Started By
Message

re: Greenland & Antarctic ice loss

Posted on 9/2/14 at 2:22 pm to
Posted by GeeOH
Louisiana
Member since Dec 2013
13376 posts
Posted on 9/2/14 at 2:22 pm to
It talks about the "height" lost in certain areas, it doesn't show the larger growth of areas.

Understand, I didn't read the article yet, but the graph show areas of ice HEIGHT loss, even though, from what I can surmise, the areas of ice could have increased yet there still could be lost height in areas.



I sure do see a lot of light blue as well. So its decreasing in thickness (height) in some areas and increasing in others.

Does this article dispute the findings of the ice cap increasing in area (not necessarily height)
This post was edited on 9/2/14 at 2:28 pm
Posted by Taxing Authority
Houston
Member since Feb 2010
57431 posts
Posted on 9/2/14 at 3:53 pm to
LINK

Story of a P-38 that landed on the ice in WW II. But was discovered. To be under 238 Feet of ice in the 1990s....
Posted by Jagd Tiger
The Kinder, Gentler Jagd
Member since Mar 2014
18139 posts
Posted on 9/3/14 at 1:23 pm to
quote:

derived new elevation models (DEMs)


lol,, freudian doppelgangers..

the same govt that says inflation isn't rising and unemployment is on the decline, would never fudge data right?
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 1Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram