Study: Antarctic Sea-Level Rising Faster Than Global Rate

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Study: Antarctic Sea-Level Rising Faster Than Global Rate

Posted by samzenpus on Monday September 1, 2014 @04:00AM from the how-high's-the-water-momma? dept.

An anonymous reader writes with this bit of good news for everyone who is waiting for their homes to one day be on the beach. Melting ice is fuelling sea-level rise around the coast of Antarctica, a new report in Nature Geoscience finds. Near-shore waters went up by about 2mm per year more than the general trend for the Southern Ocean as a whole in the period between 1992 and 2011. Scientists say the melting of glaciers and the thinning of ice shelves are dumping 350 billion tonnes of additional water into the sea annually. This influx is warming and freshening the ocean, pushing up its surface. "Freshwater is less dense than salt water and so in regions where an excess of freshwater has accumulated we expect a localized rise in sea level," explained Dr Craig Rye from the University of Southampton, UK, and lead author on the new journal paper.

34 of 302 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

unfair policy by turkeydance · 2014-09-01 04:08 · Score: 3, Funny

the Arctic sea level demands compensation.
1. Re:unfair policy by itzly · 2014-09-01 04:19 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Arctic ice is still in a downwards trend, despite some year to year fluctuations due to different weather patterns. http://psc.apl.washington.edu/...
2. Re:unfair policy by stjobe · 2014-09-01 04:23 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  It's getting its compensation.....an Arctic Ice Cap that has expanded by 41% in the past 2 years. Most ice up there since 2006. Ironically, not reported here....
  I guess anything goes to advance the global warming scam.
  Sure, it's expanded by 41% in the last two years. What you fail to mention is that 2012 was a record low.
  Guess that didn't fit into your "global warming scam" world-view?
  
  --
  "Total destruction the only solution" - Bob Marley
3. Re:unfair policy by haruchai · 2014-09-01 04:33 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Wrong.
  If you look at the winter & spring periods, all the recent years had more ice than 2006 and yet they all finished much lower by the end of the summer melt.
  That means more heat in the system - and you should research just how much heat is needed to melt ice.
  HINT: it's a LOT
  http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicen...
  This is only ice extent, which is probably the worst indicator of the decline in Arctic ice. Total ice area and volume are far better but more difficult to get accurate numbers.
  
  --
  Pain is merely failure leaving the body
4. Re:unfair policy by TitusC3v5 · 2014-09-01 04:39 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  It's getting its compensation.....an Arctic Ice Cap that has expanded by 41% in the past 2 years. Most ice up there since 2006. Ironically, not reported here....
  I guess anything goes to advance the global warming scam.
  
  Pro tip: Lie Less
  
  --
  And the masses cried out, "09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0!"
5. Re:unfair policy by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-01 04:39 · Score: 2
  
  But...but... it was really cold here this winter. Therefore global warming is clearly bullshit. Right?
  No, but they way the predictions have been used we have seen colder climate than the predictions for some decade straight now.
  Thats the problem with exaggerating. Eventually people get tired about someone crying wolf that they won't listen when the wolf actually shows up.
  In retrospect it had been better to underreport the climate predictions and adjusted as things turn worse rather than the other way around.
6. Re:unfair policy by ganjadude · 2014-09-01 04:56 · Score: 2
  
  true, however that was not the question asked, the question was is it as big as it used to be, without a time frame, the answer is always no, until it covers the entire earth once again
  
  --
  have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
7. Re:unfair policy by curmudgeon99 · 2014-09-01 05:05 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  The Western side of Antarctica has gained some mass but not enough to counteract the much more massive amount the Eastern side has lost. So, a much larger net negative.
  
