Slashdot Mirror


Greenland's Fastest Glacier Sets New Speed Record

vinces99 writes "The latest observations of Jakobshavn Glacier show that Greenland's largest glacier is moving ice from land into the ocean at a speed that appears to be the fastest ever recorded. Researchers from the University of Washington and the German Space Agency measured the speed of the glacier in 2012 and 2013. The results were published Feb. 3 in The Cryosphere, an open access journal of the European Geosciences Union. Jakobshavn Glacier, which is widely believed to be the glacier that produced the large iceberg that sank the Titanic in 1912, drains the Greenland ice sheet into a deep-ocean fjord on the west coast of the island. This speedup of Jakobshavn means that the glacier is adding more and more ice to the ocean, contributing to sea-level rise. 'We are now seeing summer speeds more than four times what they were in the 1990s, on a glacier which at that time was believed to be one of the fastest, if not the fastest, glacier in Greenland,' said lead author Ian Joughin, a glaciologist at the UW's Polar Science Center. The new observations show that in summer of 2012 the glacier reached a record speed of more than 10 miles (17 km) per year, or more than 150 feet (46 m) per day. These appear to be the fastest flow rates recorded for any glacier or ice stream in Greenland or Antarctica, researchers said."

136 comments

  1. At these rates by Spy+Handler · · Score: 5, Funny

    the glacier will break Mach 1 by 2016 when Hillary is president and Al Gore is secretary of state.

    1. Re:At these rates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All three highly unlikely events.

    2. Re:At these rates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You would have to rate Hillary's chances at least 50%, since the Republican party is heading downhill much faster than any glacier ever travelled, or even an avalanche.
      If she does decide to run

    3. Re:At these rates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait, if Hillary's running under the Republican ticket who's running against her on the Democratic ticket in 2016?

    4. Re:At these rates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, but you forget about libertarians (as many seem to forget so quickly). We don't want the NSA or TSA and lower taxes and lessen spending all around while auditing the government and government programs / contractors but yet people still forget about us because of the few that tote their guns around at walmart. :(

    5. Re:At these rates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, but you forget about libertarians (as many seem to forget so quickly). We don't want the NSA or TSA and lower taxes and lessen spending all around while auditing the government and government programs / contractors but yet people still forget about us because of the few that tote their guns around at walmart. :(

      Yes, all will forget you, so you remain irrelevant to the conversation.

  2. More snow = more pressure = faster calving! by RocketRabbit · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Greenland has experienced (like Antarctica) some very heavy snowfalls in the past few years, which increases the thickness of the glaciers. Glacial flow is fairly well understood, as the glacier gets thicker it causes faster movement.

    The calving of large glaciers is often touted by alarmists as proof of their claims, but this phenomenon does not actually support the alarmist position at all.

    1. Re: More snow = more pressure = faster calving! by Scowler · · Score: 1

      You were doing good until you used the word "alarmist", at which point, poof! Bye, bye, credibility.

    2. Re:More snow = more pressure = faster calving! by hey! · · Score: 2

      Seriously, you think pressure for *annual snowfall* makes a dramatic difference in the speed of the Jakobshavn glacier. this Jakobshavn glacier. The one that's two kilometers thick.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    3. Re:More snow = more pressure = faster calving! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, in that case, nevermind. I hadn't thought of that stuff. You're right, global warming is real and this proves it.

      -R.R.

    4. Re: More snow = more pressure = faster calving! by cbeaudry · · Score: 2

      And those who use the word "Denier" are more credible?

    5. Re:More snow = more pressure = faster calving! by hey! · · Score: 2

      It proves Greenland is warming. The *global* pattern proves that the globe is warming.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    6. Re:More snow = more pressure = faster calving! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually it suggests that the glaciers inland are thicker, which could be due to cooler temperatures. The *global* pattern proves precisely what the people who choose the gridding want it to.

    7. Re:More snow = more pressure = faster calving! by jovius · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Snowfall needs moist air. Warmer air holds more moisture. Increased snowfall is well in the scope of what's been thought to happen. There really doesn't need to be any alarmist campaign; simple scientific observation of the amplified greenhouse effect is enough.

    8. Re: More snow = more pressure = faster calving! by erikkemperman · · Score: 4, Informative

      I don't think neither "alarmist" nor "denier" are very helpful. Let's ask the climate scientists, in stead. Once again:

      In the scientific literature, there is a strong consensus that global surface temperatures have increased in recent decades and that the trend is caused primarily by human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases.[2][3][4] No scientific body of national or international standing disagrees with this view,[5] though a few organizations hold non-committal positions.[6] Disputes over the key scientific facts of global warming are now more prevalent in the popular media than in the scientific literature, where such issues are treated as resolved, and more in the United States than globally[7][8].

      --
      Gosh, thanks. That must be why the other ships call me Meatfucker -- GCU Grey Area (Eccentric)
    9. Re:More snow = more pressure = faster calving! by riverat1 · · Score: 3, Informative

      I did a little searching and found a paper from 2011 [pdf] that addresses Jakobshavn specifically. It has this to say:

      3.3. Jakobshavn Isbroe

      Jakobshavn Isbroe was losing 8 Gt a1 of mass per year in 2000 (Figure 2). This rate increased over the following years to near 25 Gt a1 by the end of 2002. The loss rate then stabilized and declined back under 20 Gt a1 until 2006, when it increased to 33 Gt a1, reaching 34 Gt a1 by the end of 2007. Subsequently, the annual loss rate has fluctuated between 25 and 33 Gt a1. In total the glacier lost 321 ± 12 Gt by the end of 2010, equivalent to a basin!wide thinning of 3.5 m, with 2/3 of this loss occurring since June of 2005 (Figure 3). The 85 km2 of retreat accounts for nearly 20% of this loss. The rate of discharge is now such that the glacier is losing mass nearly throughout the year. As previously reported [Joughin et al., 2008a, 2008c; Luckman and Murray, 2005], annual oscillations in speed of ±20%, with a peak in June/July, correlated with seasonal retreat and advance of the ice front, become increasingly pronounced at the location of the fluxgate after 2005 (Figure S7). Seasonal oscillations in speed, SMB and front position cause annual fluctuations in mass of up to 50 Gt.

      Of the other two glaciers reported on in the paper Helheim gained 17 +/- 13 Gt and Kangerdlugssuaq lost 152 +/- 10 Gt compared to Jakobshavn's 321 +/- 12 Gt in the 11 year period studied. Those are the three largest outlet glaciers in Greenland.

      More generally the ice mass loss on Greenland has been well documented by the GRACE satellites. See the Total Ice Mass section of the Arctic Report Card: Update for 2013 for details.

    10. Re:More snow = more pressure = faster calving! by KeensMustard · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Greenland has experienced (like Antarctica) some very heavy snowfalls in the past few years, which increases the thickness of the glaciers. Glacial flow is fairly well understood, as the glacier gets thicker it causes faster movement.

      An observant person might note that the fact that is now snowing in places where it was previously too cold to snow is actually an indication of change, not an argument against it.

      The calving of large glaciers is often touted by [scientists] as proof of their claims, but this phenomenon does not actually support the [scientists] position at all.

      You are mistaken. Climatologists don't claim that glacial calving is proof of AGW - this proof lies in the observations and theories of Tyndall, Fourier, Arrhenius et al.

      I'm not sure what it is about Climatology that makes people think that ignorance can substitute for knowledge. Does this muddled thinking work, say, when you go to the bank "I'm skeptical of alarmist bankers claims that my account is overdrawn"?

    11. Re:More snow = more pressure = faster calving! by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Yes, snowfall does make a difference. It compresses to ice, and Greenland's ice sheet has been thickening since the early 1990s. Now 6 cm/yr may not sound like a lot of additional thickness, but since 1993 that's at least 1.2 meters additional thickness (records prior to 1993 aren't that accurate - the satellites don't exist). It may be even more than that over the preceding decades as well. Given that ice weighs around 920 kg/m^3, and there are ~1.7 million km of Greenland ice sheet, the gains since 1993 easily add up to literally trillions of metric tons of additional weight. Weight that will compress the entire ice sheet even a bit more, raising the temperature ever so slightly at the base of the glacier, and thereby melting fractionally more ice - creating more lubrication for the glacier to move.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    12. Re:More snow = more pressure = faster calving! by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      What is the global temperature increase since, say, 1995? What data set do you use to come up with any recorded increase?

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    13. Re:More snow = more pressure = faster calving! by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      "Now 6 cm/yr may not sound like a lot of additional thickness, but since 1993 that's at least 1.2 meters additional thickness"

      6cm a year sounds like a hell of a lot to me. If your backyard gained 6cm more of new ice every year, you would not think it was trivial. And if you had to haul it all away, a piece at a time, you'd damned well know that much weight isn't trivial.

    14. Re:More snow = more pressure = faster calving! by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 0

      "this proof lies in the observations and theories of Tyndall, Fourier, Arrhenius et al. "

      The experiments Fourier wrote about (actually performed by de Saussure), were examples of the "real" greenhouse effect; that is, they involved what amounted to a real greenhouse (an enclosed space which did not allow heat to escape via convection). But Fourier's speculations were about a DIFFERENT effect, in which layers of air trapped radiation.

      We now know that the "greenhouse effect" popularized by greenhouse gas warming theories does NOT work by the same principle as a real greenhouse, or the experiments that Fourier knew about. He imagined a warming via trapped radiation, but the actual warming in the experiments was the same effect as in a real greenhouse (which does not involve trapped radiation).

      So Fourier's "atmospheric greenhouse effect" was purely speculative, and could not in fact have worked by the same mechanism as the experiments which gave him the idea. He actually had no "evidence" of an atmospheric greenhouse effect at all. He literally dreamed it up out of thin air.

      That is not to say that he didn't come up with the idea of greenhouse gases. It's just that the idea, as applied to the experiments which GAVE him the idea, was wrong.

    15. Re:More snow = more pressure = faster calving! by hey! · · Score: 5, Informative

      Fortunately, we don't have to deal in "suggestions". People have actually *gone* to the glacier and taken measurements. It is thinning dramatically since 1997 [1]. Nor do we have to deal in suggestions about the temperature of Greenland, because people have been measuring that too. It is warming, dramatically on the western coast, somewhat less so on the eastern. [2]

      The glacier in question, by the way, is considerably less than 100 km long (as you an readily see), so the interior doesn't enter into the question of what this glacier is doing at all. However if you're interested, ice core data shows that the interior has warmed over the past several decades. [3]

      I can certainly buy the argument that this event doesn't prove *global* warming, because it doesn't. But the argument that it proves *local cooling* doesn't hold water, because it we know *from measurements* that there hasn't been local cooling, especially in southwestern Greenland where this glacier is *entirely* located.

      --- Citations ---
      1: Liu, Lin, John Wahr, Ian Howat, Shfaqat Abbas Khan, Ian Joughin, and Masato Furuya. "Constraining ice mass loss from Jakobshavn Isbræ (Greenland) using InSARmeasured crustal uplift." Geophysical Journal International 188, no. 3 (2012): 994-1006.

      2: Hanna, Edward, Sebastian H. Mernild, John Cappelen, and Konrad Steffen. "Recent warming in Greenland in a long-term instrumental (1881–2012) climatic context: I. Evaluation of surface air temperature records." Environmental Research Letters 7, no. 4 (2012): 045404.

      3: Muto, Atsuhiro, Ted A. Scambos, Konrad Steffen, Andrew G. Slater, and Gary D. Clow. "Recent surface temperature trends in the interior of East Antarctica from borehole firn temperature measurements and geophysical inverse methods." Geophysical Research Letters 38, no. 15 (2011): L15502.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    16. Re:More snow = more pressure = faster calving! by hey! · · Score: 3, Informative

      What you're talking about is 1.2 meters of new ice on top of *two kilometers* of primordial ice. If we scaled the ice sheet to 2 meters tall, the extra accumulation would be roughly the thickness of a piece of paper.

      In any case, you're confusing the vast, 400,000 year-old interior ice sheet with a coastal glacier. It makes no difference that the interior ice sheet has thickened very slightly because measurements of the *glacier in question* show that *it* is thinning.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    17. Re:More snow = more pressure = faster calving! by hey! · · Score: 5, Informative

      You realize 1995 set a record for hottest year ever on record? So you've cherry picked a particularly hot year as your baseline (or somebody dishonest picked it for you). That's Ok, because that record has been exceeded ten times since then, starting with 1998 which was *also* the hottest year on record.

      1995 was 0.4C hotter than the 20thC average. 2005 was 0.6C hotter than the baseline, and 2010 was just a smidgen hotter than 2005. So you could answer 0.2C to your question. But it's a lousy question, not just because it starts from a cherry-picked baseline, but because there's so much variation between years.

      A better question is "How much hotter were the 00's hotter than the 90's?" The 1990s where 0.313 C hotter than the 1950-1980 baseline. The 00s were 0.513 C hotter than the baseline. So again the answer to the question is 0.2C.

      Each of the past three decades set a record for the hottest on record.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    18. Re: More snow = more pressure = faster calving! by Joce640k · · Score: 1, Insightful

      And those who use the word "Denier" are more credible?

      Well.... I never saw a "Denier" who could post credible data (usually they don't post any at all).

      --
      No sig today...
    19. Re: More snow = more pressure = faster calving! by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      In the scientific literature, there is a strong consensus that global surface temperatures have increased in recent decades and that the trend is caused primarily by human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases.[2][3][4] No scientific body of national or international standing disagrees with this view,[5]

      And on the other side we have a massive political campaign to deny climate change:

      https://www.google.com/search?...

      http://www.scientificamerican....

      --
      No sig today...
    20. Re:More snow = more pressure = faster calving! by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      The center of Greenland's ice sheet may be thickening but over all Greenland is losing ice mass at a rate of over 260 Gt per year since 2002 as measured by the GRACE satellites. See the Total Ice Mass section of this report for details.

    21. Re:More snow = more pressure = faster calving! by riverat1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Fourier's discovery that the Earth was warmer than it should be given its size and distance from the Sun was a major step forward in geoscience.. That he may not have had the mechanism right in no way detracts from the importance of that insight.

    22. Re:More snow = more pressure = faster calving! by DiamondGeezer · · Score: 1

      Ah yes, the right answer using the wrong method. Is there anything more delusional than that?

      --
      Tubby or not tubby. Fat is the question
    23. Re:More snow = more pressure = faster calving! by DiamondGeezer · · Score: 0

      "Fortunately, we don't have to deal in "suggestions". People have actually *gone* to the glacier and taken measurements. It is thinning dramatically since 1997"

      Its amazing watching people with no scientific ability trying to sound scientific. The glacier is thinning because its surging.

      Another way of looking at it is that the glacier is growing in length rapidly, but then that sounds somehow less scary doesn't it?

      --
      Tubby or not tubby. Fat is the question
    24. Re:More snow = more pressure = faster calving! by DiamondGeezer · · Score: 0

      "simple scientific observation of the amplified greenhouse effect is enough"

      Of course, that amplified greenhouse effect appears to be missing everywhere that we can actually measure.

      --
      Tubby or not tubby. Fat is the question
    25. Re:More snow = more pressure = faster calving! by amaurea · · Score: 2

      The glacier is thinning because its surging. Another way of looking at it is that the glacier is growing in length rapidly, but then that sounds somehow less scary doesn't it?

      Yes, intuitively one would think that if a glacier speeds up, it must be growing more quickly. But the world is a complex place, so we should be vary of our intuition. Thankfully people have actually measured the lenght of the glacier, so we con't have to guess:

      As the Arctic region warms, Greenland’s glaciers have been thinning and calving icebergs farther and farther inland. This means that even though the glacier is flowing toward the coast and carrying more ice into the ocean, its calving front is actually retreating. In 2012 and 2013, Jakobshavn’s front retreated around 0.6 miles (1 km) each year compared to its position the previous summer.

      Sometimes it pays to read TFA!

    26. Re:More snow = more pressure = faster calving! by KeensMustard · · Score: 1
      Hopefully you didn't suppose that I meant that the greenhouse gas theory was somehow fully formed in the 1820s - because if so your supposition was wrong.

      He proposed the theoretical foundation, Tyndall demonstrated the mechanism by his work with radiative absorption - Arrhenius quantified it.

      If the aim of the conspiracy theorists is to disprove AGW they need to disprove the work of these giants.

    27. Re:More snow = more pressure = faster calving! by Barsteward · · Score: 2

      "Sometimes it pays to read TFA!"

      don't hold your breath on deniers/religionists reading and believing facts/evidence

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    28. Re:More snow = more pressure = faster calving! by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 2

      OK, I cherry picked the data. Why do you use the 1950-1980 baseline, why not something earlier and longer for the baseline? Oh - and you never answered where you get your data from...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    29. Re: More snow = more pressure = faster calving! by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      unless I'm messing up orders of magnitude, it'd me 1.2mm, not thick, but a lot more than a sheet of paper.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    30. Re:More snow = more pressure = faster calving! by floobedy · · Score: 1

      Its amazing watching people with no scientific ability trying to sound scientific.

      He's doing a much better job than you are. Your posts are beneath even the very low standards which prevail on slashdot.

      Speaking of "no scientific ability":

      Its amazing watching people with no scientific ability trying to sound scientific.

      Did you actually read and understand the thread? He was responding to the claim that glaciers were calving more quickly because they were growing thicker inland. His citations were relevant to that.

      but then that sounds somehow less scary doesn't it?

      It's not all just an attempt to scare you.

    31. Re:More snow = more pressure = faster calving! by floobedy · · Score: 1

      Ah yes, the right answer using the wrong method.

      Nope. You didn't get it. The poster was claiming that Fourier was right about the temperature of the Earth being different from what was expected. Fourier's calculations about that, were correct. Then Fourier generated a hypothesis about the cause of the increased temperature, which was wrong. At no time did he "get the right answer using the wrong method".

      Is there anything more delusional than that?

      Forming a hypothesis about an observed event is obviously not the same thing as being "delusional".

      Do you know who Fourier was? Do you really think he was just "delusional"?

    32. Re: More snow = more pressure = faster calving! by dbIII · · Score: 1

      I prefer "luddite", "merchant in the temple" or "christianity-lite". Those pricks that went after geology, biology and now climate science are doing it just to try to make it look like they know more than anyone that went to school.

    33. Re:More snow = more pressure = faster calving! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Modded down, "overrated". Citation needed.

    34. Re:More snow = more pressure = faster calving! by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Oh - and you never answered where you get your data from...

      From those nasty scientists with thermometers filled with that dangerous mercury! Not from cherry picked bits of the Bible with all the inconvenient bits about bacon and caring for the poor taken out.
      This unchanging Earth shit taken from dumbing down Genesis, conveniently ignoring the bit where we are supposed to look after the place, should not be used to try to show that reality is invalid.

    35. Re:More snow = more pressure = faster calving! by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Ah yes, the right answer using the wrong method. Is there anything more delusional than that?

      In that case take that up with Newton and gravity too.

      WTF is it with these luddites?

    36. Re:More snow = more pressure = faster calving! by hey! · · Score: 2

      It doesn't matter what baseline you use for X and Y if you want to answer "how much greater is X than Y?" When I calculate "X - Y", the choice of baseline cancels out. It doesn't matter if I do the calculation in celsius or kelvin; or if I choose 1900-1999 as a baseline or 1950-1980. The answer to the question "how much hotter was 2005 than 1995?" is still going to be 0.2C.

      As for the choice of 1995 as a baseline, it was *your* idea to use a year that set a record for high temperature and ask, "has it got warmer since then?" and surprisingly, the answer turns out to be "yes". That's very different than taking ten or more years as your baseline, which cancels out the effect of unusually hot or unusually cool years impartially.

      As for the source of my data, here you go.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    37. Re:More snow = more pressure = faster calving! by hey! · · Score: 1

      Its amazing watching people with no scientific ability trying to sound scientific. The glacier is thinning because its surging.

      Isn't it, though?

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    38. Re:More snow = more pressure = faster calving! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Modded "Troll", as author is denying the existence of the glacier's retreat (it is getting shorter, not getting longer.) Author is also insulting all persons who demonstrate they have read, and absorbed, more about the topic than author has done. At root, author is irrelevant and putting him on the "foe" list so that none of his future posts would be seen would remove some of the noise from the slashdot experience.

