Comments on: Is the Once-Stable Part of Antarctica Starting to Melt? http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2009/11/26/is-the-once-stable-part-of-antarctica-starting-to-melt/ 80beats is DISCOVER\'s news aggregator, weaving together the choicest tidbits from the best articles covering the day\'s most compelling topics. Sun, 21 Mar 2010 05:20:15 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Roger Drogalus http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2009/11/26/is-the-once-stable-part-of-antarctica-starting-to-melt/comment-page-1/#comment-77715 Roger Drogalus Thu, 10 Dec 2009 18:51:16 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/?p=6552#comment-77715 It's heartening to see that, in spite of our beloved Discover Magazine getting more political, to the left, i/e assuming that global warming is indisputable, Bush bashing writers, etc., many of you here are thinking and disputing the assumptions that are taken by the left leaning, character assassinating people that readily accept those :indisputable facts." It’s heartening to see that, in spite of our beloved Discover Magazine getting more political, to the left, i/e assuming that global warming is indisputable, Bush bashing writers, etc., many of you here are thinking and disputing the assumptions that are taken by the left leaning, character assassinating people that readily accept those :indisputable facts.”

]]> By: Zed Null http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2009/11/26/is-the-once-stable-part-of-antarctica-starting-to-melt/comment-page-1/#comment-77559 Zed Null Thu, 10 Dec 2009 00:34:54 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/?p=6552#comment-77559 So the ice melts and we find the lost city of Atlantis. Sweet! ...or Aliens. Cool either way, I say. So the ice melts and we find the lost city of Atlantis. Sweet!

…or Aliens. Cool either way, I say.

]]> By: Landon http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2009/11/26/is-the-once-stable-part-of-antarctica-starting-to-melt/comment-page-1/#comment-77487 Landon Wed, 09 Dec 2009 17:31:02 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/?p=6552#comment-77487 Note to Peter: Thanks for your response. First of all, measurements usually need an error of 20% or much less to be be considered statistically significant. The admitted amount of error here is 91%, much more significant than the measurement itself. Secondly, the GRACE mission has been in operation only since March 2002. Seven years is not nearly enough time to establish normalcy, much less trends, especially in geology where time is measured in hundreds and thousands of years. To associate this measurement with global warming is total wishful thinking. Note to Brian: It is not an error to suggest that man has an effect on this beautiful planet - we do. However, it is an error to suggest that we have an unqualified negative effect. We are part of the natural scheme as much as any other animal. Man's byproducts are handled in the same beneficial way as an animal's, broken down and recycled. Man has shown some excesses, especially with new slowly-degrading substances - and we are learning how to handle them. But carbon dioxide has been around forever, and is deeply embedded in earth's ecology/handling systems. Earth has absorbed far larger natural atmospheric swings in the past than man could ever impose today. In fact, earth directly recycles carbon dioxide into lusher plant growth, which immediately creates more oxygen. This is an intrinsic system that man cannot alter, even if we clear the rain forest (which I don't recommend). Earth will simply grow something else to re-process carbon dioxide, even if it's just weeds. To err on the side that we need to disrupt this process is not only a gross misunderstanding and an economic doom-boggle, but it can negatively affect earth's natural cycles itself. Anything that animals naturally produce is not a pollutant! Let's focus on reducing real industrial pollutants that nature had not seen before man produced them, like we already are. Let's not listen to the politicians who only see the opportunity for the largest power grab in history at our individual personal expense. Note to Peter:

Thanks for your response. First of all, measurements usually need an error of 20% or much less to be be considered statistically significant. The admitted amount of error here is 91%, much more significant than the measurement itself. Secondly, the GRACE mission has been in operation only since March 2002. Seven years is not nearly enough time to establish normalcy, much less trends, especially in geology where time is measured in hundreds and thousands of years. To associate this measurement with global warming is total wishful thinking.

Note to Brian:

It is not an error to suggest that man has an effect on this beautiful planet – we do. However, it is an error to suggest that we have an unqualified negative effect. We are part of the natural scheme as much as any other animal. Man’s byproducts are handled in the same beneficial way as an animal’s, broken down and recycled. Man has shown some excesses, especially with new slowly-degrading substances – and we are learning how to handle them. But carbon dioxide has been around forever, and is deeply embedded in earth’s ecology/handling systems. Earth has absorbed far larger natural atmospheric swings in the past than man could ever impose today. In fact, earth directly recycles carbon dioxide into lusher plant growth, which immediately creates more oxygen. This is an intrinsic system that man cannot alter, even if we clear the rain forest (which I don’t recommend). Earth will simply grow something else to re-process carbon dioxide, even if it’s just weeds. To err on the side that we need to disrupt this process is not only a gross misunderstanding and an economic doom-boggle, but it can negatively affect earth’s natural cycles itself. Anything that animals naturally produce is not a pollutant! Let’s focus on reducing real industrial pollutants that nature had not seen before man produced them, like we already are. Let’s not listen to the politicians who only see the opportunity for the largest power grab in history at our individual personal expense.

