TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Antartica Falling apart!!!

Re: Antartica Falling apart!!!

quote:

Originally posted by ******** http://www.thestar.com/News/World/article/350749

the title is slightly misleading, and the news is a few weeks old.

yeah last i heard the Antarctic has gotten a lot of it's ice back.

Just read it on a magazine earlier today...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environme...oles.antarctica

Scary, to say the least.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo yeah last i heard the Antarctic has gotten a lot of it's ice back.

Do you listen to AM news talk radio?

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Do you listen to AM news talk radio?

sorry i confused Arctic sea ice for Antarctic...and stfu.

quote:

Originally posted by ******** Information being 3 days old does not make it incorrect... http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/05/03/asia/pacific.php

what are you talking about incorrect? noone said your information was incorrect. your title is, however, definitely misleading. Specifically it is misleading because you say Antarctica is falling apart. Antarctica is 5.4 million square miles of land covered by ice (without considering the ice over the oceans adjacent to Antarctica). The portion that collapsed is 220 square miles, which makes up a whopping 0.00407% of Antarctica. Hardly Antarctica falling apart.

with that said, any ice loss is bad for earth. However, 220 square miles of ice collapsing into the ocean and saying it will cause the sea level to rise is like saying an ice cube falling into a lake will causing the water level to rise. Furthermore, i think this ice was over the water. If that is the case then the current sea level already accounts for the mass of the ice, and it's collapse would have no effect on sea level anyway. The real damage is from the lose of land glacial ice.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 what are you talking about incorrect? noone said your information was incorrect. your title is, however, definitely misleading. Specifically it is misleading because you say Antarctica is falling apart. Antarctica is 5.4 million square miles of land covered by ice (without considering the ice over the oceans adjacent to Antarctica). The portion that collapsed is 220 square miles, which makes up a whopping 0.00407% of Antarctica. Hardly Antarctica falling apart. with that said, any ice loss is bad for earth. However, 220 square miles of ice collapsing into the ocean and saying it will cause the sea level to rise is like saying an ice cube falling into a lake will causing the water level to rise. Furthermore, i think this ice was over the water. If that is the case then the current sea level already accounts for the mass of the ice, and it's collapse would have no effect on sea level anyway. The real damage is from the lose of land glacial ice.

Bingo.

quote:

western Antarctica

Which side is west?

quote:

Originally posted by Sunsnail Which side is west?

no shit, right?

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo sorry i confused Arctic sea ice for Antarctic...and stfu.

LOL, I'll take that as a "yes"... It's ok, we know... I listened too back in the day...

quote:

Originally posted by Sunsnail Which side is west?

The bit that lies in the Western Hemisphere.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton LOL, I'll take that as a "yes"... It's ok, we know... I listened too back in the day...

no, i do. primarily Dennis Prager who i deeply respect for his superior intellect of all things not just conservative politics and his civility. i also listen to Hugh Hewitt, a consumate Con Law polemicist.

never listened to Rush although i'd prolly agree with most of his political philosophy just not his delivery. i don't like people who are beligerent or full of themselves left or right. that i leave for myself

quote:

Ice shelf collapse: What does it mean? Biologist says polar animals are incredibly sensitive to temperature changes Expert: Changes "should be taken as warning of what may be coming elsewhere" The temperature in the western Antarctic is up .9 degree Fahrenheit Krill may be among the first animals to have to adapt to warming temperatures By Marsha Walton CNN (CNN) -- From krill to king crabs, the collapse of a 160-square-mile portion of the Wilkins Ice Shelf in Antarctica could mean many changes for wildlife at the bottom of the world. Most inhabitants of our planet will never get a firsthand look at a polar bear at the North Pole or a penguin at the South. But polar scientists already see changes in plants and animals from rapidly warming temperatures. "Because of their extreme environments, they tend to be highly sensitive to temperature changes," said marine biologist James McClintock of the University of Alabama at Birmingham. "Therefore, what we see happening in the poles should be taken as warning of what may be coming elsewhere," said McClintock, who studies the physiology and ecology of aquatic and marine invertebrates in Antarctica. Watch how the ice shelf is a sign of trouble � According to the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center, in the past 50 years, the western Antarctic peninsula has undergone the biggest temperature increase on Earth: up .9 degree Fahrenheit, or .5 degree Celsius, in each of the past five decades. How the ice is disappearing � Although krill may never be as majestic as whales or as adorable as penguins, these small shrimp-like crustaceans in the waters of the Antarctic are crucial to the region's ecology. And they might be among the first in the animal kingdom to have to adapt to warming temperatures. Scientists already are observing declines in polar krill populations that could be tied to a decrease in annual winter sea ice. "As babies, krill live under the sea ice and graze on microalgae. With a decline in sea ice, there is less habitat for young krill," McClintock said. But there may be a non-global-warming explanation for the decrease. Once heavily hunted, humpback whales that feed on krill have made a comeback in Antarctic waters. So it is also possible that more whales are simply eating more of these tiny crustaceans. Another warming ocean event that scientists are studying closely is the migration of king crabs. Marine remotely operated vehicles have captured photos of these giant crabs on the Antarctic Slope, where underwater land starts to rise up to the southernmost continent. It's the first time in tens of millions of years that these predators have appeared that close to Antarctica. Crabs and other marine invertebrates die when the water is too cold, because they cannot flush magnesium out of their systems. But even slightly warmer seawater allows the animal to regulate that element. McClintock says that if these new predators keep moving, they could wipe out other Antarctic species. Snails, brittle stars, sea spiders and some marine worms have evolved without armor and other protections they would need to survive alongside the king crab. Scientists studying Adelie penguins on Antarctica's western peninsula see that species suffering major declines. Ironically, an increase in snowfall could be among the most dangerous "warming" effects for this animal. "In Antarctica, as the air temperature warms up, the humidity rises and the ability of snowfall to occur increases," McClintock said. That snowfall can affect the mortality of penguin eggs. Another possible impact of climate change in the Antarctic is acidification. Seawater has long been known to be good at absorbing carbon dioxide. But one effect of that absorption is that it turns the ocean water more acidic. Organisms that make shells or have skeletons that are exposed to seawater, such as clams, snails and sea butterflies, could see their shells dissolve in water that is too acidic. Plants and animals that have survived and thrived in the brutal conditions of Antarctica for millions of years have had to make plenty of adjustments. "Wildlife will be impacted, but they are pretty adept at dealing with a topsy-turvy world," said Ted Scambos, lead scientist at the National Snow and Ice Data Center. "The ecosystem is pretty resilient," he said. Scambos first spotted the disintegration of the Wilkins Ice Shelf in February. He cautions that the poles will be the leading edge of what's happening in the rest of the world as global warming continues. "Even though they seem far away, changes in the polar regions could have an impact on both hemispheres with sea level rise and changes in climate patterns," he said.

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/TECH/sc...ined/index.html

quote:

Could Volcanic Activity In West Antarctic Rift Destabilize Ice Sheet? Antarctica. The West Antarctic rift is a region of volcanic activity and crustal stretching that is roughly the size of the western United States. (Credit: Alaska SAR Facility, Copyright Canadian Space Agency) ScienceDaily (Mar. 4, 2008) � The West Antarctic rift is a region of volcanic activity and crustal stretching that is roughly the size of the western United States (from Salt Lake City to the Pacific Ocean). About 98 percent of it is buried beneath glacial ice, up to 2.5 miles thick, and bedrock beneath the ice is 2000--3000 feet below sea level over large areas. All of this makes it a difficult region to study. It is interesting nevertheless, because volcanic eruptions beneath the ice could destabilize the ice sheet, leading to as much as 25 feet of sea-level rise. How likely is it that this could happen is a question scientists have debated for over a decade. LeMasurier addresses the question by comparing the West Antarctic rift with similar areas of crustal stretching elsewhere in the world. The comparison shows that volcanic activity in rifts is most common where the land is a mile or more above sea level, and rising, which can readily be seen in Antarctica along the Transantarctic Mountains, and in the Pacific coast mountains of Marie Byrd Land. The large sub-sea-level interior of the rift does not, therefore, seem to be a likely place for present-day volcanic activity. This is good news, because the sub-sea-level base of the West Antarctic ice sheet is already especially vulnerable to warming of the atmosphere and surrounding seas. However, this study also shows that the land in West Antarctica has been rising beneath the ice sheet in some areas and subsiding beneath it in others, over roughly the past 25 million years. Some areas have subsided to as much as 8500 feet below sea level. This tectonic restlessness contrasts markedly with the stability of the regions that lay beneath the northern hemisphere ice sheets of the recent geologic past, and its affect on the history of the West Antarctic ice sheet has not yet been evaluated. The article "Neogene extension and basin deepening in the West Antarctic rift inferred from comparisons with the East African rift and other analogs" by Wesley LeMasurier, Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research, University of Colorado at Boulder, was published in the March issue of Geology ,Pages 247-250. Adapted from materials provided by Geological Society of America, via EurekAlert!, a service of AAAS. >LINK<

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo no, i do. primarily Dennis Prager who i deeply respect for his superior intellect of all things not just conservative politics and his civility. i also listen to Hugh Hewitt, a consumate Con Law polemicist. never listened to Rush although i'd prolly agree with most of his political philosophy just not his delivery. i don't like people who are beligerent or full of themselves left or right. that i leave for myself

I converted to NPR. Probably the most objective source I can listen to on the way to and from work...