  What I find most amazing is this: 97% of the best climate scientists we have on earth have concluded that we have a problem. The insurance companies ["How The Insurance Industry Sees Climate Change", "For Insurers, No Doubts on Climate Change", "Rift Widening Between Energy and Insurance on Climate Change", "Insurer's Message: Prepare for Climate Change or Get Sued", "On Climate Change: Get Ready or Get Sued" have concluded we have a problem. But, in the interest of sticking with their political druthers, a significant fraction of the American population has decided that 97% of the climate scientists and the insurance companies must be wrong. These people--Conservatives, essentially--are willing to take a risk that 3% of climate scientists are correct and that the insurance companies and 97% of climate scientists are wrong--merely because it serves their political persuasion.
  
  Do you think that Liberals would be successful at convincing 97% of climate scientists to take our point of view and the insurance companies too if this were bullshit? Yet, all these wiseass Conservatives are willing to take a risk with our frickin' planet just so they can jam a finger in the eye of their political rivals--ignoring the reality that has the potential to end life on the damned planet. In short, WTF is going on in the mind of Conservatives? How do you look at all these insurance companies and think: "It's a Liberal plot!" Can you be so stupid?
8. Re:unfair policy by Pino+Grigio · 2014-09-01 05:40 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Because it's an absolutely fantastic opportunity to make huge amounts of money from lots of poor suckers. Can you imagine it? No need for fearmongering ad campaigns; the politicians and activist-scientists do it for you. Scare everybody witless then sell them insurance.
  
  It's such a brilliant idea I don't know why I didn't think of it before. Oh I remember now... I'm not a sociopath.
9. Re:unfair policy by phantomfive · 2014-09-01 05:43 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  What I find most amazing is this: 97% of the best climate scientists we have on earth have concluded that we have a problem.
  
  This is wrong, you read the poll wrong (maybe this one?). Here is the part you misunderstood: 97% of climate scientists say man-made CO2 has an effect on the global temperature (and the rest probably clicked the wrong box on accident).
  
  Do you understand that there is a difference between "having an effect" and "is a problem?" Because there is a huge difference, and the people answering the poll understood that there is a difference. Even scientists who are frequently labeled 'deniers' will answer yes to that poll, it's almost like asking a non-question.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
10. Re:unfair policy by ShanghaiBill · 2014-09-01 05:53 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  97% of the best climate scientists we have on earth have concluded that we have a problem.
  While I agree with your main point that there is a broad scientific consensus on climate change, the 97% figure is bogus. 97% of research papers on climate change that stated a position on whether AGW is real, took an affirmative stance. But this ignores the many papers that were non-committal, and stated no opinion.
  By exaggerating the consensus, you are just handing ammunition to the denialists. The problem with convincing skeptics of the need to take action is not evidence (which is strong), but credibility (which is lacking). Please calm down and stick to the facts.
  
  The insurance companies ... have concluded we have a problem.
  No. The insurance companies have concluded that they have a risk. They will charge more in premiums to compensate for even small risks.
  
  Do you think that Liberals would be successful at convincing 97% of ...
  And here is the crux of the problem. "Climate change" has been politically associated with the "Liberal Agenda", and is being used to justify all sorts of economic nonsense that has nothing to do with climate change. I live in California, and "Climate Change" is being used to justify a $300 billion* boondoggle to build high speed rail between SF and LA. That is about $10,000 for every person in California, for a train that on a typical day will carry 0.03% of commuters. It will have zero impact on CO2 emissions because it won't be operational for 30 years, when it is likely most cars will be electric anyway.
  *Yes, I know the current projected cost is $100 billion, but on average, government boondoggles in California eventually cost three times the original cost, so $300 billion is a more reasonable estimate.
11. Re:unfair policy by itzly · 2014-09-01 06:02 · Score: 2
  
  Not "has an effect", but "is a significant contributing factor". There's a huge difference.
12. Re:unfair policy by itzly · 2014-09-01 06:11 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Funny how you react to a comment about Arctic ice with a study of Antarctic ice.
13. Re:unfair policy by curmudgeon99 · 2014-09-01 06:44 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Here's the problem with that line of reasoning. If--as you say--the entire Climate Change thing is bogus and the insurance companies are using it to raise premiums--where is the free market? Where is the one insurance company bucking the crowd? Surely, if this is a big myth, there has to be at least one big insurance company willing to sell cheap insurance. They could make a killing, were it true.
  
