Antarctic Ice Loss Big Enough To Cause Measurable Shift In Earth's Gravity 232
An anonymous reader writes: Contrary to what we were sometimes taught in high school physics, the Earth's gravity is not constant. It actually shows slight variations on different parts of the Earth's surface, and the variations correlate with the density of the material on that surface. The European Space Agency has been measuring gravity for four years, mapping these variations and recording the changes those variations have undergone. Its data indicates "a significant decrease [in gravity] in the region of Antarctica where land ice is melting fastest. Further analysis is, of course, planned so that the whole of Antarctica can be taken into account and "the clearest picture yet of the pace of global warming" can be determined on that continent.
Gravity of Earth = variable = anomaly... (Score:3)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F... [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F... [wikipedia.org]
The Gutenberg Discontinuity, is the boundary, as detected by changes in seismic waves, between the Earth's lower mantle and the outer core about 1800 miles below the surface. It is also called the core-mantle boundary.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M... [wikipedia.org]
"Contrary to what we were sometimes taught" (Score:5, Informative)
2) but afterward to make it simpler we always assume it is a constant because we do not have the math tool to integrate with g(r,theta, rho) over complex surface.
At no point we were taught that gravity is a constant. What we were taught is to use it as constant in simplified problems. That is a difference. I would wagger it is the samer in the country of the submitter, only he missed the important semantic difference.
Re:"Contrary to what we were sometimes taught" (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
More fundamentally, ALL equations are only approximations.
There's truth and falseness in every sentence.....including this one.
Re:"Contrary to what we were sometimes taught" (Score:5, Funny)
but in France
We've discussed these issues in France for Google and Amazon already. If gravity is doing business in France, gravity is subject to the laws of France. The French government can tax gravity to pay for subsidies of other weaker forces in France.
Re:"Contrary to what we were sometimes taught" (Score:5, Insightful)
Blowing karma on being pedantic: gravity is by far the weakest force known!
Re: (Score:2)
The "gravity constant" that you are describing is the gravity acceleration at the earth surface due to the earth (where you may or may not have subtracted the centripetal acceleration due to the earth rotation) which changes with the position on earth mainly due to the fact that the distance from the surface to the center of the earth is changing (due to flattened at the poles and bulges at the equator). So this is more a change with location than a change with time. The ESA studies is more about the measur
Re:"Contrary to what we were sometimes taught" (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Wowsers, I wonder what else in your high school physics was completely made up garbage. Because that one is a doozy!
Re:"Contrary to what we were sometimes taught" (Score:5, Informative)
The weaker gravity is the reason space missions are launched from places that are close to the equator, Florida in the US and French Guiana for the ESA.
You'll notice that most space missions are launched toward the east as well. This is mainly because the rotational velocity of the Earth is greatest at the Equator (~1,040 mph or 1,674 km/h) which means less fuel is needed to reach orbital velocity. I doubt gravity has a lot to do with it but it probably helps a bit as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. I learned about the Gravitational constant and the variability of gravity in high school physics in the US.
One of my proudest moments in high school physics was running a "measure gravity" experiment 3 times, getting to within 0.005 m/s^2 of the right answer all 3 times - for where I was! I thought for sure I was doing it wrong, until the teacher said "and if some of you are getting a number other than a simple 9.8, it's because the local gravity here is actually ." Mine averaged to 0.002 off.
Oh no (Score:2)
We have to tear down all buildings, as they're slanted now.
On the bright side, perhaps the tower of Pisa will one day be straight again.
Article is about Measurement (Score:2)
"Scientists are now armed with the most accurate gravity model ever produced."
Unfortunately "global warming" has become politicized to the extent that it's really hard to follow the science and technology being discussed. For me the original article is about measurement and our ability to detect minute changes in gravity. There is no "global threat" from the ebbs of gravity. But the scientists behind the satellite gravity monitoring probably figured that introducing the findings with "reveals" and rel
Re: (Score:3)
You aren't quite right that the satellite gravity scientists are just using climate as a "hook" to display their techniques. A major reason for the launch of these very precise gravity satellites is to use gravity to monitor the movement of water (not just ice) in and around the Earth. Hence the name of the GRACE satellite -- Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment. The NASA GRACE fact sheet is at -- http://earthobservatory.nasa.g... [nasa.gov] with more details.
how soon for a major earthquake? (Score:2)
Where did the author go to school? (Score:2)
"Contrary to what we were sometimes taught in high school physics, the Earth's gravity is not constant."
