Antarctica without all the ice:
Antarctica and the U.S.A.:
June 4, 2013
Picturing Antarctica.
From the Tumblr Maps on the Web (via Business Insider)...
Antarctica without all the ice:
Antarctica and the U.S.A.:
Antarctica without all the ice:
Antarctica and the U.S.A.:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
43 comments:
How much for a couple beachside acres for a nice tiki bar. Anybody want to invest in my venture?
Cool. Antarctica is huge.
That is a nice comparison of Antarctica and the 'lower 48' or the 'contiguous states'... without including Alaska or Hawaii.
Look at that! The south pole is over water, just like the north pole. I never knew that. I had assumed it was over land.
Picture Antarctica's political map after a major petroleum discovery!
How much for a couple beachside acres for a nice tiki bar. Anybody want to invest in my venture? -- bagho20
Go to some leftwing site. They still buy that global warming crock of crap. You'll get plenty of investors willing to put their money where their mouths are, I am sure.
It's interesting to note that without all the ice, the South Pole is in the water, just like the North Pole.
I had no idea Antarctica was so huge.
What's with the comments to the effect of "Wow! The South Pole is over water, just like the North Pole!"? Is this truly ignorance on display or some sort of failed attempts at humor?
"Nomennovum said...Go to some leftwing site. They still buy that global warming crock of crap."
"They" includes 90+ percent of scientists who accept the reality of anthropomorphic climate change. Primary support for climate change denial comes from self-serving fossil-fuel companies.
Primary support for climate change denial comes from self-serving fossil-fuel companies.
Then invest in Bagho20's tiki bar, genius.
And I'll sell the venture short.
I had no idea Antarctica was so huge. Is this truly ignorance on display or some sort of failed attempts at humor?
Ignorance on my part, Cookie. On the other hand, I always knew the land mass of Antarctica was huge, unlike you. It's just not as contiguous as I had thought.
I seems to me, your ignorance exceeds mine: perhaps you thought Antarctica contained as little land as the Arctic.
Dave,
We can start discussing it when the climate researchers stop lying about the data.
"90+ percent of scientists"
When did science start being done by counting the so-called scientists?
This kind of assertion is so counter-science that it's makes me feel anxious.
Either you believe in science or you don't. Either believe and express yourself in scientific terms or don't believe. If you want to use unscientific assertion and your agenda is to push science, you are undermining your own argument.
And yet you wonder why people won't just accept science.
You are modeling the very behavior you oppose.
(This is making me crazy!)
I think you have to make an assumption about the ocean level to draw that outline of Antarctica. Did they actually figure out where the level would be after all that melting and then draw the line or is that based on where the land is with the level of the ocean where it is now, with the ice unmelted?
"Primary support for climate change denial comes from self-serving fossil-fuel companies."
Primary support for oil shale denial also comes from self-serving fossil fuel companies.
Hmmm.
Did they actually figure out where the level would be after all that melting and then draw the line or is that based on where the land is with the level of the ocean where it is now, with the ice unmelted?
This thought occurred to me too. Also, did they model the effect of the land rebounding as a result of losing the weight of all that ice? I remember reading awhile ago that Scandinavia is still rising as a result of the melting of the last Ice Age glaciers.
There was an interesting Nova recently about the geological history of Australia. At one point Australia was over the South Pole and the world was warm enough that there were forests down there even with the lack of sunlight during winter. Also, the ice didn't really start to build up till Australia broke free of Antartica and Antartica became completely surrounded by the southern ocean.
"the reality of anthropomorphic climate change"
If global warming were shaped like a man, what man would it be?
If I have 9 out of ten doctors advising me I need something done, I always go with the one doctor in disagreement.
If global warming were shaped like a man, what man would it be?
Manbearpig. Half man. Half bear. Half pig.
f I have 9 out of ten doctors advising me I need something done, I always go with the one doctor in disagreement.
Bagho20, you have two investors!
