Antarctica Is Losing Ice Faster Every Year (qz.com)

A survey of satellite data published in the journal Cryosphere confirms what scientists have suspected for a while now: ice loss from the critical region of Antarctica is happening at an increasingly fast pace. Quartz reports: In total, researchers found that Antarctica lost roughly 1,929 gigatons of ice in 2015, which amounts to an increase of roughly 36 gigatons per year every year since 2008. (A gigaton is one billion tons.) Nearly 90% of that increase in loss occurred in West Antarctica, "probably in response to ocean warming," according to NASA. The new data analysis mostly confirms other recent research, but does so with a higher degree of precision by using a new technique that can process a larger amount of satellite data than was possible before.

West Antarctica has been losing a lot of ice in recent years, and at an ever-growing pace, while East Antarctica is losing ice more steadily. The West Antarctic ice sheet is of particular concern because, like a building that stands on an uneven foundation, it is inherently unstable, making it especially vulnerable to the warming climate. If the entire ice sheet were destabilized and melted into the sea, researchers estimate it would lead to 3 meters (9 feet) of sea level rise globally. Models suggest that under a low-emissions scenario, where the world commits to "peaking" and then steadily reducing emissions in the near future, complete destabilization of the West Antarctic ice sheet is possible to avoid. But under medium- or high-emissions scenarios, the loss of the ice sheet becomes inevitable.

Comments

"Probably" doesn't cut it.

[Anonymous Coward]

When I see scientists use words like probably or likely I cringe a bit.

Re: "Probably" doesn't cut it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why?
Should make the stuff they say more belivable

Re:"Probably" doesn't cut it.

[Klaxton]

And why would that be? Science isn't religion. Anyone with any sense will admit that they could be wrong.

Re: "Probably" doesn't cut it.

[Anonymous Coward]

How many gigs tons do we have to go before Antarctica forms it's own rendition of the Taiga? I bet it will be a gorgeous forest with all the minerals and virgin soil ground up under the ice sheets. It will truly something magnificent when we can see what happens a continent is unlocked from the frozen chasm it was cast under during the last ice age.

Also, there doesn't seem to be a solution proposed about what do to to prevent sea-level rise with so much ice being added? Thoughts?

Re: "Probably" doesn't cut it.

[ClickOnThis]

World sea levels go up three meters? A quick computation shows that is "probably" very very wrong.

Kindly share your "quick computation." And explain why it disproves the conclusions of the paper linked in TFS.

Re: "Probably" doesn't cut it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Virgin soil? I don't think you understand soil.

Re:"Probably" doesn't cut it.

[Zaelath]

The article uses "probably", scientists use "likely".

FYI the word count in the PDF:
probably:0
likely:13

Likely has an actual meaning in scientific language, and it's not the same as general English.

What I cringe at is feckless assholes that use every excuse they can to suck wind through their teeth and suggest doubt where there is none.

Re: "Probably" doesn't cut it.

[Anonymous Coward]

New earth from volcanos and such that hasn't had forests or plants grown on it before. What part did I miss? Antarctica hasn't had plant life in millions of years, and tectonic activity has churned up a bunch of it. Like the Hawaiian islands when trees first started to colonize it, except the ice has probably shattered it down to sediment to a degree.

Re: "Probably" doesn't cut it.

[jimtheowl]

I don't know what you are smoking, but don't do it while contemplating that magnificent unlocked grounded virgin soil. There could be a lot of methane around you while waiting for the gorgeous forest to grow.

Also no. There is no simple solution besides changing our behavior to mitigate man made climate change. Are you trying to pretend that all we need is the right idea and we can keep behaving as we have been?

Re:"Probably" doesn't cut it.

[ShanghaiBill]

The article uses "probably", scientists use "likely".

If I google "define:likely" it says it means "probably".

Likely has an actual meaning in scientific language, and it's not the same as general English.

I have used the words "likely" and "probably" in scientific papers many times over the last 35 years. If there is a special scientific meaning, I am unaware of it, but would be interested to hear what it is. I used both to mean greater than 50% chance of happening. That is exactly what I also mean when I use either in everyday conversation.

Re:"Probably" doesn't cut it.

[Zaelath]

Sure Bill, link one.

Re: "Probably" doesn't cut it.

[Anonymous Coward]

You're probably a fucking moron. Very likely.

Re: "Probably" doesn't cut it.

[TheZeitgeist]

Also no. There is no simple solution besides changing our behavior to mitigate man made climate change. Are you trying to pretend that all we need is the right idea and we can keep behaving as we have been?

Tabletop multi-kilowatt proton-boron aneutronic fusion reactor running ~90% conversion would be kind of a silver bullet.

Just say'in.

Re:"Probably" doesn't cut it.

[ShanghaiBill]

Sure Bill, link one.

Nope. I use a pseudonym on Slashdot for a reason. I have no interest in outing myself by linking to my real name.

Re: "Probably" doesn't cut it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Methane should be recovered and liquified, if there is much. If there isn't, then great. But let's not base our future plans on *could* and *should*. Stopping our current way of life would mean the sudden and catastrophic deaths of most of the people on earth. You simply can not provide the amount of food 7 billion 150lb creatures need to survive without expensing a shit ton of constantly reliable available energy, and when have finally learned to harvest sun power in a steady stream (space collectors) and transport it down, most of the carbon based fuel will have been returned to the biosphere (where it was to begin with), and the earth will look radically different by then.

I'm not denying climate change, I'm denying there's any real possibility of stopping it due to the necessity our civilization demands of its source.

Re: "Probably" doesn't cut it.

[HiThere]

The thing is, it's questionable how much of the change is already committed. There are a lot of lags in various feedback cycles, and if, say, the permafrost methane is already inevitable, then that may mean that a much greater temperature rise is already inevitable. Methane may have a half life of 50 years (?? not that long??) but it's a much stronger greenhouse gas than CO2, and when it degrades, it degrades to CO2. Nobody's quite sure how much methane is locked up in the permafrost...but it's already starting to melt, so it may well be too late to stabilize things. How much mitigation we can do is uncertain. And the sun is now hotter than it was the last time all that CO2 was in the atmosphere (see carboniferous period http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/c...), so nobody's quite certain what will happen. There are models, but anyone who believes them needs their head examined. We probably won't turn into another Venus, but it's not beyond the bounds of possibility.

The current state is bad enough that "launching a solar sun shade" is starting to look reasonable, even though it's effects would be uneven, and less than ideal. I'm not sure what the downsides of that one are, but the more feasible proposals for geo-engineering seem to have enough problems that it's worth serious consideration. If we'd started acting conservatively 20 years ago we wouldn't be in this pickle, but we don't have general (political) agreement even yet, so things are pretty much guaranteed to get a lot worse than the more optimistic projections.

Re:"Probably" doesn't cut it.

[HiThere]

What *is* this precise scientific meaning of likely. I know that probably means the calculated odds are over 50%. How does likely differ from that? Does it assume a bell curve and say more than one standard deviation, or what?

I don't write papers, but when I want a specific meaning I attach numbers, hopefully with error bars, if the numbers aren't themselves bounds.

Re: "Probably" doesn't cut it.

[Anonymous Coward]

The sun is hotter, the tilt of earth has shifter, the length of a day has changed some, and you have an intelligent species he'll-bent on insuring it's own survival. I always liked the idea of a solar shade. It could be built to shade the earth from the sun at the solar Lagrange point. It would need to be an array of panels that cause a fade effect, double as our primary energy collector, and complete our move to a type 1 civilization. Hell if we didn't stop building it, we could make it the start of our type 2 phase.

But one thing is certain, 5 billion people will never agree to stop eating and leave the fuel in the ground.... can't we all just admit that?

Re:"Probably" doesn't cut it.

[Zaelath]

Sure, sure, me too, but if you're going to appeal to authority you need to be able to back that shit up. So you know, fuck off.

Re:"Probably" doesn't cut it.

[Zaelath]

I know that probably means the calculated odds are over 50%.

How do you know that? Bill's favourite authoritative dictionary, Google, describes probably as "almost certainly; as far as one knows or can tell.", and "almost certainly" is well into the 90% range.

Re:"Probably" doesn't cut it.

[ISayWeOnlyToBePolite]

I've got 99 probable scenarios, but likely ain't one.

Re: "Probably" doesn't cut it.

[phantomfive]

The current state is bad enough that "launching a solar sun shade" is starting to look reasonable,

No, it's not. Seriously, your post is borderline irrational hysteria.

Re: "Probably" doesn't cut it.

[Anonymous Coward]

You missed the bit about glaciers scouring the soil away and dumping it in the ocean. What you have is rock, which takes a while to become soil, and thus productive

Re: "Probably" doesn't cut it.

[jimtheowl]

That would be nice.

It is not a simple solution, but I am also of the opinion that our best shot is along those lines.

Re: "Probably" doesn't cut it.

[jimtheowl]

Yes we can admit that.

Another thing is certain. If we don't leave a bit more fuel in the ground and take measures to better produce our food, there will be serious consequences to pay.

Can we admit that?

Re:"Probably" doesn't cut it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Likely sits between very likely (>90% chance) and Possible (10%) in risk speak.

Re:"Probably" doesn't cut it.

[ShanghaiBill]

if you're going to appeal to authority ...

You have your fallacies confused. I didn't appeal to authority. I appealed to ignorance.

Re: "Probably" doesn't cut it.

[djinn6]

It's much easier to convince a relatively small group of wealthy people pay for a sun shade than it is to convince every poor person on earth not to dig free energy out of the ground.

Re: "Probably" doesn't cut it.

[Barsteward]

its the wealthy people paying the poor people to dig

Re: "Probably" doesn't cut it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Surely it must sit between 50% and 90%?

Re:"Probably" doesn't cut it.

[Kjella]

I used both to mean greater than 50% chance of happening. That is exactly what I also mean when I use either in everyday conversation.

Well, I would say "likely" has a more subjective and causal tone to it than probably which is more objective and numeric. As in "The reduced crop is likely due to cold and wet weather" vs "If we run we can probably catch the bus". If you swap words the meaning is the same, but it sounds less natural to me. That likely/unlikely is tighter connected to plausible/implausible than probable/improbable. Like you can say that according to the standard model the Higgs boson is likely to be so-and-such while CERN proved its existance with 99.99995% probability. That theories are likelyhoods and experiments are probabilities, I don't think there's a formally recognized scientific difference or consistent use though.

