Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

ESA's Cryosat Mission Sees Antarctic Ice Losses Double

samzenpus posted about 4 months ago | from the it's-getting-hot-in-here dept.

Earth 162

An anonymous reader writes in with news that seems to confirm the alarming reports last week about Antarctic ice melting. "The new assessment comes from Europe's Cryosat spacecraft, which has a radar instrument specifically designed to measure the shape of the ice sheet. The melt loss from the White Continent is sufficient to push up global sea levels by around 0.43mm per year. Scientists report the data in the journal Geophysical Research Letters (abstract). The new study incorporates three years of measurements from 2010 to 2013, and updates a synthesis of observations made by other satellites over the period 2005 to 2010. Cryosat has been using its altimeter to trace changes in the height of the ice sheet — as it gains mass through snowfall, and loses mass through melting."

cancel ×

162 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

I LIKE THOSE ODDS !! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47039777)

Doh !!

I REMEMBER FLORIDA (3, Funny)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about 4 months ago | (#47039813)

Not fondly, of course...

Re:I REMEMBER FLORIDA (1)

Ferretman (224859) | about 4 months ago | (#47040737)

Nothing wrong with Florida that a few feet of global warming wouldn't fix...

Ferret

Re:I REMEMBER FLORIDA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47040857)

You may think that's funny, but Florida-Man is going to wind up living by you. The idiots won't just drown quietly.

Do as the rich do (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47039783)

and buy cheap shoreline property inland.

Re:Do as the rich do (5, Insightful)

i kan reed (749298) | about 4 months ago | (#47039919)

The rich aren't actually doing that. Contrary to common belief, rich people are not actually more insightful and aware of things than your typical well-educated person. There isn't a conspiracy to exploit the results of climate change. Why bother when everything is based on next quarters' earnings anyways?

Re:Do as the rich do (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47039969)

Because everything isn't based on the next quarters earnings. But, hey, I just love the very very insightful Slashdotters who can post a couple dozen times a day and still act like they know it all.
 
If you were as smart as you like to think you are you'd be out making a mint or contributing something worthwhile to society instead of sitting around squabbling with a bunch of nerds. I guess it's telling to see who's willing to step up their game and who's just going to sit back and be the armchair quarterback. Right?

Re:Do as the rich do (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about 4 months ago | (#47040037)

Hey, you know what you are? Even stupider than me.

You start an argument by pointing out how much time people spend squabbling. Top tier useless hypocrisy right there.

Re:Do as the rich do (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47040145)

He's not just stupider... he's the dumbererest.

Glad to know I'm not the only one to spot the hypocrisy :)

Re:Do as the rich do (1)

dreamchaser (49529) | about 4 months ago | (#47040173)

YHBT. YHL. HAND.

Seriously, do not feed the trolls. You just played right into his/her hands.

Re:Do as the rich do (0)

i kan reed (749298) | about 4 months ago | (#47040223)

Oh no. Some pathetic loser might get a few minutes of smug self satisfaction at totally owning me, before returning to their sad unappealing life. How terrible I am to have rewarded them with a trite counter-argument.

Re:Do as the rich do (1)

dreamchaser (49529) | about 4 months ago | (#47040245)

That's fine, all I'm saying is it just encourages them to behave that way again. If people would ignore trolls there would be less trolling.

0.43 mm per year, eh? (3, Insightful)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | about 4 months ago | (#47039795)

So, sea level rise will be a bit less than two inches by 2100?

And nearly 3.5 inches by 2200?

As a result of Antarctic ice melting, of course.

Color me unworried. I wasn't terribly impressed when people were talking a foot this century - a sixth of that is a complete yawner as far as threats go....

Re:0.43 mm per year, eh? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47039815)

Hey, illiterate, that is simply from one source not the entire source of sea levels rising.

Re:0.43 mm per year, eh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47040121)

Hey, illiterate, that is simply from one source not the entire source of sea levels rising.

What other significant source of water is there? Greenland's ice cap, and a small contribution from thermal expansion as the planet warms are the only two I can think of, and Greenland's ice cap is what? About 1/8th the size of the Antarctic ice cap? And I wouldn't be surprise if thermal expansion turns out to be, well, a drop in the bucket.