  The only problem with your theory is the missing contrarian. No insurance company is willing to buck the science. Not one.
14. Re:unfair policy by ShanghaiBill · 2014-09-01 07:39 · Score: 2
  
  Quibbles about the opinions of the world's climate scientists are essentially not important.
  Over the last few decades public support for climate changed action has declined dramatically. Much of the reason for that is a decline in public perceptions of the credibility of scientists. Much of the reason for that is because of people that exaggerate, and then, when called out on it, insist that the actual facts are just "quibbles" and don't matter. The same happened with the first IPCC report. It contained exaggerations, and made false statements, and when those were pointed out, the response from the authors was indignation and name calling rather than humility.
  Look, we are losing the debate on climate change. The Koch Brothers are winning. If we want to change that, the first step is to start building credibility. We don't do that by insisting our facts are important, and the other guy's facts are "quibbles". We do it by being truthful and honest.
15. Re:unfair policy by curmudgeon99 · 2014-09-01 07:57 · Score: 2
  
  I agree with you. It baffles me that people don't believe science. What can you do? I trust the scientific method and live in fear of misconduct by scientists.
  
  I am not saying the science is unimportant. I am saying that the insurance industry offers concrete testimony that stands aside from those questions about the veracity of science. I am trying to stand outside those questions by using the bias of the business community against those who trust it. The same people who don't trust science do trust business. So, pointing to the opinions of the insurance industry is a way to use the biases of the right--trusting in the free market--to show them that they are being inconsistent. If they believe in the free market, they must see that the insurance industry believes that Climate Change is real.
  
  I agree we are losing the debate. By pointing to the obvious beliefs of the insurance industry I am opening a new front. Listen, it is too late to convince climate change deniers that the science will ever be objective. The Kochs have won that argument. But how do they explain the actions of the insurance industry? This is a new front and I bet you that some eyes were opened by that argument.
16. Re:unfair policy by DamnOregonian · 2014-09-01 08:25 · Score: 2
  
  It's been pretty much every extreme you can imagine, with the vast majority of its time spent in states that would not support today's human population. To me, the collapse of civilization and the migratory patterns that would emerge with even a small shift in arable land patterns is pretty goddamn scary.
17. Re:unfair policy by curmudgeon99 · 2014-09-01 08:27 · Score: 2
  
  I'm sorry, but that's complete bullshit. Have you ever worked inside an insurance company? I have. They are intensely price competitive. Especially the re-insurance companies. There are very few and they all taking climate change totally seriously.
18. Re:unfair policy by DamnOregonian · 2014-09-01 08:29 · Score: 2
  
  We couldn't get knocked into a Venus-style runaway greenhouse effect. If we could, it would have happened, as earth has oscillated from nearly 100% carbon sequestration to nearly 0%. The earth apparently has better equilibrium seeking mechanisms than Venus had.
19. Re:unfair policy by Jane+Q.+Public · 2014-09-01 09:29 · Score: 2
  
  Do you disagree with me so far?
  Yes, as I have already explained in plain English, in response to your question about free markets.
  
  If there is no free market in your industry (or not much of one left, anyway), then you don't get to claim free market forces would correct such imbalances. You're like those people who blame corporatism and "crony capitalism" on the concept of capitalism itself, when both of those things don't represent capitalism, but rather egregious deviations from capitalism.
  
  Adam Smith (i.e., free-market) capitalism requires a robust, responsible, and enforced body of anti-trust law in order to keep people playing within the rules. When that enforcement breaks down (as it has, most notably during the last 2 administrations), then you get the kind of abuses of the system that we see. And the insurance industry, as a whole, has been one of the worst offenders.
  
