Slashdot Mirror


Why Antarctica Is Getting Taller (livescience.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Live Science: Bedrock under Antarctica is rising more swiftly than ever recorded -- about 1.6 inches (41 millimeters) upward per year. And thinning ice in Antarctica may be responsible. That's because as ice melts, its weight on the rock below lightens. And over time, when enormous quantities of ice have disappeared, the bedrock rises in response, pushed up by the flow of the viscous mantle below Earth's surface, scientists reported in a new study. These uplifting findings are both bad news and good news for the frozen continent. The good news is that the uplift of supporting bedrock could make the remaining ice sheets more stable. The bad news is that in recent years, the rising earth has probably skewed satellite measurements of ice loss, leading researchers to underestimate the rate of vanishing ice by as much as 10 percent, the scientists reported. The findings were published in the journal Science.

31 of 62 comments (clear)

  1. Re: So, no Climate Warming? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Are you being serious? If you are, then your conclusion is alarmingly contrary to the actual information in the article. Theyâ(TM)ve discovered that their measurements were underestimating ice loss, not overestimating it.

  2. Re: So, no Climate Warming? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Like the North American continent, Antartica is rising in response to the end of the last ice age. That's not due to AGW in any meaningful way. However, the recent loss of antartic ice may be more severe then measured, and the recent loss of ice is significantly impacted by climate change in the last 100 years, which appears to be strongly affected by human behavior.

  3. Likely effect on surrounding plates? by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Seems like this much mass moving would have an effect on the surrounding plates.

    It's currently subducting under the south american plate.
    Seems like it could snap off and cause tsunami's along thousands of miles of south american coast line.

    It interacts with six other plates in total.

    --
    She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    1. Re:Likely effect on surrounding plates? by pk001i · · Score: 5, Informative

      Geophysicist here. Typically this sort of vertical place motion is slow. It is known as isostatic rebound, or post-glacial rebound, and it is pretty common. In fact, parts of north america and northern europe are still rebounding from when the glaciers melted after the last ice age. The uplift rate here is 41mm/year, which is high for this sort of thing, but it is not going have that great of an impact when you consider that the lithosphere (plate plus the upper solid mantle) is 50-150km thick. 41mm/ys is roughly the same rate fingernails grow. As far as I know an entire plate shearing off has never occcured, and seems pretty hard for me to imagine. Of the 6 plates it interacts with, 5 of those are ridges, where new plate is formed, and the last is a short section of subduction, where the antarctic plate is beaing pushed underneath the south american plate. Patagonian volcanoes are the result of this subduction, just like the volcanoes in the pacific northwest. While tsunamis can be generated here, they will happen the old fashioned way, where a large earthquake occurs and a small portion of the seafloor lifts up a bit.

      --
      Opinions were like kittens, I was giving them away.
    2. Re: Likely effect on surrounding plates? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Great, someone with knowledge in the field. A chance to ask a question.

      If Antarctica rises, does something else shrink? E.g. does the sea floor around Antarctica get lower? I'm guessing so because earth is probably relatively incompressible. Also, if I'm squeezing an orange that's more or less what's happening there, too.

      If true, what's the effect on sea levels?

    3. Re:Likely effect on surrounding plates? by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      Thanks!

      I'm assuming that end of the higher plate will rise some too then?

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
  4. Re:So, no Climate Warming? by 50000BTU_barbecue · · Score: 1

    Water is frozen at -20 C? Yes? Is it also frozen at -18 C? Yes? But it's warmer.

    --
    Mostly random stuff.
  5. Re: So, no Climate Warming? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Like the North American continent, Antartica is rising in response to the end of the last ice age.

    I don't think so. Antarctica is so cold that most moisture condenses and falls as snow over the floating ice pack, and little reaches the interior. Warming temperatures mean that more snow falls further inland, over continental ice, thickening the ice.

    TFA only measured the area around the Amundsen Sea in West Antarctica, which is warmer and closer to the coast than the much larger East Antarctic ice sheet.

