Antarctica is melting

[Berzerker]

Piri Ri's map was based on accounts of Spanish mariners he'd interrogated. As for the spur of Antiarctica, it is believed that Ri put that there for balance, as map makers were often want to do in those days. No one had yet sailed that far South in those days. Certainly no ship made then or at any point prior could have done so.

Did any of these mapmakers announce they were just adding land at the bottom for balance? No, thats the explanation people came up with when confronted by maps showing features "discovered" in more modern times.

[Vince278]

One of my favorite mysteries. The Piri Reis map showed rivers and land masses yet undiscovered or explored. I heard that the map's perspective shows what the earth looked like if someone was about 1000 miles above Cairo and started sketching what they saw (with the distortion due to curvature and everything).

[Berzerker]

KH

How?

Ice shelves lie on, or in, water. Pull water away and you pull out the support and the shelves collapse...or... pulling water in the direction of the pole would raise sea level under the shelves lifting them up and potentially away from the ice sheet.

Berzerker, do you have any clue as to what you're talking about?

The consequences of an increased level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is so ****ing obvious that any undergraduate physics student could tell you what was happening and provide a fairly good estimate as to the size of the effect on global mean temperatures.

I'm aware of the theory, I'm not aware of the explanation offered by its supporters as to why we see a cycle going back long before civilisation. I'll be immensely happy if "global warming" staves off the next advance of ice sheets, but the cycle shows we're headed back into a long cold snap and the mechanism doesn't care if we are here or not.

But please, continue with your ridiculous arguments about celestial objects ripping off giant chiunks of ice sheets

I didn't say it happened or would happen, although I wouldn't be surprised if a passing object disrupted the ice shelves at some point in time. And it would be the movement of water ripping up the ice shelf.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Berzerker
KH

Ice shelves lie on, or in, water. Pull water away and you pull out the support and the shelves collapse...or... pulling water in the direction of the pole would raise sea level under the shelves lifting them up and potentially away from the ice sheet.

So according to you at some point in recent astronomical time the earth has been subject to a transient gravitational gradient which would change the local sea level by substantially more than the current tides do?



Do you have any idea how ridiculous that is?

[KrazyHorse]

Can you please explain to me why such a near-miss did not significantly alter the eccentricity or plane of the Earth's orbit?

[KrazyHorse]

I'm aware of the theory, I'm not aware of the explanation offered by its supporters as to why we see a cycle going back long before civilisation

There is obviously some sort of climate cycle. This climate cycle is also obviously complex and is not fully understood as yet.

Greenhouse emissions, on the other hand are quite simple to understand. Their effect on global temperatures is also quite simple to understand. Global warming as caused by excess greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere will proceed on top of the underlying "natural" climate cycle.

Climate change can and does happen independently of Homo Sapiens. Anybody who disputes this is an idiot. Homo Sapiens can and is effecting a climate change as we speak. Anybody who disputes this is also an idiot. Human activity releases a globally significant overage of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. As a result, the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is higher now than at any previous point in the climatological record. Within 30 years it will be twice as high as it ever was previous to the industrial revolution. You cannot pour that much of it into the atmosphere without a significant change in climate due to that excess. Period. Thermodynamics just won't let you.

[Berzerker]

So according to you at some point in recent astronomical time the earth has been subject to a transient gravitational gradient which would change the local sea level by substantially more than the current tides do?

Do you have any idea how ridiculous that is?

Where did I say this happened? You quoted my explanation of how it could happen because you asked me to explain "how", so now you're quoting my explanation to claim I said this really did happen? You're as bad as Odin...

Can you please explain to me why such a near-miss did not significantly alter the eccentricity or plane of the Earth's orbit?

How much is significant? The object need only effect polar sea levels, not throw us into a "significantly" new orbit.

The globe has been as warm or warmer in the past, so who caused "global warming" back then?

[Winston]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
I heard that one part of Greenland is losing ice and another part is gaining it. Can anyone verify that?

I heard that too. The glaciers in the Western and Northern parts are melting, while the much larger central ice cap is building up.

I don't have a source for it, but I remember reading it in my paper a few weeks ago.

Originally posted by Stuie
It's Bush's fault.

I agree. If only people would have listened to reason and elected someone else, none of this would've happened.

[Berzerker]

There is obviously some sort of climate cycle. This climate cycle is also obviously complex and is not fully understood as yet.

Greenhouse emissions, on the other hand are quite simple to understand. Their effect on global temperatures is also quite simple to understand. Global warming as caused by excess greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere will proceed on top of the underlying "natural" climate cycle.

And what is the underlying "natural" cycle? The globe warms and then it cools and ice sheets cover much of the northern hemisphere.

Climate change can and does happen independently of Homo Sapiens. Anybody who disputes this is an idiot. Homo Sapiens can and is effecting a climate change as we speak. Anybody who disputes this is also an idiot. Human activity releases a globally significant overage of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. As a result, the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is higher now than at any previous point in the climatological record. Within 30 years it will be twice as high as it ever was previous to the industrial revolution. You cannot pour that much of it into the atmosphere without a significant change in climate due to that excess. Period. Thermodynamics just won't let you.

Lets hope those gases keep us nice and warm when its time for the ice to return.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Berzerker


Where did I say this happened? You quoted my explanation of how it could happen because you asked me to explain "how", so now you're quoting my explanation to claim I said this really did happen? You're as bad as Odin...

How dumb is this?

If it's so ridiculous then why did you even bring up the possibility?

How much is significant? The object need only effect polar sea levels, not throw us into a "significantly" new orbit.

Wow. You obviously have no experience working with orbital mechanics.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Berzerker
The globe has been as warm or warmer in the past, so who caused "global warming" back then?

Climate change can and does happen independently of Homo Sapiens. Anybody who disputes this is an idiot. Homo Sapiens can and is effecting a climate change as we speak. Anybody who disputes this is also an idiot.

God. This is like talking to a child.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Lets hope those gases keep us nice and warm when its time for the ice to return.

Given that we've already driven a key element in that cycle far beyond its previous limits I think that your faith in another repetition of the cycle is less than justified.

[KrazyHorse]

I don't know that the changes we're effecting right now will be climactic (please pardon the pun). I doubt that any of the current best guesses as to sea levels or other such temperamental (there I go again) variables have much to do with reality as yet. I don't know (but highly doubt) that any reasonable limits we start putting on emissions will materially affect future climate change, given the huge mass of people in this world who are looking forward to a slightly less ****ty existence with far more anticipation than the fear they feel regarding greenhouse gases.

But I'm sick and tired of listening to scientific know-nothings deny the existence of a readily understood and empirically justified effect.

[Winston]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
As a result, the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is higher now than at any previous point in the climatological record. Within 30 years it will be twice as high as it ever was previous to the industrial revolution. You cannot pour that much of it into the atmosphere without a significant change in climate due to that excess. Period.

"Higher now than at any previous point"; "Twice as high"

The importance of this on a comparative scale is what matters. And the jury is still out on that. It would suit you to recognize this, and maybe be a little less aggressive about "proving" your point.

[KrazyHorse]

Please explain your meaning.

What sort of comparative scale are you talking about?