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

Is the end nigh again?

[tftp]

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

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.

Re:Is the end nigh again?

[Anonymous Coward]

And I'm sure the scientists never once thought of that possibility or looked at this before. They should be looking to random slashdot posters for their information instead!

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:Is the end nigh again?

[jovius]

In a way it's connected with the climate change. The cold meltwater streams allow warmer seawater under the ice sheet when they meet the sea. Because the seas are warming up the calving underneath is pronounced.

Greenland has similar kind of meltwater streams, and at least some of them actually begin on the surface of the ice. Extreme Ice Survey has great material. That ice age permafrost is in danger of pronounced melting too.

Re:Is the end nigh again?

[bdeclerc]

Antarctic *sea ice* is "growing" (most of it actually melts away each summer) - Antarctic land ice is shrinking, in part because it's melting away and in part because it's more quickly flowing to the sea, where it contributes to the sea ice growth.

Sea ice growth around Antarctica is a *consequence* of global warming, not proof against it...

And the situation is profoundly different for the Antarctic then for the Arctic, due precisely to the completely different land/sea configurations at both poles...

Re:Is the end nigh again?

[rve]

That ice age permafrost is in danger of pronounced melting too.

I think you're confusing (near) surface permafrost in the arctic, due to the average annual temperature being below freezing, and ice age permafrost 300 ft below the surface that's there because the average conditions there over the Quaternary period has been 'covered with an ice sheet' - even if that hasn't been the case in 10,000 years. In most places, I imagine (no data available that I'm aware of), what's buried that deep will probably stay there whether it's frozen or not.

Re:Is the end nigh again?

[KeensMustard]

Joanne Nova played a mean trick on you!

You'll note that the phrase "Antarctica gaining Ice Mass (balance*) — and is not extraordinary compared to 800 years of data" implies an increase in overall volume of ice which is the take away - you are supposed to assume she is talking about volume. But she isn't:

DumbScientist below helpfully points out that Zwally is using Total Mass Balance, which is different to Surface Mass Balance. The SMB figure involves "precipitation, evaporation and snowdrift physics" but not glacier run-off. Thanks to both readers.

Neatly tucked away there is the truth, the article in question is not referring to glacial ice volumes but to snow build up due to increased precipitation, and ignores the overall loss of volume due to glacial run off. But you can see how she has structured that, so carefully, to suggest something completely different in the headline but at the detail level, to admit that the paper in question has nothing to do with ice volume ("total mass").

What a spectacular lie! Almost as good as the lie she told a few weeks ago, you remember the one, about how she had seen a draft of the IPCC report containing a halving of CO2 sensitivity and then later she said they must have taken it out in the final version? There was no such draft, and she never saw a draft, why would she? She lied.

Please don't use the hilariously named "skeptical science" as your source.

We can, and will, use whatever source we choose. It's up to you to prove that Skeptical Science is factually incorrect. Start with Tyndall, then Arrhenius and work forward.

Re:Is the end nigh again?

[CadentOrange]

I found the GP perfectly reasonable. We've discovered a new phenomenon, we need a baseline measurement before jumping to any conclusions. Claiming it is proof of warming is premature and smacks of alarmist bullshit. The sort of bullshit that is really ideologically driven.

Re:Is the end nigh again?

[tbannist]

What a load of utter tripe. Antarctic ice sheet gains exceed losses

That was a workshop based on preliminary results, here's the final research paper from the same scientist:

We combined an ensemble of satellite altimetry, interferometry, and gravimetry data sets using common geographical regions, time intervals, and models of surface mass balance and glacial isostatic adjustment to estimate the mass balance of Earth’s polar ice sheets. We find that there is good agreement between different satellite methods—especially in Greenland and West Antarctica—and that combining satellite data sets leads to greater certainty. Between 1992 and 2011, the ice sheets of Greenland, East Antarctica, West Antarctica, and the Antarctic Peninsula changed in mass by –142 ± 49, +14 ± 43, –65 ± 26, and –20 ± 14 gigatonnes year1, respectively. Since 1992, the polar ice sheets have contributed, on average, 0.59 ± 0.20 millimeter year1 to the rate of global sea-level rise.

Note the total is -213 ± 142.

Listen, here's the deal: You lost. Your narrative of catastrophic climate change due to man emitting Co2 into the atmosphere is a busted flush.

I wish it were that easy.