]]> By: Peter http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2009/11/26/is-the-once-stable-part-of-antarctica-starting-to-melt/comment-page-1/#comment-77380 Peter Wed, 09 Dec 2009 14:09:24 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/?p=6552#comment-77380 Response to Landon: Please note that, when the margin of error is calculated, it does not cross zero. Assuming the margin of error is calculated correctly, Antarctica is losing mass. Put another way: Antarctica is definitely losing 5 billion tons per year. It could be losing 109 billion tons per year. This is significant. The only major 'if' associated with this is 'if the margin of error is calculated correctly.' Response to Landon:

Please note that, when the margin of error is calculated, it does not cross zero. Assuming the margin of error is calculated correctly, Antarctica is losing mass.

Put another way: Antarctica is definitely losing 5 billion tons per year. It could be losing 109 billion tons per year. This is significant.

The only major ‘if’ associated with this is ‘if the margin of error is calculated correctly.’

]]> By: ARUN http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2009/11/26/is-the-once-stable-part-of-antarctica-starting-to-melt/comment-page-1/#comment-77263 ARUN Wed, 09 Dec 2009 04:39:13 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/?p=6552#comment-77263 Climatic variations have happened many times in past. It has a pattern spreading over millions of years. It is sheer conceit of humans to claim that they are responsible to this event. The greed of the rest is busy in making a fast buck on this concept. Climatic variations have happened many times in past. It has a pattern spreading over millions of years. It is sheer conceit of humans to claim that they are responsible to this event. The greed of the rest is busy in making a fast buck on this concept.

]]> By: Brian http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2009/11/26/is-the-once-stable-part-of-antarctica-starting-to-melt/comment-page-1/#comment-77254 Brian Wed, 09 Dec 2009 03:33:22 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/?p=6552#comment-77254 I would suggest we err on the side that man does have an effect on this beautiful planet. It would benefit all the inhabitants (both man and nature), create lasting beneficial jobs and even perhaps lead to a better life if we chose to reduce our global energy demands and cut pollution. It's that simple. I would suggest we err on the side that man does have an effect on this beautiful planet. It would benefit all the inhabitants (both man and nature), create lasting beneficial jobs and even perhaps lead to a better life if we chose to reduce our global energy demands and cut pollution. It’s that simple.

]]> By: Landon http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2009/11/26/is-the-once-stable-part-of-antarctica-starting-to-melt/comment-page-1/#comment-77192 Landon Wed, 09 Dec 2009 00:02:52 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/?p=6552#comment-77192 If I were to walk into a bank and say I want to buy a house for $57K, and the amount of money I have is somewhere between $5K and $109K because my accounting is so imprecise that this is the best estimate I can muster, would the bank in it's right mind loan me the money? In the same context, can Discover maintain credibility when it irresponsibly announces this error-buried non-fact to the world as evidence that Antartica might be melting? This measurement is so extremely preliminary, with so little substantiative basis, that it should not go beyond the speculations of the researcher's lips much less be published as anything even close to speculative fact. It just shows how politics and wishful thinking has completely subverted true science. If I were to walk into a bank and say I want to buy a house for $57K, and the amount of money I have is somewhere between $5K and $109K because my accounting is so imprecise that this is the best estimate I can muster, would the bank in it’s right mind loan me the money? In the same context, can Discover maintain credibility when it irresponsibly announces this error-buried non-fact to the world as evidence that Antartica might be melting? This measurement is so extremely preliminary, with so little substantiative basis, that it should not go beyond the speculations of the researcher’s lips much less be published as anything even close to speculative fact. It just shows how politics and wishful thinking has completely subverted true science.