Re:"Probably" doesn't cut it.

[zmooc]

IPCC has declared specific "scientific" meaning for such terms when used in their reports. You may want to align your use of them to that. See https://www.theglobeandmail.co... for an overview.

Re: "Probably" doesn't cut it.

[GrumpySteen]

The "quick computation" is probably something along the lines of this:
WhatIWant + GoogleSearch + OilCompanyAstroturfing = GlobalWarningIsFalse

Re: "Probably" doesn't cut it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Three meters isn't really a problem, although it is a problem. What will really put a damper on your day is when you learn about the glaciers on the Eastern Antarctic coast. There's one of them that has the capacity, all by itself, to raise average surface sea level by 6 meters. (average of 6 meters means considerably more on the equator.) If the lip off that glacier melts and the fresh water runs under it, it's gone. And that's just ONE such glacier. We're more than fucked, because building a dyke to hold the sea away from a glacier is not something we know how to do yet, and not in the remote Antarctic either. Anyone got any great ideas?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z69uV11wI5A
Dude works for NASA. Jump over the 5 minute intro, it's fascinating and scary stuff, and he seems so calm about it.

Re: "Probably" doesn't cut it.

[Anonymous Coward]

The estimated sea level rise over the next 100 years is 3 inches. 9 inches is FUD.

Re: "Probably" doesn't cut it.

[phantomfive]

You need to clear your mind, dude. The problem with a sun shade isn't the cost.

Re: "Probably" doesn't cut it.

[gnick]

Kindly share your "quick computation."

No computation necessary. I have it from the highest authority that the ice caps are growing so much they're setting records. Anything else is FAKE NEWS.

There is a cooling, and there’s a heating. I mean, look, it used to not be climate change, it used to be global warming. That wasn’t working too well because it was getting too cold all over the place. The ice caps were going to melt, they were going to be gone by now, but now they’re setting records. They’re at a record level!

Re:"Probably" doesn't cut it.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is because you're a willfully ignorant moron who is completely clueless about how science works, and you're happy to use that fact as a reason to dismiss any scientific finding that that doesn't conform to your shitty worldview.

Re: "Probably" doesn't cut it.

[hey!]

You can't call FUD without references.

Re: "Probably" doesn't cut it.

[Dread_ed]

My computations are different. My main concern is the rate of melting, and how to accelerate it to be complete within my active lifetime.

You see, I want to know what's under all those miles of ice, and I am willing to drown every single one of you to find out.

Re: "Probably" doesn't cut it.

[thomst]

HiThere pointed out:

The thing is, it's questionable how much of the change is already committed. There are a lot of lags in various feedback cycles, and if, say, the permafrost methane is already inevitable, then that may mean that a much greater temperature rise is already inevitable. Methane may have a half life of 50 years (?? not that long??) but it's a much stronger greenhouse gas than CO2, and when it degrades, it degrades to CO2. Nobody's quite sure how much methane is locked up in the permafrost...but it's already starting to melt, so it may well be too late to stabilize things. How much mitigation we can do is uncertain. And the sun is now hotter than it was the last time all that CO2 was in the atmosphere (see carboniferous period http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/c...), so nobody's quite certain what will happen. There are models, but anyone who believes them needs their head examined.

FWIW, methane's half-life as an atmospheric gas is about 12 years - but, to your point, its effects on atmospheric warming persist for as long as a century. C02 hangs around for up to 50,000 years, so its effects on warming are more critical in the longer term. Other gases and aerosols also contribute to global warming (and thus climate change) to various degrees, and with varying amounts of persistence. It's a complex set of interactions.

What nobody seems to be taking into account is the rapidly-mounting evidence that glaciers and icecaps are complex, unstable systems, the continued existence of which depends on relative stability in base climate conditions (aka "chaotic systems"). Every year for the past decade, glaciologists studying the Greenland icecap have observed that melting there is proceeding - and increasing - far faster than their models predict. It's an asymptotic trend that leads to what I think is the inevitable conclusion that Greenland's ice sheet (which is three miles thick in the center) is going to collapse within no more than a few hundred years.

That's way, WAY faster than even recently-revised models predict - but those models are predicated on the notion that miles-thick icecaps are essentially reservoirs of cold that will preserve their integrity for millenia. The problem is that all the current evidence is that those assumptions are unwarranted. They certainly don't account for the staggering rate of surface melt, or for the destablilzing effect of all that meltwater eroding the integrity of the ice sheet beneath the surface as it drains, via moulins, all the way to bedrock.

The instability of the icecap surface (its so-called "rottenness") has led the government of Greenland to altogether ban scientists from setting foot on it during the warm season, for safety reasons. They're now forced to deploy and recover automated weather stations and other instrument packages from helicopters hovering above the ice, in order to comply with that prohibition. In fact, it's getting harder for glaciologists and climatologists to collect reliable, long-term, automated data from Greenland in general, because their instrument packages and weather stations keep disappearing into the moulins that unpredictably open underneath them.

The current climate change situation reeks to me of the Permian/Triassic catastrophe. That event was produced by natural causes (although exactly what triggered it initially is still not definitively settled) whereas this one was unquestionably precipitated by global carbon emissions resulting from the age of industrialization, particularly in the developed world.

We, as a species, can be forgiven for not realizing the consequences of causing such enormous increases in CO2 emissions back in the 19th century and the first ... let's be generous and say "eight

Re: "Probably" doesn't cut it.

[butchersong]

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/g... ?

Re: "Probably" doesn't cut it.

[Anonymous Coward]

POTUS was obviously making a joke. You libtards have no sense of humor.

Re: "Probably" doesn't cut it.

[Anonymous Coward]

https://www.factcheck.org/2018/01/ice-caps-record-low-not-high/

Re: "Probably" doesn't cut it.

[Anonymous Coward]

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2017/sea-ice-extent-sinks-to-record-lows-at-both-poles

Re:"Probably" doesn't cut it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Likely has an actual meaning in scientific language, and it's not the same as general English.

No it doesn't you fucking obtuse dimwit. It is the same definition, regardless of who is using it.

You are one of those tools whose mommy told them they were smart and special. News flash: you are a dullard.

Re: "Probably" doesn't cut it.

[BlueStrat]

Also, there doesn't seem to be a solution proposed about what do to to prevent sea-level rise with so much ice being added? Thoughts?

Thoughts? I think these scientists need to talk to some other scientists about that giant magma plume under Marie Byrd Land that NASA accidentally discovered by satellite recently which they said is causing accelerated ice melt.

https://science.slashdot.org/s...

Woopsies!

Solutions? Adaptation. It *is* Mankind's strong-suit, after all.

Well, alternatively, we *could* have SpaceX mount a couple trillion Falcon Heavy rockets into the Earth's crust and use the thrust to adjust the planet's orbit & inclination, etc

The fuel costs are bound to be hell though, fair warning. Some additional bracing for the Leaning Tower of Pisa might be in order as well.

Strat

Re:"Probably" doesn't cut it.

[orgelspieler]

I know of no finer fallacy; therefore it is the best one.

Re: "Probably" doesn't cut it.

[Type44Q]

I understand; if I had the job of a miserable disinfo shill, I'd be cringing a bit myself.

Re: "Probably" doesn't cut it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, "you would say". Well, then, case closed. /s

Re:"Probably" doesn't cut it.

[HiThere]

I know that because I took a few courses in statistics.

Don't trust Google to give you technical definitions of common words....not unless you carefully validate the sites that are the sources.

Re: "Probably" doesn't cut it.

[Kjella]

Oh, "you would say". Well, then, case closed. /s

Language is communication so everybody got a vote. But briefly speaking there's no reason to have two words if they mean exactly the same in all contexts and all meanings. There's usually some nuance between them which makes one preferable over the other. Either that or it's just a loaner from a different language and it's a battle between the "native" and "foreign" word like "taxi" and "cab". In this case they're both quite well settled English words though.

Re:"Probably" doesn't cut it.

[dfm3]

You first. Post your name, job title, and employer's address here.

It's not unreasonable to use a pseudonym on this site and to expect some bit of separation from real life and online persona. Besides, whether or not they really are a published scientist has no bearing on the point they were making. I might just as well claim that I have read many scientific papers that interchange the two words and the point still stands.

Re: "Probably" doesn't cut it.

[eric_harris_76]

Well, they could find a way to hide the decline, or whatever.

Re: "Probably" doesn't cut it.

[Quirkz]

You see, I want to know what's under all those miles of ice, and I am willing to drown every single one of you to find out.

Hrmph. My life's mission is to find all the lost cities and artifacts in the 20-30 meters just below the shoreline, and I'm willing to bring back the wooly mammoths and continental glaciers in order to do it.

Where shall we do battle?

Sadly

[rmdingler]

Even when the ice melt has destroyed cities, creating new borders for nations with lands near sea level, there will still be deniers claiming a population of 7 billion humans had nothing to do with it... despite the historic release of sequestered carbon associated with our species' selfish, expected level of comfort.

Re:Sadly

[Anonymous Coward]

It's hard to convince people when the Antarctic ice sheet continues growing.

Re: Sadly

[Anonymous Coward]

Trump is already claiming that it is fake news, this winter was the coldest ever and he was quite discontented.

Also all those violent video games with plasma guns melt more ice.

And we should arm penguin with Mr. Freeze's cold gun to solve the problem.

Re:Sadly

[rmdingler]

If it was that only Antarctica was melting...:

tldr:

When temperatures rise and ice melts, more water flows to the seas from glaciers and ice caps, and ocean water warms and expands in volume. This combination of effects has played the major role in raising average global sea level between four and eight inches (10 and 20 centimeters) in the past hundred years, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Re:Sadly

[Zaelath]

You know how I can tell there's no science in any of that bullshit you just posted?

No one does science in "cubic miles".

Re:Sadly

[rmdingler]

yes. Facts are unintentionally misleading in this era of too much information.

Urban legend has it that the weight of all the ants on earth is greater than that of any other species, yet science seems to indicate they're approximately the same.

Our livestock and pets alone dwarf the #2 life form.

Re:Sadly

[Jeremi]

Unless you're an expert on the subject, back-of-the-envelope calculations in a Slashdot post are probably not the most accurate way to estimate sea level rise.

Fortunately, more knowledgeable people have done more sophisticated analyses of this very hypothetical, and they put their estimates closer to 3.44 meters, aka 11 feet of sea-level rise.

Fortunately for us, it's unlikely that all the Antarctic ice will melt any time soon.

Re:Sadly

[pubwvj]

Part of the problem is that it really isn't obvious to the casual observer.

For example, I've been going to Cape Cod (Mass) for over 50 years. In that time the sea level has remained the same. It has not changed in any significant, meaningful, observable manner that has any impact on the man on the street, or at the beach.

This lack of observable change makes it hard to appreciate.

There is another problem and that is the hoopla about global warming distracts from a far more imminent and disastrous change that is going on: toxic pollution. All the pollutants that are being dumped into the environment are doing far more damage than the global warming will do. This is not to waylay global warming concerns, but this is another issue that is immediately observable and far more serious. If the effort that went into publicizing global warming concerns went instead into the issues of pollution we might get more effect which would coincidentally also help to reduce global warming.

Re:Sadly

[Anonymous Coward]

Your formulation also ignores the fact that the existing ocean water has a coefficient of expansion that is non-zero, which is a significant factor in sea level rise as the ocean temperature increases, but if you're talking strictly about the added volume of water from melting ice, okay.

The math for your computation appears to be correct at first glance. I get 147823591.42729045764518713764 cubic miles using your numbers as input, but seeing a difference in the 11th position after the decimal hardly matters to the issue (dunno why 'bc' yielded a slightly different result. Maybe different number of decimals for pi? I used 20).

Anyway, a more significant factor is the observation that adding a foot of extra radius on the Earth is significantly less than .75 of a mile. Adding 3/4 of a mile to sea level might be possible in a movie like Waterworld, but not on our planet.

With the correct number (3960 miles + (1 mile/5280 feet) = 3960.0001893939393...feet), I get "only" 37322 cubic miles difference, which multiplied by .70 is "only" 26125 cubic miles. That is significantly less than the 6 or 7 million cubic miles of ice constituting the whole of Antarctica, which I have not checked for accuracy, but which I already know is estimated to result in about 60 metres of sea level rise if it completely melted. So, *qualitatively* it makes sense that only 1 foot is a lot less. BTW melting the whole of Antarctica is not a realistic scenario even in the wildest of situations for any timescale short of tens of thousands of years (melting like that takes time).

Anyway, please check my math, maybe use metric next time to help avoid units problems, and think about the implications if the results don't remotely make sense and would imply that scientists around the world are somehow spectacularly wrong about something so basic.

Re:Sadly

[Anonymous Coward]

Ugh. What was I even doing with that foot/mile conversion!!?

3960 miles + (1foot*1mile/5280feet) = 3960.00018939393 miles

Sheesh. Anyway, that's the right number even if I screwed up the expression of how to do it.

Re:Sadly

[ClickOnThis]

4/3 pi 3960.75^3 - 4/3 pi 3960^3 = 4/3 pi (3960.75^3 - 3960^3) = 147823591.42729045764684076422549 cubic miles. Multiply by 70% for the amount of surface the oceans cover and you get 103476513.99910332035278853495784 cubic miles.

Pro tip: if you want to convince us of your scientific prowess, don't quote so many significant digits. 32 of them are enough to express the diameter of the known universe to a precision of one micrometre.

Re:Sadly

[Anonymous Coward]

My dear, you need to learn elementary algebra. 0.75 mile is not one foot. Also if you understand surface area, you would use 4*pi*(increase_in_ocean)*area of the oceans (a simpler calculation). I am at ease using km, so hear is my calculation:

Ocean surface area 360 mil km^2 = 360 trillion m^2
One foot is about 1/3 meter. So one foot rise is 120 trillion m^3 = 120000 km^3 or about 30000 mi^3.

Re:Sadly

[VeryFluffyBunny]

Earth has a radius of about 3960 miles.

Taking Earth as a sphere, its volume is 4/3 pi 3960^3 cubic miles. A 1 foot rise in sea level, assuming 100% of the planet was covered by ocean, would yield a volume of 4/3 pi 3960.75^3 cubic miles.

4/3 pi 3960.75^3 - 4/3 pi 3960^3 = 4/3 pi (3960.75^3 - 3960^3) = 147823591.42729045764684076422549 cubic miles. Multiply by 70% for the amount of surface the oceans cover and you get 103476513.99910332035278853495784 cubic miles.

Over 100 million cubic miles of additional sea water would be required to raise the level of the oceans a mere 12 inches. This ignores the additional surface area rising oceans would cover, and thus underestimates the volume of water necessary to raise the oceans a single foot.

All of Antarctica contains between 6 and 7 million cubic miles of ice. If it all melted today, we'd get less than an inch of sea level rise.

F*^king amateurs who think they know better than published, peer-reviewed climate scientists are a waste of space.

Re:Sadly

[Anonymous Coward]

This is not a climate change calculation but a simple algebra calculation which does not change much between back of the envelope or a super computer. The only error I see is that the entire surface is not ocean, so the 1 m rise is about 360,000 giga tons.

Re:Sadly

[110010001000]

Exactly. People are worrying about global warming causing cities to flood, yet don't think about how the loss of buffer habitat (swamps, etc) is what is causing flooding now. People are stupid. The most immediate danger is local pollution and habitat loss. THAT is going to kill you.

Re:Sadly

[aberglas]

And that 1 foot is not 0.75 miles.

But yes, back of the envelope calculations are a fine way to sort truth from bullshit.

Re:Sadly

[rtb61]

Beware your lack of understanding. Gravity and rotation and the sun and the moon all have an impact. Rest assured a 3m sea level rise at high tide near the equator would not be reflected in the Antarctic at low or high tide. To understand the impact of spin and centrifugal affect, get a large lead weight on a string and start spinning around, the weight will rise at the end of the string as you spin, now hold it at head height and stop, the string will wrap around your head, pulling in the lead weight which will spin faster and faster until it smacks you in the head and then you might learn something.

The alteration in distribution of ocean mass will also trigger greater seismic activity, until the system stabilises again over thousands of years, water moves faster than, much like you will destabilise and full over when the lead weight smacks you in the head.

You can waffle all you like, it is too late to stop it, it will happen, unless the Sun suddenly starts lessening output or the sun gets obscured by a dust cloud or we enjoy global thermal nuclear warfare or there is a mass major series of seismic events specifically volcanoes or the is a mass stellar ejection which hits the earth and sets one side on fire and smoke obscures the sun for decades.

No point arguing now, just enjoy the ride, well, at least for those who do not own underwater front property in zones with already high seismic activity. No longer just if but when and how severe how fact, and for that we can blame Russia. Not the government but the northern land with lots of melting permafrost which will release methane stored for hundreds of thousands of years and give a nice little spike to global temperature or worse case scenario trigger a major atmospheric explosion cover tens of cubic kilometres, that's worse case of course. It is hope Russians will strive to detect methane build up and ignite before they become catastrophic (Greenland and Iceland and Canada also better pay attention to methane build up on warm low wind days).

Re:Sadly

[hnjjz]

Earth has a radius of about 3960 miles.

Taking Earth as a sphere, its volume is 4/3 pi 3960^3 cubic miles.
A 1 foot rise in sea level, assuming 100% of the planet was covered by ocean, would yield a volume of 4/3 pi 3960.75^3 cubic miles.

Why did you increase the radius by 0.75 mile? That's a hell of a lot more than 1 foot (1 foot = 1/5280 mile = 0.00018939393 mile).

Re:Sadly

[Anonymous Coward]

Googling for surface area:
Ocean = 360 million km^2
Antartica = 14 million km^2

IOW, 25 m of ice over Antartica roughly yields 1 m of water over Ocean.

You really fail at math.

Re:Sadly

[Anonymous Coward]

Apart from the fact that you know sh*t about elementary math and are lost when playing with big numbers, your post looks ... impressive.

Re:Sadly

[LynnwoodRooster]

The second biggest ice sheet, Greenland, seems to be adding mass since it's at a record level. And overall, snow accumulation in the Northern hemisphere is on a decidedly upward trend over the last 30 years.

Re:Sadly

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't worry, there are other things worse than floods... like floods with neurotoxins:
https://phys.org/news/2016-08-antarctic-sea-ice-source-mercury.html

Re: Sadly

[Anonymous Coward]

This. right. Here.

Re:Sadly

[Anonymous Coward]

More significantly, don't equate "one foot" to "0.75 miles". That curious bit of elision is how he arrives at those ridiculous numbers.

Re:Sadly

[ClickOnThis]

More significantly, don't equate "one foot" to "0.75 miles". That curious bit of elision is how he arrives at those ridiculous numbers.

I saw what you did there. You are right indeed. But others have covered 0.75 mi != 1 ft adequately.

I think we can conclude that significance, on many levels, is not something sexconker is up on.

Re:Sadly

[Anonymous Coward]

You can do perfectly good science in cubic miles, as long as you don't confuse 0.75 miles with 12 inches = 1/5280 miles.

Re:Sadly

[Darkling-MHCN]

You would think that even if there was a 10% probability that any of the dire predictions scientists are making about affects of nan made green house gas emissions were true, that regardless of the 90% chance that they were wrong, based on the 10% probability that they are right, you might just shut the f*ck up, err on the side of caution, stop this useless debate (of morons) and get on with what needs to be done.

Re:Sadly

[Anonymous Coward]

Since when is 1 foot == 0.75 miles ?

Re:Sadly

[jafac]

They will blame gays. And Crisis Actors. And Obama.

Re:Sadly

[Anonymous Coward]

parent links to climatedepot.com, but wait

Marc Morano (born 1968) s a former Republican political aide who founded and runs the website ClimateDepot.com. ClimateDepot is a project of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), a non-profit organization based in Washington, D.C. that advocates for free-market solutions to environmental issues.

He began his career working for Rush Limbaugh from 1992 to 1996.After 1996, he began working for Cybercast News Service, where he was the first to publish the accusations from Swift-Boat veterans that John Kerry had allegedly exaggerated his military service record.

In April 2009, despite having no formal education in the field of climate science, Morano founded and became executive editor of ClimateDepot.com, a website sponsored by the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Morano

Re:Sadly

[jafac]

On the contrary.

There is a point to arguing now. To prove we were right. Before we die.

