Slashdot Mirror
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
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.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
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
https://www.theguardian.com/wo...
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...