Glaciers in various mountain ranges? Nowhere near enough water to be significant, I'd bet.

Re:0.43 mm per year, eh? (4, Insightful)

WhiteZook (3647835) | about 4 months ago | (#47039845)

Of course, there's more than just Antarctic ice melting, but more importantly, it is likely that the melting rate will accelerate as the planet keeps warming.

Re:0.43 mm per year, eh? (1)

sideslash (1865434) | about 4 months ago | (#47039939)

Sounds great. If it is not part of a natural cycle, but anthropogenic in origin, that's fantastic. What a wonderful possibility, that our species might not have to weather any more ice ages on this planet. But I guess we don't really know for certain.

Re:0.43 mm per year, eh? (1)

geekoid (135745) | about 4 months ago | (#47041183)

It as AGW and we d know for sure.

Why do you think it will stop when the glaciers have melted? It's going to keep going up if we keep allowing deniers to have a say in policy.

Re:0.43 mm per year, eh? (4, Interesting)

i kan reed (749298) | about 4 months ago | (#47039889)

The big secret(I don't know why it's a secret) is that melting ice has never been the biggest source of sea level change from climate change. Never. Contrary to what most people learn in middle school science classes, temperature does affect slightly the volume of liquids, and the increasing temperature of the deep ocean drive changes in volume. Tiny fraction decreases in the density of water might not seem like much, but it adds up to a lot more than a little melting sea ice when the average depth of the ocean is 2.4 kilometers.

Re:0.43 mm per year, eh? (5, Informative)

WhiteZook (3647835) | about 4 months ago | (#47039929)

Actually, this recent study claims that in the years 2005-2011, contribution from melting ice was 3 times as high as thermal expansion of the oceans: http://www.nature.com/ngeo/jou... [nature.com]

Re:0.43 mm per year, eh? (4, Insightful)

i kan reed (749298) | about 4 months ago | (#47039957)

Interesting. So... I have to admit I made a factual error in my post.

I shouldn't have used the word "never", it was apparently quite hyperbolic.

Re:0.43 mm per year, eh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47040547)

Interesting. So... I have to admit I made a factual error in my post.

I shouldn't have used the word "never", it was apparently quite hyperbolic.

It is also quite hyperbolic to believe/claim that the leading published scientists in the field don't understand simple basics of their field as you do. But that seems to be the going rate for climate change debate (and evolution, vaccines, etc.)

Re:0.43 mm per year, eh? (1)

MrBigInThePants (624986) | about 4 months ago | (#47040847)

That is not an example of a hyperbolic statement.

Arrogant, ignorant and just plain wrong maybe, but not hyperbolic.

Please insult the fools and ignoramuses with a little more care and attention to detail please....

Re:0.43 mm per year, eh? (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about 4 months ago | (#47040869)

Nope, you're just dumb. Sorry, I said none of the things you're implying I did.

Re:0.43 mm per year, eh? (0)

Nexion (1064) | about 4 months ago | (#47040415)

Additionally a liquid that is warmer is also more easily evaporated. Ultimately condenses to find itself in ground water, snow packs and back on a glacier. Isn't it funny how "climate science" never seems to account for all but a few factors? Never mind all that... the sky is falling!

Re:0.43 mm per year, eh? (2)

WhiteZook (3647835) | about 4 months ago | (#47040501)

I bet climate scientists will be shocked to hear water can also evaporate. I'm sure nobody has ever considered that. You'd better start working on your Nobel Prize acceptance speech.

Re:0.43 mm per year, eh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47040575)

I bet climate scientists will be shocked to hear water can also evaporate. I'm sure nobody has ever considered that. You'd better start working on your Nobel Prize acceptance speech.

He will, as soon as he has finished proven pro-evolution and pro-vaccine scientists wrong with his common sense, then it is on to the particle physics heathen.

Re:0.43 mm per year, eh? (1)

Atzanteol (99067) | about 4 months ago | (#47040675)

Wait 'til you hear his theory about how the Sun has a role in all of this!

