Please see above comments on the temperatures of the "ANTARCTIC"...again this is 100% proven, not theory. 90% is all Ice and snow is in the Antarctic.

Next please explain to me why Mars temperatures also fluctuate at the same rate the earth does?

Again, Melting not melting in the Arctic. so what... 90% of all ice and snow is in Antarctica. Of the remaining 10% 90% of that is floating sea ice. Archimedes Principal which again is PROVEN lay of physics, proves the oceans are NOT going to rise even if all that Arctic Sea ice melts.

Lets also not forget the total laughable humor when the "Climate Scientists" got stuck in the massive amount of ice they said would not be there and had to be rescued.

It's pretty simple, really, you are taking water from solid form and adding it to the water levels. You get a mix of a lot of freshwater going into the seawater, which isn't good for ocean currents, and like any cup of water that was already full that you drop an ice cube into, it overflows somewhere. We see this in the Sacramento Delta actually near San Francisco, seawater has pushed up quite far into the freshwater delta and is killing off fish & other species and no longer suitable for agriculture... what used to be freshwater is now brackish and we have this hair-brained idea to drill 60 miles of underground rivers 100 feet in diameter (2 of them) and hundreds of feet down to move water from the Sacramento River, under the delta, to where it is needed in the Central Valley (so it can be funneled down to LA as drinking water)... but it's being "sold" as needed to protect the delta environment and provide water to farmers... BS!

I don't doubt it and I'm familiar with the story. I think the mistake they (the scientists) were making is in assuming something as complex as global climate would be a predictable and linear change. I'm sure it won't be, and isn't. My point is that there is quite a bit of measurable (and dramatic) changes that I have seen in my own life that are inexplainable any other way.

I'd recommend a trip to China... and see what it's like to cover your face with a mask to breath through it, get to where you are going in a quarter mile outside, and the white piece of cloth turned to charcoal...

Americans are pretty absurdly naive thinking that how it is here with the Clean Air & Clean Water Acts and California emissions controls are the same that is everywhere else.. it absolutely is not... I don't believe that "we" as Americans are as directly responsible at this point as we once were, but we are also rather powerless to control ourselves and think that we'll make an impact when China and the rest of Asia is going as fast as it can to wreck its environment.

Well, it's easy to observe the shrinkage of ice... it's profound. Antarctica is not yet experiencing the melt that the North Pole is, but the phenomenon is happening (the North Pole has shrunken quite a bit, so has Greenland). If it's happening, it's happening. Western Antarctic (the affected ice sheet) has risen around 4.5 degrees in the last hundred years as a yearly average temp. The ice & snow itself, apparently you never built a snow cave when you were a kid, is always much warmer than the air temperature.. something like 30 degrees or so. In Northern Minnesota near the Canadian Border and Lake of the Woods where I grew up (and I'll consider myself something of an expert on living in arctic weather in that respect), we had winter temps in the -40 F range, but in spring, we would get snow melt quite easily and quite predictably in the +10 to +15 range. The reason being is that the air temperature no longer can "cool" the snow and ice as fast as the warmth of the earth below can heat it. You also have the affect of the atmosphere acting like a lens and magnifying the sun to heat the ground (which absorbs it) without any affect on the air (which is moving by quickly anyway). Soil and water absorb more heat than snow & ice from the sun, its the difference between a black car in the sun and a white car... it doesn't take a thermodynamics degree to figure that out... so now that it has in effect started, it is accelerating.

We're also talking geologic spans of I'me, I wouldn't go out and invest in real estate at a 12 foot elevation level just yet in anticipation that it would be beachfront property in my lifetime, but the effects of even a couple of degrees are noticeable and predictable. In the north where I grew up, extreme cold tended to reduce precipitation levels, now that the winters are noticeably milder than when I was a child, there is quite a bit more snowfall and has led to a lot of flooding... "100 year floods" every 5 or 6 years now it seems along the Red River for example.

Ever seen 6 & 8% humidity along the Pacific coast in May? There is no previous record of that in over a hundred years. California grows the lion's share of US produce and agriculture.. no one else even comes close... it's 50% of California's economy, and the California economy is the 8th largest in the world. If we seceded from the US, the US would fall to number 5 or 6, and we would still be number 8. We have zero water in the Central Valley, reservoirs were at 30% of normal as late as March and only with some snow-melt now they are coming up to less than 50% when we would have been releasing water down streams a decade or so ago (even during a drought). This means the California crop will be negligible this year... expect prices of a salad, fruit, vegetables, nuts, grapes, wine, citrus, etc/ to go up quite a bit this fall...

I've lived in California for 20 years, and yesterday was the first time I've seen 95 degrees in the Sierras and 105+ in Southern Cal this early in the year. By mid summer, we're looking at 120+ degree days. That's never happened before. The point is, we are now setting new all-time records, seemingly year after year without much of a break in between. As recent as 1990, Cal Fire seasonal fire fighting was a 5 month a year job (literally). Now its year-round with massive overtime. The temperatures are 15 degrees warmer in spring & winter, easily, and a lot hotter in the summer.