I began my education in 1961. That's pretty far back, I guess. I learned a little about gravity before I left elementary school. Then, a bit more in junior high school. Junior high didn't teach me that gravity is constant on the earth's surface. I was exposed to the idea that gravity varies from one place to another, and we were taught that our weight might vary by a couple of pounds depending where
Weight loss guaranteed (Score:2)
The clearest picture yet of global warming (Score:2)
Because this is clearly inferior. Play with it a bit. Play spot the warming.
https://www.climate.gov/news-f... [climate.gov]
Note:
1) 1998 - 2015
2) 1880 - 2015
3) 1978 - 1998
4) 1947 - 1957 - this is when all that sea ice grew.[1]
Odd is was so cold at a time of peak smog.[2]
[1]"In the early 1920s and 1930s, temperatures were high, similar to that of the present, and this affected the glacial melt. At the time many glaciers underwent a melt similar or even higher than what we have seen in the last ten years. When it became co
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Freezing water expands and takes up more volume which makes it less dense, yes, but it still has the same overall mass as when it was liquid. The idea here would be that the water runoff goes into the surrounding oceans, so mainland Antarctica would be losing overall mass.
Re:isnt ice less dense? (Score:4, Insightful)
The Ice melts and the water physically goes elsewhere. Less stuff, less gravity.
Re: (Score:2)
But help me out here. the water is still in the oceans of the Earth. So what causes the net gravitational change? The change in density from less-dense ice to more-dense water?
I would guess that results in a gravitational increase. Where is the net loss coming from?
Re:isnt ice less dense? (Score:5, Insightful)
There is no net change. Local gravity becomes weaker where the ice was and stronger where the melted ice now is.
Re: (Score:3)
Stop being logical - society doesn't care as long as they have a 4 second headline for CNN's morning recap. Science is old school.
Re:isnt ice less dense? (Score:5, Insightful)
Not exactly and no. When mass is redistributed (due to ice melting, plate tectonics, mantle convection, etc...) the shape of the geoid changes. However the total mass of the Earth is conserved. So if you are far enough away from the Earth to make it indistinguishable from a point mass, Earth's gravity remains constant.
Less 'stuff' might not mean less ice (Score:3)
In this case it looks like the hots spots are right on the coast so is it possible that the ice has actually thickened and displaced more of the denser sea water? This might also
Re:Less 'stuff' might not mean less ice (Score:4, Informative)
"is it possible that the ice has actually thickened and displaced more of the denser sea water?" -- not in this case. The geographic precision of these satellite gravity surveys and complementary ground and airborne surveys in the area constrain the loss of mass to ice over the land. In addition it is possible to estimate the change in ice mass on the land by other techniques and they are in agreement with the gravity. There is a good (but long) discussion of the recent observational techniques and results for the ice sheet mass balances in Greenland and Antarctica here: http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/so... [nsidc.org]
Re: (Score:2)
No, because when the ice melts from the land, it flows away into the ocean leaving less total mass in that location.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The last sentence in the summary... (Score:5, Informative)
The problem is that this is not intended or presented as a proof of climate change. It is merely measuring recent gravitational changes showing the affect of the reduction in ice. The article does pre-suppose that any melting of ice would be the result of climate change. You could certainly argue against that assumption.
But what you can't argue against is the fact that the ice is melting at all, although that doesn't stop some people here from cherry-picking one particular type of ice (sea ice), saying that it has expanded as if that is the complete argument against the total ice loss.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Canada...had another record breaking hot summer, and expecting another winter with hardly any snow in the Vancouver region.
Really?
If I take a look at the measurements from EC, I see that most of the country was seasonal or far below seasonal. Including snowfalls in Alberta in June and August. In Southern Ontario where I live, it was on average of 3C lower than the seasonal averages, compared to ~3-6 years ago it was 5C lower. We still had ice on the great lakes in July, that hadn't been seen since the 1970's either. Of course it doesn't help that EC has been shutting down many of the weather stations that have been in use
Re: (Score:2)
That is my point. Weather is highly localized. a super cold couple of years in area X means area y was slightly warmer etc.
