Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 301 guests, and 0 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 53
A
Archer Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
A
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 53
In the most comprehensive survey ever undertaken of the massive ice sheets covering both Greenland and Antarctica, NASA scientists confirm climate warming is changing how much water remains locked in Earth's largest storehouse of ice and snow.

Other recent studies have shown increasing losses of ice in parts of these ice sheets. This new survey is the first to inventory the losses of ice and the addition of new snow on both continents in a consistent way throughout an entire decade.

The survey shows that there was a net loss of ice from the combined polar ice sheets between 1992 and 2002 and a corresponding rise in sea level. The survey documents for the first time extensive thinning of the West Antarctic ice shelves and an increase in snowfall in the interior of Greenland, as well as thinning at the edges. All are signs of a warming climate predicted by computer models.

The survey, published in the Journal of Glaciology, combines new satellite mapping of the height of the ice sheets from two European Space Agency satellites. It also used previous NASA airborne mapping of the edges of the Greenland ice sheets to determine how fast the thickness is changing.

In Greenland, the survey saw large ice losses along the southeastern coast and a large increase in ice thickness at higher elevations in the interior due to relatively high rates of snowfall. This study suggests there was a slight gain in the total mass of frozen water in the ice sheet over the decade studied, contrary to previous assessments.

This situation may have changed in just the past few years, according to lead author Jay Zwally of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md. Last month NASA scientists at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif., reported a speed up of ice flow into the sea from several Greenland glaciers. That study included observations through 2005; Zwally's survey concluded with 2002 data.

When the scientists added up the overall gains and loses of ice from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, there was a net loss of ice to the sea. The amount of water added to the oceans (20 billion tons) is equivalent to the total amount of freshwater used in homes, businesses and farming in New York, New Jersey and Virginia each year.

"The study indicates that the contribution of the ice sheets to recent sea-level rise during the decade studied was much smaller than expected, just two percent of the recent increase of nearly three millimeters a year," says Zwally. "Continuing research using NASA satellites and other data will narrow the uncertainties in this important issue."

NASA is continuing to monitor the polar ice sheets with the Ice, Cloud and land Elevation Satellite (ICESat), launched in January 2003. ICESat uses a laser beam to measure the elevation of ice sheets with unprecedented accuracy three times a year. The first comprehensive ice sheet survey conducted by ICESat is expected early next year, said Zwally, who is the mission's project scientist.


NEVER Underestimate the power of stupidity!
.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
what do you expect from the end of an ice age, more ice? over the last billion years there has been no permanite ice anywhere. with the ending of the ice age, the ice will disappear. nothing note worthy there. what is surprising to me is how few ppl are willing to see the fact that the earth is not suppose to be this cold. it gets too much sun light and heat to be this way. the only reason that it is, is that there was something (or perhaps more than one) that caused the temperature to drop relatively quickly, when that happen, the earth developed a large heat sink. since then that heat sink has been abosrbing heat, resulting in water being returned to the ocean.


the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
I expect stupid people to run around screaming "the sky is falling the sky is falling."

I expect other stupid people to run around saying "so what so what."

I'm not disappointed.

You take an oversimplified approach to a complex problem and relieve yourself of any sense of responsibility to do something about it. I see nothing but greed and sloth.


DA Morgan
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 53
A
Archer Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
A
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 53
Speaking of stupid people running around screaming the sky is falling.. here are just a FEW quotes from all knowing Morgan in regards to the coming GLOBAL disaster! lol..
--------------------------------------------------
Quotes from Margan;
2. Speaking of Greenland, its ice sheet has seen dramatic melting in the last decade. Greenland contains about 9 percent of all ice on Earth?also enough water to raise sea level by 5 meters.

Antarctica is a continent. The vast majority it its ice stored on top of land not floating in the ocean. Greenland is an island. The overwhelming majority of its ice stored on dry land not floating in the water. That is 99% of the world's ice.

The ice in Greenland is not melting due to a temporary regional anomaly.

