What global warming?

Chris Nowak

Free Member
Aug 15, 2008
15
2
I just luurve the moral high ground being taken here; and people wonder why a lot of the green argument is derided as religious...
So those who do not accept you are totally right "believe they have some sort of divine, unchallengeable right to a wasteful and polluting lifestyle"? Patronizing codswallop.
And as for the intrinsic pomposity of "I always look first to see whether one side or the other has some kind of vested, personal interest in maintaining their side of the argument, over and above the intrinsic 'value' of their arguments... here, the situation is pretty clear cut on that score."...people have reasons to believe, and how they do it huh? Also known as Cognitive Biases. Which you, natch, are free of.
As to the actual arguments: they are huge, varied, complex and multifaceted. Saying "I'm a scientist, believe me" has the same intellectual force as the man in the sixteenth century dress talking about the arcane attributes of his invisible friend.

... and I, for my part, just luurve watching the pathetic wriggling of the polluters trying to justify their continuing pollution which usually comes down to this sort of gratuitous insult slinging.

Tell you what, you keep your 'cognitive biases' and your pretence that the issues are, oh dearie me, just too, too 'multifaceted' for us poor humans to ever really understand... and I'll keep the empirical evidence and the advice of the vast majority of the world's scientific community.

People like you make me chuckle. On the one hand you are all too eager, when it suits your wasteful lifestyle, to accept the benefits of centuries of scientific endeavour - electricity, modern medecines, modern transport - and yet when the self same scientific community tells you something which means you might have to be just a little less comfortable in that lifestyle, your attitude - how can we put this gently? - begins to shift more than somewhat.

Splutter as you may, hypocrisy and entrenched self-interest are the starting points for your 'arguments'. Those who live in flood affected areas or on the crumbling Norfolk coast have already seen their insurance renewal quotes and are beinning to get real. It's time you did, too.
 
Upvote 0
I don't know about "Cognitive Biases" but there is such as things as Cognitive Dissonance:
In psychology, cognitive dissonance is an uncomfortable feeling or stress caused by holding two contradictory ideas simultaneously. The theory of cognitive dissonance proposes that people have a fundamental cognitive drive to reduce this dissonance by modifying an existing belief, or rejecting one of the contradictory ideas.
 
Upvote 0
Just religious rant. Believe me or you are all damned. Fine, Astronomer, fine. Spume on to you hearts content, but all you do is talk to the converted. By turning questioners into "deniers", "nay-sayers" and other emotively laden phrases you alienate where you could convince, amuse where you should provoke thought.
Enjoy being superciliously superior, being 'real'. Enjoy the amazingly detailed thoughts of Al Gore and Michael Moore (irony alert); in fact enjoy being taxed by this government using 'green' as a ruse to mask old fashioned revenue gathering.
Don't bother with slightly more complex scenarios, don't bother trying to expand the parameters you limit yourself with; just keep on going because as Keynes said, "in the long run we are all dead", or as Lovelock said, "we're f*cked".

For what it's worth, on a micro level I'm probably as green as you are: Recycle, freecycle, limited mileage, no air travel, buy local. But even if I'm not, (hey you can win the golden tree hugger award..) I just don't climb on board the Doomwagon and kowtow to the pompous prats masquerading as priests.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sirearl
Upvote 0
I don't know about "Cognitive Biases" but there is such as things as Cognitive Dissonance:
In psychology, cognitive dissonance is an uncomfortable feeling or stress caused by holding two contradictory ideas simultaneously. The theory of cognitive dissonance proposes that people have a fundamental cognitive drive to reduce this dissonance by modifying an existing belief, or rejecting one of the contradictory ideas.

Lee, a list of cognitive biases

I've probably got a full set..:)
 
Upvote 0
Lee, a list of cognitive biases

I've probably got a full set..:)

I doubt if there is anyone who can say that they don't suffer from some sort of cognitive bias and dissonant behaviour of many sorts is also extremely prevanent.

As wikipedia says about dissonance:
Often one of the ideas is a fundamental element of ego, like "I am a good person" or "I made the right decision." This can result in rationalization when a person is presented with evidence of a bad choice, or in other cases. Prevention of cognitive dissonance may also contribute to confirmation bias or denial of discomforting evidence.
 
