Newly Discovered Meltwater Streams Flow Beneath the Antarctic Ice Sheet

The Telegraph reports that previously undetected streams of meltwater have been observed beneath the Antarctic ice sheet. "The streams of water, some of which are 250m in height and stretch for hundreds of kilometres, could be destabilising parts of the Antarctic ice shelf immediately around them and speeding up melting, researchers said. However, they added that it remains unclear how the localised effects of the channels will impact on the future of the floating ice sheet as a whole. The British researchers used satellite images and radar data to measure variations in the height of the Filchner-Ronne Ice Shelf in West Antarctica, which reveal how thick the ice is." The paper itself is paywalled, but the abstract is available online.

Comments

Re:Is the end nigh again?

[DavidClarkeHR]

"newly discovered" != "new". Those streams may have been there for millions of years. They certainly were there when the continent was free of ice.

It's new knowledge, even if it isn't a new phenomenon (which it might be - who knows?). Kinda like ... math. Relativity (as it is). Microbes.

Even if it isn't a new development, or a new phenomenon (we don't know), we do need a baseline measurement.

Re:Is the end nigh again?

[fyngyrz]

we do need a baseline measurement.

Certainly. Then, and only then, will measurement of volume and rate acquire meaning. In the interim, statements like:

Even if it isn't a new development,

...and...

could be destabilising parts of the Antarctic ice shelf immediately around them and speeding up melting

...are no more than alarmist bullshit.

Now, next year (and years), when they measure those streams, if the aggregate volume is up, I'll nod in agreement when someone says "this could be a result of warming." Even more meaningful, if the trend continues upwards, we have an actual indicator. But right now we have the equivalent of "hey, here's a traffic signal" with absolutely no indication of if it's red, green, or broken.

We've already lost ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Now, next year (and years), when they measure those streams, if the aggregate volume is up, I'll nod in agreement when someone says "this could be a result of warming." Even more meaningful, if the trend continues upwards, we have an actual indicator. But right now we have the equivalent of "hey, here's a traffic signal" with absolutely no indication of if it's red, green, or broken.

No you wont, not if you're republican. The data for global warming is absolutely conclusive, and half the 'Merikins don't believe it.

Jeepers. If this is how the correct side presents a counter argument, it's no wonder the retards are taking over our great country.

Re:We've already lost ...

[Anonymous Coward]

This. God, please, someone mod that up.

You can't just assert that all Republicans are automatically wrong by virtue of being Republican, nor can you belittle those with whom you disagree by asserting some sort of rusticity implying a failure to grasp reality, if you want to effect any change in America. You have to present arguments that support your points and provide others that refute your opponents' points, and most importantly, you have to do so in a way that your audience understands and finds credible.

One of the principal points of good rhetorical training is to understand that, if you fail to convince your audience, it's not your audience's fault: it's yours. If they aren't listening, you aren't presenting your arguments in a credible fashion. If your audience is poisoned against you by those who call your data into question, you need to find a better way of demonstrating your position; try describing the methods more comprehensibly and illustrating them in vivid detail and ways that make sense to them. Use rhetoric: your opponents are, and they've apparently kicked your ass enough that half the country doesn't believe you despite the evidence you have (and that you didn't explain well enough).

The biggest mistake the left makes is assuming that the right is uneducated. They are not uneducated: don't think that the Republicans don't go to college. They are educated differently, and they often are well-educated in rhetoric, law, and business. The left gets a different education, and the scientific left dwells in clouds of numbers and graphs while the right kicks their ass on the ground amidst the plebs. They argue cases and sell products. They preach. Boy, do they preach. They know how to convince, which is why you see so many demagogues on the right (talk radio, op-eds, and TV talk shows being great examples). If anything, they're better at speaking than the left (probably why they mock Obama for his teleprompter use, or OWS members for their total failure to say anything comprehensible). Really, the right is just better at explaining, in terms that everyone can understand, what they think.

The people who automatically assume that anyone who doesn't buy a story because he is irrevocably lost or stupid -- those people are not going to win a fight no matter how much data they have. It's not enough to do research: research is a tool that an orator can use, but only one among many. Curling up into the fetal position and blaming your audience is not one of those tools.

Re:We've already lost ...

[Chas]

No. But you're not trying to convince "the universe" to start spending out enormous quantities of money to "solve" a "problem".

