Slashdot Mirror
Study: Antarctic Sea-Level Rising Faster Than Global Rate
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.
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.)
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
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?
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."
Funny how you react to a comment about Arctic ice with a study of Antarctic ice.
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.