Re:Sadly

[Anonymous Coward]

Sexconker is a faggot denialist, kill him.

Re:Sadly

[Anonymous Coward]

You're a moronic faggot and you deserve to die in a fire.

Re:Sadly

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, here is a middle finger to state-of-the-art continental ice-sheet model, I have enough high school knowledge to compute 4/3 pi r3, and that is all you need.

Google a bit - http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/glaciers-and-climate/estimating-glacier-contribution-to-sea-level-rise/

Re:Sadly

[LynnwoodRooster]

Ahh,,, I guess the fact the data comes from Rutgers University and the DMI doesn't count? You don't like the reporter, thus the facts reported are to be ignored. How amazingly tolerant and scientific of you!

Re:Sadly

[Anonymous Coward]

So all your coast and beaches have 1m retaining walls? Or might 'as it rises, it spreads' and so the height be closer to the inch than the meter?

Re:Sadly

[Barsteward]

are you talking ice coverage and/or ice thickness?

Re:Sadly

[Anonymous Coward]

I have been saying this for years and seeing that "green" initiatives are far from green when you look at it from the pollution aspect of it. However when you look at the white papers coming written from some of the people who are funding the climate change initiative, you quickly learn their world views are drenched in Eugenics. After you connect the dots you realize the movement is exactly what they envision;

Population control that leads to culling and that leads to more resources for those who are too weak (physically) to take them. This harbors in a dominant species of humans who are centered around intelligence rather than strength. The quicker you can rid yourselves of the alpha warriors, the better. The world will somehow transcend into peace.

While the mind is a powerful weapon, it is useless when you are outsmarted by a superior species who are physically stronger than you, and your species dies out like a popcorn fart. We can't nullify nature no matter how hard you try. Only the strong will survive.

Re:Sadly

[Hal_Porter]

One cubic mile is 17478049959.184 hogshead. That's 1.7478049959184 mega hogshead (MHgshd)

https://www.convertunits.com/f...

Re:Sadly

[Anonymous Coward]

He's talking about whichever cherry-picked value he can use to support an argument that goes against all other facts and reason.

Re:Sadly

[Anonymous Coward]

No, unlike you idiots, we require ACTUAL EVIDENCE. What ACTUAL EVIDENCE do you have? Tuvalu is getting bigger. The TOTAL extent of Antarctic ice is increasing. Sea levels are NOT rising.

You are a member of a cult, and the sooner you come to realize that, the better off everyone will be.

Re:Sadly

[Ferretman]

Yes Greenland is in fact gaining mass...it's wrong (and reflects the Slashdot bias against informed fact) to call you a troll sir.

Ferret

Re:Sadly

[Ferretman]

Ad hominem fallacy.

Slashdot is better than that.

Ferret

Re:Sadly

[Ferretman]

> the diameter of the known universe to a precision of one micrometre.

The KNOWN universe...... :)

Ferret

Re:Sadly

[110010001000]

So you are worried about neurotoxins from Antarctica, but not concerned with toxins CURRENTLY in your water supply? Thanks for proving the point. Local pollution is much more of a concern than some mercury in Antarctica.

Re: Sadly

[Anonymous Coward]

Who says there's a 10% chance they're right?

I say there's a greater than 90% chance the world will explode if yermom doesn't suck my cock. I funder a study to prove it. But even if there's only a 10% chance of the world blowing up, yermom should just stfu and do what's right.

Re:Sadly

[Anonymous Coward]

Ad hominem fallacy.

Slashdot is better than that.

Ferret

+5 Funny

Re: Sadly

[Anonymous Coward]

Why did you increase the radius by 0.75 miles for 1 foot? 0.75 miles is 3960 feet. Also it would be much simpler to just take 4*pi*r^2 with the r as radius of earth in feet and go with that multiplied by delta r of 1 foot. 1 foot is so small compared to the r of earth that ignoring the spherical shape of earth is fine

Re:Sadly

[Anonymous Coward]

Citation needed, scumbag.

Re:Sadly

[Anonymous Coward]

Not sure if incredibly stupid or incredibly dishonest.

Re:Sadly

[Anonymous Coward]

Is NASA an okay source, scumbag?

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses

Re:Sadly

[Anonymous Coward]

Sea ice coverage is growing. This is a direct result of glacial ice melt. Glacial ice melt is what causes sea level rise. When glacial ice becomes sea ice either by re-freezing due to salinity dilution or simply breaking off, sea levels will rise. Ice displaces its own volume of water when floating -- sea ice or sea water, once the ice goes into the ocean, sea levels rise. This is basic science; there is nothing disputed in any of it. You are either grossly misinformed, or an unabashed liar.

Re:Sadly

[thomst]

In response to the assertion that "the Antarctic ice sheet is growing&quot, Barsteward inquired:

are you talking ice coverage and/or ice thickness?

He's referring to the fact that the East Antarctic ice sheet is accumulating additional snow at and near the South Pole. What he's purposefully ignoring is that the East Antarctic sheet is losing ice at its periphery nearly as quickly as the West Antarctic sheet is - and the West sheet is absolutely hemorrhaging ice.

In fact, the additional buildup of snow on the East sheet is almost undoubtedly a result of the West sheet melting. The prevailing winds at the Pole are westerlies (they blow from the west), which carries humid air from the melting West sheet over the Pole to the East one, where it precipitates out as snow.

It's just more "whataboutist" handwaving designed to derail the larger discussion.

And it's from an AC. 'Nuff said ...

Re:Sadly

[Anonymous Coward]

You're calculating the volume of the entire planet. Earth isn't made of water. In fact, compared to the planet's volume, as you've calculated, the total amount of water on Earth is rather minuscule. Your calculations are a couple orders of magnitude out of bounds.

Re:Sadly

[butchersong]

You are using the word "science" as if it were some ephemeral thing. He posted math. Fairly simple math really. If you can't be bothered to think about it enough to refute the numbers.. what business do you have posting criticizing him? You don't like his use of base 12 as a unit of measurement? Really?

Re:Sadly

[Enigma2175]

Fortunately, more knowledgeable people have done more sophisticated analyses of this very hypothetical, and they put their estimates [antarcticglaciers.org] closer to 3.44 meters, aka 11 feet of sea-level rise.

This article (linked in a comment above) says it's much more than that, based on a study by the British Antarctic Survey:

The total potential contribution to global sea level rise from Antarctica is 58 metres, similar to previous estimates but a much more accurate measurement

Of course, your source doesn't say what you says it does, the figure you quoted is for the West Antarctic ice sheet and the Antarctic Peninsula only:

The West Antarctic Ice Sheet has a global eustatic sea level contribution of 3.2 m ...
The Antarctic Peninsula Ice Sheet would contribute 0.24 m to global sea level rise on full melting ...
The East Antarctic Ice Sheet has a sea level equivalent of approximately 60 m

Yes, it's not likely that all that ice will melt any time soon, we should be much more worried about things like permafrost melting or a massive amount of methane clathrates being released as the ocean warms, but at least get the figures right.

Re:Sadly

[Anonymous Coward]

That, and the planet's volume isn't 100% water.

Re:Sadly

[bigpat]

there will still be deniers claiming a population of 7 billion humans had nothing to do with it

Over population is the problem. We need a more generous child tax credit in the US limited to 2 children and we need to reduce immigration to force other countries to deal with their overpopulation and we need nuclear power.

Re:Sadly

[Anonymous Coward]

You seem to be overlooking the fact that this new study is also from NASA and is 18 months newer than the one that you cite. And the site you linked to has both reports on it.

    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-to-believe-in-antarctica-rsquo-s-great-ice-debate/
"Zwally's 2015 study—though scientifically sound—is an outlier cherry-picked by conservative news outlets to advance their denialist positions"
Zwally notes that he was vigilant about this (edit: 'this' refers to a clause in the previous sentence - we also have a responsibility to ensure that we communicate the messages in a clear and unambiguous way) in 2015. “When our paper came out, I was very careful to emphasize that this is in no way contradictory to the findings of the IPCC report or conclusions that climate change is a serious problem that we need to do something about,”

The paper goes on to note that other scientists have concerns with some of the measurement methods that Zwally used, though no one has positively disproved his measurements, and he still stands behind them. Other studies have found the accumulation in the East Antarctic to be as low as 1/3 of Zwally's estimate, and pretty much every other study has found the overall result is a net loss in antarctic sea ice.

So maybe - just maybe - the antarctic is actually gaining ice mass. Seems unlikely, though, and I think you should probably be a little more reserved when you remind us about this one outlier study.

Re:Sadly

[Anonymous Coward]

sorry, I shoud have said " a net loss in antarctic ice mass" not "antarctic sea ice".

Re:Sadly

[Anonymous Coward]

That would be Giga hogshead

Re:Sadly

[sexconker]

It's like you don't even know what science is.

I did simple math. I got modded to -1, Troll by fucking shitlords like you who don't like simple fucking facts pointing out that their fucking doom and gloom climate change scenarios are utter fucking bullshit.

You would get far less than 1 inch of sea rise if all Antarctic ice melted. You would get less than 1 inch of sea rise if you COPIED all of Antarctic sea ice and melted it (leaving the original ice in place). Please demonstrate how that is not true. Use numbers.

Re:Sadly

[sexconker]

You can do perfectly good science in cubic miles, as long as you don't confuse 0.75 miles with 12 inches = 1/5280 miles.

SOMEONE gets it!

Re:Sadly

[sexconker]

I've been around a long time and I'm still surprised at how fucking stupid people are.
So many people attacked my post for the completely wrong reasons when they could have spent 3 seconds to look at the math and have a laugh.

Re:Sadly

[Anonymous Coward]

Ice build up has slowed at time but it has not ever lost more ice in a summer than it gained back in a winter but that has never stopped the death cult from lying and hoping desperately for mass flooding.
Davis station reported years ago ice was growing it was reported on this very site.

Please tell me why does every global warming documentary film only during spring and summer melt and never winter?
Is it because you are dishonest or a bunch of Californian pussies who cannot handle the cold?

Re:Sadly

[Holi]

https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/q...