Re:0.43 mm per year, eh? (2)

geekoid (135745) | about 4 months ago | (#47041247)

", snow packs and back on a glacier"
it does not do that if it is too warm. There will be no ice packs. we will have snow for awhile, but it won't stay through the year.

Funny how idiots never mention that.

Re:0.43 mm per year, eh? (2)

Ambitwistor (1041236) | about 4 months ago | (#47040669)

They're talking about melting LAND ice, not SEA ice. Compare sea levels today to those at the Last Glacial Maximum (~120 meters lower), and ask yourself where the extra water came from.

Re:0.43 mm per year, eh? (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about 4 months ago | (#47040875)

I think you're misunderstanding my position here.

Re:0.43 mm per year, eh? (1)

Archangel Michael (180766) | about 4 months ago | (#47041311)

Obviously, Global Warming on a Massive Scale caused the 120 Meter Sea level change. And yet, life (including human) continues.

Re:0.43 mm per year, eh? (1)

geekoid (135745) | about 4 months ago | (#47041227)

Melting of all ice would about 60+ meter increase in ocean depth.

Re:0.43 mm per year, eh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47039911)

Exactly. 0.43 mm per year means 430 mm after 1,000 years, or about a foot and a half. Oh, the humanity! THE HUMANITY!!!!! And anyone that thinks the whole sheet would disappear is obviously in Colorado breathing the second hand smoke. Damn, my local weatherman couldn't even tell you what the weather will be with any accuracy on the third Tuesday in July, let along 1,000 years from now. It's insanity and needs to be stopped.

Re:0.43 mm per year, eh? (2)

geekoid (135745) | about 4 months ago | (#47039917)

Just from that alone. also, it has doubles it's spead since last observed.

A loss of all the ice in the six glaciers would add about 1.2m to global sea level.

This is still a small fraction of the total sea-level potential of Antarctica, which holds something like 26.5 million cubic km ice (or 58m of sea-level rise equivalent).

Re:0.43 mm per year, eh? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47040191)

So the real question concerns the rate of increase in melting. Will the rate stay the same, will the rate of ice melting increase (and how fast will it increase), or will it decrease (not so likely imo) in the next few centuries? The mechanisms of the ice sheets melting doesn't seem to be well understood at the moment, but I think that the fear of the scientists is that the rate of ice loss will increase exponentially in the short-term (obviously it can only continue until the particular ice sheets are gone, not forever).

Re:0.43 mm per year, eh? (2)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 4 months ago | (#47039963)

Hey, at least its real data that hasn't been blown completely out of proportion. Normally a story like this would have a headline that read "Noah back from the dead to rebuild Ark! God said he wouldn't do it again but now he's just mad at republicans!" etc...

Re:0.43 mm per year, eh? (1)

I'm New Around Here (1154723) | about 4 months ago | (#47040345)

Hey, at least its real data that hasn't been blown completely out of proportion. Normally a story like this would have a headline that read "Noah back from the dead to rebuild Ark! God said he wouldn't do it again but now he's just mad at his fellow republicans!" etc...

ftfy

Re:0.43 mm per year, eh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47040009)

Not only that, but doesn't 0.43 mm seem a tad overprecise?

Re:0.43 mm per year, eh? (1)

WhiteZook (3647835) | about 4 months ago | (#47040139)

There's probably an error bar mentioned in the paper that was left out of the BBC article. Still, it's only 2 significant digits, so it's not even very precise.

Re:0.43 mm per year, eh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47040169)

When you are used to dealing with small things, you need to exaggerate in any way possible.

Just ask your mom.

ZING!

Re:0.43 mm per year, eh? (1)

Atzanteol (99067) | about 4 months ago | (#47040743)

Only if that's beyond their capability to measure.

Re:0.43 mm per year, eh? (4, Insightful)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about 4 months ago | (#47040033)

I don't think anyone was suggesting it was going to be total devastation since before "Waterworld" came out, but you should be asking "How much of my tax dollars are going to be spent on things like disaster relief after more levees and such break" or "How much more expensive is food going to get because all the good farmland is in floodplains that are now going to have higher insurance premiums for flooding?" Because the answer is going to be more than you want even if you're smug that your house is more than a few inches above sea level.

