ICE Satellite Maps Profound Polar Thinning 245
xp65 writes "Researchers have used NASA's Ice, Cloud and Land Elevation Satellite to compose the most comprehensive picture of changing glaciers along the coast of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets. The new elevation maps show that all latitudes of the Greenland ice sheet are affected by dynamic thinning — the loss of ice due to accelerated ice flow to the ocean. The maps also show surprising, extensive thinning in Antarctica, affecting the ice sheet far inland. The study, led by Hamish Pritchard of the British Antarctic Survey in Cambridge, England, was published September 24 in Nature."
Good-bye ice, it was nice knowing you. (Score:1, Insightful)
...as the unknown future falls.
Does it? (Score:2, Insightful)
The increased temperatures of west Antarctica are more than compensated by decreased temperatures elsewhere in Antartctica. It is especially interesting that there is so much growth inland of Greenland.
Re:Do they know if this is unusual? (Score:5, Insightful)
Qualitatively, what you'd expect from climate change is more precipitation (because there's more evaporation) and therefore thickening at high elevations where the snow stays cold, while lower warmer regions flow faster or even melt.
Re:What is the net effect? (Score:2, Insightful)
Let's start by an extremely rapid decline in habitat for a great many and varied species, that we cannot possibly begin to fully appreciate scientifically, let alone model with any accuracy.
Don't matter... (Score:4, Insightful)
Then when the engineers say it's too late to do anything except build a 300 foot tall dam around every coastline in the world, it'll be their fault for not fixing it.
Re:What is the net effect? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Don't matter... (Score:1, Insightful)
It takes so little to get people trolling for skeptics, just a subject line and a text-form eh?
And already modded up.
But logically speaking taking action before you know the consequence of the action can be very bad. Many of the demands made to mitigate postulated anthropogenic global warming involve considerable expense, so all the things that we know for sure need doing (like feeding people) that might otherwise be done with the money constitutes the minimum opportunity cost. The maximum would be far greater - we might well cause one climate catastrophe as we seek to avert the other.
Simply rushing off to 'do something' seems to be a universal human instinct somehow, and certainly politicians feel justifiably that they are pressured to do that, but it just isnt smart.
Re:Don't matter... (Score:4, Insightful)
We have been warned for years on end that coastal inundation would be the direct effect of polar melting.
But inundation should not be a delayed effect. It should appear immediately, and in direct proportion to the melting.
So where is it?
Re:Don't matter... (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, with what is usually being proposed, like reducing carbon emissions by driving more fuel efficient cars, no leaving lights on everywhere, how is that POSSIBLY a bad thing?
If we're talking about some of the more harebrained ideas like having hundred of thousands of ships sucking up cold water from the the ocean and spraying it as high into the atmosphere as possible, yes I agree - that could easily do serious long term damage that we don't realise.
But conserving energy cannot do that, as we are simply choosing to reduce the energy input into a system that had previously had a moderately stable equilibrium before we started burning all those fossil fuels.
Not to blame (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:What is the net effect? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What is the net effect? (Score:4, Insightful)
Sorry, I didn't mean the net effect of climate change, I meant the net amount of ice in Greenland and Antarctica. From the data provided it's not obvious that Greenland and Antarctica are losing ice. For example there are very large blue/green regions (gaining ice) that by eye could be bigger than the red regions (losing ice).
The other question is regards climate model predictions. One of the catastrophic outcomes of climate change are large sea level rises due to ice melt in the polar regions. Presumably there are models that predict how this could occur with global warming. So the question is, do these data agree with these models?
Re:Do they know if this is unusual? (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, this doesn't help, but I can see why health care is the focus of attention: it is one thing the government can do something about. Climate change is a serious problem, but it is now too big to fix, since no-one has the will to adopt a policy amounting to more than "business as usual" and "let's have another toke on that big ole' oil-pipe".
A lot of political mileage is being made of proposed emissions trading schemes, but it's too late for that. They are just accounting exercises - like pushing food around on the plate to make it look like you're eating less.
I'm sorry if that sounds defeatist, but I'd be happy to hear an alternative. People will not change until they're forced to.
Re:Do they know if this is unusual? (Score:3, Insightful)
I've repeatedly [dumbscientist.com] argued [slashdot.org] that we need to start building as many modern nuclear fission plants as possible. Preferably pebble bed reactors, using breeder reactors and reprocessing techniques to turn the waste into useful fuel.
And as I've explained on my homepage, I think that cap-and-trade will make coal less profitable, and nuclear power more profitable. It's a very capitalistic approach to the problem of climate change.
Re:Hide in the mountains! (Score:4, Insightful)
Now try this, take that same full cup and put two chop sticks side by side across the top of the glass. Now place a few ice cubes on the chop sticks and watch them melt, what happens to the water level in this case?
