Slashdot Mirror


ESA Satellite Shows Sudden Ice Loss In Southern Antarctic Peninsula

ddelmonte tips news that the ESA's CryoSat spacecraft has detected a sharp increase in the rate at which ice is being lost in a previously stable section of Antarctica. In 2009, glaciers at the Southern Antarctic Peninsula began rapidly shedding ice into the ocean, at a rate of roughly 60 cubic kilometers per year (abstract). From the ESA's press release: This makes the region one of the largest contributors to sea-level rise in Antarctica, having added about 300 cubic km of water into the ocean in the past six years. Some glaciers along the coastal expanse are currently lowering by as much as four m each year. Prior to 2009, the 750 km-long Southern Antarctic Peninsula showed no signs of change. ... The ice loss in the region is so large that it has even caused small changes in Earth’s gravity field, detected by NASA’s GRACE mission. Climate models show that the sudden change cannot be explained by changes in snowfall or air temperature. Instead, the team attributes the rapid ice loss to warming oceans.

8 of 268 comments (clear)

  1. How do you define southern Antarctica? by damn_registrars · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Being as it is the continent that encompasses the south pole, how do you define what is southern?

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
  2. Re:Sudden? by jellomizer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There are many cases where even republicans go on record stating man made climate change.
    It is basicly the Oil industry who is trying to keep the doubt about it.
    So the politicians Democrat or republican (mostly republican) who come from the Energy Producing states. Will play onto the spew to keep themselves elected.

    Politics are not Pro- or Anti-Science. It is weather the science is political useful for them or not. Otherwise they will be happy putting their head in the sand.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  3. Re:Strangely mixed signals here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    One of them reports what the actual scientists have concluded from meticulous study of the data, the other reports what a Forbes columnist has concluded from looking at some charts and having a hunch?

  4. Re:Sudden? by nehumanuscrede · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Or they spend many hours researching them and have come to the logical conclusion that it doesn't matter who you vote for, they're all just slightly different flavors of the same poison.

    We need to burn the existing system to the ground and rebuild it. It's the only way to put us back on the right path.

  5. Re:Sudden? by dj245 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    There are many cases where even republicans go on record stating man made climate change. It is basicly the Oil industry who is trying to keep the doubt about it. So the politicians Democrat or republican (mostly republican) who come from the Energy Producing states. Will play onto the spew to keep themselves elected.

    Politics are not Pro- or Anti-Science. It is weather the science is political useful for them or not. Otherwise they will be happy putting their head in the sand.

    Have you ever visited a coal mining town that doesn't mine coal anymore? The end result is almost always a severely depressed area, rampant poverty, high unemployment and underemployment, high drug use and abuse, prostitution, etc. A lot (millions) of people live in oil towns and oil cities in the US. For the good of the world, maybe we need to cut back on oil and gas. But the politicians would not be doing their job if they didn't represent the people who elected them.

    I see a lot of people calling for an end to oil and gas but nobody ever makes a plan, or offers to fund a plan, on how to retrain all the workers, repurpose the assets, align interconnected industries, etc. It hasn't been done because the problem is a lot more difficult than environmentalists ever imagine.

    --
    Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
  6. Re:'Climatedot' by plopez · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The site you link to has no peer reviewed papers, charts with out proper methodology cited, and links to essentially nowhere. Not acceptable.

    --
    putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
  7. Re:Strangely mixed signals here by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In psuedo-skeptic world a thousand peer reviewed studies aren't worth a single paid Frank Spencer pro-fossil fuel shill piece in the WSJ.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  8. Re:Any materialized predictions? (Re:Sudden?) by bouldin · · Score: 2, Insightful

    People don't have to jump through your ridiculous hoops to prove the Earth is generally warming.