Re:0.43 mm per year, eh? (4, Funny)

i kan reed (749298) | about 4 months ago | (#47040061)

No, see, only government intervention can harm an economy. It's right there in their political philosophy, so it must be a true.

Re:0.43 mm per year, eh? (3, Interesting)

bigpat (158134) | about 4 months ago | (#47040483)

This implies that stopping greenhouse emissions cold turkey doesn't have real costs that outweigh the potential problems you cite. So far all the solutions that are proposed by the most active main stream environmentalists like cap and trade or solar and wind build outs either won't make a dent in Global Climate Change and/or taken as holistic solutions would cause massive disruptions to the economy with some very negative consequences that would very likely outweigh the benefits.

In the US, we have spent the last 40 years on conservation and pollution controls and the result has been an export of much of our industrial base to China where they pollute more freely with a coal based economy and then ship back those cheaper goods on great big ships, trains and trucks. Has it even made a dent Globally or just moved the problems of pollution to China? Possibly, that historic movement of production partly based on cheap labor, but also partly based on US environmentalism, has even accelerated CO2 emissions. Certainly, the US is somewhat less polluted especially in some urban and downwind areas which is good. But thinking Globally means we can't just think of short term localized benefits when we tally up the good and the bad for the bottom line.

We could be 100% greenhouse free in 20 years if we embraced a mix of solar, wind, hydro, geothermal and most importantly nuclear. But without nuclear it is going to be fracked Natural Gas, Oil and Coal providing the majority of our base load for our electric grid and the majority of fuel for our cars and trucks. The good news is that natural gas is less polluting than coal and oil and might fill the gap and slow down CO2 emissions while we reassess our collective priorities, but the bad news for Global Climate change is that a change to natural gas from oil and coal just slows down Global Warming a bit and it isn't a longer term solution and we will be back to coal not too long after that if we don't get to a more sustainable energy system.

If people on all sides get serious about Global Climate change and want to slam on the breaks to try and simply lock in a few feet of sea level rise and some slightly warmer temperatures in the next three hundred years, then the way to do that is with a tripling of nuclear power capacity with existing technology and much bigger multi-Billion dollar investments in new nuclear power technologies, along with some solar and wind power to supplement.

Otherwise much of what many in the environmental movement have been talking about for the last few decades has been a meaningless distraction from the engineers task of making more efficient use of our resources to support the largest population in human history as best we can. Both sides need to get real if we are going to make the world a peaceful, prosperous and sustainable place for billions of people.

Re:0.43 mm per year, eh? (1)

Atzanteol (99067) | about 4 months ago | (#47040779)

Actually - from what I can tell most of the climate scientists just want a rational conversation about the situation much like what you've done here. If *that* were the reply from climate change contrarians then we'd finally have a discussion and potential ideas on solutions (probably with a mixture of preparing for the worst while doing what we can to stop it).

But that would be all too rational.

Re:0.43 mm per year, eh? (1)

MrBigInThePants (624986) | about 4 months ago | (#47040905)

It is not just the "contrarians" that are the problem.

The general public are like ostriches in the sand on this as are the politicians - even the one not on the payroll of you know who.

In my country for example the right wing government of the day whose leader has in the past said that it does not exist has now reneged on that and accepts it exists. (for political reasons of course much like his original answer)
But they trashed the policy on emission reduction as soon as entering power, pulled out of kyoto and have done absolutely nothing to reduce and many things to increase emissions since then.

So really:

"But it's not who you are underneath, it's what you do that defines you."

Re:0.43 mm per year, eh? (1)

bigpat (158134) | about 4 months ago | (#47041219)

I think there is plenty of fault on all sides. From the climate scientists and many environmentalists the attitude has seemingly been once that you prove that humans are causing some climate change that it automatically means that we have to stop whatever is causing that climate change... which seems to be why somewhat cynically many have taken the attitude that in order to respond to the call for drastic, disruptive and destructive change to our industrial and energy base that we have to snipe at the science instead of talking about the holistic costs and benefits.

