What can we do to bring the gas price down?

No, the restict themselves to sea ice as they so clearly stated and you even quoted. The sea ice is only a fraction of the ice being discussed.

The final data from 1999, leaves only nine years of change with which to deal.

This 2006 paper uses data from a 2004 report with no field data after 2002, do you think the last six years might have shown a difference?

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/antarctica_white_paper_final.pdf

the Antarctic sea ice extent decreased dramatically over the period 1973-1977, then gradually increased. Over the period 1979-2002, Antarctic sea ice extent increased has increased by 0.11 + 0.05 million sq. km. per decade.

This 2005 report indicated the possibility of an increase, which should have been measured by now if it were a reality.

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2005/sea_ice.html

Sea Ice May Be on Increase in the Antarctic: A Phenomenon Due to a Lot of 'Hot Air'?

A new NASA-funded study finds that predicted increases in precipitation due to warmer air temperatures from greenhouse gas emissions may actually increase sea ice volume in the Antarctic’s Southern Ocean. This adds new evidence of potential asymmetry between the two poles, and may be an indication that climate change processes may have different impact on different areas of the globe.

 

Wayne;


Is not sea ice also included in the total ice accumilation consideration when it comes to dealing with the sourthern pole ice or in this case the antarctic ice shelf?

As clearly stated in your orginal post with links, they are taking radar readings over 85% of the antarctic continent. Does the other 15% not count? As for what may or may not have been reported on the last few years. A 10 year study using radar technology that only considers 85% of the total area that shows a decrease versus 20+ years of documented research that shows over the long haul that the ice has been increasing, I'll take the word of the long term study.

Incidentally if you look at page 9 of the pdf file you will notice that the measurements taken there were last taken in 2005 for a report in 2006 and they cover almost a 28 years span of study which does show the ice on the increase. Which in and of itself disclaims your comments that he had no field data past 2002.


Craig

 

From the mouths of babes. Saturday my granddaughter went with me to work and she was talking about how gas prices are so expensive, she hears everyone complaining about it. She asked why we couldn't just turn one of the lanes on 40 into a horse trail and everyone would just start riding horses to work and it would really help the pollution too:lol::lol::lol:

 

No, ice on the land is called a glacier, which covers the continent.

http://www.homepage.montana.edu/~geol445/hyperglac/morphology1/

Glacier Classification by Shape:
Glaciers can be divided into two different basic categories: Confined (by topography) and Unconfined.

"Confined"
Ice masses in alpine environments are usually confined by valley walls. They are correctly termed "glaciers", and are commonly subdivided into cirque glaciers (localized within a semicircular basin at valley heads) and valley glaciers (which extend one to hundreds of km down valley). If a valley glacier empties onto an unconfining plain, the resulting pooled ice is termed a piedmont glacier.



Unconfined glaciers are usually massive, they can be 1000's of square kilometers in area as well as 1000's of meters thick. They are subdivided into two categories: Ice Sheets and Ice Caps. Ice caps are continental in scale (>50,000 km2), while ice caps are smaller.

Ice Sheets Continental Ice Sheets:
A continental ice sheet (Greenland, to the left) is a vast expanse of ice which completely inundates all underlying terrain. They form in mountainous or non-mountainous regions and spread outward in all directions. The Continental Ice Sheet is the most significant of all the glacial agents because its immense size helps to cause climate change, as well as result from it.

The Antarctic Ice Sheet is the largest ice sheet on the planet, although it was matched by the combined Laurentide/Cordilleran Ice Sheet which covered North America north of about 45oN during the Pleistocene.

They do not have the radar data for the rest yet. The new radar measurements dael with thickness of the ice, while the older measurements of the sea ice was only of the area of coverage.

The long term data on the housing market showed it was doing well, until recently that is. The same for the rainfall data which was good until just recently. That is the same with any scientific data on an unstable system, if it is too old it cannot be counted to still be accurate.

I must have missed that reference, but that data is still on sea ice only and for a period ending three years ago.

 

Leave it to a DOT person to evade a conversation on Gas Prices

 

The problem with Wayne's linked article is that it states that Western Antarctica ice is melting, and while that ice does technically sit on land, it sits on land that is BELOW sea level and thus they term it glacier ice as Wayne pointed out....even if it is sitting in sea water.



Craig

 

Or is it possible that the other 15% would screw up their statistics that global warming is causing the ice to melt, thus they choose to omit that information?


Craig

 

Anything is possible but not very likely in this case. The number of satellites from so many countries to get this data shows the problem with coverage. The polar orbit satellites are not as easily tasked as are equatorially orbiting ones.

 

Just to be clear, most of that non-sea ice is sitting on land that is above sea level as that is a continent not just an ice pack as in the arctic. That ice, along with that of Greenland will have the biggest effect on the sea levels as a result of any melting because it is all on land above sea level.

 

There wuld still be polution, just of a different sort.

 

But the article that you are using as proof talks mainly about western antarctica's ice melting. The ice in question while residing on solid land is located below sea level. So either the ice that is there is either already affecting the level of the sea or as it melts it may form an inland lake should there be enough solid land surrounding it to prevent the melting ice from escaping into the sea.



Now getting back to the original question at hand I still stick to my thoughts that short term answer would be to ease the state and federal gas taxes, and the long term would be to build several newer cleaner operating refineries and to offer incentives to the oil companies to move ahead at a faster pace into the clean/alternative fuel arena.


Craig

 

Can you suggest an alternate source of revenue for highway funds? Specifically, I mean. Saying that there is enough waste in government to cover it is too easy, unless you can point to specific places you would cut in comparable amounts. As I have said before, one person's waste may be another person's essential government function.

 

Have you ever seen the budget? It comes out every year (both State and federal). The state one looks like the Oxford English Dictionary (Unabridged) in size, the federal looks more like the Encyclopoedia Britannica. Try going through it to find the teapot museum or paying millions to some research facility to find out why some seagulls are gay. Personally I think they purposely make them that big just to discourage people from looking.

In any event, it's almost impossible to find those budget items that would be considered by any sane person as a waste.

 

If they would just use the Gas Taxes for what they were meant for (Highways) they would have enough. Mr Easly had a bad habit of transfering funds from the highway fund to cover other expenses. I would guess that the Fed is the same way.

Both Fed and State shoud use gas taxes for highways / airports /trains, and Social Secrutiy for Social Security. Then let the Democrats come up with about 1 Trillion in cuts to Social Programs and the Republicans come up with about 1 Trilion in cuts to Miltary spending and balance the budget and both sides can deal with the politcal fallout equally.

Time to be tough.

 

amen!

 

I would suggest Highway Toll's on 95 on the VA side and SC side. That would generate a lot more highway funds than our gas tax would.

 

I would gladly pay a toll to and from work, if the gas prices would come down at least $1 a gallon. Gladly.

 

Well the good thing is on 95, the locals will know how to get around it, but all the out of state drivers will more than likely pay it. It's a win/win situation.

 

I say since the democrats are so willing to hug people and make life better. We should put this issue in their hands. They seem to know the way to help the world. Help us here at home Ohh Dems!!

 

The cards aligned against me today. Everytime I start typing a response in this thread the power flashes here at work and I have to start all over again.


Once I get home and can recollect all the thoughts I had started in response I'll post them.



Craig