Primary support for climate change denial comes from self-serving fossil-fuel companies.
As opposed to climate scientists whose very income depends on the contrary.
"If I have 9 out of ten doctors advising me I need something done, I always go with the one doctor in disagreement."
What if 9 of the doctors are getting kickbacks from the manufacturer of a device that they say you need implanted, and the 10th doctor is someone whose character is known to be excellent?
"If I have 9 out of ten doctors advising me I need something done, I always go with the one doctor in disagreement."
Why?
This is not to say one should always do what a majority one's doctors advise, but why would you always go with the "one doctor in disagreement"?
"As opposed to climate scientists whose very income depends on the contrary."
Why do you assume climate scientists's incomes are dependent on asserting that the earth is warming? If anything, there are probably more interested parties with big money willing to pay scientists to assert the earth is not warming, (or that such warming as may be occurring is unrelated to human activity).
What if 9 of the doctors are getting kickbacks from the manufacturer of a device that they say you need implanted, and the 10th doctor is someone whose character is known to be excellent?
Exacto. Always go with the one lone dissenter when your life is on the line.
I think the "shoreline" is drawn around an assumed average "sealevel" elevation. It would be too complicated otherwise to distinguish between the ice and under-ice lakes and seawater. They could do it, but too much work for too little gain.
Note that "sealevel" varies across the globe, due to tides and wind-driven phenomenae, and also due to variations in gravitational attraction from within the earth, not all of which are understood.
And all across the northern latitudes, the areas that were covered with glaciers in the last glaciation are still rebounding, and the areas south of them are slightly depressing due to the teeter-trotter effect. Thus the north end of the Great Lakes is rising and the south end is sinking. Same thing between Scotland and southern Britain, etc. and so forth.
Thus, assuming we are not entering another glaciating period yet, in 10,000 years the Red River of the North may be one long lake, and in another 10,000 years it may be flowing north to south.
From wikipedia:
"The above map shows the subglacial topography of Antarctica. As indicated by the scale on left-hand side, blue represents portion of Antarctica lying below sea level. The other colors indicate Antarctic bedrock lying above sea level. Each color represents an interval of 2,500 feet in elevation. Map is not corrected for sea level rise or isostatic rebound, which would occur if the Antarctic ice sheet completely melted to expose the bedrock surface."
Below is what it would look like rebounded up and the higher sea level.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dc/Antarctica_Without_Ice_Sheet.png
There is no serious debate about the fact that extra CO2 in the atmosphere will cause warming. Anyone who says otherwise is ignorant, stupid, or a liar.
What is completely unknown is:
1) what will be the results of feedbacks, both negative and positive
2) What is the effect of all of the black carbon dust from China having on the melting Arctic sea ice
3) What causes great ocean cycles that cause the earths temperature go up and down
4) What role do other airborne particulates from both man and nature play in climate change
5) What role does human landuse change and desertification have on changing climate
6) What role does the changing solar and earth magnetic fields have on weather, clouds and climate change
7)What role does nutrient pollution of oceans (from farms and poop) have on weather and climate?
8) If warming continues, what damage and or benefits will be realized per degree increase per century.
Robert Cook:
Why is it so notably dumb to have thought that the south pole was on land?
"They" includes 90+ percent of scientists who accept the reality of anthropomorphic climate change.
Did you know that 90+% of scientists once accepted the reality of the phlogiston theory of combustion? And before that, at one point 90+% of scientists accepted that the Sun went around the Earth?
That's why genuine scientists do not judge truth by majority vote.
You would have voted to suppress that bastard Galileo, with his ridiculously trouble-making wild assertions about heliocentrism, contradicting centuries of settled science, and the consensus opinion of the best scientific minds in the ancient and modern world.
This is why science -- the real empirical thing -- has to remain eternally vigilant against the perennial human attempt to turn knowledge into dogma and scientific law (which is merely descriptive) into social law (which is prescriptive, if not proscriptive).
