Slashdot Mirror
Antarctica Is Melting Three Times As Fast As a Decade Ago (nytimes.com)
An anonymous reader writes: Between 60 and 90 percent of the world's fresh water is frozen in the ice sheets of Antarctica, a continent roughly the size of the United States and Mexico combined. If all that ice melted, it would be enough to raise the world's sea levels by roughly 200 feet. While that won't happen overnight, Antarctica is indeed melting, and a study published Wednesday in the journal Nature shows that the melting is speeding up. The rate at which Antarctica is losing ice has tripled since 2007, according to the latest available data. The continent is now melting so fast, scientists say, that it will contribute six inches (15 centimeters) to sea-level rise by 2100. That is at the upper end of what the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has estimated Antarctica alone could contribute to sea level rise this century.
"Around Brooklyn you get flooding once a year or so, but if you raise sea level by 15 centimeters then that's going to happen 20 times a year," said Andrew Shepherd, a professor of earth observation at the University of Leeds and the lead author of the study. Even under ordinary conditions, Antarctica's landscape is perpetually changing as icebergs calve, snow falls and ice melts on the surface, forming glacial sinkholes known as moulins. But what concerns scientists is the balance of how much snow and ice accumulates in a given year versus the amount that is lost.
"Around Brooklyn you get flooding once a year or so, but if you raise sea level by 15 centimeters then that's going to happen 20 times a year," said Andrew Shepherd, a professor of earth observation at the University of Leeds and the lead author of the study. Even under ordinary conditions, Antarctica's landscape is perpetually changing as icebergs calve, snow falls and ice melts on the surface, forming glacial sinkholes known as moulins. But what concerns scientists is the balance of how much snow and ice accumulates in a given year versus the amount that is lost.
More water, less plastic in the ocean?
I hate how many otherwise intelligent people completely misunderstand global warming. Although people are contributing a fair amount to the rate at which we are warming up, this planets default temperature is much MUCH higher than what our species is comfortable with. Guess what? If you are reading this, you were born during an ice age: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Obviously we just need to build a bunch of 6" stilts to raise all buildings along the coast. Done.
Now I'm off to disprove this globe earth thing with my lawn chair and 45 helium balloons.
People who believe that God created the world and expects us to act as care takers of His gift for the next generation of humanity should be shocked and appalled and take every responsible action to ensure the gift we have been given by God is preserved and passed down to the next generation.
However I can't think of any reason that would inspire action for those who have no faith because the results of any action on this matter for or against are unlikely to have any effect beyond our lifetime.
That brings the next real question, how can we motivate people to action , how can we ensure that action does not unjustly disenfranchise the poor.
âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.
Those Chinese hoaxers. They sure know their stuff don't they?
The numbers in the article do not match the /. summary. And the summary ignores error margin, or rather takes WORSTE case scenario. By doing so it tarnishes all of the statement reducing believability of all of it.
The numbers for the article are
53 +/- 29, so it is just as likely to be 82 as 53 as 24
159 +/- 26, so it is just as likely to be 133 as 159 as 185
So it is just as likely to have changed from 82 to 133, which is less than doubling vice tripled. While this still is an increase (and reasonably significant increase), ignoring error margins is just crying wolf.
The NY Times article has this big graph showing an accelerating downward trend starting in 1994. Yet NASA says that Antarctica has been gaining ice from 1979 to 2015. So which is it?
And when you look at the confidence intervals (2720 +/- 1390 - the window is LARGER than the estimate!) you start to get an idea that this is a "well, we don't know but... FLOODING!". I'm sorry, if any engineer or researcher working on my team came and said "I believe the correct value is 50, with a tolerance range from 0 to 100" I'd send them back to the bench after a good chewing out or they'd be sent out to the street...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Wouldn't it be nice if our new Chinese overlords do the rest of the world a favor and use some of the surplus aluminum they have been producing with subsidies and instead of stockpiling it in Mexico, do a grand science experiment with no storage fee\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b in Antarctica by covering it in a thin layer of aluminum foil ?
Really need to present analysis to communist party leaders the amount it would save China in property loss for all their coastal cities by doing something like this.
I can't say I'm going to be all teary-eyed watching the coastal assholes paddle around in their own waste. The only downside is they are going to come RUNNING inland and make real estate in "flyover country" a lot more expensive. Couldn't they just stay there and drown or at the very least, stay there and paddle around like polar bears or Venetians?
2720 Giga-tons, sounds like a lot.
The articles are typical alarmist propaganda.
How much ice is there in Antarctica?
27,600,000 Giga-tons, so in 25 years we lost 0.01% of the ice mass.