    39. Re:More snow = more pressure = faster calving! by geekoid · · Score: 1

      NO it hasn't. Geez, 1 article form 2005, and it doesn't measure mass; which has been declining.
      I will admit, that was one of the better attempts at cherry picking.
      It's been loosing more mass then gaining:
      http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessm...

      really, what is your problem? The science is sound. I wonder, do you know the science? i mean, you seem to cherry pick the predictions of the science, but do you know even the basics of the science?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    40. Re:More snow = more pressure = faster calving! by geekoid · · Score: 1

      No it isn't. why the hell would you say that? This article talks about it

      the amplified green house effect is EVERYWHERE we look.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    41. Re:More snow = more pressure = faster calving! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not sure what it is about Climatology that makes people think that ignorance can substitute for knowledge. Does this muddled thinking work, say, when you go to the bank "I'm skeptical of alarmist bankers claims that my account is overdrawn"?

      "But my account can't be overdrawn! I still have checks!"

      Most persons who argue against the evidence of global warning are choosing to look at methods of measurement that have no more relevance than the number of unused checks is relevant to the checking account balance. "But I Still Have Checks" [BISHC] could be a useful meme.

    42. Re:More snow = more pressure = faster calving! by kimvette · · Score: 1

      > An observant person might note that the fact that is now snowing in places where it was previously too cold to snow is actually an indication of change, not an argument against it.

      "Too cold to snow?" Really, now?

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    43. Re:More snow = more pressure = faster calving! by PortHaven · · Score: 1

      And what you do is talk about 1950's to 2012, 1900 to 2012, 1800's, 1600s, 1AD, 2000BC....

      All of these dates a mere slivers in climate history. And most anything beyond those dates is circumspect. Based on assumptions with little proof.

      Sure you can measure CO2 levels in ice cores from thousands or hundreds of thousands of years ago. And declare they were significantly lower in the past. But you have zero knowledge of how much CO2 is lost over thousands and millions of years.

      Gasses like to escape. Even heavy ones are rather hard to contain for long periods of time. And any assumptions on that loss are really pretty much guesswork on the part of the scientists.

      Furthermore, most of the older temperatures were derived from various methods (ice cores, tree growth rings, shellfish, etc) and then per a scientists assumptions, aligned with present day temperature recordings. There are major issues to these methods.

      1. It assumes a continous unchanging pattern of use and growth, etc.

      2. It fails to account for multiple factors in growth. For instance, one might exclaim that that low growth rings of a clam were due to CO2. But maybe some factor such as a glacier melting and dumping fresh water reduced growth by affecting salinity, food availability, etc.

      The truth is, there is way way too much guess work. This is not to say we shouldn't reduce pollution, clean up our act. But frankly, I am far more concerned about the fact that we cut down rainforests to create grazing pasture, then pave the grazing pasture to create urbanization.

    44. Re:More snow = more pressure = faster calving! by PortHaven · · Score: 1

      So will it one day be a "green land" again?

    45. Re:More snow = more pressure = faster calving! by hendric · · Score: 1

      Yes, too cold to snow. The amount of water vapor in the air is very temperature dependent. Even below freezing air can have water vapor: http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/relative-humidity-air-d_687.html

      So as the air cools more and more, there is less vapor available for snow.

      So another side effect of the overall warming can definitely be larger snowfalls in the winter - there is more moisture in the air to work with.

      You do realize the interior of Antarctica is one of the world's largest deserts, right? Because it is so cold that the air can't hold very much water. And now it is receiving large snowfalls because of the increased water vapor. Look at that chart, and see how much the % increase is from say 0F to 15F (remember, the amount of warming is much larger in the arctic areas) - nearly double.

      So yeah, more heating == more snowfall.

      --
      "Though it may take a thousand years, we shall be FREE."
    46. Re:More snow = more pressure = faster calving! by cellocgw · · Score: 1

      Do you know who Fourier was? Do you really think he was just "delusional"?

      I would have said he's more like "transformational," but yeah that was a different Mr. Fourier.

      --
      https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
    47. Re:More snow = more pressure = faster calving! by cusco · · Score: 1

      You need to travel more. Glacier National Park has a series of slides showing the retreat of all their glaciers. Coastal glaciers in Alaska are retreating so fast that Princess Cruises has had to change their glacier viewing routes. A photo of Huaraz, Peru from 1947 shows mountain peaks on both sides of the valley covered in glaciers, when I first went in 1986 only the eastern range had glaciers, when I went a few years ago half of the eastern range is now bare. There are valleys in Chile and Argentina that haven't been ice-free for at least 10,000 years that are now bare. Most of the glaciers on Mount Kilimanjaro and Mount Fuji have melted away. It's obvious everywhere we look.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    48. Re:More snow = more pressure = faster calving! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is there anyone left on your side that can make an honest argument anymore? Stop playing stupid. You know exactly what you did and why it was dishonest. Others are not doing the same trick back to you and you know that too.

    49. Re:More snow = more pressure = faster calving! by cusco · · Score: 1

      Yeah, the reason that most of Antarctica is considered a desert is because it's too cold to snow most of the time. Cold air can't hold as much moisture as warm air, and when the air gets too cold there isn't enough moisture left to precipitate out in any meaningful way. I used to see it all the time growing up in Michigan, when the temperature dropped below -10F it stopped snowing. The air just couldn't pick up enough water vapor.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    50. Re:More snow = more pressure = faster calving! by SleazyRidr · · Score: 1

      It sure is a shame the no one has done any science since Fourier. Imagine the things we could have learned if only there were someone who could take his work and continue to study the greenhouse effect.

    51. Re:More snow = more pressure = faster calving! by kimvette · · Score: 1

      There is no such thing as "too cold to snow"

      http://www.theweatherpredictio...

      http://www.forteantimes.com/st...

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    52. Re:More snow = more pressure = faster calving! by kimvette · · Score: 1

      There is no such thing as "too cold to snow"

      http://www.theweatherpredictio...

      http://www.forteantimes.com/st...

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    53. Re:More snow = more pressure = faster calving! by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      Errata: The "a1" in the quote showed as "a-1" in the original and stands for per annum or per year.

    54. Re:More snow = more pressure = faster calving! by cusco · · Score: 1

      OK, rephrasing. "it's too cold to allow atmospheric lifting that could raise sufficient water vapor to altitudes where snow could be produced."

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    55. Re: More snow = more pressure = faster calving! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So glad to see that you are the purveyor of credibility. I feel SO MUCH BETTER.

    56. Re:More snow = more pressure = faster calving! by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      He (Fourier) proposed the theoretical foundation, Tyndall demonstrated the mechanism by his work with radiative absorption - Arrhenius quantified it.

      Nicely and succinctly put. I'm going to steal that.

