Resolving the paradox of the Antarctic sea ice

Aug 16, 2010

While Arctic sea ice has been diminishing in recent decades, the Antarctic sea ice extent has been increasing slightly. Researchers from the Georgia Institute of Technology provide an explanation for the seeming paradox of increasing Antarctic sea ice in a warming climate. The paper appears in the Early Edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science the week of August 16, 2010.

"We wanted to understand this apparent paradox so that we can better understand what might happen to the Antarctic sea ice in the coming century with increased greenhouse warming," said Jiping Liu, a research scientist in Georgia Tech's School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences.

Currently, as the atmosphere warms, the hydrological cycle accelerates and there is more precipitation in the Southern Ocean surrounding Antarctica. This increased precipitation, mostly in the form of snow, stabilizes the upper ocean and insulates it from the ocean heat below. This insulating effect reduces the amount of melting occurring below the sea ice. In addition, snow has a tendency to reflect atmospheric heat away from the sea ice, which reduces melting from above.

However, the predict will continue to increase in the 21st century, which will result in the sea ice melting at a faster rate from both above and below. Here's how it works. Increased warming of the atmosphere is expected to heat the upper ocean, which will increase the melting of the sea ice from below. In addition, increased warming will also result in a reduced level of snowfall, but more rain. Because rain doesn't reflect heat back the way snow does, this will enhance the melting of the Antarctic sea ice from above.

"Our finding raises some interesting possibilities about what we might see in the future. We may see, on a time scale of decades, a switch in the Antarctic, where the sea ice extent begins to decrease," said Judith A. Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Tech.

Explore further: Magnitude-7.2 earthquake shakes Mexican capital

Provided by Georgia Institute of Technology

3.7 /5 (22 votes)

Related Stories

Greenland and Antarctic ice sheet melting, rate unknown

Feb 16, 2009

The Greenland and Antarctica ice sheets are melting, but the amounts that will melt and the time it will take are still unknown, according to Richard Alley, Evan Pugh professor of geosciences, Penn State.

Recommended for you

Magnitude-7.2 earthquake shakes Mexican capital

15 hours ago

A powerful magnitude-7.2 earthquake shook central and southern Mexico on Friday, sending panicked people into the streets. Some walls cracked and fell, but there were no reports of major damage or casualties.

User comments : 49

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Loodt
2 / 5 (23) Aug 16, 2010
How long will we watch the Antartic ice expand before somebody decide to check the climate models?

Observations show the Antartic ice is expanding (bar the seasonal waxing and waning), the observations are real, actual and correct.

Something wrong with the models perchance?
NotParker
2.3 / 5 (16) Aug 16, 2010
If they were scientists they might consider the arctic ice an anomaly and the antarctic ice normal.

thermodynamics
4.4 / 5 (18) Aug 16, 2010
Loodt: There are two issues.

First, everyone (including you) knows the models do not deal well with ice, snow, or clouds. However, they are improving them every day. That is one of the areas of effort that is making good progress these days. To imply that people working on and using these models don't know about those weaknesses is disingenuous.

Second, there is considerable measurement work going on to determine just how things are changing in the antarctic such as:

http://www.nasa.g...ing.html

The title of this article is designed to catch your attention, not to convey scientific meaning. There is no paradox (note they use "seeming" and "apparent" as modifiers). The issues have been well known for a while and the models are being improved to include the most recent data. So, either you don't know the back-story or you are just stirring the pot knowing that your comments are not reflecting the real situation.
joefarah
2.6 / 5 (18) Aug 16, 2010
Does one dare suggest that the CC Models are wrong? Wait a minute... didn't the Canadians who produced the model already tell us it was way off.
I'm really getting tired of the lack of science on this subject, and especially in physorg.
TegiriNenashi
1.5 / 5 (17) Aug 16, 2010
They claim that "increased temperature in the Southern Ocean...". Is this a fact? Supported by Argo data? It is not!

