Posted on 10/17/2005 12:39:54 PM PDT by Ben Mugged
Antarctica is melting, adding to the inexorable rise in global sea levels, endangering millions of lives and whole economies, leading scientists said on Monday.
But while the effect is well known after years of monitoring from land and space, the reasons for the sea warming are not.
"We know sea levels will rise. We need to know by how much and why," Anthony Payne of the University of Bristol and one of the organizers of a major scientific conference in London, told Reuters on the sidelines of the meeting at the Royal Society, Britain's national academy of science.
"This has implications for the whole world — most people and industries are in coastal areas," he added.
Payne said there was a net loss of mass in Antarctica as the snowfall in the center of the frigid landmass was more than offset by sea ice melting around the edges.
The key was to find out whether the process was accelerating, or whether it might stabilize or even reverse.
And the important factor was understanding the complex interaction between ocean and wind currents and how much — if any — of the warming of the seas was due to mankind's contribution to global warming.
"We know a lot more about the ice sheets than we did before," Payne said. "We know change is happening and that it is rapid. What we don't know is why or what is causing it — what proportion is anthropomorphic."
Scientists calculate that average world temperatures — which have already risen by 0.6 degrees Celsius (1.1 Fahrenheit) since 1900 — could rise by at least two more degrees this century, due in large part to greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels.
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
Tell the truth claudi ... you moonlight as Doctor Science, don't you?
It's the fish! There are too many of them. Eat more fish and the water levels will go down.
Most "fiction" is not footnoted, referenced, and supported by actual scientific journal cites to a fare-thee-well...
That article in Newsweek came out the at the end of a period that started in 1945 with no global warming. Before that global warming had been going on from 1900 forward.
So it was reasonable to wonder if a period of cooling would then follow.
According to a new study published in the online edition of Science, the East Antarctic Ice Sheet gained about 45 billion tons of ice between 1992 and 2003. The ice sheets are several kilometers thick in places, and contain about 90% of the world's ice.
Using data from the European Space Agency's radar satellites ERS-1 and ERS-2, a research team from the University of Missouri , Columbia , measured changes in altitude over about 70% of Antarctica's interior. East Antarctica thickened at an average rate of about 1.8 centimeters per year over the time period studied, the researchers discovered.
The region comprises about 75% of Antarctica 's total land area and about 85% of the total ice volume. The area in question covers more than 2.75 million square miles - roughly the same size as the United States.
(This means that more than 90 percent of the world's glaciers are growing thicker … while the media keeps yelling about the ones that are melting.)
This is a lie. Don't let them confuse you.
The level of water can not be affected by the melting of icebergs.
Run off from land could raise water levels, but not from icebergs.
claudiustg, the ice cube analogy is perfect logic!
>>>This is a lie. Don't let them confuse you. The level of water can not be affected by the melting of icebergs.
It can be if the icebergs are breaking off from glaciers that are moving ice from land to the sea.
Sea level is rising. That is a fact.
Nasa has a sattelite called Jason just to measure it. It can measure sea level very accurately.
The Federal government has a cooperative program with many other countries measure sea level from coastal observation.
That sea level is rising is not in any scientific dispute and for conservatives to argue otherwise is not helpful, it just makes us look like we are in denial (at best)
We need to refocus the debate on the fact that Global warming has not been shown to human caused and thus there is no need to over-react and cut greenhouse gasses.
" Run off from land could raise water levels, but not from icebergs."
90% of the world's ice is on land.
You must have misdirected your response. Where did I say anything about the sea level?
Yes, I do know State of Fear is fiction. That doesn't mean that Crichton made the whole thing up. His book is heavily footnoted along with a concluding section where he does offer his own opinions. Have you read it?
okey dokey, then. (Below is just one of many articles on this topic) I've never met an astronomer who agrees that global warming is a man-made phenomenon.
Sun's Direct Role in Global Warming May Be Underestimated, Duke Physicists Report
Durham, N.C. -- At least 10 to 30 percent of global warming measured during the past two decades may be due to increased solar output rather than factors such as increased heat-absorbing carbon dioxide gas released by various human activities, two Duke University physicists report. ....
"You must have misdirected your response. Where did I say anything about the sea level?"
Looks like I did misdirect my response. I apologize.
Right, it "may" be underesitmated.
Right now, there is not dfiintive proof of the cause of global warming. There are competing theories.
Tell them a simple truth.
Global warming is caused by the sun.
The highest estimate I have seen by any qualified scientist in a peer reviewed environment is that solar output may be responsible for 35% of the global warming since 1980.
Most scientist think the number is closer to 5% and theory does explain any of the behavior prior to 20 years ago.
My example goes more to the worries over the Arctic ice melting, but your Antarctic explanation I can understand. However, Antarctica is huge, and there is no way that anyone can say exactly what is going on down there. Parts of it are melting and parts are thickening. My point is that when those who believe in true Global warming will not consider extraterrestrial reasons, ie, increased Solar activity, then I smell a political agenda and bad science. Earth has been going through such cycles forever and so have other planets in our solar system.
Could part of the sea level change be due to warming of the oceans causing expansion of the water?
October 13, 2005 - By Steven Milloy
Don’t let the Times’ Oct. 10 report on the economic upside of Arctic melting confuse you -- there still isn’t any evidence that human activity is melting the polar regions.
If you look at the temperature trends for the Arctic region since 1880, it appears that the Arctic generally warmed somewhat until about 1938. From 1938 until about 1966, the Arctic cooled to about its 1918 temperature level. Then, between 1966 and 2003, the Arctic warmed up to just shy of its 1938 temperature. But in 2004, the Arctic temperature again spiked downward.
Now if the 1880-1938 warming trend had continued up until this day, there certainly would be some significant warming in the Arctic region to talk about. From 1918 to 1938, alone, the Arctic warmed by 2.5 degrees Centigrade. But the actual temperature trend is much different, showing that there’s been hardly any overall temperature change in the Arctic since 1938.
Not only does the temperature data contradict the claim that global warming is overtaking the Arctic , but data on greenhouse gas concentrations ought to drive a spike through the heart of the claim.
During the warming period from 1880 to 1938, it’s estimated that the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide – the bugbear of greenhouse gases to global warming worriers – increased by an estimated 20 parts per million. But from 1938 to 2003 – a period of essentially no increase in Arctic warming – the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide increased another 60 parts per million. It doesn’t seem plausible, then, that Arctic temperatures are significantly influenced by atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases.
Global warming worriers can take no comfort from South Pole data either.
Over the last 30 years, atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide increased by about 15 percent, from about 328 parts per million to about 372 parts per million. But the Antarctic temperature trend for that period indicates a slight cooling. This observation contrasts sharply with the relatively steep Antarctic warming observed from 1949 to 1974, which was accompanied by a much more modest increase in greenhouse gas concentrations.
The hypothesis of global warming alarmism posits that increasing levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide should lead to increasing temperatures, particularly with respect to Antarctica ’s super-cold, super-dry air mass. But the data seem to indicate just the opposite.
Steven Milloy publishes JunkScience.com and CSRwatch.com, is adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute, and is the author of Junk Science Judo: Self-defense Against Health Scares and Scams.
Click here to see the rest of this article: What Artic Warming .
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.