Does not sound so scary? Even with a accelerating melt, there will be most all of the ice in 250 years, and I am guessing, many other things will change in that time period, like energy technology.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/06/14/good-news-99-989-of-the-antarctic-ice-sheet-didnt-melt/
In addition to the excellent point you make, it was thought the ice shelves were melting (they would truly be the main cause of ocean levels rising if they were to melt and let a lot of Continental ice free) but instead they seem to be freezing, against expectations (and as you say also against the alarmist message being spread by the NYT). If the ice shelves are not melting there's not much to be concerned about in regards to sea level rise from Antartica.
Please focus more on the actual research data and not the global warming chicken little news reports. Most of the paper is filled with new observational data to allow the reader to draw conclusions. It is good to see raw research and not the reruns of already completed research.
Pump your brakes kid, Larry Walters is a national hero.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
attacking the messenger instead of the message , Anonymous coward ? You Don't have an answer do you ?
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
If they were really clever and scary, they would have picked a start date when the rate of loss was zero. Then they could claim that the rate of ice loss was infinity times faster.
First they said Pluto was a planet. Then they said it isn't. SOOOO... WHICH IS IT? Just proves they're a bunch of liars who know the truth about Pluto and want to keep its natural resources from the American economy.
I always knew they were a bunch of liars. First they said protons were single particles, and now they're saying they're made of three particles. WHICH IS IT, SCIENTISTS?
I see it all the time. They can't stick to a story. They keep changing it every time new experimental evidence comes in because they know they don't know the TRUTH.
Learn to swim poors!
Researchers have discovered that the earths oceans are bulging around the Equator which has resulted in far less sea level rises than previously predicted so this may continue to hold true for a while but in all reality we will all be long dead before sea level rise actually is an issue.
Protip: Weather patterns change with coastlines.
No one is going to want to live in your desert wasteland mongo. Not even you. Cant wait for half of America to becone REGUGEES lol!
And then you can tell us all about how human waste is a marvellous thing.
I moved to a warmer country. The average temperature is 10 degrees Celsius higher than back at home and I enjoy it very much and wish that summer would be longer still.
Its the end times so dont care, just like Jesus said? "Feed the poor.. except if its the end times then fuck y'all!"
It's no big deal really. In any event it is not caused by humans.
Most of those who worry about stuff like this are urban, and really have no
idea of how immense the mass of the atmosphere is, or the Earth itself. The
engine that drives all that happens on Earth is the Sun. Only something
as powerful and massive as the Sun has enough energy to exert any lasting
influence on as much mass as comprises our Earth.
Consider this. Visit the ocean, and spit in it. How much influence does your
spittle have upon this planet? Essentially zilch. How then could all of our puny emissions of CO2 could have any significant affect on the mass which comprises our atmosphere? It is like our little bit of spit in the ocean. The magnetic forces and the radio energy we receive from the our Sun overwhelm any influence we could generate upon our planet.
Anyone who has crossed the ocean, or crossed a continent knows how massive
our planet is. Next time you are on a coast to coast flight look out the
window and see how how empty this planet really is. Even shorter flights
are eye opening. I remember flying from Phoenix to Portland. For most of
the whole duration of the flight, nothing in view but barren landscape in
sight. No signs of human habitation. It is humbling.
This planet is huge, and massive, and it is only with great hubris that
anyone could imagine that humans could have any lasting impact.
Yeah thats a great hoax.. all that environmental destruction caused by foreign parasites like the Chink Pine Beetle which was transported here by chinese agents.
Nuke the Chinks.
Its our only hope as a species.
Enjoy your Rothschild banker lies. You morons are so easily fooled.
Stop thinking that 21st century agenda science is truthful. The entire "Science" field is built upon bought and paid for lies. Literally by the bankers who have owned you for 300+ years.
See level rise in my country with near one and of a half century of tidal gauge is as of yet rather constant. I assume the local sea level rise can't fight the satellite and model based scientific consensus which constitute physical reality indefinitely, it is after all around double the rise on the gauges ... at some point it should start following the global trend.
When will physical reality determined by consensus correspond to the physical reality of my country's tidal gauges?
I guess if I have a policy of ignoring all the mostly incoherent and misspelled posts, it doesn't matter which one they are.
For this reason, God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie, in order that judgment will come upon all who have disbelieved the truth and delighted in wickedness.
https://vimeo.com/253700958
The ONLY way that we will stop adding to the CO2 levels is if we quit building new fossil fuel plants ESP. Coal. Since China is building coal all over the globe, and the far left, along with the Chinese, continue to ignore that, it will only mean that things will speed up.