Next, in what world the alleged increased water temperature might cause increase in the ice pack?
Shant
5 / 5 (6) Aug 16, 2010
Next, in what world the alleged increased water temperature might cause increase in the ice pack?

In the same world where such increase in water temparature can increase precipitation and can result in flooding...where ocean currents and atmospheric currents are correlated...
mosahlah
1.9 / 5 (11) Aug 16, 2010
Well, they may not have understood, much less predicted this effect, but you can be sure the models for the future are as reliable as... stock market predictions..???
NotParker
1.6 / 5 (13) Aug 16, 2010
"In the same world where such increase in water temparature can increase precipitation..."

FAIL. AGW causes droughts. According the acolytes.
Caliban
3.9 / 5 (11) Aug 16, 2010
"In the same world where such increase in water temparature can increase precipitation..."

FAIL. AGW causes droughts. According the acolytes.


Not so, NotParker.

Just as there is variation in present climate, on local, regional and, you may even say a "GLOBAL" scale, so global warming's effects will and are being manifest over the same ranges.
Drought is just one aspect of the whole range of effects.
GSwift7
2.1 / 5 (7) Aug 17, 2010
"Here's how it works. Increased warming of the atmosphere is expected to heat the upper ocean, which will increase the melting of the sea ice from below. In addition, increased warming will also result in a reduced level of snowfall, but more rain. Because rain doesn't reflect heat back the way snow does, this will enhance the melting of the Antarctic sea ice from above."

Excuse me, but that's POSSIBLY how it works. They acually don't know how increasing temperature will affect precipitation and aerosols. Even the best models are uncertain about this stuff. This THEORY sounds good, but I don't like the wording of the article. It sounds more authoritative than is merrited. Articles on this site dealing with speculative theories in other topics aren't worded like that.
fhtmguy
2.3 / 5 (6) Aug 17, 2010
Just changing or (improving) your models to fit the observed data could be misleading in itself. Cant we as scientist say that we dont have a full understanding of the situation? While I believe that global warming is real, the role we play and our ability to change the outcome is far from being understood. I base my opinions on the natural cycles of warming and cooling over a period of millions of years not 2 or 3 decades. it seems like everything from too much snow to not enough rain or too much rain is being blamed on GW. I have a developed a model that may need to be modified as more data comes in but for now I will call my model......."the weather."
Shootist
2.5 / 5 (11) Aug 17, 2010
Here I am opposing the holy brotherhood of climate model experts and the crowd of deluded citizens who believe the numbers predicted by the computer models. Of course, they say, I have no degree in meteorology and I am therefore not qualified to speak. But I have studied the climate models and I know what they can do. The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in. The real world is muddy and messy and full of things that we do not yet understand. It is much easier for a scientist to sit in an air-conditioned building and run computer models, than to put on winter clothes and measure what is really happening outside in the swamps and the clouds. - Freeman Dyson
Loodt
2.3 / 5 (15) Aug 17, 2010
THe Romans used duck innards to foretell the future and their empire lasted for more than a thousand years.

