Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by BeauHD on from the cutting-edge dept.

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.

150 of 268 comments (clear)

  1. "Probably" doesn't cut it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

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

    1. Re:"Probably" doesn't cut it. by Klaxton · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

    2. Re: "Probably" doesn't cut it. by ClickOnThis · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    3. Re: "Probably" doesn't cut it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

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

    4. Re:"Probably" doesn't cut it. by Zaelath · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    5. Re: "Probably" doesn't cut it. by jimtheowl · · Score: 1

      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?

    6. Re:"Probably" doesn't cut it. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

    7. Re:"Probably" doesn't cut it. by Zaelath · · Score: 1

      Sure Bill, link one.

    8. Re: "Probably" doesn't cut it. by TheZeitgeist · · Score: 1

      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.

    9. Re:"Probably" doesn't cut it. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      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.

    10. Re: "Probably" doesn't cut it. by HiThere · · Score: 2

      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.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    11. Re:"Probably" doesn't cut it. by HiThere · · Score: 2

      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.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    12. Re:"Probably" doesn't cut it. by Zaelath · · Score: 1

      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.

    13. Re:"Probably" doesn't cut it. by ISayWeOnlyToBePolite · · Score: 2

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

    14. Re: "Probably" doesn't cut it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      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

    15. Re: "Probably" doesn't cut it. by jimtheowl · · Score: 1

      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.

    16. Re: "Probably" doesn't cut it. by jimtheowl · · Score: 1

      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?

    17. Re:"Probably" doesn't cut it. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

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

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

    18. Re: "Probably" doesn't cut it. by djinn6 · · Score: 2

      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.

    19. Re: "Probably" doesn't cut it. by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      its the wealthy people paying the poor people to dig

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    20. Re:"Probably" doesn't cut it. by Kjella · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    21. Re:"Probably" doesn't cut it. by zmooc · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      0x or or snor perron?!
    22. Re: "Probably" doesn't cut it. by GrumpySteen · · Score: 1

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

    23. Re: "Probably" doesn't cut it. by phantomfive · · Score: 1

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

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    24. Re: "Probably" doesn't cut it. by gnick · · Score: 1

      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!

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    25. Re: "Probably" doesn't cut it. by hey! · · Score: 1

      You can't call FUD without references.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    26. Re: "Probably" doesn't cut it. by Dread_ed · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
    27. Re: "Probably" doesn't cut it. by thomst · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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

      --
      Check out my novel.
    28. Re: "Probably" doesn't cut it. by butchersong · · Score: 1

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

    29. Re:"Probably" doesn't cut it. by orgelspieler · · Score: 1

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

    30. Re: "Probably" doesn't cut it. by Type44Q · · Score: 1

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

    31. Re:"Probably" doesn't cut it. by HiThere · · Score: 1

      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.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    32. Re: "Probably" doesn't cut it. by Kjella · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    33. Re:"Probably" doesn't cut it. by dfm3 · · Score: 1

      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.

    34. Re: "Probably" doesn't cut it. by eric_harris_76 · · Score: 1

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

      --
      There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.
    35. Re: "Probably" doesn't cut it. by Quirkz · · Score: 1

      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?

      --
      The Quirkz Handbook of Self-Improvement for People Who Are Already Pretty Okay
  2. Sadly by rmdingler · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

    1. Re:Sadly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

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

    2. Re:Sadly by rmdingler · · Score: 2
      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).

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    3. Re:Sadly by Zaelath · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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".

    4. Re:Sadly by rmdingler · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    5. Re:Sadly by Jeremi · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    6. Re:Sadly by pubwvj · · Score: 2

      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.

    7. Re:Sadly by ClickOnThis · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.
    8. Re:Sadly by VeryFluffyBunny · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Debate is a form of harassment. Do not question my truth.
    9. Re:Sadly by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      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.

    10. Re:Sadly by aberglas · · Score: 2

      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.

    11. Re:Sadly by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      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).

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    12. Re:Sadly by hnjjz · · Score: 1

      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).

    13. Re:Sadly by ClickOnThis · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    14. Re:Sadly by Darkling-MHCN · · Score: 1

      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.

    15. Re:Sadly by jafac · · Score: 1

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

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    16. Re:Sadly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      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

    17. Re:Sadly by jafac · · Score: 1

      On the contrary.

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

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    18. Re:Sadly by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 2

      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!

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    19. Re:Sadly by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      are you talking ice coverage and/or ice thickness?

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    20. Re:Sadly by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

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

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

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    21. Re:Sadly by Ferretman · · Score: 1

      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

      --
      Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
    22. Re:Sadly by Ferretman · · Score: 1

      Ad hominem fallacy.

      Slashdot is better than that.

      Ferret

      --
      Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
    23. Re:Sadly by Ferretman · · Score: 1

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

      The KNOWN universe...... :)

      Ferret

      --
      Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
    24. Re:Sadly by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      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.

    25. Re:Sadly by thomst · · Score: 1

      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 ...

      --
      Check out my novel.
    26. Re:Sadly by butchersong · · Score: 1

      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?

    27. Re:Sadly by Enigma2175 · · Score: 1

      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.

      --

      Enigma

    28. Re:Sadly by bigpat · · Score: 1

      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.

    29. Re:Sadly by sexconker · · Score: 1

      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.

    30. Re:Sadly by sexconker · · Score: 1

      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!

    31. Re:Sadly by sexconker · · Score: 1

      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.

    32. Re:Sadly by Holi · · Score: 1

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

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    33. Re:Sadly by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    34. Re:Sadly by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    35. Re:Sadly by sexconker · · Score: 1

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

    36. Re:Sadly by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      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

    37. Re:Sadly by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      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.