Re:Sadly

[david_thornley]

You want numbers? Here's some. Surface area of Earth: 510 million km2. Surface area of Antarctica: 14 million km2. Average depth of Antarctic ice sheet: 2.16km. Now, 510/14 is under 40, and 2.16km of ice is roughly going to be 2km of water, so if all the ice melted it would spread out at about 1/40 the thickness, or about 50m. It would in fact be a little more, and it wouldn't cover the surface of the Earth evenly, since there's lots of land more than 50m or 60m above sea level. (My house is more like 200m above. It would be fine.)

You change from "Antarctic ice", which is what I was estimating, in your first sentence to "Antarctic sea ice" in your second. Melting sea ice doesn't change sea level in general (there may be some small adjustments of something I'm not thinking of right now). Melting land ice would.

Re:Sadly

[david_thornley]

You misread your source. It says that the West Antarctic Ice Sheet would raise sea level 3.2m if melted, and the Antarctic Peninsula Ice Sheet would add another 0.24m The East ice sheet would raise sea level something like 60m.

Re:Sadly

[sexconker]

You're still missing it. Others have pointed it out. But plenty of people like yourself are just blind to it.

Re:Sadly

[riverat1]

The second biggest ice sheet, Greenland, seems to be adding mass since it's at a record level. And overall, snow accumulation in the Northern hemisphere is on a decidedly upward trend over the last 30 years.

The GRACE satellites beg to differ. They show Greenland losing ice mass at a rate of about 280 gigatons per year from 2002 to 2016.

Greenland Ice Loss 2002-2016

Re:Sadly

[riverat1]

Earth has a radius of about 3960 miles.

...

Over 100 million cubic miles of additional sea water would be required to raise the level of the oceans a mere 12 inches.
This ignores the additional surface area rising oceans would cover, and thus underestimates the volume of water necessary to raise the oceans a single foot.

All of Antarctica contains between 6 and 7 million cubic miles of ice. If it all melted today, we'd get less than an inch of sea level rise.

You're making it way too complicated. The area of the oceans is about 360,000,000 km^2. To raise the oceans 1 foot (~0.0003 km) would require about 108,000 km^3 of water (ignoring that it would spread out some and cover more area). The Antarctic ice sheet contains about 26,500,000 km^3 of ice, enough to raise sea level by more than 70 meters (about 230 feet) if it all melted.

Or if you prefer American units the area of the oceans is about 140,000,000 cubic miles. To raise the ocean 1 foot (0.00018939 miles) would require about 26,515 cubic miles of water.

Re:Sadly

[stigmerger]

It's a lot easier when you mention that global ice volume is crashing.

Re:Sadly

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting idea. I decided to replicate your result.
Earth Radius 6,378
        6,378,100
Earths Volume 1,086,832,411,937,630,000,000
Surface volume of planet if 1m larger than today. 1,086,832,923,139,670,000,000
Water in cubic m needed to raise sea levels 511,202,042,445,824
Percentage of earths surface covered by water 0.70
As volume 357,841,429,712,077

(One cubic km is a billion cubic m.)
Volume of all ice in Antarctica in cubic m 26,500,000,000,000,000
Volume of all ice in Arctic(mostly ice pack) in cubic m 2,075,000,000,000,000
Volume of all ice in Greenland(Glacial) in cubic m 3,000,000,000,000,000
Total of ice in poles 31,575,000,000,000,000

meters of sea level rise. 88

* cut\paste directly from excel. Maybe I made a calculation error. I'm just an IT guy...
* Earth radius and ice volumes from google answers, converted from cubic km to cubic m in excel.

I'm a denier of runaway greenhouse effects as I think albedo increasing will symmetrically reduce heat ingress, finding a new higher energy state balance, so I found your idea interesting. In think as the global temp rises (assuming it is) that we'll end up with more a more tropical climate. Hotter, more humid, with higher volumes of rain. (overall).

Re:Sadly

[david_thornley]

Missing what? My numbers seem pretty much unobjectionable, my back-of-the-envelope calculations close enough, and my assumptions conservative. Checking with other sources, I wasn't that horribly off.

I did note your difference between "Antarctic ice" and "Antarctic sea ice", so if you're trying to play games there (a) you failed, and (b) I caught it.

This time for real

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, this time is real.

But other recent studies...

[Anonymous Coward]

have shown the opposite. The Little Ice Age was from about 1300 until 1850 so we're still returning to normal.

Re:But other recent studies...

[Klaxton]

I notice you didn't cite any of those studies.

Re:But other recent studies...

[Q-Hack!]

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/g...

Re:But other recent studies...

[Gibgezr]

I trust the IPCC, but I also trust NASA. Now, I am completely confused. Has the NASA study been discredited? If not, wtf is going on.

Re:But other recent studies...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's called waking up. Good morning.

No it is not

[Anonymous Coward]

Itâ(TM)s gaining ice per renowned scientist Rush Limbaugh and the high school drop outs who listen to him.

Re:No it is not

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait, so you're the libtard?

Re: No it is not

[Anonymous Coward]

This. They already voted.

Re: No it is not

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone that stands against s scientist vote must be one of those Republicans.

Re: No it is not

[DogDude]

...or a Russian troll. Which are you?

Re:No it is not

[Not-a-Neg]

I didn't know Rush Limbaugh worked for NASA: https://www.nasa.gov/feature/g...

West Antarctica?

[LynnwoodRooster]

That's cherry picking the region, since NOAA says Antarctica is gaining ice mass overall. You're looking at a tiny area of the continent, and worrying about it. Furthermore, Western Antarctica is also the site of a lot of geothermal activity which could very well be why it is losing ice. But the continent, as a whole, is gaining.

Re:West Antarctica?

[Klaxton]

Refuted by the Grace study; https://grace.jpl.nasa.gov/res... "Research based on observations from NASAâ(TM)s twin NASA/German Aerospace Centerâ(TM)s twin Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) satellites indicates that between 2002 and 2016, Antarctica shed approximately 125 gigatons of ice per year, causing global sea level to rise by 0.35 millimeters per year."

Re:West Antarctica?

[Anonymous Coward]

So in other words we don't know, because we now have several studies that refute each other. Funny how that works.

The science is definitely NOT settled.

Re:West Antarctica?

[KeensMustard]

So in other words we don't know, because we now have several studies that refute each other. Funny how that works.

You're right - the situation could be far worse than reported.

Re:West Antarctica?

[Anonymous Coward]

The ice gain goes against the narrative of global warming so we should ignore that.

Re:West Antarctica?

[KeensMustard]

Feel free to provide actual meaningful observations that prove that these alternative facts are real and not something you read in the chicken gizzards.

Not too worry, I've noticed that this is something that many denialists struggle with: that actual observed reality trumps assertions, and not the other way around.

Re:West Antarctica?

[HiThere]

If you notice the title of that study it says "ice sheet". I can't follow your link, because I won't allow javascript, but if I recall that study properly it was a study of floating sea ice, not of all ice, and one would expect that when Antarctica was shedding ice, a lot would end up as floating ice sheets rather than immediately melting, so there's no contradiction.

Re:West Antarctica?

[LynnwoodRooster]

GRACE data would be affected by a magma plume. Like what is documented to be happening under West Antarctica.

Re:West Antarctica?

[LynnwoodRooster]

I posted a NASA paper which states that ice is accumulating overall in Antarctica. And that West Antarctica has localized loss, and also has a rather marked increase in geothermal activity under the ice. That is actual observed reality for Antarctica.

Re:West Antarctica?

[KeensMustard]

I posted a NASA paper which states that ice is accumulating overall in Antarctica.

Aaand someone posted a citation proving you were wrong. Do you think we can't read?

And that West Antarctica has localized loss, and also has a rather marked increase in geothermal activity under the ice.

The actual science says that the plume has been for several geographical eras, so hardly "marked increase".

Did you assume we can't google?

Re:West Antarctica?

[LynnwoodRooster]

No, they posted a citation contradicting mine. It doesn't prove it's wrong. It simply says there are two conflicting reports, both from well-respected entities. So which is right? Are they both wrong? Do we actually know what is going on? See, the problem is you only accept data that you BELIEVE is correct, and ignore all other. A real scientist, a true skeptic (which is the foundation of science) would look at conflicting data and say "more research needed, we cannot draw conclusions". FAITH would demand you adhere to your position. That is religion...

Re:West Antarctica?

[Sique]

And someone else posted a follow-up NASA paper which comes to a different conclusion.

Re:West Antarctica?

[KeensMustard]

No, they posted a citation contradicting mine. It doesn't prove it's wrong. It simply says there are two conflicting reports, both from well-respected entities. So which is right? Are they both wrong? Do we actually know what is going on?

So at first you claimed with absolute certainty that the ice sheet was growing, even though you knew there was contradictory evidence: and when called on it, you feign confusion. Are you lying?

See, the problem is you only accept data that you BELIEVE is correct, and ignore all other.

Well, to be specific, I'm skeptical about YOUR claims, because it appears that I've caught you in a lie.

A real scientist, a true skeptic (which is the foundation of science) would look at conflicting data and say "more research needed, we cannot draw conclusions". FAITH would demand you adhere to your position. That is religion...

So: you think there is a degree of uncertainty in the actual situation, i.e. the ice sheet loss could be far worse than the subject article claims. Consequently, you support an immediate, and drastic cut in greenhouse gas emissions - because without observations to prove that the situation is manageable, we have no choice but to mitigate against the worse case.

That's what you are saying.

Re:West Antarctica?

[Anonymous Coward]

See, the problem is you only accept data that you BELIEVE is correct, and ignore all other.

Mirror, mirror, Is LynnwoodRooster talking about himself again? Why, yes, ironically he is.

You're the one who produced a report that you accepted with blind faith and devotion since it suited your agenda.

When has that happened before?

A real scientist, a true skeptic (which is the foundation of science) would look at conflicting data and say "more research needed, we cannot draw conclusions". FAITH would demand you adhere to your position. That is religion...

Yes, you are preaching your religion, but if you were a true believer, you'd follow its tenets, however being a disingenuous fraud and con-artist, you simply use them as a club to attack others, as you consistently have.

For you, it is not a teaching, it is a weapon used for assault. You fling it against any who disagree with you, but never apply the learning to yourself.

Hence, I preach unto you, and say "Physician, heal thyself!" as I call upon you, and your multitude of sins to be cured of what clearly ails you, and thus make right thine own entry into Heaven.

Really, you know your history, you should know you are tainted yourself. You should reflect on your errors and come clean. It'd be less of a farce if you did.

Re:West Antarctica?

