Western Antarctica Melting

[nebulosity. (Jo)]

Thanks for the link Renato Very informative read.

Shame some people don't like science

Cheers
Jo

[Peter Ward]

Oh dear....another random link.

Renato. Make a comprehensive case....

....and...assuming you have letters after your name..publish the results for peer review....not on IIS.

If the case is bullet-proof and...despite the fact that 1000's of Don's and post Don's have been puzzling over the same question for some decades....

YOU have discovered there is a natural mechanism (i.e. ignore the fact humans are pumping mega tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year and there is a clear temperature rise since the start of the industrial revolution)

..then book a flight to Stockholm and collect the nobel prize

[Steffen]

Originally Posted by Ric

Yes, but we have to wait about 10 million years after we work out how to terra-form the planet first.

Sadly, Mars' lack of a magnetosphere means he's never going to hold on to a meaningful atmosphere...

Cheers
Steffen.

[Astro_Bot]

Renato, human nature being what it is, many people will see something that waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck, and, rightly or wrongly, draw the conclusion that it is a duck.

To avoid misunderstanding, it might have been advisable to begin the thread with something like, "Whilst I don't dispute the science of anthropogenic global warming ..."

Perhaps it would help if you said that now, lest some people go on believing that to be the case.

[Amaranthus (Barry)]

Steffen, there is a plausible way to terraform Mars, and then the atmospheric regeneration can be easily exploited to keep pace with loss of H2 to space. If you're interested in this kind of thing, I'd highly recommend Zubrin's 'The Case for Mars' and the collection of essays 'Islands in the Sky'.

[noeyedeer (Matt)]

hope it warms the pengiuns this winter ...

matt

[noeyedeer (Matt)]

why is there so much patronising going on .. yeah it's new moon and all, everyone is moody. Renato is getting bashed by how I see it, for posting links to sites that observe Antarctica.

no one bashes your f1 qualifying posts, yet I'm sure someone posted stuff about the state of origin and the same people had to have a ***** about that .. geez grow up, you're old enough!

matt

[Renato1 (Renato)]

My goodness. I knew that Antarctica had a volcano on it, because some decades ago, a jet full of tourists crashed into it killing all on board.

I then find an interesting peer reviewed scientific article describing what appears to be recent volcanic activity in the western Antarctic, and a site showing that the entire area is littered with volcanos that have been active at some time since the last Ice Age, and I think
"That's remarkable, I didn't know any of that!"

So I post the links here, and about half the respondents are appreciative - presumably because like me they have learned something that is both new to them and very interesting.

And about half seem to have some strong issue with the thread, claiming I am anti-science and wanting to debate some pet issue of theirs - but studiously avoiding any mention of the volcanoes and recent volcanic activity, nor of how the mass media chooses to report or to not report some studies.

I'm at a bit of a loss, but anyway, I am happy to accept that people have different perceptions about hard science.
Regards,
Renato

[raymo]

I sympathise with you Renato. Apart from people having different
perceptions about hard science, there is another category of people
that barely know what any science is, let alone the hard variety.
I was conducting a public viewing night a few years ago, and got an amazing variety of questions. Two that stand out vividly in my memory
are "is it true that the earth goes round the sun, and if so, that's amazing?" The other one was actually an opinion rather than a question.
"I can't believe that the earth spins, surely we would feel something."
It takes all sorts I suppose.
raymo

[N1 (Mirko)]

I would not have thought that man-made global warming and volcanic activity in Antarctica are mutually exclusive??

Learn something new every day I suppose.

[clive milne]

Originally Posted by N1

I would not have thought that man-made global warming and volcanic activity in Antarctica are mutually exclusive??

.

There might actually be a causal link under certain circumstances... (but not in this instance) If a large body of land sheds enough weight of ice it will rebound (rise in elevation) which might cause a dormant volcano to become active... I'm guessing.

[N1 (Mirko)]

Originally Posted by clive milne

There might actually be a causal link under certain circumstances... (but not in this instance) If a large body of land sheds enough weight of ice it will rebound (rise in elevation) which might cause a dormant volcano to become active... I'm guessing.

That's the scary part. Processes set in motion that cannot be reversed. Widespread release of harmful gases from thawing permafrost is another one. Oh well, at least increased sea ice might help keep albedo up a bit for a while

Edit: I'm not saying there is thawing permafrost in the Antarctic

[clive milne]

Originally Posted by Renato1

And about half seem to have some strong issue with the thread, claiming I am anti-science and wanting to debate some pet issue of theirs - but studiously avoiding any mention of the volcanoes and recent volcanic activity, nor of how the mass media chooses to report or to not report some studies.

Well... you did set yourself up as a bit of a lightning rod with your posts in a couple of other threads.... Also, your choice of wording in the first post of this thread could easily be taken as an attempt to imply that the main stream media are deliberately misrepresenting the issue of Antarctic ice loss for the purpose of validating anthropogenic climate change.

Incidentally, I must give you some degree of credit for the skill you display in arguing the contrarian position. You carry the torch better than anyone else I have ever come across. Whilst I can maintain a respectful attitude towards you and your right to express your opinion (and welcome you doing so) I find myself strongly disagreeing with the politics and world view that you have espoused here and elsewhere. I think the ideology that you have embraced is dangerous... but that's just my opinion and I certainly don't expect you to share it.

Thanks for the link by the way. .. interesting stuff.

[Renato1 (Renato)]

Originally Posted by raymo

I sympathise with you Renato. Apart from people having different
perceptions about hard science, there is another category of people
that barely know what any science is, let alone the hard variety.
I was conducting a public viewing night a few years ago, and got an amazing variety of questions. Two that stand out vividly in my memory
are "is it true that the earth goes round the sun, and if so, that's amazing?" The other one was actually an opinion rather than a question.
"I can't believe that the earth spins, surely we would feel something."
It takes all sorts I suppose.
raymo

Amazing is it not?

I was taught all about the sun and the earth and the moon way back in the early years of primary school, and since the 1980s (when I got my first telescope) I've been wondering "What are they teaching these kids in school?"

And in the last decade, when I find that shop assistants can't multiply by 10 in their head (i.e. add a zero to the figure), I've been wondering the same thing.

Anyhow, I rarely have a motor drive on my telescopes. So when the moon or planet goes out of the field I say
"See how it moved out of view?"
"Yes"
"It's not moving at all, it is standing still - that's actually us moving on the spinning earth".

It amazes them every time.
Regards,
Renato

[Renato1 (Renato)]

Originally Posted by clive milne

Well... you did set yourself up as a bit of a lightning rod with your posts in a couple of other threads.... Also, your choice of wording in the first post of this thread could easily be taken as an attempt to imply that the main stream media are deliberately misrepresenting the issue of Antarctic ice loss for the purpose of validating anthropogenic climate change.

Incidentally, I must give you some degree of credit for the skill you display in arguing the contrarian position. You carry the torch better than anyone else I have ever come across. Whilst I can maintain a respectful attitude towards you and your right to express your opinion (and welcome you doing so) I find myself strongly disagreeing with the politics and world view that you have espoused here and elsewhere. I think the ideology that you have embraced is dangerous... but that's just my opinion and I certainly don't expect you to share it.

Thanks for the link by the way. .. interesting stuff.

Thanks. Glad you found the article as interesting as I did.

I must correct you though - on that other thread, when I was repeatedly challenged, time and again in response, I only cited the 5th Assessment IPCC report - which is hardly a Contrarian document.
Cheers,
Renato

[Renato1 (Renato)]

Oh - while looking up Google to see how to spell Mt Erebus for a response below, I forgot to mention that the Wikipedia article says that it has been constantly erupting since 1972, with the last one in 2011.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Erebus

I wonder how much heat it puts out down there?
Regards,
Renato

[el_draco (Rom)]

Originally Posted by Renato1

Amazing is it not?

I was taught all about the sun and the earth and the moon way back in the early years of primary school, and since the 1980s (when I got my first telescope) I've been wondering "What are they teaching these kids in school?"

And in the last decade, when I find that shop assistants can't multiply by 10 in their head (i.e. add a zero to the figure), I've been wondering the same thing.

Anyhow, I rarely have a motor drive on my telescopes. So when the moon or planet goes out of the field I say
"See how it moved out of view?"
"Yes"
"It's not moving at all, it is standing still - that's actually us moving on the spinning earth".

It amazes them every time.
Regards,
Renato

Actually, a teacher would explain that all planets move, but what you see through a telescope is primarily the effects of the earths rotation magnified by the telescope... If planets stopped moving in their orbits, I suspect they would plunge into the sun under the influences of the suns gravity.... BUT I COULD BE WRONG

Its just amazing what some people believe.

[Ric]

Originally Posted by Steffen

Sadly, Mars' lack of a magnetosphere means he's never going to hold on to a meaningful atmosphere...

Cheers
Steffen.

Good point Steffen, we can definitely strike Mars off the list.

[raymo]

If, and/or when, we develop the ability to terraform Mars, maybe we will also have the ability to give it a magnetosphere.
raymo

[Amaranthus (Barry)]

Teraforming Mars would be a lot easier that giving it an artificial magnetic field. All you really need to do is mobilise the subsurface gases, and/or bombard it with diverted Kuiper Belt objects. Read Zubrin!