ADVERTISEMENT

Earth may be giving us an assist on ice loss

TheOriginalHappyGoat

Moderator
Moderator
Oct 4, 2010
69,833
45,619
113
Margaritaville
Of the various possible effects of a warming earth, one of the most potentially problematic would be the collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, which would raise sea levels globally by about ten feet. A new good-news-bad-news (mostly good) study, however, finds that a particular natural process is helping us out. See, ice is heavy, especially trillions of tons of it, and it literally presses the ground down. When it melts, the ground rebounds. In fact, the more northerly parts of North America and Europe are still rebounding from the last ice age. This happens on the scale of about a centimeter per year, or less, but the bedrock under Antarctica is rebounding much more rapidly, about 4 centimeters per year. This rebound could slow down the rate of melting, potentially preventing (or at least delaying) catastrophic collapse.

The bad news is that satellite readings of gravity thought to represent ice actually represented rock, meaning scientists have underestimated the amount of ice already lost by about ten percent, which throws a big wrench into models used to predict future ice loss. These models will need to be recalibrated with the new data in order to develop a better picture of what to expect from Antarctic ice.
 
Wait, which side is “well the data was flawed” help? I need to make sure I’m on the correct side of this, this time.... or was I already last time. I’m confused.
It doesn't help any "side." It just means our current Antarctic ice sheet models are based on thinking 3 trillion tons of ice have melted over X years, when in reality 3.3 trillion tons have melted, so now we have to go back and fix the models. How that changes what we should expect in the future won't be known until that fix is implemented.
 
It doesn't help any "side." It just means our current Antarctic ice sheet models are based on thinking 3 trillion tons of ice have melted over X years, when in reality 3.3 trillion tons have melted, so now we have to go back and fix the models. How that changes what we should expect in the future won't be known until that fix is implemented.
More fundamentally, one "side" acts on the basis of science and date, while the other "side" denies science and data.

stooges.jpg
 
More fundamentally, one "side" acts on the basis of science and date, while the other "side" denies science and data.

stooges.jpg


So the side that acts on data is MORE correct now with this “new” data than they were when they were scream the “old” (inacurrate) data from the roof tops?

I know I know, the data is REALLY accurate this time.
But in all seriousness, I myself don’t really deny the topic but I do question our ability to measure and accurately predict probability with questionable data. I suppose stations have left me Jaded, I suppose.
 
So the side that acts on data is MORE correct now with this “new” data than they were when they were scream the “old” (inacurrate) data from the roof tops?

I know I know, the data is REALLY accurate this time.
But in all seriousness, I myself don’t really deny the topic but I do question our ability to measure and accurately predict probability with questionable data. I suppose stations have left me Jaded, I suppose.
So you look at the weather forecast 2 weeks out, and call bullsh!t when they are wrong?
You have posters of Newton on your wall, and Einstein is full of sh!t?
...i can keep going if anybody wants
 
So the side that acts on data is MORE correct now with this “new” data than they were when they were scream the “old” (inacurrate) data from the roof tops?

I know I know, the data is REALLY accurate this time.
But in all seriousness, I myself don’t really deny the topic but I do question our ability to measure and accurately predict probability with questionable data. I suppose stations have left me Jaded, I suppose.
WITFF are you talking about?
 
  • Like
Reactions: T.M.P.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT