CryoSat-2 satellite shows Antarctic ice sheet having a total loss of 159 gigatonnes each year
"… all of them being eroded by the influx of warm ocean waters that scientists say are being drawn towards the continent by stronger winds whipped up by a changing climate."
"… all of them being eroded by the influx of warm ocean waters that scientists say are being drawn towards the continent by stronger winds whipped up by a changing climate."
But there's no global warming/climate change. No way. That's a myth.
Okay, so where did the water go?
It is only 3 Cubic Miles of water. The oceans contain, 332.5 Million Cubic mile so water.
The melt would add 0.000000915% more water to oceans.
There are now 3,100 cubic MIles of water in the air, or 1,000 times as much than the melt, or about 1 inch of rain water to cover the entire globe.
So this "ice melt" would contribute 1/1000 of an inch of water across the entire Globe.
And the problem is?
+Race Vanderdecken You don't think that losing that much ice is a bad thing for that specific ecosystem?
It has to affect you personally to be a bad thing?
And the idiot arrives; again. Do the f'ing math before you succumb to a lie.
I might be evil in many ways but I can still do the math correctly to know when there is a real problem.
As I asked before, where did the water go.
To the North Pole, where apparently ice is forming at an astonishing rate. http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/16/global-warming-satellite-data-shows-arctic-sea-ice-coverage-up-50-percent/. But it's got to be mans fault.
Variance happens in a massively complex unpredictable system such as the climate.
However, Co2 trapping heat, and thus the total worldwide net temperature increase is a certainty. Its thus upto the skeptics, imho, to show that this extra heat will never cause any problems to humans.
Because unless you can prove it wont be a problem, then we better darn stop heating the world up. If it really turns out its natural? Then it means by switching from fossil fuels we have made the situation not as bad and we still have a problem to deal with.
This article specifically addresses mass. The article you refereced +Rob Kennedy is talking about extent… which is ice at the top, but not the total volume. In other words, they're talking about ice forming along the top but not addressing anything that has to do with the depth of that ice below the surface.
This is a good resource on what we know/can see: http://climate.nasa.gov/
I'm with +Thomas Wrobel; suppose everyone is wrong what we're doing isn't heating up the earth. Let's say that turns out to be the case and that in our panic we've invested in alternatives that we know don't smog up the air (seen any pics of China lately?) or poison our water supplies. All we've done is create energy sources that don't do other harmful things.
+Paul Spoerry Not to mention energy sources that mean countries can be energy independent forever, and not have to buy in resources from other countries.
Did you hear Japan has a satellite that they plan on capturing solar power from space and beaming it down to Earth?!