Slashdot Mirror
Could Collapsing Antarctic Glaciers Raise Sea Levels Sooner Than Expected? (salon.com)
"We may be headed for an ice apocalypse which could result in the flooding of coastal cities before the end of this century," writes long-time Slashdot reader whoever57. Grist reports on two of the largest and fastest-melting glaciers in Antarctica which "hold human civilization hostage."
There's no doubt this ice will melt as the world warms. The vital question is when... Together, they act as a plug holding back enough ice to pour 11 feet of sea-level rise into the world's oceans -- an amount that would submerge every coastal city on the planet... Each new iceberg that breaks away exposes taller and taller cliffs... In the past few years, scientists have identified marine ice-cliff instability as a feedback loop that could kickstart the disintegration of the entire West Antarctic ice sheet this century -- much more quickly than previously thought. Minute-by-minute, huge skyscraper-sized shards of ice cliffs would crumble into the sea, as tall as the Statue of Liberty and as deep underwater as the height of the Empire State Building. The result: a global catastrophe the likes of which we've never seen... When [land-based ice] falls into the ocean, it adds to the overall volume of liquid in the seas. Thus, sea-level rise.... All this could play out in a mere 20 to 50 years -- much too quickly for humanity to adapt...
A lot of this newfound concern is driven by the research of two climatologists: Rob DeConto at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst and David Pollard at Penn State University. A study they published last year was the first to incorporate the latest understanding of marine ice-cliff instability into a continent-scale model of Antarctica... Instead of a three-foot increase in ocean levels by the end of the century, six feet was more likely, according to DeConto and Pollard's findings. But if carbon emissions continue to track on something resembling a worst-case scenario, the full 11 feet of ice locked in West Antarctica might be freed up, their study showed.
If sea levels rise by six feet, "around 12 million people in the United States would be displaced, and the world's most vulnerable megacities, like Shanghai, Mumbai, and Ho Chi Minh City, could be wiped off the map."
A lot of this newfound concern is driven by the research of two climatologists: Rob DeConto at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst and David Pollard at Penn State University. A study they published last year was the first to incorporate the latest understanding of marine ice-cliff instability into a continent-scale model of Antarctica... Instead of a three-foot increase in ocean levels by the end of the century, six feet was more likely, according to DeConto and Pollard's findings. But if carbon emissions continue to track on something resembling a worst-case scenario, the full 11 feet of ice locked in West Antarctica might be freed up, their study showed.
If sea levels rise by six feet, "around 12 million people in the United States would be displaced, and the world's most vulnerable megacities, like Shanghai, Mumbai, and Ho Chi Minh City, could be wiped off the map."
The parable of the boy that cried wolf seems very apt for this story.
(responding to: how were all of the last predictions?)
Pretty accurate.
Yep. So far the predictions have been matching the measurements pretty well.
This particular article, however, verges on the sensationalist. Do note it's talking about sea level rise by the end of the century, not the next decade or two, and I also notice that, although what the actual scientists quoted talked about was two meters by the end of the century-- and note that this is on the high edge of what other scientists think, the authors of this article immediately jump to "but maybe it will be worse!" and talk about four meters of sea level rise. So, they took the highest estimate from any scientists, and doubled it.
Instead, pay a little more attention to this quote from the article, buried somewhat far from the sensationalist headline:
"Some scientists aren’t fully convinced the alarm is warranted. Ted Scambos, lead scientist at the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Colorado, says the new research by Wise and his colleagues, which identified ice-cliff instabilities in Pine Island Bay 11,000 years ago, is “tantalizing evidence.” But he says that research doesn’t establish how quickly it happened."
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
The ice isn't floating "in the glass", it's sitting on a land mass above the glass, genius.
Where do you Dunning-Kruger imbeciles keep coming from?
The article attempts to spread FUD around "megacities" vanishing, but in reality why do you not think any sea level rise would be engineered around just as the Dutch have done for over a hundred years?
One issue I have though is that it seems like the current estimate of three feet rise over the next 100 years has already taken into account additional ice melt. I am pretty suspicious there is some double-booking going on here, which would be the norm for the climate "science" community.
Another form of double accounting is pretending like we are anywhere near on track for the models that actually predict full ice melt; they are models based on the assumption we'd see runaway exponential warming which is not happening. That's how you know it's truly FUD, when they try to make a case not even viable at this point seem likely.