Upvote 0
So shall we start having 'opinions' about whether the Earth is round..?
That is beyond question because of obvious evidence. There is next to no evidence that global warming is man-made, and some would claim there's next to no evidence that there's global warming at all, man-made or otherwise. That's why this issue is so contentious.
 
Upvote 0

Chris Nowak

Free Member
Aug 15, 2008
15
2
That is beyond question because of obvious evidence. There is next to no evidence that global warming is man-made, and some would claim there's next to no evidence that there's global warming at all, man-made or otherwise. That's why this issue is so contentious.

Absolute and utter tripe.

The evidence is now so abundant that it's rapidly becoming a case of 'obvious' self-blinding in the case of those who refuse to see it.

Even George Wonderful Bush has now accepted this, for Christ's sake.

Quite honestly, on the point of whether it is totally anthropogenic or not, to me this is virtually irrelevant: the point is that we have at least to try our best to DO something about it...

... and, let's be brutally frank, that is where the nay-sayers' objections truly lie... they are prepared to allow the human race's future to go to hell in a handbasket before they will sacrifice one jot of the lifestyle which they consider to be their rightful due. If global warming had no implications in that respect, we would have heard their clamour cease ages ago.

Self, self, self.
 
Upvote 0
Absolute and utter tripe.

The evidence is now so abundant that it's rapidly becoming a case of 'obvious' self-blinding in the case of those who refuse to see it.

Even George Wonderful Bush has now accepted this, for Christ's sake.

Quite honestly, on the point of whether it is totally anthropogenic or not, to me this is virtually irrelevant: the point is that we have at least to try our best to DO something about it...

... and, let's be brutally frank, that is where the nay-sayers' objections truly lie... they are prepared to allow the human race's future to go to hell in a handbasket before they will sacrifice one jot of the lifestyle which they consider to be their rightful due. If global warming had no implications in that respect, we would have heard their clamour cease ages ago.

Self, self, self.

So Chris dear boy is it global warming that has caused us to have had the coldest summer in 80 years.?:|


Earl
 
Upvote 0

Chris Nowak

Free Member
Aug 15, 2008
15
2
A resounding YES, dear boy. Learn your facts. The degree or so average increase so far is something you won't notice... BUT...

... warm air picks up moisture. Warmer air picks up more moisture. Elementary physics.

Our air comes to us, following the general prevailing wind patterns, in an easterly flow over the North Atlantic. The moisture condenses into clouds as the air cools when forced higher over the first land masses it meets - Ireland and the UK.

Result: gloom and rain. For North Western Europe (i.e. us) you can count on global warming having a distinctly local effect. For 'summer' start reading 'rainy season' in future...
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Absolute and utter tripe.
As a scientist by training, I get very frustrated by this. There is practically no evidence for man-made global warming. The warming trend in the 20th century mapped similar warming trends on other planets in our solar system, and the net impact was much less than warming and cooling cycles in the earth's past.

If we assume, consistent with the preponderance of evidence, there's no man-made global warming, could we do anything about natural warming? Not really. It's part of a cycle, and we have little influence over it. It seems the biggest factor is the sun-spot cycle. Indeed, let's be thankful the cycle last century was for global warming and not global cooling, because the latter would have a dramatic effect on food production.

Why does any of this matter? Because some politicians are playing havoc with our food supply. The price of corn, for example, is going through the roof because of diverting crops to be used as fuel. On top of that, by refusing to drill for more oil, politicians are going to see a rise in global tensions (see Russia's recent move into Georgia) as emerging economies demand more oil. This obsession against fossil fuels is a dangerous and unnecessary game.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but it should be based on the facts. When you sweep away all the populist articles and political scare-mongering, the facts just don't stack up.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Yep seems to me as half the worlds population does not get enough to eat.

A bit more sunshine will not go amiss,as it will allow a much greater production of food.

and the sooner we get rid of those bloody ice caps the better.

Therefore allowing us a much greater area of land for food production.

Earl
 
Upvote 0
Hi Easy. What sort of scientist and astronomer? My niece has a first in astro- physics but wants to go into the City as she thinks there is no well paid work in Astronomy.

i have just p'd you

My rule of thumb, there isn;t but a professional astronomer friend of mine was offered a deaner for 150,000 USD pa?
So, no, not to being with but i think you can be comfortable.
 
Upvote 0
You just don't get it, do you?

Icebergs are the least of our worries. It's the so-called land based 'permanent ice' which will get us.

