Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Antarctica Is Melting Three Times As Fast As a Decade Ago (nytimes.com)

Posted by msmash on from the closer-look dept.

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.

153 of 289 comments (clear)

  1. More water, less plastic in the ocean? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    More water, less plastic in the ocean?

    1. Re:More water, less plastic in the ocean? by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      Um, think about what you posted.

      Take a bathtub. Put 500 rubber duckies in it while it's half full.

      Now fill it up.

      You still have 500 rubber duckies.

      Plastic doesn't disappear, it just stays.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    2. Re:More water, less plastic in the ocean? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yes, thats the joke.

    3. Re:More water, less plastic in the ocean? by Bloke+down+the+pub · · Score: 1

      Say hello to Ms Merkel for me.

      --
      It's true I tell you, feller at work's next door neighbour read it in the paper.
    4. Re: More water, less plastic in the ocean? by haruchai · · Score: 2

      "Russia's frozen farm land would become productive"

      A lot of it has vast stores of methane beneath which means huge swaths will collapse long before they "become productive"

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    5. Re: More water, less plastic in the ocean? by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

      No.,
      Humans will just die in greater numbers
      More mosquitos

    6. Re: More water, less plastic in the ocean? by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      Unavoidable change,
      no Globalist World Government Tax & Spend scheme will slow the changes of Solar energy output.

      Of course if you go by solar energy output then we should be slightly cooling since the 1970s.

    7. Re: More water, less plastic in the ocean? by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      and methane is a much stronger greenhouse gas than CO2.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    8. Re: More water, less plastic in the ocean? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The landmasses were also closer to the equator back then when the dinos roamed too.

      And lots of humans and expensive property is right near the modern shore. It is much easier to ban some forms of pollution and tax the causes of it. Too bad if people can't buy 8000 lbs trucks to sit in traffic on the way to the office in.

    9. Re: More water, less plastic in the ocean? by JudgeFurious · · Score: 1

      My 8000 pound truck is mighty comfortable in traffic. Don't plan on giving it up any time soon.

      --
      Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
    10. Re: More water, less plastic in the ocean? by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      You do realize it took over 10,000 years for the current fertile zones to reach the levels of enrichment they had 150 years ago?

      The new areas are not going to be as fertile as the current areas. And in some cases, the rain belts will not be over those areas.

      I think you are "hoping for the best' rather than having a plan.

      But it's okay. It's already too late to stop it short of finding a new inexpensive way to sequester massive amounts of C02 very quickly.

      And even so, our population is so high we are on track to start running out of all kinds of fixed resources (like sand, chromium, magnesium, manganese, etc. etc.) within the next 25 years. All at about the same time.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    11. Re:More water, less plastic in the ocean? by KingBenny · · Score: 1

      maybe that should postpone the south-american water riots for a while

      --
      Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?
  2. Yes, The World Is Returning To Normal by ComputerGeek01 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    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/...

    1. Re:Yes, The World Is Returning To Normal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      much MUCH higher than what our species is comfortable with

      LINKS?

    2. Re:Yes, The World Is Returning To Normal by hipp5 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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/...

      So what? From a human perspective (arguably the thing that matters most to you and me), normal is what we have now, and any deviations from that are going to cause us pain and suffering. It might be inevitable, but it's absolutely in our best interest to have it happen as slowly as possible. Cities, industries, and crops are where they are; moving them or hardening them is gonna be hella expensive and would be better done over long periods of time. Not to mention that really fast rates of change could destabilize the very fabric of our societies. That's nice that we're in an "ice age", but it means diddly squat to whether or not we should be trying to reduce our contribution to climate change.

    3. Re:Yes, The World Is Returning To Normal by jellomizer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The Rate of global warming is the biggest issue. Just like falling it is your rate of speed that you hit the ground is what will kill you.

      The world isn't ever "Normal" it is always in flux, but if we change it too much a lot of things can die.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    4. Re:Yes, The World Is Returning To Normal by cayenne8 · · Score: 1, Troll

      So what? From a human perspective (arguably the thing that matters most to you and me), normal is what we have now, and any deviations from that are going to cause us pain and suffering. It might be inevitable, but it's absolutely in our best interest to have it happen as slowly as possible. Cities, industries, and crops are where they are; moving them or hardening them is gonna be hella expensive and would be better done over long periods of time. Not to mention that really fast rates of change could destabilize the very fabric of our societies. That's nice that we're in an "ice age", but it means diddly squat to whether or not we should be trying to reduce our contribution to climate change.

      Yes, but on the other hand, by the time all this happens, I'll be WELL into my "dirt nap"...and well, I don't really care that much, nor am I frightened of it.....

      Now, if they figure how to prolong my life a few 100 years, well then....I might take more notice.

      But the thought of cramping my current lifestyle for something that may happen well after I"m dead, doesn't really motivate me, you know?

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    5. Re:Yes, The World Is Returning To Normal by Nostalgia4Infinity · · Score: 1

      You can have increasing temperatures and melting ice caps or you can have decreasing temperatures leading to the next ice age. You can't, historically speaking, have a steady climate.

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

      https://upload.wikimedia.org/w...

    6. Re:Yes, The World Is Returning To Normal by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      Yes, but on the other hand, by the time all this happens, I'll be WELL into my "dirt nap"...and well, I don't really care that much, nor am I frightened of it.....

      The classic /. poster: never reproduced! No kids to worry about.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    7. Re:Yes, The World Is Returning To Normal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What are you going to do?

      Dig him up and lecture him?
      Take away his headstone?
      Not mow the grass?
      Put his head on a spike like Charles the 2nd did to Cromwell?

      Really, we are all curious how you will hold a dead guy, "accountable".

    8. Re:Yes, The World Is Returning To Normal by jbengt · · Score: 1

      I vote for that 4th one.

    9. Re:Yes, The World Is Returning To Normal by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      Just like falling it is your rate of speed that you hit the ground is what will kill you.

      It's actually the abrupt stop at the bottom that kills you. :-)

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    10. Re:Yes, The World Is Returning To Normal by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 4, Funny

      If you are reading this, you were born during an ice age

      Come on, not everybody here is my age.

    11. Re:Yes, The World Is Returning To Normal by Agent0013 · · Score: 1

      I very much doubt that "anyone" reading this is more that 12,000 years old. If there is anyone that old, they sure must have one hell of a low slashdot id.

