Remember me
▼ Content

# Vostok Data

 Vostok Data28-01-2016 20:15 Buildreps★☆☆☆☆(100) Let us try to solve more basic issues here first. Is anyone able to explain the following? I suppose everyone is able here to obtain the Vostok data of Antarctica. Now if you look into the data you'll see there is a relation between the depth and the age of the ice core. For example at a depth of 400 m the age is determined to be 18,260 years. Am I correct? If not please correct me.If I'm correct how do you want to correlate the annual precipitation on Antarctica with these data? Edited on 28-01-2016 20:15 28-01-2016 21:35 Buildreps★☆☆☆☆(100) I will make it more clear. The annual precipitation on Antarctica at the location of Vostok is 22 mm per year (it's probably the driest place on the globe).When you divide 400m by 18,260 years you get exactly the same answer: 21.9 mm. So, in all these years nothing really changed. Or is it?But at a depth of 2060m the age would be 160,730 years. That makes an average precipitation of 12.8 mm per year.So, the conclusion is obvious that Antarctica is accumulating more ice each year. Overall there's nothing melting on Antarctica. Edited on 28-01-2016 21:37 24-02-2017 06:40 litesong★★★★★(2297) Bullshit rips: the conclusion is obvious that Antarctica is accumulating more ice each year. Overall there's nothing melting on Antarctica.Relying on one science report, Bullshit bullshits. Immediately, THAT science report was ripped with indications that the satellite data could NOT accurately enough determine surface elevations. Almost all other published Science Papers, including the latest, state that Antarctica loses 150(+?) Gigatons of ice per year & increasing.Meanwhile in the Arctic:For 386+ STRAIGHT months, global Earth temperatures have been above the 20th century average. This has occurred DESPITE the solar TSI energy output being languid for decades, & below normal for 10 years (including a 3+ year period of low solar TSI energy setting a 100 year low). When the sun returns to normal (& it will because it has INCREASED very slowly for 5 billion years), AGW effects will increase strongly. In late 2016, the Present High Arctic Berserker, or PHAB, or FAB ( over- temperatures on nearly 4 million square kilometers of the High Arctic), jumped to 20degC over-temperature. MIND YOU!! This is NOT a local city temperature over say a 20 kilometer by 20 kilometer square. It is over a square almost 2000 kilometers by 2000 kilometers. Within the last 2 years in the MIDDLE OF WINTER, our Earth's North Pole heated above the freezing point of water for short times, on three occasions. Presently, Arctic sea ice VOLUME is 10,600 cubic kilometers LESS than the to date Arctic sea ice average year for the 1980's. The energy to melt such a cube of ice (almost 22 kilometers by 22 kilometers by 65000 feet high) is about 33 times the annual energy used by the United States of America. Lesser ice losses are occurring in the Antarctic (but increasing). Edited on 24-02-2017 06:49 24-02-2017 18:58 Tim the plumber★★★★☆(1361) Buildreps wrote:I will make it more clear. The annual precipitation on Antarctica at the location of Vostok is 22 mm per year (it's probably the driest place on the globe).When you divide 400m by 18,260 years you get exactly the same answer: 21.9 mm. So, in all these years nothing really changed. Or is it?But at a depth of 2060m the age would be 160,730 years. That makes an average precipitation of 12.8 mm per year.So, the conclusion is obvious that Antarctica is accumulating more ice each year. Overall there's nothing melting on Antarctica.1, Yes you are right the ice mass balance of Antarctica is increasing.2, The ice can wander off as it does as a slow moving thing that flows away. This may explain how the layers thin out over time.3, The snowfall may well of been very much less in the proper ice age periods when the sea level was much lower and much further away. 4, This is just my thoughts and not from any paper. 25-02-2017 00:25 Wake★★★★★(4034) Buildreps wrote:Let us try to solve more basic issues here first. Is anyone able to explain the following? I suppose everyone is able here to obtain the Vostok data of Antarctica. Now if you look into the data you'll see there is a relation between the depth and the age of the ice core. For example at a depth of 400 m the age is determined to be 18,260 years. Am I correct? If not please correct me.If I'm correct how do you want to correlate the annual precipitation on Antarctica with these data?You have to understand that the Antarctic is the driest desert in the world. There IS no snowfall there except very rare and special circumstances. The growth of the glaciers and the ice fields are from the humidity that is brought in with the winds freezing out of the air as frost. Over a great deal of time this frost eventually gains enough weight to crush down the layers beneath it forming a sheet.The dating of these layers is usually only possible with the 14C that is also carried on the winds in the CO2.But you cannot get a good reading on atmospheric levels of CO2 over time BECAUSE that frost is open to the air and can only average the CO2 over long periods of time.

Join the debate Vostok Data:

Remember me

Related content
 Threads Replies Last post Real Perspective on Warming - NASA Data 17 27-04-2024 04:30 CDC Data Reveals. Majority of COVID-19 Deaths in America Occur Among the Vaccinated & Boosted 0 30-11-2022 20:38 The Data Mine 303 09-02-2022 21:18 Could space debris be a challenge for collecting data on climate change? 10 23-03-2021 04:28 Darwin Airport homogenizing of temperature data 36 20-10-2020 20:28
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know

Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.