To me the costs of both continuing to increase greenhouse gases are real, but so too are the costs of cutting back greenhouse gas emissions too abruptly to adequately fill the gaps that are left. And the extreme negatives of sea level rise and climate disruptions must be looked at within the context of the hundreds of years we would have to adapt and compared with other ways in which our biologically diverse ecosystems might be harmed. People might be harmed either way.

To me if the solution to Global Climate change would result in economic hardship and social upheaval with the potential for more wars and civil unrest, then I see the danger of ideal thinking versus the reality that wars could be far more catastrophic to our environment than continuing along our current path towards climate disruption and sea level rise.

If we have the economic resources we can adapt and preserve habitat and improve quality of life for more people, but if we cut back too sharply then we risk depriving ourselves of the natural and economic resources which might enable us to adapt to the coming changes and even what we might be able to accomplish through sacrifice might be futile in the scope of the problem.

To me that is the rational argument we need to get to. Yes Global Climate change appears to be real. Yes, it pales in comparison with the changes that nature can throw at us in any given year... so a single volcanic eruption can cause a big drop in temperatures or some other changes might throw off our math in some other way making years or decades of planning completely irrelevant... but that doesn't mean we don't try to plan out decades from now or even hundreds of years from now.

We have a capacity to put in place the changes now that could make some difference for the better. While I largely agree with those who don't want to make burdensome decisions based on 300 year extrapolations, that doesn't mean we don't do the things that could reasonably benefit us now and in the future with better technology and more adaptability regardless of Global Climate Change.

I think we should all try to agree on habitat protection and setting aside more natural spaces. These natural ecosystems are often carbon sinks and are places where if properly managed and located can help preserve biodiversity. Nuclear I already mentioned and I really wish environmentalists would do the math on radioactive waste which has far more limited effects than even the toxic waste from things like solar panels which require large scale mining, production and very big land use, but certainly things like coal or oil are overall more toxic to our environment than nuclear. So, habitat preservation, nuclear, some wind and rooftop solar, along with better settlement patterns with enough jobs, food production and things to do close to where people live to reduce transportation costs, improve quality of life and reduce waste. There are probably many things like that which over the next thirty years could be win-win propositions for both reducing future Global Climate Change, improving quality of life for people and improving habitat for biodiversity and natural heritage preservation. And I think a rational majority could come to some agreements to make some of these modest changes.

From my perspective the "debate" over climate change is a red herring on both sides to avoid agreement because perpetuating the dispute itself has become an industry with its own constituency. And this is a problem in a lot of areas of political dispute. Where perpetuating a dispute gains its own constituency.

Re:0.43 mm per year, eh? (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about 4 months ago | (#47040807)

Unfortunately, I think you're mostly right. The second biggest elephant in the room is our untested, unknown and purely hypothetical ability do what amounts to re terraforming the planet. The biggest elephant is our (planetwide) political will to do something other than piss in each other's Cheerios.

Beginning to smell like a whole lotta elephant in here.

Re:0.43 mm per year, eh? (1)

volmtech (769154) | about 4 months ago | (#47041279)

Stopping global climate change will take actions by every countries government not seen since WWII. Maybe some charismatic leader instituting a one world government could do it. That has been prophitized but it doesn't end well for most people.

Re:0.43 mm per year, eh? (1)

jovius (974690) | about 4 months ago | (#47040117)

Let's imagine for a bit. Tomorrow you'll be tasked to raise the total sea level by 0.43mm / year. How would you do it? It is pretty impressive.

Re:0.43 mm per year, eh? (2)

sycodon (149926) | about 4 months ago | (#47040407)

Whack all the gauges with a hammer into the mud an inch or so. There's a lot of them, but it'd be funny as hell.

Re:0.43 mm per year, eh? (1)

Nexion (1064) | about 4 months ago | (#47040253)

Yes! Vindication for all those who lost their beach front property a few hundred years ago!!! Only a few hundred more years and we can rouse them from their graves to celebrate their victory in reclaiming their property value!!!!!

I would just like to say thank you to every gas guzzling SUV, filthy coal burning plant and all those wonderful climate conjecturists out there who are keeping the dreams of those long dead property owners alive! You're the best! I'm glad the US government spends my tax dollars on your paid propaganda to bolster their attempt to fleece America with a carbon credit exchange!