What is worrying is ice that is currently NOT floating is showing signs of melting, which will have an impact on sea levels.
The climate is changing, it doesn't mater if its caused by humans or some natural cycle, we have to start thinking about how we are going to adapt now if we are going to survive long term.
Remember that what happens elsewhere in the world DOES have an effect on you, it may be slight but it does. Ever notice how milk costs more when petrol prices go up because of political unrest in the middle East?
National Post rebuttal (Score:2, Insightful)
Another POV... http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/09/25/lawrence-solomon-hot-and-cold.aspx [nationalpost.com]
He points to a National Geographic report saying the opposite.
Re:What is the net effect? (Score:4, Insightful)
It is really simple. It all depends on how much kick are you getting out of the environment as we know it.
It is true that so far whenever cataclysms occured and species died out there was a subsequent re-population with new flora and fauna. It is also true that whenever such events have occurred, nearly all of the prevalent species have disappeared, and the subsequent re-population has taken millions of years to happen.
So, if you really, really don't care about your species disappearing in famine and diseases and other niceties those bring then yeah, life will eventually adapt to the new equilibrium that will prevail, and there is little to worry about in the long run.
If you are one of the neo-conservatives who want to keep living as we like it (a.k.a. tree-huggers), without disruptions and without need to die out and re-adapt, then you understand there are things that better be done sooner than later.
Re:Good-bye ice, it was nice knowing you. (Score:3, Insightful)
That would be sensationalism. So far, it is measured in cm; by the turn of the century (90 years from now) it is projected to be a few meters,
I would think both of those outcomes would be awful for a few dozen cities on our planet that are only a foot above sea level.
Re:National Post rebuttal (Score:3, Insightful)
Conflicting evidence must be resolved before you discard data as worthless. This is a closed system. You may not ignore evidence that contradicts your point of view. While I know The Day After Tomorrow was horse shit, the underlying theory is not. Warming oceans cause changes in currents that circulate heat. If it appears that the ocean is not warming, or the warming is actually localised, then it has to be taken into account. Otherwise you end up thinking the sun goes around the earth, because you've ignored other contradictory evidence. FWIW, the Antarctic is seeing increased build up of ice. It is only the ice shelves that have seen increased break up and melting. You know, the parts that FLOAT !
Re:Don't matter... (Score:4, Insightful)
And I'm sure the number of possible problems is significantly greater with the surface of the planet changing compared to retiring old coal power plants and converting to more electric cars.
Re:Don't matter... (Score:3, Insightful)
And that's proved by.... ?
Go check the numbers yourself, it's not like it's a secret. In these parts (DK), it's mostly more damms or relocation of some towns, new sewers (that's an amazing expensive part), irrigation for the farmers and such items. On the plus side, the heating bill might get slightly smaller (but probably not as much as the cooling bill will get higher) and we might be able to grow a bit more crops, provided enough irrigation. You don't have to be that bright to see that the expenses outweigh the benefits. Perhaps a few places will really net benefit.. Siberia, Greenland, Canada? But for most of the population it will mean a lot of extra taxes.
Re:It's in part because people have become very ja (Score:3, Insightful)
BTW look up aerosols. They may have doomed us all, but luckily we stopped it in time, aerosols are used a very very tiny fraction now compared to what they were at their peak. Since we averted the crisis does it not count?
1) No, no scientists think this. It is changing more rapidly than it ever has in past. Except possibly for extinction level events which wiped out almost all life on the planet.
2) Dear god no, it will likely cause harm measured in the hundreds of trillions of dollars. Perhaps the hundreds of millions of lives.
Do tell me the last time the entire scientific community united to 'cry wolf' over anything in past? Aside from aerosols which I mentioned. Give an example, impress me.
Re:Good-bye ice, it was nice knowing you. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Don't matter... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Good-bye ice, it was nice knowing you. (Score:3, Insightful)
It would be a bit more comforting to see some numbers to accompany your estimate. I say this, because, on the one hand I know that in the space of 100 years Florida when from barely populated to what it is today (my great-grandfather moved there there in the early 1920s, now it is 6% of the US population), but on the other hand, in the town I live in today (some miles inland, but in the Charles and Mystic river watersheds), there's a thousand or so houses too close to sea level. One town, a thousand homes, $.5M/home, pretty soon we are talking about real money.
How we plan to cope is what I find interesting. If you figure that there is a range of human expectations (optimist to pessimist), you can well imagine that optimists will push for drainage infrastructure and personally invest in better sump pumps ("swamps can be drained" and lots of Houston, including Rice U., used to be a marsh). Pessimists already own property quite a few meters above sea level (would you believe I checked this in 1994? I did.)
