Antarctic ice sheets

The Antarctic ice sheets are receding as a result of climate change (See http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter04_FINAL.pdf). There are countless sources of data concerning the measurement of ice loss, as cited in AR5.

In flat earth theory, how is the process of ice loss represented?

The Antarctic ice sheets are receding as a result of climate change (See http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter04_FINAL.pdf). There are countless sources of data concerning the measurement of ice loss, as cited in AR5.

In flat earth theory, how is the process of ice loss represented?

Actually I have a follow up, its been kinda bugging me for a while, along with that how does climate change and greenhouse gases and the greenhouse effect work in FE?

The Antarctic ice sheets are receding as a result of climate change (See http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter04_FINAL.pdf). There are countless sources of data concerning the measurement of ice loss, as cited in AR5.

In flat earth theory, how is the process of ice loss represented?

It is not represented.  So it must be a lie.  All that data just comes from satellites and GPS, since that is a lie, this is a lie too.  See, it's pretty easy to be a flat either!  If that doesn't they will just make up some wild sorry just of the top of their head.  Consistency and logic is not required.  1+1=3, prove me wrong.

Quote from: ryangilchrist92 on January 16, 2015, 04:46:47 PM

The Antarctic ice sheets are receding as a result of climate change (See http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter04_FINAL.pdf). There are countless sources of data concerning the measurement of ice loss, as cited in AR5.

In flat earth theory, how is the process of ice loss represented?

Actually I have a follow up, its been kinda bugging me for a while, along with that how does climate change and greenhouse gases and the greenhouse effect work in FE?

The majority of climate science does not work on a flat-earth model. We wouldn't have an atmosphere at all if we were living on a flat disc that was accelerating upwards; what keeps the atmosphere above the flat disc, for example?

I'm waiting for a flat-earther to provide an explanation for atmospheric and oceanic dynamics. I have a limited scientific background (fourth/final year of an MSci degree in Meteorology and Oceanography at UEA, interview for PhD next month), but will be happy to show how everything works on a sphere if necessary.

The reason I'm posting these questions btw is because I'm intrigued by the slight possibility that the earth is flat. Science is not an argument of opinion, it is a discussion of how the world might work.

Quote from: Lemmiwinks on January 16, 2015, 04:52:42 PM

Quote from: ryangilchrist92 on January 16, 2015, 04:46:47 PM

The Antarctic ice sheets are receding as a result of climate change (See http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter04_FINAL.pdf). There are countless sources of data concerning the measurement of ice loss, as cited in AR5.

In flat earth theory, how is the process of ice loss represented?

Actually I have a follow up, its been kinda bugging me for a while, along with that how does climate change and greenhouse gases and the greenhouse effect work in FE?

The majority of climate science does not work on a flat-earth model. We wouldn't would have an atmosphere atmoplane  at all if we were living on a flat disc that was accelerating upwards; what keeps the atmosphere atmoplane above the flat disc, for example?

I'm waiting for a flat-earther to provide an explanation for atmospheric atmoplanic  and oceanic dynamics. I have a limited scientific background (fourth/final year of an MSci degree in Meteorology and Oceanography at UEA, interview for PhD next month), but will be happy to show how everything works on a sphere if necessary.

The reason I'm posting these questions btw is because I'm intrigued by the slight possibility that the earth is flat. Science is not an argument of opinion, it is a discussion of how the world might work.

Corrected above for proper flat earth termology. I don't think they would understand that term you used....."atmosphere", that is . LOL.

This "atmoplane" is held in by the ice sheet walls(even though the atmosphere is way higher than the theoretical ice walls)  Global warming is causing the ice wall to melt making the atmoplane leak out therefore making the sun shine every on the world causing life to end. 

lol man making stuff up is fun

This "atmoplane" is held in by the ice sheet walls(even though the atmosphere is way higher than the theoretical ice walls)  Global warming is causing the ice wall to melt making the atmoplane leak out therefore making the sun shine every on the world causing life to end. 

lol man making stuff up is fun

Well, I guess one could make a case for stopping carbon emissions then, it would really be a bummer to loose the ice wall!

Why would the Arctic ice sheets be dependant on the shape of the Earth?

Why would the Arctic ice sheets be dependant on the shape of the Earth?

This is a typical time-wasting, non-responsive answer by jroa.  You answered a question that was not asked. The question was "In flat earth theory, how is the process of ice loss represented?".  Please answer that question.

Quote from: jroa on January 18, 2015, 12:01:05 PM

Why would the Arctic ice sheets be dependant on the shape of the Earth?

This is a typical time-wasting, non-responsive answer by jroa.  You answered a question that was not asked. The question was "In flat earth theory, how is the process of ice loss represented?".  Please answer that question.

Ice can't melt if the Earth is flat?  I really don't understand your point. 

I think the question should be.:

How would the melting of the ICE WALL affect a FLAT EARTH ?

I think the question should be.:

How would the melting of the ICE WALL affect a FLAT EARTH ?

Quote from: jroa on January 18, 2015, 12:01:05 PM

Why would the Arctic ice sheets be dependant on the shape of the Earth?

This is a typical time-wasting, non-responsive answer by jroa.  You answered a question that was not asked. The question was "In flat earth theory, how is the process of ice loss represented?".  Please answer that question.

I think the best way to put this question (Slightly modified from my first post) is "How are the effects of ice loss represented?". The two things that come to mind are;

1) What happens when there is no more ice?
2) Freshwater flux - as the oceans are clearly larger on a flat earth, there would need to be a much larger amount of freshwater flux. The rate of ice loss is measured with good reliability, and the numbers wouldn't add up on a flat earth.
Sea level change is also a consideration, but it's effects are relatively small from ice loss.

jroa, you are coming across as a troll. Please try and answer the question directly.

The "ice wall" is actually a continent.  Even if all of the ice melted, there would still be rocks and dirt there.  This is why it is referred to as the Rim Continent. 

Ice melts the same on a flat Earth as it does on a round Earth.

Questions jroa.A lump of ice at the bottom of a Real Earth would have a far different mass than a ring of ice around the whole world. How would you explain ice melt rates in such a case. Also this would effect ocean currents driven by thermal and Coriolis effects. The ocean currents are well known. so are the trade winds and other atmospheric events. The difference would be noticeable if the cold part of the world expanded to the lengths you people go on about. Not only that the penguins would have to fornicate a lot more to have the same area distribution.

I still do not see what you people are trying to debate here.  You are bouncing around from trade winds to ocean currents to the coriolis effect.  I thought this topic was about ice sheets.

The "ice wall" is actually a continent.  Even if all of the ice melted, there would still be rocks and dirt there.  This is why it is referred to as the Rim Continent. 

Ice melts the same on a flat Earth as it does on a round Earth.

Antarctica is a continent but it is not some continous "ice wall". There are several ice shelves but they are not continuous.

jroa, if you are admitting that Antarctica is the continent that it truly is, where would be the ice wall be ? And what would hold in the waters of the oceans if Antarctica is a continent ?  The only thing we have from The Flat Earth Society to go on is that copy of the Azimuthal Equidistant Projecton of The Earth for purposes of illustration.
Due to the distortion of the type of projection it shows Antarctica as a rim around the edge of the presentation. Only a globe or some other projection shows the true size, shape and location of Antarctica.

Googleotomy, you are still confused about the "Ice Wall".  When some of the ancient explores encountered Antarctica, they wrote that they saw a wall of ice.  This does not mean that it is only made out of ice, nor does it mean that is a perfectly perpendicular wall or even a continuous wall.  It is simply land covered in ice.  Yes, there are ice shelves, but that does not mean the whole thing is an ice shelf. 

Googleotomy, you are still confused about the "Ice Wall".  When some of the ancient explores encountered Antarctica, they wrote that they saw a wall of ice.  This does not mean that it is only made out of ice, nor does it mean that is a perfectly perpendicular wall or even a continuous wall.  It is simply land covered in ice.  Yes, there are ice shelves, but that does not mean the whole thing is an ice shelf.

Just a bit of confusion . Maybe you can clear it up.
Questions:

Are you considering that the "ice wall" is a continous "ice wall" around the perimeter of the flat earth (as commonly presented as the Azimuthal Equidistant Projection) which would be approximately 78,000 miles in length ?

Or is the "ice wall"  a continuous "ice wall" around the continent of Antarctica as presented on a map of Antarctica  which would be approximately 11,000 miles in length  ?

Or are there both ?

It is land with ice on it.  What are you having trouble understanding?  At least you are no longer confusing the ice wall with the edge of the Earth.  I think we are making progress. 

It is land with ice on it.   

So the ice wall is not a wall and should never be referred to as such?

Quote from: jroa on January 19, 2015, 10:41:41 AM

It is land with ice on it.   

So the ice wall is not a wall and should never be referred to as such?

This what ice looks like in case you were wondering:

Found naturally:


Man made:

Quote from: jroa on January 19, 2015, 10:41:41 AM

It is land with ice on it.   

So the ice wall is not a wall and should never be referred to as such?

It is a content covered with ice.  Yes, it can look like a wall of ice, but that does not mean it is a wall of ice.  What are you having trouble comprehending?  Is English your second language? 

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on January 19, 2015, 10:44:11 AM

Quote from: jroa on January 19, 2015, 10:41:41 AM

It is land with ice on it.   

So the ice wall is not a wall and should never be referred to as such?

It is a content covered with ice.  Yes, it can look like a wall of ice, but that does not mean it is a wall of ice.  What are you having trouble comprehending?  Is English your second language?

The explorers who have ventured furthest south have never mentioned seeing an ice wall.

Quote from: jroa on January 19, 2015, 10:50:20 AM

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on January 19, 2015, 10:44:11 AM

Quote from: jroa on January 19, 2015, 10:41:41 AM

It is land with ice on it.   

So the ice wall is not a wall and should never be referred to as such?

It is a content covered with ice.  Yes, it can look like a wall of ice, but that does not mean it is a wall of ice.  What are you having trouble comprehending?  Is English your second language?

The explorers who have ventured furthest south have never mentioned seeing an ice wall.

Really, they never did?  Do I need to dig up some quotes for you, or are you not wanting to look stupid?

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on January 19, 2015, 11:19:28 AM

Quote from: jroa on January 19, 2015, 10:50:20 AM

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on January 19, 2015, 10:44:11 AM

Quote from: jroa on January 19, 2015, 10:41:41 AM

It is land with ice on it.   

So the ice wall is not a wall and should never be referred to as such?

It is a content covered with ice.  Yes, it can look like a wall of ice, but that does not mean it is a wall of ice.  What are you having trouble comprehending?  Is English your second language?

The explorers who have ventured furthest south have never mentioned seeing an ice wall.

Really, they never did?  Do I need to dig up some quotes for you, or are you not wanting to look stupid?

They saw things that no doubt looked like "WALLS of ice" to their limited field of vision. But not an entire continuous "ice wall" in the flat earth sense. Remember how long ago those earlier explorers saw Antarctica and to what extent their vision was lmited.

This is just another of the "big picture" example. Sort of like that old fable about the blind men and the elephant. We have the advantage of surveys,maps and satellite views today to know that the Continent of Antarctica is not a huge rim around the perimeter of the earth and know especially the earth is not a flat disc.

Sometimes flat earthers are so devoid of reality in some of their statements that they are the ones who are the who are "So stupid, it's funny."(Borrowing a quote from a critical book reviewer.) Really, this website is fun and entertaining if don't take the so-called"Flat Earthers" seriously.

( Also being very generous in the use of "sometimes" instead of the use of "most of the times.")

In all reality, I often wonder whether there are really any persons (this is the year 2015) who really believe in a "flat earth" and truly believe that any thing else is "fake." I have a sneaking suspicion that The Flat Earth Society and the Forum is just sort of a game to present a ridiculous idea and get debate and is  sort of a learning process in the end to gain knowledge about the true nature of the earth and related subjects.

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on January 19, 2015, 11:19:28 AM

Quote from: jroa on January 19, 2015, 10:50:20 AM

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on January 19, 2015, 10:44:11 AM

Quote from: jroa on January 19, 2015, 10:41:41 AM

It is land with ice on it.   

So the ice wall is not a wall and should never be referred to as such?

It is a content covered with ice.  Yes, it can look like a wall of ice, but that does not mean it is a wall of ice.  What are you having trouble comprehending?  Is English your second language?

The explorers who have ventured furthest south have never mentioned seeing an ice wall.

