:4, Interesting)
For the record, I'd like to provider a short list of things that aren't cogent political arguments:
1) Television catch phrases
2) Proper nouns
3) Noises
5) Movie titles
Re:Separation of Science and States (Score:3, Interesting)
> I think Carl Sagan neatly addressed that:
Except Dr. Sagan was an almost canonical example of a politicized scientist toward the end of his life. His greatest work, Cosmos (which I have a DVD set of on my shelf) was greatly flawed by his growing political leanings (which were garden variety peacenik/green of the most naive uneducated sort) instead of focusing on the science which he was an actual authority on.
> In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,'
That has probably never happened. The other guy having really good (and repeatable) RESULTS can change opponents into supporters in science. Hell, scientists would probably still be debating relativity and quantum theory had not the Trinity Test not settled the matter in such dramatic fashion.
But that not the same as the the problems when scientists get into political affairs, they expect the decisions to be made on purely rational arguments that can be solved as a math problem. But they often can't. Political decisions aremore often cases of competing interests or weighing risk/rewards. Then we get to AGW and the usefuless of the scientific method is really called into question. AGW has almost zero actual numbers, it's all computer models and measurements close to the error bars where both sides can make good arguments, thus both sides now field Nobel Prize Winners in attempts to win by appeal to authority. But one side has Al Gore and James Hansen and that settles it as far as this non-scientist is concerned. Gore isn't a scientist but is treated as one and Hansen might have been a scientist once but has been nothing but a fraud since his antics with the hockey stick chart were debunked and he escaped all consequences.
Re:Let's forget the environment for a momnet... (Score:2, Interesting)
So why in the hell would anyone support polluting this planet?
It depends on what you mean by "pollution". If you mean nasty stuff like ozone (at the surface level; not up there where it blocks UV) or other things that used to come out of tailpipes and factories, sure, I don't think anybody is against reducing these nasty pollutions (that's what the catalytic converters and all those filter things are for).
But, what's really insidious about the "global warming" crowd is that they got people to think about carbon dioxide (CO2) as a polluting gas. CO2 is not pollution. Sure, you can get CO2 poisoning, but then, you can also die from eating too much salt or sugar (or water on the flip side). CO2 per se is not toxic, it's not "pollution". You breathe it out, and plants need them for photosynthesis.
So, that's what the debate is about, because any time you burn something other than hydrogen, you are going to generate CO2, and to scrub it out of the emission, it will just cost too much (way more than filtering other, actually noxious gas out).
There have been no studies that linked slightly elevated level of CO2 in the atmosphere (I think currently at 200 to 500 ppm or so; it takes about 1%, or 10,000 ppm for anyone to feel anything) to any harmful effect on long term health.
So once we get rid of all the nasty stuff that everyone agrees we should get rid of, the debate is really down to, "Should we bother with this innocuous gas CO2 where the only concern is some unproven possible effect on global climate?"
And I would say most reasonable people I know around me (mostly physics professors) say "No" to that question.
Re:Let's forget the environment for a momnet... (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, reducing armaments globally would also solve world hunger several times over.
Wrong. The existing armaments can destroy the world many times over. The cost of producing them is peanuts compared to what we already spend on foreign aids and welfare.
Just look at United States. Right now, even with all the expenditures related to the war in Iraq, the military budget of United States (which outstrips military budget of any other country) is less than $700 billion [wikipedia.org]. That sounds like a lot, but compared to the welfare budget [wikipedia.org] (this is for a different year, and without all the "stimulus" funding), we spent $600 billion on Social Security, $380 billion on Medicare, $200 billion for Medicaid, and $320 for unemployment for total of at least $1500 billion on welfare programs federally.
This is how much we are spending to "feed the poor" in the United States and that's crippling our nation. Can you imagine what would happen if we tried to do that for, what, 1, 2, or 3 billion more people?