Religious zealotry is eternal among men, more's the pity.
With that much land and knowing its not always been under ice, we can safely assume there are plentiful natural resources, including fossil fuels. So the CO2ers can add the possibily of ice retreating from Antarctica enabling vast new sources of carbon fuels to feed our greedy and irresponsible lifestyles to be developed. Ummm "developed" scare quotes boo!
Fr Martin Fox:
"Why is it so notably dumb to have thought that the south pole was on land?"
Especially when you look closely and see just how close land comes to 90°S. I want to find a map I can zoom in on, without the intersection of meridians on it, because after staring at this one I'm not positive whether it's over land, sea or shore.
But no, Robert Cook: Not an attempt at humor, I'll admit my ignorance, I always thought the pole was over land. I do know it's at an altitude of around 9,000', and didn't realize all that altitude was ice.
Anyone who has been paying attention knows Antarctica is huge. Some day we will learn a bunch of stuff when it defrosted.
Antarctica scares the crap out of me. If the passage between that upturned strip of mountains connects to the southern tip of South America because of plate movement, we are SO SCREWED.
The ice melts off of Antarctica and the continent will pop up, a bit, like a cork. Someone who wanted to could figure out just how far.
What if 9 of the doctors are getting kickbacks from the manufacturer of a device that they say you need implanted, and the 10th doctor is someone whose character is known to be excellent?
I thought the 10th Doctor was David Tennant...
Antarctica scares the crap out of me. If the passage between that upturned strip of mountains connects to the southern tip of South America because of plate movement, we are SO SCREWED.
If by “upturned strip of mountains” you mean the Antarctic Peninsula, an underwater ridge does connect that mountain range with the Andes of South America — it looks rather like a stretched out piece of taffy.
What puzzles me though is why you would conclude from this datum that we are “SO SCREWED.” What about that lingering continental geological connection is bad, or dangerous?
The ice melts off of Antarctica and the continent will pop up, a bit, like a cork.
Right, but more than a bit. There's now an average of more than a mile (7,000 feet) deep of ice across the entirety of that vast continent. That weighs a huge amount, which will be compensated for by (slow) isostatic rebound of the (formerly) underlying bedrock.
'Course it will take many centuries, indeed many millennia at present rates for Earth's remaining great ice sheets to melt; in fact the East Antarctic ice sheet (the great bulk of all the freshwater ice on Earth) isn't melting at all now but rather growing at present rates.
Why do you assume climate scientists's incomes are dependent on asserting that the earth is warming?
Because it's true. 30 years ago, the American Geophysical Union was overwhelmingly made up of geologists, geophysicists, and geochemists. Atmospheric scientists were a small percentage.
Now it's reversed, and it isn't because the earth scientists are fewer. If the powers that be were convinced that climate change was a natural phenomenon, 9 out of 10 of the climatologists would be out of work.
"Either you believe in science or you don't."
Scientific consensus isn't predicated on popularity but on proof & the ability to replicate results. "CO2 increase = warming" is science - basic junior high school science, in fact - which is what the 90%+ consensus amounts to. The dissent from it has been bouncing around from sunspots to volcanoes to God knows what from Day One, making a mockery of the scientific method every step of the way ... & keeps right on bouncing to this day as the latest strawman of the week collapses in the complete absence of real-world evidence.
Theories about nefarious climatologists plotting social engineering for their NWO overlords would be comical if they weren't so toxic - or so easily debunked: conclusive empirical evidence for AGW was first collected via glacial core sampling circa 1912, & has been accumulating ever since. Even many former skeptics are wising up now to the inconvenient truth that they've been systematically conned by some very slimy people with very deep pockets, whose concern for the future stops at the next fiscal quarter.
Micronesia, Vanuatu, Bangladesh, Greenland, a rapidly vanishing polar icecap, a marathon of record high temperatures: it takes a real True Believer mindset to see that much stark evidence & then summarily deny the lot.
Post a Comment