      --

      -- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
    12. Re:Yes, The World Is Returning To Normal by hey! · · Score: 1

      I hate how many otherwise intelligent people completely misunderstand global warming.

      Same here. In particular I'm shocked at how little obviously intelligent people understand the nature of the impact of anthropogenic global warming in particular.

      Humans are the most adaptable animal species that the planet has ever produced. There's no question we could be happy and prosperous in a world that's eight or ten degrees warmer. The difficulty is all in how quickly we get there: the rate at which we are forced to adapt.

      Four degrees over ten thousand years is easy. Four degrees over a hundred years is catastrophic -- for social structures and economies.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    13. Re:Yes, The World Is Returning To Normal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'm also haunted by the thought that after I'm gone my grandchildren or great-grandchildren will be cursing me for being such a selfish prick.

      They will be regardless of what you do at this point. Your life has been one of a selfish prick. You are a baby boomer. You set the world on fire, consumed more resources than you deserve, and told the next generation they have to live a reduced lifestyle and work harder or be judged guilty by you.

    14. Re:Yes, The World Is Returning To Normal by DarkOx · · Score: 1, Troll

      I'm also haunted by the thought that after I'm gone my grandchildren or great-grandchildren will be cursing me for being such a selfish prick.

      Ah but will they? For example lets say I don't forgo all kinds of economic opportunities in the name of reducing my carbon foot print - Might my grandchildren be glad I did not squander the family wealth on feel good BS that was likely to have little impact and was able to leave them something as a result?

      The idea for 'us' at least the climate change is really a problem assumes we are going to go down the path of other self destructive policy like allow immigration in unlimited numbers and continue to play super cops all around the world. We have the capability and opportunity to isolate ourselves and our children form most of the negative effects. I for one think its pretty scummy a lot our political class A) refuses to do it and B) tries the paint folks who want to look out for our own children rather than some else's as villains.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    15. Re:Yes, The World Is Returning To Normal by Solandri · · Score: 1, Insightful

      So what? From a human perspective (arguably the thing that matters most to you and me), normal is what we have now, and any deviations from that are going to cause us pain and suffering.

      In this context, "normal" means the difference between "We need to do everything we can to stop climate change" and "Climate change is inevitable, so let's get busy moving our infrastructure away from the coasts." Opportunity cost is measured against the possible alternatives, not against what you used to have in the past.

      If climate change is man-made due to our emissions, then we need to do what we can to stop it or slow it down by reducing our emissions.

      If it's natural, then changing our emissions is pointless - it's going to happen no matter what we do about our emissions. We need to stop worrying about emissions and start worrying about moving our infrastructure to be able to survive the change. Slowing it down only increases the time we have to move our infrastructure, it doesn't alter the fact that we need to move it. So changing our emissions then only becomes worthwhile if the extra time to move our infrastructure would reduce the overall cost to move it. In fact speeding it up may actually be preferable since if the change is visible in the short term, it elicits a sense of urgency that gets people to prepare. If there's no visible change, it breeds complacency and skepticism, and we end up doing nothing about the problem. The long-term changes just become stories your great-grandfather told you and what you read about in history books, easy to dismiss as fabricated.

      It might be inevitable, but it's absolutely in our best interest to have it happen as slowly as possible. Cities, industries, and crops are where they are; moving them or hardening them is gonna be hella expensive and would be better done over long periods of time

      You're confusing a rate with an amount. While spreading the cost of a move over more years decreases its cost per year (a rate), it doesn't change the total cost of the move (an amount).

      Our infrastructure's lifespan is on the order of 50-100 years. Most concrete and steel structures wear out and need to be refurbished or replaced within that timeframe. So that's the timeframe within which a move will have the lowest total cost. If you go faster, you end up abandoning infrastructure which still has usable lifespan. If you go slower, people (both the complacent and skeptics) end up building new infrastructure in the areas you're trying to abandon long-term.

    16. Re:Yes, The World Is Returning To Normal by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Wow so stupid.
      1. I understand the difference between Climate Change and weather change. Also knowing we have cold spells and warm spells. However navigating the data shows the average climate is getting warmer.
      2. The data is comparing average of orchards output of Apple from 1920 - 1980 then trending them with the rate of change of the number of orchards. Using both sets of data we can see if apple consumption is rising or falling.
      3. One of the ways this is measures is with core samples that spans many thousands of years, not hundreds.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    17. Re:Yes, The World Is Returning To Normal by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      But the sudden deceleration at a low speed will hurt you less.
      The delta of Speed start to speed end is what hurts.
      If you have a slow deceleration you may feel the effect but cause no harm.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    18. Re:Yes, The World Is Returning To Normal by Bryansix · · Score: 1

      Which is mostly cause by this thing called water vapor. What's your point?

    19. Re:Yes, The World Is Returning To Normal by mesterha · · Score: 1

      Our infrastructure's lifespan is on the order of 50-100 years. Most concrete and steel structures wear out and need to be refurbished or replaced within that timeframe.

      While I think this is an interesting perspective, you ignore the impact of new technology. Having to move in 100 years versus 2000 years is a big deal in terms of technology. In 2000 years we've gone from no steel or concrete to skyscrapers and space stations. Who knows what the next 2000 years will bring.

      --

      Chris Mesterharm
    20. Re:Yes, The World Is Returning To Normal by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

      You are a baby boomer.

      Just barely. I'm on the cusp with Gen X, so I'm not only selfish, but I'm a giant pain in the ass too.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    21. Re:Yes, The World Is Returning To Normal by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Ah but will they? For example lets say I don't forgo all kinds of economic opportunities in the name of reducing my carbon foot print - Might my grandchildren be glad I did not squander the family wealth on feel good BS that was likely to have little impact and was able to leave them something as a result?

      Oh, they'll already get a nice piece of change. They're much more likely to wonder why I wasn't more concerned about the fact that the coastal property they inherit is underwater and why they have to run air conditioning 12 months out of year.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    22. Re:Yes, The World Is Returning To Normal by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

      Wrong

    23. Re:Yes, The World Is Returning To Normal by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

      So was making records in 65 million BCE?
      Humans will not survive in current numbers, because arctic tundra will not support the grain harvests now found in the Midwest U.S. Canadian swath

    24. Re:Yes, The World Is Returning To Normal by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      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/...

      Guess what, humans, in fact the whole history of the genus Homo has happened during the current ice age. So maybe that's what we're adapted to.