The liberal media would have you believe that we spend too much for military and armaments. Maybe we do—we sure spend much, much more than before the world wars. But compared to other spendings like those on social programs, it's really peanuts, and before we talk about removing our only defense from our enemies, we should talk about letting each person take responsibility for his action and not burdening the society for his (or his father's) laziness.
Re:Temperature (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course it can.
Just like I can say we're getting less percipitation but more flooding in the northwest US. If there is a huge deluge of percipitation but then a 3 month drought then that can actually cause worse flooding later.
Similarly it could rain more often but still rain less.
That's why the leading worry about Global Warming isn't that you're going to need to get 3 more days of nice sunny weather every day. It's that Global Warming will cause UNPREDICTABLE weather patterns. Such as freak deep freezes. Unexpected ice patterns etc in addition to hotter summers and draught.
Maybe a region will see its weather patterns change such that they receive tons of percipitation during the winter but none during the growing season. That's a bad change for agriculture even if the region receives "more rain".
You're building a strawman against climate change that "Scientists claim that global warming will cause global heating in every point on earth." That's not a claim of global warming. And when shipping lanes open through the north pole (where polar bears reside) I would hardly be hasty to suggest that in general ice sheets aren't shrinking simply because one small region on earth is seeing increased ice.
There's increased ice in my freezer too... does that disprove global warming? Look at the data as a whole not cherry picked exceptions to the data trends.
Re:Let's forget the environment for a momnet... (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes but SS, Medicare and Unemployment are all supposed to be payed out of their own incomes. Much like a forced savings fund. I don't know that I would call those "welfare" programs in the sense you're implying.
If we're talking about "Feeding the poor" then we shouldn't include SS, Unemployment *insurance* or much of medicare.
Medicaid and foodstamps being the two big programs to look at. At that point you see your 1600 billion shrink dramatically to less than 500 billion.
Re:Welp, (Score:4, Interesting)
Case in Point (Score:5, Interesting)
That's not a bad point.
For the last few years, guys with the slightest connection to anything even remotely connected to the climate and weather are being called "climate scientists" or "climate change expert." Huh?
Case in point: David Suzuki [wikipedia.org], a Canadian zoologist who has done all his professional work in genetics. Somehow, he became a climate scientist in the press. This is also the guy that said " climate change deniers", especially ones in politics, should be jailed for their "crimes" [nationalpost.com].
Re:Whoop de doo! (Score:3, Interesting)
We also weren't trying to feed six billion humans last time it was seriously warm.
I would like to point out that if it gets warm enough we will have an entire extra continent to farm and live in, not to mention all the other land that is currently locked away under ice sheets.
And as has been pointed out extensively in the 'arctic snowfall' discussion here, atmospheric water content is related to temperature. Generally speaking, higher temperature == more rain.
I think increases in technology are more than capable of handling our food supply problem for the foreseeable feature, but in a desperate situation, perhaps increased global warming would be our best investment.
Re:Temperature (Score:4, Interesting)
The AGW camp is predicting that things will be unpredictable...
Here is what I have observed:
A few years ago hurricanes were all the AGW rage. They predicted more and stronger hurricanes as a result of AGW (the "more energy" arguement), but when that failed to happen they then predicted fewer and weaker hurricanes as a result of AGW (the "more energy produces windsheer" arguement.)
Then, they predicted increased melting of the polar ice due to global warming (the "warmer atmosphere" arguement), but now we find out that when that didnt happen that they now predict a decrease in melting of the polar ice (the "warmer atmosphere causes greater circulation" arguement.)
Here is the way I see it:
Whatever data comes in, there is a pro-AGW arguement waiting to support it, and that tells me quite clearly that nobody has a god damn clue what the fuck is going on, but that AGW = DOLLARS FOR CLIMATOLOGISTS.
Re:Let's forget the environment for a momnet... (Score:2, Interesting)
Yes because all welfare recipients are lazy, don't want to work and are happy to have the government take your hard earned dollars and give it to them....