[davide marney]

"FAITH" does not demand that one sticks to a position regardless of the evidence, that's a very common misconception. Faith merely means to have belief, as in, "I believe I am right". What you are saying is you trust your sources, your reasoning process, and thus your conclusion. A religious person has faith in God in precisely the same manner as one might have faith in a scientific study. They have trust in their sources, their reasoning process, and thus their conclusion.

What you may be referring to is *blind* faith, that is, believing without regard to reasoning, often intentionally so. Not the same thing at all.

Re:West Antarctica?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or it could be a nothing burger.

But that doesn't gin with the climate religion. We must perform mass human sacrifice so the climate gods will be satisfied, lest they kill us all with floods and droughts and fire from the sky!

Re: West Antarctica?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, he's saying that you're an illogical religious nut all, just like all your other posts on the topic.

At least you're a consistent illogical religious nutball. It's great how reliable you are; no real reason to read your junk posts except for the humor value.

Re:West Antarctica?

[Anonymous Coward]

A real scientist, a true skeptic... would look at conflicting data and say "more research needed...."

Like, for instance, the research that TFA is about? Or the "other recent research" mentioned in TFS that the new data "mostly confirms..., but with a higher degree of precision"?

Since it appears that several studies support ice loss, and just the one is contradictory, I take it you agree with TFA? Or are you holding on to your single contradictory citation since it supports what you want to believe?

Re:West Antarctica?

[Anonymous Coward]

Still linking to bullshit denier sites with their cherry picked or just made up data.

Latch on to a grain of truth and then let your imagination run wild lynwood, If all the special snowflakes like you could be dumped in the antarctic together you could reverse the ice loss.

Re:West Antarctica?

[jbengt]

No, it doesn't really. You can have more snow, and therefore more ice, even while melting ice faster than before.

Re:West Antarctica?

[jbengt]

Faith merely means to have belief, as in, "I believe I am right".

That is incorrect.

Re:West Antarctica?

[david_thornley]

You know, if the West Antarctic Ice Sheet goes into the ocean from global warming, or geothermal activity, or malevolent fairies, we're getting a sea level rise of 3.2m just the same.

Re: West Antarctica?

[Anonymous Coward]

Except LynnwoodRooster is a high priest of the Church of the Right-wibg Shibboleth.

Re:West Antarctica?

[Anonymous Coward]

The average of all of the contradictory studies shows that there's no real discernible change.

Re:West Antarctica?

[KeensMustard]

So there's potentially a 50% chance that it's worse than the worst observation?

Re:West Antarctica?

[KeensMustard]

Or it could be a nothing burger.

OR we could wake up tomorrow with the sky on fire.

Re: West Antarctica?

[KeensMustard]

Now Now. You aren't going to convince me to join your movement by insulting me.

Re:West Antarctica?

[Anonymous Coward]

See, the problem is you only accept data that you BELIEVE is correct, and ignore all other. A real scientist, a true skeptic (which is the foundation of science) would look at conflicting data and say "more research needed, we cannot draw conclusions". FAITH would demand you adhere to your position. That is religion...

Kind of like how you kept claiming America paid a higher corporate tax rate than Canada. (even though the evidence showed that to be false) Stick with your FAITH lynwood, don't change for anything as pesky as facts shown to you.
Lynwood - Keep the faith.

Looking forward to the new beachfront property

[BlueCoder]

I honestly looked this up two weeks ago. I live in Los Angeles and if all the ice north and south melts it really doesn't look all that much different here. To be honest most places do not have the nice warm weather we have here but it looks like that will change and there will actually be more ideal weather in higher northern latitudes. So it suggests to me I should get off my butt and save for some northern real estate. Northern California here I come.

Re:Looking forward to the new beachfront property

[HiThere]

Do note that 3 meter rise, however. I'm not sure whether or not that's enough to flood the San Joaquin valley, but if it is expect the weather to change massively.

For that matter, the Salton Sea is likely to refill with salt water, and so is any place else that's low.

OTOH, you've got a few decades to move, so no need to rush, land prices are already so high that you wouldn't gain much.

Re:Looking forward to the new beachfront property

[phantomfive]

Do note that 3 meter rise, however. I'm not sure whether or not that's enough to flood the San Joaquin valley,

No, not even close, actually.

Re:Looking forward to the new beachfront property

[Anonymous Coward]

He He.. if all the ice melts it's not 3 meters it's 30 have fun with that

Re:Looking forward to the new beachfront property

[HiThere]

I'm not sure, if all the ice melts it may be more than that. I've seen estimates that vary wildly. But we're just talking about West Antarctica...I don't even know that Greenland is being included.

Re:Looking forward to the new beachfront property

[david_thornley]

The West Antarctic Sheet, which seems most at risk, would raise sea level by 3.2m. Antarctica as a whole would be more like 60-70m. I suspect Greenland would contribute a few meters if it all melted.

Pangea

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm still upset about the breakup of pangea. Ticks me off when the world changes.

Interesting non-mention

[TheZeitgeist]

The word 'volcano' doesn't appear in the science paper; researchers discovered something close to a hundred volcanoes under Antarctic ice last year. Nobody has any idea how active they are.

You know, I get the carbon-doom cult focus; its pretty much only game in town with money or attention when it comes to climate-study of any kind (no deep-AI sims or summits on the nitrogen cycle it seems - which is ~80% of atmosphere but whatever).

But to not even mention 'volcano' is kind of behind the cutting edge in awareness of Antarctica, especially its thermal budget regarding ice at this point. At least a paragraph or something, jeesh.

Re:Interesting non-mention

[HiThere]

Do you have any idea how many dormant, and not so dormant, volcanoes there are around the world, particularly around the "ring of fire"? The surprise would be if there weren't a lot of volcanoes under the ice.

OTOH, volcanoes can certainly cause the weather to change for a year or two, and the climate to change for a few decades. But I don't think we'll see anything like the Deccan Traps. (I have a theory that they were set off by a giant meteor hitting the opposite side of the world.)

As for the Nitrogen cycle, there have been hints that many of the Nitrogen fixing bacteria are having trouble adapting to something. Whether it's insecticides, fungicides, climate change, or what nobody seems to know. So you're right to be concerned about that. But it's also true that bacteria have a long record of quickly adapting to changed circumstances, so it's probably reasonable that nobody's too worried.

Well - there's a "bright" side...

[Anonymous Coward]

Once we lose all of our permafrost, there will be slightly less objective evidence of global warming - expect the memories of the 'icy north' to become fake news to future generations of "conservatives."

Honestly though, once the baby boomers finally die off, I expect most of what is currently defined as conservatism be be thought of as a horrible nightmare of an generation willfully blind to their own cruelty and greed, well beyond most surrounding generations.

They will be remembered less than fondly - much like the dark ages. Futurama defined it well - the stupid ages.

Re: Well - there's a "bright" side...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, comrade! The socialist utopia we seek is just one more 5 year plan away! We must send the dissidents to the re-education camps!

You ultra lefties are so painfully certain of everything you know. Fortunately for the adults in the room everything you know is wrong.

And of course you didn't miss a trick: everyone to your right (99% of us) are stupid ignorant mouth breathers who need to die to clear the path for your socialist paradise.

See you again after the next five year plan. You're gunna wait out your entire lifetime for the smart people to yield control. You're not in power for 2 very good reasons: you're stupid and you're wrong about everything.

Correct arithmetic

[aberglas]

Since when is one foot = 0.75 of a mile?

And a better approach would be the surface area of a sphere, 4 pi r ^ 2.

4 * pi * 6378 * 6378 = 500,000,000 km^2 according to my trusty slide rule.

Volume of 1 m coverage is 500,000,000,000,000 m^2 or 500,000 giga tonnes of water if I have not slipped a few zeros.

Re:Correct arithmetic

[Anonymous Coward]

FYI: In this case, 4 pi R^2 is just as good as 4/3 * pi * [ (R+1m)^3 - R^3 ], because the difference of 4 * pi * [ R + 1/3 ] is on the order of 7 digits past the decimal point, due to the magnitude difference of the R and R^2 terms.

Using R = 6.37E+6 m, a 1m rise for a perfect sphere would be 5.10E+14 m^3, and a 1m rise for a sphere that's only 71% water would be 3.62E+14 m^3.

The first paragraph of the Wikipedia article says Antarctica has 26.5 million cubic kilometres of ice (2.65E+16 m^3). Dividing 2.65E+16 / 3.62E+14 tells us that Antarctica has enough ice to raise the mean sea level by 73.1 meters.

The first paragraph of the same wiki article claims it's enough for a 58 m rise, so either they're using a much more accurate model that accounts for the Earth's actual terrain, or they forgot to account for the land area (2.65E+16 / 5.10E+14 = 51.9 m).

Re:Correct arithmetic

[sexconker]

1 mile is 5280 feet, so 1 extra foot is 5281. 5281/5280 * the radius of Earth = LOL.

The data is all out there

[AbRASiON]

We're fucked, sorry for the language but we're fucked, entirely.

Still, it shocks me how many times I have to explain to my girl (and friends and family) why we shouldn't be god damn breeding.

Not long now, it's exponential (for the most part)

Re:The data is all out there

[ichthus]

Wow. I bet everyone loves you at dinner parties.

Re:The data is all out there

[Black Parrot]

Still, it shocks me how many times I have to explain to my girl (and friends and family) why we shouldn't be god damn breeding.

Most guys try to explain to their girl why they *should* be breeding.

Re:The data is all out there

[110010001000]

And yet you still use the energy hungry Internet in the comfort of your home for entertainment purposes. Amazing.

Re:The data is all out there

[Anonymous Coward]

Cryptokike or genuinely retarded goy? Which are you?

Re:The data is all out there

[HiThere]

I *think* you're too pessimistic. We won't hold to 2 degrees Centigrade, and we may not hold to 4, and it's quite probable that the sea levels will indeed rise 3 meters, or slightly more. But that's not an insuperable problem. It's going to mean hard times for lots of people, animals, plants, etc., but there are also a lot who will do well. I doubt that it will cause civilization to fall unless somebody starts WWIII.

Expect this to cause a significantly degraded environment, largely due to the fact that people will preempt anything besides people moving into it. But also expect cities to be just about as livable as ever.

