Earth Growing Due to Melting Glaciers

Dr. Shim writes "Some interesting (and rather frightening) news over at Space.com tells that the Earth is growing around the equator due to the fact that ice in the Antarctic (and other areas) is melting at an alarming rate."

Comments

Re:*sigh*

[MindStalker]

Wow, people complain when the US thinks its responsible for the entire world. And complain when it doesn't.

not growing, changing shape

[real_smiff]

there's a difference, ya know! :)

(i read TFA)

Alarmists...

[stjobe]

Is it just me, or does anyone else get the feeling that this is a sensationalistic, alarmist write-up of a marginally interesting phenomena?

So, the earth has gained 0.3 percent around the equator, and the glaciers are still retreating. This is in my eyes neither "rather frightening" nor "an alarming rate".

Something to keep an eye on, certainly, and something to look into the reasons why, of course, but let's not press the big red panic button just yet, ok?

Scientists -- or as the case may be, reporters -- out for a quick 15 minutes of fame is my take on this "rather frightening" story.

Re:Alarmists...

[Oddly_Drac]

"Is it just me, or does anyone else get the feeling that this is a sensationalistic, alarmist write-up of a marginally interesting phenomena?"

It's you.

"the earth has gained 0.3 percent around the equator"

Which means that the sea level is rising. You don't consider this interesting?

"This is in my eyes neither "rather frightening" nor "an alarming rate"."

Of course by the time you consider it alarming or frightening, it's probably going to be too late to do something. I'd consider for the moment the change in albedo produced by the sea level rising, or the fact that this is going to destabilise land structures to the point where erosion can cause tsunamai from land slippage, not to mention the effect on active volcanos, or the increase in tides.

Then there's the quasi-stable structure of things like the ice-tongue that channels the gulfstream around the UK, and which have an impact on sea life, both shallow and deep. Not evolutionary scale, but within a couple of decades.

While I'm not suggesting that reporters get it wrong, I _really_ hate the implication that we should just sit on the information until we're sure, simply because it's hard to prove.

We've gone to war on less evidence.

Re:Alarmists...

[Oddly_Drac]

"There is no law of nature that says change is going to be detrimental."

You occupy a niche that is admittedly quite wide-ranging, but don't make the mistake of assuming that the planet might become uninhabitable by members of your niche within short order at some point. The natural history museums are full of species whose niche disappeared.

Oh, and any change away from the conditions that are viable for life can be considered detrimental.

Re:Alarmists...

[Scarblac]

Of course by the time you consider it alarming or frightening, it's probably going to be too late to do something.

Where are mod points when I need them... I want that sentence on a plaque on my wall.

Re:Alarmists...

[FlyingOrca]

Yeah, it's definitely you. And a whole bunch of other people who have bought the "it's too early to tell" line.

I used to live on the shores of Hudson Bay, and the ice used to break up at the end of June/early July. It's happening a lot earlier now. The result? Polar bears are losing weight and dying more often because they can't hunt as long. Things don't look good for the Hudson Bay bear population.

Or let's look at another species - murres. Twenty years ago, they mostly fed on arctic cod they found under the sea ice. Now they are feeding more on capelin because the cod, apparently, are getting harder to find.

A few years back, my folks were some of the biologists on an expedition to chart the surface heat budget of the Arctic Ocean. The idea was to drive a Canadian icebreaker into the ice pack and freeze it in for over a year, then use it as a research platform. They expected no trouble finding thick ice.

Much to the surprise and alarm of pretty much all of those involved, they couldn't find ice thicker than about 2 metres. This is a hugely significant change.

Climate change is not a theory, it's a reality, and more evidence is showing up every day. And it's not going to be pretty for a lot of species, and a lot of fragile ecosystems, and ultimately - I suspect - for ourselves.

Re:Alarmists...

[Mr. Slippery]

Something to keep an eye on, certainly, and something to look into the reasons why, of course, but let's not press the big red panic button just yet, ok?

If I lived on a low-lying island or costal region, I'd be jumping up an down on that button. Small rises in sea level can lead to large areas going from beachfront property to shallow water, displacing millions of people.

Re:Alarmists...

[b-baggins]

Oh, please. None of those species were intelligent, technological and industrialized. Good grief.

Human beings live successfully in EVERY climate on the globe. Our environmental niche is the entire planet, for crying out loud.

Re:Alarmists...

[Jerf]

Oh, and any change away from the conditions that are viable for life can be considered detrimental.

Are you so sure that the conditions we are experiencing right now are the precisely optimal conditions for life?

Are you so sure that a couple of degrees warmer might not be a good thing? Or that a couple of degrees colder might not be a good thing?

How are you so sure?

If the global temperature drops a degree, it's a catastrophe. If the global temperature rises a degree, it's a catastrophe. If the global CO2 levels wiggle by a percent, it's a catastrophe. If the global aldebo level wiggles byt a fraction of a percent, it's a catastrophe. If the ice at some local lake averages thinner then 50 years ago, it's a catastrophe. If some lake freezes a month sooner then 50 years ago, it's a catastrophe. If the glaciers melt, it's a catastrophe. If the glaciers grow, it's a catastrophe. If the sea levels rise, it's a catastrophe. If the sea levels sink, it's a catastrophe. If the acidity in the rain rises, it's a catastrophe. If the acidity in the rain falls, it's a catastrophe. If the suns output increases, it's a catastrophe. If the suns output decreases, it's a catastrophe. If some species goes extinct, it's a catastrophe. (Remarkably, nobody seems to get too uptight about new species, but I'm sure it's only a matter of time.)

If some natural climatic process occurs, it's a catastrophe. If some natural climatic process doesn't occur, it's a catastrophe.

Climates change. It's what they do. The conditions right now aren't the only viable ones for life, as exemplified by the vast array of conditions life has thrived in throughout Earth's history.

This kind of panicking every time an indicator wiggles is tiring and pointless. The indicators will wiggle. Global warming will occur, and it will be followed by a period of global cooling. The sea level will rise, and it will subsequently fall. The CO2 levels will rise, and they will subsequently fall. The sun's output will rise, and it will subsequently fall. All of these things have occured several times, even within humanity's life time and even within yours, for some of these indicators.

There is some merit in debating how these things will affect us, but acting as if a statement like "don't make the mistake of assuming that the planet might become uninhabitable by members of your niche within short order at some point" is worth panicking over is unjustified. Debating the impact of long terms trends is interesting; twitching, having a fit, and screaming at everyone else who refuses to have a fit every time an indicator goes somewhere is not.

Chill out. Pun intended.

(Personally, I'm still thinking a couple of degrees warmer will be a net benefit; one should not analyse merely the costs without considering the benefits, and surprise surprise, that's exactly what twitchy, panicky, screamy environmentalists do. Sure, we lose a couple of inches of coastline, but we get a lot more arable land and perhaps more rain will help roll some deserts back. Who knows? Nobody, that's who. But I can tell you it's been warmer before and life seemed to be quite prolific. Fortunately nothing at those times was smart enough to panic at unstoppable changes.)

Re:Alarmists...

[IPFreely]

There is no law of nature that says change is going to be detrimental.

It's not a natural law, it's a political, financial and resource law.

Right now, we have a fairly complex structure of food production needed to keep 6+ billion humans alive. This includes a lot of land in specific places set aside for crops and livestock. If the weather patterns change, earth as a whole will likely still be habitable for humans in general, but any given piece of land may not be suitable for food production. If the current crop lands go bad, and some other land, a thousand miles away suddenly becomes much better for that same crop, then you have to move the whole production machine over to the new location.

This doesn't even account for fights over property rights, cost liabilities, and what to eat during the time it takes to move. A lot of current companies/countries will lose power/influence, and a lot of other landowners, and other countries, suddenly find themselves in control of valuable resources that weren't valuable before. It will, for a while at least, be even more politically and economically destabalizing than the constant bickering over oil is now.

THAT is what the alarmist are talking about, and that is what all the anti-alarmist seem to not understand.

Re:Alarmists...

[deman1985]

I won't argue about whether it's too early to tell or not; the simple fact of the matter is that the climate is changing and there's not a damn thing anyone can do about it. Will it cause some species of animals to go extinct? Quite possibly. Is it going to force us to change food production and abandon areas that are no longer inhabitable? Almost certainly.

But what has been stated over and over and everyone seems to ignore is that the Earth is BOUND TO CHANGE. There is nobody who can question that. The climate goes through cycles which are not necessarily related at all to any pollutants we have introduced during the period of human civilization. Even if this does turn out to be the case, then guess what? We just make equipment run as efficiently as we can and when the time comes that the climate has shifted usable land, then we start shifting food production and residental areas accordingly.

Yes, it is a shame that certain species will die off and may never see the face of the Earth again, but people have to keep in mind that it's all part of nature. Climactic changes are one of many factors that contribute to the evolution of our planet. If the world hadn't gone through such changes in the past to force older species to extinction, the human race may have never become the dominant species it is now. The major difference that sets us apart from other species is that we are intelligent and can adapt to our environment. Short of the sun burning out (which will also happen eventually), the human race will always find ways of surviving on this planet-- even if that means living in man-made greenhouses to isolate us from the outside environment.

Re:Alarmists...

[squiggleslash]

Fallacy of overprecision. Of course we don't live under the water because we are air breathers, but we COULD if we had to.

As a scuba diver, I can tell you there are some wonderful things about being underwater, but I wouldn't describe it as an area large numbers of humans could live for an extended period of time using the technologies available today. Earth's crushing gravity, to begin with, makes the proposition of being more than a few hundred feet under water less technically easy than being in space.