As opposed to stopping the CO2 growth, it is now time to focus on what will happen as the CO2 grows? IOW, how are we going to deal with the ocean increases, the lack of precipitation in BOTH America AND CHina.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
As a privileged white liberal I look with pride at how many smug white liberals live all around me. I do no want the climate warming up and having darkies moving to the great white north and invading my white socially progressive neighborhood. Keep the planet cold and keep the darkies in the south. I know my own pathetic shlong can not compete with a massive black cock. Darkies afraid of cold. End global warming now. Whites just can not compete on an equal level. We need the climate to keep the races separate.
End global warming now. Liberalism, and white privilege demand upon it. We need Al Gore now. Let's take the entire economy of the USA and use it to fight global climate change. It is the number 1 problem facing humanity. 98 percent of climate scientist accept global warming, therefore if you do not accept it you are a homophobe and a racist. The habitat is diminishing. We need to protect the white bears. Nobody likes black bears, we like polar bears. Whites rule.
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/g...
5 out of 6 people enjoy Russian Roulette & 6 out of 7 Dwarfs are not Happy
From the NASA article:
A new NASA study says that an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is currently adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning glaciers.
So, this thickening has been going on for around 10,000 years but still outweighs the increased losses that have been ramping up over the last 50-100 years. I assume that you therefore accept it when NASA says there has been increased losses from thinning glaciers -- I wonder what's causing that?
According to the new analysis of satellite data, the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001. That net gain slowed to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008
So, the net gain in ice has decreased from 112 billion tons (over a 10 year span) to 82 billion tons (over a 5 year span). Seems that melting is overtaking accumulation significantly (decrease of nearly 33%). I also wonder what the figures would be if the last 5 years had been taken into account as the meliting seems to be increasing.
But it might only take a few decades for Antarctica’s growth to reverse, according to Zwally. “If the losses of the Antarctic Peninsula and parts of West Antarctica continue to increase at the same rate they’ve been increasing for the last two decades, the losses will catch up with the long-term gain in East Antarctica in 20 or 30 years -- I don’t think there will be enough snowfall increase to offset these losses.”
So, even the lead author of the paper admits that if this decline in gain merely continues at it's current rate we will see net loses of Antarctica ice in 20-30 years.
Zwally’s team calculated that the mass gain from the thickening of East Antarctica remained steady from 1992 to 2008 at 200 billion tons per year, while the ice losses from the coastal regions of West Antarctica and the Antarctic Peninsula increased by 65 billion tons per year.
So, there isn't any significant increase in ice accumulation during the 1992-2008 period but there is a significant increase in the loss of ice over that same period.
==========
Lastly, it is disingenuous to highlight one ice sheet that is gaining ice (for the time being) and not mention the other ice sheet...
This video deals specifically with the paper in question (Myth #2 at 4:30). To put it simply, while the Antarctic ice sheet has been gaining 82 billion tons of ice per year, the Greenland ice sheet has been losing 269 billion tons of ice per year.
So one ice sheet losing massive amounts of ice while the other is gaining ice at increasingly slower rates -- seems to be a pattern here.
What's the appropriate rate?
"Tempers are wearing thin. Let's just hope some robot doesn't kill everybody." --Bender
A study doesn't mean much. 5 studies mean more. 10, more still. People who don't grasp even the basics of the scientific method shouldn't waste their time challenging what they don't understand. The results of a single study can be an aberration.
The numbers fall on a bell curve. So while 82 and 24 are just as likely as each other, 53 is actually 3x as likely as either of those extremes.
Your further extrapolation is wrong on face (you can mathmatically carry through error margins) . Even if you were correct mathematically, according to your logic, it would be just as likely to have increased 5.5x (24->185) as 1.5x (82->133) as 3x (53->159) as... All of which average to... 3x
Your ad here. Ask me how!
This reminds me of the dire talk during the Exxon oil spill in the gulf of Mexico a few years back. (Deepwater Horizon)
NPR breathlessly shouted, 5 million barrels of oil leaked into the gulf of Mexico during the spill.
Do you know how many barrels of water are in the gulf?
About 15 quadrillion !
Most of the oil was burned off, dispersed, or metabolized by the natural oil eating bacteria in the gulf (there are thousands of natural oil leaks in the sea floor), but that translates to about 0.3 x 10 to the -9 concentration.
The ocean (and atmosphere) are very big.
Why do you think any change would cause more pain and suffering than warring humans already create for themselves ?
Invest in an Alpaca Farm on a Mountain side in south America, avoid buying property in North America, islands, or any coastal locations.
Load up on Prepper supplies, medical supplies, arms and ammunition.