Their models worked better than the rubbish popping around in the innards of the climate change scientists' computers!
thermodynamics
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 17, 2010
fhtmguy and Shootist: Have you just taken to cutting and pasting the same responses in each article? This is the second time this morning I have seen both of these posts in two different articles. Do you really think that the same words fit each article or do you just think that posting the same words multiple times will make them more believable. If the latter, you are wrong. The words are just as misplaced no matter how many times you post them.
thermodynamics
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 17, 2010
fhtmguy: You said: "Just changing or (improving) your models to fit the observed data could be misleading in itself. Cant we as scientist say that we dont have a full understanding of the situation?" I am not sure what your area of science is, but there are a number of different kinds or models. In one type, you simply fit a curve to the data and interpolate for information within the boundaries of your curves. Those are simple models that we use for simple, well understood situations (but we never extrapolate). There are other models that embody basic principles and we adjust those as our understanding of the principles evolve. The second type is used for the more complex systems. It is the second type (with a sprinkling of tables and interpolations for some parameters) that are used for climate modeling. They do tweak parameters, but they also rewrite subroutines as they understand more. (continued)
thermodynamics
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 17, 2010
Continued: Your comment about saying we don't have a full understanding is pure propaganda. No one other than politicians and fanatics make the statements that say anything is fully understood. We don't even have a full understanding of something as simple as an electron. Why would anyone say they have a full understanding of global climate. This is a wive's tale. What was said was that there was a consensus on the idea that global warming is, in part, anthropogenic. That is a far cry from saying everything is understood. It is also wrong that there is a consensus. Instead there is a majority. Again, reporters, politicians, and fanatics have blown it out of proportion. You, when you perpetuate the myth that scientists are claiming to know all about climate are falling into the fanatic trap of repeating bad information. Recognize this is similar to the old question about: Do you still beat your wife? You cannot answer that without coming off sounding bad. Continued.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (6) Aug 17, 2010
Continued: So, when you make the comment about scientists thinking they know all about climate - you make the immediate assumption that is a correct statement and then you expect a defense that says - yes we do or no we don't (the latter implying a change of mind). Instead, the correct answer is that no one ever did and your statement is wrong. Reformulate a different question. The global climate is a difficult subject. The majority of scientists working on the problem believe humans have had some influence. Teasing the signal of human influence out of the noise of natural variation is difficult and many good scientists are working on the problem. None of them have said they understand it all - or there would be no problem to work on. Instead, they recognize the difficulty and work long hours to better understand the situation. The best estimate now is that the system is heavily influenced by human generated GHGs. Now, do you want to try another question?
bamz101
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 17, 2010
Shootist: As I understand it, Freeman Dyson believes that AGW is happening. I think his take is that it's probably unstoppable and that it might be beneficial to us or at the very minimum that solutions will be technological and that conversationist/sustainability type changes are unlikely to work.
Loodt
1.4 / 5 (10) Aug 17, 2010
What is the 'ideal' temperature for Mother Gaia?

The fact that mankind has adapted to live from the tropics to the polar caps may help you in your quest for the answer.

How many persons are you prepared to cull to reach your ideal world with your ideal temperature?
marjon
1.9 / 5 (9) Aug 17, 2010
The global climate is a difficult subject. The majority of scientists working on the problem believe humans have had some influence. Teasing the signal of human influence out of the noise of natural variation is difficult and many good scientists are working on the problem. None of them have said they understand it all - or there would be no problem to work on.

But they know enough to not oppose cap and tax legislation?
thermodynamics
3.3 / 5 (7) Aug 17, 2010
Loodt: You are right that humans are going to be able to adapt. However, not without floods, famines, migrations, and starvation. These things have happened in the past and will continue to happen. However, if AGW is true, they will happen more regularly. I assume you and marjon are ready to take that chance for the rest of humanity. And, even if humans can adapt, how many other species will not be able to? I guess they don't count to either you or marjon. As for the comment by marjon about scientists backing cap and trade, I think you are wrong to speak for the majority of scientists. Since scientists have not come out for or against cap and trade, you are putting words in their mouths. I am sure that some have other ideas of how to react to the problem. I am also sure that will not stop the shrill response from marjon that he knows what the lying data-manipulating bulk of scientists are plotting in their conspiracy. Please tighten up your tin-foil hat marjon.
Loodt
1.4 / 5 (10) Aug 17, 2010
The extra persons. Are you going to cull them, gas them, poison them, shoot them, or let them starve?

I'll kill the last polar bear on this planet if it could help to save the life of a hungry and starving baby.

Until all the species have been counted, how do you know how many there are?

Or do we have to 'save the species' because Noah gave them a ride in his Ark?
ormondotvos
4.5 / 5 (8) Aug 18, 2010
Apparently the anti-AGW loons are out in full force. Amazing how they try so hard to discredit the strawmen they throw up. What could be their motive?

They drive scientifically engineered cars, fly comfortably in engineered airplanes designed completely by computer models, type against models on computers designed by models, built by models, powered by an electrical grid built on models, over an internet built on models.

