Slashdot Mirror
Grim Picture of Polar Ice-Sheet Loss
ananyo writes "A global team of researchers has come up with the most accurate estimate yet for melting of the polar ice sheets, ending decades of uncertainty about whether the sheets will melt further or actually gain mass in the face of climate change. The ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica are melting at an ever-quickening pace. Since 1992, they have contributed 11 millimeters — or one-fifth — of the total global sea-level rise, say the researchers. The two polar regions are now losing mass three times faster than they were 20 years ago, with Greenland alone now shedding ice at about five times the rate observed in the early 1990s. This latest estimate, published this week in Science, draws on up to 32 years of ice-sheet simulations and 20 years of satellite data to give an estimate two to three times more accurate than that in the last IPCC report."
LALALAALAAA we can't hear you.
I for one look forward to being an island-dwelling overlord...
We have a spare on Mercury.
Strange things are afoot at the Circle-K.
Everybody raise their houses by 2cm, quick!
I predict:
People who don't believe in AGW/man made climate change will think that this study is just part of the conspiracy
Most people who do believe in AGW/man made climate change will continue to suggest remedies that just will not happen due to economics/human nature
The small amount of actually useful discussion of how we can adapt to a changing climate (no matter what it's cause) will be drowned out in the accusations and counter accusations
Got into a discussion about this recently over the recent (and on-going) flooding in the UK. If the sea level and temperatures both rise, then a logical expectation of that would be that more water would evaporate off the oceans into the atmosphere, subsequently returning as rain and snow. That would entail more runoff and a corresponding rise in river levels and increased risk of flooding, particularly given the growing pressure on housing in some areas resulting in flood plains being used for development.
It's not just the people with beachfront properties that need to be worried...
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
For 0 to 4 degrees C it contracts but warmer than that it expands. Water Physics_and_chemistry
There's a difference between coming out of an ice-age (a natural process over tens of thousands of years) and global warming, where there is a noticeable change in temperature/ice-caps over a period of years/decades.
And it's trolls like you spreading FUD that don't help matters.
but to someone looking for a 30+ year real estate investment, and observing this trend of accelerating ocean rise, it will effect property valuations for some coastal property.
I live about 15 miles inland, so raising seas will actually increase my house value because I'll then be able to sell it as having a sea-view! /sarcasm
Genius. I'll break out the 1000-mile wide scale, you lift greenland onto it.
Someone had to do it.
Polar ice is Cartesian ice after a coordinate trasformation.
Mastering the English language is fucking easy: all you have to do is to put an f* word in every fucking sentence.
Easiest way to fix sea level rises is to dig two channels.
Connect the Caspian Sea and the Dead Sea (and the rest of the Great Rift Valley) to the open ocean and watch the water level drop.
I'm guessing that wasn't on their radar screen...
Everything is AGW related - hot spells, cold spells, droughts, floods, riots, earthquakes, locusts, hurricanes, doldrums - that's a cop out.
The fact of the matter here is that 11mm in 20 years, or 55mm in 20 years, is ridiculously small. Seriously, 6 *centimeters* in 20 years. Even with a thirty year horizon, that's not more than 10 *centimeters*.
Quick quiz: how much did ocean levels rise from 1900-2000, and how many acres of real estate were devalued because of it?
As for acceleration, sea level rise is actually *slowing* - there's simply no possible plausible scenario that is going to turn *millimeters* of change into *meters* of change in in 20 years, or even 100 for that matter.
The refugees squatting on your front lawn might drastically lower the value, though.
Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
it is incredibly foolish to believe that humans are responsible for the melting of the polar icecaps. one volcano eruption puts off more CO2 than all of the emmissions that humans have put out since there were humans.
