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.
When the Antarctic ice pack shrinks it's all over the news. "The sky is falling." But funny, now that the Arctic ice pack has increased over the last 5 years and the prediction that there would be no Arctic ice pack by 2014 we don't hear a fu**ing peep.
... gasp ... global warming; that ice ages are a recent phenomenon (last 2.5 million years) - probably due to continental drift and change of ocean/wind currents.
In a few years when the Antarctic ice pack increases that will no longer be in the news - but since the Arctic will start shrinking. "OMG. The sky is falling."
Did you know that coastlines have risen and fallen? that the period between ice ages are periods of
Here's the thing - people living in deltas have a very short time frame (geologically) before they have to start building dykes. Maybe, just maybe, people should not build mega cities in flood plains and then be surprised that sh*t happens. Islands will disappear under rising oceans as they have numerous times before; and in a short amount of time (geologically speaking) new land bridges will arise.
But no - lets not be concerned about dioxins, dumping nuclear waste on the ocean floor - let's take our eye off the pollution and spend our time, energy and money on global warming. YEAH!!!! Makes so much sense.
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
THE USA IS THE ONLY COUNTRY THAT HAS BEEN REDUCING ITS CO2 EVERY YEAR.
Let me repeat that:
THE USA IS THE ONLY COUNTRY THAT HAS BEEN REDUCING ITS CO2 EVERY YEAR.
If you don't believe me, look it up. The US is doing something. The EU and Asia are NOT.
I stopped reading at "Climate models show..."
Hugs and kisses, hater.
At least, a child, however petulant, would not use words like "fucker".
Yes, I am lazy — but the burden of proof is not on me, it is on those people, who want me to change my ways to fight a problem. They (including you) have to prove, the problem exists in the first place.
So, instead of posting attacks on my (deeply flawed) person, how about you either put up — the format I am asking for is perfectly reasonable — or shut up?..
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Distinction without difference. Both would evidence to the dangers of global warming — or lack thereof. That one was posted, while the other was not, hints at a bias...
The difference between the poles may affect local residents on each, but it does not affect the debate of whether or not the whole planet is warming to an alarming — or even perceptible — degree.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Ha! The submissions can all be dismissed as "biased" without trying too hard. All of the Climate-scientists paid by the government and international institutions, for example, are inherently biased — should they conclude, there is no danger in global warming, their grants will dry out and they'll lose their jobs and influence.
Worse! Even if the scientists themselves are sincere, the people who run their departments and the international institutions are politicians and thus (far) less trust-worthy. And it is in their interest to only seek-out and hire scientists, who favour their agenda — sincerely or otherwise. A good scientist may still be able to find employment, but if the International Panel on Climate Change is closed, a lot of the currently-influential people will become nobodies...
The conflict of interest is so stunning, I'm surprised we can still breath in the room with this giant elephant. Compared to that bias, a blogger's personal agenda is nothing to speak of...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.