And thus, conservatism was reborn as shitting on yourself because you can.
Fill the glass to the top with water so the ice sticks out the top. Watch what happens when the ice melts. Science. Thanks for playing, morons.
You do know that Antarctica is a continent, and the miles-thick ice sheet under discussion is on land, not floating, right?
Fill a glass to the top with water. Then, melt ice somewhere else, and pour the melted water into the glass. The glass will overflow.
Statements such as "If sea levels rise by six feet, "around 12 million people in the United States would be displaced, and the world's most vulnerable megacities, like Shanghai, Mumbai, and Ho Chi Minh City, could be wiped off the map." are massive exaggerations. If this was even on the same side of the planet as reality those some places would be screwed every high tide.
All this could play out in a mere 20 to 50 years -- much too quickly for humanity to adapt.
Humanity can adapt to changes on a far more rapid timescale than this. We don't have to hang around until we evolve gills we just move to higher ground and rebuild. This will involve social and economic upheaval and a reduction in the standard of living on a short timescale but that does not mean we cannot adapt to the change.
I suppose all you Slashdot sheeple actually believe there is a place called "Antarctica" and that there are "glaciers" there. It's because you've been brainwashed by Marxist-run universities and their so-called "science" which is just SJW virtue signaling.
You should view my series of 7-hour YouTube videos called, "Why Science is for Losers" and subscribe to my channel. Use the promotion code: "88_14WORDS_Hexen_WhiteWolfMRA".
And don't forget to hit up my Patreon page, because bringing the truth to the masses is thirsty work, and have you seen the price of Mike's Hard Lemonade lately?
You are welcome on my lawn.
Many coastal cities are largely well above sea level. They may lose a few hundred feet to the ocean but they would not be submerged.
In addition some coastal cities were raised or had seawalls and other protection put in place after earlier flooding or storms.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
A while back, I made a list of various predictions saying that climate change was irreversible, or soon would be irreversible. The East Anglia climate email leak shows that a lot of climate scientists weren't acting in good faith. We can still accept the science they do, but there is no reason to trust their judgment (and again, the emails provided reason to believe their judgment is poor).
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Agreed, if only they could stop having children in this already over-populated world... THAT would be progress!
Meaning that your bad faith assertion is not a result of evaluating the investigations' results but your own original research?
Have you read the emails? It's pretty clear that they are people with an agenda, and heavily influenced by emotions.
I'm not sure that makes me any more confident about your far-reaching and potentially libelous conclusions.
Um, in no way did I say you should trust my conclusions. I don't wan't you to trust my conclusions, trust is the anti-thesis of science. Feel free to go read the emails and verify them yourself: that is being scientific.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Antarctica's average precipitation is 166 mm per year. Its surface area is 14 million square km. Therefore it receives an average of:
(0.166 meters)*(14 million km^2)*(1000 m/km)^2 = 2.324 trillion cubic meters of precipitation each year
Since water weighs one ton per cubic meter, that.s 2.324 trillion tons of water falling onto Antarctica every year. Unlike most of the other continents, this precipitation does not flow to the sea as water. it mostly ends up locked up as snow or ice (there are a handful of "rivers" - mostly small streams of glacial meltwater running to the sea). If you assume the ice on the continent has reached equilibrium (amount it gains equals amount it loses each year), that means it has to lose 2.324 trillion tons of ice each year, mostly as icebergs. If it loses more than that, sea levels go up. If it loses less than that, sea levels go down.
That massive iceberg (4x the size of Manhattan) that broke off earlier this year was estimated at 1 trillion tons. While that's a huge amount to lose all at once, it's less than half the amount Antarctica needs to lose every year to maintain equilibrium. The press likes to hype up outlier events like that because it appears to confirm the belief that Antarctica's ice is melting. But outliers are just that - outliers, and not necessarily representative of what's actually happening. The last scientific net gain/loss study I saw actually concluded that Antarctica is gaining ice. Not losing it. Enough to lower sea levels by 0.23 mm per year.
They were found entirely innocent. Like, entirely. You want to try this again, sparky?
That's why you don't see any measurable effect YET. So far, the ice that's been cracking off and dropping into the sea was the ice already IN the sea.