    25. Re:Yes, The World Is Returning To Normal by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      He'll die happy, you'll die full of hate. Ya, you're the intelligent one.

      Yea, ignorance is bliss ...

      until the shit hits the fan.

    26. Re:Yes, The World Is Returning To Normal by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      IOKIYAR

    27. Re:Yes, The World Is Returning To Normal by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      Climate change this decade, global warming last decade. Make up your minds. What a bunch of hogwash fake science.

      One of the causes of climate change is global warming. Either one is useful in the correct context.

    28. Re:Yes, The World Is Returning To Normal by dryeo · · Score: 1

      Actually, 2000 years ago, the Romans had some pretty good concrete, some of which is still around. Then there was close to 2000 years of no good concrete.
      Perhaps in the same way, we'll regress for a millennia or more. Technological advance has always been in fits and jerks and often with steps backwards.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    29. Re:Yes, The World Is Returning To Normal by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      I hate how many otherwise intelligent people completely misunderstand global warming.

      Including the supposedly intelligent people that insist on calling it Global Warming.

      (Hint: Anthropomorphic Climate Change is what the intelligent people call it. Or just Climate Change.

      You're welcome.

      Hmm... does climate change look like a human?

      anthropomorphic
      anTHrpmôrfik/
      adjective
      adjective: anthropomorphic

              relating to or characterized by anthropomorphism.
                      having human characteristics.
                      "anthropomorphic bears and monkeys"

      The word you're seeking is anthropogenic.

      But anthropogenic global warming is still happening and it is the major cause of anthropogenic climate change.

    30. Re:Yes, The World Is Returning To Normal by dryeo · · Score: 1

      Ice age is defined as times when the polar regions have a permanent ice cover. The Earth has been in an ice age for the last 2.5 million odd years.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    31. Re:Yes, The World Is Returning To Normal by dryeo · · Score: 1

      Humans are the most adaptable animal species that the planet has ever produced.

      Considering how long some animal species have survived, it is going to be a few hundred million years before that can be stated accurately.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    32. Re: Yes, The World Is Returning To Normal by Agent0013 · · Score: 1

      The link in GP would say different.

      --

      -- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
    33. Re: Yes, The World Is Returning To Normal by dryeo · · Score: 1

      Yes, I seemed to have mis-remembered. Also Wiki disagrees with my memory and says ice caps at both poles. Better link, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... which includes this,

      The Current Ice Age has seen extensive ice sheets in Antarctica for the last 34 Ma. During the last 3 Ma ice sheets have also developed on the northern hemisphere. This phase is known as the Quaternary glaciation, and has seen more or less extensive glaciation on 40,000 and later, 100,000 year cycles.

      I guess it is semantics which is hot house earth and ice house earth.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    34. Re:Yes, The World Is Returning To Normal by q_e_t · · Score: 1

      Default temperature as defined where? Is there an operating manual you have?

    35. Re: Yes, The World Is Returning To Normal by q_e_t · · Score: 1

      If you have flooding if y > 15.1, and currently y = sin(x) for x=0 to 2Pi, and it will become 15+sin(x), well, you do the math.

    36. Re:Yes, The World Is Returning To Normal by q_e_t · · Score: 1

      The best thing a person can do to resist climate change is not have any children.

      Excellent. I can assume the moral high ground due to a failure of my loins!

    37. Re: Yes, The World Is Returning To Normal by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      "Science has no room for belief or denial." - Says the AC who's using pseudoscientific talking points to deny the results of a decade long scientific study published in Nature.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    38. Re:Yes, The World Is Returning To Normal by djinn6 · · Score: 1

      You can do even better by actively going out and killing them.

      Or run an abortion clinic. Then you're killing the problem at its roots.

    39. Re:Yes, The World Is Returning To Normal by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      if you fell at a slower speed than a feather dropping to the ground, you've more than likely bounce a bit and not die

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    40. Re:Yes, The World Is Returning To Normal by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      "Catastrophic deceleration does" - that implies speed. If i had to be hit by a car, I think i'd prefer to be hit by a car doing 5 mph than a car doing 50 mph

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    41. Re:Yes, The World Is Returning To Normal by djinn6 · · Score: 1

      The Rate of global warming is the biggest issue.

      In the short term. At some point, the absolute temperature is going to cause problems. Even now, humans are on the verge of not being able to live near the equator. They're forced indoors or underground during the hottest parts of the day. If the temperature went up by another 10 degrees Celsius, it will not be survivable.

    42. Re:Yes, The World Is Returning To Normal by DarkOx · · Score: 2, Insightful

      f you're so stupid that you think protecting the environment will sacrifice the well-being of your children, then your children would be better off if you slit your own throat.

      No see the difference between you me and you apparently is that I actually understand ecology, economics, and don't make purely emotional decisions. Protecting the environment really comes down to a function of people per area. There really isn't any bigger driver of environmental impact. Yes I want a country where there are large wildreness areas where my kids can enjoy. Where we maintain a little bio-diversity. Where we they can go hiking and fishing etc. Guess what carbon foot print has very little to do with that.

      Population has EVERYTHING to do with it. The biggest threat to our environment today in the United States is IMMIGRATION! Don't care if your Republican, Democrat, other. If you not in favor of curbing immigration you are on the wrong side of the environmental issue whatever other policy you might support.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    43. Re:Yes, The World Is Returning To Normal by q_e_t · · Score: 1

      It's been called climate change since the 1950s.

    44. Re:Yes, The World Is Returning To Normal by q_e_t · · Score: 1

      By number, the majority of sensing locations are not near airports. Many are in the sea, for example. Some are in space. Very few modern jets go in either of those places. By very few, I mean none.

    45. Re:Yes, The World Is Returning To Normal by q_e_t · · Score: 1

      But the sudden deceleration at a low speed will hurt you less.

      Hint: at a lower speed, the deceleration is almost always lless.

      The delta of Speed start to speed end is what hurts.

      Doh! No, it's delta(speed)/time.

    46. Re:Yes, The World Is Returning To Normal by q_e_t · · Score: 1

      You can do even better by actively going out and killing them.

      Killing my loins? Or are you getting confused with lions?

    47. Re:Yes, The World Is Returning To Normal by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Population has EVERYTHING to do with it. The biggest threat to our environment today in the United States is IMMIGRATION! Don't care if your Republican, Democrat, other. If you not in favor of curbing immigration you are on the wrong side of the environmental issue whatever other policy you might support.