You're trying to convince other people, some of whom may disagree with your position. And overtly acting or implying that they're morons tends to make it quite difficult to open their purse strings. Even in the face of potential disaster.

Remember, this is science, not math. Climate change is not as simple and straightforward a proof as "1+1=2".
As such, a modicum of eloquence is required.

Re:We've already lost ...

[Anonymous Coward]

No. But you're not trying to convince "the universe" to start spending out enormous quantities of money to "solve" a "problem".

You're trying to convince other people, some of whom may disagree with your position. And overtly acting or implying that they're morons tends to make it quite difficult to open their purse strings. Even in the face of potential disaster.

Remember, this is science, not math. Climate change is not as simple and straightforward a proof as "1+1=2".
As such, a modicum of eloquence is required.

No. Either you believe in science and the outcome of science or you don't. Regardless of "eloquence" most people, even intelligent ones, would "debate" the scientific merit of these theories at kindergarten level. "But, climate has always varied" (yeah, the stupid scientists didn't think of that did they). you can see exactly the same discussion when it comes to the "debate" on evolution vs intelligent design.

This is why the Koch brothers founded think tanks are putting so much effort into trying discredit scientists in this field in the public debate, it is the only way to win this "debate" in the public eye, because they have very little to add to the actual scientific discussion.

Re:Is the end nigh again?

[rve]

Why does any mention of ice or antarctica have to turn into an ideological battle over the climate?

This melt water is forming at the bottom, beneat an ice sheet that's more than two and a half miles thick in places. It's completely shielded from the climate, which acts on the surface and on the ocean.

There are places in northern Europe, siberia, alaska, canada, where a few hundred feet below the surface you still find permafrost left over from the last ice age. It's so far from the surface that it apparently takes more than 10,000 years to melt.

Re:There always has been water flow under the ice

[symbolset]

The mean annual surface air temperature of the Antarctic interior is -57C. Surface melt refreezes rather promptly. But ice is great insulation, and geothermal energy comes up from the Earth to melt the bottom of the ice sheet. This meltwater flows in streams and rivers across the world's largest continent until it becomes the world's largest rivers, inevitably finding the sea. This should be obvious.

Re:The (actual) Surf

[zmooc]

I cannot find any data on the Pacific ocean near Australia, but in many places oceans are getting slightly cooler. This has nothing to do with melt water, though; there's much too little of that to have a measurable influence, especially at your latitude. Instead, it is most probably due to changing currents.

However, a very likely alternative cause for you guys feeling colder would be that you're getting older; as people get older, they feel colder quicker.

Re:FAT CAT CLIMATE SCIENTISTS AT IT AGAIN!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Fat cat scientists? Are you a fucking idiot? Check out the fat cats around the world - multilmillionaires, billionaires.

Bill Gates - computer scientist or businessman?

Businessman.

John Key, prime minister of New Zealand - scientist, or businessman?

Businessman.

Obama - scientist?

In fact, if you could list the scientists who are "fat cat" millioniares, I'd quite appreciate it. I'm waiting....

Why it matters

[quantaman]

Antarctica is one of the major feedbacks:

The protective covering of floating ice that has shielded the Arctic Ocean from solar heating for so long is now going fast, and we will probably see an ice-free Arctic Ocean in the August-September period as early as the 2020s. Mercifully, this is the smallest of the three major feedbacks in terms of its impact – but it triggers a bigger one.

The warmer air and water in the Arctic then starts to melt the permanently frozen ground and coastal seabed (permafrost) that extends over more than ten million square km. (3 million sq. mi.) of territory, a considerably larger area than Australia. This melting releases a huge amount of methane that has been locked into the ground for millions of years. Methane is a far more effective warming agent than carbon dioxide, and so we spin closer to runaway.

[...]

Those are the killer feedbacks. Earth has lurched suddenly into a climate 5-6 degrees C higher than now a number of times in the past. The original warming usually came from massive, long-lasting volcanic eruptions that put a large amount of CO2 into the atmosphere – but in every case it was feedbacks like these that carried the planet up into a temperature regime where there was a massive dieback of animals and plants.

Considering we're already experiencing major extinctions I'm not sure I want to stack ecological disasters.

Re:There always has been water flow under the ice

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, yes. Because forest fires ravaged the earth when the dinosaurs ruled and there were no humans then, so forest fires can't be caused by humans.

Wait, humans totally can cause fires.