Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

ESA Satellite Shows Sudden Ice Loss In Southern Antarctic Peninsula

Posted by Soulskill on from the uber-for-ice-cubes dept.

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.

6 of 268 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Sudden? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Global Warming is MYTH! A MYTH, I tell you! Glub. Glub. Glub.

  2. Re:Sudden? by Lumpy · · Score: 5, Funny

    It's not the country, It's the drooling morons that we have running the country.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  3. Funnel the water somewhere else by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Build a trench from the ocean to the desert. Let the excess water pool there. Problem solved.

  4. Re:How do you define southern Antarctica? by Sir_Eptishous · · Score: 5, Funny

    The penguins have confederate flag bumper stickers on their trucks.

    --
    We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
  5. Re:Strangely mixed signals here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    The earlier submission is not citing NASA's satellite. According to the submission itself, the "original source" is Forbes. The article on Forbes does not have any link to NASA website, he has a link to a graph which shows some data, but does not link to any explanation of this data. (you know, something like a scientific article, or at least the web page of the satellite/project which provide the data, just to know what it represents)

  6. Re:Any materialized predictions? (Re:Sudden?) by riverat1 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I've had the same problem with mi. Apparently his mind is too simple to parse out the comparison in a single link and he rigidly requires responses be presented only in the format he wants.

    In response to your post temperatures are still within the uncertainty range on the model projections so it's impossible to say they are wrong.