Skip to main content

As Antarctic ice melts, a warning emerges from the past Comments

A study published in Nature Geoscience reveals that global warming that occurred some five million years ago causing sea levels to rise dramatically, possibly as much as by 20 meters. Scientists suggest that Antarctic ice may be more susceptible to warming than previously thought. Continue Reading

1 - 10 of 20 Comments

  1. Peter Anderson
    8 months ago

    WeatherHead, you mention 'global warming' but it must be presumed you'd refer to anthropogenic (global) warming (i.e. AGW). As 'global warming' is that pre-existing long term trend (recall it was at least +0.5C) and the sea ice behaviour (sea ice having many sources) is not displaying unnatural effect then a claim such as "the increased snow is said to be dependent on increased temperatures" cannot be supported even rationally beyond there being obvious variation of a natural type displayed in the plot (http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/observation_images/ssmi1_ice_area.png). As there is been no actual warming to note for ~15 years then neither can 'warming' be made responsible for 'more snow' in any manner. You need to be much more precise WeatherHead as to what event you're mentioning, the 'warmist' is been far too free with words and so to disguise what event they would talk of (e.g. CO2 is not carbon whilst GW is not AGW).

  2. J. Bob
    8 months ago

    WeatherHead,
    thank you. I picked it up last year, at Anthony Watts's site. He has many nuggets of info there, that provide interesting views on the whole subject..

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/10/icesat-data-shows-mass-gains-of-the-antarctic-ice-sheet-exceed-losses/

  3. WeatherHead
    8 months ago

    @J Bob
    Great link! I didn't have time to more than skim it yet but I'll be very interested to see if they're able to break it down to whether that mass is on land or part of the sea ice or both but it looks like there are a lot more papers I'll want to read from the site before coming to a conclusion. I'll also be interested to see if which side of the global warming argument claims it as backing their claims (I'm betting both, lol) as the increased snow is said to be dependent on increased temperatures.

  4. J. Bob
    8 months ago

    WeatherHead,
    here is a interesting abstract of a paper presented July 2012. In it, it states the ice sheet, in the years 2003 to 2008, had a mass increase. This seems to be consistent with sea ice area results.

    http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20120013495_2012013235.pdf

  5. Peter Anderson
    8 months ago

    @WeatherHead... Sea Ice is also displaying (http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/observation_images/ssmi1_ice_area.png) no unnatural behaviour, neither is (Relative) Sea Level (which is displaying a slowing of the rate of increase when directly observed. The next fact is that all 'renewables' are supported by coal or (more commonly) gas. This is as you quote the generation capacity of the installations which is not at all what such will actually generate. The fact is those renewables are near non-functional for all practical purposes. Next 'water' is most likely hydro-generation and the reason such was rapidly bundled into 'renewables' was to give an actual generation 'statistic' to those otherwise near worthless artifacts of 'wind, solar, biomass and geothermal'!
    Gas will be used as there is a wide spread distribution, no national monopoly is guaranteed, whilst it is inexpensive. The more important fact regarding Gas is that it works, then it works to generate electricity at many levels (including town gas fuelled 'personal' generation at home) and can also power transportation (both public and personal). We will not be agreeing WeatherHead, renewables are presently still an impractical dressing of a political farce. They are not needed and pandering to the politicknic saw a claimed many people perish in the Northern Winter, victims of 'fuel poverty'. They died needlessly, sacrificed to the ego of the 'climate warmist lobby'.
    Your numbers are pointless if actual generation of electricity is to be noted, its near all coal, gas and uranium still. These sources have been made suddenly more expensive for no good reason at all. People are dying of cold exposure in their own homes, the public are no longer supportive of the (alarmist) warmist's claims and the Politician is being to run scared from the 'climate' issue for still, after ~35 years, there is no obvious unnatural event that can be shown. None.

  6. WeatherHead
    8 months ago

    @J. Bob
    Exactly my point JBob. The article is refering to the East Antarctic ice sheets which are on land while you posted links regarding Antarctic sea ice. Not the same thing.

  7. J. Bob
    8 months ago

    WeatherHead,
    please read the first lines of the article, before you comment. Was not the 1st lines of the article on Antarctic ice sheets.

    Remember some sea ice comes from glaciers, which originate on land & do contribute to sea levels.

  8. WeatherHead
    8 months ago

    @Peter Anderson
    I'm glad to see we have something we agree on. Natural gas is for now the energy source that will see the greatest increase in capacity. And a whole lot better than coal. As to how rapidly we can transit from fossil fuels to renewables has yet to be seen. I was personnally very pleased to see that all new generating capacity put in service in January of this year was from renewables, 958 MW of wind and 267 MW of solar.
    http://www.ferc.gov/legal/staff-reports/2013/jan-energy-infrastructure.pdf
    That was only one month and these projects are of course long term. The numbers from the first half of the year show natural gas leading the way with 4852 MW for 56.41%, renewables (biomass, geothermal, solar, water, wind) with 2144 MW for 24.93%, coal with 1579 MW for 18.36%, and oil with 26 MW for .30%. So all in all I would say a much cleaner mix than the plants that are being replaced.

  9. WeatherHead
    8 months ago

    @J Bob
    Sea ice is irrelevant to sea level. Please try to read more carefully and think more critically.

  10. Dave Thaoms
    8 months ago

    Over the last quarter century, "scientists" published so much garbage supported only by evidence from computer models they programmed themselves that the credibility of their profession diminished.


Leave a Comment

Comments submitted must be civil, remain on-topic and not violate any laws including copyright. We reserve the right to delete any comments which are abusive, inappropriate or not constructive to the discussion.

Though we invite robust discussion, we reserve the right to not publish any comment which denigrates the human person, undermines marriage and the family, or advocates for positions which openly oppose the teaching of the Catholic Church.

This is a supervised forum and the Editors of Catholic Online retain the right to direct it.

We also reserve the right to block any commenter for repeated violations. Your email address is required to post, but it will not be published on the site.

We ask that you NOT post your comment more than once. Catholic Online is growing and our ability to review all comments sometimes results in a delay in their publication.

Send me important information from Catholic Online and it's partners. See Sample

Post Comment


Newsletter Sign Up

Daily Readings

Reading 1, Genesis 1:1--2:2
In the beginning God created heaven and earth. Now the earth ... Read More

Psalm, Psalms 16:5, 8, 9-10, 11
My birthright, my cup is Yahweh; you, you alone, hold my lot ... Read More

Gospel, Matthew 28:1-10
After the Sabbath, and towards dawn on the first day of the ... Read More

Reading 2, Genesis 22:1-18
It happened some time later that God put Abraham to the test. ... Read More

Saint of the Day

April 19 Saint of the Day

St. Alphege
April 19: Archbishop and "the First Martyr of Canterbury." He was born in ... Read More