      Do you understand that the environment does not respect borders? A wall doesn't keep out greenhouse gases, and lead found off the South bank of a river is also found off the North bank of a river.

      I find it amusing that so many people like you who have such self-important opinions about immigration and porous borders have never lived anywhere near a border.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    48. Re:Yes, The World Is Returning To Normal by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      Do you understand that the environment does not respect borders?

      And yet you can look at a lot of international boarders and littler see the environmental impacts of their polices from SPACE. So actually to a large degree it does.

      A wall doesn't keep out greenhouse gases

      That much is true but Mountain ranges other barriers do provide a significant obstruction of smog and other pollutants. By a large an increase in greenhouse gas content won't have severely negative impacts for the United States. There will be some effects but nothing that can't be adapted to and it may even prove to be of some benefit.

       

      lead found off the South bank of a river is also found off the North bank of a river

      Yet contaminates of that nature rarely flow UP stream. So other than some places on the Mexico boarder; also of minimal concern.

      Sorry your arguments are simply not convincing. A fortress America policy really does likely promise our people the best future.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    49. Re:Yes, The World Is Returning To Normal by q_e_t · · Score: 1

      If you consider normal as "the way it had mostly been" then normal does not include multicellular life, let alone humans.

    50. Re:Yes, The World Is Returning To Normal by q_e_t · · Score: 1

      But the thought of cramping my current lifestyle for something that may happen well after I"m dead, doesn't really motivate me, you know?

      This is one of the issues in terms of getting people to take action. I don't have a lavish lifestyle, but I could do more, but I'm lazy. There is a philosophical issue: do the unborn generations to come have any rights? Even if you contend they do not, some may be harmed sooner: can they sue?

    51. Re:Yes, The World Is Returning To Normal by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

      Just picking a nit here, we had steel and concrete 2000 years ago.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    52. Re:Yes, The World Is Returning To Normal by mesterha · · Score: 1

      I picked 2000 years since that is about when it was invented according to https://www.explainthatstuff.c... I guess that's not the most accurate site. I also choose 2000 years since that's a decent bound on the number of years it should have taken to see the temperature change we've seen in the last 100 years. 2500 is also probably correct and might have been close enough to satisfy you nit pickers.

      --

      Chris Mesterharm
  3. Obvious solution by TimMD909 · · Score: 3, Funny

    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.

    1. Re:Obvious solution by Freischutz · · Score: 2

      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.

      Don't forget the BB gun.

    2. Re:Obvious solution by bobbied · · Score: 1

      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.

      Don't forget the BB gun.

      He didn't, but dropped it after the first shot..

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    3. Re:Obvious solution by Drethon · · Score: 1

      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.

      Don't forget the BB gun.

      He didn't, but dropped it after the first shot..

      Just use a shotgun, will get you back to earth in one cartridge even if you drop it.

    4. Re:Obvious solution by tkotz · · Score: 1

      They raised a lot of Chicago about a whole story in the 1850's. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      Raising a city 6" at a time is probably not worth it. Raising it 200ft all at once is probably also a no go, but raising it 10 feet every couple centuries to keep the floor from getting wet is probably do able. And probably what we would see over time if a better solution is not reached.

      An interesting thing is if the water level rose 200' the George Washington Bridge would still be above the water, just barely.

    5. Re:Obvious solution by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      People shouldn't build along coastlines. They destroy the marsh/swamplands which act as buffers for flooding. The regular flooding in Brooklyn is due to this. Global warming only makes it worse.

    6. Re:Obvious solution by jbengt · · Score: 1

      In many if not most cases, they didn't raise buildings. They just filled in streets, created vaulted sidewalks, and changed the name of the "ground floor" to "basement".

  4. how terrible. by fish_in_the_c · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:how terrible. by gtall · · Score: 2

      Errr...because people have sons, daughters, grand-children, great-grand children, humanity, non-human critters, etc.?

    2. Re:how terrible. by Drethon · · Score: 2

      Possibly the same reason why anyone does the right thing, our own sense of morality? Weather the source of that morality is attributed to our religion, our sense of society, family or simply a personal decision to do what we feel is the right thing, all humans have a moral compass that may or may nor work correctly relative to the societal norms.

    3. Re: how terrible. by fish_in_the_c · · Score: 1

      I've alway found your correct and astute observation interesting. All humans have a moral compass, which may or may not be in agreement with others. The thing is where does that compass come from and how do we decide if we should follow it or ignore it because it is faulty. Should we apply logic? Science? Or just do whatever we feel so long as we accept the outcome? Logically it makes a great deal of difference if our compass exist because there is some greater reality it evolved or was creatededited to point too or if it is merely an illusion of are nervous system that exists as a happenstance of our biology. If the former it is evidence for the existence of god. If the latter logically we should exclude any action as irrelevant if they do not personally effect us.

      --
      âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.
    4. Re: how terrible. by fish_in_the_c · · Score: 1

      Which is relevant in what way after you are dead unless you are somehow conscious of it? So do you think most people would be highly motivated or not much by a remote possible future threat to there grand or great grandchildren. Also would such a response be reasonable or simply irrational emotionalism? The latter probably isn't a good foundation for discussion just global economic systems.

      --
      âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.
    5. Re: how terrible. by fish_in_the_c · · Score: 1

      Agreed.

      --
      âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.
    6. Re:how terrible. by amiga3D · · Score: 1, Insightful

      To make any difference requires a drastic change in modern lifestyles. I mean massive and complete change in how modern man lives. Given that you can't convince a majority of people to give up their cars, air conditioning, beef and hundreds of other things that would have to go plus do something about population growth I don't see any real solution. A global thermonuclear war might solve it but that brings it's own problems. Without a world government exercising dictatorial and draconian laws we're on a course for a hotter planet. That or maybe technology will save us. People watching GW advocates like Gore travel the world in a private jet and living in a mansion the size of a small town aren't going to give up modern luxuries.

    7. Re: how terrible. by fish_in_the_c · · Score: 2

      Anyone who believe that the 'end times' somehow releaves them of there moral obligation should read there bible. As 'no one knows the time and hour' Mathew 24

      Certainly caring for God's creation is one of the prime obligation placed on those who are supposed to be doing all good until his return.

      http://w2.vatican.va/content/f...