We only have accurate data for 60 years, semi accurate data for 50 years before that, and hey this summer is hotter than last for everything before that. Everything else is guess work.
Is the temperature going up. yes. is cutting down trees and burning carbon bad. yes. is smog bad yes.
Back in the mid 2000's an ice shelf broke off. At the time the scientists were saying that a 5,00
Re: (Score:3)
At the time the scientists were saying that a 5,000 year old ice shelf had broken off. Okay if it was 5,000 years old what broke it off the last time? the egyptians using slave labor to build the pyramids?
Really?
1) Larson B had been a stable ice shelf 200 metres thick with a surface area of 3,250 square kilometres for at least 10,000 years. (source [eurekalert.org])
2) Even if that wasn't the case you can still attribute climate change to a cause, and that cause doesn't have to be the same cause as previous climate change.
2 b) Climate change one to two orders of magnitude slower than the current climate change would not be expected to have the same mechanism.
3) It is not believed that Egyptians used slaves to construct t
Re: (Score:2)
3) It is not believed that Egyptians used slaves to construct the pyramids.
I've been bothered by this claim each time I see it. If you're willing to move big rocks for nothing but beer, are you any better than a slave? See also: Illegal immigrants picking lettuce.
Re: (Score:3)
Looks obnoxious doesn't it? That's because you fucking people who are like that are fucking obnoxious. No one takes fucking responsibility for their shit in anything, this included.
well since consensus is now that animal agriculture is responsible for most greenhouse gas emissions: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11... [nytimes.com] One easy thing we can do is stop eating cows, then stop eating all animal products.
Also even though I bicycle to work, I need to convince my boss to let me work from home "to stop climate change" ;-)
Re: (Score:3)
"Overall, the agricultural sector contributed nearly 7% of total US GHG emissions in 2010"
that is from http://iopscience.iop.org/1748... [iop.org]; that's just the USA
but it's indicative that there's something a *little* wrong with your claim
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The last sentence in the summary... (Score:4, Interesting)
But what you can't argue against is the fact that the ice is melting at all, although that doesn't stop some people here from cherry-picking one particular type of ice (sea ice), saying that it has expanded as if that is the complete argument against the total ice loss.
It's worse than that. They're actually claiming that extent is counterevidence against loss of ice mass. Some of them don't even realize that's what they're claiming. Either way, this finding proves them wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
The article does pre-suppose that any melting of ice would be the result of climate change. You could certainly argue against that assumption.
How?
Surely from energy considerations, melting ice implies that there's an energy imbalance?
Re: (Score:2)
No, see, that tiny patch of the globe representing southern canada and northeastern US where the temperature trendline is actually slightly negative is storing so much hidden cold it completely contradicts any observations that the average temperature of the rest of the planet.
This is a notion that makes sense and isn't crazy at all.
But seriously, the easiest answer is that we can measure the heat changes over time themselves. We know the earth is warmer because we've been watching, and you have to go into
Re: (Score:2)
No, see, that tiny patch of the globe representing southern canada and northeastern US where the temperature trendline is actually slightly negative is storing so much hidden cold it completely contradicts any observations that the average temperature of the rest of the planet.
Reading between the lines, you have two points to make. One that you could argue that there isn't global warming while the ice sheets are melting so long as there is a large cooling elsewhere. And two that you don't find that this is a very compelling argument because there isn't such a cooling.
And sure. Ice sheet mass loss is indicative of regional warming, not global warming. 500 cubic kilometres represents about 46 trillion kilowatt hours [google.com.au]. Incidentally, at current average Australian electricity prices
Re: (Score:2)
You misread sarcasm. I was absolutely arguing that point sarcastically.
The serious point is that we can and do measure temperature increases, and while they aren't evenly distributed, there's only a tiny spot where it's not getting warmer.
Re: (Score:2)
But what you can't argue against is the fact that the ice is melting at all, although that doesn't stop some people here from cherry-picking one particular type of ice (sea ice), saying that it has expanded as if that is the complete argument against the total ice loss.
Right. But cherry-picking land ice is perfectly okay (as long as it's melting, of course).
Re:The last sentence in the summary... (Score:5, Insightful)
The whole story is. 4 years != climate. Not by anyone's measure. If skeptics tried to debunk AGW on this board with a 4 year trend, everyone would be all over them like white on rice. But 4 years in favor of AGW in the summary? A O K!