It... it give my ancestors hope.

Re:0.43 mm per year, eh? (1)

prefec2 (875483) | about 4 months ago | (#47040833)

Your assumptions would be true if melting ice would be the only effect on the sea water level and the melting itself would be a linear process. However, there are other effects.

a) Due to a rising global temperature the ocean temperature is also rising in the upper water layers. These masses do also expand.
b) When the glacier speed in Antarctica is picking up more speed, as it is right now, the melting will increase and also will the rise in sea level.
c) The greater introduction of sweet water in Antarctica will effect the overall global water stream system. This system causes certain dents and bumps in the ocean surface. Changes to the system will cause changes to these dents and bumps and therefore sea level changes could be higher at some shore lines. Furthermore, this will cause a lot of local climate change.

Re:0.43 mm per year, eh? (1)

riverat1 (1048260) | about 4 months ago | (#47041181)

From the abstract:

However, the average rate of ice thinning in West Antarctica has also continued to rise, and mass losses from this sector are now 31% greater than over the period 2005–2011.

You assume the rate of 0.43 mm per year will continue until 2100. Do you have anything to back that up? All evidence indicates that the rate will continue to rise as time goes on.

ERROR?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47039807)

Yeah I'm sure there is no margin of error at all in their estimates, and if there was, which I"M SURE THERE ISN"T. They wouldn't use the margin of error (that doesn't exist in the first place) in their favor? Who wants money for a research grant?

Re:ERROR?? (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 4 months ago | (#47039843)

Have you read the paper?

Re:ERROR?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47039891)

Of where I give all my money to?

Re:ERROR?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47040481)

I read the abstract. As the Antarctic Ozone Hole has shrunk, ice melt has proportionately increased.

We just need to open that ozone hole back up!

Re:ERROR?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47040947)

Who cares about the error. The fact is we need to have more sustainable practices so these numbers should be worked so that they support what is right.

Death By Millimeters (1)

Wino (655084) | about 4 months ago | (#47039873)

As the article notes, the melt is enough to raise global sea levels by 0.43mm. At this rate, in 100 years the oceans will be 43mm higher (1.7 inches). I guess I'll have to watch Waterworld again because that's not the future I remember.

Re:Death By Millimeters (1, Funny)

Tailhook (98486) | about 4 months ago | (#47040015)

The narrative requires that you use appropriate units and derivatives.

In 100 years the oceans will rise 43 000 microns! That's a 2300% increase over the previous 100 years!

Carry on.

Re:Death By Millimeters (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47040645)

Percentage change would be the same no matter what units you used...

never too hot to be greedy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47039895)

deception to the point of spiritual paralysis http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=wmd+cabal+manufactured+weather

Time to cull the herd (1, Insightful)

benjfowler (239527) | about 4 months ago | (#47039899)

Our corporate overlords who would have us do nothing about climate change.

After all, our Galtian supermen overlords can pay to make the problem disappear for themselves, and us useless eaters can just go and die of starvation, disease -- and war, when the 3 billion-odd even-more-useless eaters show up on our borders, demanding their rights.

It's the American way. Let freedom ring!

When you put black particles... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47039903)

on ice, of course it melts. That is why the Republicans are doing that. They want to flood the coastal areas that mainly vote Democrat. Coastal areas are nicer thus they typically occupied by smarter and more liberal people. That is why the Republicans want to flood their houses and even drown them. Remember how they cheered when NYC was flooded? They want more of that. That is why they are accelerating their AGW plans.

And when you put shiny metals... (2)

sideslash (1865434) | about 4 months ago | (#47039973)

on your head, it protects you from the mind control of the lizard people.

Re: And when you put shiny metals... (1)

Nexion (1064) | about 4 months ago | (#47040339)

Come on... did the lizard people make you say that?!?!?!1 Everyone knows that a tin hat only improves reception of their nefarious neural programming. >.>

When you put black particles... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47039997)

Yeah man, remember when the new socialist Mayor of NYC didn't blow the rich peoples areas in the big snow storms a few months ago? They want more of that, huh huh huh.