      This some it up well.

      --
      âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.
    8. Re:how terrible. by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      We could fix this by totally backing away from the modern lifestyle and living the Amish life, spending our days doing backbreaking manual farm work and living by candlelight. We could even go to a vegan lifestyle, though that would mean no candles either.

      OR... we could replace our fossil fuel baseload with nuclear, electrify transportation and go on living normal 21st-century lives. The choice is ours.

    9. Re: how terrible. by barakn · · Score: 1

      Stop trying to imagine how atheists feel or think. You're just fucking wrong.

      --
      "I'm so moist I'm sticking to the leather." -Kermit the Frog on The Late Late Show
    10. Re: how terrible. by tbannist · · Score: 1

      You are mistaken logically, from athiestic world view, the only things that can matter to you are things that affect you.

      Do you really think it's a good idea to publicly admit to everyone that you've never heard of philosophy? Because the only way your ridiculous claims can make any sense what so ever, is if you are completely ignorant of the existence of philosophy.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    11. Re: how terrible. by fish_in_the_c · · Score: 1

      I'm not imagining how anyone feels who doesn't talk about feelings. I'm talking about what is rational, logical, and concrete and the natural conclusion of specific premises.

      --
      âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.
    12. Re:how terrible. by tbannist · · Score: 1

      To make any difference requires a drastic change in modern lifestyles. I mean massive and complete change in how modern man lives.

      Not really, much of people's impact on greenhouse gas emissions come from transportation and electricity generation. We do not need to eliminate all emissions, we just need to reach a point where we are not rapidly increasing the levels. It's entirely possible to reduce that without dramatic or draconian changes.

      Given that you can't convince a majority of people to give up their cars, air conditioning, beef and hundreds of other things that would have to go plus do something about population growth I don't see any real solution.

      You don't need to do that. Electric cars can be powered by solar and wind energy. Air conditioning is most necessary on sunny days, which means there's solar power to power the air conditioners. Population growth problem may solve itself, some predictions guess that the global population might fall to 3.5 billion by 2200 with no specific intervention. A different alternative suggests that the global population may stabilize around 10 billion and stay there. But the run-away population growth scenario doesn't seem like a reasonable projection given that birth rates fall as women are educated. Western democracies are largely not having children at a rate high enough to sustain their population.

      A global thermonuclear war might solve it but that brings it's own problems. Without a world government exercising dictatorial and draconian laws we're on a course for a hotter planet.

      A world government would only be needed if the world ends up having to go to war to stop the polluter nations. If every country voluntarily reduces it's emissions there will be no need for an enforced solution.

      That or maybe technology will save us.

      There is some hope on that front. There was a paper not so long ago about an improved way to extract CO2 from the atmosphere in a way that is nearly profitable now, and could become profitable without subsidies in the future. So it appears there's more potential there than previously thought.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    13. Re: how terrible. by fish_in_the_c · · Score: 1

      You seem to disagree with obvios logic. So provery me wrong.

        Can you name a single thing that has no effect on you and explain why it _must_ matter to you? Remember having knowledgeable about a thing is an effect.

      --
      âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.
    14. Re:how terrible. by Mab_Mass · · Score: 1

      To make any difference requires a drastic change in modern lifestyles. I mean massive and complete change in how modern man lives.

      No.

      Also, no.

      This is a horrid straw man argument that is getting rather tiresome. Yes, there will have to be large-scale changes, but in the end, everybody can still have a nice, comfortable modern lifestyle. There will be changes, of course, but they are hardly "drastic" lifestyle changes.

      You may not be able to eat beef 7 days a week for a pittance, but there will still be beef.

      You're car won't go VROOM and emit a cloud of smoke, but you can still have a car powered by alternate energies.

      Likewise industries, etc. will be powered differently, but you won't be able to tell by looking at them.

      It also turns out that the best way to combat population growth is simple, cheap, and a good idea anyway - educate girls in developing countries and provide them with a higher standard of living.

      Don't get me wrong - I don't think that this is easy. Quite the contrary (especially with the current US political climate), but to just throw your hands up and say that it is impossible shows a remarkable lack of imagination.

    15. Re: how terrible. by fish_in_the_c · · Score: 1

      Yes many of them. Used to know more of them when I lived in the north east. Most atheist I have met have never really thought out the logic of what they believe and live life driven more by emotion then rational thought. Not that there aren't just as many detest in that boat. Although many of them like to imagine or claim they live rationally. Most become quite uncomfortable when you point out the basic consequences of the atheistic hypothesis and it logical realactions to ethics. That is not to say all. I've met some very few well thought out atheist who accept the full consequences of what they believe.

      --
      âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.
    16. Re: how terrible. by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      people pick and choose bits of the old and new testaments as they see fit to match their preconceptions. Whether or not he was real few people seem to give a rate arse about what Jesus said.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    17. Re: how terrible. by Drethon · · Score: 1

      Honestly I typically go by logic and try to calibrate my compass based on what benefits the majority of first people, second animals and third the earth, regardless of how it makes me feel. I've found other people's opinion (elders, educators but also anyone in general) helps to form ideas but I also often have to account for the possibility that their opinions are based a lot on self interest, which is not necessarily a bad thing. For a long time, humanity survived in a condition of scarcity so the selfish communities were the ones to survive the hard times. Today though, this selfishness isn't really needed for survival and leads to failing to see the long term needs of humanity as a whole. Because of this I don't think many people are truly what could be considered evil but are more concerned with their survival, or the survival of their "tribe", against threats that may not exist anymore.

      So for me, trying to understand morality is not about understanding why people do the right thing but what is the motivation for doing things some people consider to be wrong, and if these behaviors are truly wrong in how the actions impact other people or if there is a reason why it may be the right thing for that person and situation. I think trying to get someone to do the right thing is kind of futile, when to them it is the right thing. Sometimes we can help them see other perspectives on their actions but that may not always work.

    18. Re:how terrible. by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      Actually poor people may be better able to survive in a war ravaged world. They've already figured out how to survive on a bare minimum anyway. Most wealthy people have so much stuff done for them that they don't have a good handle on how to survive if things go south. All the wealth in the world won't do you a bit of good if there's no underlying society to provide the goods you need to survive.

    19. Re:how terrible. by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      It would help to move away from fossil fuels true, but it will NOT solve global warming. And we are at best 3-5 decades from being fossil fuel free worldwide. At best we might only end up with 100 feet of sea level rise in the next century or so instead of 200 feet. Personally, if I had any high dollar oceanfront property I'd sell it now.