]]> By: Carmine Cifaldi http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2009/11/26/is-the-once-stable-part-of-antarctica-starting-to-melt/comment-page-1/#comment-77190 Carmine Cifaldi Tue, 08 Dec 2009 23:39:15 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/?p=6552#comment-77190 Science has proven that there were 3 Ice Ages (and reversals [warm-ups]), in its 5 Billion year lifetime! This was BEFORE man and/or man as a dominant species! In 1938, there were 3 Billion people; the population doubled in 70 years, by 2008. The World's population is increasing by over 62 Million every year! Let us now calculate 2 more 70-year increases. That would put the World population at over 24 Billion people, (with a commensurate amount of animals AND agricultural needs) There are many things we can do without, but 2 of them are ...NOT ... BREATHING & WATER!! 70 % of the Earth's water, is locked-up (saved up for humanity's use), in the Antarctica, as ice/snow! With the advent of renewable energy system, supplying a never-ending amount of electricity, man can do the following: Desalinate the oceans' water for our consumption! Pipe-line water from areas which have too much, to areas that have too little. Out west, in the U.S., agriculture is already suffering from an inadequate amount of water for agricultural needs. Eons from now, assuming man does NOT blow the planet up, copious amounts of electricity can then synthesize water, as needed! If necessary, it can als0 remove CO2 from water and air, and encase it into a rock-like substance! The consumption of oil & gas, with the residues thereof, which the non-understanding alarmists claim, is the root cause of the alleged climate-warming, will be eliminated from consideration, because 140 year from now, Oil supplies will practically be depleted! Next: Coal may be treated to reduce CO2 generation and also negate particle elimination by "scrubbing" methods, powered by electricity! NOT too much later, coal, being a finite resource, will NO longer be available! The key point to be made here is: MAN CAN NOT CONTROL THE CLIMATE,.... MOTHER NATURE , does NOT pay attention to unknowing politicians, AND continues doing its appointed job admirably ... for man's benefit! Science has proven that there were 3 Ice Ages (and reversals [warm-ups]), in its 5 Billion year lifetime! This was BEFORE man and/or man as a dominant species! In 1938, there were 3 Billion people; the population doubled in 70 years, by 2008. The World’s population is increasing by over 62 Million every year! Let us now calculate 2 more 70-year increases. That would put the World population at over 24 Billion people, (with a commensurate amount of animals AND agricultural needs) There are many things we can do without, but 2 of them are …NOT … BREATHING & WATER!!
70 % of the Earth’s water, is locked-up (saved up for humanity’s use), in the Antarctica, as ice/snow! With the advent of renewable energy system, supplying a never-ending amount of electricity, man can do the following:
Desalinate the oceans’ water for our consumption! Pipe-line water from areas which have too much, to areas that have too little. Out west, in the U.S., agriculture is already suffering from an inadequate amount of water for agricultural needs.
Eons from now, assuming man does NOT blow the planet up, copious amounts of electricity can then synthesize water, as needed! If necessary, it can als0 remove CO2 from water and air, and encase it into a rock-like substance!
The consumption of oil & gas, with the residues thereof, which the non-understanding alarmists claim, is the root cause of the alleged climate-warming, will be eliminated from consideration, because 140 year from now, Oil supplies will practically be depleted!
Next: Coal may be treated to reduce CO2 generation and also negate particle elimination by “scrubbing” methods, powered by electricity! NOT too much later, coal, being a finite resource, will NO longer be available! The key point to be made here is: MAN CAN NOT CONTROL THE CLIMATE,…. MOTHER NATURE , does NOT pay attention to unknowing politicians, AND continues doing its appointed job admirably … for man’s benefit!

]]> By: Chuck Burton http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2009/11/26/is-the-once-stable-part-of-antarctica-starting-to-melt/comment-page-1/#comment-77162 Chuck Burton Tue, 08 Dec 2009 21:31:41 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/?p=6552#comment-77162 Addendum to the above: The great Greenland ice sheet is also melting, as are smaller sheets in the Himalayas and perhaps Canada and Iceland. Another result is tectonic activity as the underlying bedrock is relieved of the weight of ice, and this might possibly lead to vulcanism as magma presses upward to replace the rock. Addendum to the above: The great Greenland ice sheet is also melting, as are smaller sheets in the Himalayas and perhaps Canada and Iceland. Another result is tectonic activity as the underlying bedrock is relieved of the weight of ice, and this might possibly lead to vulcanism as magma presses upward to replace the rock.

]]> By: Darrell Gudmundson http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2009/11/26/is-the-once-stable-part-of-antarctica-starting-to-melt/comment-page-1/#comment-77134 Darrell Gudmundson Tue, 08 Dec 2009 19:13:39 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/?p=6552#comment-77134 To William: Here's a little bit of simple background. Ice is solid and stays in one place (mostly) which is wherever the original snow fell that became compressed into ice. Water, being liquid, is spread over the entire globe, meaning that it affects ocean levels. This alone will raise ocean levels a certain amount. The kicker comes when you factor in the fact that the Earth is spinning. That means that the water tends to be drawn toward the equator more than to the poles. Water levels in a band closer to the equator will rise much much more than the actual amount of water would suggest. This has a dire effect on most human populations, which tend to be in a band on either side of the equator. I have seen some articles that suggest the shifting of these megatons of mass might change the axis tilt of the earth - I do not recall if anyone has worked out a model of the possible effect - but I'll bet someone has. To William:
Here’s a little bit of simple background. Ice is solid and stays in one place (mostly) which is wherever the original snow fell that became compressed into ice. Water, being liquid, is spread over the entire globe, meaning that it affects ocean levels. This alone will raise ocean levels a certain amount.