Democrats Own Boats (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47040045)

Have you not ever noticed that it's Democrats that own boats? Just think of that dreamy Kerry wind-surfing.

Plainly because they own boats, the Democrats want more sea to sail. Therefore it's the Democrats flecking the ice with black particles from their soul, in order to widen the expanse of navigable waterways.

The democrats will not stop until they can sail right up to the banks of Wall Street to collect the big fat donations they have been getting.

Re:When you put black particles... (1)

KingOfBLASH (620432) | about 4 months ago | (#47040285)

Like when hurricane katrina came through and destroyed those liberals. Except the most damage wasn't to the very gay and very liberal french quarter, but the ones next door.

Message from god / the republicans: very clear. They hate Gay Adjacents.

Smarter people... (1)

Arker (91948) | about 4 months ago | (#47040775)

Smarter people do not build on floodplains.

Gobal... What About Local? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47040035)

Averaged global increase isn't that interesting. How about better information on local changes. Which areas will be effected the most by this melting? Whats the possible range of total increase instead of averaging it out across the entire ocean. Will the water temperature change be enough to alter any normal currents?

Re:Gobal... What About Local? (1)

Anonymous Bullard (62082) | about 4 months ago | (#47040783)

So it has predictably come to this for some people:

"Think local, act... wait, let's first see if my neighbourhood might benefit at others' expense before deciding."

Ice Donations! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47040119)

Can we ship some of the ice from the Great Lakes up to the Antarctic? There was plenty extra coating the lakes this year...

Can someone please sort of this Web site. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47040157)

I don't know where this should go but can someone sort this out. I have a top 1/3 screen full of a green bar with your logo cut in half. 1/3 find with adverts at the bottom making your sit un usable this is the same for both beta an classic

Re:Can someone please sort of this Web site. (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about 4 months ago | (#47040837)

Hit the power switch until the screen shows a pleasant, uniform dark grey color.

Now you're set to enjoy the Slashdot experience as it was meant to be.

Back to the future (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47040185)

I think we should all go back to the pre-Industrial Revolution standard of living, then we won't have to worry about global warming, we'll be too busy trying to stay alive.

History? (3, Insightful)

Lawrence_Bird (67278) | about 4 months ago | (#47040189)

What historical observations is this to be compared with? By the sounds of it there is nothing prior to 2005 - certainly nothing in the 40s thru 80s. Given that the few researchers down there are not running around the perimeter of the continent checking on where ice ends and sea begins, how do we place the current observation in context? Seems that we can't.

History? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47040249)

Shhhhhh, how they going to get a $$$$$$ research grant. You're ruining it man, there is ZERO MARGIN OF ERROR, the science is in, forget any other factors!

Re:History? (3, Insightful)

WhiteZook (3647835) | about 4 months ago | (#47040451)

I don't think there's much useful ice volume data before special satellites were used to measure it. However, we can look at historical sea level data, and observe that levels have not been significantly higher in any period since the last ice age. We can also look at the temperature data, and try to model the ice sheet based on those. Since temperatures before 2005 have been lower, it is very unlikely ice loss was as great as it has been in the recent years.

Re:History? (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about 4 months ago | (#47040851)

Nothing prior to 2005? High School and my first marriage didn't exist?

Phew! That makes me feel much better.

Don't exactly care (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47040209)

I'm not exactly worried.

Let the AGW deniers win. I'm going to be long gone by that time and I just honestly don't love their children and grandchildren that much.

Don't exactly care (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47040351)

And since you like body parts that don't reproduce with yours then I see why you wouldn't care about the future!

Re:Don't exactly care (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47040827)

And since you like body parts that don't reproduce with yours then I see why you wouldn't care about the future!

What does liking certain compatible (per personal definition of compatible and certain) body parts have to do with reproduction? In fact, removing reproduction from the equation will allow much more enjoyment from these likable body parts.

Liberal hoax (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47040233)

I'm sure this is just a liberal hoax like the ignorant conservatives say. If they just pray to a sky-fairy hard enough, they won't have screwed us all over with their greed and general idiocy.