I'm not American and I don't live in America. I do however receive welfare payments from my own government (Australian government). My family is lower-middle class, living in a regional town. The closest university is 1.5 hours drive away, which meant that in order to go to uni I had to leave home. My family couldn't afford to support me living on my own, but thanks to government support I've been able to go to a very good uni. On top of the support for living expenses I also receive a low-interest, deferred payment loan from the government to pay my tuition fees. Once I start working I'll of course pay that back. Personally I believe that making sure that the quality of education available to people depends not on their family background but on the ability of the individual is one of the fundamental pillars of a free society.
I can think of plenty of other examples of reasons why people might receive welfare other than being lazy. We don't live in a fair world and people do fall on hard times, irrespective of whether they're hard working or lazy, and I can't see why it's such a bad thing that the government does support these people through hard times.
Oh and American spends about 4% of GDP on its military (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_the_United_States). Most western countries spend about 2%. Take the EU for example at roughly half the US (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_the_European_Union) while having a larger GDP than the US. If American military spending was in line with the rest of the western world you could have the bailout paid for in a few years. Then plenty of money left for infrastructure upgrades, genuine nation building and further paying down the deficit before the interest repayments seriously weigh down the US governments spending ability. Also I know it sounds pretty left wing, but you know, maybe people would hate you less if you weren't bombing their countries? Maybe these countries could reach stability if you weren't propping up dictatorships and toppling unfavorable governments... Call me crazy but I think you'd be a lot more secure if you spent less on your military and kept to yourselves.
Re:Welp, (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah, and us humans have only been on Earth for 0.00002% of it's existence.... species come and go, mostly without humans. So why worry?
Except, there is a problem in your logic. We can understand what has caused the coming and going of many of the global glaciations over the history of the world.
For example, the glaciation that occurred in the late Devonian is linked to the spread of plants on land. Before this time, there were no trees. They captured a large amount of atmospheric CO2, triggering global cooling and glaciation. The result was one of the "big 5" mass extinctions on the planet, with about 50% loss at the genera level.
Guess what? Humans have spread all across the planet! Guess what? It's not arrogant to collect data that shows we are actively changing the system and try to make predictions based on it.
I'm not advocating any certain policy; but I am saying it is foolish to assume that we can't change the world, and that we can't understand complex systems.
Re:Welp, (Score:2, Interesting)
"They are therefore the ones best positioned to come up with technical solutions and ways to meet lowered targets or at least flatten out production."
Except that is wrong.
"How can we possibly say to countries that are in the early stages of industrialization"
easy, don't do it that way. Countries do not need coal, they need electricty. Help them generate electricity a different way, and build their new grids intellegently. Not happhazzardly as was done when the moving of electricity was new.
It's better to show them how to generate electricity using solar thermal plants.
Add to that 'letting them' do it they was we did is very harmful and disasterus.
"somehow completely and forever off the hook. "
There is nothing in the agreement that says otherwise.
Considsering the amount of wealth China has, it's inexcusable to exempt them.
If everyone at that able suddenly found out the eating the rest of the pizza would destroy coastlines, displace millions, and wreck global havoc, then yes, they can say it.
Of course, they should help that person find a cleaner pizza.
Re:Welp, (Score:1, Interesting)
I have a more apt analogy than your pizza one.... just because Jack murders a dozen people doesn't excuse John from killing one.
Unless he kills jack.
Different Gandhi (Score:5, Interesting)
Are you aware that Indira Gandhi [wikipedia.org] is not the same person one usually refers to as simply "Gandhi" [wikipedia.org]?
But I must say I agree with the rest of your comment, the US is the biggest polluter and owes the rest of the world some respect. We all share the same planet.
And going back to the article, this shows the typical tactics of people who don't want to do their part in fighting global warming. They try to imply that the enormous amount of evidence that has been collected demonstrating the anthropogenic influence in global warming is just a bunch of isolated data. Yet they want to use one single measurement as evidence that there really isn't something like a sudden raise [wikipedia.org] in temperatures over the last few hundred years that's more abrupt than anything ever seen on earth.