The Greenland ice sheet alone is enough to raise world sea levels by 7 metres if it all goes - and it's going fast NOW.

If Antartica goes, that's the end of the human race. No ifs, no buts... and definitely no strawberries.

If the antatica goes it will cause issues, since it does help to keep the planet cool.
However it will have little effect if any on the level of the ocean level. As i am given to understand it, its what they call water based ice.
That is to say it has already displaced its equivalent mass in water. There is no land under the ice caps, so its water based ice.
If you find the concept difficult to believe float a few ice cubes in a glass of water mark off the menicus, and come back in an hour. You will likely see the cubes melted, but the level remains the same.

The main threat seems to come from NON water based ice melting. In the likes of Greenland
http://bpujos.free.fr/PagesPhotos/Photos/Autres/world_map.GIF

As you can see if this all went into the Altlantic it would raise the water level.
This i think is what Al Gore was pointing out.

Also such an action would not only result in flooding but would also result in the dilution of the sea salt. Without going into details, if that happened it would stop the Gulf stream and truly plunge us into an ice age!
This is the true threat. All of Europe and north america would be iced over.

Thats the reality and y this is a huge worry.
Incidentally, the last time this happened it was the ice cap on Canada that did it!
 
  • Like
Reactions: sirearl
Upvote 0
it will have little effect if any on the level of the ocean level. As i am given to understand it, its what they call water based ice.
That is to say it has already displaced its equivalent mass in water. There is no land under the ice caps, so its water based ice.
If you find the concept difficult to believe float a few ice cubes in a glass of water
Brilliant, Al! So many people forget this. Just a few messages ago, someone claimed the world's oceans will rise 20 feet or more! Ice melting over land will cause a rise in water level, but ice melting in water (and the Arctic is all water) won't raise the levels one little bit.
 
Upvote 0

dgl1001

Free Member
May 1, 2007
13
1
50
Absolute and utter tripe.

The evidence is now so abundant that it's rapidly becoming a case of 'obvious' self-blinding in the case of those who refuse to see it.


Self, self, self.

Im not sure it is obvious that man-made CO2 production is the cause of "global warming". In 2006, Lord Lawson of Blaby, as part of the House of Lords Economics Committee, undertook an inquiry into the topic and found no evidence for it. Which evidence are you referring to?
 
Upvote 0

Chris Nowak

Free Member
Aug 15, 2008
15
2
If the antatica goes it will cause issues, since it does help to keep the planet cool.
However it will have little effect if any on the level of the ocean level. As i am given to understand it, its what they call water based ice.
That is to say it has already displaced its equivalent mass in water. There is no land under the ice caps, so its water based ice.
If you find the concept difficult to believe float a few ice cubes in a glass of water mark off the menicus, and come back in an hour. You will likely see the cubes melted, but the level remains the same.

The main threat seems to come from NON water based ice melting. In the likes of Greenland

As you can see if this all went into the Altlantic it would raise the water level.
This i think is what Al Gore was pointing out.

Also such an action would not only result in flooding but would also result in the dilution of the sea salt. Without going into details, if that happened it would stop the Gulf stream and truly plunge us into an ice age!
This is the true threat. All of Europe and north america would be iced over.

Thats the reality and y this is a huge worry.
Incidentally, the last time this happened it was the ice cap on Canada that did it!


Another complete misunderstanding.

Apart from the 'ice shelves', the majority of Antarctic ice, literally miles thick, is lying on LAND. Antarctica is a land mass. It is a continent.

Like the Greenland cap, if it melts it will add to sea levels. Get this into your heads.

We are talking a 60 metre+ rise. End of civilisation scenario.

Icebergs, shelves and other floating/sea ice are virtually irrelevant because, yes, they already form part of the current sea level.

I am so tired with seeing people clutching at ridiculous straws like 'well, it doesn't seem much warmer to ME' or 'I know this scientist who..'.

The plain fact is that the overwhelming mass of the world's scientific community now takes climate change as a given. It's coming faster than we realise. Deliberate acts of Nelsonism will do nothing to forestall it. Acts which involve a less self indulgent lifestyle MIGHT be successful - and we owe it not just to ourselves but to future generations to at least TRY.