Re:Liberal hoax (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47040319)

The really bizarre thing is there are actually people out there that believe that humans are incapable of changing climate at all, because that is the realm of god, or that he wouldn't allow it or something... All I have to say to them is, what would happen if all the nukes on the planet suddenly went off tomorrow? Humans are definitely capable of changing the climate.

Re:Liberal hoax (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47040435)

No one have ever tested nukes before, EVER, not even ONE country has tested nukes.

Re:Liberal hoax (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47040649)

Uh, most tests done on land were with fairly old low yield bombs. The newer, far more powerful ones were mostly tested in high atmosphere or over the ocean, meaning they would not kick up lots of dust.

Oops NC (1)

denmarkw00t (892627) | about 4 months ago | (#47040309)

My state asked that the 100 year sea-level study be revised to only predict for 30 years - looks like we'll be seeing a .3 inch increase in that time so it may not satisfy the right's desire to see low numbers that they can wave away.

Funny thing (2, Informative)

QuantumSam (1069182) | about 4 months ago | (#47040373)

The ice sheet may be coming apart up in the whitw continent, but that's where several volcanoes are located. Active volcanoes. As in HOT. As for the rest of Antarctica, the ice is at a 30 year high. Here: chew on some better data http://judithcurry.com/2014/02... [judithcurry.com] http://wattsupwiththat.com/201... [wattsupwiththat.com] http://wp.me/P7y4l-5Kc [wp.me] http://wattsupwiththat.com/201... [wattsupwiththat.com]

Re:Funny thing (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47040463)

This is completely ridiculous. Parts of the Antarctic icecap are indeed increasing. This is due to higher humidity as a result of -- wait for it -- global warming. Other parts are rapidly decreasing. And the volcanoes? Well, you know, they are so hot that it is well-known that all volcanoes outside of the Antarctic have no snow on the summits, of course.

Re:Funny thing (3, Insightful)

WhiteZook (3647835) | about 4 months ago | (#47040545)

Sounds like somebody needs to learn the big difference between Antarctic sea ice and grounded ice.

Re:Funny thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47040767)

And by what magical change in the states of water does melting sea ice cause the oceans to rise?

Re:Funny thing (3, Insightful)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about 4 months ago | (#47041145)

It's so funny that you think sceptic websites are good sources. How about linking to some actual scientific studies? Oh, but wait, the links you gave cite studies? Yes, but they confused sea ice and ground ice, which you might have realized if you had gone to the actual data and understood it.

I'm afraid this is all that climate sceptics have to offer - misinterpreted data.

perspective (1)

skoony (998136) | about 4 months ago | (#47040839)

record breaking ice mass the last 6 years in antarctica yields record breaking ice melt in 2014.news at ten.

.43mm/year... (1)

hsthompson69 (1674722) | about 4 months ago | (#47041029)

...so, let's do math .43mm/year = 4.43mm/decade

4.43mm/decaed = 44.3mm/century

44.3mm/century = 4.43cm/century

So, a little less than 2 inches in 100 years.

Is this supposed to worry us?

Re:.43mm/year... (2)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | about 4 months ago | (#47041151)

...so, let's do math .43mm/year = 4.43mm/decade

4.43mm/decaed = 44.3mm/century

44.3mm/century = 4.43cm/century

So, a little less than 2 inches in 100 years.

Is this supposed to worry us?

It's the difference between a storm surge 50 miles from a major city and a storm surge 10 miles from a major city.

Does that help?

It should be noted loss is conservative projection (1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | about 4 months ago | (#47041133)

In actual scientific terms, the rate of loss and timespan of loss are conservative projections of Ice Loss and Global Sea Level changes.

The hot hard reality is that the median projections have this happening a lot faster, as the ice melt below the shelf accelerates the melt ratio, and the coal and oil pollution increases the "dirty" ratio of the ice cover. White reflects more sunlight than black does.

Kiss Florida goodbye for your retirement, unless you plan to live on a houseboat on 40 foot stilts. Which is what Vietnam is moving to.

Oh that can't possibly be happening (2)

Kazoo the Clown (644526) | about 4 months ago | (#47041295)

We all know that Global Warming is a hoax and conspiracy, so this just has to be BS. No amount of evidence could ever contradict that well known fact.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?