Slashdot Mirror


Scientists Warn of Rising Oceans As Antarctic Ice Melts

mdsolar (1045926) writes "The collapse of large parts of the ice sheet in West Antarctica appears to have begun and is almost certainly unstoppable, with global warming accelerating the pace of the disintegration, two groups of scientists reported Monday. The finding, which had been feared by some scientists for decades, means that a rise in global sea level of at least 10 feet may now be inevitable. The rise may continue to be relatively slow for at least the next century or so, the scientists said, but sometime after that it will probably speed up so sharply as to become a crisis."

31 of 784 comments (clear)

  1. Well, since it's inevtiable by NotDrWho · · Score: 4, Funny

    Fuck all this Prius hippie shit. I'm buying a Hummer.

    --
    SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    1. Re:Well, since it's inevtiable by MozeeToby · · Score: 5, Funny

      All the cool kids these days are buying amphibious demilitarized "ducks".

    2. Re:Well, since it's inevtiable by bunratty · · Score: 4, Funny

      Fuckin A, dude! My stupid doctor was telling me to exercise and eat right, and I'm all, well, dying is inevitable, so fuck it!

      --
      What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
    3. Re:Well, since it's inevtiable by CanHasDIY · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well, there's also the issue of the numerous global financial centers along various coasts.

      Yea, not seeing the problem...

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    4. Re:Well, since it's inevtiable by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 5, Funny

      Why? 10'?

      Only the male scientists say it's 10 feet, the women say it's really about 5-6 feet.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  2. Re:Chicken Little by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Chicken Little because it isn't going to happen in your lifetime?

    I don't get it. This is happening.

  3. But the Antarctic is gaining ice! by bunratty · · Score: 5, Informative

    Just kidding... the Antarctic ice has been melting for decades. More precisely, the mass of the old, thick land ice is decreasing due to rising temperatures, but the surface area of the short-lived, thin sea ice has been increasing, partly due to decreased salinity in the Southern Ocean because the land ice is melting. Overall, the Antarctic has been losing ice at an accelerating rate as temperatures have continued to increase.

    --
    What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
  4. Re:Should solve water shortage issues... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Well, let's find out if that's actually true. Here's a math problem: The salinity of the ocean is 3.5%, and the ocean has an average depth of 3700 meters. If enough fresh water is added to the ocean to increase its depth by 3 meters, what is the new salinity of the ocean?

    (Answer: 3.5%, i.e. not significantly different from before.)

  5. Looking forward to future spin by Frequency+Domain · · Score: 4, Funny

    NYC, the new Venice!

  6. In other words... by PortHaven · · Score: 4, Funny

    California should build MASSIVE quantities of desalanization plants along the coast. So that we can keep the oceans properly salined. While extract massive amounts of water to turn the entire southwest into a lush green sub-tropic region, and keep sea levels in check. Start now!!!

    1. Re:In other words... by RichMan · · Score: 5, Informative

      Nobody should build anything along the coast. At least any coast that is not at least 100m above sea level.

      Push the button for the interactive map -
      http://ngm.nationalgeographic....

    2. Re:In other words... by RichMan · · Score: 4, Informative

      Thats 10ft due to the west antarctic ice sheet. There is a lot more ice out there.
      10m =~ 30ft
      ----
      The last time the planet was steadily 2 degrees C warmer than pre-industrial times, some 120,000 years ago, sea levels were 5 to 10 meters higher than today. It’s likely we’ll hit 2 degrees C of warming by 2100, unless we take extreme measures to mitigate emissions.
      ----
      And there are factors other than ice melt.
      ---
      In China, the Yellow River delta is currently sinking so fast that local sea levels are rising by up to 25 centimeters per year, nearly 100 times the global average. Places that were once covered by kilometers of ice, like northern Canada, are now rebounding upwards — which means local sea levels are actually falling in some parts of Alaska. But that upward-moving land is hinging nearby areas, like the U.S. East Coast, downward by millimeters per year — adding millimeters per year to the local sea level rise there. The U.S. East Coast has another problem too: Climate change is weakening the Gulf Stream current, and that is allowing water to slop back towards shore. Overall, the U.S. East Coast is seeing rates of sea level rise that are 3 to 4 times the global average. The tropics, meanwhile, are seeing extra sea level rise thanks to a strange gravitational effect. As high-latitude ice melts, there is less mass at the poles to pull ocean water towards them; instead, the water slopes more towards the equator.

  7. Translation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    99.9%+ of the people alive today will not live to see the crisis, or even live long enough to know whether or not the crisis will actually occur.

    1. Re:Translation... by Vintermann · · Score: 4, Informative

      You mostly need to use science to see it, unless you live in unfortunate areas like the arctic. It still happens gradually enough that you can conveniently forget that things were ever different if you go by your trusty, truthy gut feeling.

      --
      xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
    2. Re:Translation... by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 4, Informative

      Here is a list of the 10 warmest years, globally, since 1880. That's 134 years ago.

      2010
      2005
      1998
      2003
      2002
      2006
      2009
      2007
      2004
      2012

      Do you notice any trend or commonality among those data points?

    3. Re:Translation... by bzipitidoo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Do you have any problem with the fact that some time in the distant future, the sun will stop shining? Maybe 5 billion years from now? No problem?

      Okay, how about the fact that rivers change course? The Mississippi might have already switched to the Atchafalaya, if not for our meddling. We don't want New Orleans made useless. No problem with that either?

      Then, what of the fact that large and powerful corporations lie, and engage in propaganda campaigns? You know, like Big Tobacco did? And like Wall Street did not too long ago with home mortgages? And like Big Oil does now? Big Oil lies about a lot of things, like the safety of offshore oil drilling. An accident like the Deepwater Horizon oil spill wasn't supposed to happen. When it did, they kept right on lying, about the rate of the leak and the amount of damage it was doing. Are we still okay here? Corporations routinely tell self serving lies, agreed? And surely you see that, whether or not Climate Disruption is real, Big Oil is highly motivated to be dismissive of warnings about it. If Climate Disruption is real and a huge problem, and Big Oil knows it, would they attempt to distract and deceive the public with propaganda campaigns? Yes, yes, they would. Still with me, I hope?

      Now let's look at the other side. Either a) scientists are right and Climate Disruption is real, happening right now, and will cause huge problems. Or b) scientists are united in a big conspiracy to lie about Climate Disruption because it gets them more grant money, or c) scientists are morons and are getting it all wrong. The trouble with b) and c) is that they are not at all credible. I hope no one seriously credits c), it's just too implausible. As for b), you do realize that the flow of grant money does not much depend on the subject matter. If anything, being forced to study and restudy the climate takes away money that could have been used for other science. The public has turned negative and cut back funding for all science, so I'd have to say the Great Conspiracy, if it exists, is not working and if anything is backfiring. And do you suppose smarties like scientists wouldn't see that? And if their main interest was grant money, wouldn't they change their tune to the nicey nicey good news the public seems to want? Why haven't they done so then? Why haven't they dropped this story of Climate Disruption like a radioactive spud, given the damage it's doing to scientific funding? Could it be because it's real, and scientists are honestly worried about it?

      Also, don't you understand how competitive science can be? For the time being we're stuck with anti-competitive oligopolies in oil and banking and several other industries. But not in science. If a few scientists had good evidence that Climate Disruption was wrong, do you suppose they would keep quiet and maintain the front? No way! They'd all be scrambling to publish first. It'd be a bombshell, like figuring out how to build a usable quantum computer and breaking many and perhaps all of our public key encryption schemes.

      As for the evidence you demand, the "large scale changes", you have only to open your eyes and admit that what's right in front of your nose is indeed exactly that. Just 180 years ago, atmospheric CO2 was about 280 ppm. Now it's 400ppm, certainly higher than it has been in nearly 1 million years, and probably higher than any level in the last 20 million years. That is a very fast change. We're seeing ocean acidification. And we are indeed seeing higher average temperatures. In recent years, we've had far more record highs than record lows. The Arctic Ice Cap is smaller than it has ever been in recorded history. Antarctic ice shelves such as Larson A and B have collapsed. How can you hear of such events and not think they are significant?

      --
      Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
    4. Re:Translation... by khayman80 · · Score: 4, Informative

      You mean like the overall long-term increase in Antarctic ice mass, despite breakups in the Western sheet?

      False. Antarctic land ice mass is decreasing, and reliable estimates of Antarctic sea ice volume (or mass) aren't available.

      Even if you meant to refer to Antarctic sea ice extent (not mass), you already ignored me when I told you that this is consistent with Manabe et al. 1991 page 811: " sea surface temperature hardly changes and sea ice slightly increases near the Antarctic Continent in response to the increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide."

      But maybe you'll listen to the National Academy of Sciences, if you honestly don't think the National Academy of Sciences is "alarmist". Again, their recent report is educational. They address Antarctic sea ice in question 12.

      The gradual, long-term non-warming that has occurred over the last 15-17 years, depending on who you ask?

      Jane and Lonny Eacus have repeatedly ignored me whenever I've told you that there's been no statistically significant change in the surface warming rate. But if you honestly doesn't think the NAS is alarmist, you might learn something from their answers to questions 9 and 10. This point is particularly relevant: "More than 90% of the heat added to Earth is absorbed by the oceans and penetrates only slowly into deep water. A faster rate of heat penetration into the deeper ocean will slow the warming seen at the surface and in the atmosphere, but by itself will not change the long-term warming that will occur from a given amount of CO2."

      I agree: science is a wonderful thing. You can appear to "prove" almost anything you want if you restrict your study to relatively isolated phenomena, and ignore the bigger picture.

      No, that's not science the way it's practiced by the National Academy of Sciences, the National Center for Atmospheric Research, the American Geophysical Union, the American Institute of Physics, the American Physical Society, the American Meteorological Society, the American Statistical Association, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the Federation of American Scientists, the American Quaternary Association, the American Society of Agronomy, the

  8. Re:Chicken Little by Shakrai · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So what do you want to do about it? We live in the real world, most of us in elective democracies where any politician that purposes a reduction in the standard of living will quickly find himself out of a job. Green energy doesn't scale and nuclear is a bad word, so where do you propose we get the gigajoules needed to both run Western civilization and bring the third world out of poverty?

    The climate change crowd never has a good answer for this question. Thankfully we're an adaptable species, arguably the most adaptable ever to live on the blue marble. I think we'll manage just fine.

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  9. Re:An article that suggests a counter-effect.... by mrvan · · Score: 5, Informative

    You're probably trolling, but here goes:

    Any continent will rise if the mass on top is reduced, because the mantle acts as a liquid on geological time scales (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-glacial_rebound)

    However, it's not the loss of mass or height of the antartcic that is causing sea levels to rise, but the movement of water from "long term storage" on top of the antarctic continent into the ocean. What the container does after the contents have been released is immaterial.

    (for the arctic ice it is different because it is all floating, so melting it won't do anything to sea levels (it will to salinity and hence ocean currents) - and greenland has a lot of land ice, of course)

  10. Seriously? by sirwired · · Score: 5, Informative

    It's not "waterfront property" that anybody is worried about. It's the fact that a very large number of the world's current cities happen to be located near the water for historical reasons (major trading hubs built around ports for oceangoing ships.) The utter annihilation of those cities is a huge economic problem.

    And flooding Death Valley with seawater doesn't create a single acre of arable land. You can't farm jack $hit out of soil contaminated with salt. The shores of the Persian gulf (nor, for that matter the shores of southern CA) don't support much in the way of farms, despite the large body of water next door.

  11. Re:Meanwhile, in reality world... by bunratty · · Score: 5, Informative

    That's the surface area of ice, not the amount of ice, which is measured by volume or mass. If you look at the mass of ice in the Antarctic, you can see it's been melting for decades at an accelerating rate. Funny how the real facts get in the way of a good misinformation campaign.

    --
    What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
  12. Re:Hurray by HeckRuler · · Score: 4, Insightful

    comments like these.

    Well yes, that's how it works. Flamebait gets modded as flamebait. If you find that all the posts like this one are being modded similarly, it just means that the modding isn't some statistical outlier and that the masses have a consensus for what they consider "flamebait".

  13. Re:In a century... by Vintermann · · Score: 4, Funny

    Yeah! Just like we adapted when the dinosaurs died out and we could no longer ride them.

    --
    xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
  14. Re:In a century... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful
  15. Re:In a century... by Layzej · · Score: 4, Informative

    we have no idea what might happen. Its possible that the ice may reform there or somewhere else

    Actually, thanks to science we do have an idea!

    "at this point, a decrease in the melt rate back to earlier levels would be “too little, too late to stabilize the ice sheet,” said Ian Joughin, a glaciologist at the University of Washington and lead author of the new paper in Science. “There’s no stabilization mechanism.” The basic problem is that much of the West Antarctic ice sheet sits below sea level in a kind of bowl-shaped depression the earth. As Dr. Mercer outlined in 1978, once the part of the ice sheet sitting on the rim of the bowl melts and the ice retreats into deeper water, it becomes unstable and highly vulnerable to further melting."

  16. Re:Only one link man... by asylumx · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I didn't know global warming only affected air temps...?

  17. I Don't Buy the Consensus on Antarctica by mtrachtenberg · · Score: 4, Funny

    I have never even seen Antarctica, and I don't recall anyone talking about it twenty years ago. If 97% of geographers say Antarctica exists, I'd just like to point out that I've driven 50 miles in every direction but up and haven't seen no sign at all. And I'm pretty sure that my brother's boss once heard that geographers are telling us about this mythical Antarctica to take money from people like me and give it to themselves.

    No continent I've ever seen is going to make me worry about sea-level rise, so keep yer commeenistic plots off of Slashdot.

  18. Re:In a century... by Beavertank · · Score: 5, Informative

    Right. Because the national debt is equivalent to climate change.

    Also, as has been pointed out, your contention is completely unsupported by reality. But nice try. Maybe you should take your own advice about not being a "partisan pawn"?

  19. Re:In a century... by rochrist · · Score: 5, Informative

    You know this whole 'back in the seventies the scientists we're all about global cooling' has been debunked so many times that it makes you really look moronic to post it yet again.

  20. Re:In a century... by Old97 · · Score: 4, Informative

    There was no "global cooling" phenomenon being widely touted in the 1970's. That's a myth. The climate change report recently issued http://nca2014.globalchange.go... addresses that among other things. Global warming and this particular problem of glacier melting in Antarctica were both called out in the 1970's though. According to the NY Time reporting the second case - Antarctica is related to a variety of factors in addition to global warming. There are no big bucks to be made being an environmentalist. Provide some names of a few folks who became billionaires from pushing environmental protection. There are trillions being made producing fossil fuels.

    --
    Very often, people confuse simple with simplistic. The nuance is lost on most. - Clement Mok
  21. Re:In a century... by crunchygranola · · Score: 4, Informative

    For your information, "Clinton's surplus" was because of Republican Congress that didn't let him spend much money. It also was only possible because of the DotCom Bubble of the 1990s. Once that burst during Clinton's final year in office, the surplus vanished.

    Now if your post had contained actual information, instead of made-up stuff.

    CBO analysis shows that despite all the economic events that transpired after Bush's election, the U.S. Federal Budget would have remained in surplus (more than a trillion dollars) right up until the time of the Bush economic meltdown that began in 2007.

    Legislative changes - the bills the Republicans passed and Bush signed - spent the entire surplus, and trillions more.

    --
    Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age