Here's the Web site:
and an image of what the satellites look like (though they aren't this close):
Posted on 12/21/2005 8:39:29 AM PST by cogitator
Here's the Web site:
and an image of what the satellites look like (though they aren't this close):
Tell me it ain't so !
http://tinyurl.com/8q4up
Looks like Greenland will live up to its name.
And Vikings everywhere will rejoice that a thousand years of freezing will end.
Have Californians started snatching up exposed Greenland real estate yet?
Eric the Red returns !
"Greenland hosts the largest reservoir of freshwater in the northern hemisphere, and any substantial changes in the mass of its ice sheet will affect global sea level, ocean circulation and climate," said Velicogna."
Ummmm. Greenland didn't start out with a 'mass of ice' so even if the ice does melt, it will just revert back to where it came from (Water) without any appreciable rise in ocean levels. Just like there wasn't any appreciable 'decline' in Ocean levels when the ice formed.
I guess these 'scientists' forgot why it was named 'Greenland'.
The oceans have been higher in the past. Ask Florida (all of those phosphate deposits in the central part of the state formed underwater, for example). Colder global temperatures mean more deposition of precipitation as ice and snow on land, with the water derived from the oceans, lowering sea level.
So if ice and snow are accumulating eleswhere would they even bother to report it?
Only ten bucks away from saving the cute and snuggly polar bears!
We'll always have polar bears, thanks to the magic of cgi! ;)
It would have to happen to allow an answer for your question to be possible. And the ice mass would have to be pretty substantial; though it's big, I doubt Vatnajokull has enough (and Iceland's tectonic instability probably dominates gravity measurements over it, anyway).
"Greenland ice, like Antarctic ice, is above sea level (not floating in the oceans) so melting of the ice cap contributes to sea level rise."
That's why I used the term 'appreciable' in my statement.
The effect of the ice melting in Greenland wouldn't 'add' to the levels of the oceans, but more likely return them to their original levels before Greenland developed ice caps.
I agree, very cool!
"So if ice and snow are accumulating eleswhere would they even bother to report it?"
I actually did read somewhere a while back that they have detected increases in the artic ice pack in other areas where they had expected deceases.
This would not be a welcome outcome for coastal residents.
Um ... the Vikings named Greenland what they did, because it was an Ice Mass, and they called Iceland what they did, because it was actually livable ... they wanted anyone who heard about the islands to visit Greenland first, and in so doing, be scared to death of what they would find on Iceland, thereby leaving Iceland solely for Vikings.
The naming of both Greenland and Iceland was a plot completely based on Xenophobia - and Greenland has not been Green at any time when viewed by humans.
To add to that...
-1st year sees an increase
-2nd year is flat
-3rd year would be an increase except for the drop from 2004.6 to 2004.9 (a warm autumn)
My question is: where's the missing data? Notice that certain time intervals are tighter than others...
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.