Slight temperature changes will alter ocean current patterns, the ocean conveyors are pretty much the driver of climate on Earth. Cold water from the poles is circulated into the tropics which moderates their high temps, and in turn pushes some warm water back to the poles to keep them navigable to ships or we would eventually have a snowball Earth thing... (which has happened many times before). Freshwater is quite a bit lighter than saltwater, and it will be happening at the poles. If it disrupts the conveyor patterns a little, the hurricanes coming out of the tropics and tornadoes in the southeast US will get stronger and stronger without the cold air to moderate out the hot air / hot water.

In Alaska, entire fishing towns have been washed away because the Bering Sea has risen about a foot, and that was basically all those strips of land were above water. Wood-boring beetles that don't survive below around 20 degrees, and the Alaskan forest was previously immune from (climatically), were wiped out when simple West Coast beetles migrated north about 10 years ago and the trees had no natural immunity to them, that's outside of Anchorage... thousands of square miles of dead / infested timber still standing.

I'm not a climate expert, but I'm closing in on 50, and I've seen these things in my lifetime. This is direct observation.

Am I saying head for the hills? No. I'm saying that the "deniers" of this stuff tend to be young kids that are still wet behind the ears, that don't understand the science very well, or small things that will have dramatic effects on our lives.

http://www.weatherbase.com/weather/weath...

Lets see. Where to begin...

First I am so glad you got to actually go there.

Second the highest recorded temperature in Antarctica which by the way holds 90% of all ice and snow, was 7 degrees F over the past 32 years.

Now, What temperature does ice melt? That would be higher than 32 Degrees F. What temperature does Sea Ice melt? Hrm...that is a bit harder but closer to 30 Degrees F depending on the PPM of Salt. Now that leave a disparity of 27 degrees.

Now please explain to me how and why you buy into Antarctica Glaciers melting.

Next if you look at the "Scientific Data" from ice core samples, that "Scientifically" date back hundreds of thousands of years, temperatures have not been high enough to melt Antarctica.

So again I ask you to explain why you "believe" and belief is not proof that the Glaciers in Antarctica will melt.

Next, as mentioned Antarctica holds 90% of all ice and snow on the planet. the remaining 10% is north. Of that 10%, 90% of that is floating ice, and Archimedes principal PROVES that the arctic floating ice will NOT cause oceans to rise. Now please explain to me scientifically and with PROOF< via physics not theory and junk science that your right?

I think the biggest problem stems from people who refuse to look at the change on the Earth's own terms - geologic terms. Even if we look at the earth's age in terms of millenia to our days, it was just a week and a half ago that half of North America was covered by an ice sheet!

I think it is hubris incarnate to say that with less than 100 years of extensive climate data (and much of that of questionable veracity) that we could pretend to predict future patterns.

Correct, the glaciers are supported by land mass beneath them... this is more Antarctica & Greenland, not so much the North Pole (which is mostly floating ice).

OA;

Ask any geologist, it's called overburden and it compresses whatever's underneath it. Remove the overburden and whatever's underneath decompresses. Additionally, we've been able to raise or lower ground level by injecting fluids into or producing fluids from deeper formations (see Ekofisk or check out the Texas Gulf Coast).

I posit some of our disagreements and misunderstandings about climate come from misusing the terms "weather" and "climate". We think of weather as what happens this week and climate as what happens this year. We should think of weather as what happens this decade and climate as what happens this decimillenia.

Geologic history shows warmer climates raise sea levels and impact coastlines, not a few feet, but hundreds of feet, at the extremes. If humans are still around when our climate warms again they'll be forced to move inland (or Manhattan's doormen will be opening doors on the 26th floors). Milankovitch calculations, confirmed by geologic history, have us moving into a long term cooling cycle. Coastal encroachment isn't likely to be an issue for at least 20,000 years.

Geology is science. Global Warming is religion.

That's incorrect. In the case of Antarctica (I was at McMurdo on an AF resupply mission on C-5's during the 90's... so unlike the other people here, I've been there, and seen it...) Antarctica and Greenland are land masses UNDER the glacier ice. The glacier ice is thick.. thousands of feet thick.. as it melts off, it runs directly into the ocean and exposes the land underneath.

Now, mind you, the fact that there is petroleum there is evidence that the poles were once tropical or at least organically covered. You need plants & animals to fossilize to create oil... but the danger is the pace at which this is occurring compared to previous geologic terms (a hundred years or so compared to millions of years). There is no way wildlife or crops/plants will adapt, and there is no way that we'll have much of a chance at slowing it down.

Ironically, NASA's plan for terraforming Mars is exactly what we did to the Earth... build some baker-plants that harvest the crap out of the ground and burn it in ways that release massive carbon dioxide & monoxide and warm the planet... :) We know how to do that now at least...

