ESA's Cryosat Mission Sees Antarctic Ice Losses Double

An anonymous reader writes in with news that seems to confirm the alarming reports last week about Antarctic ice melting. "The new assessment comes from Europe's Cryosat spacecraft, which has a radar instrument specifically designed to measure the shape of the ice sheet. The melt loss from the White Continent is sufficient to push up global sea levels by around 0.43mm per year. Scientists report the data in the journal Geophysical Research Letters (abstract). The new study incorporates three years of measurements from 2010 to 2013, and updates a synthesis of observations made by other satellites over the period 2005 to 2010. Cryosat has been using its altimeter to trace changes in the height of the ice sheet — as it gains mass through snowfall, and loses mass through melting."

Comments

0.43 mm per year, eh?

[CrimsonAvenger]

So, sea level rise will be a bit less than two inches by 2100?

And nearly 3.5 inches by 2200?

As a result of Antarctic ice melting, of course.

Color me unworried. I wasn't terribly impressed when people were talking a foot this century - a sixth of that is a complete yawner as far as threats go....

Re:0.43 mm per year, eh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, illiterate, that is simply from one source not the entire source of sea levels rising.

Re:0.43 mm per year, eh?

[WhiteZook]

Of course, there's more than just Antarctic ice melting, but more importantly, it is likely that the melting rate will accelerate as the planet keeps warming.

Re:0.43 mm per year, eh?

[i kan reed]

The big secret(I don't know why it's a secret) is that melting ice has never been the biggest source of sea level change from climate change. Never. Contrary to what most people learn in middle school science classes, temperature does affect slightly the volume of liquids, and the increasing temperature of the deep ocean drive changes in volume. Tiny fraction decreases in the density of water might not seem like much, but it adds up to a lot more than a little melting sea ice when the average depth of the ocean is 2.4 kilometers.

Re:0.43 mm per year, eh?

[geekoid]

Just from that alone. also, it has doubles it's spead since last observed.

A loss of all the ice in the six glaciers would add about 1.2m to global sea level.

This is still a small fraction of the total sea-level potential of Antarctica, which holds something like 26.5 million cubic km ice (or 58m of sea-level rise equivalent).

Re:0.43 mm per year, eh?

[WhiteZook]

Actually, this recent study claims that in the years 2005-2011, contribution from melting ice was 3 times as high as thermal expansion of the oceans: http://www.nature.com/ngeo/jou...

Re:0.43 mm per year, eh?

[sideslash]

Sounds great. If it is not part of a natural cycle, but anthropogenic in origin, that's fantastic. What a wonderful possibility, that our species might not have to weather any more ice ages on this planet. But I guess we don't really know for certain.

Re:0.43 mm per year, eh?

[i kan reed]

Interesting. So... I have to admit I made a factual error in my post.

I shouldn't have used the word "never", it was apparently quite hyperbolic.

Re:0.43 mm per year, eh?

[Charliemopps]

Hey, at least its real data that hasn't been blown completely out of proportion. Normally a story like this would have a headline that read "Noah back from the dead to rebuild Ark! God said he wouldn't do it again but now he's just mad at republicans!" etc...

Re:0.43 mm per year, eh?

[interkin3tic]

I don't think anyone was suggesting it was going to be total devastation since before "Waterworld" came out, but you should be asking "How much of my tax dollars are going to be spent on things like disaster relief after more levees and such break" or "How much more expensive is food going to get because all the good farmland is in floodplains that are now going to have higher insurance premiums for flooding?" Because the answer is going to be more than you want even if you're smug that your house is more than a few inches above sea level.

Re:0.43 mm per year, eh?

[i kan reed]

No, see, only government intervention can harm an economy. It's right there in their political philosophy, so it must be a true.

Re:0.43 mm per year, eh?

[jovius]

Let's imagine for a bit. Tomorrow you'll be tasked to raise the total sea level by 0.43mm / year. How would you do it? It is pretty impressive.

Re:0.43 mm per year, eh?

[WhiteZook]

There's probably an error bar mentioned in the paper that was left out of the BBC article. Still, it's only 2 significant digits, so it's not even very precise.

Re:0.43 mm per year, eh?

[Anonymous Coward]

So the real question concerns the rate of increase in melting. Will the rate stay the same, will the rate of ice melting increase (and how fast will it increase), or will it decrease (not so likely imo) in the next few centuries? The mechanisms of the ice sheets melting doesn't seem to be well understood at the moment, but I think that the fear of the scientists is that the rate of ice loss will increase exponentially in the short-term (obviously it can only continue until the particular ice sheets are gone, not forever).

Re:0.43 mm per year, eh?