We don't live on the poles because we don't have to. But we COULD if we had to.

Well, we'd have enormous problems with food supply. People who currently visit the poles do so with fairly substantial off-site support. Suppose Earth becomes ice-covered, where would be this off-site support? How would we get it?

Look, I'll state the obvious: We have several billion people on Earth at the moment. It's one thing to put a few thousand people in submarines across the planet underwater, able to surface in the event of an emergency or every year or so to get supplies, it's quite another to put everyone under water, permanently. Likewise, supporting four billion people on an ice-covered planet isn't going to work either.

Deserts barely inhabited? Have you looked at the middle east lately? The American southwest? The Mongolian Steppes? Please.

All of the desert areas you mention are barely inhabited - there's occasional outposts and one or two cities (some of dramatic size, such as Las Vegas) that have substantial external help. Las Vegas, as an obvious example, is not self-supporting. It relies for funding upon millions of visitors pumping enormous sums of money into it - money which is used to get water, food, and power from resource generators many hundreds of miles away.

Trade provides a perversion of logistics that hides local efficiencies and allows things to be supported by external resources; without those external resources, no amount of money is going to make those locations practical. Your final suggestion that we could irrigate a planet covered in sand assumes there's somewhere to irrigate from.

Slower?

[digitect]

Will this make days longer?

Just as figure ice skater retract their arms closer to their axis of rotation to go faster, and spread them out to slow down, won't this have the same effect on the earth's rotation? If so, it should then be measurable, proving or disproving the claim.

Re:Hmm.

[richie2000]

It's likely earth won't be doomed this time either.

I'm not worried about Earth. She's a big girl now and can take care of herself. I'm worried about us...

Bad Reporting

[penguiniator]

The article you cite (which was published over a year ago) starts by saying, "Accelerated melting of Earth's glaciers in recent years has forced the planet to let a notch out of its belt as its midsection gains girth, according to a study released today."

The only source linked by the author of that article says, "They considered that ice melting at the poles and raising the overall sea level could be the culprit. Calculations showed, however, that 'you would have to drop a 10x10x5 kilometer cube of it into the ocean every year for the past five years.' Separate measurements of sea surface height from NASA's TOPEX/Poseidon mission don't support this scenario."

The article concludes by tempering its opening assertion. "Dickey cautioned that the study is not entirely conclusive, as the changes in sea level are measured in millimeters and represent a "daunting task" that requires numerous corrections to account for various known factors, such as natural short-term fluctuations."

So it is conceded that glacial melting cannot account for the few millimeter changes in sea level observed, and that they don't know enough to conclude that it is anything more than a natural short-term fluctuation. Once again, "journalists" are inflating the conclusions of scientists and alarming the public with no more justification than a desire to sell a weekly rag.

So tell us. Why are you bothering to bring up an article published more than a year ago as though it were breaking news?

Nice Troll, but....

[DesScorp]

It's not "just him", either. Nice way to try to marginalize his viewpoint, which is, by the way, shared by more than just a "niche". There are a lot of scientists (and not just ordinary citizens) that are going "ok, slow down, it's not neccessarily a catastrophe". As many people have pointed out in the past, the Earth frequently goes through changes like this for reasons that are unknown, and that predate the industrial revolution. And lets face it, this whole piece was about pointing a finger at mankind's evil technological ways and saying "see what we're doing to the Earth?"

The Earth's sea level has risen and fallen over the centuries many times, without any input from man. The previous poster was just pointing out that this happens, and that the article might be just a tad sensationlistic in order to promote an agenda (and we know THAT nevers happens in science or anywhere else, right?).

If you agree with that agenda, fine, say so. But when you try to make opposing views look like fringe nuts because it suits your purposes, you just end up looking like an ass.

Re:What do you propose we do?

[jellisky]

I'm trying to remember where I heard or read this, but, supposedly, when asked about what they would do about the rise in ocean levels by as much as a meter in 50 years, one of the guys who is in charge of the dykes that keep the Netherlands dry replied, "We'll build the wall higher."

Let's not forget that humans are where we are in the planetary scale of things because of our incredible ability to adapt to our environments. It's not as if these changes will be immediate... you won't go to bed on the oceanfront and find your house flooded by a new meter of water. In fact, most people won't even notice anything, even over the course of a year.

You make a good point, though. There's lots of people who are running around, crying that the sky is falling... and doing nothing about it or not proposing solutions to the problems. It's truly annoying. I'm not advocating that we do nothing; there have been some "solutions" presented. Whether or not they'll "work" is another problem altogether (e.g. humans may or may not be doing ANYTHING to the climate system), but it's still a start. We have to ultimately accept that change, in many ways and forms, is inevitable and get over the whole "why can't things be the same as before?" attitude that's so prevalent in the western philosophy.

Okay, end of rant. *laughs.*

-Jellisky