Yes but before the ESA satellite there were the GRACE satellites [wikipedia.org] launched in 2002 that also showed West Antarctica losing ice and Antarctica overall is losing ice at a rate of almost 69 GT/year (graph). [nasa.gov] So it's more like 12 years of data. Even that is a rather short time period compared to the standard climatological period of 30 years. But the standard climatological variables such as temperature, precipitation and wind are very noisy compared the rate of ice loss so it takes longer to discern a significant trend with them than with ice. So 12 years may be long enough for significance. I'm not sure.
Re: (Score:2)
Probably because the deniers want to use minuscule blips in the temperature to 'support' a claim that decades of measurements mean nothing. All they're trying to do in TFA is quantify a well supported occurrence using recent data.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That would be relevant if the subject was geology. However, it is climatology.
Re:The last sentence in the summary... (Score:5, Insightful)
The whole story is. 4 years != climate. Not by anyone's measure. If skeptics tried to debunk AGW on this board with a 4 year trend, everyone would be all over them like white on rice. But 4 years in favor of AGW in the summary? A O K!
Not so. The scientific point of view is that the data speak for themselves; different theories try to make sense of the observed data. Theories are never perfect, but we can make theories better by using the scientific method - and this is where the debate invariably breaks down, not because a secretive conspiracy of climate scientists are suppressing facts, but because those suffering from 'skepticemia' are unwilling to accept reality.
Weather is what happens locally, in the short time span - the wind in your hair, the sun on your face - climate is the average of the weather over large areas and long periods of time. So, it is perfectly reasonable to observe that the weather has been unusually cold in Canada this summer, and then say that this goes against the idea of global warming, and the observation requires a theoretical explanation, of course. Climatologists have already given very plausible explanations; the problem is that climate deniers don't want to accept the explanation. But just as it is necessary to consider data that go against the theory, it is also necessary to accept the data that support the theory; hence it is reasonable to state that the loss of icemass in Antarctica supports the theory of global warming.
What I still haven't seen in is just 1 climate model that explains most of the observed current and historical data and doesn't end up concluding that climate change is happening and is caused by human activities. Produce just 1 theory that can stand up the critical efforts of more than a select group of handpicked believers; the truth is that the skeptics are unable to do so, and therefore talk about conspiracies instead. Meanwhile, I think the scientific consensus has moved on, because whether people like it or not, reality keeps happening.
Re: (Score:3)
What I still haven't seen in is just 1 climate model that explains most of the observed current and historical data
The reality is that the world is too complex and weather too chaotic to come up with 1 model that you're going to be able to plug what we know of what happened in the weather into and get out a simulation that follows what actually happens. The proof of this is that weather forecasters are commonly completely wrong, and they're dealing with the best-quality records we've got (e.g. the extensive weather doppler radar network in the USA) and only have to make predictions about rainfall, temperature, and cloud
Re: (Score:3)
While I'm not denying reality - global warming is happening - I'm questioning the models proposed by the scientists. Let them come up with a model that doesn't completely fall apart 10 years later. So far, all models produced before 2000 have proven to *not* forecast the reality of things.
I'm not saying those guys are charlatans, but if they try to convince me that the sea level will rise by 2m in 100 years I'll laugh, and pretty hard at that. Nobody is actually able to predict anything beyond a couple of y
Re: (Score:3)
What I still haven't seen in is just 1 climate model that explains most of the observed current and historical data.
You could have ended this sentence right there and it would be accurate. So of course any additional clause that you append isn't going to change that. However, it does make the argument contained in that clause less compelling.
rgb
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Here is a graph of past, present, and future projections. It looks like sea level is already rising, and that the rise is accelerating. http://thebritishgeographer.we... [weebly.com]
If you look into the deep past you find that sea level had been stable for about 10,000 years. Prior to that there was a period of rapid rise during deglaciation: http://thebritishgeographer.we... [weebly.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Excuse me? Seriously? The SLR since roughly 1870 is clearly published in a number of places and amounts to roughly 9 inches. Quite aside from the infinity of statistical fallacies one can generate by fitting linear trends to timeseries data: http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=51... [wmbriggs.com], or if you prefer a longer and much more detailed statistical (Bayesian) explication of the problems: http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=51... [wmbriggs.com], and the fact that those problems are multiplied enormously when you seek to fit a nonlinear tr
Re: (Score:2)
Re: From the article (Score:4, Insightful)
The shift is small but the mass loss is real. Last three year average in the measured area has been 185 gigatonnes/year. It has an effect on the gravity, that's clear. The question is how much, and it seems it can actually be measured by instruments. Not anywhere in the world there's a constant loss of this magnitude, and as the trend goes on the change in gravity will also become more distinct.
Re: (Score:2)
Unless meltwater is floating into outer space there is no "mass loss." It's a relocation of mass on Earth.
Mass loss from that area of the planet to other areas of the planet, retard.
Re: (Score:2)
On the contrary, an alternate title for the article could have been "Measurement of gravity is now so incredibly precise that it can detect the effect of Antarctica melting away." . But that was too long.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh you made me remember reading about it. Microgravimetric analysis of Cheops in 1980. Of course the Cavendish experiment required only 300 kg of material two centuries ago, so I suppose the whole thing about precision is how far away you are when doing the measuring. So my initial point remains: the title isn't saying much. Not like "Gravitational change now big enough to cause some people to have to update their tables".
Re:Getting kinda tired.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Ladies and gentlemen, the Gish Gallop [rationalwiki.org].
Re:Getting kinda tired.... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm getting tired of hearing about how all life on Earth will end in a few years unless we vote for just one political party and their pet doomsday cult.
I'm sorry that you are getting tired of this, but in this case you can rejoice! Because nowhere in the article did they state such an absurd line.
There is no point making up quotes to get offended by when you could just comment on the actual story at hand. Your entire post has absolutely nothing to do with measuring the gravitational changes of melting ice.
Re: (Score:2)
And then there's the pretense of not naming a specific political group. Hmm, I wonder who they heck it is referring to? The Amerian Conservative Party (2008) [wikipedia.org], American Freedom Party (2010) [wikipedia.org], Justice Pary [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm getting kinda tired of the Global Warming doomsday cult
Good marketing there, mate. The PR professionals of the denialist movement like to throw around words like "cult" or "religion" for the scientific movement that they are trying to attack.
Casting the scientific position as religious attacks it's greatest strength, that it is scientific, and therefore our best guess of truth.
While I don't ignore the fact that man can alter the weather to some degree.
Okay.
I'm getting tired of hearing about how all life on Earth will end in a few years unless we vote for just one political party and their pet doomsday cult.
The article is about ice loss on the Antarctic. It doesn't discuss who you should vote for. It doesn't even assume the reader is in any country or democratic precinct.
Apparently, the sun has nothing to do with climate.
The current w
Re: (Score:2)
Lost it when you said you believe Gore is "carbon neutral."
Thanks for reading the whole thing, but that wasn't the most important point. I hope you also noted how we know that it is the enhanced greenhouse effect and not the sun that is causing the current warming. Perhaps you even noticed that some of your language is the same as that developed by PR groups with a counter-scientific agenda to market.
Just because one buys carbon credits doesn't mean that all the carbon one released magically goes away!
No, it doesn't go away. But if you sequester the same amount of CO2 that you emit, then the net effect on the atmospheric concentration of CO2 is zero.
Hahahahaha. You are seriously a dumbass to swallow that shit.
...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Al Gore isn't sequestering anything.
No, he's buying offsets from companies that are sequestering.
He's running a scam to increase his wealth.
He made a lot of money from when he was working for Apple. And the movie was a bit of a blockbuster. He has made some savvy investments in green companies too, but he's also donated millions to the Alliance for Climate Protection.
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently, the sun has nothing to do with climate.
Not sure I should engage with the "Science=cult" crowd, but... Of solar output affects surface temperatures, just not enough to counter the warming effect of CO2. Solar output has been dwindling since the 80's while global temperatures have been rising: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/p... [woodfortrees.org]
Re:Chicken Little Global Warming nuts (Score:5, Informative)
In complete denial of the FACT that Antarctic sea ice is at the HIGHEST LEVEL in decades, these Global warming cult members keep spreading the blatantly false propaganda.
Does the expansion of sea ice mean that the total volume of sea and land ice has gone up? Does it even mean that the volume of sea ice has gone up or is it just being spread thin?
You have cherry-picked a single variable that has gone up and ignored the bigger picture, and then made the outrageous claim that it is the people who actually measure the total ice that are spreading false propaganda.
Answer one question: has the volume of land ice gone up or down? If the answer is down, why is it so unimportant for you to mention this inconvenient fact?
On second thoughts, we can ask an even easier question. Has the total volume of ice gone up or down? According to the article, the gravitational measurements show that it has gone down. Why are you in complete denial of this FACT?
Re: (Score:2)
It's not that they cherry picked(in this particular case). For once I'm willing to give the deniers some credit. Extent was the only meaningful objective metric we had about Antarctic ice until climate change research raised the question of thickness, and some very smart people went looking for ways to tell.
Extent's easy, you just take satellite images(okay, without space tech this would be impossible), apply some transforms to make them properly proportional, run a quick area approximation, and poof, you
Re: (Score:2)
The reason the deniers are wrong about sea ice extent is because they're choosing to only look at the southern hemisphere, where there is nearly no sea ice. The global trend in sea ice is downwards. I think that that does count as cherry picking.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, yeah, they're absolutely shit about intellectual honesty in the general course of events. I was just trying to helpfully clarify.
Re:Chicken Little Global Warming nuts (Score:4, Informative)
In complete denial of the FACT that Antarctic sea ice is at the HIGHEST LEVEL in decades, these Global warming cult members keep spreading the blatantly false propaganda.
This would be wrong. It has been known from the older GRACE satellites that Antarctic Ice has been losing mass from the ice sheet.
In Antarctica the mass loss increased from 104 Gt/yr in 2002–2006 to 246 Gt/yr in 2006–2009, i.e., an acceleration of 26 ± 14 Gt/yr2 in 2002–2009. [wiley.com] (Increasing rates of ice mass loss from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets revealed by GRACE, I. Velicogna, Geophysical Research Letters, (2009))
You might be thinking of the Antarctic Sea Ice.
Now they are saying that if I don't drive a Prius, that the earths gravity will fail.
I don't think that that's what they're saying.
My reading of it is that they're saying that Antarctica and Greenland together are now losing 500 cubic kilometers of ice per year. They don't mention what will be the effect on that of you driving a prius, but I suspect not a lot.
This was measured using Gravity. I don't think that they say that gravity is failing.
Re: (Score:2)
So we have to prove we're not "chicken littles" or whatever these guys call us by pointing out the fairly obvious fact that sea ice melting doesn't mean the end of gravity as we know it. I mean, it's hard enough that we have to deal with those couple of non-scientists who are actually making unreasonable dire predictions(unlike the reasonable very very very concerning ones based on objective assessment), but we also have to deal with this completely imagined alarmism.
Re:Whoah, wait a minute... (Score:5, Insightful)
What conclusions are we supposed to draw from that? Well, other than that you don't know the difference between "land" and "sea".
Re:Whoah, wait a minute... (Score:4, Informative)
The cryosphere page at University of Illinois-Champagne shows that we are currently seeing more sea ice than the average, and the levels have been sharply rising the last few years.
It is the same effect: The ice on the land is melting and flowing into the sea where some of it re-freezes.
The area of ice is increasing, the mass of ice is decreasing.
Re:Whoah, wait a minute... (Score:5, Insightful)
The article barks at the wrong tree. The cryosphere page at University of Illinois-Champagne shows that we are currently seeing 1.3 million sq. km [uiuc.edu] more sea ice than the average, and the levels have been sharply rising the last few years.
There is a fine balance between trying to increase awareness and being a downright propagandist. Unfortunately, this article doesn't help the cause. This is exactly the kind of thing that make people believe environmentalists are exaggerating and grasping at straws.
Wired: Stop. You are not helping.
Before you go on you really should learn the difference between ice sheets, [wikipedia.org] ice shelves [wikipedia.org] and sea ice. [wikipedia.org] They are not the same thing. Talking about sea ice in response to this article about the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is a non-sequitur.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds about right. Do you have a newsletter? I would like to subscribe.
Re:Ugh... (Score:5, Interesting)
1. Global warming = the world getting hotter
2. Climate change = the changes to the climate due to the increased amount of energy due to warming
3. The land ice is melting, causing it to flow into the sea, where some of it re-freezes. It is expected if warming occurs.
4. Volcanoes release between 65 and 319 million tonnes of CO2 per year. Industry releases ~29 billion tonnes per year. So it takes ~19 hours for industry to release as much CO2 as all the volcanoes do per year.