    57. Re:More snow = more pressure = faster calving! by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      "Fourier's discovery that the Earth was warmer than it should be given its size and distance from the Sun was a major step forward in geoscience."

      It wasn't a "discovery", it was a calculation, AND it was a calculation based on false assumptions, because he simply did not have the information about it that we have now.

      To put it bluntly: even if he did arrive at the right solution via his calculations (which is very questionable), he was still wrong. For example: the sunward surface of the moon, even when it is fullest (i.e., the furthest parts of its wobbly orbits about the sun) is FAR hotter than the surface of the earth... and the ONLY significant energy source is the sun.

      By Fourier's calculations, even without an atmosphere there was not enough solar radiation to do that.

      That is to say: he was simply wrong.

      Hell, his assumptions were FAR from valid: one of the questions that led him to conclude that the atmosphere "retained radiation" was: "Why does radiation from the sun NOT heat the surface of the Earth to the same temperature as the surface of the sun?"

      Today this question would be considered absolutely ridiculous to even ask. The sun, nearly 93,000,000 miles away, could never heat the earth to its own temperature or anything even like it: the inverse square law precludes anything of the sort.

      To repeat what I said earlier: I am not trying to take away from the fact that he came up with these ideas. But his actual conclusions, from his actual observations, were based on false assumptions and were incorrect.

    58. Re:More snow = more pressure = faster calving! by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      "Fourier's calculations about that, were correct."

      No, they weren't. See my other post from a few minutes ago. Fourier's calculations about that were very, very WRONG.

      He came up with the IDEA. Yes. But his conclusions were based on calculations that were themselves based on invalid assumptions.

      So yes, even if you believe that his conclusions were correct (not everybody does), he still arrived at them via incorrect means.

    59. Re:More snow = more pressure = faster calving! by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      What abut Newton's method was wrong, pray tell?

      P.S. The general term "Luddites" refers to people who are opposed to technological progress. It does not refer to those who think someone else's science is flawed.

      So for example: someone who wanted to shut down a power plant might be called a Luddite. Someone who wanted to keep it running would not be.

    60. Re:More snow = more pressure = faster calving! by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      "He (Fourier) proposed the theoretical foundation"

      Fourier proposed an IDEA, based on flawed assumptions and resulting flawed calculations. I am not "blaming" Fourier... such was the state of science at the time. But modern science would not arrive at his conclusions, given the same raw data. He gets credit (if that is the right word) for conceiving of the idea, but his theoretical work and calculations are useless due to too many flawed assumptions.

      Tyndall showed that gases can warm by absorbing radiation, and cool by emitting it. I have no criticism of Tyndall's work.

      Arrhenius attempted to quantify it. He came up with some potentially useful calculations but they were based on indirect observation and yet more assumptions. (I.e., he assumed CO2 and water were what were retaining heat in the atmosphere). His "quantification" merely confirmed his preconceptions. His was a classic case of fitting the math to the observations, not the other way around. (That is not necessarily an argument that he was incorrect. It just means that his conclusions did not necessarily follow from his premises.)

      Kurt Angstrom rebutted Arrhenius' work. Angstrom's rebuttal was basically shouted down; I know of no actual refutation of Angstrom's criticisms.

    61. Re:More snow = more pressure = faster calving! by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      "It sure is a shame the no one has done any science since Fourier. Imagine the things we could have learned if only there were someone who could take his work and continue to study the greenhouse effect."

      It sure would be interesting. Let me know when that happens. Quote Wikipedia:

      "Arrhenius estimated that halving of CO2 would decrease temperatures by 4â"5 ÂC (Celsius) and a doubling of CO2 would cause a temperature rise of 5â"6 ÂC.[10] In his 1906 publication, Arrhenius adjusted the value downwards to 1.6 ÂC (including water vapor feedback: 2.1 ÂC). Recent (2007) estimates from IPCC say this value (the Climate sensitivity) is likely to be between 2 and 4.5 ÂC."

      So let's see... Arrhenius estimated climate sensitivity to be 2.1 degrees C. Modern "science" says it's somewhere between 2 and 4.5 degrees C.

      Doesn't look like much progress to me over the last 100 years. We've maybe learned to place error bars around out calculations. That's about it.

    62. Re:More snow = more pressure = faster calving! by dbIII · · Score: 1
      The word is in there - "gravity" - Newton didn't quite get it right. It's a good example as to why expecting instant perfection is an unreasonable attitude in science (or anything really).

      The general term "Luddites" refers to people who are opposed to technological progress

      Yes.

      It does not refer to those who think someone else's science is flawed.

      People who think an entire field of science is invalid and then make a statement that suggests that the entire scientific method is flawed are a different case. See the posts from DiamondGeezer as an example of that. It looks like opposition to progress to me. Just hide whatever the instruments say if it's about climate - is that it DiamondGeezer?
      Science is not instant perfection. A lot of science is working out what the hell is going on one step at a time. We had to think of phlogisten, ridiculous as it sounds now, when we didn't have a clue that oxygen existed. The single major flaw in the phlogisten theory (oxidation of iron) led to the discovery of oxygen and that there was more than one kind of gas.

    63. Re:More snow = more pressure = faster calving! by KeensMustard · · Score: 1

      Fourier proposed an IDEA, based on flawed assumptions and resulting flawed calculations. I am not "blaming" Fourier... such was the state of science at the time. But modern science would not arrive at his conclusions, given the same raw data.

      Summary Fourier was right.

      Tyndall showed that gases can warm by absorbing radiation, and cool by emitting it. I have no criticism of Tyndall's work.

      Summary Tyndall was right. There is no known refutation of Tyndall that would cause us to doubt that CO2 and other greenhouse gases are a driver for climate change.

      Arrhenius attempted to quantify it. He came up with some potentially useful calculations but they were based on indirect observation and yet more assumptions. (I.e., he assumed CO2 and water were what were retaining heat in the atmosphere).

      Summary Arrhenius was right.

      Kurt Angstrom rebutted Arrhenius' work. Angstrom's rebuttal was basically shouted down; I know of no actual refutation of Angstrom's criticisms.

      Summary You heard that someone said something criticising some part of Arrhenius' work. This person was then "shouted down" which I assume means "proven wrong" pending further evidence. Summary of Summary You can't detail any evidence refuting Arrhenius' early work on quantifying the sensitivity of climate to CO2 and othe greenhouse gases, and probably you yourself don't believe there is a problem with it, but can't say so publicly.

    64. Re:More snow = more pressure = faster calving! by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      "Summary Fourier was right."

      No, he wasn't. The "greenhouse gas trapping radiation" explanation he imagined for the effects observed in the de Saussure experiments existed in his mind only and still does not exist. The heating in de Saussure's hotbox experiments was solely due to solar heating, and prevention of convective cooling. See the reconstruction here.

      In other words, exactly like a real greenhouse, which works the way I just described, NOT via trapping of radiation.