    38. Re:Sadly by stigmerger · · Score: 1

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

    39. Re:Sadly by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  3. But other recent studies... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

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

    1. Re:But other recent studies... by Klaxton · · Score: 2

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

    2. Re:But other recent studies... by Q-Hack! · · Score: 1

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

      --
      Some days I get the sinking feeling Orwell was an optimist.
    3. Re:But other recent studies... by Gibgezr · · Score: 1

      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.

  4. No it is not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

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

    1. Re: No it is not by DogDude · · Score: 1

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

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    2. Re:No it is not by Not-a-Neg · · Score: 1

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

      --
      -==- Buy a Mac and leave me alone!
  5. West Antarctica? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1, Troll

    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.

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    1. Re:West Antarctica? by Klaxton · · Score: 5, Informative

      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."

    2. Re:West Antarctica? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      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.

    3. Re:West Antarctica? by KeensMustard · · Score: 1

      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.

    4. Re:West Antarctica? by KeensMustard · · Score: 1
      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.

    5. Re:West Antarctica? by HiThere · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.
    6. Re:West Antarctica? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    7. Re:West Antarctica? by KeensMustard · · Score: 1

      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?

    8. Re:West Antarctica? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      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...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    9. Re:West Antarctica? by Sique · · Score: 1

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

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    10. Re:West Antarctica? by KeensMustard · · Score: 1

      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.

    11. Re:West Antarctica? by davide+marney · · Score: 1

      "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.

      --
      "We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
    12. Re:West Antarctica? by jbengt · · Score: 1

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

    13. Re:West Antarctica? by jbengt · · Score: 1

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

      That is incorrect.

    14. Re:West Antarctica? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    15. Re:West Antarctica? by KeensMustard · · Score: 1

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

    16. Re:West Antarctica? by KeensMustard · · Score: 1

      Or it could be a nothing burger.

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

    17. Re: West Antarctica? by KeensMustard · · Score: 1

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

  6. Looking forward to the new beachfront property by BlueCoder · · Score: 2

    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.

    1. Re:Looking forward to the new beachfront property by HiThere · · Score: 1

      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.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    2. Re:Looking forward to the new beachfront property by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    3. Re:Looking forward to the new beachfront property by HiThere · · Score: 1

      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.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    4. Re:Looking forward to the new beachfront property by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  7. Well - there's a "bright" side... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    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.

  8. Correct arithmetic by aberglas · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Correct arithmetic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      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).

    2. Re:Correct arithmetic by sexconker · · Score: 1

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

  9. The data is all out there by AbRASiON · · Score: 1, Interesting

    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)

    1. Re:The data is all out there by ichthus · · Score: 2

      Wow. I bet everyone loves you at dinner parties.

      --
      sig: sauer
    2. Re:The data is all out there by Black+Parrot · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    3. Re:The data is all out there by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

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

    4. Re:The data is all out there by HiThere · · Score: 1

      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.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    5. Re:The data is all out there by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      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.

  10. Sadest of All Is ... by BoRegardless · · Score: 1, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Sadest of All Is ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      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.

  11. It doesn't matter by sgage · · Score: 1

    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!
     

  12. Raises hand by Snotnose · · Score: 1

    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!

    1. Re:Raises hand by sgage · · Score: 1

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

  13. Facepalms by DivineKnight · · Score: 1

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

    1. Re:Facepalms by davide+marney · · Score: 1

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

      --
      "We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
  14. Two possible responses.. by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

    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.

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  15. Re:Interesting non-mention by HiThere · · Score: 1

    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.

    --

    I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  16. Idiots on parade. by Charcharodon · · Score: 4, Informative
    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...

    1. Re:Idiots on parade. by HelpTheNewOverlord · · Score: 1

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

    2. Re:Idiots on parade. by Charcharodon · · Score: 1
      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)

  17. About that Gin and Tonic... by See+Attached · · Score: 1

    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!

    --
    Time for a new Political party in the US (or two!) One is off the rails Other cant pony up a leader.
  18. Seems legit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    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...

    1. Re:Seems legit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      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...

  19. Its not the sea level rise by wolfheart111 · · Score: 1

    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.

    --
    [($)]
  20. NASA says mantle plume is melting Antarctica by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "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/

  21. Way to incite a panic by Solandri · · Score: 3, Interesting
    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.

    1. Re:Way to incite a panic by fatwilbur · · Score: 1

      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.

    2. Re:Way to incite a panic by david_thornley · · Score: 1

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

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  22. Holy infestations batman! by Darkling-MHCN · · Score: 2

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

    1. Re:Holy infestations batman! by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

      Skepticism is a central tenet of science.

    2. Re:Holy infestations batman! by Darkling-MHCN · · Score: 1

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

  23. Re:More libtard lies by Sique · · Score: 1

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

    --
    .sig: Sique *sigh*
  24. Regression to the Mean? by dcw3 · · Score: 1

    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

    --
    Just another day in Paradise
  25. Really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    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.

    1. Re: Really by Ferretman · · Score: 1

      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

      --
      Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
    2. Re:Really by Holi · · Score: 1

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

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
  26. A gigaton is one billion tons by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

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

  27. Re:Changing the ocean currents by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

    The earth is still in an ice age.

  28. It doesn't have to melt by Vitriol+Angst · · Score: 1

    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.

    --
    >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
  29. Re:I can move by david_thornley · · Score: 1

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

    --
    "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  30. Gravity and ice sheets by riverat1 · · Score: 1

    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.

  31. Shifts in the Earth's polarity by kattisch · · Score: 1

    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?