Http://www.shtfplan.com
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses
I'll believe NASA, thanks.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
> it would be enough to raise the world's sea levels by roughly 200 feet.
You know I've seen this thrown around so often, but I've never seen the calculation for how they arrived at this.
When I tried it myself using average thickness of ice, area of ocean, and size of antartica, I arrived at several cm.
I'm sure I'm doing something wrong, but is there actually a calculation somewhere that arrives at this 200 feet answer?
good thing Brooklyn has 80 years to figure out how to deal with a simple few inches of water...
I say bring it on. I live a bit under 300' elevation and I want some beachfront property.
A new study, conducted by Norwegian scientists, shows that IQ scores of today’s young people are in decline, putting an end to the post-war trend of rising intelligence. The study revealed that the IQ points of those tested peaked among those born in 1975, while people born in 1991 scored five points lower. According to the scientists, this shift could be due to many factors, possibly global warming trends.
Is this the new Conservatard arguing tactic now? You guys will try anything won't ya?
Since you had to bring your religious BS into this, you're simply not paying attention. Christaians are the AGW Denialists. Athieists do more to solve this problem than you assholes ever will. We are motivated because we know this is it. We get one shot, and I'd rather not die at 49 from cancer caused by PCBs, asbestos, and all the oher garbage we dump everywhere. You might be ok drinking Roundup but I'm not.
Your little godly guilt trip was directed to the wrong group. You need to talk to the hypocrites in the pews next to you, not to us Atheists.
The only thing you wonder is how you're gonna spin anything and everything to continue to deny AGW. You are one of the most vocal people on here about this. You HATE the idea so much you refuse to believe it even while the island is sinking around you. Maybe you could sing us a song while you're at it. Should you try the Ding dong ding dong or the Ding dong dong dingy dong?
Good. Hopefully we'll learn a lesson from all of this but I doubt it.
bad mouthing the BabyBoomers is bad, wait till the generation that is growing up in 2100 ( assuming we survive that long ) starts throwing blame around :D
" Those GD Neanderthals back in 2018 F*CKED UP THE ENTIRE PLANET FOR US ALL "
*stomps foot for dramatic effect*
That's not a tolerance range of 100% what are you smoking?
This is bologna with capital bullshit.
Where is your climate god now?
They have forsaken you! Still- you may yet survive the coming climatocalypse.
Bring forth and sacrifice Hillary Clinton and Al Gore to the climate god!
Sacrifice them on the great and holy climate altar that is Al Roker's back.
Burn both of their blackened hearts before midnight on the winter solstice and perhaps your god will return.
Typical, find 1 paper you agreee with and then ignore the dozens of other newer papers that disagree with it.
2009; Chen et al., 2009; E et al., 2009; Horwath and Dietrich, 2009; Velicogna, 2009; Wu et al., 2010; Rignot et al., 2011c; Shi et al., 2011; King et al., 2012; Tanget al., 2012, Shepherd et al., 2012, Martin-Espa?ol et al., 2017 etc, and now Shepherd et al, 2018.
All the while pretending you are some kind of objective scientist.
There have been a large number of studies that show Antarctica has been losing ice mass overall - Cazenave et al., 2009; Chen et al., 2009; E et al., 2009; Horwath and Dietrich, 2009; Velicogna, 2009; Wu et al., 2010; Rignot et al., 2011c; Shi et al., 2011; King et al., 2012; Tanget al., 2012, Shepherd et al., 2012, Martin-Español et al., 2017 etc, and now Shepherd et al, 2018.
Yet you chose to second-guess the conclusions of a single one of those (despite lack of expertise in the field) that combines results from dozens of different papers (yes, including the NASA study - reference 74), and instead believe a single outlier study which you hadn't even read (it's here btw). On which I might add the lead author has since said:
When our paper came out, I was very careful to emphasize that this is in no way contradictory to the findings of the IPCC [2013] report or conclusions that climate change is a serious problem that we need to do something about
Can you really claim with a straight face to be concerned about the quality of the science? You're not exactly demonstrating thoroughness or unbiased evaluation yourself.
Keep slashdot honest
It is unwise to clain trends from the second derivative of noisy data.
That is the question. When all that ice melts, are we going to find a map found in the 1920's created in 1500's is correct about the land mass under the Antarctic. And IF it is correct, does that mean MAN previously caused global warming?
Anonymous comments are as pathetic as the anonymous "sources" that contaminate gutless journalism from the New York Time
You just pick the 1 report that suites your "argument" (irrational belief) and dismiss all the other peer reviewed studies out of hand.
Typical trolling denier bullshit we've come to expect from you.