[Nexion]

Yes! Vindication for all those who lost their beach front property a few hundred years ago!!! Only a few hundred more years and we can rouse them from their graves to celebrate their victory in reclaiming their property value!!!!!

I would just like to say thank you to every gas guzzling SUV, filthy coal burning plant and all those wonderful climate conjecturists out there who are keeping the dreams of those long dead property owners alive! You're the best! I'm glad the US government spends my tax dollars on your paid propaganda to bolster their attempt to fleece America with a carbon credit exchange!

It... it give my ancestors hope.

Re:0.43 mm per year, eh?

[I'm New Around Here]

Hey, at least its real data that hasn't been blown completely out of proportion. Normally a story like this would have a headline that read "Noah back from the dead to rebuild Ark! God said he wouldn't do it again but now he's just mad at his fellow republicans!" etc...

ftfy

Re:0.43 mm per year, eh?

[sycodon]

Whack all the gauges with a hammer into the mud an inch or so. There's a lot of them, but it'd be funny as hell.

Re:0.43 mm per year, eh?

[bigpat]

This implies that stopping greenhouse emissions cold turkey doesn't have real costs that outweigh the potential problems you cite. So far all the solutions that are proposed by the most active main stream environmentalists like cap and trade or solar and wind build outs either won't make a dent in Global Climate Change and/or taken as holistic solutions would cause massive disruptions to the economy with some very negative consequences that would very likely outweigh the benefits.

In the US, we have spent the last 40 years on conservation and pollution controls and the result has been an export of much of our industrial base to China where they pollute more freely with a coal based economy and then ship back those cheaper goods on great big ships, trains and trucks. Has it even made a dent Globally or just moved the problems of pollution to China? Possibly, that historic movement of production partly based on cheap labor, but also partly based on US environmentalism, has even accelerated CO2 emissions. Certainly, the US is somewhat less polluted especially in some urban and downwind areas which is good. But thinking Globally means we can't just think of short term localized benefits when we tally up the good and the bad for the bottom line.

We could be 100% greenhouse free in 20 years if we embraced a mix of solar, wind, hydro, geothermal and most importantly nuclear. But without nuclear it is going to be fracked Natural Gas, Oil and Coal providing the majority of our base load for our electric grid and the majority of fuel for our cars and trucks. The good news is that natural gas is less polluting than coal and oil and might fill the gap and slow down CO2 emissions while we reassess our collective priorities, but the bad news for Global Climate change is that a change to natural gas from oil and coal just slows down Global Warming a bit and it isn't a longer term solution and we will be back to coal not too long after that if we don't get to a more sustainable energy system.

If people on all sides get serious about Global Climate change and want to slam on the breaks to try and simply lock in a few feet of sea level rise and some slightly warmer temperatures in the next three hundred years, then the way to do that is with a tripling of nuclear power capacity with existing technology and much bigger multi-Billion dollar investments in new nuclear power technologies, along with some solar and wind power to supplement.

Otherwise much of what many in the environmental movement have been talking about for the last few decades has been a meaningless distraction from the engineers task of making more efficient use of our resources to support the largest population in human history as best we can. Both sides need to get real if we are going to make the world a peaceful, prosperous and sustainable place for billions of people.

Re:0.43 mm per year, eh?

[WhiteZook]

I bet climate scientists will be shocked to hear water can also evaporate. I'm sure nobody has ever considered that. You'd better start working on your Nobel Prize acceptance speech.

Re:0.43 mm per year, eh?

[Ambitwistor]

They're talking about melting LAND ice, not SEA ice. Compare sea levels today to those at the Last Glacial Maximum (~120 meters lower), and ask yourself where the extra water came from.

Re:0.43 mm per year, eh?

[Atzanteol]

Wait 'til you hear his theory about how the Sun has a role in all of this!

Re:0.43 mm per year, eh?

[Atzanteol]

Only if that's beyond their capability to measure.

Re:0.43 mm per year, eh?

[Atzanteol]

Actually - from what I can tell most of the climate scientists just want a rational conversation about the situation much like what you've done here. If *that* were the reply from climate change contrarians then we'd finally have a discussion and potential ideas on solutions (probably with a mixture of preparing for the worst while doing what we can to stop it).

But that would be all too rational.

Re:0.43 mm per year, eh?

[ColdWetDog]

Unfortunately, I think you're mostly right. The second biggest elephant in the room is our untested, unknown and purely hypothetical ability do what amounts to re terraforming the planet. The biggest elephant is our (planetwide) political will to do something other than piss in each other's Cheerios.

Beginning to smell like a whole lotta elephant in here.

Re:0.43 mm per year, eh?

[prefec2]

Your assumptions would be true if melting ice would be the only effect on the sea water level and the melting itself would be a linear process. However, there are other effects.

a) Due to a rising global temperature the ocean temperature is also rising in the upper water layers. These masses do also expand.
b) When the glacier speed in Antarctica is picking up more speed, as it is right now, the melting will increase and also will the rise in sea level.
c) The greater introduction of sweet water in Antarctica will effect the overall global water stream system. This system causes certain dents and bumps in the ocean surface. Changes to the system will cause changes to these dents and bumps and therefore sea level changes could be higher at some shore lines. Furthermore, this will cause a lot of local climate change.

Re:0.43 mm per year, eh?

[MrBigInThePants]

That is not an example of a hyperbolic statement.

Arrogant, ignorant and just plain wrong maybe, but not hyperbolic.

Please insult the fools and ignoramuses with a little more care and attention to detail please....

Re:0.43 mm per year, eh?

[i kan reed]

Nope, you're just dumb. Sorry, I said none of the things you're implying I did.

Re:0.43 mm per year, eh?

[i kan reed]

I think you're misunderstanding my position here.

Re:0.43 mm per year, eh?

[MrBigInThePants]

It is not just the "contrarians" that are the problem.

The general public are like ostriches in the sand on this as are the politicians - even the one not on the payroll of you know who.

In my country for example the right wing government of the day whose leader has in the past said that it does not exist has now reneged on that and accepts it exists. (for political reasons of course much like his original answer)
But they trashed the policy on emission reduction as soon as entering power, pulled out of kyoto and have done absolutely nothing to reduce and many things to increase emissions since then.

So really:

"But it's not who you are underneath, it's what you do that defines you."

Re:0.43 mm per year, eh?

[riverat1]

From the abstract:

However, the average rate of ice thinning in West Antarctica has also continued to rise, and mass losses from this sector are now 31% greater than over the period 2005–2011.

You assume the rate of 0.43 mm per year will continue until 2100. Do you have anything to back that up? All evidence indicates that the rate will continue to rise as time goes on.

Re:0.43 mm per year, eh?

[geekoid]

It as AGW and we d know for sure.

Why do you think it will stop when the glaciers have melted? It's going to keep going up if we keep allowing deniers to have a say in policy.

Re:0.43 mm per year, eh?

[bigpat]

I think there is plenty of fault on all sides. From the climate scientists and many environmentalists the attitude has seemingly been once that you prove that humans are causing some climate change that it automatically means that we have to stop whatever is causing that climate change... which seems to be why somewhat cynically many have taken the attitude that in order to respond to the call for drastic, disruptive and destructive change to our industrial and energy base that we have to snipe at the science instead of talking about the holistic costs and benefits.

To me the costs of both continuing to increase greenhouse gases are real, but so too are the costs of cutting back greenhouse gas emissions too abruptly to adequately fill the gaps that are left. And the extreme negatives of sea level rise and climate disruptions must be looked at within the context of the hundreds of years we would have to adapt and compared with other ways in which our biologically diverse ecosystems might be harmed. People might be harmed either way.

To me if the solution to Global Climate change would result in economic hardship and social upheaval with the potential for more wars and civil unrest, then I see the danger of ideal thinking versus the reality that wars could be far more catastrophic to our environment than continuing along our current path towards climate disruption and sea level rise.

If we have the economic resources we can adapt and preserve habitat and improve quality of life for more people, but if we cut back too sharply then we risk depriving ourselves of the natural and economic resources which might enable us to adapt to the coming changes and even what we might be able to accomplish through sacrifice might be futile in the scope of the problem.

To me that is the rational argument we need to get to. Yes Global Climate change appears to be real. Yes, it pales in comparison with the changes that nature can throw at us in any given year... so a single volcanic eruption can cause a big drop in temperatures or some other changes might throw off our math in some other way making years or decades of planning completely irrelevant... but that doesn't mean we don't try to plan out decades from now or even hundreds of years from now.

We have a capacity to put in place the changes now that could make some difference for the better. While I largely agree with those who don't want to make burdensome decisions based on 300 year extrapolations, that doesn't mean we don't do the things that could reasonably benefit us now and in the future with better technology and more adaptability regardless of Global Climate Change.

I think we should all try to agree on habitat protection and setting aside more natural spaces. These natural ecosystems are often carbon sinks and are places where if properly managed and located can help preserve biodiversity. Nuclear I already mentioned and I really wish environmentalists would do the math on radioactive waste which has far more limited effects than even the toxic waste from things like solar panels which require large scale mining, production and very big land use, but certainly things like coal or oil are overall more toxic to our environment than nuclear. So, habitat preservation, nuclear, some wind and rooftop solar, along with better settlement patterns with enough jobs, food production and things to do close to where people live to reduce transportation costs, improve quality of life and reduce waste. There are probably many things like that which over the next thirty years could be win-win propositions for both reducing future Global Climate Change, improving quality of life for people and improving habitat for biodiversity and natural heritage preservation. And I think a rational majority could come to some agreements to make some of these modest changes.

From my perspective the "debate" over climate change is a red herring on both sides to avoid agreement because perpetuating the dispute itself has become an industry with its own constituency. And this is a problem in a lot of areas of political dispute. Where perpetuating a dispute gains its own constituency.

Re:0.43 mm per year, eh?

[geekoid]

Melting of all ice would about 60+ meter increase in ocean depth.

Re:0.43 mm per year, eh?

[geekoid]

", snow packs and back on a glacier"
it does not do that if it is too warm. There will be no ice packs. we will have snow for awhile, but it won't stay through the year.

Funny how idiots never mention that.

Re:0.43 mm per year, eh?

[volmtech]

Stopping global climate change will take actions by every countries government not seen since WWII. Maybe some charismatic leader instituting a one world government could do it. That has been prophitized but it doesn't end well for most people.

Re:0.43 mm per year, eh?

[Archangel Michael]

Obviously, Global Warming on a Massive Scale caused the 120 Meter Sea level change. And yet, life (including human) continues.

Re:0.43 mm per year, eh?

[dkf]

Contrary to what most people learn in middle school science classes, temperature does affect slightly the volume of liquids

Well duh! How do you think normal domestic and lab thermometers work? They've got a liquid in them that expands as temperature rises, and that's been calibrated. Yes, they usually use alcohol or mercury (depending on the intended temperature range) but water's not really that much different. (Except between 0C and about 4C, when it is weird!)

OK, so there's other ways that are used too, but liquid-based temperature measurements are still very common.

Re:0.43 mm per year, eh?

[rahvin112]

The last time the earth had atmospheric concentrations of CO2 of 400ppm there weren't any humans. We were a species born of the ice age (at least all the evidence points to the early primates leaving the trees because all the trees in the area died during the ice age when the area turned into grassland).

Re:0.43 mm per year, eh?

[Arker]

The birth of Primates and the birth of our species are only separated by about 60 million years, a period during which many ice ages have come and gone. Conflating the two and vaguely associating them with an ice age really does not mean much.

Re:0.43 mm per year, eh?

[Ambitwistor]

Your position seems to be "melting ice has never been the biggest source of sea level change from climate change". If so, this is not correct.

Re:0.43 mm per year, eh?

[Ambitwistor]

And yet, hundreds of millions of people and their supporting cities and other physical infrastructure weren't sitting in coastal zones when that happened.

Re:0.43 mm per year, eh?

[dryeo]

Our species has evolved to live in this cold climate and if it gets back to 30+ degrees celsius ocean temperatures near the poles we may have problems

Re:0.43 mm per year, eh?

[dryeo]

Only some types of human. Neanderthals, a type of Human, didn't adapt so well. Life itself will continue on baring a major accident until the Sun itself gets hot enough to boil the oceans, perhaps a billion years and who knows after that.

Re:0.43 mm per year, eh?

[gtall]

Maybe. See Venus. It has a runaway greenhouse effect. Systems theory is really neat.

Re:0.43 mm per year, eh?

[AaronW]

It's not that it's 0.43mm per year, but one needs to look at the rate of change. It may be 0.43mm/year now, but in 10 years it may be 4.3mm/year or higher. The problem is that all of these things we are seeing are increasing in a non-linear mode.

Re:0.43 mm per year, eh?

[dryeo]

Venus quite likely had oceans until the Sun warmed up enough to boil them. Once the oceans boil you really get a greenhouse affect from the water vapor, the water gets disassociated into hydrogen and oxygen, the hydrogen gets lost to space and the oxygen combines with carbon, nitrogen etc. Limestone may breakdown as well and release a lot of sequestered carbon. No tectonic activity to suck carbon into the mantle either, just resurfacing every few billion years which likely releases more carbon.

Re:0.43 mm per year, eh?

[budgenator]

Results indicate that most recession occurred during the middle to late Holocene in the absence of substantial sea level or climate forcing. Current grounding-line retreat may reflect ongoing ice recession that has been under way since the early Holocene. If so, the WAIS could continue to retreat even in the absence of further external forcing
Past and Future Grounding-Line Retreat of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet H. Conway1, B. L. Hall2,3, G. H. Denton2, A. M. Gades1, E. D. Waddington1
Science 8 October 1999: 280-283. [DOI:10.1126/science.286.5438.280]

So this chunk of ice has beem falling into the sea for the past 20,000 years, we've known about it for 15 years, but now it's a revelation of thermagedon!

Re:0.43 mm per year, eh?

[rahvin112]

The birth of the order primates in relationship to the birth of humans has little to nothing to do with what I said. As I noted research has indicated that the selection pressure that caused homo sapiens development was a switch in climate triggered by an ice age, but this has little to nothing to do with the birth of the order primate.

We are a species that is and was born during the ice age cycles and our very development was directly related to those ice ages. Those ice ages are something we may very well have ended possibly for millions of years. Again, the atmospheric concentration of CO2 at 400ppm hasn't been seen by the human species till now.

Terra-forming Earth back to the climate of the dinosaurs is likely to have extreme consequences for our species. Sensible people realize we don't fully comprehend exactly what it will mean for our species with this ongoing climate alteration.

Re:0.43 mm per year, eh?

[phantomfive]

No worries, just modify your original statement somewhat and you're still good. Thermal expansion is still important.

Re:0.43 mm per year, eh?

[dbIII]

In the US, we have spent the last 40 years on conservation and pollution controls and the result has been an export of much of our industrial base to China

Actually a lot of that was due to protectionism pushing local steel prices high enough that it was much cheaper to move any industry that relied on steel somewhere else.

Re:0.43 mm per year, eh?

[dbIII]

It became an issue where two political parties could define a difference for their voters. With such petty tribalism the truth became secondary to slogans. Now it has got the the point where experts are demonized just for being experts and not cheerleaders. That there are "sides" in this issue at all is just a political artifice to pander to the "God created the Earth and he was such a puny God that nothing could change since then" crowd.

Re:0.43 mm per year, eh?

[i kan reed]

I clarified that I was mistaken about "never". But thermal expansion is a big deal.

Re:0.43 mm per year, eh?

[Barsteward]

you sound like the type of person who wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire....

Re:0.43 mm per year, eh?

[Barsteward]

not while you have a strong fossil fuel lobby around the world wanting to defend their old business plan

Re:0.43 mm per year, eh?

[Atzanteol]

"From the climate scientists and many environmentalists the attitude has seemingly been once that you prove that humans are causing some climate change that it automatically means that we have to stop whatever is causing that climate chang"

Well, sure. They're climate scientists not policy makers! The correct response to this is much more like what you've outlined - not to disparage the scientists, claim they're liars, and deny the evidence (which is what's happened).

It wouldn't be a conversation if there weren't disagreements.

Re:0.43 mm per year, eh?

[stoatwblr]

No, we haven't evolved for cold conditions.

If we had, we woudln't need clothing.

The far greater short-term danger than ocean levels rising is more (and more violent) storms, coupled with higher storm surges, along with other extreme weather events.

Re:0.43 mm per year, eh?

[stoatwblr]

the fun part is that melting antarctic ice may result in significant rises in antarctic sea levels, penned in by the circumpolar current, which then "sloshes" outwards periodically.

"Sea level" is far from uniform in any case. Currents and prevailing winds have quite an effect over large areas.

I REMEMBER FLORIDA

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Not fondly, of course...

Re:I REMEMBER FLORIDA

[Ferretman]

Nothing wrong with Florida that a few feet of global warming wouldn't fix...

Ferret

Re:I REMEMBER FLORIDA

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Georgia, this means YOU!

Re:I REMEMBER FLORIDA

[vandamme]

All those snakes and mosquitoes will be moving north, though.

Re:I REMEMBER FLORIDA

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

I hear that the state also harbors dangerous wildlife, in addition to the unsavory folks you mentioned.

Re:ERROR??

[MightyMartian]

Have you read the paper?

Death By Millimeters

[Wino]

As the article notes, the melt is enough to raise global sea levels by 0.43mm. At this rate, in 100 years the oceans will be 43mm higher (1.7 inches). I guess I'll have to watch Waterworld again because that's not the future I remember.

Re:Death By Millimeters

[Tailhook]

The narrative requires that you use appropriate units and derivatives.

In 100 years the oceans will rise 43 000 microns! That's a 2300% increase over the previous 100 years!

Carry on.

Time to cull the herd

[benjfowler]

Our corporate overlords who would have us do nothing about climate change.

After all, our Galtian supermen overlords can pay to make the problem disappear for themselves, and us useless eaters can just go and die of starvation, disease -- and war, when the 3 billion-odd even-more-useless eaters show up on our borders, demanding their rights.

It's the American way. Let freedom ring!

Re:Do as the rich do

[i kan reed]

The rich aren't actually doing that. Contrary to common belief, rich people are not actually more insightful and aware of things than your typical well-educated person. There isn't a conspiracy to exploit the results of climate change. Why bother when everything is based on next quarters' earnings anyways?

And when you put shiny metals...

[sideslash]

on your head, it protects you from the mind control of the lizard people.

Re: And when you put shiny metals...

[Nexion]

Come on... did the lizard people make you say that?!?!?!1 Everyone knows that a tin hat only improves reception of their nefarious neural programming. >.>

Gobal... What About Local?

[Anonymous Coward]

Averaged global increase isn't that interesting. How about better information on local changes. Which areas will be effected the most by this melting? Whats the possible range of total increase instead of averaging it out across the entire ocean. Will the water temperature change be enough to alter any normal currents?

Re:Do as the rich do

[i kan reed]

Hey, you know what you are? Even stupider than me.

You start an argument by pointing out how much time people spend squabbling. Top tier useless hypocrisy right there.

Re:Do as the rich do

[Anonymous Coward]

He's not just stupider... he's the dumbererest.

Glad to know I'm not the only one to spot the hypocrisy :)

Re:Do as the rich do

[dreamchaser]

YHBT. YHL. HAND.

Seriously, do not feed the trolls. You just played right into his/her hands.

History?

[Lawrence_Bird]

What historical observations is this to be compared with? By the sounds of it there is nothing prior to 2005 - certainly nothing in the 40s thru 80s. Given that the few researchers down there are not running around the perimeter of the continent checking on where ice ends and sea begins, how do we place the current observation in context? Seems that we can't.

Re:History?

[WhiteZook]

I don't think there's much useful ice volume data before special satellites were used to measure it. However, we can look at historical sea level data, and observe that levels have not been significantly higher in any period since the last ice age. We can also look at the temperature data, and try to model the ice sheet based on those. Since temperatures before 2005 have been lower, it is very unlikely ice loss was as great as it has been in the recent years.

Re:History?

[ColdWetDog]

Nothing prior to 2005? High School and my first marriage didn't exist?

Phew! That makes me feel much better.

Re:History?

[Xyrus]

What historical observations is this to be compared with? By the sounds of it there is nothing prior to 2005 - certainly nothing in the 40s thru 80s. Given that the few researchers down there are not running around the perimeter of the continent checking on where ice ends and sea begins, how do we place the current observation in context? Seems that we can't.

Reading is a useful skill. Practice it. The research cites their sources and methods. Feel free to disagree and put forward your own work to show why they're wrong.

Re:History?

[dbIII]

"International Geophysical Year Antarctica" is a useful google search term for those that should have know better before posting something putting down the expertise of others.

Re:Do as the rich do

[dreamchaser]

That's fine, all I'm saying is it just encourages them to behave that way again. If people would ignore trolls there would be less trolling.

Re:When you put black particles...

[KingOfBLASH]

Like when hurricane katrina came through and destroyed those liberals. Except the most damage wasn't to the very gay and very liberal french quarter, but the ones next door.

Message from god / the republicans: very clear. They hate Gay Adjacents.

Oops NC

[denmarkw00t]

My state asked that the 100 year sea-level study be revised to only predict for 30 years - looks like we'll be seeing a .3 inch increase in that time so it may not satisfy the right's desire to see low numbers that they can wave away.

Funny thing

[QuantumSam]

The ice sheet may be coming apart up in the whitw continent, but that's where several volcanoes are located. Active volcanoes. As in HOT. As for the rest of Antarctica, the ice is at a 30 year high. Here: chew on some better data http://judithcurry.com/2014/02... http://wattsupwiththat.com/201... http://wp.me/P7y4l-5Kc http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...

Re:Funny thing

[Anonymous Coward]

This is completely ridiculous. Parts of the Antarctic icecap are indeed increasing. This is due to higher humidity as a result of -- wait for it -- global warming. Other parts are rapidly decreasing. And the volcanoes? Well, you know, they are so hot that it is well-known that all volcanoes outside of the Antarctic have no snow on the summits, of course.

Re:Funny thing

[WhiteZook]

Sounds like somebody needs to learn the big difference between Antarctic sea ice and grounded ice.

Re:Funny thing

[AmiMoJo]

It's so funny that you think sceptic websites are good sources. How about linking to some actual scientific studies? Oh, but wait, the links you gave cite studies? Yes, but they confused sea ice and ground ice, which you might have realized if you had gone to the actual data and understood it.

I'm afraid this is all that climate sceptics have to offer - misinterpreted data.

Re:Funny thing

[riverat1]

If you compare the heat put out by all the volcanoes in Antarctica to the heat required to melt 160 GT/year you'll find that you need several orders of magnitude more volcanoes to melt that much ice.

Re:Funny thing

[rahvin112]

And if you had actually read the real research those garbage stories are referring to you would know that those volcano's have little to no effect on the ice sheet because the ice refreezes almost immediately after it's melted due to the fact that it's under several hundred (up to thousands) feet of ice. Hell, even the steam vents refreeze all the moisture in the air before the gases reach open air (creating some rather magnificent stalactites and ice formations).

Re:Funny thing

[gtall]

According the article, the increase in icecap in those parts of Antarctica has stopped.

Re:Funny thing

[Xyrus]

You're citing Judith Curry and WUWT in a climate discussion. You may as well cite The Onion and The Weekly World News. They have almost as much credibility, and are a hell of a lot more entertaining.

Re:Funny thing

[OneAhead]

Here: chew on some better data

...because everyone knows a blog that is heavily funded by the Heartland Institute must be better than direct satellite measurements.

And no, this is not an ad hominem; I'm not necessarily saying WUWT must necessarily be terrible purely because they have undeclared conflicts of interest, I'm just attacking your ridiculous qualifier better. How can you possibly argue that the quality of data on a blog with undeclared conflicts of interest is better data than direct satellite measurements? Your "better" just seems to mean "confirms my preconceptions".

Though let's not kid ourselves, WUWT is terrible. Every time I visit it, I find huge embarrassing mistakes any BA in science could spot.

Re:Funny thing

[Barsteward]

don't expect a AC to read an article...

Smarter people...

[Arker]

Smarter people do not build on floodplains.

Re:Smarter people...

[dbIII]

Where else do you put a port city near the mouth of the biggest river in North America?
See also San Francisco for another "smart people" disaster area. Add in another New Madrid event and you can include everything between and including Memphis and Chicago.

Re:Gobal... What About Local?

[Anonymous Bullard]

So it has predictably come to this for some people:

"Think local, act... wait, let's first see if my neighbourhood might benefit at others' expense before deciding."

Re:Can someone please sort of this Web site.

[ColdWetDog]

Hit the power switch until the screen shows a pleasant, uniform dark grey color.

Now you're set to enjoy the Slashdot experience as it was meant to be.

.43mm/year...

[hsthompson69]

...so, let's do math .43mm/year = 4.43mm/decade

4.43mm/decaed = 44.3mm/century

44.3mm/century = 4.43cm/century

So, a little less than 2 inches in 100 years.

Is this supposed to worry us?

Re:.43mm/year...

[WillAffleckUW]

...so, let's do math .43mm/year = 4.43mm/decade

4.43mm/decaed = 44.3mm/century

44.3mm/century = 4.43cm/century

So, a little less than 2 inches in 100 years.

Is this supposed to worry us?

It's the difference between a storm surge 50 miles from a major city and a storm surge 10 miles from a major city.

Does that help?

Re:.43mm/year...

[riverat1]

Assuming the rate of melt will remain the same for the next 100 years really puts the ass in assume.

Re:.43mm/year...

[hsthompson69]

2 inches will turn a storm surge 40 more miles inland?

Wow. Maybe we could fix that by laying down a *single* layer of sandbags :)

Re:.43mm/year...

[hsthompson69]

Assuming that the rate of melt will increase at some exponential rate for the next 100 years really puts the ass in assume too :)

This is like worrying that increasing the speed limit from 55 to 65 means that eventually, the speed limit will be 10,000mph :)

Re:.43mm/year...

[riverat1]

Touche.

But I assume (there's that word again) you saw the recent post on the unstability of the West Antarctic ice sheet. That finding pretty much guarantees 10 feed of sea level rise in the next several hundred years.

Re:.43mm/year...

[Barsteward]

its going to increase over the years, it won't be .43mm every year, as it gets warmer, it melts quicker.. but your humanity impresses us by wanting to keep the status quo not caring about what comes after us..

Re:.43mm/year...

[Barsteward]

no it doesn't, the speed limit analogy is complete shit and nothing like exponential warming

Re:.43mm/year...

[hsthompson69]

Because...global warming?

Assuming that sea level change is going to increase exponentially without end based on a tiny observational period is just as unjustified as assuming speed limits are going to increase exponentially without end based on a tiny observational period.

Look, we know sea levels change - they have before humanity, and they will long after humanity is gone. Automatically assuming that those changes are going to be catastrophic, and that our actions are to blame, is the impulse of the worst apocalyptic cults.

Re:.43mm/year...

[hsthompson69]

Spoken like a true apocalyptic believer.

I find it odd you use the word "status quo" though in reference to others, but not yourself. You seem to believe that right now, at this moment, we have the *perfect* sea level, and we should do all in our power to stop it from ever changing again. If anything, you've arbitrarily decided that the status quo must be preserved at all costs, despite the utter impossibility of stopping natural climate changes.

Why is that?

Re:.43mm/year...

[hsthompson69]

Even those rates are far from apocalyptic...moreover, the instability mentioned predates humanity's large CO2 emissions, so it represents *natural* sea level rise. It *asserts* that humanity shares the blame, without being able to quantify it, or provide a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis for their assertions.

Here's the irony - natural climate change will provide all kinds of changes, and nothing proposed by CO2-haters will stop it. So if there *is* an apocalypse coming, there's nothing we can do to stop it, and hitting the brakes on our world economy in an attempt to mollify the gods of global warming will only reduce our ability to adapt to the pending apocalypse.

Now I get it, the argument is "well, even if peeing in the reservoir is undetectable, we must do something symbolic to appease the masses" (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/17/portland-flush-38m-gallons-water-man-urinates-reservoir). I just find that argument unconvincing.

Re:.43mm/year...

[riverat1]

It's true that the rate of sea level rise will be slow but it's also something that's probably unstoppable at this point. The last time CO2 levels in the atmosphere were as high as they are now, 400 ppm, sea level was over 60 feet higher than it is now. It might 500 or 1000 years to get there but it's going to happen regardless of what we do (unless we actively remove CO2 from the atmosphere to get it back down below 350 ppm).

In order for scientists to fully understand the climate they have to understand all sources of climate change both natural and man made. If all known sources of natural climate change are taken into account we should actually be cooling since 1990 or so. The phrase "hitting the brakes on our world economy" is just alarmist nonsense. In fact responding to global warming in some ways gives a boost to the economy because all of the things we need to change will have to be replaced with some other means of doing them. That means a lot of capital expenditures which put money back into the economy because of the materials and labor that goes into making them.

I agree that draining the reservoir because one person peed in it is rather silly but the global warming situation is more like behind the guy peeing in the reservoir there's an endless line of others waiting there turn to pee. Eventually there will be enough pee in the reservoir to make a difference.

Re:.43mm/year...

[hsthompson69]

An endless line of guys needing to pee :) Not sure if I buy the analogy, but it's funny :)

http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...

"A hot-topic in the media these days has to do with the West Antarctic Ice Shelf (WAIS), a region comprising about 8% of the ice covering Antarctica. Within that region, there are two glaciers that are sliding down to the sea at a steady pace, as glaciers always do. They comprise about 10% of the WAIS, less than 1% of Antarctic ice. This descent has been in progress for several thousand years, and is neither new nor man-caused. It will go on for a few thousand more, after which they’ll be gone. In the parlance of geology, those two glaciers are collapsing."

It should be noted loss is conservative projection

[WillAffleckUW]

In actual scientific terms, the rate of loss and timespan of loss are conservative projections of Ice Loss and Global Sea Level changes.

The hot hard reality is that the median projections have this happening a lot faster, as the ice melt below the shelf accelerates the melt ratio, and the coal and oil pollution increases the "dirty" ratio of the ice cover. White reflects more sunlight than black does.

Kiss Florida goodbye for your retirement, unless you plan to live on a houseboat on 40 foot stilts. Which is what Vietnam is moving to.

Oh that can't possibly be happening

[Kazoo the Clown]

We all know that Global Warming is a hoax and conspiracy, so this just has to be BS. No amount of evidence could ever contradict that well known fact.

Re:perspective

[riverat1]

Back to school for you. Go learn the difference between sea ice, ice shelves and ice sheets.

Ever heard of ice core ?

[aepervius]

That's your history right there. You can see melting period / snow period in the ice core.

and there it is

[dlt074]

"if we keep allowing deniers to have a say in policy."

that's what it's all about right there. CONTROL. can't very well let people who disagree to have any say in policy. that would be nuts. we know what's best for everyone. we will make the hard decisions for the greater good. you stupid people get out of our way. we know best.

nothing worse then a bunch of people who know they are smarter then everyone else.

Re:The Error Range !

[OneAhead]

Hur hur indeed. Hey moron, they measured the ice with a satellite with a very precise radar, calculated the volume of ice that was lost, and converted that to a mm value by dividing by the water-covered surface area of the earth. Suppose the volume calculation has an error of 10% (it's probably much smaller than that), then you would have 0.43mm +/- 0.04mm. Keep your imaginary error ranges in you ass next time.

Where is the melting happening?

[dtjohnson]

The warmest temperature recorded at Amundsen-Scott south pole station during the last 12 months was -21F in January, 2014. For those unfamiliar with the physics of water phase change or the fahrenheit scale, that balmy temperature is still 53 degrees fahrenheit below the freezing point of water. If there is melting going on in Antarctica, it must be due to subsurface volcanic activity and not bikini weather at the antarctica beaches.

Re:perspective

[riverat1]

I suppose you have scientific evidence to back that up. It would be good to provide some cites so we can all know about it.