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.
unfair policy (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, there is a lot to learn about the accusations of institutional racism in Silicon Valley here.
If you compare the demographics of both areas, the Arctic is predominantly "white" (polar bears), while the Antarctic is overwhelmingly "black" (penguins). Thus, if institutional racism was responsible, you would expect the Arctic to be rising faster. Since this is not the case, researchers are forced to search for a more scientific explanation of the observed behavior.
Part of the answer could be found
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, penguins are "white and black", so bi-racial.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
But...but... it was really cold here this winter. Therefore global warming is clearly bullshit. Right?
No, but they way the predictions have been used we have seen colder climate than the predictions for some decade straight now.
Thats the problem with exaggerating. Eventually people get tired about someone crying wolf that they won't listen when the wolf actually shows up.
In retrospect it had been better to underreport the climate predictions and adjusted as things turn worse rather than the other way around.
Re:unfair policy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Frankly, it seems par for the course that you rarely understand what you are reading when it concerns climate change.
Re: (Score:2)
More like it's 2 straight years that folks like you continue to misunderstand scientists expectations.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Back when Homo sapiens didn't exist.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, because reasonable people assume a reasonable scope - when humans were living.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:unfair policy (Score:4, Interesting)
What I find most amazing is this: 97% of the best climate scientists we have on earth have concluded that we have a problem. The insurance companies ["How The Insurance Industry Sees Climate Change" [latimes.com], "For Insurers, No Doubts on Climate Change" [nytimes.com], "Rift Widening Between Energy and Insurance on Climate Change" [forbes.com], "Insurer's Message: Prepare for Climate Change or Get Sued" [nbcnews.com], "On Climate Change: Get Ready or Get Sued" [washingtonpost.com] have concluded we have a problem. But, in the interest of sticking with their political druthers, a significant fraction of the American population has decided that 97% of the climate scientists and the insurance companies must be wrong. These people--Conservatives, essentially--are willing to take a risk that 3% of climate scientists are correct and that the insurance companies and 97% of climate scientists are wrong--merely because it serves their political persuasion.
Do you think that Liberals would be successful at convincing 97% of climate scientists to take our point of view and the insurance companies too if this were bullshit? Yet, all these wiseass Conservatives are willing to take a risk with our frickin' planet just so they can jam a finger in the eye of their political rivals--ignoring the reality that has the potential to end life on the damned planet. In short, WTF is going on in the mind of Conservatives? How do you look at all these insurance companies and think: "It's a Liberal plot!" Can you be so stupid?
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: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You should know this.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Can you link us to some of their published works so we can see and understand the underlying mechanism, plus some detail of the research re: new and apparently lower climate sensitivity and the alignment of this sensitivity with the historical climate record?
Re: (Score:3)
So if a large proportion of these climate scientists don't think that doubling the atmospheric CO2 concentration will cause problematic warming what (according to them) is causing the current problematic warming trend?
Do you understand the logical fallacy of "loaded question?" Look it up, because your question commits that fallacy.
Most scientists accept that there's been some warming. How much of it is caused by CO2 is an open question, because the models need adjusting [ed.ac.uk] (though to be fair, the main difficulty is likely in over-estimating feedbacks). Scientists disagree on that problem, but the main question that matters from a practical standpoint is, "what should we do?" There's no consensus on this at all.
1) Shoul
Re: (Score:2)
Hey global warming could never end life on this planet. Our civilization as we know it, on the other hand...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I thought you'd link to the sun engulfing the earth. By the time the climate's on the path to being Venus-like, we'd be knocked back to the stone age or worse, slowing climate change to a pace evolution might be able to keep up with. I'm sure some extremophiles would hang on at the very least.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Some theories say that solar forced global warming will push us into a Venus-style runaway greenhouse effect in about a billion years. Once it gets hot enough to boil the oceans, it's game over (unless we, or a natural event, move the Earth out close to Mars)
Solar theory says the Sun has gotten 25% brighter since the beginning and will continue to get brighter as it gets more dense due to having a larger portion of He. Venus being closer to the Sun experienced the oceans boiling thing at least a billion yea
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Quibbles about the opinions of the world's climate scientists are essentially not important.
