Study: Antarctic Sea-Level Rising Faster Than Global Rate 302
An anonymous reader writes with this bit of good news for everyone who is waiting for their homes to one day be on the beach. Melting ice is fuelling sea-level rise around the coast of Antarctica, a new report in Nature Geoscience finds. Near-shore waters went up by about 2mm per year more than the general trend for the Southern Ocean as a whole in the period between 1992 and 2011. Scientists say the melting of glaciers and the thinning of ice shelves are dumping 350 billion tonnes of additional water into the sea annually. This influx is warming and freshening the ocean, pushing up its surface. "Freshwater is less dense than salt water and so in regions where an excess of freshwater has accumulated we expect a localized rise in sea level," explained Dr Craig Rye from the University of Southampton, UK, and lead author on the new journal paper.
Re:unfair policy (Score:3, Informative)
Re:unfair policy (Score:5, Informative)
Wrong.
If you look at the winter & spring periods, all the recent years had more ice than 2006 and yet they all finished much lower by the end of the summer melt.
That means more heat in the system - and you should research just how much heat is needed to melt ice.
HINT: it's a LOT
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicen... [nsidc.org]
This is only ice extent, which is probably the worst indicator of the decline in Arctic ice. Total ice area and volume are far better but more difficult to get accurate numbers.
Re:unfair policy (Score:1, Informative)
Yeah, they can raise premiums and make even more money off of all the fear mongering. Climate is always changing. The Sun, volcanic eruptions (including underwater volcanoes of Antarctica), forest fires, and other natural emissions of methane and CO2 are the driving factors, not humanity. Our CO2 emissions are so small it is statistically insignificant in the scheme of things. Read the NIPCC Reports for a collection of scientific papers referencing the same data sets used by the IPCC but without the cherry picking and political bias. The NIPCC Reports go to great lengths explaining exactly what the IPCC report on the same topic skipped over or misinterpreted. NIPCC doesn't deny that the climate is changing and doesn't say that humanity has no effect, it just points out how grossly exaggerated the IPCC reports are.
Re:unfair policy (Score:5, Informative)
What I find most amazing is this: 97% of the best climate scientists we have on earth have concluded that we have a problem.
This is wrong, you read the poll wrong (maybe this one? [uic.edu]). Here is the part you misunderstood: 97% of climate scientists say man-made CO2 has an effect on the global temperature (and the rest probably clicked the wrong box on accident).
Do you understand that there is a difference between "having an effect" and "is a problem?" Because there is a huge difference, and the people answering the poll understood that there is a difference. Even scientists who are frequently labeled 'deniers' will answer yes to that poll, it's almost like asking a non-question.
Re:unfair policy (Score:4, Informative)
97% of the best climate scientists we have on earth have concluded that we have a problem.
While I agree with your main point that there is a broad scientific consensus on climate change, the 97% figure is bogus. 97% of research papers on climate change that stated a position on whether AGW is real, took an affirmative stance. But this ignores the many papers that were non-committal, and stated no opinion.
By exaggerating the consensus, you are just handing ammunition to the denialists. The problem with convincing skeptics of the need to take action is not evidence (which is strong), but credibility (which is lacking). Please calm down and stick to the facts.
The insurance companies ... have concluded we have a problem.
No. The insurance companies have concluded that they have a risk. They will charge more in premiums to compensate for even small risks.
Do you think that Liberals would be successful at convincing 97% of ...
And here is the crux of the problem. "Climate change" has been politically associated with the "Liberal Agenda", and is being used to justify all sorts of economic nonsense that has nothing to do with climate change. I live in California, and "Climate Change" is being used to justify a $300 billion* boondoggle to build high speed rail between SF and LA. That is about $10,000 for every person in California, for a train that on a typical day will carry 0.03% of commuters. It will have zero impact on CO2 emissions because it won't be operational for 30 years, when it is likely most cars will be electric anyway.
*Yes, I know the current projected cost is $100 billion, but on average, government boondoggles in California eventually cost three times the original cost, so $300 billion is a more reasonable estimate.