| send this to... Digg it! | Technorati | Del.icio.us | Reddit | Furl | Spurl |
Antarctic Ice is Growing
(Part of the How to Talk to a Climate Sceptic guide)
This article has moved to ScienceBlogs
It has also been updated and this page is still here only to preserve the original comment thread. Please visit A Few Things Ill Considered there. You may also like to view Painting With Water, Coby Beck's original fine art photography.Labels: Sceptic Guide
posted by coby @ 2/25/2006 01:10:00 PM
Subscribe to this blog here
10 Comments:
At May 10, 2006 5:23 AM,
Anonymous said…
Coby
I have never heard any sceptical scientist suggest that the thickening of the ice sheets in Antarctia and Greenland is the result of anything other than warmer oceans causing more precipitation. What this counter intuitive result does illustrate is that there are a huge number of very complex feedback mechanisms within the climatic system, and the results of any change may not be what you would expect.
At May 10, 2006 9:01 AM,
coby said…
Hi Peter,
I have never had the intention of limiting myself to the arguments of sceptical scientists only and the argument at hand is very pervasive in bad journalism and and psuedo science websites. Don't forget, I cut my teeth on this issue in usenet, so you have no idea how much obvious cr*p I have filtered out of my choices for response! If something gets alot of air time, no matter how unfounded, I think it serves a good purpose to shred it here.
Ice sheet thickening is not a feedback, a change in extent would be.
At May 27, 2006 12:40 AM,
Anonymous said…
In correct Coby.
Turbulence transports Kinetic energy. Whilst in transit that energy is not measurable by 'temperature', atmospheric turbulence is produced in notice of pressure differentials. Once turbulence 'lands' its kinetic energy load; a local regional temperature rise can be measured.
This is noted when and after rain has fallen by a slight increase in local temperature. If however there is ICE present then that ICE will undergo a phase alteration and revert to liquid. This liquid will retain molecules now at a higher median kinetic velocity and so the kinetic energy measured as 'temperature' is 'dissipated.
Increases in ICE however are a release of kinetic energy, due in liquids to increase in local volume. The expansion of Polar ice is however also due to local turbulence redistributions producing snow in altering locations. Notice the amount of 'heat' removed by your refrigerator.
Just like water as rain into a river system, the mass of snow will push down on the 'glacier head' and move the 'edge' of an ice shelf, or glacier, outward. This is often observed and commented on in relation to sea ice as 'growth', or a surface increase.
Turbulence alterations induced in land rematerialing will infact keep suspended water vapor and so increased mass is transported, which will result in heavier rain or SNOW in those places that GRAVITY can overcome the intrinsic kinetic energy 'lift'.
The Polar Regions are one such place. Geographic situations can also induce unseasonable SNOW, even here in Australia we have had heavy snow just west of the Sydney basin and it is not yet Winter, with our 'snow fields' already seeing very heavy falls (for Australia).
Points can have relevance in multiple discussions 'Coby', perhaps you could actually leave my posts and make valid comment; that is after all how one 'talks', i.e. conducts discussion, in short essay. A 'moderator' asks for 'expansion of point', a CENSOR deletes and a juvenile belittles.
Words: 358
Your's,
Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod@bigpond.com
At October 02, 2006 12:14 PM,
Anonymous said…
This is another post by Mr. Anderson that I find difficult to understand. Could someone give a simple meteorological rebuttal to this? My own sense of this is that the 'localized' effects of turbulence touted by Mr. Anderson do not jibe with my understanding of macro climate dynamics; is he constructing a new model for precipitation etc? How do his localized turbulence/kinetics effects show up in, say, Kansas, or South Africa? Just curious; when these theoretical constructs appear, it seems appropriate to dissect them on the spot to get on with the discussion.
L.
At October 02, 2006 2:51 PM,
coby said…
Hi 'L' (is that 'L' for 'Ludwig?)
Peter has made scores of comments similar to that all over this blog. I hae actually tried to get abit more specific and focus on one or another particular aspect but have had no success. Now, as a result of his refusal to modify his repetitious, off topic and incoherent ramblings he is banned. He does however have his own blog now:
http://hartlod.blogspot.com/
I am sure he would be love to have you engage him there. I have tried, you may have more luck!
At January 08, 2007 10:52 PM,
Anonymous said…
Any comments on this recent study that suggests that now even the Antarctic ice sheets are meling faster?
Washington Post: Antarctic Ice Sheet Is Melting Rapidly: New Study
Warns Of Rising Sea Levels (3/3/'06)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/02/AR2006030201712.html
EurekaAlert!: Antarctic ice sheet losing mass, says University of
Colorado study (3/2/'06)
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-03/uoca-ais022806.php
At January 09, 2007 8:34 AM,
coby said…
Yes, I have seen those reports. So this particular talking point gets even weaker. But the studies are recent and the results still leave the possibility of ice accumulation in the error ranges (IIRC), anyway I considered updating the article with these studies emphasized but decided it is better to make the point about snow accumulation being consistent with warming in a very cold place and about the antarctic being thermally quite insulated from the rest of the globe.
Thanks for the comment!
At October 28, 2007 1:22 PM,
Anonymous said…
According to Morgan, Goodwin, Etheridget and Wookey of CSIRO, Division of Atmospheric Research of Australia, the Antarctia ice sheet is growing 2000 KM per year, which is ten times the net ice loss you stipulate on the Greenland ice sheet. This makes your global warming propaganda like rather stupid, which is also the consensus of most atmospheric scientists.
At October 29, 2007 11:15 AM,
coby said…
Hi Alan,
I think you are confusing square km with cubic km.
At July 11, 2008 10:57 PM,
Anonymous said…
wow gold
buy wow gold
cheap wow gold
world of warcraft gold
runescape
runescape money
buy runescape money
wow gold
cheap wow gold
buy wow gold
world of warcraft gold
guild wars
guild wars gold
buy guild wars gold
maple story
maple story mesos
maplestory mesos
age of conan
age of conan gold
buy age of conan gold
aoc gold
buy aoc gold
age of conan
age of conan gold
buy age of conan gold
aoc gold
buy aoc gold
age of conan
age of conan gold
buy age of conan gold
aoc gold
buy aoc gold
wow gold
buy wow gold
cheap wow gold
world of warcraft gold
runescape
runescape money
buy runescape money
wow gold
cheap wow gold
buy wow gold
world of warcraft gold
guild wars
guild wars gold
buy guild wars gold
maple story
maple story mesos
maplestory mesos
age of conan
age of conan gold
buy age of conan gold
aoc gold
buy aoc gold
age of conan
age of conan gold
buy age of conan gold
aoc gold
buy aoc gold
age of conan
age of conan gold
buy age of conan gold
aoc gold
buy aoc gold
wow gold
buy wow gold
cheap wow gold
world of warcraft gold
runescape
runescape money
buy runescape money
wow gold
cheap wow gold
buy wow gold
world of warcraft gold
guild wars
guild wars gold
buy guild wars gold
maple story
maple story mesos
maplestory mesos
age of conan
age of conan gold
buy age of conan gold
aoc gold
buy aoc gold
age of conan
age of conan gold
buy age of conan gold
aoc gold
buy aoc gold
age of conan
age of conan gold
buy age of conan gold
aoc gold
buy aoc gold
Post a Comment
<< Home