But when they think their standard of living is threatened (and make no mistake, that's the driving fear) then they go into overdrive, grasping at rhetorical (not logical) straws.

They make such fools of themselves. All of us in science know that AGW is being intensively studied, argued about, and picked apart at a skill level that so far exceeds the shrill rantings of the uninformed that it's pitiful. And yet democracy and free speech allows them to trample the evidence like pigs spilling their food into the mud.
Loodt
1.4 / 5 (9) Aug 18, 2010
ormondotovos,

so you admit that the CAGW hoaxters are threatening the standard of living, and as a so-called scientist, in a well paid cushy government job, you have no sympathy for the rest.

And you doubt Darwin?
thermodynamics
4.4 / 5 (7) Aug 18, 2010
Loodt (Loon): You didn't do a very good job of reading what ormondotovos said (but why would I expect you to start now?). If you recall he said: "But when they think their standard of living is threatened (and make no mistake, that's the driving fear) then they go into overdrive, grasping at rhetorical (not logical) straws." If you read that slowly (not that you can read fast) you will find he is making the point that you and your ilk "think" your standard of living is threatened. From the knee jerk reaction I guess he was right, you do think your standard of living is threatened. The bottom line is that you don't have the science or engineering background to understand this is a fantastic opportunity for science and engineering to create jobs and keep the standard of living where it is while cleaning up the planet. You just don't have the foresight to be able to look past your unemployment check.
Loodt
1.4 / 5 (9) Aug 18, 2010
thermodynamics, and on what basis do you presume that I do not have an engineering background?

Just because people don't swallow bulldust don't presume that they are retarded.

To Fred Singer, Lubos Motl and Leif Svalgaard, etc. I pay attention, to that loosers that wrote the IPCC report Mann, Jones et al I have nothing but contempt.

Shame you didn't pay attention in science class or couldn't pass Chemistry or Physics at a proper Engineering School.
eurekalogic
1 / 5 (2) Aug 18, 2010
Dear Physics.org This is risking your subscribers. Do not allow agendas to infiltrate science.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (6) Aug 18, 2010
To Fred Singer, Lubos Motl and Leif Svalgaard, etc. I pay attention, to that loosers that wrote the IPCC report Mann, Jones et al I have nothing but contempt.

If you actually did pay attention, you'd know that neither Mann nor Jones wrote the IPCC reports. You'd also know that the IPCC reports were a summary of thousands of papers on the topic.
Shame you didn't pay attention in science class or couldn't pass Chemistry or Physics at a proper Engineering School.
And how'd you do in english and reading comprehension?
eurekalogic
1 / 5 (3) Aug 18, 2010
They claim that "increased temperature in the Southern Ocean...". Is this a fact? Supported by Argo data? It is not!

Next, in what world the alleged increased water temperature might cause increase in the ice pack?

The answer is where the currents stop flowing north south between eaquator and poles and a possible snowball earth can start. Just looking at historical data I see whats up. I dont understand how something so simple is thrown around is politics. This is natural cycle just like the ozone hole. Dupont made out like a bandit when their patent ran out and they created the ozone scare to profit from chlorine free refrigerant. They did not want to handle Chlorine and found a way to hoax the whole world. If we scientists dont find independant monies we are doomed to be puppets.
GSwift7
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 18, 2010
@ barakn | thermodynamics | Caliban

If you're going to rate my comment as a 1 out of 5, then at least explain why. What part of my comment do you dispute? Do you really think that the part of the article I quoted was written well? My comment was in regard to the quality of this article. The commenting guidelines of this site state that commentary on the quality and content of the articles is welcome. I hardly see why my above comment was rated by the three of you as a 1. If you like having editorial presented as fact, then go ahead and rate the article highly. I'd prefer to see the site improve the quality of its writing, and reader feedback is how that happens.
TegiriNenashi
1.8 / 5 (9) Aug 18, 2010
Apparently the anti-AGW loons are out in full force...They drive scientifically engineered cars, fly comfortably in engineered airplanes designed completely by computer models, type against models on computers designed by models, built by models, powered by an electrical grid built on models, over an internet built on models...