  6. Skee-Lo ponders... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    So now Antarctica wishes it was a baller?

  7. Re: So, no Climate Warming? by ole_timer · · Score: 4, Interesting

    According to Robert Rhode, a noted climate change PhD - "Even in the event of severe sustained warming, it would take many thousands of years for Eastern Antarctica to be fully deglaciated." - most of the ice is in the east.

    --
    nothing to see here - move along
  8. Re:So, no Climate Warming? by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I knew all along it was a scam.

    The scam is not the effect of GHGs on global temperature, which is old and well-established theory. It's the hijacking of the issue by apocalyptic radicals pushing a misanthropic agenda. Don't you wonder why any real-world solution, whether it's on the carbon emission side or on the sequestration side, gets automatically rejected?

  9. Re:So, no Climate Warming? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Don't you wonder why any real-world solution, whether it's on the carbon emission side or on the sequestration side, gets automatically rejected?

    Automatically rejected only by the other side.

    You seem to be in the clan that thinks people are intelligent, and that given the proper information in an objective way, they'll make a proper, rational decision.

    Reality check: They're not, and they won't.

    There's only one thing to do with the clueless masses: Manipulate them. Good people do it for the greater good, bad people do it for their own self interest. Only a tiny fraction of the human population is interesting in precise, objective information. Their weight is insignificant compared to the masses. They don't matter.

  10. Re: So, no Climate Warming? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    But there's nothing wrong with the distance measurements. That's the point: the distance measurements are accurate, but the level of the actual ground under the ice changes, so the thickness of the ice is less than the distance measurement implies.

  11. Re:Weird numbers by rossdee · · Score: 1

    Centimeters may be metric, but it is not an SI unit.

    SI units come in 10^3 s

  12. Re:Weird numbers by BoogieChile · · Score: 1

    Untrue since 1960

  13. Re:Weird numbers by rtb61 · · Score: 1

    Centimetres in metric countries is mainly a school thing and not used much beyond who do not do much educating beyond high school ie count to ten versus count to one hundred so 1 centimetres is 10 millimetres and of course decimetre which is really never used beyond education 1 decimetre equals 10 centimetres, again counting to ten.

    Antarctica is rising because not only is there less ice pushing it down, there is more water at the equator pushing down the plates the water floats on. So we are shifting the plates across the entire manner in what is technically an unstable manner ie it does not reflect the pattern of extended term stability over the past tens of thousands of years. That can either make things temporarily more stable or in probability outcomes temporarily more unstable. So larger earlier significant tectonic events is more probable.

    Methane still remain by far the greatest threat if efforts are not made to contain it, it will trigger earlier rapid sea level rise, after that a more stabilised period will occur where sea level rise is slower, that first 1m is likely to happen much sooner and faster than people think.

    --
    Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
  14. Ohio is still rebounding from last ice age by laughingskeptic · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The extrapolations being made from this article are ridiculous. The idea that the small elevation increase will aid in slowing ice movement is simply disproportionate from reality. Ohio is still rebounding from the last ice age, this is a process that occurs over thousand year time spans. We are melting the ice magnitudes of order faster than the rebound can occur.

    If we manage to melt all of the ice on Antarctica for centuries, not only will Antarctica rise a mile, but the continents in the norther hemisphere will be sucked inwards so that the volume of the spheroid remains constant. Most of the southern and central US will once again be seabed in 100,000 years. If Antarctica is rising as fast as they say, then the sea floor of the northern Atlantic and Pacific are likely already sinking. Crust cannot rise in one place without compensation elsewhere. The volume of the earth has to remain constant.

    1. Re:Ohio is still rebounding from last ice age by Raenex · · Score: 1

      Ohio is still rebounding from the last ice age, this is a process that occurs over thousand year time spans. We are melting the ice magnitudes of order faster than the rebound can occur.

      Did you notice the curiosity in your sentence? How do you know that "we" are melting the ice, as opposed to the ice continuing to melt from the last ice age? Sea levels rose about 400 feet in the last 10,000 years.

    2. Re:Ohio is still rebounding from last ice age by Raenex · · Score: 1

      You didn't answer my question. Can you point to the date when the glaciers stopped retreating from the most recent melt?