The problem for some coastal places, in particular Florida, is that the rising sea will not only make land uninhabitable, it will also reduce groundwater resupply. Simply reducing the surface area of the state, will reduce the amount of rain that falls on it, and reduce its natural water supply. There's workarounds for that, too -- Tampa already has a desalinization plant, and last I heard, there was much discussion of whether they should take the money saving step of recycling sewage instead of seawater (it's cheaper, less dissolved salts).
So, interesting times (probably) ahead.
Re:What is the net effect? (Score:3, Insightful)
Whereas we can totally trust profit-seeking industry to give us the straight talk? Nuh-uh. Game/economic theory says that if spewing disinformation results in a net profit, it will happen, otherwise they are not treating their shareholders right. They're not supposed to be moral or ethical; they are supposed to turn a profit, on whatever timescale their investors think is appropriate.
Neither "side" is necessarily trustworthy, but one side has clear motives to be untrustworthy.
Note, also, that the power-seeking politicians generally tend to be motivated by more tangible graft, and not abstractions like "carbon tax" or "cap-and-trade". The stuff I am familiar with, is bribes for regulatory favors, sweetheart government contracts for friends and family, and (ahem) hikes on the Appalachian trail, high-priced call girls, and plain old nepotism.
We are literally being served half truths (Score:2, Insightful)
Or is less than half truths. Most of Antarctica gets colder, some of it gets warmer. By reporting on the parts that get warmer, media tries to sell disasters just because it sells better than the whole truth and nothing but the truth. West Antarctica has according to climatologists always behaved differently from the rest of Antarctica.
Climatology news is starting too resemble a boxing match where only the strikes delivered by one of the boxers are being reported.
Re:What is the net effect? (Score:3, Insightful)
A significant amount of evolution is driven by mass die offs. That is, the population of a species reduced by 99% or more. We could evolve to be a species with average height of 7.5 feet very quickly...just kill off everyone except for a few hundred people who are taller than 7.5 feet. Let them have babies, and kill off any progeny who is shorter than 7.5 feet for a generation or two, and we would be a very tall species. Would you care to draw straws?
Do you really think that civilization can survive a significant reduction in the food supply? Do you have any idea what it is like to die of starvation? Your comment seems to show an implicit assumption that this would be somehow good for humanity, that having some competition would cause us to evolve, to become better, stronger, faster. It is easy to develop this detachment when staring at the fossil record. Wow, at the K/T boundary, the dinosaurs disappear, and the valiant rodents survived the asteroid/comet impact to evolve into us. Excellent, we wouldn't be here without that happening. Evolution is good. It resulted in us. Let the dying begin. Care to pony up your own grand-children first? After all, it's all in the name of evolution and progress.
Re:We are literally being served half truths (Score:1, Insightful)
It is perfectly legitimate to report mostly on the parts of Antarctica that get warmer. That's because the fast-warming part of Antarctica is the part which is holding back the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, a major potential contributor to sea level rise. By contrast, the parts that are getting cooler are mostly the interior of the continent, which can have no effect on sea level. As you say, climatologists understand that the two parts of Antarctica behave differently, so it's not news that they do so. What is news is how that's going to effect us, which mostly has to do with impacts on sea level.
Over what time period, is the question (Score:3, Insightful)
The question is, over what time period are we seeing rises and falls in coverage? We have no proper data before the satellite age. So all we know is that there has been recent shrinkage. We have however no idea what the standard deviation is of gains and shrinkages over a period of centuries or millenia, so we have no idea whether we are looking at an event close to the mean or one that is several standard deviations away from it.
At this point people usually ridicule one for not being prepared to take action until there is proof, which is usually projected as being some natural disaster like New Orleans.
The argument is mistaken. It is quite reasonable to wait for proof, because 'doing things' in the absence of proof is a risky and expensive business. It could have quite dramatic and unexpected side effects depending on what the situation really is.
It would enormously help us figure this thing out if all the climate scientists would just publish their raw data and algorithms. That way we could at least verify their work so far. The ones that need to publish? Well, just about all of them. They supposedly have evidence that the present warming is a very rare event, but they decline to publish it. They just publish studies based on it, summaries of it, processed forms of it. We need this data, and we need the code that was applied to it.
Without that, its not science, its arm waving. There is probably nothing more important than to establish the climatic history of the last 2,000 years, and if we could establish ice coverage and density in some way, that too. Without the scientists publishing, I do not see how we take this debate any further. It is, to say the least, curious that the main workers in the field, the ones who find the present trend most alarming, are the ones who refuse to reveal the data that would prove them right.
Where, for instance, is Mann's algorithm, the one he refused to supply to the Wegman Committee? Where is the data underlying the HADCRU series? Where is Thompson's ice core data?
If we cannot see it, how do we even know it exists?
Re:Good-bye ice, it was nice knowing you. (Score:3, Insightful)