Computer programs (and models) are not created equal. There is several orders of magnitude skill difference between genius programmer and average one. Talented programmers work on compilers, games, algorithms, and lousy ones shovel customer data in enterprise systems. Likewise, capable scientists work in fundamental fields of math, physics, chemistry, biology, while rejects and impotents gravitate to climate "science". This is one of the reasons why the quality of climate models is laughable.
thermodynamics
4 / 5 (4) Aug 18, 2010
GSwift7: You asked how I could give you a 1 and you deserve an answer. You said: "Excuse me, but that's POSSIBLY how it works. They acually don't know how increasing temperature will affect precipitation and aerosols. Even the best models are uncertain about this stuff. This THEORY sounds good, but I don't like the wording of the article. It sounds more authoritative than is merrited. Articles on this site dealing with speculative theories in other topics aren't worded like that." You have your right to think the wording was authoritative. However, I completely disagreed based on the fact that they said: "Here's how it works. Increased warming of the atmosphere is expected to heat the upper ocean..." I see the word "expected" to indicate uncertainty. You did not see it that way and I rated your observation down because you did not give the weight to the word "expected" that I did. I hope that explains why I discounted your premise for the criticism of the way it was written.
thermodynamics
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 18, 2010
Continued from above in response to GSwift7: The heart of the disagreement I have with your approach is that you have consistently pointed to the science as being sloppy and dishonest. You have stated, in the past, that the scientists involved are arrogant and state their theories as fact when it is not warranted. Here you were taking a qualified sentence and trying to make it sounds like it was not qualified. I consider that disingenuous and deserving of a low grade. Having said that, I want to point out that I have been vocal in this blog about the idea that I do not believe there is any vast left-wing conspiracy to make money for Al Gore and his henchmen. I do not believe the scientists are elite and arrogant (naturally there are a few that are, just as there are a few machinists or staff assistants - or name your profession who are). I have looked at the data and the conclusions and I do not see the conspiracy you do and I will vote that way.
ormondotvos
3 / 5 (4) Aug 18, 2010
I'd be surprised to see any proof of assertions that climate scientists are less competent, or their peer review process less strict, than their cohorts in so-called hard science. I'm thinking of string theory, dark matter, etc. Every aspect of science has a leading edge. It isn't quite as important that we invent a more comfortable car seat, than that we figure out more efficient solar panels and higher density load leveling energy storage, since China, Pakistan and Moscow should give some teeny evidence of thousand-year events lining up to kill and disable millions of people. Wait until you see the failed nuclear-armed state of Talibanistan. You just THINK global warming threatens your standard of living! Wait until they draft all the young men and women to "pacify" the MidEast, support Israel against Iran when they bomb Iran, try to protect the oil pipelines that transport the CO2-generating hydroCARBONS.
ormondotvos
3.3 / 5 (4) Aug 18, 2010
It's all one big ball of tangled string. See if you can follow it: A quarter of the earth's population has burnt up the million-year reservoir of stored solar energy called hydrocarbons, and both polluted the air, and increased its CO2 content to where it will heat up the earth, destabilize crop cycles, flood low places through augmented monsoons and cyclones, and burn up vegetation dried out by droughts. Possibly methane stored in peat and tundra and subsurface clathrates will add another positive feedback loop. Stopping the Burning is Job ONE. Hence nuclear, solar, wind, tidal, wave, hydro. (cont)
TegiriNenashi
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 18, 2010
I'd be surprised to see any proof of assertions that climate scientists are less competent, or their peer review process less strict, than their cohorts in so-called hard science...


When people call names ("junk science") quantification and proof are rarely involved. It is all about impression. 15 years ago astronomers had no evidence of planets; now they do. That is spectacular! Little over 50 years ago we had genetic theory but know no genetic code; now we do. That is impressive! There is simply no comparison of these grand achievements to those puny lilliputian efforts trying to save the dogma of the whole world warming when experimental data doesn't support it.
ChiRaven
2.3 / 5 (6) Aug 18, 2010
The article by Dyson puts things in perspective when he refers to his position as "heresy". The phrase "settled science" to describe the view of AGW held by defenders of the IPCC findings comes prominently to mind. RUBBISH. There can be no such thing as "settled science", ever. ALL scientific finding, by definition, is at all times subject to challenge in light of newly gathered data or the failure of current theory to describe current data adequately. As Dyson said, a global ecosystem model is probably the most complex bit of science humanity has ever attempted. There are gaping holes in our knowledge. Very little is settled. And, as complexity theory predicts, this is an area where small differences in initial conditions can lead to tremendous differences in outcome.
ChiRaven
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 18, 2010
Ormondotvos: It should be noted, however, that those consequences you mentioned are those PREDICTED by models to which not everyone subscribes and which fail to take into account a great many factors which tend to be difficult to quantify. It also attributes an observed phenomenon to a specific activity which may or may not be entirely causal. Correlation is NOT causality.
Loodt
1 / 5 (8) Aug 18, 2010
TegiriNenashi

... Likewise, capable scientists work in fundamental fields of math, physics, chemistry, biology, while rejects and impotents gravitate to climate "science"...

Don't forget the requirement for high English marks to help with all the creative writing required when forecasting the end of the world, the end of civilization, the end of Man, and the take over by cockroaches when junk science reports are crafted with thin data.
ormondotvos
4 / 5 (4) Aug 18, 2010
(cont)The Other 3/4 of the earth's population has learned, through radio, tv, movies and now the wild wild internet, full of crazies, that at least some of the rich folk don't give a damn what happens to them, and they're pissed off.

They hear from scientists that global warming and its horrible effects CAN be slowed, but they read anti-AGW selfish idiots, and they realize that the only way they will be saved is to FORCE the rich folk to back off on their ridiculous wastey ways. I can hardly wait for the resource and CO2 wars to begin.
thermodynamics
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 18, 2010
ChiRaven: Your comment: "Correlation is NOT causality" is the reason computer simulations are run. If you think these codes are some simple interpolation you are misguided. Instead, they work from a physics basis and look at causal relationships at the level of the physics and chemistry they are simulating. These are not, primarily, parametric codes. Have you even read some of the hundreds of papers that have been written about the physical basis for the subroutines being used? This article gives an overview of some of the complexity that has been added but you have to read the papers that have been written about the science to understand how they work. If you have any idea about how signal is teased from noise you will recognize that these codes give the ability to run sensitivity analyzes on the thousands of parameters to limit the uncertainty in their contribution to the response. If you understood that you would not make the comment about causality.
ormondotvos
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 18, 2010
@ChiRaven: You say: "It also attributes an observed phenomenon to a specific activity which may or may not be entirely causal. Correlation is NOT causality."

I reply, "Duh!" Nonetheless, since you're putting up your opinion against the vast majority of degreed professors, etc, then OF COURSE you'll be putting up some countering evidence, not just homilies that every scientist know. Do you not KNOW how intense the peer review is in the field of climate science?
ormondotvos
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 18, 2010
@loodt: You, also, merely bark at the caravan of settled science as it trundles by, full of smart people arguing, as intently as only existential threats can generate, about how to save the world. Do you wonder they ignore your trivial and selfish desire to maintain your level of waste and privilege? They are trying to save the world, and you're worried your GM stock price might fall. No contest.
ormondotvos
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 18, 2010
@ChiRaven: You state, somewhat ironically:
"ALL scientific finding, by definition, is at all times subject to challenge in light of newly gathered data or the failure of current theory to describe current data adequately."
So where is this newly gathered data? Of course there are holes in the theory. As noted, climate science is BIG science. What I fail to hear you clearly state is how your dog is in the fight. You pretend outrage at violation of science principles, but have no new data, and your pronouncements of RUBBISH seem just shrill shilling for BAU (business as usual, from which you no doubt derive your income.)
ormondotvos
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 18, 2010
I'll preemptively challenge the assertion that climate science leads to financial ruin. Vestas. Siemens. Prius. I agree we've offshored our manufacturing capacity, but I think weapons production should restore it -- weapons against global warming: all these alternative non-carbon producing machines have to be built. Why not by us? We ramped up against the global threat of the Axis, against communism, against Islamic tyrants. Why not ramp up against global warming? It's win-win-win!
Caliban
1 / 5 (2) Aug 19, 2010
I'd be surprised to see any proof of assertions that climate scientists are less competent, or their peer review process less strict, than their cohorts in so-called hard science...