Really, they never did?  Do I need to dig up some quotes for you, or are you not wanting to look stupid?

Please, be my guest. Dig up some quotes. Make me look stupid.

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on January 19, 2015, 10:44:11 AM

Quote from: jroa on January 19, 2015, 10:41:41 AM

It is land with ice on it.   

So the ice wall is not a wall and should never be referred to as such?

It is a content covered with ice.  Yes, it can look like a wall of ice, but that does not mean it is a wall of ice.  What are you having trouble comprehending?  Is English your second language?

My minor in college was English, so maybe it sort of a second language. (Technical language in my work and studies in radio, radar and computers I guess is my first language . LOL on me.) I hate to say this jroa, but it seems you are the one with the comprehension problem. Denying reality, that is, but spoken as a true flat earther. LOL.

Quote from: jroa on January 19, 2015, 11:22:52 AM

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on January 19, 2015, 11:19:28 AM

Quote from: jroa on January 19, 2015, 10:50:20 AM

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on January 19, 2015, 10:44:11 AM

Quote from: jroa on January 19, 2015, 10:41:41 AM

It is land with ice on it.   

So the ice wall is not a wall and should never be referred to as such?

It is a content covered with ice.  Yes, it can look like a wall of ice, but that does not mean it is a wall of ice.  What are you having trouble comprehending?  Is English your second language?

The explorers who have ventured furthest south have never mentioned seeing an ice wall.

Really, they never did?  Do I need to dig up some quotes for you, or are you not wanting to look stupid?

Please, be my guest. Dig up some quotes. Make me look stupid.

So, I guess no one has ever claimed to have seen "a 150 wall of ice" then.  You will be embarrassed when I proved you are wrong, will you not?

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on January 19, 2015, 11:52:46 AM

Quote from: jroa on January 19, 2015, 11:22:52 AM

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on January 19, 2015, 11:19:28 AM

Quote from: jroa on January 19, 2015, 10:50:20 AM

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on January 19, 2015, 10:44:11 AM

Quote from: jroa on January 19, 2015, 10:41:41 AM

It is land with ice on it.   

So the ice wall is not a wall and should never be referred to as such?

It is a content covered with ice.  Yes, it can look like a wall of ice, but that does not mean it is a wall of ice.  What are you having trouble comprehending?  Is English your second language?

The explorers who have ventured furthest south have never mentioned seeing an ice wall.

Really, they never did?  Do I need to dig up some quotes for you, or are you not wanting to look stupid?

Please, be my guest. Dig up some quotes. Make me look stupid.

So, I guess no one has ever claimed to have seen "a 150 wall of ice" then.  You will be embarrassed when I proved you are wrong, will you not?

As I said, the explorers who have ventured furthest south have never mentioned seeing an ice wall. I stand by that statement. Bring on the quotes.

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on January 19, 2015, 11:52:46 AM

Quote from: jroa on January 19, 2015, 11:22:52 AM

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on January 19, 2015, 11:19:28 AM

Quote from: jroa on January 19, 2015, 10:50:20 AM

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on January 19, 2015, 10:44:11 AM

Quote from: jroa on January 19, 2015, 10:41:41 AM

It is land with ice on it.   

So the ice wall is not a wall and should never be referred to as such?

It is a content covered with ice.  Yes, it can look like a wall of ice, but that does not mean it is a wall of ice.  What are you having trouble comprehending?  Is English your second language?

The explorers who have ventured furthest south have never mentioned seeing an ice wall.

Really, they never did?  Do I need to dig up some quotes for you, or are you not wanting to look stupid?

Please, be my guest. Dig up some quotes. Make me look stupid.

So, I guess no one has ever claimed to have seen "a 150 wall of ice" then.  You will be embarrassed when I proved you are wrong, will you not?

You will have to prove that there is a continuous "ice wall" - 78,000 miles in length , 150 feet in height -  wall of ice around the perimeter of the entire earth to prove that we are wrong.
We wil be embarassed when we see proof of it. (I should say "if".) But then again if no one has seen it, how can you measure something that no one has ever seen ?

Going by the usual "flat earth map" which shows the "ice wall."
I stand by my statement that no one has ever seen the "ice wall" as defined by the FE-ers.