Waiting for 'facts' like an insurer's assessment after your house is burnt down is pure folly. The intelligent person gets out of his comfy armchair and rings the fire brigade...
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

dgl1001

Free Member
May 1, 2007
13
1
50
March 27, 2008
Burlington, Washington
Dr. Don J. Easterbrook, Professor Emeritus Geology, Western Washington University, author of 8 books, 150 journal publications with focus on geomorphology; glacial geology; Pleistocene geochronology; environmental and engineering geology.

extracts

Look at history, where we are in 2008, and where we've been. If you go back to the beginning of the century, there was a really deep cold period from about 1880 to 1910, and then it warmed until about 1945. Most of the global temperature records are set in the middle of the 1930's when it was warmer than now. And the same is true in Greenland--the temperatures in the 1930's were warmer than they are now. In ~1945, we did a flip to thirty years of global cooling. The time of maximum CO2 emissions started in 1945 and temperatures should have shot up, but we cooled off. That's an anti-correlation. In 1977, we got warmer and warmer. If we look back 500 years, the trend of 1977 to 1998 is not unique to this century. For about 500 years we have 30-year periods where it gets warm/cold, warm/cold.

As an aside, you know the big news from the Antarctic about the Wilkins Ice Shelf breaking up? The headlines in some news media was something like 'Antarctic Ice Sheet Collapses'. It's not the ice sheet, which is 15,000 feet thick. What we're talking about is really thin shelf ice along the margin which has been warmed by ocean water. We've had thirty years of global warming, and the water has gotten getting warmer. So what? The truth is, the main Antarctic ice sheet is getting colder. The snow records show the same thing. The ice is not shrinking, it's growing. Al Gore says it's 40 degrees down there and everything is going to melt and the sea level will rise. Hansen has said the sea level could rise as much as 250 feet. It's insane! Absurd!
KLC: They love talking about the area that sticks out into the Pacific-Atlantic intersection.
DJE: The shelf ice is really thin. In terms of total volume, it's nothing, a fraction of one-percent. It doesn't mean anything. It's what you'd expect if you have warm ocean water. It's impressive because it has a broad area, but it is really thin. The climate is not warmer down there, the surrounding ocean is warmer. Al Gore was quoted as saying something about talking to somebody who said it was thawing in Antarctica where it was something like 40 degrees. Someone bothered to look up the temperature. At that point on the ice cap it was 47 below zero. The caller was down on the coast someplace by the nice warm ocean water.
Look at Greenland. Both Gore and Hansen talk about glaciers "sliding into the sea." That's crazy. No glaciologist in the world would subscribe to that nonsense. Glaciers don't do that. Two-mile thick ice, almost three-miles thick in Antarctica, flows like really thick taffy, and it doesn't slide anywhere. It's like saying Pike's Peak is going to slide into the Gulf of Mexico-it isn't going to happen.
KLC: They can't talk about the Arctic, they have to talk about ice on land, Greenland for example.
DJE: There are no glaciers in the Arctic. There's a big noise that Gore and Hansen made about melting in Greenland. There is melting along the edges, but the ice is growing in the middle, like Antarctica. To discuss Greenland temperatures-we had global warming from the turn of the century to the 1940's, then Greenland experienced the same global cooling that everyone else did from 1945 to about 1977 and it's been warming since then. The interesting thing is, it was warmer in Greenland in the 1930's than it is right now. They're saying it's never happened before? It happened in the 1930's.

and the debate continues!!!!!!
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Chris Nowak

Free Member
Aug 15, 2008
15
2
March 27, 2008
Burlington, Washington
Dr. Don J. Easterbrook, Professor Emeritus Geology, Western Washington University, author of 8 books, 150 journal publications with focus on geomorphology; glacial geology; Pleistocene geochronology; environmental and engineering geology.

extracts

Look at history, where we are in 2008, and where we’ve been. If you go back to the beginning of the century, there was a really deep cold period from about 1880 to 1910, and then it warmed until about 1945. Most of the global temperature records are set in the middle of the 1930’s when it was warmer than now. And the same is true in Greenland--the temperatures in the 1930’s were warmer than they are now. In ~1945, we did a flip to thirty years of global cooling. The time of maximum CO2 emissions started in 1945 and temperatures should have shot up, but we cooled off. That’s an anti-correlation. In 1977, we got warmer and warmer. If we look back 500 years, the trend of 1977 to 1998 is not unique to this century. For about 500 years we have 30–year periods where it gets warm/cold, warm/cold.

