Slashdot Mirror
ICE Satellite Maps Profound Polar Thinning
xp65 writes "Researchers have used NASA's Ice, Cloud and Land Elevation Satellite to compose the most comprehensive picture of changing glaciers along the coast of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets. The new elevation maps show that all latitudes of the Greenland ice sheet are affected by dynamic thinning — the loss of ice due to accelerated ice flow to the ocean. The maps also show surprising, extensive thinning in Antarctica, affecting the ice sheet far inland. The study, led by Hamish Pritchard of the British Antarctic Survey in Cambridge, England, was published September 24 in Nature."
Qualitatively, what you'd expect from climate change is more precipitation (because there's more evaporation) and therefore thickening at high elevations where the snow stays cold, while lower warmer regions flow faster or even melt.
Those who demand "proof" of climate change before we do anything to fight it will find some way to ignore this. They'll keep pretending there's "no evidence" and that it's a "librul conspiracy" until it becomes undeniable (I'm betting til the dams surrounding a port city fail) because they don't believe in doing anything proactive.
Then when the engineers say it's too late to do anything except build a 300 foot tall dam around every coastline in the world, it'll be their fault for not fixing it.
if net effect was positive, that would be great surprising news. It seems, instead, situation is getting worse so quickly that we are heading towards geoengineering (desperate) solutions.
839*929
Irrespective of humanity's perceived impact, does this not happen throughout history in a cyclical fashion? I would look at this type of activity as the main source of evolutionary change. The species that are equipped to survive the conditions will prevail.
Sorry, I didn't mean the net effect of climate change, I meant the net amount of ice in Greenland and Antarctica. From the data provided it's not obvious that Greenland and Antarctica are losing ice. For example there are very large blue/green regions (gaining ice) that by eye could be bigger than the red regions (losing ice).
The other question is regards climate model predictions. One of the catastrophic outcomes of climate change are large sea level rises due to ice melt in the polar regions. Presumably there are models that predict how this could occur with global warming. So the question is, do these data agree with these models?
and I'm really annoyed that health care is currently distracting the Senate from an issue that affects the future of the entire human race.
Well, this doesn't help, but I can see why health care is the focus of attention: it is one thing the government can do something about. Climate change is a serious problem, but it is now too big to fix, since no-one has the will to adopt a policy amounting to more than "business as usual" and "let's have another toke on that big ole' oil-pipe".
A lot of political mileage is being made of proposed emissions trading schemes, but it's too late for that. They are just accounting exercises - like pushing food around on the plate to make it look like you're eating less.
I'm sorry if that sounds defeatist, but I'd be happy to hear an alternative. People will not change until they're forced to.
Congratulations!! You just explained by analogy how melting ice pack (ice cube), that is ALREADY floating in the water, will have no meaningful effect on sea level.
Now try this, take that same full cup and put two chop sticks side by side across the top of the glass. Now place a few ice cubes on the chop sticks and watch them melt, what happens to the water level in this case?
What is worrying is ice that is currently NOT floating is showing signs of melting, which will have an impact on sea levels.
The climate is changing, it doesn't mater if its caused by humans or some natural cycle, we have to start thinking about how we are going to adapt now if we are going to survive long term.
Remember that what happens elsewhere in the world DOES have an effect on you, it may be slight but it does. Ever notice how milk costs more when petrol prices go up because of political unrest in the middle East?
It is really simple. It all depends on how much kick are you getting out of the environment as we know it.
It is true that so far whenever cataclysms occured and species died out there was a subsequent re-population with new flora and fauna. It is also true that whenever such events have occurred, nearly all of the prevalent species have disappeared, and the subsequent re-population has taken millions of years to happen.
So, if you really, really don't care about your species disappearing in famine and diseases and other niceties those bring then yeah, life will eventually adapt to the new equilibrium that will prevail, and there is little to worry about in the long run.
If you are one of the neo-conservatives who want to keep living as we like it (a.k.a. tree-huggers), without disruptions and without need to die out and re-adapt, then you understand there are things that better be done sooner than later.