I'm not denying that it could be worse. The climate models don't really work when things get that hot. Also, the rise in sea levels will cause a significant increase in the land covered by water, especially salt water. But the new areas will be shallowly covered, which would make them ideal for fish farms (well, for some kinds of fish), oyster beds, etc. There will be a decrease in the land suitable for cow pastures, but not a huge decrease...the real decrease will be their competition with people for living space. Also, due to the increase in CO2, jellyfish will be more common. But fish can eat them, and people can eat jellyfish eggs (they're a bit salty, but delicious in sushi).

So. Great and frightening changes, but that's not the same as guaranteed disaster.

OTOH, it's important to intensify the limitation of CO2 production. I said the models weren't reliable...some of them have indicated that we won't be too far from the kind of runaway greenhouse effect that Venus experienced...and that would be really bad news. Yes, they're unreliable, and only some of them showed this result. But it's not the kind of thing that one should gamble with.

Re:The data is all out there

[Anonymous Coward]

It's the developing world that has unsustainable birth rates. They will also be the hardest hit by climate change. Why shouldn't I have children just because people on the other side of the planet can't admit their cultures have failed them?

Re:The data is all out there

[Anonymous Coward]

it's important to intensify the limitation of CO2 production

CO2 can not mathematically be responsible for raising temperatures. Current concentrations of CO2 are measured at 400ppm, meaning there is 1 molecule of CO2 for every 2500 molecules of air. For the temperature of those 2500 molecules to go up by just 1c it would mean there is an input of heat equivalent to 2500c degrees. Heat is cumulative, temperature is not, so every molecule has to go up by 1c for the air to go up. So a single molecule of CO2 can not generate 2500c of additional heat on its own.

Assume that CO2 goes up to 500ppm, it would still require each molecule to produce 2000c degrees of additional heat.

And CO2 only absorbs about 8% of infrared energy and last I looked nothing on the planet was generating 25,000c of heat for CO2 to be able to absorb 10% of it and reflect it back.

So CO2 can't be the cause of warming but attacking the sources of CO2 is a good way to shutdown a capitalistic industrial society.

Re:The data is all out there

[riverat1]

As habig pointed out to you over on the Ocean Currents story your math is wrong. The energy doesn't stay trapped in the CO2 molecule but gets transferred to other molecules like O2 and N2 through collisions or spit out as a photon in a random direction so about half of it heads back toward the ground.

I'm afraid your math is missing two parts: one, the thermodynamics of the problem, the CO2 molecules aren't sitting there in a vacuum, they're rattling around in thermal equilibrium as part of the atmosphere; two, the direction of outgoing vs. incoming radiation. So, in order of what happens:

Any given CO2 molecule happens to be really good at absorbing IR (much more so than the rest of the stuff you list) while being transparent in the visible. Yep, very true, just go into a lab and measure absorption spectra. Turns out some even less common items like methane are even better at it, but let's consider just CO2 for now.

Next, that CO2 molecule, with the extra eV or so of IR energy it picks up from that one IR photon coming from some warm parking lot, can get rid of the bonus energy in one of two ways. It can give up that energy in a collision with other air molecules, turning the energy into thermal energy: air warms up slightly.

Or, it can spit an IR photon back out in a random direction. If the IR is coming from ground warmed up by sunlight, it's headed up into the air. When the CO2 re-radiates, half the time it's still going up. Half the time it's shining back down. So, in this very simple view, half the energy stays trapped ... also warming things up slightly. Nowhere required a 2500K blackbody as you implied, two ways to get heat trapped.

maybe my house will be on the beach soon?

[Anonymous Coward]

thanks mcdonald for distributing all those plastic straws.....

Sadest of All Is ...

[BoRegardless]

We are only 15-25,000 years out of the last ice age in a 110,000 year cycle.

Since we are most likely to continue to warm for some 10s of thousands of years, based on past cycles, it seems inevitable that Antarctica is doomed to lose its major ice sheets, whether mankind does anything about emissions or not.

Re:Sadest of All Is ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, yesy, we have had entire era without polar ice. There is nothing extraordinary aout it. However, the speed at which this is currently happening is much greater than how such changes have always happened in the past, and this the worrying bit.

Re:Sadest of All Is ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, we are still in an ice-age:

Within the ice ages (or at least within the current one), more temperate and more severe periods occur. The colder periods are called glacial periods, the warmer periods interglacials

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age#Glacials_and_interglacials

Basically, what we are trying for is to prevent the end of this ice age (a period where there are permanent ice caps).

It doesn't matter

[sgage]

It doesn't matter what the science says. I simply does not matter. Humanity is going to eat the planet. Humanity is going to burn every molecule of hydrocarbons in can get its paws on. No laws, no international agreements, no nothing - it does not mean shit.

This thing is a juggernaut, and step out of the way if you can (but you can't, really). The money power wins. No, this thing is going to play itself out.

Good luck to us all!
 

Raises hand

[Snotnose]

My bad. My drinking problem seems to be getting out of hand, and it takes a lot of ice to keep my bloody marys cold.

Sorry.

I said I'm sorry.

Well then you sleep with me, that's one night I won't shrink the ice shelf. furfuksake, it ain't hard.

FFS, what's your virginity against the environment? Take one for the team. Hell, take one for the planet!

Re:Raises hand

[sgage]

Were you born this way, or did you have to work at it?

Re:Great argument!

[Zaelath]

Sure man, it's the rest of the scientific community that can't estimate likely sea level rises properly. Captain cubic miles is dead on balls accurate.

Re: Great argument!

[Anonymous Coward]

So the original calculation, indicating that the sea levels won't rise very much, is still accurate.

Nope, but your endorsement of it, well, given your lack of credibility, that just seals the deal that it's wrong. Sorry, but you just have a terrible personal history, and all you've served to do is discredit yourself again.

Thanks, as long as you are so consistently wrong, you serve as an excellent canary.

Why is this made bad?

[Anonymous Coward]

Soon have a southward passage to India.Soon in geographic scales.

Facepalms

[DivineKnight]

This article, or some variant, is reposted to /. every week.

Re:Facepalms

[davide marney]

As much click bait as any Hollywood gossip rag, true. I read the comments to be entertained, mostly.

Two possible responses..

[Black Parrot]

Pick one:

a) Fortunately Antarctica is a myth, so there's no cause for concern.

b) We're going to be in deep shit when the penguiform balrogs thaw out of the ice.

More libtard lies

[Anonymous Coward]

As a German, I have been a strong believer in global climate change for a long time. I even have a solar roof, drive a low emission car etc. However, I recently woke up to all the lies from liberals. "How do you know a liberal is lying? Her lips are moving...". Given how shamelessly they lie in all areas to further their own agenda, it would be unreasonable to assume that this is not a big lie. My next car will definitively be a gas guzzling sports car. Eat it libtards!

Re:More libtard lies

[Sique]

Luckily taxes on gas in Germany guarantee that buying and driving a gas guzzling sports car is at first a pain inflicted on yourself.

Monty Python Called

[Anonymous Coward]

They Want Their Argument Sketch Back

Idiots on parade.

[Charcharodon]

Isn't that the portion of Antarctica that has a large active volcano range (as in around 100) under it. Yep there is the article.

https://www.theguardian.com/wo...

Re:Idiots on parade.

[HelpTheNewOverlord]

Yes but, unless the volcanoes have just appeared, something has changed to cause the loss of ice

Re:Idiots on parade.

[Charcharodon]

Yes that would be why they are called "active volcanoes". As in fiery hot magma is coming out of them. You think active just means they enjoy the outdoors?

Make sure your mom cuts up your food in little bites so you don't choke. (You are stupid)

Re:Idiots on parade.

[Anonymous Coward]

Idiots on parade.

Yup, right here. Posting on Slashdot. Seriously, you don't think the authors know about this? You think you're that much smarter? Idiot.

About that Gin and Tonic...

[See Attached]

When the last cube of ice melts... thats when the temp starts going up... alot. Time for the worlds scientists to get concurrence on environmental status and trending so we can share FACTS rather making it a case of Fealty or Opinion or interpretation. We need fact Dammit!

Seems legit

[Anonymous Coward]

So if I read this right they are comparing 2008 data collected by synthetic aperture radar to 2013-15 data obtained from Landsat 7 and 8 imagery.
They optimize calculations for idealized flow rates and produce these values with overlapping error margins and declare a conclusion based on 2 calculated data points using two different observation and calculation methods.

Discharge (Gt yr1)
2008: 1894 ± 43 (synthetic aperture radar)
2015: 1929 ± 40 (Landsat 7 and 8 imagery)

Seems legit to me...

Re:Seems legit

[Anonymous Coward]

Not only that they use two flow cross-sectional area (flux gate) models for the 2015 calculations
FG1 results in 1837 ± 82.1
FG2 results in 1929 ± 39.9
So one model shows Ice growth, and the other shows Ice loss, guess which one they used for their Abstract...

Hilarious data manipulation at work...

Its not the sea level rise

[wolfheart111]

Im worried about, its whats trapped inside that ice. Be a son of a gun if we were to see our species perish... what the hell are the odds of that.

NASA says mantle plume is melting Antarctica

[Anonymous Coward]

"Researchers at NASA have discovered a huge upwelling of hot rock under Marie Byrd Land, which lies between the Ross Ice Shelf and the Ross Sea, is creating vast lakes and rivers under the ice sheet. The presence of a huge mantle plume could explain why the region is so unstable today"

November 9, 2017
https://hotair.com/headlines/archives/2017/11/nasa-discovers-mantle-plume-thats-melting-antarctica/

I dont believe it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Messeage to Media, and "scientists" :
Even if you put me on the last remaining little iceberg in the middle of what used to be antarctica, I WILL NOT believe it.
At least I will NOT do anything about it.

There you have it, no stop nagging me with this "fake news" about that global warming.

Way to incite a panic

[Solandri]

1929 Gt is the absolute loss, not the net gain/loss. From the first page of the paper:

1 Introduction

The Antarctic ice sheet receives roughly 2000 Gt (â¼ 5.5 mm sea-level equivalent) of precipitation each year with > 90 % of this mass leaving as solid ice discharge to the ocean and the remaining [less than] 10 % leaving in the form of sublimation, wind-driven snow transport, meltwater runoff and basal melt.

2000 Gt gain > 1929 Gt loss. The uncertainty over how much is lost via sublimation and water runoff clouds whether Antarctica has a net gain or loss of ice.