Maybe people will keep "banging the bell" until people like you actually learn what's happening. You suck as a conscientious individual.
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.skepticalscience.co... [skepticalscience.com]
Also, if you had any interest in actually looking, all the numbers you need to do the math are available on the Internet.
Re: (Score:2)
While we're at it, maybe you should share your sources so they can be cross-checked.
Re: (Score:2)
Honestly, when the fuck are people going to be done banging the fucking global warming bell?
Do you have a problem with us using our best understanding to make decisions?
We've gone from global warming to global climate change to global wow the ice caps are bigger than we remember from last 10 years.
Both the terms global warming and global climate change are in current use in the literature. The ice caps are smaller now than they have been in the recent past, as studies like this one show.
Give it a fucking rest already.
It is kind of important. If Antarctic ice sheet mass loss is accelerating, it is critical to know how fast, as it is closely related to sea level rise, which in turn takes large engineering projects to adapt to.
The damn naturally occuring volcanoes give off more greenhouse gasses in a week than 50 years of modern innovation has ever produced.
This would be bullshit.
The bur
Re: (Score:2)
The damn naturally occuring volcanoes give off more greenhouse gasses in a week than 50 years of modern innovation has ever produced.
Is that why global carbon emissions briefly decreased when Eyjafjallajokull erupted in 2010, grounding the majority of European flights?
Yeah, you've bought the bullshit and are trying to peddle it on. http://tamino.wordpress.com/20... [wordpress.com]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The suggestion that "being big enough to cause a measurable shift in earth's gravity" is something worthy of note is the anti science idiocy. This is not something that matters.
You don't understand. It is politically correct to tie this to global warming.
Re: (Score:2)
How else can we get rid of capitalism and institute communism against the will of the majority of people?
Re: (Score:2)
You mean like the government enacts the will of the people now? Oh the horror if all that were to stop.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. Get the people to want something they have previously rejected and witnessed most previous attempts turn into violent oppressive regimes that failed to progress much through fear and contrived disdain.
All hail the stupidity of the crowd. Er i mean the will of the people.
Re: (Score:2)
Rejecting capitalism does not automatically make soviet style communism, or any derivative thereof, the only alternative left.
Re: (Score:2)
You are right. There is always the north korean style, the chinese style, vietnamese/cambodian style, german style, and a few others i missed.
Communism has and likely will always devolve into oppresive styles of ruling over the people with brushes against mass murder because everyone has to either agree with the results of it, be forced to agree with it, or eliminated from innfluencing it at all. Every single conversion to communism we have witnessed has either mass murdered some of the people who rejected
Re: (Score:2)
Spoken like a true oligarch.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed [..]
The Declaration of Independence
Government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the Earth [..]
Abraham Lincoln
The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves - in their separate, and individual capacities.
Abraham Lincoln
Government SHOULD enact the will of the people, because it IS the people.
Government as practiced in a free society is the collective will of the citizenry.
This is first day material of Civics 101. Which like most modern wingnuts on this site you apparently slept through.
Re: (Score:3)
Here's wapo [washingtonpost.com] two weeks ago telling me Antarctic ice is increasing — because of AGW.
I think you are confusing sea ice with the ice sheet.
The Antarctic Sea ice is the ice that is floating on the sea around Antarctica. It grows in winter, and nearly disappears in summer, because there's a big continent where the pole is.
The Antarctic Ice sheet is the much larger slab of ice sitting on Antarctica. It is about 60% of all the fresh water on the planet, and consists of 26.5 million cubic km of ice. This is losing mass at an accelerating rate. The study in the OP finds that it is currently lo
Re:so which is it? (Score:4, Insightful)
I read just the other day that Antarctica has more ice than ever!
I suspect you read that there the sea ice around Antarctica is more than ever. Antarctica has been losing huge volumes of ice for some decades.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. We can measure extremely small changes. Measurable in no way means significant.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Although the Montreal Protocol limiting CFC use began to come into force in 1989, it is implemented gradually, and the last of the provisions won't come into effect until 2030. Then you have the fact that decades of damage will take decades of recovery; the recovery is estimated t
Re: (Score:2)
A portion of that ice is sitting above sea level, so as it melts and the liquid water flows away there's less total water in the area.