That statement is factually incorrect. Volcanos do not emit more CO2 than humans-- they emit less, by orders of magnitude.
http://www.agu.org/news/press/pr_archives/2011/2011-22.shtml
http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/archive/2007/07_02_15.html
http://www.agu.org/pubs/pdf/2011EO240001.pdf
http://www.skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming.htm
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11638-climate-myths-human-co2-emissions-are-too-tiny-to-matter.html
From http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2011/06/scienceshot-volcano-co2-emission.html :
"A popular myth among climate change skeptics is that volcanic emissions of carbon dioxide dwarf those generated by humans. But a new report in today's issue of Eos reveals precisely the opposite: In a mere 2 to 5 days, smokestacks, tailpipes, and other human sources of CO2 spew a year's worth of volcanic emissions of that greenhouse gas. According to the paper, five recent studies suggest that volcanoes worldwide (such as Alaska's Shishaldin, shown) emit, on average, between 130 million and 440 million metric tons of CO2 each year. But in 2010, anthropogenic emissions of the planet-warming gas were estimated to be a whopping 35 billion metric tons. Individual events—such as Mount Pinatubo, whose major eruption in 1991 lasted about 9 hours—can produce CO 2 at the same rate that humans do, but they do so only for short periods of time. It would take more than 700 Mount Pinatubo-sized eruptions over the course of a year to emit as much carbon dioxide as people do, the study notes."
Let me note that it is misinformed statements like this that tend to make real scientists dismiss global-warming deniers as crackpots. If you really want skepticism of anthropogenic global warming to be taken seriously, you need to have a basic understanding of the real world.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
So where the ice was 100 years ago before global warming started is exactly where "normal" is and where the ice should always have and forever have stayed?
Depends what you mean by the word "normal." The dinosaurs lived perfectly well in a world that had no ice caps at all, and in which the entire center of the United States was a shallow ocean that stretched from Colorado to Pennsylvania. You could call that "normal" if you like.
However, there would be a great deal of disruption to human civilization to change to that state. We have an ecosystem (and an economic system) that is well adapted for the climate we have now, not one that is significantly warmer and with significantly higher sea levels. It would cause trillions of dollars of costs just to relocate the part of the population that lives in places that will be underwater, not even to mention changing the agricultural infrastructure. Doing this slowly is one thing. Doing ten thousand years worth of climate change in fifty years is another.
It would be nice for Canada, Norway, and Siberia, though. Not so nice for the United States (except for Alaska); we have a very good climate for agriculture right now, and don't really want to have the climate of Mexico move up to Kansas. Oddly, Canada, Norway and Russia are the most adamant of the countries that are trying to block restrictions on greenhouse effect gas emissions. That's probably just a coincidence, though, since those countries are also major fossil-fuel exporters.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
And you know what? eruptions/emission from volcanoes are relatively constant. They haven't changed significantly in the last 200 years. So what has changed in that time frame?
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
...Given the fact that 1 eruption can change global climate for several years...
An eruption can change climate for several years... but not due to the emission of greenhouse gasses, which are trivial.
The aerosols from an eruption, however-- the ash and sulfates-- can block sunlight and have a significant cooling effect. This is a very real effect, and making sure that climate models correctly model the effect of historic volcano eruptions is a useful way of verifying the fidelity of climate models.
CO2 emissions from volcanoes on the other hand, are just not significant. It's somewhat hard comprehend the scale of 30 trillion kilograms of carbon dioxide, which is the amount emitted by humans per year, but if you picture a cube of coal about 10km on a side, that will start to give you an idea. This is much larger than the total of what is out by volcanoes, including both eruption and non-eruption emissions.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
this clearly shows that humans are in no way responsible for global warming.
Unfortunately, it shows nothing of the sort.
It says that water vapor is the most significant greenhouse effect gas. Water vapor indeed is a greenhouse gas, but water vapor cycles in and out of the atmosphere based primarily on temperature. The hotter is is, the more water evaporates into the atmosphere; the colder it is, the more water condenses out of the atmosphere. So, basically, water vapor is an amplifying agent-- if you increase the temperature, more water evaporates, and the greenhouse effect increases. This is well known.
I would like to really suggest you read the IPCC Working-Group 1 report, "The Physical Science Basis of Climate Change" http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.shtml
You would be able to argue more effectively if you started out by being aware of what is already known.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com