Re:There always has been water flow under the ice

[binarylarry]

Scientists have discovered that Antarctica's ice shelf is made of water!

News at 11.

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 ...

[Chas]

No. Because science is a composite of a number of theories.
And as much as you'd like to believe that it's a monolithic whole, it isn't.
Look at physics. Lots of different theories about what all the data means. Some general (but not universal) consensus, and a big chunk of the field wide open to interpretation and better models.
Climate science is just the same.

If you want to harangue people that they're in danger you can:

Stand on a street corner screaming "THE END IS NIGH!", as people have since time immemorial (like a clock, someone will eventually be right on this).

Or you can take a rational, social approach. You HAVE to convince people. Because there's lots of data out there. And lots of opinions on what it means.

You have to convince people YOU are "right" and that others clamoring for their attention (and money) are wrong. Regardless of your humanitarian interest, you HAVE to "sell" it to people.

Again, treating your target audience as a rabid mob of idiots is a poor way to go about this.

And you have to accept that, even if you have a silver tongue, and an iron-clad case, some people are still not going to buy in. No matter what you say and how persuasive you are.
It doesn't make them "stupid" or obstinate or any such thing. Such trust issues come up in every venue.

Promising people Heaven is one thing. But if you're an asshole about it, a certain amount of the population would turn around and walk straight into Hell, smiling spitefully the entire time.
Your "message" gets lost due to other factors.

The (actual) Surf

[MrKaos]

I know, the correlation/causation comment will come up, but you would never know the water temperature unless you got in the water and feel it for yourself over 2-3 decades of actually being in the water and knowing when to get in. I wouldn't call 250metres a stream, but other noticable thing is the way the weather has changed from a smooth transition to summer where it gradually got hotter to bursts of weather change where you will suddenly get days of really warm weather in winter and then back to cold and visa versa in summer.

I regularly goes for a swim or a surf on the east coast of Australia and for the last decade years the water has been really cold during seasons where I used to notice it was pretty warm. It has altered my whole habit of surfing. I used to go into the water around September and now it's late October. I love the waves but the goolie shock is just to severe. My mates would say the same thing and often the comment 'at least we know where the ice caps are melting to' would come up.

Re:The (actual) Surf

[MrKaos]

I also wanted to mention that it would be cool to get some little robots into these streams and map them under the ice to find out where they start and finish.

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:The (actual) Surf

[MrKaos]

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.

Oh no doubt about that, I have to leave my walking stick at the beach so I can find my towel!!!

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.

I'm generally lean but have a bit of fat after winter so the icey water just strips it from you (apart from having a wettie on - which slows me down) so it seems to balance out and I want to catch as many waves as I can.

The thing is I have to swim really hard to get the waves so I'm working a lot to get them. The waves I'm after are about the same as the ones for a board as I am a pretty big guy and I get moving pretty fast. Catching them close to shore is dangerous as the waves tend to dump you on sand and I have been badly concussed from that before. Because of that I generally swim a good 100-300 meters from shore where the waves are bigger from sand banks - which you can see underwater.

When I'm out there I can feel the difference between the first metre and, when diving down, the next four or five (I'm a shark chicken - I don't want to be lunch so I keep an eye out). The water temperature is generally more stable the deeper you go but what gets me is that it is more often consistently cold all the way to the surface than not. You can feel the difference in certain patches of water as the temperature changes when you swim through them. This is the biggest change that I note (apart from seeing less penguins, seals and turtles).

Current change seems like a good point however I would then expect it to cycle between behaviours. So it could be because I'm an old bastard however there is a distinct change in the patterns of water temperature that entails the frequency and duration of warm patches of water. Whatever is happening, something is going on.

Re:Ummmm

[JWSmythe]

Well, if it's increasing in surface area, but decreasing in mass, that would be a problem.

I think the concern they're trying to address is the same as one of the arctic ice concerns.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outburst_flood

About 8,300 to 7,700 years ago, the melting ice dam over Hudson Bay's southernmost extension narrowed to the point where pressure and its buoyancy lifted it free, and the ice-dam failed catastrophically. Lake Ojibway's beach terraces show that it was 250 metres (820 ft) above sea level. The volume of Lake Ojibway is commonly estimated to have been about 163,000 cubic kilometres, more than enough water to cover a flattened-out Antarctica with a sheet of water 10 metres (33 ft) deep. That volume was added to the world's oceans in a matter of months.

