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?
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.
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.
Those Chinese hoaxers. They sure know their stuff don't they?
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.
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.
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.
Well, at least they'll bring in some tax revenue so that you can keep your schools open a full 5 days a week.
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:
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.
If you are reading this, you were born during an ice age
Come on, not everybody here is my age.
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.
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.
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