Quantcast

Another Global Warming Propaganda Claim Goes Poof?

~ The Rebel ~ 2012/06/27 16:23:07
Antarctic Ice Shelves Not Melting After All…

According to a statement from the American Geophysical Union, announcing the new research:

It turns out that past studies, which were based on computer models without any direct data for comparison or guidance, overestimate the water temperatures and extent of melting beneath the Fimbul Ice Shelf. This has led to the misconception, Hattermann said, that the ice shelf is losing mass at a faster rate than it is gaining mass, leading to an overall loss of mass.

The team’s results show that water temperatures are far lower than computer models predicted. . .

Hatterman and his colleagues, using 12 tons of hot-water drilling equipment, bored three holes more than 200m deep through the Fimbul Shelf, which spans an area roughly twice the size of New Jersey. The location of each hole was cunningly chosen so that the various pathways by which water moves beneath the ice shelf could be observed

Read More: http://weaselzippers.us/2012/06/26/another-global-...

You!
Add Photos & Videos

Top Opinion

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Karen E 2012/06/27 17:09:23
    Karen E
    +2
    ole fat al is gonna be mad...........
  • Icarus 2012/06/27 16:45:35
    Icarus
    Wishful thinking, I'm sorry to say. What this study does is confirm, with local measurements, what satellites had already measured from orbit. That is useful information but the satellite data still shows accelerating ice mass loss from Antarctica -


    measured orbit information satellite data accelerating ice mass loss antarctica
  • cinbadl Icarus 2012/06/27 16:50:43
  • Icarus cinbadl 2012/06/27 17:11:30 (edited)
    Icarus
    Glaciers and ice caps (GICs) are important contributors to present-day global mean sea level rise1, 2, 3, 4. Most previous global mass balance estimates for GICs rely on extrapolation of sparse mass balance measurements1, 2, 4 representing only a small fraction of the GIC area, leaving their overall contribution to sea level rise unclear. Here we show that GICs, excluding the Greenland and Antarctic peripheral GICs, lost mass at a rate of 148 ± 30 Gt yr−1 from January 2003 to December 2010, contributing 0.41 ± 0.08 mm yr−1 to sea level rise. Our results are based on a global, simultaneous inversion of monthly GRACE-derived satellite gravity fields, from which we calculate the mass change over all ice-covered regions greater in area than 100 km2. The GIC rate for 2003–2010 is about 30 per cent smaller than the previous mass balance estimate that most closely matches our study period2. The high mountains of Asia, in particular, show a mass loss of only 4 ± 20 Gt yr−1 for 2003–2010, compared with 47–55 Gt yr−1 in previously published estimates2, 5. For completeness, we also estimate that the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, including their peripheral GICs, contributed 1.06 ± 0.19 mm yr−1 to sea level rise over the same time period. The total contribution to sea level rise from...




    Glaciers and ice caps (GICs) are important contributors to present-day global mean sea level rise1, 2, 3, 4. Most previous global mass balance estimates for GICs rely on extrapolation of sparse mass balance measurements1, 2, 4 representing only a small fraction of the GIC area, leaving their overall contribution to sea level rise unclear. Here we show that GICs, excluding the Greenland and Antarctic peripheral GICs, lost mass at a rate of 148 ± 30 Gt yr−1 from January 2003 to December 2010, contributing 0.41 ± 0.08 mm yr−1 to sea level rise. Our results are based on a global, simultaneous inversion of monthly GRACE-derived satellite gravity fields, from which we calculate the mass change over all ice-covered regions greater in area than 100 km2. The GIC rate for 2003–2010 is about 30 per cent smaller than the previous mass balance estimate that most closely matches our study period2. The high mountains of Asia, in particular, show a mass loss of only 4 ± 20 Gt yr−1 for 2003–2010, compared with 47–55 Gt yr−1 in previously published estimates2, 5. For completeness, we also estimate that the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, including their peripheral GICs, contributed 1.06 ± 0.19 mm yr−1 to sea level rise over the same time period. The total contribution to sea level rise from all ice-covered regions is thus 1.48 ± 0.26 mm −1, which agrees well with independent estimates of sea level rise originating from land ice loss and other terrestrial sources6.

    http://www.nature.com/nature/...