  15. My Aunt is getting shorter by mnemotronic · · Score: 1

    Aunt R.D. Caw is getting shorter as she gets older. Still kicks ass at bridge though. She says it's allll in the viscous mantle.

    --
    The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.
  16. Re:So, no Climate Warming? by Sique · · Score: 1

    There is a big difference between seeing a problem and accepting a solution. Yes, I can see that we have a dry spell this Spring. No, I don't accept the solution of sacrifying a goat.

    --
    .sig: Sique *sigh*
  17. Re: Critical thinking fail? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Wow. Such astute observations.

    Do you happen to have any actual physical reason for your eloquent dismissal of my point, or are you just lashing out at anyone who has opinions different to your own? I would really like to know, it's not just an idle question.

  18. Re:Weird numbers by MZGuy · · Score: 1

    I wouldn't say that centimeters are a school thing; the unit is very commonly used at least in Finland. For example when talking about a person's length, or anything else where a centimeter accuracy is suitable. Decimeters are probably not used at all beyond school though. Deciliters are very common for volume measurements, though.

    --
    "Bad command or file name" - Microsoft Disk Operating System
  19. Re: Critical thinking fail? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Really? That's all you can offer?

    I'm disappointed. I was after a sensible, mature discussion. Can you point out the fallacy in my observation? I would really like to know.

  20. Re: Critical thinking fail? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    So far I've been told to go back to infowars (I have no idea what that is, nor care) and go back to sucking putin's cock (obviously making the assumption that I've done that before, not that I'll confirm it nor deny it).

    I really just wanted a sensible discussion. I'm anonymous but not a 'coward' and may bother to sign up (again) if I get a sensible response. I used to respect slash dot, but I'm not sure any more. I'm an Internet veteran, BTW, been online since 1984 (an auspicious year), so I'm not new to this, but attitudes are way poorer than they used to be, and that kind of attitude does nobody any good.

  21. Re:Weird numbers by ZXDunny · · Score: 1

    Here in the UK we tend to measure a gentleman's length in inches, but we use centimetres for height.

    --
    10 PRINT "SCUNTHORPE"(2 TO 5): GO TO 10
  22. Re:So, no Climate Warming? by shaitand · · Score: 1

    "There's only one thing to do with the clueless masses: Manipulate them. Good people do it for the greater good, bad people do it for their own self interest. Only a tiny fraction of the human population is interesting in precise, objective information. Their weight is insignificant compared to the masses. They don't matter."

    You are very close. That tiny fraction is tiny because of manipulation. Everyone manipulates people for the greater good and has convinced themselves that it is in their own self-interest and vice-versa.

  23. Contrary... by mchall · · Score: 1

    ...to this single article which focuses on Western Antarctica there are a number of recent scholarly articles, including findings by NASA ( https://principia-scientific.o... ), that show ice growth Eastern Antarctica that offsets the loss in the west for a net gain.

    Skew the data by not providing all the facts and you too can go full Chicken Little about anything. *smdh*

  24. Re: So, no Climate Warming? by reanjr · · Score: 1

    That said, the risk of melting ice is rising sea level. Unless the ice completely melts, the raised bedrock mitigates the detrimental effects of melting ice caps.

  25. Non-science or Nonsense? by huckamania · · Score: 1

    "That can either make things temporarily more stable or in probability outcomes temporarily more unstable."

    Climate Change - bringing false dichotomies and unverifiable claims since Arrehnius first miscalculated the greenhouse effect of CO2. He corrected his mistake in a later paper but the damage had already been done. 200 years later and the effects are still expressed as a possible range from 'Nothing to see here' to 'OMG we're all going to die (and probably should already be dead)".

    Sad really.

  26. Re:Weird numbers by turbidostato · · Score: 1

    "Centimetres in metric countries is mainly a school thing"

    No, it isn't.

    "not used much beyond who do not do much educating beyond high school"

    Where do you exactly live? Elbonia?

    "there is more water at the equator pushing down the plates the water floats on."

    Definitively, Elbonia must be.