  So yes, I disagree. Your free-market corrections will only work in a free market. Trying to claim insurance is a free market today is a belly laugh. They are in government pockets (and vice versa) at all levels of government.
20. Re:unfair policy by curmudgeon99 · 2014-09-01 09:42 · Score: 2
  
  Jane, I will agree that the insurance industry is heavily regulated. They are regulated on the subject of capital reserves and what they must cover. But given my personal experience in this precise industry, I must say that you traffic in myths. On the subject of risk tolerance and premium rates they are not regulated and since this directly equates to their ability to survive, they do indeed enjoy a free hand in setting their premium rates and their tolerance for risk.
  
  But since this is now a question of your beliefs versus my professional experience in this precise industry....
21. Re:unfair policy by phantomfive · 2014-09-01 10:19 · Score: 2
  
  So if a large proportion of these climate scientists don't think that doubling the atmospheric CO2 concentration will cause problematic warming what (according to them) is causing the current problematic warming trend?
  Do you understand the logical fallacy of "loaded question?" Look it up, because your question commits that fallacy.
  
  Most scientists accept that there's been some warming. How much of it is caused by CO2 is an open question, because the models need adjusting (though to be fair, the main difficulty is likely in over-estimating feedbacks). Scientists disagree on that problem, but the main question that matters from a practical standpoint is, "what should we do?" There's no consensus on this at all.
  
  1) Should we do nothing, because eventually technology will replace coal before anything bad happens? (this is suggested by John Christy).
  2) Should we do nothing, even though damage will be caused, because the damage will be easier to fix than to prevent? (I believe Bjorn Lomborg holds this view).
  3) Should we replace all coal plants with nuclear immediately, even at great expense? (this is proposed by James Hansen)
  4) Should we spend a lot of money on research for fusion?
  5) Should we spend a lot of money to help push forward the electric car? (I saw this proposed in the Wall Street Journal)?
  6) Should we replace all coal power with wind and solar? (this isn't actually possible with today's technology, but some people want it)
  7) Should we agree to the Kyoto protocol, damaging the economy while making little impact on CO2 release?
  8) Should we agree to the Copenhagen accord, which will do little, but cost billions in transfer payments to impoverished countries?
  
  This is just scratching the surface of possible responses, and there is absolutely no scientific consensus on how to respond to AGW, or even if it needs a response.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
22. Re:unfair policy by tbannist · 2014-09-01 10:58 · Score: 2
  
  97% of research papers on climate change that stated a position on whether AGW is real, took an affirmative stance. But this ignores the many papers that were non-committal, and stated no opinion.
  Why, exactly, would you consider the papers that don't talk about a topic when considering whether there is a consensus of support for that topic or not? If you were seeking to see if a dog would make a good pet, how many books about orangutans would you read? Also, the Cook paper also clearly states what percentage of the papers took a position on climate change (32.6%) in the abstract.
  According to your logic, we can lower the support level for any topic by simply including more papers that don't take a position on the topic. It doesn't even have to be climate change. Why not gravity, the round-earth hypothesis, or religion. Hey, if we include enough irrelevant papers we can get the consensus level down to 0.0001% for anything.
  
  --
  Fanatically anti-fanatical
23. Re:unfair policy by dryeo · 2014-09-01 15:08 · Score: 2
  
  Some theories say that solar forced global warming will push us into a Venus-style runaway greenhouse effect in about a billion years. Once it gets hot enough to boil the oceans, it's game over (unless we, or a natural event, move the Earth out close to Mars)
  Solar theory says the Sun has gotten 25% brighter since the beginning and will continue to get brighter as it gets more dense due to having a larger portion of He. Venus being closer to the Sun experienced the oceans boiling thing at least a billion years back judging by crater counts. (Resurfacing limits how far in the past we can see on Venus)
  
  --
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
24. Re:unfair policy by Jane+Q.+Public · 2014-09-01 17:04 · Score: 2
  
  Jane, I will agree that the insurance industry is heavily regulated. They are regulated on the subject of capital reserves and what they must cover. But given my personal experience in this precise industry, I must say that you traffic in myths. On the subject of risk tolerance and premium rates they are not regulated and since this directly equates to their ability to survive, they do indeed enjoy a free hand in setting their premium rates and their tolerance for risk.
  None of this has anything to do with what I said. You keep taking different ideas I have talked about and pasting them back together in ways that don't represent what I was actually saying.
  
  I didn't say their risk assessments and premiums were regulated. In the health care arena they certainly are regulated now to some extent, but that wasn't my point at all. I was speaking of anti-trust regulation, not regulation of premiums or risk tolerance.
  
  Never mind. I see you simply aren't absorbing what I was saying. I don't want to spend the time to keep explaining what I have already said.
25. Re:unfair policy by Jane+Q.+Public · 2014-09-01 17:11 · Score: 2
  
  No you did not. He has a valid question which you fail to address.
  Yes, I did. I specifically answered his question. I am not responsible for your failure to understand my response, which was about why the market does NOT adjust for the factors he mentioned, if there isn't a real market.
  
  Saying "market forces will drive them out of business", when the insurance companies today are nearly as oligopolistic as cable companies, is like saying "market forces" will force Comcast to invest more of their profits in infrastructure. If there isn't a free market, those market forces simply don't exist. Your cable bill (probably, depending on your area) is a very good illustration of this.
26. Re: unfair policy by NARbrat · 2014-09-02 04:29 · Score: 2
  
  Your comment is based on pure opinion, and not science. The Antarctic loses a huge portion of its ice each summer, and it then rebuilds in the winter. But that is the ice that is FLOATING. The majority of the ice in Antarctica is on land, not on the water. And that ice has been declining at an ever faster rate for decades. The effect all this fresh water has on the ocean and ice formation, has little to do with the overall melting.
What will it take? by Livius · 2014-09-01 04:23 · Score: 4, Interesting

So much freshwater from melting glaciers that sea level isn't even level anymore, and some people still don't want to believe there might be a climate problem.
(I don't mean the people who question how to address the problem - that's still legitimately an open question - or the severity of the problem, I mean the people still in denial that there's a problem at all.)
1. Re:What will it take? by timeOday · 2014-09-01 04:32 · Score: 2
  
  The truth is, they just don't care because they'll be dead before it gets bad.
2. Re:What will it take? by Bender0x7D1 · 2014-09-01 05:44 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  So if there's less ice, it's because of global warming. But if there's more ice, it's because of global warming.
  Yes. There is less ice in some areas due to global warming and more ice in other areas due to global warming.
  Think of it this way: Imagine the entire planet heated up by 20C, we wouldn't expect to see any permanent ice outside of Antarctica. (The North Pole might get some seasonal ice, but the much warmer oceans would melt it fairly quickly.) Now, with all of the oceans that much warmer, think how much additional water vapor would make it into the atmosphere. When the additional water vapor ends up over the South Pole, it will be cold enough for it to freeze and fall as snow. As the snow accumulates, it compacts into ice and we end up with a LOT more ice at the South Pole.
  So: Less ice everywhere but Antarctica due to global warming, but a lot more ice in Antarctica due to global warming.
  (And, yes; I do realize that this example is a vast simplification - and overstatement - I just used it to illustrate the point.)
  
  --
  Reading code is like reading the dictionary - you have to read half of it before you can go back and understand it.
3. Re:What will it take? by zr · 2014-09-01 06:14 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  the next story on slashdot—on iCloud nude pics leakage—collected more comments. ..i'm sorry to disappoint you but it really is not more complex than that..
4. Re:What will it take? by dywolf · 2014-09-02 02:28 · Score: 2
  