As an aside, you know the big news from the Antarctic about the Wilkins Ice Shelf breaking up? The headlines in some news media was something like ‘Antarctic Ice Sheet Collapses’. It’s not the ice sheet, which is 15,000 feet thick. What we’re talking about is really thin shelf ice along the margin which has been warmed by ocean water. We’ve had thirty years of global warming, and the water has gotten getting warmer. So what? The truth is, the main Antarctic ice sheet is getting colder. The snow records show the same thing. The ice is not shrinking, it’s growing. Al Gore says it’s 40 degrees down there and everything is going to melt and the sea level will rise. Hansen has said the sea level could rise as much as 250 feet. It’s insane! Absurd!
KLC: They love talking about the area that sticks out into the Pacific-Atlantic intersection.
DJE: The shelf ice is really thin. In terms of total volume, it’s nothing, a fraction of one-percent. It doesn’t mean anything. It’s what you’d expect if you have warm ocean water. It’s impressive because it has a broad area, but it is really thin. The climate is not warmer down there, the surrounding ocean is warmer. Al Gore was quoted as saying something about talking to somebody who said it was thawing in Antarctica where it was something like 40 degrees. Someone bothered to look up the temperature. At that point on the ice cap it was 47 below zero. The caller was down on the coast someplace by the nice warm ocean water.
Look at Greenland. Both Gore and Hansen talk about glaciers “sliding into the sea.” That’s crazy. No glaciologist in the world would subscribe to that nonsense. Glaciers don’t do that. Two-mile thick ice, almost three-miles thick in Antarctica, flows like really thick taffy, and it doesn’t slide anywhere. It’s like saying Pike’s Peak is going to slide into the Gulf of Mexico—it isn’t going to happen.
KLC: They can’t talk about the Arctic, they have to talk about ice on land, Greenland for example.
DJE: There are no glaciers in the Arctic. There’s a big noise that Gore and Hansen made about melting in Greenland. There is melting along the edges, but the ice is growing in the middle, like Antarctica. To discuss Greenland temperatures—we had global warming from the turn of the century to the 1940’s, then Greenland experienced the same global cooling that everyone else did from 1945 to about 1977 and it’s been warming since then. The interesting thing is, it was warmer in Greenland in the 1930’s than it is right now. They’re saying it’s never happened before? It happened in the 1930’s.

and the debate continues!!!!!!

No... the nay saying continues. The debate is over.

Easterbrook is one of a collection amounting to less than 5% of the world's scientists who contest the fact of climate change. That is not a debate. That is a walkover.

Cling to it if you want... but you are just showing yourself as one of the 'I know this scientist' tendency.
 
Upvote 0
No... the nay saying continues. The debate is over.
There's never really been a debate; politicians and interest groups simply thrust the idea down our throats and expected us to believe it.

The models used by the initial GW proponents predict rapid warming even when you feed them random numbers. They were designed to produce their results, which undermines the objectivity of science. We're watching a political game based on scare-mongering on a mass scale, a tool in the hands of environmentalists as a means of gaining political power. There never has been, and there remains, no real evidence for man-made global warming.

All credit to some of the scientists who originally supported the argument of man-made global warming but now realise their mistake. For some, it has cost them their professorships. That, in my opinion, takes guts and reveals their professional integrity.
 
Upvote 0
The 'warmists' seem to demand allegiance which in itself is alarming.
The following, from elsewhere, is a good summary of my position, and that of others. (Amended slightly).

"I am naturally suspicious of anything that approximates to a universal explanatory system , and am equally conscious of the limitations and the provisional nature of human knowledge , and deeply mistrust universalist, transnational 'solutions' that overlook the deep complexity and variety of human institutions (especially solutions that involve huge concentrations of state power and huge expenditure of other people's - i.e. our - money).
It is surely perfectly possible to respect the complexity of natural systems and to wish to minimise human disruption of them, without believing in the anthropogenic warming model (which is in itself an inevitably simplistic representation of an endlessly complex system). For myself, I can see a good deal of sense in many 'green' imperatives - and, as I've observed before, my 'carbon footprint' is a great deal smaller than that of most of the warmists I know. But I still think scepticism on the Big One is the sanest position."
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cornish Steve
Upvote 0

dgl1001

Free Member
May 1, 2007
13
1
50
No... the nay saying continues. The debate is over.

Easterbrook is one of a collection amounting to less than 5% of the world's scientists who contest the fact of climate change. That is not a debate. That is a walkover.

Cling to it if you want... but you are just showing yourself as one of the 'I know this scientist' tendency.

Chris Nowak: I'm not trying to contradict everything you say. You see the thing is, I really care for our planet. I recycle most of my waste, i don't drop litter; i don't like polluting factories and i deplore the contamination of our rivers, lakes and seas. But equally i like reasoned debate and this is the problem with the whole global warming thing - there has been no debate, just an over ridding assumption that man has caused the planet to warm up. The only evidence that supports what you believe is that CO2 levels have increased over the last 40 to 50 years and this in part, has coincided with a brief increase in temperature. This problem is that the earths temperature is not static - it always changes and at a very rapid pace. This has proven to be the case over the last 1000 years from ice core samples taken around the world - THE TEMPERATURE OF THE EARTH IS THEREFORE ALWAYS CHANGING. It has very little to do with man made CO2 production (which is about 0.5% of all the CO2 released anyway). What was the man made CO2 production during the Medieval Warm Period?

Im sorry, but the debate is far from over.
 
Upvote 0

masterjonny

Free Member
Apr 1, 2008
9
1
Global warming----
The god said,I like global warming,because I can see the hot girl all the time,look,they are dressing less than my angles.
The business man said,it's 21th century,so the credit card are very popular in the world,why we only can use tmr's money?why not tmr's life,it's business.
The goverment said,all the people are talking about global warming,that means we have so many job need to do,should work much more harder to wash their brain,it's nature things.we should study from USA.
smoker said,global warming,what can I do,I can give up smoke,but still someother people gonna push me to smoke.
 
Upvote 0
OK, here's my take...

A thousand years ago, the planet went through a period of global warming, called the Medieval Warm Period. Temperatures were higher than anything observed during the current warm period. There were no SUVs or coal-burning electricity plants to blame it on. Two thousand years ago, the planet went through another period of global warming, called the Roman Warm Period. Temperatures were higher than anything observed during the current warm period. There were no SUVs or coal-burning electricity plants to blame it on. Three thousand years ago, the planet went through another period of global warming, called the Minoan Warm Period. Temperatures were higher than anything observed during the current warm period. There were no SUVs or coal-burning electricity plants to blame it on.

So, global warming is a somewhat natural occurrence. On the same hand, our constant pollution can't help much.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote 0
sorry for not replying
i live in northampton and have just got back from Hull, so i will read these with fresher eyes tomorrow and post my opinion.

Btw, the poles are NOT land. British Navy subs reg go under them?
Giant cubes of ice i think!
 
Upvote 0

Chris Nowak

Free Member
Aug 15, 2008
15
2
simonr is quite right. The South Pole is land. Infact if it wasn't for weight of ice it would be much higher land. There is also a massive fresh water lake under the ice in Antarctica which the Russias have sent a mini-sub down to.


Yes, Antarctica IS land - this was discussed on previous posts - and when the miles thickness of ice sitting on it finally melts, the water will all run into the oceans and ruin totally quite a few things... you know: photos of penguins, cruises to see the albatrosses, the future existence of humanity.

Little things like that.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Yes, Antarctica IS land - this was discussed on previous posts - and when the miles thickness of ice sitting on it finally melts, the water will all run into the oceans and ruin totally quite a few things... you know: photos of penguins, cruises to see the albatrosses, the future existence of humanity.

Little things like that.

Well I have nearly reached me 3 score and 10 and I can't say that not seeing an Albatross in all that time has been a big drawback.

I think Freud said the the Ostrich had found the perfect solution for hysteria.

Funny thing is the second hottest summer we have ever had was 60 years ago.

when man was hardly polluting the envioroment at all (oh apart from WW2 .)

Earl
 
Upvote 0
Antartica is NOT land
If you believe it is, find me the evidence ;-)
Antarctica has a land mass 58x bigger than the UK's. Of this, about 17,000 square miles is ice-free. The rest is home to 90% of the world's ice. So, when we hear that ice is getting thicker in the Antarctic, this is far more important than hearing that more ice is melting during Arctic summers.
 
Upvote 0

Latest Articles

Join UK Business Forums for free business advice