Over the last few decades public support for climate changed action has declined dramatically [wikipedia.org]. Much of the reason for that is a decline in public perceptions of the credibility of scientists. Much of the reason for that is because of people that exaggerate, and then, when called out on it, insist that the actual facts are just "quibbles" and don't matter. The same happened with the first IPCC report. It contained exaggerations, and made false statements, and when those were pointed out, the response fro
Re: (Score:3)
I am not saying the science is unimportant. I am saying that the insurance industry offers concrete testimony that stands aside from those questions about the veracity of science. I am trying to stand outside those questions by using the bias of the business community against those who trust it. The same people who don't trust science do trust busi
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Why, exactly, would you consider the papers that don't talk about a topic when considering whether there is a consensus of support for that topic or not? If you were seeking to see if a dog would make a good pet, how many books about orangutans would you read? Also, the Cook paper [iop.org] also clearly states what percentage of the papers took a position on climate change (32.6%) in the abstract.
According to your logic, we can lower the support level for any topic by simply including more papers that don't take a
Re: (Score:2)
The Western side of Antarctica has gained some mass but not enough to counteract the much more massive amount the Eastern side has lost. So, a much larger net negative.
I think you got that bass ackwards. It's Western Antarctica that is losing lots of ice and Eastern Antarctic that has had slight gains.
I'm sympathetic to the rest of your argument.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't believe in climate change. No problem. Look up the stats on ocean acidification due to extra CO2 and the damage that is resulting. You do recall the oceans? Base of the food chain? Ring a bell?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It's such a brilliant idea I don't know why I didn't think of it before. Oh I remember now... I'm not a sociopath.
Re:unfair policy (Score:5, Insightful)
The only problem with your theory is the missing contrarian. No insurance company is willing to buck the science. Not one.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You could very well be correct that they take this very seriously, I'm not in a position to speculate.
However, they do function as cartels, and the free market does not serve to regulate ad-hoc price fixing schemes amongst them. Simply google "insurance cartels". Buy some books on the topic. Read some papers.
Again, I'm not denying that actuarially, climate change is a real coefficient. But the assertion that the free market would bring to light any kind of price-fixing scheme
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Insurance cartels only exist in the USA. /. I talked to explained to me how much he pays and how less he gets out ... hilarious.
I just figured that car insurances in the USA are roughly 1000 time more expensive than in Germany, e.g. (considering the coverage)
A guy on
Re: unfair policy (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You have no clue about anything you are talking about.
The re-insurance companies are the biggest companies on earth. And they are the ones who muster right now the blows of Fukushima, Katrina, Sandy etc.
Your standard USA 'cartel' (as you call it) insurance would be bankrupt right now if it was not reinsurance by e.g. "Muenchener Rueck" or "Zurich Reinsurrance"!
Re: unfair policy (Score:2)
Couldn't be a reaction to past losses from storms, eh? Or just profiting from uncertainty?
Seriously, this isn't evidence of anything than a profit motive.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: unfair policy (Score:2)
The myth is that price competition is the dominant method of acquiring market share. Bear in that most insurance markets are state-regulated, and if we limit ourselves to property insurers, rigidly regulated.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: unfair policy (Score:2)
There is virtually NO property or healthcare insurance market that is state-regulated and is NOT rate regulated. Roughly half the state regulate auto insurance rates. Virtually all insurance sold to consumers is state - regulated in the U.S.
Re: unfair policy (Score:2)
Oh, and reinsurers are largely unregulated, but they largely serve commercial and special (excess) coverage. By definition, they are not primary carriers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If the CF/EO determines that it is more profitable to raise prices with the rest of the cartel, then that's what they will do, actuarial tables be damned.
Re: (Score:2)
If there is no risk, then surely some canny insurance company can make a killing by not raising their rates and getting all that business.
I defy you to find me a big insurance company taking that gamble. They're not because they know climate change is a real danger.
Re: (Score:2)
Corporate lobbying, government subsidies, "market capture" (which is another way of saying oligopoly)... all these things have been common for decades.
I defy you to find me a big insurance company taking that gamble. They're not because they know climate change is a real danger.
We both know that's not going to happen, for the reason I explained to you in my last comment, and just now here. So that doesn't prove anything.
Re: (Score:2)
These are huge corporations with shareholders and greedy owners. They don't screw around. They don't have to prove any
Re: (Score:2)
So are you really trying to suggest that corporate lobbying is pushing insurance companies to fake that climate change is real?
No, that isn't what I wrote. Try reading more carefully.
You asked me about free markets. I was explaining why it's pretty difficult today to honestly characterize the insurance industry, by and large, as a free market.
The other thing (claiming problems where there might not be any) is a different issue, and it's not valid to paste them together as you just did.