  And that right there is your ignorance.
  A couple decades ago they figured out CFC's, specifically the chlorine in them, was making it really high up in the atmosphere, where it reacted with sunlight to destroy ozone molecules in an unending chain reaction. The thinning of the ozone layer, and even development of holes in it, was leading to increased UV radiation reaching the ground rather than being absorbed up there in the ozone layer. skin cancer rates were measurably increasing. These CFCs came predominantly from the refrigerants ("freon") we used in these new fangled air conditioners that had popped into use in the recent decades.
  Now no one wanted to give up their A/C. It was the single biggest reason people began moving to the sun belt (population exploded down there, where it used to be very sparse). Everyone loves A/C. so instead we did a few things. we developed new coolants there was less reactive. we got better at trapping them and preventing them from escaping into the atmosphere (used to be common to just vent straight into the air before that).
  and the result of a world wide effort and fundamental A/C industry changes was that the ozone recovered. it's a natural layer that barring outside influence will develope and hover around a set level on its own. once we figured out what was harming it, and removed that influence it pretty much went back to normal.
  We (humanity) did that.
  We created a world wide problem.
  And then we fixed it.
  And people have already forgotten about it.
  But there is no reasont o think we can't do it again with GW.
  We have the technology right now, today, to end nearly ALL human CO2 emissions.
  It would still take several decades for the current trend to slow, stop, and even reverse, but eventually our actions would reach an equilibrium (assuming we havent already passed any of the theorized tipping points that leads to a new, unfavorable equilibrium).
  But we could do it.
  It's just a matter of political will.
  And that's what people would obstruct. From the oil/gas companies who love their money, to the religious folks who think its blasphemy to think we could even affect God's Earth, to the politicians and tea partiers who would rather die young on a dead planet in the name of "Freedom! 'Merica. No taxes! F YA" cause they somehow think fixing it means no feedom at all and nothing but taxes.
  Pure greed and ignorance all of it.
  We already know what runaway global warming can do. We call it the pre-cambrian extinction event, when nonstop volcanic eruptions in Siberia lasted for thousands of years, causing runaway global warming that eventually killed 98% of all life on earth. Life itself nearly went extinct. (and its rather a miracle that it didnt, and that following events eventually triggered massive cooling that made the planet habitable for life as we know it). And that event, that warming, and the following extinctions, lasted longer than all of current human civilization has existed. And it took millions of years for life to recover and re-evolve.
  But still: we could do it.
  We could fix this problem before it's too late.
  It's not a matter of ability or capability to do it, but simply the will to do so.
  Or we oculd sit around with thumbs in our butts and do nothing, calling those who identify the problem and its potential "alarmists" and "radicals", and fear any change or technologies that would enable us to fix the problem.
  
  --
  The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
What will it take? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-01 05:14 · Score: 2, Interesting

Climate change "skepticism" is highly organized and well funded. It's a billion dollar effort. All those people who glibly tell you it's not real aren't skeptics at all, they're just kool-aid drinkers.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-money-funds-climate-change-denial-effort/
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/feb/14/funding-climate-change-denial-thinktanks-network
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/dec/20/conservative-groups-1bn-against-climate-change
And ... guess what? It's mostly American Conservatives behind it. No surprises there.
Re:What will it take to abate your fear? by NotSanguine · 2014-09-01 10:20 · Score: 2

Climate warming occurs naturally, it's historically been warmer before than it is now. So this was destined to happen sometime - why are you afraid of it now? The rise is still so gradual sea-side communities can still adapt, and overall rise is something like a foot and a half over 150-200 years. That's hardly anything to get worked up over.
It is amusing though to think you probably bought into the whole "global warming pause is because oceans are storing heat" story when we find from this story ocean temperatures are rising from glacial melt entering the ocean... which has to be affecting measured temperatures.
Just all around so much fear and total misunderstanding of what climate change actually means from the people who deny natural climate change exists...
No one (at least not anyone I know) denies that climate change through non-anthropogenic processes exists.
However, making the assumption that because there are non-anthropogenic processes that affect the global climate, anthropogenic processes do not exist, or are not relevant to the discussion, is like saying "well, since people die from old age, disease, lightning strikes, avalanches and landslides, that means that murder, auto accidents, arson deaths and the like do not exist."
Yes, that's a straw man. Yes, I'm exaggerating. However, that argument is at least as good in defending the idea that anthropogenic causes of death do not exist, as most arguments about climate change from anthropogenic climate change deniers.

--
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr