| Submit your comments on this article |
| International-UN-NGOs |
| Antarctic Ice Increasing AND Decreasing |
| 2006-09-21 |
| (La Jolla, California) Recent scientific publications have reported either inceasing or decreasing ice volumes on the Antarctic continent, and while this would seem to suggest considerable scientific uncertainty on the issue, new research suggests that both findings might be true at the same time. Dr. Elizabeth Frost of the Paraphysical Research Institute in La Jolla, California, has come up with a theory that might reconcile what are often considered to be contradictory results in scientific research. "What we believe," Dr. Frost told ecoEnquirer, "is that a new paradigm is needed in scientific thought. Since mutually exclusive sets of scientific results usually are published in respected scientific publications, we suggest that they are both true. There is a higher level of physical understanding that must be developed, one where the Yin and Yang of scientific findings are reconciled, better understood, and appreciated." As an example of this duality in scientific results, Dr. Frost mentioned the analogy of the equivalence of matter and energy originally proposed by Albert Einstein. "A change in one direction must be matched by a change in the opposite direction, in order to preserve physical harmony in the universe," noted Dr. Frost. We asked Dr. Frost what her theory would then predict for the issue of rising sea levels, which is the main concern if Antarctica is indeed losing ice from global warming. Dr. Frost explained, "That is quite simple. The predicted result is that sea levels will both rise and fall, depending, of course, upon the perspective of the observer." Dr. Frost also described ongoing research into the application of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle to climate studies. Her concern is that the large number of climate researchers that are now observing the climate system are actually changing the Earth's climate because of their observations, and believes this effect needs to be taken into account in computerized climate models. |
| Posted by:phil_b |
| #18 Scientists discover water turns to ice when cold Be careful there. Supercooled water won't necessarily freeze at the temperature you think it should. Just because it's cold, doesn't mean it'll turn to ice. |
| Posted by: Rafael 2006-09-21 23:39 |
| #17 My brother is doing some work on this using the computer center he set up at U. of Oklahoma (soemthing about massively parallel something or others -- when somebody pays me I'll remember better). He's mentioned in passing that readressing the data using Chaos Theory calculations gave much better results, if that helps any. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2006-09-21 23:33 |
| #16 That's cause Schrödinger's cat is frozen / not frozen in the ice. |
| Posted by: DMFD 2006-09-21 23:18 |
| #15 Doctor "Frost" studies "Ice"? My Bullshit Meter just pegged the needle. |
| Posted by: Redneck Jim 2006-09-21 19:08 |
| #14 Nice parody :3, However in the real world these |
| Posted by: Sock Puppet of Doom 2006-09-21 18:51 |
| #13 This is actually nonsense. Modeling the climate is impossible due to the inherant randomness produced. That is the real non-sense. Randomness can be modelled. It is branch of maths: probabilities. |
| Posted by: JFM 2006-09-21 18:03 |
| #12 Muslim seething may be causing high pressure over the ME which may influence el nino, and thus limit the number of tropical storms in the North Atlantic, thus increasing home sales in Florida. Derived formula $=>@-~_*(&#) |
| Posted by: wxjames 2006-09-21 15:00 |
| #11 In other news: Scientists discover water turns to ice when cold; ice turns to water when warm. Public Shocked. Bush Blamed. |
| Posted by: mcsegeek1 2006-09-21 11:57 |
| #10 I voted for it before I voted against it. Kerry is channeling Gaia. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-09-21 11:38 |
| #9 Actually I'm on about the fact that feedback models diverge wildly based on miniscule initial differences. Differences that are not even measurable in the real world. |
| Posted by: Bright Pebbles in Blairistan 2006-09-21 11:20 |
| #8 Bright Pebbles, of course, is pointing out the old and correct truism that the weather you experience today might be caused by a butterfly flapping it's wings months ago in China. |
| Posted by: 3dc 2006-09-21 11:18 |
| #7 Computer models are only as good as the data put into it. A bit of a simplification, but yea, GIGO rulez. ;-) Modeling the climate is impossible due to the inherant randomness produced. This sentence sounds like a product of a chompskybot, pardon my french. Some say that English is inherently imprecise, but I think that is just an excuse for sloppiness. In your sentence, it is unclear what produces the inherent randomness, the modeling or the climate? Modeling the climate is impossible because of nature's inherent random processes. [there-- fixed it for ya] You can actually try to model anything, but as long as you are aware that the models are only tentative and--more often than not--crude and inaccurate representations of reality, you'll be fine. |
| Posted by: twobyfour 2006-09-21 11:02 |
| #6 "Computer models are only as good as the data put into it." This is actually nonsense. Modeling the climate is impossible due to the inherant randomness produced. The only way is to see what happens. |
| Posted by: Bright Pebbles in Blairistan 2006-09-21 10:27 |
| #5 Computer models are only as good as the data put into it. We only have some 10% of the data to put in the models and are proclaiming it as gospel truth. Of course, a lot of "scientists" that are doing the preaching are doing it to keep the funds coming in. Government and fringe groups don't fund the guys who say the truth. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2006-09-21 10:14 |
| #4 From my non-scientific observation, Global Warming (tm) increases or decreases because of the direction of government research funding. |
| Posted by: Omasing Glinesing6559 2006-09-21 09:54 |
| #3 I think the quantm mechanics of climate change might be more apt. Each climate change computer model is an "experiment" examining an eigen-value of the climate. People should have a quick read of "A new kind of science" whereby the priciciple of "inherant randomness" is discovered especially in feedback models. Basically computer models of climate change are all fucked. |
| Posted by: Bright Pebbles in Blairistan 2006-09-21 09:16 |
| #2 LOL - The eco-enquirer, where GAIA gets her hair undone. A beautiful shot across her ample bow. Okay, just for fun... Dr. Elizabeth Frost of the Paraphysical Research Institute in La Jolla, California Paraphysical? Precious... "There is a higher level of physical understanding that must be developed, one where the Yin and Yang of scientific findings are reconciled, better understood, and appreciated." I detect a journey into the land of the metaphysical, where crystals and pyramids soothe the savage breast of the collective apeman... Dr. Frost explained, "That is quite simple. The predicted result is that sea levels will both rise and fall, depending, of course, upon the perspective of the observer." Not on the same ocean, darling... They've outdone themselves with this one. Accurately describes what passes for enlightened thought in the realm of pseudo-science. eco-enquirer DISCLAIMER: All content on this site, being a mixture of parody, satire, and lame humor, is for entertainment purposes only. If any content is found to be offensive or objectionable in any way, please accept our apologies... but we also suggest that you get a life. But it's sooo hard to tell, anymore... |
| Posted by: Speater Flump2829 2006-09-21 08:55 |
| #1 caution! EcoEnquirer = Ecological Onion/Scrappleface satire... |
| Posted by: Frank G 2006-09-21 08:43 |