This stuff about millimeters is pure rubbish. The melting of Greenland's glaciers alone will cause more damage than the value of the entire world economy.

let me break this to you gently ... ice does NOT retreat during an ice age.
--------------------------------------------------
These are just a few of Morgans "intellectually insightful" thoughts to the rest of us idiots.. Morgan you are a complete and total walking contradiction OF YOURSELF.. if you would care to deny that I will GLADY post a page or TWO of them.. they are easy to find LMAO..

I Posted a NASA FINDING AND ESA FINDINGS, and I am the one who takes a over simplifed approach? LMAO.. well tell us how after having this finding in front of you, HOW the oceans are going to rise to a catastrophic level. I guess Margan knows MORE than the folks at NASA and the ESA.. so let's hear it.. show me how I am oversimplified, turns out this LITTLE STUDY comfirms what others and myself have been saying ALL ALONG.. dont you hate when that happens.. show us where NASA and the ESA is incorrect!

Where's those studies at morgan?? still not ready to publish them..


NEVER Underestimate the power of stupidity!
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 53
A
Archer Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
A
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 53
Where's those papers?.. you have 30 years of your writings.. you should post them.. let's see your insightfulness.. you dont have a problem ragging everyone else.. show us how its done!


NEVER Underestimate the power of stupidity!
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 53
A
Archer Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
A
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 53
Where's those papers Morgan?


NEVER Underestimate the power of stupidity!
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
You want to read my papers ... try a research library.

The work I did in the lab was with ... go look it up.

21-(Acetoxy)-6-alpha-9-difluoro-11-beta-hydroxy-16alpha,17-[(1-methylethylidene)bis(oxy)]pregna-1,4-diene-3,20-dione

BTW: Its an FDA approved anabolic steroid


DA Morgan
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 53
A
Archer Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
A
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 53
What about what you have been telling us about Global flooding? are you right? and NASA AND THE ESA wrong?

At this rate of GLOBAL FLOODING.. in 50 years it would amount to a blistering

2% of 3mm over 10 years.

In 50 years, the contribution would be 5 times 2% of 3mm

10% of 3mm = .3mm

not even close to an inch.

WHERES THE FLOOD?

Where is your claimed 5 meters of rise in the worlds ocean? 50 years comes out to NOT EVEN CLOSE TO A INCH! OPPS


NEVER Underestimate the power of stupidity!
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Archer wrote:
"WHERES THE FLOOD?"

Impatience is for children. Adults are supposed to demonstrate maturity.

Learn to speak Chinese.


DA Morgan
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 53
A
Archer Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
A
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 53
Why am I not surpirsed, Morgans reply devoid of any facts, yet he has not problem calling people idiots, on drugs and a whole host of other things when post fail to meet his "standard" well impress us Morgan, you have lots of mouth, your always shooting it off at everyone, constantly crying out your on the high road, please explain to us where the amount of water required to flood the 139 MILLION square miles of oceans are going to be raised 15 METERS due to global warming, as per YOUR posts..

Earth FACTS..

96.7%, of all water is ALREADY located in oceans.

4.3, the total remaining water is located, in the following forms, water, snow, Ice, and atmosphere on the terrestrail surface of Earth.

Where is this planet going to come up with 15 METERS of water to raise the current 139 MILLION square miles of oceans, not to mention the areas overtaken by the "Magic Morgan Global Sea Rise"? WHERE?.. you know why you dont answer because you shoot your mouth off, and you dont know what the hell you are talking about as proven here.. NASA AND THE ESA says you are wrong.. so tell us how this is, and I quote: You take an oversimplified approach to a complex problem and relieve yourself of any sense of responsibility to do something about it. I see nothing but greed and sloth. :unquote. so now you claim NASA and ESA are taking a sloth approach when compaired to whom? you? tell us who? we know you wont post facts.. will you, because you dont have any.

We can clearly see YOUR sloth.. how bout some facts.. you like to run your mouth.. HOW ABOUT SOME FACTS for a change. Agencies like NASA and ESA are simple minded idiots when in your company, or matched against your intellect.. you dont have a problem telling people to put up or shut up.. you were given facts.. now post yours..

Put up.. or sit down and shut up.


NEVER Underestimate the power of stupidity!
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Oh thank you Archer for informing us that: "96.7%, of all water is ALREADY located in oceans."

Of course the implication of this is what? That those living in costal areas don't need to care?

How charming.

Here's another statistic for you:

100% of all people will die before age 150.

Therefore there's nothing wrong with pouring gasoline over your head and lighting it.

And no I don't underestimate you.


DA Morgan
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 53
A
Archer Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
A
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 53
For those of us who CANT use simple logic(morgan).. KNOWING that 96.7% of all water is ALREADY in the oceans.. where is all the water to perform "Magic Morgans 15 METER FLOOD" going to COME FROM? am I typing to fast for you once again?.. wow NO FACTS, no study, no PROOF.. just more BS from morgan.. no surprise here.. YET AGAIN.

You are always trying to divert from the simple fact you dont know ****, and you are even more clueless.. would you like me to show you in your posts? simple little things like, if 99% of all the worlds ice is in Antarctica, how can 9% be in Greenland? not to mention all the other ice and snow on the planet. Tell us, where can we go to find out how Earth has 108% of its ice on just TWO continents?? if those are 108% what do we call all the other ice left on the planet??? want more? I will gladly give you more, and I will GLADLY use your own words and claims within the threads to show just how much you really do know.


NEVER Underestimate the power of stupidity!
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 196
D
Member
Offline
Member
D
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 196
Well said Archer,

I have noticed in this and in other science forums that there is not much science as science discussion. There is a modest amount of "science in the public interest" sort of thing here. However, much of what goes on here is the sort of thing you are protesting.

There are some posters that can not distinguish science fiction from science fact. We should help these people learn. Some posters are trolling for laughs or whatever. Well it is a public place your going to get that.

What I really hate is not the ignorant ones or even the trolls. It is the arrogant, the sanctimonious, the condescending, the pompous types that sit in high judgement over others. It is not a question of whether or not they are right or wrong - it is thier nasty attitudes. Some of these posters, say that they have done some research. This does not make them the Grand Arbiters of Science. Even a lengthy and productive career in research does not grant this. If it evokes anything at all it should be a sense of humility and awe.

While such posters will think very highly of themselves, their abilities and their place in the scheme of things - it is my opinion that they are negative and counter productive. The phrase that comes to mind is "bully boy." I usually do my best to ignore them.

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Archer asks:
"where is all the water to perform "Magic Morgans 15 METER FLOOD" going to COME FROM?"

Greenland and Antarctica?

And I already posted the links that support this.

There is absolutely zero relationsip between how much water is somewhere and the ability of an amount of additional water to raise sealevel.

It is not just a question of the volume of the ice on land converted into liquid water in the ocean. It is also the expansion of the oceans caused by the water they contain warming and the rebound of the land on which the ice is located.

I know there is at least one of you smugly thinking that antarctica couldn't possibly rebound enough to matter.

Here you go kiddies:
http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-58/iss-3/p12a.html
Try responding with science not bluster.


DA Morgan
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
i just went to the site you mentioned da, and if anything it refutes your arguement. if the land rises, there will be less shoreline covered by the ocean.

what that articles says is that the ocean will get deeper pushing the land up. how, pray tell, does the land being higher cause more land to flood.


the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
dehammer wrote:
"if the land rises, there will be less shoreline covered by the ocean."

You remind me very much of a joke:
Q: What is long and hard on a Marine?
A: Third grade

You didn't understand what you read.


DA Morgan
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 53
A
Archer Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
A
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 53
Answer the questions.. once again you deflect the FACTS and go for BS trying belittle the man because YET AGAIN you HAVE NO ANSWER because you dont know what the hell you are talking about.. somehow you think posting links IS THE ANSWER.. interesting how the "idiots, druggies" or what ever you need to assign them as being to make yourself feel superior are posting the FACTS, the who, what, when, where, and whys, and you start in with names LMAO, TRUE INTELLECT, not to mention a sound basis in facts!

It would seem this stupid Marine can see through your total crap. You have, and post NO FACTS, you are not smart enough to do THE MATH and learn there is NOT ENOUGH ADDITIONAL ICE, SNOW AND WATER ON THE PLANET to get get anything EVEN CLOSE to "Magic Morgans" flood.. water expansion?? is that how you come up with a total of 108% of the worlds ice??? LMAO.. ahhh yes the 8% expansion factor! LMAO, I must have missed that while in 3rd grade!! LMAO

Tell US HOW NASA and ESA are simple minded, HOW this study is wrong, WHY their Sats. are wrong, would you like me to post where you implied it was? I can predict the future.. you wont post any proof because you dont have any.. and BTW, you never did answer me.. would you like me to post your contradiction to YOURSELF? obviously a man of true consistent insight..

But, if you do remain consistent, you wont provide any facts... you will say something like they drafted me out of the 6th grade and run away like you always do! RUN MORGAN RUN!


NEVER Underestimate the power of stupidity!
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
Quote:
Originally posted by DA Morgan:
You didn't understand what you read.
here is what the story said.

greenland ice would melt, and increase the amount of water above the ocean floor.

the weight would put pressure on the magna which would move towards the land, which would not have increased in weight. this would cause an uplifting of the land, almost completely comparable to the amount of water that was added to the ocean. therefore the shorelines would not be drastically change. some would be lost, but not that much.

it also said the melting of greenland ice would take time giving the earth plenty of time to compensate. the land under the ice would raise the most, since it would be getting lighter by the amount of weight the ice was adding to its plate.

some how reading what you said i got the impression that you were claiming that the water pressure on the ocean floor would cause the land to sink, giveing the additional flooding you predicted.

there was a follow on to that link where someone was asking why, if the ocean was rising, did the several century peir near his house, not show any higher water line that it had for century.

in addition, you really should study science more. ice is the only substance know to man that increases its size when it becomes solid. most get smaller. water expands when it freezes, which means that the water in the ice will take up less space once its melted.


the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
dehammer wrote:
"here is what the story said."

No. This is your personal interpretation of what was written.

Archer ... the link is there ... read it for yourself.

Your final comment is ridiculous on its face as the expansion of water when it freezes only applies were the ice floating IN the water. Ice on land will add essentially 100% of its volume. And, of course, you still ignore the expansion of the water that is already present in the oceans due to their warming too.

Your spin doctoring is NOT science.


DA Morgan
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 53
A
Archer Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
A
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 53
See morgan, yet again your wrong on your points.. first there is not enough ice to provide for "magic morgans flood".. like I said do the MATH.. and water when frozen is the ONLY KNOWN liquid that EXPANDS (that means it grows in volume, or gets bigger in case you dont understand) why does ice FLOAT? not once have you ever mentioned redistribution and the causes of that OPPS.. ice does NOT add 100% of its volume when it melts (we covered that in THRID GRADE science).. go fill a glass with ice, let it melt.. OPPS, see you were wrong AGAIN.

I asked for FACTS, I posted facts from NASA and ESA findings, I requested that you provide us proof they are wrong as per your statements..

And as usual when you cant provide FACTS, rather that provide facts, you post a link THAT GOES AGAINST the point you are wanting to make LMAO.. once again diversion is used by making the claim I am spinning something? what? quote the spin I would love to see it.. if questions are spin then, I am guilty.

morgan show us the MATH that proves "magic morgans flood".. remember you have to flood 139 MILLION SQUARE miles of oceans with the 4.3% of the water that is NOT located within the oceans.. show us the math.. you said I was wrong PROVE IT.

Note* posting the link to a website, is laughable, are you to LAZY to get that facts you claim to have? or can't you find the facts you WANT? posting a link that makes a point OTHER than the one you are calming is way beyond laughable.. didn't you question my ability to read? LMAO. thanx for the laugh.


NEVER Underestimate the power of stupidity!
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokW
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5