Now we're reaching the ice that's lying on top of land. Oh, Antarctica, unlike that thing on the top of your globe, is actually a continent. There is land under that miles of ice. That's why we care about melting Antarctica more than we care about the arctic ice going away. That's why this is being talked about instead of the same shit happening on the other end of the marble.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
If you remove the weight from the ice over the land mass, it will rise up and still displace the water level.
Tired of my customary (Score:1)
A while back, I made a list of various predictions saying that climate change was irreversible, or soon would be irreversible.
Of the seven links you give, five are "404 not found" or "Error 553 Website is offline". That's an amazing record, five of seven links dead. But these were mostly to sites like "examiner.com", which was (it's dead now) a site where people could upload blog posts that, if they got enough readers, would give them pocket change.
Two of your links still worked.
The first was to a NPR story in 2009 quoting a study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences saying that if we stop emitting carbon dioxide immediately, the effects due to the carbon dioxide we have emitted will last for "more than a thousand years," basically due to the lag time it takes for carbon dioxide to be desorbed by the ocean. There's no real prediction here- basically, it's an article about the system hysteresis. So, no, this is not a failed prediction.
The second was a link to an article about an editorial by James Lovelock. In a 2006 article in the Sydney Morning Herald: "Professor James Lovelock said billions would die by the end of the century, and civilisation as it is known would be unlikely to survive." I have little respect for Lovelock, but nevertheless, the end of the century is still 83 years away, so this is not an example of a prediction that has failed.
Of the links that were 404 not found, I could dig up one on archive.org, an article on "commondreams.org" about a report from "Washington-based World Resources Institute (WRI), a leading environmental think-tank," headlined that "Damage from Warming Becoming 'Irreversible'." That's not actually a prediction. All the way at the end of the article are two things that might be predictions:
The first: "Even if climate change is more gradual, recent studies have argued that as many as one million plant and animal species could be rendered extinct due to the effects of global warming by 2050."
That's a prediction for over thirty years from now, so, no, that is not a prediction that has failed.
The second: "A recent report by the world's largest reinsurance company, Swiss Re, predicted that in 10 years the economic cost of disasters like floods, frosts, and famines caused by global warming could reach $150 billion annually."
An actual prediction! It's hard to say whether any given damage is "caused by" global warming. However, if you consider hurricanes "caused by" global warming, or droughts, or wildfires, that easily adds up to well over 150 billion. So at best I'd call this a prediction that needs some data analysis to say whether it's accurate or not. For what it's worth, here's Forbes-- not exactly a left-wing cheerleader-- saying the same thing: https://www.forbes.com/sites/e...
So, final summary: NO, this is not a list of predictions that have been turned out to be false.
The actual predictions-- by which I mean, the ones from actual climate scientists-- have mostly been pretty accurate. If you're looking at the sensationalist predictions-- sea level rises of many meters, cities innudated by floods, etc.-- they are for the most part predictions for after the year 2100, not for now.
But the real science predictions aren't sensational enough for the tabloids, and journalists tend to downplay the "in a hundred years" part of predictions in popular articles.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
I'm not sure what the point is here. The Jurassic was a period lasting over fifty million years. Yes, during much of the Jurassic, carbon dioxide was much higher than it is now, and temperatures were correspondingly much hotter, the Earth had no ice caps and no glaciers, and the sea levels were much higher.
I'd point at this as showing that higher carbon dioxide levels are correlated to higher temperatures and higher sea levels.
Yes, we could adapt. Over a time span short compared to fifty million years, the ecology would just settle in to a new equilibrium. But we're not talking about millions of years, not even hundreds of thousands of years here.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Bullshit. Trust is required for any human endeavor.
CO2 levels just from advanced countries is probably enough to cause damaging warming. There is no stopping billions of Asians, Africans and South Americans from becoming wealthier and demanding the same lifestyle. So the world is screwed. There will be flooding and mass extinctions -- when we do not know.
At some point, perhaps in 100-200 years oil, gas and coal will run out. Then the world will begin a slow healing process. If nuclear energy is still expensive, populations will naturally decline as well.
Unless you would deny billions the comfy high-energy lifestyle westerners have enjoyed, it is too late. Stop wasting time and money fighting the inevitable.
For those who would be flooded out -- you have at least 5 decades to move. Don't expect handouts if you neglect to act in that amount of time.