Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Study: Antarctic Sea-Level Rising Faster Than Global Rate

Posted by samzenpus on 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.

13 of 302 comments (clear)

  1. unfair policy by turkeydance · · Score: 3, Funny

    the Arctic sea level demands compensation.

    1. Re:unfair policy by itzly · · 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 · · 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 · · 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 · · 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 curmudgeon99 · · 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?

    6. Re:unfair policy by phantomfive · · 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."
    7. Re:unfair policy by ShanghaiBill · · 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.

    8. Re:unfair policy by itzly · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Funny how you react to a comment about Arctic ice with a study of Antarctic ice.

    9. Re:unfair policy by curmudgeon99 · · 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.

  2. What will it take? by Livius · · 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 Bender0x7D1 · · 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.
    2. Re:What will it take? by zr · · 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..