Clifford Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 These doomsday graphs have been posted on the WWW for a while. http://www.skeptical...ntermediate.htm http://www.nasa.gov/...ca_Melting.html Assuming the accuracy of the charts, you would have to conclude that in 2002, both Antarctica and Greenland were gaining mass... a lot of mass. Greenland was averaging gaining about 800 gigatons of ice a year in 2002, Antarctica was gaining about 400 gigatons of ice. Around 2006, the mass balance of both continents turned negative. Assuming that Antarctica and Greenland have been relatively in a balance of ice deposition/loss, then this short of a change would seem to indicate more of a temporary phase than a long-term climate change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OHSnow Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 These doomsday graphs have been posted on the WWW for a while. http://www.skeptical...ntermediate.htm http://www.nasa.gov/...ca_Melting.html Assuming the accuracy of the charts, you would have to conclude that in 2002, both Antarctica and Greenland were gaining mass... a lot of mass. Greenland was averaging gaining about 800 gigatons of ice a year in 2002, Antarctica was gaining about 400 gigatons of ice. Around 2006, the mass balance of both continents turned negative. Assuming that Antarctica and Greenland have been relatively in a balance of ice deposition/loss, then this short of a change would seem to indicate more of a temporary phase than a long-term climate change. Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb! Figure 1: Greenland ice mass anomaly - deviation from the average ice mass over the 2002 to 2010 period. Black line shows monthly values. Orange line shows long-term trend (John Wahr). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OHSnow Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 These doomsday graphs have been posted on the WWW for a while. Assuming the accuracy of the charts, you would have to conclude that in 2002, both Antarctica and Greenland were gaining mass... a lot of mass. No, you wouldn't because the graphs are showing the ice loss anomaly compared to the average over the period 2002-2010. So that would be a rather ridiculous conclusion to draw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salbers Posted July 2, 2011 Share Posted July 2, 2011 The main point is an acceleration of melting over the past decade... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.