The last study I saw on this (from 2015 based on satellite data) concluded the net effect is Antarctica is gaining ice.

Re:Way to incite a panic

[Anonymous Coward]

The "last study you saw on this" just happens to be the one outlier study from 2015 that disagrees with all the others, and is always cited by climate "skeptics". Pro tip: there are a lot of other papers on the same topic that don't come to the same conclusion.

Like this one, which you just quoted from so I know you must have at least skimmed the front page, and then you would have seen in the abstract: "Including modeled rates of snow accumulation and basal melt, the Antarctic ice sheet lost ice at an average rate of 183 ± 94 Gt yr1 between 2008 and 2015."

Which leaves the question: why are you wilfully misrepresenting what the study says? Is it just about scoring points for your intellectual tribe, or what?

Re:Way to incite a panic

[fatwilbur]

Don't bother, I've found that anything in these climate change threads that doesn't say we're facing immediate, unprecedented disaster and we need to hand over all our money right away gets modded as a troll.

Re:Way to incite a panic

[david_thornley]

Your findings will never pass peer review, being obviously wrong.

Re:Great argument!

[Anonymous Coward]

People can keep denying human-made climate change or whatever, we must do something to at least ease the actual problem, like it or not ugly things are comming and something must be done.. Also, I would be more worried about anything comming from the ice capes, who knows what kind of thing is still trapped in those ice blocks, could vi lethal viruses, weird animals or neuro-toxics.
https://phys.org/news/2016-08-antarctic-sea-ice-source-mercury.html

HAUL IT TO CAPETOWN

[Anonymous Coward]

South Africa is not that far from Antarctica.

Re:HAUL IT TO CAPETOWN

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe Elon Musk should remember his roots.
If he can put a roadster in space with plans to go to Mars, he might have the ability to pull this off.

Holy infestations batman!

[Darkling-MHCN]

Since when did Slashdot get inundated in quasi-intellectual climate sceptics?

Re:Holy infestations batman!

[thinkwaitfast]

Skepticism is a central tenet of science.

Re:Holy infestations batman!

[Darkling-MHCN]

Perhaps, but ill informed scepticism based on hunches, partial or incomplete or just plain wrong data analysis is not!

Re:Sadly, rediculously bad math

[Anonymous Coward]

(using www.gnu.org/software/units -v)
article says for 2015 , 1929 gigatons of ice melted.
waterdensity taken as a gram / cm^3

You have: 1929 gigatons / waterdensity
You want: km^3
        1929 gigatons / waterdensity = 1749.9594 km^3
                                                                              the volume of that water

wikipedia Earth says area of oceans is 361132000 km^2

The volume of water spread over all oceans:
You have: 1749.9594 km^3 / 361132000 km^2
You want: millimeter
        1749.9594 km^3 / 361132000 km^2 = 4.8457611 millimeter

So for 2015, this accounts for ~5 mm of sea rise. (Not accounting
for change of temperature of the water.)

Re: In other words, nothing to worry about

[Anonymous Coward]

You have no idea of what you are talking about, it's actually cute. 2 degrees warmer might mean different things when you talk about condensation or evaporation and it also depends on the air pressure and wind currents of the particular place. Do you ever wonder why people study these things? It is because they are complex and rarely solvable by intuition.

I know the answer;

[Anonymous Coward]

more government control. yeh, that'l fix it.

Regression to the Mean?

[dcw3]

So, just 4 years ago NASA published this.
https://www.nasa.gov/content/g...

After a period of unusually high amounts, why would it be surprising to see a regression to the mean?

Discuss

let me pack my bags.... in 2050

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh yeah, the sea rise will be soooo fast... I can move houses every 5 years and still make it by 2050 500ft above sea level.

Yawn.

Wake me up when the whole ice sheet slips at 500 miles per hour, and causes a 1000ft tsunami like 12500 bc.

Oh I dont see any falls in prices in sea side mansions.

Meh

[Anonymous Coward]

If that were true, humans would live shorter lives and the number would go down. On average, both figures are increasing. The problems of America are not universal. Americas problem are unhealthy eating habits, overweight, lack of exercise and a Medical Industrial Complex running Amok. $1000 for half an hour of seeing a medicus, millions of untreated sick people and similar stuff.

That creates new problems, such as a lack of habitat for tigers, but that is simply due to competition for space.

I can move

[Anonymous Coward]

I can just buy a ticket and fly to somewhere 1000ft above sea level.

Big deal. Poor can walk.

btw slash, your captyasss, are FUCKING HARD TO READ DIP SHITS

Re:I can move

[david_thornley]

Speaking from 180m above sea level, get off my lawn. I was here first.

Really

[Anonymous Coward]

The ice of Antarctica already floats in the ocean. If you melt it, no change because the ice was already displacing the same volume. See Archimedes Law.

You have an argument for Greenland ice and ice in the North of Canada and Russia MAYBE.

Re:Really

[Anonymous Coward]

OK, this is more accurate:

https://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/geophysics/question473.htm

Re: Really

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you fucking retarded ???

Antarctica is a continent ! The fucking ice is sitting on rock.

Jesus fuck........

Re: Really

[Ferretman]

Not all of it, actually. A goodly amount looks like it's water. Here's a neat map showing what researchers think it looks like without all the ice:

https://io9.gizmodo.com/this-i...

Pretty neat. Looks like it would make for a great setting for a role playing game.

Ferret

Re:Really

[Holi]

Antarctica is a landmass covered in ice, it does not float.

Re: Really

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but the Arctic floats. Arctic, Antarctic, same thing really if you think about it the wrong way.

Changing the ocean currents

[Anonymous Coward]

And causing an ice age that most humans wont survive but some will and that is good for the planet not so good for those living at the time.
I dont give a shit no kids and on the way out sorry about your luck. greed has doomed them.

Re:Changing the ocean currents

[thinkwaitfast]

The earth is still in an ice age.

Before jumping to conclusions...

[Anonymous Coward]

...about climate change and CO2 emissions, a paper published last August (Seroussi et al. 2017) demonstrated that a mantle plume under Western Antartica is heating the region. NASA JPL news release of Helene Seroussi's paper : https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/... Full research paper (not paywalled): https://www.researchgate.net/p... Interesting that the Gardner paper in The Cryosphere makes no mention of mantle plumes (a least a quick search for both words turned up zero results). Since both authors are at JPL you would think that Alex Gardener would be aware of Helen Seroussi's 2017 paper and at least mentioned it.

Re: Sky is falling

[Anonymous Coward]

In my lifetime I've heard:
We're out of oil
Out of water
Going to die in nuclear holocaust
From plague
Starve to death
Freeze to death
Acid rain
Ozone hole
GMO food
Robots/AI
Sun spots n flares
Government slavery
Russian invasion
Chinese invasion
Asteroid impact
Giant earthquake
And probably a few other assured forms of death all predicted to have occurred previous to now by Authority Figures and other Smart People.

Ultimately all any of those people wanted was more funding. Enough to get to retirement. Then they retired and we got a new funding required disaster headed our way.

AGW? Yawn.

A gigaton is one billion tons

[thinkwaitfast]

And a ton is 1,000kg. Also, ice is the solid form of water that occurs below 273.15K and standard pressure.

I am being serious

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Thank god. Where I sit had a mile of ice only 10,000 years ago.

The further we get from that, the better.

I am ready for my downmod, Mr. DeMille!

you ignorant fool

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit, Billions of people live a much less CO2 intensive life than you do. If they can do it, why you so stupid?
Americans consume 5x the world average, so there is lots of places you could cut before starving.

surprise surprise

[Anonymous Coward]

All those DMI links are 404 errors....and the Rutgers university pretty pictures show that spring is trending down 3 times faster than winter is trending up. Have a guess what happens when snow cover is decreasing 3 times faster than it is accumulating. How much do you think is going to turn into glaciers...spring

Lynwood the denier links to denier sites full of fake news again.

It doesn't have to melt

[Vitriol Angst]

This is the West Ice sheet. All these studies based on melting seem to miss the obvious fact that the Western Ice sheet is unstable and could just slide into the ocean. I think 'not melting' but displaced into the ocean is a super obvious wrinkle, but I don't think it gets enough attention.

A Place Further Than The Universe.

[Anonymous Coward]

There is an anime series about Antarctica airing right now. Sora yori mo Tooi Basho or Yorimoi for short is an unusual twist on the usual "cute girls going cute places doing cute things" genre and proved suprisingly enjoyable. Characters, story&plot, music, mood, graphics, voice, everything is top notch. It shot to 80.6% rating on MAL in no time, 8 of 13 episodes out so far and not a minute of letdown.

Gravity and ice sheets

[riverat1]

Beware your lack of understanding. Gravity and rotation and the sun and the moon all have an impact. Rest assured a 3m sea level rise at high tide near the equator would not be reflected in the Antarctic at low or high tide. ...

One of the craziest and most counter-intuitive things about ice sheets and sea level rise is the effect that the gravitational attraction of ice sheets has on the sea level around them. There is enough gravitational attraction in the ice sheets to raise sea level next to them by tens of meters to hundreds of meters near the Antarctic ice sheet. Research by Dr. Jerry Mitrovica has found that if you melted enough ice off of Greenland to raise average sea level by 1 meter that the drop in gravitational attraction coupled with the rebound of the land from the weight of the ice going away would drop sea level around Greenland by 5-7 meters.

Here's a short video from Dr. Mitrovica that explains it:

The Fingerprints of Sea Level Rise

And here's a longer one that goes into more detail while taking on several denier memes about sea level rise:

The Fingerprints of Sea Level Change

Of course if sea level is dropping near the ice sheets as the gravity releases it hold on the sea that means that sea level will have to rise even more the further you get from the ice sheet to compensate. For example if Greenland melts enough for an average sea level rise of 1 meter the sea level rise on the US gulf coast could be something like 1.25 meters.

Keep the FAITH Lynnwood

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop peddling lies Lynnwood. You already know thats false as shown to you already here

Heh

[Anonymous Coward]

And last year it had record ice growth.

Shifts in the Earth's polarity

[kattisch]

So, since the earth's poles are about to switch (see http://www.newsweek.com/earth-...), could this have an affect on what's happening? And since this has happened so many times before are we to believe this is the only time in the history of the earth that the polar caps are melting?