There is a lot of eb & flow at both poles, the thin sea ice does build-up and cover area and recede, but it's not the permanent glacier ice. You only need 32 degrees F to freeze water.. so sea ice isn't a miracle of global cooling in an area with -80 degree temps are the norm. The danger has been larger areas of open water that are growing during the warm months, the water absorbs more sunlight, and warms the ice that is floating on it.. those are areas that were permanently covered by glacier... we're something like 10 years from having a fully navigable North Pole (no ice at all), you get water melting inside the glacier in channels, running off the sides and that is the (collapse), just as here in California, we have taken way too much ground water so the Central Valley floor has actually "fell" 6 feet in recent years. In other parts of the country, sink holes are a similar phenomenon.. not the same cause or result, but the concept is similar.

It's quite a bit too late to deny the global warming (and acceleration) phenomenon... here in California, it's May, and we're at 6-8% (total) humidity, and in a fire season in May that resembles what our late summer September/October used to look like a few years ago... for those in other parts of the country, realize, we're at 8% humidity already, and we won't get a drop of rain between June & November...

Glaciers melting will raise sea levels - just like a river flowing into the ocean would.
Floating Ice would not raise levels when melted - but floating ice is not a glacier.

While glacier ice is still frozen to the glacier it might raise sea levels by the glacier motion "pushing" the leading edge ice into the sea and below the buoyancy point. When that edge breaks off it will float up and sea level would actually drop a bit.

I think this would take a huge amount of warming - to make Antarctica reasonably habitable.
But - the concept of opening up more land for habitation and farming is definitely reasonable. I would just look to Siberia and Canada first, for a huge amount of area, without near as much climate change (or time) needed - plus easier connection via roads and less distance to current
population areas.

I've always wondered how a continent that is at the "bottom" of this earth can actually be thought of as having directions such as east/west. It must have to do with magnetic north. If magnetic pull is involved in Antarctica's weather patterns then the ice sheets should change from time-to-time.

Good morning Robbie53024,
I so enjoy it when you guys are having good-natured banter. Smiles are free! Without them the days wouldn't be the same.
I always take life with a grain of salt... plus a slice of lemon... and a shot of tequila.
Regards,
O.A.

...but there's lots of "snow"!

Well hello woodlema!
Thank you for such a wonderful, exuberant contribution and your support!
Respectfully,
O.A.

The poster of this topic is 100% right.

I am constantly AMAZED at the wealth of complete IGNORANCE, people, especially scientists have when it comes to this topic. Does ANYONE read and understand the laws of Physics. Buoyancy and Archimedes' Principal are proven FACTS not opinions. These are axioms, not theories. These bleeding heart squirrel kissing ignoramuses tout their "belief" i.e. religion with the same fervor that the Jihadists tout Mohammed. they cry fact when their fact is all in their head with NO physical proof at all, and a bunch of scientists so afraid of their dogmatic peers they will use outcome based statistics to "prove" their theories which turns them all into nothing but religious zealots. WAKE UP PEOPLE!!! THIS IS BASIC PROVEN SCIENCE 101!!! Melting Ice WILL NOT RAISE OCEAN LEVELS!!!

Hear, hear!

Ah, the irony!

Four and a half years ago, I made the first report, in the sphere of at least semi-pro journalism, on the Climategate Archive. A correspondent of mine n the UK put me wise to it. I wrote it up, and even downloaded the archive and re-uploaded it to two places that, for awhile, would keep it safe and available to all.

Thirty-five thousand page views and twenty-four hours later the whole world was buzzing with it. Phil Jones, he of "hide the decline" fame, was suspended with pay.

I don't care what anybody says. "Hide the decline" means "hide the decline." It means we have a decline to hide.

Hello preimert1,
Your comment got me thinking; so many, look at things like this the same way they look at economics. Their analysis is as if these things are zero sum games. They do not consider all of the implications. I have wondered, since the earth's crust floats on a semi flexible mantle and shifts from time to time causing the most recognizable proofs like earthquakes and volcanic eruptions, how do we know that when the weight of massive ice/glaciers on land is removed through melting that the earth does not rise in response? If for instance Greenland loses all of this weight could it not rise in reaction. If so then what would displace its rising form the sea? Perhaps the additional weight of the water could compress the sea floor and cause a resulting upheaval of surrounding land masses. Additionally, I wonder if there is an accounting for the continual increase in the mass of the earth and distribution of 5-300 metric tons of space dust daily. http://www.universetoday.com/94392/getti... This means the earth is continually growing, but the dispersal of this material is distributed to both land and sea. Either way, the globe is increasing in diameter and thus surface area for spreading out and dispersing potential increases of water...
Any thoughts?
Respectfully,
O.A.

Hello Mephesdus,
Some good objective comments.
Whether Earth is actually warming may still be a matter of debate. Many respectable climatologists question the methodology and bias associated with the common reports. That said: There is much to be said about the potential benefits to humanity of a warmer earth. http://www.climatedepot.com/?s=warmer+ea...

Regards,
O.A.