    20. Re:how terrible. by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      You can't comprehend what you read. Man you're stupid.

    21. Re:how terrible. by amiga3D · · Score: 2

      I look at the levels of carbon being released yearly into the atmosphere and I see no slow down globally. Many western nations are cleaning up their act but globally the numbers are rising, not dropping. Solar and WInd power are starting to be implemented but we are nowhere near replacing fossil fuels. Globally somewhere around 25% of greenhouse gas emissions are from electricity and heat production. Industry is responsible for 21%. Agriculture, Forestry and other land use another 24%. Transportation is 14% and home activity such as cooking and heating (I assume fireplaces and such) pull down another 6%. So if we eliminate carbon in electrical generation and transportation amounts that to about 40% of the problem solved. If we get rid of ALL of that we still have a huge year over year carbon increase. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for it. I just don't see it happening in less than 30 to 50 years. Meanwhile ice keeps melting and seas keep rising. Don't buy any beach front property.

    22. Re: how terrible. by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      You just said that Jesus is on the side of Liberal

      No not "on the side of" he was one, and a radical to boot.

      The one thing Jesus wasn't was a conservative.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    23. Re:how terrible. by Misagon · · Score: 1

      At international conferences, there have indeed been a lot of squabble about how much "climate debt" the developed world has ... as an argument from less developed countries to be be allowed to emit more greenhouse gases.
      None of that is productive, of course. We need to realise that it is too late for those kinds of demands. Instead we should focus on the cost: that countries closer to the equator -- which are often the poorer and the least developed, are going to be hit the hardest.
      We should be in "damage control" mode already!

      Keep in mind that every action we do to affect emissions and the climate has a ~30-year delay before any effect can be measured.

      --
      "We mustn't be caught by surprise by our own advancing technology" -- Aldous Huxley
    24. Re:how terrible. by Misagon · · Score: 1

      Not more drastic than what lifestyle has changed in the last thirty years.
      Greenhouse gas emissions are seriously higher now than they were in the '80s.
      The current generation eats more red meat than their parents. People fly more, drive more and consumer goods are produced in far-away countries with more lax emission laws and then they are shipped to the West by boats or planes running on oil.
      The diet of the current Western world is leading to more heart disease, which is a good reason to reduce consumption of red meat anyway. Production overseas costs jobs locally.

      And you can't say that the average American or European had a low standard of living back in the 1980s.

      --
      "We mustn't be caught by surprise by our own advancing technology" -- Aldous Huxley
    25. Re:how terrible. by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      Remember when we talked about ozone depletion in the same apocalyptic terms?

    26. Re: how terrible. by tbannist · · Score: 1

      No, I'm not going to play your childish games. Go educate yourself, read at least an introductory book on philosophy and when you have some iota of knowledge relevant to the discussion maybe you won't be a complete waste of time and space.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    27. Re: how terrible. by fish_in_the_c · · Score: 1

      Sorry you have seen terrible things done in the name of God. So have I. May God blessed you on your journey and lead you to truth. I was once an agnostic, it isn't very satisfying to live in a world were morality might not exist.

      You write as if people feel in a vacuum. But feelings are always responses to perceptions.

      A person must value something and without dependance on a transcendent absolute what you value becomes utterly arbitrary.

      If a person accepts the strong atheistic hypothesis then all morality is adaptive response to evolutionary forces and utterly arbitrary.

      --
      âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.
    28. Re:how terrible. by Truth_Quark · · Score: 1

      Are you serious?

      Republican voting southern USA living religious people are the backbone of the inaction on climate change movement.

      Christian climate scientists like Dr Hayhoe are considered rare and an asset for climate science communication.

      Religious people tend to relax in the knowledge that in heaven everything will be fine, and after Kingdom Come, everything will be made fine on earth. They're fucking dangerous.

      The reason that people with no faith tend to care about climate science and the environment in general, is because they're more likely to be scientifically minded, and more likely to think about responsibility and ethics.

      Motivating people to action involves getting it through their dumb-arse religious heads that despite what they're told by people paid by the fossil fuel industry, that there's a problem, and there are many things that are cheaper in the long term that adaptation to the impacts.

      Ensuring that we do no disenfranchise the poor, globally speaking is trivial. The poor, it turns out, will bear the brunt of the impacts. So any action reduces the injustice that is inflicted on them.

      On a national level, there's solutions offered that aren't regressive. Dr James Hansen has been supporting the fee and dividend as a solution. I don't think Jim is a theist.

  5. Awesome by AlanObject · · Score: 2

    Those Chinese hoaxers. They sure know their stuff don't they?

  6. Flase Summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    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.

    1. Re:Flase Summary by jbengt · · Score: 1

      "Margin of Error" is not synonymous with "Just as Likely".

  7. Alarmist much? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1, Insightful

    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!
    1. Re:Alarmist much? by MobyDisk · · Score: 5, Informative

      So which is it?

      The NASA article is dated Oct 2015, and it claims that the gains in West Antarctica outweigh the losses in East Antarctica. The Nature article is dated 2018, it specifically addresses the NASA data, and claims that they have even better analysis of the satellite information. This is what peer review is for. Hopefully NASA was consulted in this paper.

    2. Re:Alarmist much? by MobyDisk · · Score: 2

      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...

      You shouldn't, because you may not need more accuracy than that. If you had an army of 5000 soldiers, and your spies reported that the advancing army had 50,000 +/- 30,000 soldiers, would you send them back out for a more accurate count? No, you would pack up and run. Yes, the confidence interval is greater than the raw number. But it clearly isn't worth going back and getting an accurate count.

      In science, the idea isn't to only publish when you have certainty. The idea is to publish when you have valid data that can be used to advance the state of the art. This is a starting point for discussion, further studies, more funding, etc.

    3. Re:Alarmist much? by njvack · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Okay, I'll bite.

      The two studies do indeed contradict each other. They use different methodologies. The Journal of Glaciology "Antarctica has been gaining mass" presser linked there (here's the paper, I believe) appears to use altimeter measurements alone, while the Nature paper uses a combination of altimeter data, gravimetry, and the "input-output" method which appears to estimate glacier melt and snow accumulation more directly. (You may have paywalls, I'm at a university.) Which paper to trust? I'm not a glaciologist, I can't answer that.