    "We use monthly measurements of time-variable gravity from the GRACE (Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment) satellite gravity mission to determine the ice mass-loss for the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets during the period between April 2002 and February 2009. We find that during this time period the mass loss of the ice sheets is not a constant, but accelerating with time, i.e., that the GRACE observations are better represented by a quadratic trend than by a linear one, implying that the ice sheets contribution to sea level becomes larger with time. In Greenland, the mass loss increased from 137 Gt/yr in 2002–2003 to 286 Gt/yr in 2007–2009, i.e., an acceleration of −30 ± 11 Gt/yr2 in 2002–2009. In Antarctica the mass loss increased from 104 Gt/yr in 2002–2006 to 246 Gt/yr in 2006–2009, i.e., an acceleration of −26 ± 14 Gt/yr2 in 2002–2009. The observed acceleration in ice sheet mass loss helps reconcile GRACE ice mass estimates obtained for different time periods."
    http://www.agu.org/pubs/cross...
    (more)
  • cinbadl Icarus 2012/06/27 17:17:54
  • cinbadl Icarus 2012/06/27 17:29:03
  • Icarus cinbadl 2012/06/27 20:50:46
    Icarus
    Haha, of course - when you don't like what the evidence shows, just pretend it's fraudulent.

    Pathetic.
  • cinbadl Icarus 2012/06/27 20:56:34
  • Icarus cinbadl 2012/06/27 21:00:56
    Icarus
    No, I mean what you just did. The evidence shows that Antarctica is losing ice mass at an accelerating rate, but you don't like that fact - it doesn't fit with your preconceptions, so you pretend it's not true. Unfortunately, nature neither knows nor cares what you think, and your wishful thinking isn't going to change the laws of physics.
  • cinbadl Icarus 2012/06/27 21:38:45
  • cmdrbnd007 2012/06/27 16:44:35
    cmdrbnd007
    +3
    http://nation.foxnews.com/jam...
    Here's another nail in their coffin.
  • cinbadl cmdrbnd007 2012/06/27 16:50:55
  • RogerCo... cmdrbnd007 2012/06/28 03:01:35 (edited)
    RogerCoppock
    James Lovelock is not "Father of Global Warming."

    The theory of anthropogenic greenhouse gas forced global warming dates to Fourier in 1824, well before Lovelock was born. Please see:

    http://nsdl.org/sites/classic...

    Fox News, caught in another lie.
  • cinbadl 2012/06/27 16:36:07
  • cmdrbnd007 cinbadl 2012/06/27 16:45:24
    cmdrbnd007
    +3
    That's one reason I've never bought into the whole global warming idea.
  • RogerCo... cmdrbnd007 2012/06/28 03:07:55
    RogerCoppock
    Global CLIMATE models simulate MEAN STEADY STATE conditions over THE ENTIRE GLOBE.

    WEATHER models predict TRANSIENT conditions for LOCAL forecasts.

    A WEATHER MODEL IS NOT A GLOBAL CLIMATE SIMULATION.
  • RogerCo... cinbadl 2012/06/28 03:07:25
    RogerCoppock
    Global CLIMATE models simulate MEAN STEADY STATE conditions over THE ENTIRE GLOBE.

    WEATHER models predict TRANSIENT conditions for LOCAL forecasts.

    A WEATHER MODEL IS NOT A GLOBAL CLIMATE SIMULATION.
  • cinbadl RogerCo... 2012/06/28 16:52:18
  • RogerCo... cinbadl 2012/06/28 22:05:49 (edited)
    RogerCoppock
    We don't use the same models for weather and climate. Some models share some code, but usually that code is for things like mapping and graphical output.
  • Soup Man 2012/06/27 16:30:01
    Soup Man
    +2
    Indeed

News & Politics

2013/06/20 04:55:45

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals