Visit our Popular Forums

Rustic Charm · 02-04-2015, 22:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by StuM

It sure is. Especially when you look in more detail at the previously linked paper on ice shelf thinning.

Here's the actual data from the paper. Notice that the thinning is basically confined to one side.

And where are all the antarctic volcanoes? Yep, same place:

Funny how none of the MSM news releases based on the study or our alarmist friends make the obvious connection.

Now this is interesting. Worthy of further exploring. Can you provide a link to the research please so I can check it out further?

Rustic Charm · 02-04-2015, 22:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Well I'm about to set sail with the change of the tide to research sea level rise and the effects of AGW on coral this weekend. My only regret is that I forgot to apply for a research grant

But here's a theory on Antarctic ice sheet melt. Geothermal. Don't laugh. I haven't delved into it, but apparently it is a valid theory. There's some sense in it because the ice is thinning from underneath. The ice sheets are too thick to be influenced by any winds, air temps or other atmospheric conditions below a certain depth and that only leaves the sea and land influence beneath. This theory also explains the thinning and expanding area being observed.

Now, just to make it clear, I haven't researched this myself and I'm not saying this is what's happening but I am saying it's worth thinking about.

And my numbers do add up. I'm the first to admit even I was surprised, but it is what it is. On the planetary scale, numbers are huhege so even numbers that seem impressive to our relative thinking are trivial on the global scale.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

An interesting proposition, worthy of further reading.

The suggestion that the ice is only 'thinning' from underneath was not argued in the film of Ice Chasers or the doco I posted earlier today. The evidence in that is that massive amounts of melting surface water is cascading into casims (forgot what they called them) but they showed these on video. They clearly Exist. You might also recall that one if the glaciers has reduced in size to the height if the empire state building.

Given the photographic evidence shown in the film over three years, it's quite clear that surface ice is melting. You see it in the pictures. It's quite clear.

But it is an interesting theory worth further reading.

Reefmagnet · 02-04-2015, 23:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

Now this is interesting. Worthy of further exploring. Can you provide a link to the research please so I can check it out further?

There probably isn't any. No money in it.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

Reefmagnet · 03-04-2015, 00:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

I did. You said You would apologise in two hundred years if your wrong.

If. Notice that word. And maybe I'm not channelling your thoughts but nothing you've said you've done actually in this thread seems to be true???

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

Reefmagnet · 03-04-2015, 00:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

Here's a reminder.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rustic Charm View Post
I'm no mathametician, but I'm seeing some serious misunderstanding on the way you worked out your 8k years. The following passage is the bit I don't think you grasped.

"Overall, average ice-shelf volume change accelerated from negligible loss at 25 ± 64 km3 per year for 1994-2003 to rapid loss of 310 ± 74 km3 per year for 2003-2012. West Antarctic losses increased by 70% in the last decade, and earlier volume gain by East Antarctic ice shelves ceased"

Its the acceleration that is the alarming bit. It went from what was 25km3 in the 9 years between 94 to 03 to a sudden 310km3 in the 9 years between 03 to 12.

At that rate, if it continues we are looking at the next 9 years, being 2012 to 2021 will be up around 600 or a little less if it remains at a 70% acceleration. It doesn't take too much maths to work out that if it increases at 70% for the next 4 cycles alone, (as long as it doesn't increase from 70% ) then 8000 years is not even close. (I acknowledge you meant 80000 years. But your maths in that case is even worse)

Your response was:
The hype and hysteria was the most alarming bit. I'll apologise if your right in 2 centuries, promise ;-)

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

Mate, show everyone your numbers on how long it would take instead of extruding verbal diarrhoea as illustrated by this post.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

Reefmagnet · 03-04-2015, 00:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

Now this is interesting. Worthy of further exploring. Can you provide a link to the research please so I can check it out further?

Bingo! But as you can see, questioning the faith incurs fire and brimstone.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

Rustic Charm · 03-04-2015, 00:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

There probably isn't any. No money in it.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

What? Is it just made up? It's got to have come from somewhere?

Rustic Charm · 03-04-2015, 00:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Mate, show everyone your numbers on how long it would take instead of extruding verbal diarrhoea as illustrated by this post.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

What is wrong with you Reefmagnet?

I'll tell you what, it's clear your not serious in any sort of honest enquiry around this topic because you quickly revert to uttering offence, you refuse (most of the time) to respond to questions without getting silly. So I'll leave it to you.

Reefmagnet · 03-04-2015, 00:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

What? Is it just made up? It's got to have come from somewhere?

Does this make you a volcanism denier? Do you want proof of volcanoes?

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

Reefmagnet · 03-04-2015, 00:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

What is wrong with you Reefmagnet?

I'll tell you what, it's clear your not serious in any sort of honest enquiry around this topic because you quickly revert to uttering offence, you refuse (most of the time) to respond to questions without getting silly. So I'll leave it to you.

I'm just saying how it is. You have made assumption, after assumption and attack anyone with an opinion that differs from yours. You demand peer reviewed research if you don't agree with something or it conflicts with your preconceived notions while at the same time refusing to expand or substantiate your points of view in any way.

Want an answer that suits your views on retreating glaciers and Antarctic ice sheet thinning? Fine. It's caused by regional anomalies that have no influence on overall global climate just as you will find constantly quoted about the medieval warm period and little ice age in all the pro-AGW peer reviewed papers you care to find. For evidence, the different proportions of Ice thinning in Antarctica and the different rates of recession of glaciers.

Now... Back to my sunset.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

lordgeoff · 03-04-2015, 02:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by jackdale

There are limits to just about everything. Vitamin is fat soluble, that is why it is added to milk.

Selenium, an essential trace element in our diet, starts to become toxic at 400 ppm.

Jackdale. Congratulations. You are the copy and paste champion of CF. Well done. BTW do you ever get to do anything else by copy and paste?

jackdale · 03-04-2015, 09:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Ha ha. Very subtle. I see what you did there. ;-)

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

It is called an analogy.

jackdale · 03-04-2015, 10:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by StuM

It sure is. Especially when you look in more detail at the previously linked paper on ice shelf thinning.

Here's the actual data from the paper. Notice that the thinning is basically confined to one side.

And where are all the antarctic volcanoes? Yep, same place:

And they have been there all along. What has changed? Has there been an increased in volcanic activity in those locations?