InB4 the Eco-Loons

NLXSK1

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member
It aint him...

Someone in this thread declared area to be meaningless...

How do you calculate volume? How can you calculate volume without area? How can you complete this mathematical puzzle when you have declared part of it meaningless?

How is volume created? In this aspect how is the volume of snow and ice created? And if the area upon which that snow and ice is being created is growing, why do you assume that the volume is shrinking?

Too many logical questions for this to be glossed over...
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
I don't have to assume that the volume of the ice caps is decreasing. There are tens of thousands of scientists concluding this.
 
OddBall1st

OddBall1st

Well-Known Member
I don`t need NASA to tell me the world changes, and I don`t need Al Gore telling me that we can do something about it.

If you go by what you see, you are no better than the people that stared at the moon for ten thousand years every night and still thought the world was flat.
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
OddBall1st said:
I don`t need NASA to tell me the world changes, and I don`t need Al Gore telling me that we can do something about it.

If you go by what you see, you are no better than the people that stared at the moon for ten thousand years every night and still thought the world was flat.
Click to expand...
I go by the conclusions of climate scientists.
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
NLXSK1 said:
It aint him...

Someone in this thread declared area to be meaningless...

How do you calculate volume? How can you calculate volume without area? How can you complete this mathematical puzzle when you have declared part of it meaningless?

How is volume created? In this aspect how is the volume of snow and ice created? And if the area upon which that snow and ice is being created is growing, why do you assume that the volume is shrinking?

Too many logical questions for this to be glossed over...
Click to expand...
I see that you still don't know what multi-year ice is. Don't let the fact that you have no clue what your talking about stop you from talking about it.

The surface need only dip below 32 degrees in order to freeze. Try to internalize this very basic fact in order to grasp the conclusions of climate scientists regarding the vanishing ice caps.
 
heckler73

heckler73

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
I don't have to assume that the volume of the ice caps is decreasing. There are tens of thousands of scientists concluding this.
Click to expand...

I read the article, via LexisNexis, so don't let the vid fool you. It is not saying what may appear at first glance. There is confusion over the activity of the Antarctic, however.

~~~~~~~~~~
In the end, it is not so surprising that we are struggling to understand Antarctica. This region is a lot more complex than the Arctic, yet observations are much scarcer because the region is so remote and forbidding. Simply building instruments tough enough to survive the conditions is difficult, let alone deploying them. Even satellites see less here. In the Arctic it is possible to use radar altimeters to measure ice thickness, but in the Antarctic there is a lot more snow sitting on the ice, which absorbs the radar signal. Yet monitoring ice thickness is critical for understanding what's happening. <a href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn26606-robot-subs-find-antarctic-sea-ice-thicker-than-expected.html">Robot subs are now being used to rove under the ice to measure its thickness, but so far they provide only a snapshot of a small area.

Besides better observations, we need better models. Trying to build climate models that match what's happening in Antarctica may 
be the most productive way to resolve the debate about the causes of the sea ice increase. "It's a lot of things working against or for each other, which makes it hard to get one's head around what really will happen," says Notz. But if he is right about the role of small-scale topography then we are nearly there - the key will be improving model resolutions from 100 kilometres or so down to a few kilometres to get the wind directions right.

Holland thinks we're still far from the answer, but he too thinks better modelling is the way forward. "When we get a model that matches what happens in the spring, we can look in the model to see what it's doing."
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
Duly noted that a disingenuous attempt to cultivate doubt is your best shot. You took your best shot and the new cryosat-2 high definition radar satellite is still flying, providing us with accurate data regarding the antarctic land ice.
 
ginwilly

ginwilly

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
Duly noted that a disingenuous attempt to cultivate doubt is your best shot. You took your best shot and the new cryosat-2 high definition radar satellite is still flying, providing us with accurate data regarding the antarctic land ice.
Click to expand...
Does that new satellite measure volume and not just area? That's pretty cool if it does.
 
OddBall1st

OddBall1st

Well-Known Member
heckler73 said:
I read the article, via LexisNexis, so don't let the vid fool you. It is not saying what may appear at first glance. There is confusion over the activity of the Antarctic, however.

~~~~~~~~~~
In the end, it is not so surprising that we are struggling to understand Antarctica. This region is a lot more complex than the Arctic, yet observations are much scarcer because the region is so remote and forbidding. Simply building instruments tough enough to survive the conditions is difficult, let alone deploying them. Even satellites see less here. In the Arctic it is possible to use radar altimeters to measure ice thickness, but in the Antarctic there is a lot more snow sitting on the ice, which absorbs the radar signal. Yet monitoring ice thickness is critical for understanding what's happening. <a href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn26606-robot-subs-find-antarctic-sea-ice-thicker-than-expected.html">Robot subs are now being used to rove under the ice to measure its thickness, but so far they provide only a snapshot of a small area.
Besides better observations, we need better models. Trying to build climate models that match what's happening in Antarctica may 
be the most productive way to resolve the debate about the causes of the sea ice increase. "It's a lot of things working against or for each other, which makes it hard to get one's head around what really will happen," says Notz. But if he is right about the role of small-scale topography then we are nearly there - the key will be improving model resolutions from 100 kilometres or so down to a few kilometres to get the wind directions right.
Holland thinks we're still far from the answer, but he too thinks better modelling is the way forward. "When we get a model that matches what happens in the spring, we can look in the model to see what it's doing."
Click to expand...


It`s all BS, Antarctica is not a constant, there are petrified trees laying on the land under the ice,...they are not evergreen only, there are deciduous trees too.

Why would anyone even think they can predict or accurately claim anything there ? It has melted and supported plant life, maybe even animal life. Unless the sun rose in the North and set in the South or Rose in the South and set in the North, it`s not possible to have what we found under all the ice.

That`s how to confuse...........
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top