      And yeah, the confidence intervals in the Nature paper are kind of wide. Measuring the mass of ice on a sparsely-populated continent is actually pretty hard, I suspect. But an estimate at either end of the CI still means you're losing a bunch of ice. With your engineer... I'd hope your response would depend on what question you were asking. Are 0 and 100 both numbers you can deal with? Is your acceptable range 40 – 60, or -1000 – 1000? Raw numbers are meaningless without context.

      The main takeaway from the two papers are kind of similar, though. There's a LOT of ice in Antarctica. Sea levels are, right now, measurably rising — I mean, "FLOODING" is happening in coastal communities now. Dealing with it is really expensive. If Antarctica's ice melts faster, we'll see more flooding, sooner. If your argument is "increased global temperatures will increase Antarctic snowfall enough to more than offset faster melting," sure, make that argument, but the scientist in the NASA press release you linked to says the exact opposite:

      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.

    4. Re:Alarmist much? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1, Informative

      If you look at the list of references for this Nature article, they ignored the NASA paper. And I still wonder how anyone can take the Nature paper seriously when you have a 100% tolerance range (2720 +/- 1390).

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    5. Re:Alarmist much? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      I am curious about the accuracy of gravimetry, now that we know there is an active magma chamber under Western Antarctica. Given the density of molten rock is ~2.3 times that of water, it would take very little shifts in the magma chamber to create much larger, apparent changes in the ice levels.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    6. Re:Alarmist much? by mesterha · · Score: 1

      Oops. Set the moderation wrong. I guess this is the only way to undo.

      --

      Chris Mesterharm
    7. Re:Alarmist much? by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      wrong, article is equivalent of saying 50 +/- 50 soldiers are coming. in other words, it is useless bullshit.

      credible studies show antarctic ice *growing*, I'll believe NASA over *nature* alarmist hippies any day of the week

    8. Re:Alarmist much? by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      First that was from 10 years ago. Secondly, if you read it, you will see that the CENTER is gaining ice, as it should if humidity increases in the air. Lo and Behold, with the melting on the edges, that is EXACTLY what is happening. So, the major increase was back in the 90s and then slowed down in the 00s.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    9. Re:Alarmist much? by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      If you had read the article, it was about NASA data from 1992 until 2008. That was actually a long time ago.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    10. Re:Alarmist much? by barakn · · Score: 1

      Classic. An AC claiming that 2720 -1390 = 0. And then calling someone else out for "third grade arithmetic skills." Run along, little second-grader.

      --
      "I'm so moist I'm sticking to the leather." -Kermit the Frog on The Late Late Show
    11. Re:Alarmist much? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      The Nature article claims losses every year over that 1992 to 2008 period, and NASA says "nope". So for the 1992 to 2008 period, who do you believe? If you believe NASA, then automatically you need to take the Nature article's conclusions for time periods outside that range with a huge grain of salt. If you believe the Nature article, then why do they disagree so extremely with NASA?

      As Mark Knopfler so eloquently wrote "Two men say they're Jesus one of them must be wrong". Well - we have two groups saying diametrically opposed things for the same period - one of them MUST be wrong. The question is - which one, or is it both?

      I know for me, tolerance ranges of 110% of nominal value lead me to cast a VERY skeptical eye on the Nature article. How good is their data when they have such a high range to start with, especially when we're talking about values that are on the order of 0.01% of the measured total mass in the first place (the total mass of ice in Antarctica is about 10,000 times that of what they are estimating). When your estimate has such a huge tolerance window, and it is for an extremely tiny amount of the whole - what does that tell you about the overall confidence of the estimate?

      It's like your bank telling you that your account is draining at a massive rate, because it should be $10,000 and they believe it is now $9,999, give or take $1.10. I personally would question them about how they can have such a wide window in the first place before I consider any caution they offer me about the rate of change...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    12. Re:Alarmist much? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Nature claims it lost ice every year from 1994 to 2008. NASA says no, it accumulated ice every year from 1994 to 2008. Which one is right? Answer that first before you go any further, please - because the path you take will be DRAMATICALLY different based upon who is correct.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    13. Re:Alarmist much? by tbannist · · Score: 1

      wrong, article is equivalent of saying 50 +/- 50 soldiers are coming.

      The article says 1330 to 4110.

      Why make up numbers when they're right there?

      You should be able to tell that since 2720 is larger than 1390 that zero can not fall into the range of 2720 +/- 1390.

      Since this is basic addition and subtraction, it's practically inconceivable that you screwed it up instead of simply choosing to lie to people. Of course, if you did screw it up, then you are so incompetent that you should think long and hard about whether you should post anything anywhere ever again. It might be for the best if you simply destroyed your keyboard, so you can prevent yourself from giving those nice Nigerian Princes all the money that you have left.

      in other words, it is useless bullshit.

      No as demonstrated above, you are useless bullshit.

      credible studies show antarctic ice *growing*,

      No, actually they don't.

      I'll believe NASA over *nature* alarmist hippies any day of the week

      If you think Nature is run by "hippies" then you're both ignorant and delusional.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    14. Re:Alarmist much? by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

      I know for me, tolerance ranges of 110% of nominal value lead me to cast a VERY skeptical eye on the Nature article

      What is the tolerance range of the NASA article? The one you linked to doesn't say. Right now, you are comparing a paper with little more than a press release, then looking at one number and discarding the paper.

    15. Re:Alarmist much? by riverat1 · · Score: 2

      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?

      Boy, you're just in love with that Zwally paper, aren't you? Even to the point of ignoring the caveats that Zwally himself put on it.

    16. Re:Alarmist much? by Namarrgon · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
    17. Re:Alarmist much? by q_e_t · · Score: 1

      50 +- 50 means, on average 50. That's not useless.

    18. Re:Alarmist much? by swillden · · Score: 1

      If you look at the list of references for this Nature article, they ignored the NASA paper.

      It's #74 in the references.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    19. Re:Alarmist much? by q_e_t · · Score: 1

      I suspect you have misinterpreted the information from NASA. Can you post what you think NASA has said so we can interpret it correctly for you?

    20. Re:Alarmist much? by q_e_t · · Score: 1

      NASA or Nature. It's not very likely that they are at odds, but the exact meaning matters.