      Fourier's explanation was that the trapped gas also "trapped radiation" to cause the heating. Which was WRONG. Period.

      Whether the modern conception of the "greenhouse effect" in the atmosphere works along the lines Fourier imagined is a different story. But as I stated before: the experiments that gave him the idea had NOTHING to do with "greenhouse gases" at all. They worked according to the well-known principles that govern actual greenhouses, which in turn has nothing at all to do with "trapping radiation".

    65. Re:More snow = more pressure = faster calving! by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      "Summary Tyndall was right. There is no known refutation of Tyndall that would cause us to doubt that CO2 and other greenhouse gases are a driver for climate change."

      Actually, I just learned that this too is not true. Not only did Tyndall get absoptivity and opacity confused, he also based his work on the assumption of the "luminiferous aether", which we of course know today does not exist. It is simply not valid to take a work that is based on the concept of "aether" and say it is vindication of ANY modern scientific theory.

      Nowhere does Tyndall mention measuring the component of radiation reflected by the gases he examines... This is in spite of Tyndall's having handled chlorine gas, which is coloured by its reflection of visible light. It is clear that Tyndall measured opacity and relative opacity, not absorptivity and absorption as he seems to claim. In fact, Tyndall uses the terms "opacity" and "absorbing power" interchangably throughout his work. This is indicative of a fundamental misunderstanding, which is nonetheless studiously avoided by nearly all authors who claim that Tyndall's work proved the "Greenhouse Effect". In fact, it was another fundamental misunderstanding that lead to the proposition of the "Greenhouse Effect".

      (Quote Tyndall) "I have already adduced considerations which show that the molecules of rock-salt glide with facility through the ether; but the ease of motion which these molecules enjoy must facilitate their mutual collision. Their motion, instead of being expended on the ether which exists between them, and communicated by it to the external ether, is in great part transferred directly from particle to particle, or in other words, is freely conducted. When a molecule of alum, on the contrary, approaches a neighbour molecule, it produces a swell on the intervening ether of space, which swell is in part transmitted, not to the molecules, but to the general ether of space, and thus lost as regards conduction. This lateral waste prevents the motion from penetrating the alum to any great extent, and the substance is what we all a bad conductor."

    66. Re:More snow = more pressure = faster calving! by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      "This person was then "shouted down" which I assume means "proven wrong" pending further evidence."

      "This person" is no less than Kurt Angstrom, and no, "shouting down" means loudly proclaiming "NO! You're wrong!" without any supporting evidence.

    67. Re: More snow = more pressure = faster calving! by cbeaudry · · Score: 1

      So about $558 million over that period (2003 to 2010)

      Its still nothing compared to US Federal spending on climate change for that same period (over 106 billion dollars).
      http://www.forbes.com/sites/la...

      So whats so bad about spending 0.5% of federal climate change spending to try and get the message out that not everyone is in agreement with it?

      Seriously, 558$ million, what a big number. Lets scare the sheeple that read the news.

      Honnestly, $106 billion spent over an 8 year period, is insane IMO.

      $106,000,000,000
            $558,000,000

  3. Change of Expression? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Does this mean that in a few years they will have to re-define the term "at glacial pace"? :)

    1. Re: Change of Expression? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thankfully a snail's pace is safe, though replacing the size aspect may be a little harder.

    2. Re: Change of Expression? by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      This glacier is moving at 0.00053m/s
      Snails go between 0.013 and 0.000023m/s, so it's somewhere in between but on the slow side.
      I doubt any snail could travel 46m in 24 hours though.

  4. What will it cost? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How much do I have to pay in taxes to make it stop?

    1. Re: What will it cost? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm pretty sure paying more taxes won't do a thing. Realistic appraisals and cooperation by world governments however...

      Sheesh, the ostriches are quick on this one.

    2. Re:What will it cost? by hey! · · Score: 2

      Wrong question. The question is how far sea level is going to rise over your lifetime due to a multitude of causes. Then when you know that, the question is how much you will have to pay (in taxes, prices, and risk) to deal with the consequences.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    3. Re:What will it cost? by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      The more the sea level rises, the closer my house gets to beachfront property.

    4. Re:What will it cost? by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      "Wrong question. The question is how far sea level is going to rise over your lifetime due to a multitude of causes.

      According to the IPCC, perhaps as much as a meter over the next hundred years.

      Then when you know that, the question is how much you will have to pay (in taxes, prices, and risk) to deal with the consequences."

      Well, if that seems fast to you, you can always packing now.

      As for taxes, it better not cost me very damned much, because I wasn't one of those people who decided to build (or live in) a big city at sea level. Nobody twisted their arms and made them live there. Let them pay to relocate.

      In the case of New Orleans, the corrupt politicians and Army officials (Corp of Engineers) who took everybody's money instead of keeping the dikes in shape should be the ones paying the cost, not the taxpayers.

      On the other hand, personally I think continuing to build a big city on the coast, below sea level, for 100 years or more with inadequate dikes should really be the top candidate for The Darwin Award of the Century.

    5. Re:What will it cost? by Spy+Handler · · Score: 1

      Actually I feel the same way about San Francisco. Once every century or so they enjoy a magnitude 9 earthquake. Obviously not the best place to build a densely populated city. Yet after the last magnitude 9 quake, the city leaders and rich elites deliberately downplayed the damage and death toll because they wanted people to come back to the city. They were protecting their wealth, which were tied to the S.F. real estate values.

    6. Re:What will it cost? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what about the other 70m that the sea is going to rise because of the melting of the ice ?

    7. Re:What will it cost? by hey! · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's not so simple as "10 cm/decade doesn't seem like much".

      Imagine storm surges laid out on a bell curve, with height above mean high tide as the X axis. When you chose how close to build to the waterline, and the protections you put in, you probably wouldn't draw the line where you'd get one flood every thousand years. You might decide you can live with one flood every ten years. But shift the mean high tide by 20 cm over two decades, and that once a decade flood might happen eight or ten times a decade.

      There's often a sharp line between a near miss and a disaster. A one foot rise over thirty years (roughly correponds to 1m/century) means that a seawall or levee that would have held back the flood get overtopped. A one foot rise means a place that never got flooded before could be in harms way. Some of the levees that failed in Katrina were overtopped by only a matter of inches. Others were overtopped by ten feet, but that's a different issue.

      And in a lot of the world, the floodplain isn't chosen because it's a nice place to live. Bengladeshi subsistence farmers don't locate in low areas because of the beaches, but because that's the only land they can afford. These are people with very low levels of material consumption. They don't get much of the share of benefit from the carbon added to the atmosphere, but they bear a disproportionate share of the costs.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    8. Re:What will it cost? by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      "A one foot rise over thirty years (roughly correponds to 1m/century) means that a seawall or levee that would have held back the flood get overtopped."