I'm not saying that it's possible, or even probable. It's just an example of what destabilized polar ice can do. There's a whole lot of mass there.

Remember, the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami was caused by a 1,000 mile long rift shifting by 50 feet over a few minutes. If a sufficiently sized chunk (or chunks) of ice moved enough, there could be catastrophic effects for boating and coastal areas.

The long-term sea-level rise will be slow, and civilization will change around it. The short term effects of such events can be fast and catastrophic.

Re:Ummmm

[Gadget_Guy]

It's common knowledge that, unlike the arctic, Antarctic ice has been increasing.

As is often the case this common knowledge is actually a common misconception. While the sea ice is increasing, the land ice is shedding mass at an accelerating rate. Since the sea ice is already in the sea, it does not affect sea levels at all. Thawing land ice does increase sea levels, since it introduces water to the sea that used to sit on land.

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: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]

the world's largest continent

Antarctica is the fifth-largest continent.

Re:There always has been water flow under the ice

[ElBeano]

The extent of sea ice during the winter seems to be growing, but the total MASS of ice, sea and land, continues to shrink. You're the propagandist.

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.

Re:All the observed data is perfectly normal

[bdeclerc]

What Steve Goddard "forgets" to mention is that it's actually only the Antarctic sea ice that is growing, while the land-ice there is melting away ever faster...

And the 67% more ice in 2013 compared to 2012 still puts 2013 in 6th lowest position for arctic ice-extent in the observational record, curiously together with 2007-2008-2009-2010-2011-2012) - so it is lower than *any* observed ice-extent prior to 2007... Doing better than the single worst year on record is not proof that nothing's wrong, it's just proof of the fact that there are significant annual fluctuations in ice-extent, primarily due to short-term weather.

Average thickness and ice-volume in the Arctic are actually far more relevant measurements (as unlike "extent", they measure the *amount* of ice, not how thinly it's spread out) and those have been dropping almost without fail year after year after year...

Re:Well it does seem news to you.

[taiwanjohn]

The distinction is between ice caps on land vs. on the ocean. The arctic ice is already in the ocean, so melting it won't raise sea levels. But the majority of antarctic is is on land (same as Greenland), so melting that ice would raise global sea levels.

Re:There always has been water flow under the ice

[NeutronCowboy]

15 years of no warming despite CO2 emissions continuing

Convenient use of a record high as your starting point. Care to redo your calculations with any other window? Maybe, say, a 20 year window? Or even a 10 year window? What about a 12 year window?

greatly increased Arctic Ice coverage,

[Citation needed] and [Confusing a rebound from a historic low to slightly less historic lows with an increase over average].

increasing Antarctic ice thickness

[Confusing weather with climate] and [Lack of understanding of ice formation]

increasing Antarctic sea ice coverage

[Cherry-picking specific regional ice data points] and [Mistaking surface for volume].

no observed retreat in Himalayan glaciers

[More reading needed]. See also http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v4/n3/abs/ngeo1068.html

I'm just the guy who has been making physical chemistry arguments that show that CO2 has no net effect on the heat capacity of the atmosphere for the last few years

... which has nothing to do with the problem of CO2 trapping IR, or with why the atmosphere is heating up.

arguing instead that what warming we saw was from increased water vapor emissions, which maintain a tight equilibria with their rate of emissions

Water vapor cannot drive long-term heating. A single cold-spell will remove water vapor from the air, which will reduce temperatures, which will remove more water from the air.... Water vapor is the result of warming, not a forcing.

thus the lost decade global growth lead to a lost decade of warming

The global economy was working in overdrive until 2000-2001, and again from 2005 to 2008. Your own data calls you a liar.

bringing AGW idiots to take because they are ignoring the real threat from CO2--ocean acidification and the collapse of already overstressed fisheries.

I'm glad you'll find that all kinds of scientists, but especially marine biologists and oceanographers would love your help in spreading message. Care to sign up maybe with an organization like NOAA or the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute?

But hey, let's all ignore physics

Says the guy who mistakes anecdotes for data, cherry-picks his time frames, misunderstands the overall and problem and thinks that he has a better understanding of physics than Physicists.

Tell you what, write a paper about your insights, and if you're right, the Nobel prize in a few areas is yours. How is that for an incentive to go show up all the AGW believers? You'll be right up there with Galileo, Kopernicus, Pasteur, and a few other up-enders of the consensus.