Meanwhile: I had a look at David Connors sent link: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WorldOfChange/sea_ice_south.php and it should be pointed out that this refers to sea ice and whether that has an impact on increasing sea levels.
I looked another link on this site: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WorldOfChange/sea_ice.php which refers to sea ice in the northern hemisphere, which has been melting at a faster rate than down south. This is all consistent with what the Australian Antarctic Division have said. Again from the NASA site supplied: "Since 1978, satellites have monitored sea ice growth and retreat, and they have detected an overall decline in Arctic sea ice. The rate of decline steepened after the turn of the twenty-first century. In September 2002, the summer minimum ice extent was the lowest it had been since 1979. Although the September 2002 low was only slightly below previous lows (from the 1990s), it was the beginning of a series of record or near-record lows in the Arctic. This series of record lows, combined with poor wintertime recoveries starting in the winter of 2004-2005, marked a sharpening in the rate of decline in Arctic sea ice. Sea ice did not return to anything approaching the long-term average (1979-2000) after 2002." But sea ice actually doesn't have anywhere near as much of an impact as land-based ice does on sea level. It is analogous to ice cubes floating in a glass. When sea ice melts, it doesn't increase the volume (much). However, if land ice melts, and the water flows into the sea, the sea level does rise. "Ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica (Antarctica has separate East Antarctic and West Antarctic ice sheets) are immense and thick masses of ice that blanket the underlying land surface. Much of the ice in these ice sheets is over 2 km thick, and the thickest ice in East Antarctica is about 4.8 km thick. This volume of ice constitutes approximately 70% of all the freshwater on Earth. The East Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets rest on bedrock that is mostly above sea level, but the ice in West Antarctica is grounded on a bed that is up to 2 km below sea level. The response of such a 'marine' ice sheet to external changes depends on sea level and ocean temperatures as well as on other climate factors, and it may be susceptible to rapid decay if the ice sheet thins and progressively begins to float." "Since late 2005 - which was the cut-off date for research work assessed by the IPCC AR4 - a number of further studies of the ice mass budgets of Greenland and Antarctica have been made using satellite altimetry, satellite gravity measurements and estimates of mass influx and discharge from a variety of techniques. These confirm that both the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are losing ice mass and contributing to sea-level rise. The rate of loss from Greenland also appears to be increasing. A significant part of the losses is due to increased discharge of ice by large glaciers rather than by surface melt." Now, hopefully not being alarmist, the Australian Antarctic Division are predicting a maximum rise of 2 metres, and a probable rise of 0.8 metres over the next 100 years. The reason why Antarctica is not melting as fast as they first thought was due to the hole in the Ozone layer. They are worried that when the Ozone layer finally repairs itself, however, the temperature could rise dramatically, and they may need to revise these figures (I note that no one argued that there's no Ozone hole.) Link: http://www.aad.gov.au/MediaLibrary/asset/MediaItems/ml_399765016087963_PA04_ Ice%20Sheets_FIN_MEDIA_090610.pdf We do have a weather problem, whether you like it or not. The world is going to do what it's going to do, regardless of whether you think you've won an argument. So tell me, seeing as it is that important that you win an argument - what argument did you win? T. -----Original Message----- From: ausdotnet-boun...@lists.codify.com [mailto:ausdotnet-boun...@lists.codify.com] On Behalf Of Tiang Cheng Sent: Thursday, 25 February 2010 12:05 PM To: 'ausDotNet' Subject: FW: [OT] Bill gates on our energy futures - some tech miracles needed > ah, so you don't believe weather forecasters can tell you when summer > and winter occur? We're > talking long term here, not what the weather is going to be like > tomorrow. Strictly speaking *or silky speaking - meaning to push an argument that's already won/lost*, Weather forecasters don't tell us when summer and winter occur. They're set dates in our calender. The assumption that its' easier to predict the weather further in the future is one yet to be proven to me. Not withstanding the discussion on "The Disappearing Science of Global Warming": http://spectator.org/archives/2010/02/17/the-disappearing-science-of-gl