    21. Re:Alarmist much? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1
      Perhaps you will come to a different conclusion, but it seems unequivocal to me:

      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

      Every year, from 1992 to 2008, Antarctica added 82 to 112 billion tons of ice. They are completely at odds with each other.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    22. Re:Alarmist much? by q_e_t · · Score: 1

      You are correct, that is what it says. What it says in detail is a bit more nuanced - it agrees with most studies, that most areas of Antarctica have been losing ice mass (continental ice - sea ice extents are not covered here) but that those areas assumed by other studies as well to have been gaining ice, have been gaining more than assumed. But if this is the case it is Good News (tm). However, one study does not a summer make, but corroboration that this is the case would be nice (but only if that is what the evidence supports). If Antartica really is gaining ice, that's great, especially given it means that other sources of sea level rise must be quite significant and taking the edge off is helpful.

      Zwally said: Lead Author Jay Zwally: "I Know Some Of The Climate Deniers Will Jump On This," But "It Should Not Take Away From The Concern About Climate Warming."

      The study is at odds with dozens of others. Since the original report was from 2015, hopefully there has been more analysis of the paper, and the original and more data by now, so we might be able to confirm the trend, or new analyses might have confirmed previous research. This link might be interestin: http://www.realclimate.org/ind...

    23. Re:Alarmist much? by q_e_t · · Score: 1

      The long and short of it seems to be that the validity of Zwally depends on how accurate compaction profiles used, and the correction of instrument biases are. There may be concerns that the sensitivity to one or more may be sufficiently high to be unsure of the analysis - i.e. large errors.

    24. Re:Alarmist much? by Truth_Quark · · Score: 1
      The Journal of Glaciology published a comment on the NASA paper that you link to.
      It's worth noting, because the result is an outlier.

      The comment begins:

      We have significant concerns with a study recently published in the Journal of Glaciology by Zwally and others (2015), hereafter ‘Zwally 2015’. The paper concludes that the Antarctic ice-sheet mass is increasing, a result that is inconsistent with a large body of previously published work.

  8. Flyover country = Safe country. by Seven+Spirals · · Score: 1, Troll

    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?

    1. Re:Flyover country = Safe country. by Patent+Lover · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well, at least they'll bring in some tax revenue so that you can keep your schools open a full 5 days a week.

    2. Re:Flyover country = Safe country. by Seven+Spirals · · Score: 1

      Nah, Mister Coward. I'll keep doing all the fun outdoor activities we have in abundance (you know, the things you come for vacation to do?) while you wallow in your filthy cities, breathing pollution, drinking lead, shaking your finger at each other while dodging traffic and running your rat races. However, I can tell you one thing I plan to do consistently and fervently: Vote. You fuckers got all teary and pissed in 2016, and I'll be laughing at you just as hard in the next election as you are dying your hair purple and screaming about your rights to each other's crowded faces. Oh and when you need to buy some real estate in "the desert" we'll all be here to sell it to you at 10x the price. kthnxbye.

  9. Perspective on ice mass loss .01% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    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/

    1. Re:Perspective on ice mass loss .01% by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

      Even with a accelerating melt, there will be most all of the ice in 250 years,

      That's not what the article is about. They aren't saying Antarctica will run out of ice.

    2. Re:Perspective on ice mass loss .01% by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      But the AC makes a good point - when their tolerance levels are literally 100% of the estimate, how do they first get to any confidence about a one hundredth of a percent change in the measurement? Think about it. They are measuring the overall change in mass of the entire thing. They are stating that they can accurately measure the ice to 0.01%. So their measurement, in effect, is "it has lost 0.01% +/- 0.01%". Which is, in fact, a measurement of nothing.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    3. Re:Perspective on ice mass loss .01% by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

      No, they aren't. The sea level rise has nothing to do with the amount of ice remaining in Antarctica. And the article doesn't say 200 feet of sea level change. Stop making up stuff.

    4. Re:Perspective on ice mass loss .01% by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

      You are comparing the tolerance range of one number to a conclusion about something irrelevant. If my oven temperature is 450F +/- 250F, and the cook time is 20 hours +/- 10, I guarantee you the chicken will be hot. You can't just dismiss the entire thing because of one tolerance range on one number.

  10. In addition, ice shelfs are freezing, not melting. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    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.

  11. show some damn respect, son! by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    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

  12. Re:MOD PARENT DOWN by polar+red · · Score: 1

    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?
  13. 10 degrees more and I am not afraid by eminencja · · Score: 2

    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.

  14. too late already. by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    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.
    1. Re:too late already. by CaffeinatedBacon · · Score: 1

      China still uses less coal electricity than America per person, along with less natural gas, and oil. Face it Windy, Americans use much more fossil fuels than Chinese people. It just looks like you are greener because there are less than a quarter as many of you.
      CO2 per person America is still at the very top.
      You should be focused on bringing America down to more sustainable levels, not blaming China for slowly catching up to you.

  15. Total Ice Mass Gain/Loss NASA 2015 by Tulsa_Time · · Score: 1

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

    --
    5 out of 6 people enjoy Russian Roulette & 6 out of 7 Dwarfs are not Happy
  16. Re:Please, not to worry by barakn · · Score: 1

    So we should endanger the planet because of your sense of incredulity? Because of your obviously wrong notions of how much CO2 we've produced? Because you've overestimated the amount of variation in the power provided by the sun, which varies so little it is called the Solar Constant?

    --
    "I'm so moist I'm sticking to the leather." -Kermit the Frog on The Late Late Show
  17. It's a bell curve by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

    53 +/- 29, so it is just as likely to be 82 as 53 as 24

    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!
  18. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  19. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  20. I doubt it by AndyKron · · Score: 1

    Good. Hopefully we'll learn a lesson from all of this but I doubt it.

  21. If you think Millennials by nehumanuscrede · · Score: 1

    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*

  22. Re:Citation needed by riverat1 · · Score: 1

    According to Wikipedia the Antarctic ice sheet contains 26,500,000 km^3 of ice. According to Wikipedia the area of the world's oceans is 360,000,000 km^2. Dividing 26,500,000 by 360,000,000 gives you 0.0736111 kilometers which is about 241.5 feet. Since the oceans will spread out as they rise they end up rising around 200 feet.

  23. Re:Moron much? by q_e_t · · Score: 1

    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.

    Which study is the outlier here?

  24. So is the Piri Reis map accurate or not by pgmrdlm · · Score: 1

    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