The kicker comes when you factor in the fact that the Earth is spinning. That means that the water tends to be drawn toward the equator more than to the poles. Water levels in a band closer to the equator will rise much much more than the actual amount of water would suggest. This has a dire effect on most human populations, which tend to be in a band on either side of the equator.

I have seen some articles that suggest the shifting of these megatons of mass might change the axis tilt of the earth – I do not recall if anyone has worked out a model of the possible effect – but I’ll bet someone has.

]]> By: William Richardson http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2009/11/26/is-the-once-stable-part-of-antarctica-starting-to-melt/comment-page-1/#comment-77131 William Richardson Tue, 08 Dec 2009 18:58:38 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/?p=6552#comment-77131 To Chuck: I'm not a scientist, but I don't belive the melting ice would affect the earth's axis. The mass (ice and water) is still there whether it's in solid or liquid form. Maybe a scientist reading your comment can explain it correctly. As I understand it, the earth's axis shifts very slowly over thousands of years, maybe hundreds of thousands. To Chuck:
I’m not a scientist, but I don’t belive the melting ice would affect the earth’s axis. The mass (ice and water) is still there whether it’s in solid or liquid form. Maybe a scientist reading your comment can explain it correctly. As I understand it, the earth’s axis shifts very slowly over thousands of years, maybe hundreds of thousands.

]]> By: Chuck Burton http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2009/11/26/is-the-once-stable-part-of-antarctica-starting-to-melt/comment-page-1/#comment-77120 Chuck Burton Tue, 08 Dec 2009 17:57:28 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/?p=6552#comment-77120 What effect does a lightening of the Antarctic continent have on the balance of the Earth? Could it possibly lead to another axis shift, such as has happened in the geologic past? What effect does a lightening of the Antarctic continent have on the balance of the Earth? Could it possibly lead to another axis shift, such as has happened in the geologic past?

]]> By: maxtruth http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2009/11/26/is-the-once-stable-part-of-antarctica-starting-to-melt/comment-page-1/#comment-77117 maxtruth Tue, 08 Dec 2009 17:32:07 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/?p=6552#comment-77117 JOHN: Hahaha... you're not accepting any 'facts'?! That's okay whether you are 'accepting' them or not they are happening! While you are correct, climate change is a continuous process on Earth, I think it's naive to believe that we do not affect it to some degree. People continue to site data that shows that the human element is so miniscule in comparison to more natural phenomenon. While they may be correct that it is a small percentage in comparison, they are not seeing the bigger picture. Our influence could be the straw that broke the camels back and that is why it is important. Besides even if our influences was so minute that it actually didn't matter to any measureable degree wouldn't it still be important to monitor what's going on with our earth? I'd like to know if there were some major climatic changes coming whether they were caused by us, cows, clouds, the sun, or whatever... JOHN: Hahaha… you’re not accepting any ‘facts’?! That’s okay whether you are ‘accepting’ them or not they are happening! While you are correct, climate change is a continuous process on Earth, I think it’s naive to believe that we do not affect it to some degree. People continue to site data that shows that the human element is so miniscule in comparison to more natural phenomenon. While they may be correct that it is a small percentage in comparison, they are not seeing the bigger picture. Our influence could be the straw that broke the camels back and that is why it is important.

Besides even if our influences was so minute that it actually didn’t matter to any measureable degree wouldn’t it still be important to monitor what’s going on with our earth? I’d like to know if there were some major climatic changes coming whether they were caused by us, cows, clouds, the sun, or whatever…

]]> By: John http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2009/11/26/is-the-once-stable-part-of-antarctica-starting-to-melt/comment-page-1/#comment-74793 John Mon, 30 Nov 2009 21:18:01 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/?p=6552#comment-74793 Sorry, but I'm no longer accepting any 'facts' about global warming and melting ice! Climate change is a continuous process on Earth Sorry, but I’m no longer accepting any ‘facts’ about global warming and melting ice!
Climate change is a continuous process on Earth

]]> By: donald moore http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2009/11/26/is-the-once-stable-part-of-antarctica-starting-to-melt/comment-page-1/#comment-73781 donald moore Fri, 27 Nov 2009 23:33:30 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/?p=6552#comment-73781 It would be interesting to find out whether or not an increase in fogs are noted around these icebergs as they reach warmere water as with the case off the coast of newfoundland with arctic icebergs[over 200 days per year].It could be an indication of where we are heading with an accelleration of ice breaking away from antarctica and reaching an accelerated warming ocean. It would be interesting to find out whether or not an increase in fogs are noted around these icebergs as they reach warmere water as with the case off the coast of newfoundland with arctic icebergs[over 200 days per year].It could be an indication of where we are heading with an accelleration of ice breaking away from antarctica and reaching an accelerated warming ocean.

]]>