This statement is just more evidence of your lack of knowledge concerning that of which you speak, aka "ignorance". Educate yourself, and look up "Barnard's Star" and then have another look at what you just wrote, in that light.

When people call names ("junk science") quantification and proof are rarely involved. It is all about impression. 15 years ago astronomers had no evidence of planets; now they do. That is spectacular! Little over 50 years ago we had genetic theory but know no genetic code; now we do. That is impressive! There is simply no comparison of these grand achievements to those puny lilliputian efforts trying to save the dogma of the whole world warming when experimental data doesn't support it.

Caliban
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 19, 2010
I'll preemptively challenge the assertion that climate science leads to financial ruin. Vestas. Siemens. Prius.(...) Why not by us? We ramped up against the global threat of the Axis, against communism, against Islamic tyrants. Why not ramp up against global warming? It's win-win-win!


And, that's the only way out of our current greed-fueled collapsed/austerity measure paradigm.

Prosecuting open-ended conflict won't. Bailing out moribund and corrupt finance industry won't do it. There IS NO political will to impose meaningful taxation on industry or individuals to provide the revenue to lessen the burden on small business.

The only intelligent option is to spend to start those new energy technologies here, and to spend to rebuild, rennovate, and upgrade infrastructure right here in the good old USA to facilitate that same end, before some one else gets a lock on production, and with the urgency of a new Space Race. Here, here, Ormondotvos! We are in accord.
thermodynamics
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 19, 2010
ormondotvos: You said: "I'll preemptively challenge the assertion that climate science leads to financial ruin. Vestas. Siemens. Prius... We ramped up against the global threat of the Axis, against communism, against Islamic tyrants. Why not ramp up against global warming?"

You hit the nail right on the head. The problem is that the same mindset of the deniers is what stops progress. They see only loss of their investments when new technology stares them in the face. You and Caliban see the potential for new industries. I would like to see more agreeing with you and Caliban, that we can make a difference, and not the myopic views of the deniers who see themselves losing money. It all boils down to their investments. Look at the arguments and they all talk about their view of changing over from fossil fuels being the death knell for the economy (their unimaginative view of the economy).
rproulx45
4 / 5 (4) Aug 22, 2010
RE:How long will we watch the Antartic ice expand before somebody decide to check the climate models?
*****
You know, I could've swore that this was a science forum.Who here did not understand, years ago, that a warming atmosphere can hold more moisture, precipitating more snow in Antarctica, one of the driest continents on the planet? What is the problem? Is FOX news off the air today? No Palin speeches scheduled? If reading and understanding are beyond you, put your heads back in whatever proverbial holes they came from and stay off the internet for a while.

More news stories

Magnitude-7.2 earthquake shakes Mexican capital

A powerful magnitude-7.2 earthquake shook central and southern Mexico on Friday, sending panicked people into the streets. Some walls cracked and fell, but there were no reports of major damage or casualties.

New research on Earth's carbon budget

(Phys.org) —Results from a research project involving scientists from the Desert Research Institute have generated new findings surrounding some of the unknowns of changes in climate and the degree to which ...

Health care site flagged in Heartbleed review

People with accounts on the enrollment website for President Barack Obama's signature health care law are being told to change their passwords following an administration-wide review of the government's vulnerability to the ...

Airbnb rental site raises $450 mn

Online lodging listings website Airbnb inked a $450 million funding deal with investors led by TPG, a source close to the matter said Friday.