      Sure. But it also means that you have 100 years to make your levee higher, or to move farther up the hill. We aren't talking about sudden changes here.

    9. Re:What will it cost? by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      Correction: 100 years for a meter, of course. You have less time for smaller rises, but then smaller rises are also relatively less of a problem.

      Where I live, any construction in a 100-year flood zone has to meet special criteria, and even then might not be approved by the city or county.

    10. Re:What will it cost? by DiamondGeezer · · Score: 1

      The answer: sea levels have risen (on average) by a millimeter per year since the end of the Little Ice Age. Of course, during the Little Ice Age, sea levels FELL. Sometimes sea level rise appears to accelerate and sometimes decelerate to almost nothing.

      --
      Tubby or not tubby. Fat is the question
    11. Re:What will it cost? by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      as long as your house is water tight you should be okay when the sea has eroded all the soil around it and it can turn your house into a houseboat and you can travel the world.. :o)

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    12. Re:What will it cost? by adolf · · Score: 1

      Speaking as someone who once lost his house due to frequent, relatively new, unexpected, and profound flooding*:

      If a community is depending on a seawall or levee for survival against the ingress of water: It was known to be doomed for some time already -- otherwise, the seawall or levee would not have been constructed to begin with. (These things are expensive to build, even in WPA times.)

      Time and time again, from Katrina to the Mississippi floods to Sandy to Fukashima, we see the dire effects of building in places that can (and will) flood.

      Given our data and our advanced understanding of topography, we already know that they will flood. That we continue to build things and house people in these places is a fault of builders/realtors/bankers/investors/governance/ignorance, not of inadequate band-aids that are mere inches or feet from certain and sudden disaster..

      And since we know this, it's cheaper to move the city before the flood, than to attempt to recover/remediate/relocate/mitigate after the flood.

      (*: It hadn't flooded there in any meaningful way for 20 years. And it hadn't catastrophically flooded for 80 years before that. Safe bet? Sure seemed like it, but it wasn't. And it is it not a safe bet for anyone else depending on man-made geological improvements to keep them safe from water.)

    13. Re:What will it cost? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and it will rise with 70m (200ft) when all ice melts.

    14. Re:What will it cost? by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      My house is about 1,000 feet above sea level, and if all the ice in the world melted, it is estimated that the sea level would rise by 216 feet. So I would still be well out of danger. Ironically, only a few hundred million years ago, my house would have been at the bottom of a shallow sea. Apparently there used to be more water than there is now.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    15. Re:What will it cost? by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      what about the other 70m that the sea is going to rise because of the melting of the ice ?

      The scientific consensus seems to be that it will take us 5,000 years to melt it all, so I am guessing that people will move out little by little.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    16. Re:What will it cost? by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      And in a lot of the world, the floodplain isn't chosen because it's a nice place to live. Bengladeshi subsistence farmers don't locate in low areas because of the beaches, but because that's the only land they can afford.

      Also, because flood plain land is the most fertile.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    17. Re:What will it cost? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      wrong. Maybe you should read the report?
      Best case 220 mm, worse case 500mm

      Where the hell are you getting 1 meter from?

      Just so you know, event happening have been closer to worse case then best case, in general.

      And do you really think it won't effect you much just becasue you don't live in a city below sea level(of which there will be any more in the next 85 years.

      All those people will move, to where you are at. Infrastructure rices will increase faster then tax base growth.

      That is why we, society, should be spending money now. Because it will be cheaper and spread out of a longer period.
      Or we wait until it's critical and deal the the much., much more expensive situation.

      You don't live on an island. You, one way or another, use port cities.

      " for 100 years or more with inadequate dikes "
      I agree. Sadly dykes aren't free.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    18. Re:What will it cost? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just going to tag along on parent post to point out that even a 10 cm rise in average sea level is going to have a profound affect inland.

      That 10 cm rise is going to vastly increase the shallow evaporation basins that add significant moisture to the troposphere in coastal areas. That moisture travels inland and increases precipitation, which in turn increases stream flows.

      Net result: a lot of infrastructure built near rivers is going to be hit by flood waters. In the USA and I am sure elsewhere, flood control dams have not been built with enough excess capacity to handle a long term upward shift in baseline stream levels. St Louis and other inland cities will be faced with many of the same problems that dog New Orleans.

    19. Re:What will it cost? by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      "wrong. Maybe you should read the report? Best case 220 mm, worse case 500mm"

      Depends on which report you mean. In the IPCC Assessment Reports (plural) the realistic-worst-case I have seen was about a meter. As I recall, in the latest report they toned that down some, but as I said, I was talking about the worst case that I remember they reported.

      "Just so you know, event happening have been closer to worse case then best case, in general."

      Depends on who you talk to. Of 117 AGW models studies, many of which were referenced when compiling the latest AR report, the MEAN difference between the models' projections and actual observations was over 100%. I would say that only 50%, on average, of the projected warming can hardly be called "closer to worst case".

      "And do you really think it won't effect you much just becasue you don't live in a city below sea level("

      That isn't what I said.

      "All those people will move, to where you are at. Infrastructure rices will increase faster then tax base growth."

      As I said: let them pay for the costs of relocating. It simply isn't my responsibility, in any legal, moral or ethical sense of the word.

      "That is why we, society, should be spending money now."

      To relocate people? You go ahead and spend all the money you want. I'll keep mine, thanks.

      "Or we wait until it's critical and deal the the much., much more expensive situation."

      Yep. If they wait until the last minute, it will cost them a lot more. I don't dispute that.

      "You, one way or another, use port cities."

      Yep. And one way or another, I pay for the part I use. But I don't have any reason to pay for the part I don't.

    20. Re:What will it cost? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Author of parent post is not thinking it through.

      A significant rise in sea level is going to massively increase the area of the sea to air interface as low lands flood. This will increase moisture in the troposphere, which will increase precipitation inland. Which will result in the loss of infrastructure from floods. That 100 year flood plain 500 feet above sea level becomes a 10 year flood plain; a lot of roads and rail lines will have to be abandoned.

      One of the biggest unstated problems with the rise in sea level is that the water is not going to stay in the oceans. A lot of it is going into the atmosphere, where it will add to the greenhouse effect if it is vapor, and increase the albedo if it is cloud. As well as the flooding and erosion problems.

    21. Re:What will it cost? by cusco · · Score: 1

      Land rises and falls for the same reasons that continents drift, altitude of any particular spot will change over time. There probably wasn't much more water then, just the magma beneath your continental plate let it sink deeper. Or perhaps your plate has collided with others in the last few hundred million years and buckling has raised the middle.

      That's just incredibly cool to contemplate.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    22. Re:What will it cost? by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      nah, I'm good. My house is around 100m above sea level

    23. Re:What will it cost? by volmtech · · Score: 1

      Just the opposite for inland Florida. Much of the swampland people bought cheap thirty years ago is high and dry. Neighborhoods flood because houses are built low on a slab instead of the traditional 24 in pilings. My cousins, brother, and I spent many hot summer days in the 1950s playing in the cool sand under our grandfathers house.

    24. Re:What will it cost? by adolf · · Score: 1

      Just as for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, for every anecdote there is an equal and opposite anecdote. See also: Quantum entanglement.

      That said, it's a lovely story that you have. But what are you adding?

  5. Good news! by tsprig · · Score: 1, Redundant

    If anyone thinks you're working at a glacial speed, you are now 4x as fast as you were in the 1990's. Now THAT is progress!

  6. Kill all humans by musmax · · Score: 2, Interesting

    You know I don't really care about the number of humans the impeding environmental crisis will kill off, the more the better, as long as its not me of course, and it will take at least 50 years, by which time I will be dragged to my grave by my fat ass. In all probability it will be some brown nobody that cooks his food over a dung fire in Asstonia, and who gives a fuck about that ? What concerns me more is the sterile wasteland the survivors will create. I mean its nice to "conserve" some splatter of greenery somewhere out of town siting in front of your TV in your underpants, drinking craft beer, but I'll wager not much will stop you bulldozing that shit down to feed your starving kids.

    1. Re:Kill all humans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow. You posted that under your username? You have no shame do you?

    2. Re: Kill all humans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Feel free to dispose of yourself, at any time.

    3. Re:Kill all humans by dyingtolive · · Score: 1

      Damn, that's bleak.

      --
      Support the EFF and Creative Commons. The war is coming, and they're supporting you...
  7. Confused by Voyager529 · · Score: 1

    I'm still a bit confused on those speeds. Can someone convert them to coincide with the viscosity of tar pitch or the rate by which bills get passed through congress?

    1. Re:Confused by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It would've been far easier if they'd just said "1.25 inches per second", or "3cm per second" as a reasonable approximation that actually gives a real mental cue as to how fast the ice would be moving if you were standing there staring at it.

    2. Re:Confused by belthize · · Score: 1

      Bit faster than the first, way faster than the second, for typical values of bit and way.

    3. Re:Confused by rossdee · · Score: 1

      Viscosity is an inverse measure of speed

      Bills passing congress is measured in Repeals of ObamaCare per session

    4. Re:Confused by Travis+Mansbridge · · Score: 1

      Per minute*

    5. Re:Confused by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      150 feet per day is 1.25 inches per minute. That's still fast enough that you could see it in a minute or three with good reference points.

  8. Confused at any speed! by khallow · · Score: 1
    The Designed In Idiocy of the Slashdot Poster

    For over a decade the Slashdot poster has brought ignorance, libel, and the most inestimable repetitive motion, face-palming injuries to have afflicted the general public. With Medea-like intensity, this mass trauma began rising sharply four years ago, reflecting new and unexpected ravages by the keyboards of tens of thousands of monkeys and/or basement dwellers. A 2009 Department of Commerce report projected that 51,000 persons would be rendered eternally speechless by Slashdot posting atrocities in 2025. That figure will probably be reached in 2015, a decade ahead of schedule.

    1. Re:Confused at any speed! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's quite a .sig

    2. Re:Confused at any speed! by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      "For over a decade the Slashdot poster has brought ignorance, libel, and the most inestimable repetitive motion, face-palming injuries to have afflicted the general public."

      Must ... resist ... temptation... to... snark...

      Ah. There. I did it. Hooray for me.

    3. Re:Confused at any speed! by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Why are you here then? Do you get paid for your science denial or do you just like trolling people?

    4. Re:Confused at any speed! by khallow · · Score: 1

      Don't you have something better to do?

    5. Re:Confused at any speed! by dbIII · · Score: 1

      So says the guy with the silly little bit of prose attacking all readers of the site above?

  9. Re by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And you're an AC that doesn't know shit, either. You don't have any numbers either, either. People who spew bullshit with nothing to back it up often post AC, but sometimes they don't, sometimes you can't really tell. You'd never post such nonsense logged in either cause your poor or awesome karma would suffer for it. This applies to this AC as well.

  10. more than 10 miles (17 km) per year by danknight48 · · Score: 1

    Slow news day ./?

    1. Re:more than 10 miles (17 km) per year by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      there's nothing wrong into trying to educate..

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    2. Re:more than 10 miles (17 km) per year by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      that "into" should be "in"

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
  11. +0.17C, since you asked. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But I think you meant to ask from 1998, which was an outlier year that, in 1998 and 1999 was touted by deniers and lukewarmer do-nothings as "an anomoly not to be taken as proof of AGW". Of course, 15 years later, it's no longer an outiler to those same people.

    Which is why "Skeptic" doesn't apply to them.

  12. Speed 3: Glacier of Doom! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "If this glacier goes slower than one miles a year, we're all dead!"

  13. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  14. Here you go ACs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    0, 42, pi, e, c, pi, 6*10^23

    t311 m3 1f y0u n33d m0r3 num63r5

  15. Incorrect by geekoid · · Score: 1

    In the case of basal sliding, the entire glacier slides over its bed. This type of motion is enhanced if the bed is soft sediment, if the glacier bed is thawed and if meltwater is prevalent.

    It's the FASTER melting that causing the increase of speed.
    You do understand this is about increased melting, right?

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  16. Wait....just....a.....minute... by PortHaven · · Score: 1

    The glacier is moving a record speeds. This is due to massive accumulation of ice putting pressure on the glacier. Ice....wait.....

    I thought ice was only growing in the Antarctic region, NOT the Arctic. But now you tell me it is increasing there too.

    (And darn, if it ain't increasing on my home as well.)

    1. Re:Wait....just....a.....minute... by cusco · · Score: 1

      Fail. Coastal glacier, no connection to the inland ice mass. Inland is also losing mass as well. This is pointed out in any number of posts above, which you managed to ignore in your rush to post this bit of foolishness.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
  17. Kind of like Galileo... by PortHaven · · Score: 1

    He had the right answer, but most of his proofs had been disproven by contemporary scientistis. He was too egotistical to accept their theories (which history later proved correct), and thus was an unabashed ass in many ways. Who felt that he was beyond the need for the peer review / publication process of his day.

  18. Yes...but according to the IPCC by PortHaven · · Score: 1

    Who's computer models have yet to predict anywhere close to accurately.

    Creating a model that predicts the past is easy. Creating one that predicts the future....that's scientific.

  19. Shallow seas by sjbe · · Score: 1

    Ironically, only a few hundred million years ago, my house would have been at the bottom of a shallow sea. Apparently there used to be more water than there is now.

    You're assuming your elevation and/or geography is the same as it was millions of years ago. I live near the Great Lakes which are inland freshwater seas, roughly 500-600 feet above sea level. Lake Erie is actually quite shallow, particularly on the western third. Just because it was a shallow sea doesn't mean it was part of the world ocean necessarily.