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, to me it's very clear. The insurance industry is a balance of risk versus premium income. If they misjudge risk, they go out of business paying for huge losses. If they misjudge their premium rates, they go out of business because their insurance is too expensive. For that reason, all insurance companies have armies of highly paid actuaries who get fired if they are wrong about either risk or premium rates. Do you disagree with me so far?
So, don't you find it strange that not one insurance co
Re: (Score:3)
Do you disagree with me so far?
Yes, as I have already explained in plain English, in response to your question about free markets.
If there is no free market in your industry (or not much of one left, anyway), then you don't get to claim free market forces would correct such imbalances. You're like those people who blame corporatism and "crony capitalism" on the concept of capitalism itself, when both of those things don't represent capitalism, but rather egregious deviations from capitalism.
Adam Smith (i.e., free-market) capitalism
Re: (Score:3)
But since this is now a question
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, as I have already explained in plain English, in response to your question about free markets. ... what exactly? Part of the problem or part of the solution?
No you did not. He has a valid question which you fail to address.
So re-insurance companies are
Re: (Score:3)
Jane, I will agree that the insurance industry is heavily regulated. They are regulated on the subject of capital reserves and what they must cover. But given my personal experience in this precise industry, I must say that you traffic in myths. On the subject of risk tolerance and premium rates they are not regulated and since this directly equates to their ability to survive, they do indeed enjoy a free hand in setting their premium rates and their tolerance for risk.
None of this has anything to do with what I said. You keep taking different ideas I have talked about and pasting them back together in ways that don't represent what I was actually saying.
I didn't say their risk assessments and premiums were regulated. In the health care arena they certainly are regulated now to some extent, but that wasn't my point at all. I was speaking of anti-trust regulation, not regulation of premiums or risk tolerance.
Never mind. I see you simply aren't absorbing what I was sa
Re: (Score:3)
No you did not. He has a valid question which you fail to address.
Yes, I did. I specifically answered his question. I am not responsible for your failure to understand my response, which was about why the market does NOT adjust for the factors he mentioned, if there isn't a real market.
Saying "market forces will drive them out of business", when the insurance companies today are nearly as oligopolistic as cable companies, is like saying "market forces" will force Comcast to invest more of their profits in infrastructure. If there isn't a free market, those market force
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, according to the free market, surely there must be at least one contrarian who is willing to buck the alleged alarmists and sell cheap insurance. If there were one big insurance company willing to do that--they could collect every insurance dollar on the planet and destroy the other companies. Why isn't that happening? Hmm?
Re: (Score:2)
Considering that the only majour CO2 production is mankind burning fossil fuels, it is a surprise that that is not the cause of climate change!
What is it then? Cow farts only?
Re: (Score:2)
The NIPCC Reports go to great lengths explaining exactly what the IPCC report on the same topic skipped over or misinterpreted.
Because, as we all know, an ideologically Libertarian political "think tank" funded by gas and coal owners is clearly the most reliable source of information on the effects of pollution released by the gas and coal industries and whether that pollution requires government intervention. There is absolutely no bias, no politics and no conflict of interest there [skepticalscience.com].
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's getting its compensation.....an Arctic Ice Cap that has expanded by 41% in the past 2 years. Most ice up there since 2006. Ironically, not reported here....
I guess anything goes to advance the global warming scam.
Sure, it's expanded by 41% in the last two years. What you fail to mention is that 2012 was a record low.
Guess that didn't fit into your "global warming scam" world-view?
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:4, Insightful)
I guess anything goes to advance the global warming scam.
Pro tip: Lie Less [washington.edu]
Re: (Score:2)
It's getting its compensation.....an Arctic Ice Cap that has expanded by 41% in the past 2 years. Most ice up there since 2006. Ironically, not reported here....
I guess anything goes to advance the global warming scam.
And yet it's still lower than any year in the satellite record before 2006. 2012 was so low it was outside of the 2 standard deviations range. 2013 and 2014 are near the bottom of the 2 sd range around the 1981-2010 average and back near the curve of declining Arctic sea ice. It will take another 5 years or so to see if there really is any recovery in Arctic sea ice but I wouldn't bet the farm on it.
What will it take? (Score:5, Interesting)
So much freshwater from melting glaciers that sea level isn't even level anymore, and some people still don't want to believe there might be a climate problem.
(I don't mean the people who question how to address the problem - that's still legitimately an open question - or the severity of the problem, I mean the people still in denial that there's a problem at all.)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You are comparing 50 years to a few billion. The word "proportion". The idea, learn it.
Re: (Score:2)
So much freshwater from melting glaciers that sea level isn't even level anymore, and some people still don't want to believe there might be a climate problem.
(I don't mean the people who question how to address the problem - that's still legitimately an open question - or the severity of the problem, I mean the people still in denial that there's a problem at all.)
So if there's less ice, it's because of global warming. But if there's more ice, it's because of global warming.
Just curious, if global warming were not a thing, what would the ice caps be doing?
Re: (Score:2)
The Ice age boogie...
Re: (Score:2)
But if there's more ice, it's because of global warming.
citation needed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What will it take? (Score:5, Interesting)
So if there's less ice, it's because of global warming. But if there's more ice, it's because of global warming.
Yes. There is less ice in some areas due to global warming and more ice in other areas due to global warming.
Think of it this way: Imagine the entire planet heated up by 20C, we wouldn't expect to see any permanent ice outside of Antarctica. (The North Pole might get some seasonal ice, but the much warmer oceans would melt it fairly quickly.) Now, with all of the oceans that much warmer, think how much additional water vapor would make it into the atmosphere. When the additional water vapor ends up over the South Pole, it will be cold enough for it to freeze and fall as snow. As the snow accumulates, it compacts into ice and we end up with a LOT more ice at the South Pole.
So: Less ice everywhere but Antarctica due to global warming, but a lot more ice in Antarctica due to global warming.
(And, yes; I do realize that this example is a vast simplification - and overstatement - I just used it to illustrate the point.)
Re: (Score:2)
It's called global climate change. The 'global' part means that it affects more than one place.
Re: (Score:2)
Unless you already live in a place with such hostile climate that it could only improve, you don't actually know that things will be better for your location. And remember economic dislocations very far away can affect you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Do what I do, stop caring and move inland. Let the deniers settle at the shore and shoot them when they try to outrun the flood.
What will it take? (Score:2, Interesting)
Climate change "skepticism" is highly organized and well funded. It's a billion dollar effort. All those people who glibly tell you it's not real aren't skeptics at all, they're just kool-aid drinkers.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-money-funds-climate-change-denial-effort/
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/feb/14/funding-climate-change-denial-thinktanks-network
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/dec/20/conservative-groups-1bn-against-climate-change
And ... guess what? It's mo
Re: (Score:2)
(I don't mean the people who question how to address the problem - that's still legitimately an open question - or the severity of the problem, I mean the people still in denial that there's a problem at all.)
Careful what you wish for - the next, and final stage in the evolution of climate denialism is for it to take a rather different, more difficult form:
Climate obstructionism.
Re: (Score:3)
And that right there is your ignorance.
A couple decades ago they figured out CFC's, specifically the chlorine in them, was making it really high up in the atmosphere, where it reacted with sunlight to destroy ozone molecules in an unending chain reaction. The thinning of the ozone layer, and even development of holes in it, was leading to increased UV radiation reaching the ground rather than being absorbed up there in the ozone layer. skin cancer rates were measurably increasing. These CFCs came predominan
Re:What will it take? (Score:5, Insightful)
the next story on slashdot—on iCloud nude pics leakage—collected more comments. ..i'm sorry to disappoint you but it really is not more complex than that..
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see it as a "climate problem" any more than I see aging as a "chronology problem".
It's climate.
It changes.
Adapt or die.
Building a city on a coastline might be incredibly convenient, but it is exactly like building it on the edge of a volcano. The only difference is a matter of scale.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Climate warming occurs naturally, it's historically been warmer before than it is now. So this was destined to happen sometime - why are you afraid of it now? The rise is still so gradual sea-side communities can still adapt, and overall rise is something like a foot and a half over 150-200 years. That's hardly anything to get worked up over.
It is amusing though to think you probably bought into the whole "global warming pause is because oceans are storing heat" story when we find from this story ocean temperatures are rising from glacial melt entering the ocean... which has to be affecting measured temperatures.
Just all around so much fear and total misunderstanding of what climate change actually means from the people who deny natural climate change exists...
No one (at least not anyone I know) denies that climate change through non-anthropogenic processes exists.
However, making the assumption that because there are non-anthropogenic processes that affect the global climate, anthropogenic processes do not exist, or are not relevant to the discussion, is like saying "well, since people die from old age, disease, lightning strikes, avalanches and landslides, that means that murder, auto accidents, arson deaths and the like do not exist."
Yes, that's a straw man. Y
Re: (Score:2)
Who said it was?
Re: (Score:2)
Fresh water less dense, more volume per weight (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's permanent as long as there's 350 billion tons of fresh water melting into the ocean there every year.