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo

Excuse my scepticism, but I don't think a volcano is responsible for global warming. No one is doubting there are always natural cycles of warming and cooling on the earth. But the difference from previous cycles is the artificial changing of the atmosphere's balance of chemical gases by human machinery. Biological and geological releasing of carbon/methane gas is perfectly natural. What is not natural is the carbon/methane released from machinery.

This unnatural element explains the exceptionally fast changes occurring in the biosphere. Rarely has any natural cycle ever had such a quick change. Unless a catastrophic event were to occur such as an asteroid impact, colossal volcanic eruption, or the sun running out of nuclear fuel; human machinery remains the most logical explanation for the global warming. The debate in the scientific community is over. The only dissenters are little known obscure figures whose research explains little. If we are to wait for all these dissenters to become convinced of human-caused global warming (which probably won't happen), we'll pinch ourselves for not doing more sooner.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Excuse my scepticism, but I don't think a volcano is responsible for global warming.

did you read the article or better yet the enlarged bolded title? nowhere did it say antarctic volcanic activity was responsible for global warming.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Excuse my scepticism, but I don't think a volcano is responsible for global warming.

neither do i. i think you misunderstood the article i posted.

the ScienceDaily article explains the possibilty (and probable likelyhood IMO) of techtonics associated with volcanic activity destabilizing the ice sheet above it. espescially in Western Antarctica where this chunk of mile thick ice detatched itself from.

quote:

Originally posted by ******** I've taken an Earth Sciences course

Does your school offer a class on English syntax? That post was all over the place.

While the exterior ice of Antarctica is threatened by warming, warmer temperatures means higher humidity over most of Antarctica and more precipitation. More snowfall over Antarctica means accumulation of ice on the land. The lose of ice on the land is much more serious than ice over water. If you also took a course in physics you would know that ice resting on the ocean displaces the water. In plain English, that means that the current sea level already accounts for that mass.

The expansion of molecular surface area because of warming is certainly something of concern. However, this little episode will do nothing to accelerate that; that is a much different situation. Furthermore, all we have are models to predict the consequences of this theory. Scientists really have no idea how much the sea level will actually rise because of this theory. I'm not saying i don't believe it, all that i'm saying is that the support is shaky. the theory rests on the expansion of methane that rests on the ocean floor. I'm not sure how any scientist can predict exactly what goes on at the ocean floor.

quote:

Originally posted by ******** water has a thermal gradient.. the warmer the water themore room it takes up... I attend the university of waerloo..

thanks buddy, anyone who has ever stood in front of an ice tray understands that (that's what the expansion of molecular surface area means). However, the melting of a small chunk of ice that was resting on water is not going to effect sea level. Furthermore, the doomsday sea level rise scenario rests on the melting of frozen methane at the ocean floor.

quote:

Originally posted by ******** causing siesmic which will lead to minor plate issues potentially leading to polarity issues potentially.

you should tell your secret to the scientific community.

quote:

Originally posted by ******** I passed the ELPE. (Suprisingly! I can use proper syntax, but I don't enjoy it.)

fair enough, it would just help everyone else trying to make sense of your thoughts.

quote:

Originally posted by ******** Wrong. A small episode still accelerates the process. If you know anything about compound interest apply that to this, same idea: it adds up.

in life you will always hear someone talk about a slippery slope. In fact, that slippery slope is normally a sticky step. when people hear about a bad thing they tend to focus exclusively on that event, and no other side effects (like greater precipitation over antarctica, and other cold regions - which could cause glacial accumulations). i'm not denying any of this is true because i believe that it is, i'm just a notorious skeptic.

quote:

Originally posted by ******** Wrong. There are clear ideas of the effects of this volume. You tak the total volume then input it into a matrix of climate plausabilities and solar phemonom as well as interplentary forces and local earth factors.

sounds like a walk in the park.

sure they know how much methane expands. Scientists do not know, however, how much methane gas will melt.

quote:

Originally posted by ******** I'm not refering to methane... obviously the methane would be in addtion to the thermal expansion I was speaking of. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_expansion same principle though. They've done forecasts on this stuff.. they have the tech to simulate the entire freaken planet a couple times over. This article sounds like something up your alley http://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/mva/WR1987/WR1987.html bear in mind it was written in 1985 (1987) and over 20 years have passed since then... and the situation is now worse than was expected.

humans can't accurately forecast rain on any given day, the exact height of a tidal surge, or the correct temperature on a given day a week in advance. Yet, we are expected to believe that scientists can accurately forecast the thermal expansion of the oceans in a hundred years (which is something that has not happened in modern times)? Please excuse my skepticism.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.