On 2/16/07, Janice Matchett <janmatch@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> At 10:14 AM 2/16/2007, Rich Blinne wrote:
>
> "..I'm sticking with my uh oh." ~ Rich
>
>
> *@ *Almost as if he anticipated a response such as yours, we have this
> comment (and one other one I like below it):
>
> <http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1785619/posts?page=3#3>*"This is
> nice to know, but it has less importance due to the IPCC report downgrading
> the likeliness of Antarctic ice melting. The current IPCC report (only the executive
> report <http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf> (PDF) has been released) notes
> that Antarctica ice loss should be minimal until after 2100 because the ice
> is too cold and the models predict increased precipitation in Antarctica.
> *
>
This is not new. Antarctica has been assumed to not be a problem for the
reasons above (and others such as the currents that isolate the continent).
What this new study shows is that assumption may be wrong. Over 150
subsurface lakes have been recently discovered primarily under the parts of
the ice that are thinning due to warming. The IPCC prediction here is based
on models that are known not to be accurate and further they don't include
this phenomenon. Net net, the IPCC may be giving false comfort with respect
to Antarctica. We will have to wait and see what the models look like when
this effect is factored in.
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Feb 16 14:58:12 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Feb 16 2007 - 14:58:12 EST