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!

ICE Satellite Maps Profound Polar Thinning

kdawson posted about 5 years ago | from the skating-on-thin-ice dept.

Earth 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."

cancel ×

245 comments

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

Good-bye ice, it was nice knowing you. (1, Insightful)

operator_error (1363139) | about 5 years ago | (#29554109)

...as the unknown future falls.

Re:Good-bye ice, it was nice knowing you. (3, Funny)

icebike (68054) | about 5 years ago | (#29554201)

Where is the massive coastal flooding that was promised to be caused by this?

I have beachfront property. Or I will have as soon as the much promised flooding arrives.

Re:Good-bye ice, it was nice knowing you. (3, Informative)

EsbenMoseHansen (731150) | about 5 years ago | (#29554231)

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,

Re:Good-bye ice, it was nice knowing you. (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29554301)

I say fuck the polar bears. Why? Because we need polar-bear human hybrids in order to survive the coming pseudo-ice-age warming period. Also when the magnetic field flips from north to south, our polar-human descendants can track the pole as it migrates over the period of M_PI years. I mean if anything can track that, it'd be a polar human.

Re:Good-bye ice, it was nice knowing you. (1)

PiSkyHi (1049584) | about 5 years ago | (#29554555)

Tell it to the judge..

Re:Good-bye ice, it was nice knowing you. (2, Insightful)

BikeHelmet (1437881) | about 5 years ago | (#29554637)

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:Good-bye ice, it was nice knowing you. (2, Funny)

peragrin (659227) | about 5 years ago | (#29554911)

yea but the stench will finally be out of NY city. I think that's worth it.

Re:Good-bye ice, it was nice knowing you. (1)

Restil (31903) | about 5 years ago | (#29554929)

We have cities that are below sea level, right at it, or barely above it. They all cope (except perhaps during the occasional hurricane.

Think of how many well populated cities in 1900 are gone or all but gone today. For many reasons, economical, environmental, etc, cities will grow or decline. Think of every town that had to be uprooted and moved because we built a lake. Moving a bit inland over a 100 year period isn't going to be a big problem.

-Restil

-Restil

Re:Good-bye ice, it was nice knowing you. (2, Informative)

selven (1556643) | about 5 years ago | (#29554969)

That's vertical meters, not horizontal ones. I would expect a few dozen to a thousand horizontally for a few meters, depending on what kind of conditions there are.

Re:Good-bye ice, it was nice knowing you. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29554247)

The Greenland ice sheet is kilometers thick. Just because the thinning is measurable doesn't mean it's anywhere near the potential of a complete melting of the Greenland ice.

Re:Good-bye ice, it was nice knowing you. (0, Troll)

hydrolyzer (1637811) | about 5 years ago | (#29554249)

Also, where is my hover car? its almost 2010 dammit!

Re:Good-bye ice, it was nice knowing you. (1)

stms (1132653) | about 5 years ago | (#29554251)

Margaritas as we know them will never be the same.

Re:Good-bye ice, it was nice knowing you. (1)

MrKaos (858439) | about 5 years ago | (#29554613)

...as the unknown future sinks beneath the waves.

FTFY.

What is the net effect? (4, Interesting)

msevior (145103) | about 5 years ago | (#29554119)

I'm no climate change skeptic, but from just looking at the images it's not clear that the reduction in some places is not balanced by the increase in others. What is the net effect? Can these data be compared to model predictions?

Re:What is the net effect? (2, Insightful)

operator_error (1363139) | about 5 years ago | (#29554143)

What is the net effect? Can these data be compared to model predictions?

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.

Re:What is the net effect? (3, Insightful)

psyph3r (785014) | about 5 years ago | (#29554415)

Irrespective of humanity's perceived impact, does this not happen throughout history in a cyclical fashion? I would look at this type of activity as the main source of evolutionary change. The species that are equipped to survive the conditions will prevail.

Re:What is the net effect? (3, Insightful)

siddesu (698447) | about 5 years ago | (#29554531)

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:What is the net effect? (-1, Troll)

Tontoman (737489) | about 5 years ago | (#29554953)

They have never been able to accurately predict what the weather will be tomorrow. It is arrogant for Al Gore (who incidentally also invented the Internet) to claim he knows what the effect will be decades from now. The largest cause of CO2 emissions is natural activity. The most abundant greenhouse gas is water vapor. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas#Greenhouse_effects_in_Earth.27s_atmosphere [wikipedia.org]

Re:What is the net effect? (4, Informative)

khayman80 (824400) | about 5 years ago | (#29554983)

It's a better idea to get your science from scientists [www.ipcc.ch] rather than politicians. The CO2 emissions by living organisms are part of a closed cycle, and those isotopes don't match [realclimate.org] the composition of the atmospheric CO2 that's currently ~26% higher than it's been in the last 650,000 years. Other sources such as volcanoes emit 100x less [newscientist.com] than humans do. Also, water vapor isn't relevant because it has a short lifetime in the atmosphere and isn't well-mixed to the top of the atmosphere. I've discussed all these issues at length [dumbscientist.com] .

Re:What is the net effect? (3, Insightful)

msevior (145103) | about 5 years ago | (#29554419)

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:What is the net effect? (5, Informative)

khayman80 (824400) | about 5 years ago | (#29554435)

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?

The last article I read in Science [pik-potsdam.de] compared model prediction of sea level rise, and found that observations showed the sea levels rising even faster than the models predicted. Perhaps this was just short-term weather, though: more recent measurements may indicate agreement with the models.

Re:What is the net effect? (3, Interesting)

blind biker (1066130) | about 5 years ago | (#29554159)

Yes for Antarctica - there does, indeed, seem to be a balancing between areas with thinning and those with thickening ice. But not for Greenland, which appears to be pretty much on a dramatic thinning regimen.

Re:What is the net effect? (3, Insightful)

should_be_linear (779431) | about 5 years ago | (#29554169)

if net effect was positive, that would be great surprising news. It seems, instead, situation is getting worse so quickly that we are heading towards geoengineering (desperate) solutions.

Re:What is the net effect? (1)

Loomismeister (1589505) | about 5 years ago | (#29554281)

Why would more ice mean great surprising news? Is it so firmly engrained in your mind that moreice=better earth? This picture is confusing if you ask me.

Re:What is the net effect? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29554327)

Hem, Hem. We're talking about effects of global warming. Which includes faster melting of glaciers, which leads to increase in sea levels, disruption of oceanic currents, etc etc.

Re:What is the net effect? (2, Funny)

jamesh (87723) | about 5 years ago | (#29554779)

I'm with you. I'm going to wait until the sharks are swimming around my ankles here in central Victoria, Australia, before I stop pumping CO2 into the atmosphere.

It has to be sharks too. Angry sea bass aren't going to convince me. There are plenty of non-global warming explanations for why sea bass could be swimming around my ankles, and so that alone should not be taken as hard evidence of climate change.

And once I'm finally convinced that the climate is in fact changing, the presence of sharks swimming around my ankles isn't going to convince me that my CO2 has anything to do with it. It could in fact be the anklesharks causing climate change for their own reasons.

Do they know if this is unusual? (5, Interesting)

n2rjt (88804) | about 5 years ago | (#29554121)

I see on the maps that some areas are thinning, near the coasts, and other areas are thickening.
I wonder if that is the usual pattern, or if they are seeing something unusual.
The article didn't mention that, as far as I could tell.

Re:Do they know if this is unusual? (4, Insightful)

Beryllium Sphere(tm) (193358) | about 5 years ago | (#29554141)

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:Do they know if this is unusual? (3, Informative)

khayman80 (824400) | about 5 years ago | (#29554297)

Exactly. I've described my research [slashdot.org] into Greenland's ice sheets. My most recent estimates show that Greenland as a whole is losing ~100 Gtons of ice every year, but my advisor believes my estimate is too low by a factor of 2. As you say, northern Greenland is gaining mass, but southestern Greenland is losing much more mass. Climate change is a very serious [dumbscientist.com] problem, and I'm really annoyed that health care is currently distracting the Senate from an issue that affects the future of the entire human race.

Re:Do they know if this is unusual? (4, Insightful)

BrokenHalo (565198) | about 5 years ago | (#29554429)

and I'm really annoyed that health care is currently distracting the Senate from an issue that affects the future of the entire human race.

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? (2, Insightful)

khayman80 (824400) | about 5 years ago | (#29554453)

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:Do they know if this is unusual? (-1, Troll)

d3ac0n (715594) | about 5 years ago | (#29554935)

The thing you're missing is this:

Assuming that large scale warming is already well under way (And that's a big assumption given the major cooling trend we have been in for the last 10 years.) It is likely, in fact nearly guaranteed that not only can't we do anything about it now, we probably NEVER were able to do anything about it.

So what do we do to survive the inevitable alterations in our planet's ever-changing climate?

Race to the top.

That is, unleash our scientists and our businessmen to push our economy and technology forward as rapidly as possible so that even if Earth becomes uninhabitable, we might very well be able to just leave and go somewhere else more hospitable.

The problem with most of the "Church of AGW" types is that:

A) they assume our current climatic model is the norm for Earth. It isn't.

Earth has been either molten or frozen for far longer over it's lifespan than it has been temperate. Our current conditions are the anomaly, not the norm.

B) As most of them are essentially Socialists, they assume that transforming the globe into a "Workers Paradise" will solve Climate change problems. It won't.

Not only because AGW is a complete myth and we haven't ever really been able to affect anything more than highly localized weather patterns, but because Socialist countries BY THEIR NATURE develop MUCH more slowly, both economically, and technologically. (Assuming they don't collapse of their own weight or get involved in Genocide ALA National Socialism or Soviet Socialism.)

So what is the best thing that concerned politicians and governments can do?

GET THE HELL OUT OF THE WAY and let the capitalists GROW and ADVANCE us out of the problem. Capitalism allows us to adapt FASTER, Socialism cripples us and makes us adapt SLOWER.

The only way to survive Climate Change is to adapt to it. the sooner we accept that the better off all of Humanity will be.

Re:Do they know if this is unusual? (4, Informative)

khayman80 (824400) | about 5 years ago | (#29554957)

Assuming that large scale warming is already well under way (And that's a big assumption given the major cooling trend we have been in for the last 10 years.)

I've discussed [dumbscientist.com] this claim before. Short version: there hasn't been a cooling trend over the last ten years, major or minor.

It is likely, in fact nearly guaranteed that not only can't we do anything about it now, we probably NEVER were able to do anything about it.

The climate varies naturally on long timescales but Meehl 2004 [ucar.edu] shows the current warming can't be accounted for by natural forcings. Greenhouse gas emissions are the only way we can explain the temperatures over the last ~40 years.

Re:Do they know if this is unusual? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29554813)

So if you get big results you get big results?

And you get to pretend you're 'saving the human race' rather than getting grants.

Win win!

Re:Do they know if this is unusual? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29554305)

Qualitatively, what you'd expect from climate change is more precipitation (because there's more evaporation)

While I'm not a climatologist (I tend towards quantum physics), I'm not sure you can make that assertion. The formula for evaporation has myriad factors, including but not limited to heat. (The actual formula is W = [A + (B)(V)](Pw - Pa)/Hv [cheresources.com] ). It was stated in a BBC Horizon documentary entitled Global Dimming [google.com] that the more important factor was the amount of sunlight that hits the water, rather than temperature. In addition, the Horizon episode explains that there is both an observed decrease in evaporation and rainfall based on fine particulate matter in the atmosphere.

Re:Do they know if this is unusual? (3, Interesting)

khayman80 (824400) | about 5 years ago | (#29554393)

Higher average global temperatures imply higher upper ocean temperatures, which imply a higher water vapor pressure [wikipedia.org] . Thus more water vapor will evaporate into the atmosphere. Yes, Roderick 2007 [agu.org] showed that wind speed had a stronger affect on the evaporation rate than changes in temperature, but I doubt that affects the expected theoretical equilibrium vapor pressure from basic thermodynamics. When that more humid air is carried across a tall mountain range, its temperature decreases and the water precipitates.

Re:Do they know if this is unusual? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29554491)

Higher average global temperatures imply higher upper ocean temperatures, which imply a higher water vapor pressure [wikipedia.org] . Thus more water vapor will evaporate into the atmosphere. Yes, Roderick 2007 [agu.org] showed that wind speed had a stronger affect on the evaporation rate than changes in temperature, but I doubt that affects the expected theoretical equilibrium vapor pressure from basic thermodynamics. When that more humid air is carried across a tall mountain range, its temperature decreases and the water precipitates.

(I'm the AC you responded to).

While searching for an elevation map of Greenland I came across a map showing rates of surface-elevation change. [grida.no] It's tangental to my specific point, but I found it interesting nonetheless. I don't have access to recent climate data indicating evaporation rates, rainfall, or quantity of particulate matter in the atmosphere, but in the Horizon episode they asserted that there was a decrease in rainfall because extra particulate matter in the atmosphere created more water droplets that -- in aggregate -- were too small to form rain. Even if warmer temperatures were to increase evaporation, there are other factors involved in the amount of rainfall that would result from increased evaporation. The evidence presented thus far is a decrease in rainfall, not an increase. But, as I said, I don't have access to the raw data required to prove that definitively either way.

Re:Do they know if this is unusual? (1)

khayman80 (824400) | about 5 years ago | (#29554515)

I saw the same Horizon documentary. Although sensationalist, it did explain Global Dimming pretty well. But at the same time, regulations of CFCs and similar chemicals have been fairly effective, and their lifetimes in the atmosphere are generally measured in months. So that particular problem has waned, I think. But I agree, whatever effect it would've had on rainfall would've opposed the greater precipitation expected from global warming.

Re:Do they know if this is unusual? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29554869)

I saw the same Horizon documentary. Although sensationalist, it did explain Global Dimming pretty well. But at the same time, regulations of CFCs and similar chemicals have been fairly effective

(Same AC)

I admit that I haven't watched the Horizon episode in over a year, even though I have it in my Documentaries directory. At the time, though, I did describe it to a friend as "alarming", so I would probably agree with the sensationalist tag. I don't recall, though, whether they were blaming the particulates on CFCs, or just generic pollution. I do recall that they showed the massive pollution cloud coming out of China.

I read in another of your posts that you are an advocate of nuclear power. I wholeheartedly support that position and wish you luck in banging that drum. I vacillate on whether climate change is real (and if it is real, that the effects are a net negative to humanity), but I think regardless it is a net positive to have more and cheaper sources of energy.

Re:Do they know if this is unusual? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29554577)

It really is that simple.

Re:Do they know if this is unusual? (2, Interesting)

MrKaos (858439) | about 5 years ago | (#29554605)

Qualitatively, what you'd expect from climate change is more precipitation (because there's more evaporation)

What you are not taking into account is Global Dimming [wikipedia.org] . This phenomenon (do,do, do.do.do) blocks photons from hitting bodies of water which is what is *required* for evaporation to occur. Records of rainfalls taken in Israel has shown a decline in the amounts of rainfall as the amount of particulate matter (from pollution) increases in the atmosphere and blocks light from reaching the earth.

This promotes drought. Less evaporated water in the atmosphere means less rainfall for landmasses and, critically, less snowfall for the polar regions. If the snow hasn't fallen on the polar regions, it still means ice mass is not regenerated at the same rate.

Re:Do they know if this is unusual? (1, Informative)

Hadlock (143607) | about 5 years ago | (#29554253)

FTFA:

The maps confirm that the profound ice sheet thinning of recent years stems from fast-flowing glaciers that empty into the sea.

Which... is sort of what healthy glaciers do. Thick, healthy glaciers flow quickly due to the pressure they exert on the deeper portions, giving the lower ice under pressure more plasticity. This could be construed as abnormally healthy glacial activity, but IANAAG (i am not an artic geologist).
 
I should note my liberal bias, democratic registration, and belief in global warming, else I get modded as a troll or flamebait (it happens a lot if I don't specify my political leanings, sadly, note my posting history...).

Re:Do they know if this is unusual? (1)

khayman80 (824400) | about 5 years ago | (#29554319)

You're right. Glaciers melt all the time for reasons unconnected to emissions of fossil fuels. However, the current warming is atypical in many respects (which I've linked in another comment in this article.) Glacier melt isn't- by itself- proof of the anthropogenic origin of abrupt climate change.

Re:Do they know if this is unusual? (2, Informative)

Hadlock (143607) | about 5 years ago | (#29554575)

Double check your terminology there. The article specifically states glacier flow, not glacier melt in Antarctica. Glacier flow only occurs when you have lots of extra ice pushing more ice down the slope. Flow != Melt! It's way, way too cold in Antarctica for glaciers to melt anywhere on the actual landmass. Thinning ice shelf in this case is specifically due to improved glacial flow, pushing more ice out to where it can melt - in the sea.

Re:Do they know if this is unusual? (1)

khayman80 (824400) | about 5 years ago | (#29554609)

Okay, that sounds reasonable. Thanks for the correction. I've heard of research showing positive feedback effects from melting glaciers lubricating the slide of the glacier into the ocean, though. Does this only happen in glaciers in more temperate regions than Greenland?

Does it? (2, Insightful)

jarek (2469) | about 5 years ago | (#29554133)

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:Does it? (2, Informative)

khayman80 (824400) | about 5 years ago | (#29554345)

As far as I understand it, Antarctica as a whole is warming more quickly than climatologists expected. Antarctica should be warming more slowly [realclimate.org] mainly because currently most of the land mass is in the northern hemisphere. The fact that Antarctica is warming at all is a little troubling.

Don't matter... (4, Insightful)

The Master Control P (655590) | about 5 years ago | (#29554149)

Those who demand "proof" of climate change before we do anything to fight it will find some way to ignore this. They'll keep pretending there's "no evidence" and that it's a "librul conspiracy" until it becomes undeniable (I'm betting til the dams surrounding a port city fail) because they don't believe in doing anything proactive.

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:Don't matter... (2, Funny)

BlackusDiamondus (945259) | about 5 years ago | (#29554185)

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.

Wow, exaggerate much?

Re:Don't matter... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29554725)

You don't understand. Water molecules are evolving and will soon begin to reproduce at an exponential rate.

Re:Don't matter... (1, Insightful)

Arker (91948) | about 5 years ago | (#29554207)

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... (4, Insightful)

MartinSchou (1360093) | about 5 years ago | (#29554273)

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.

carbon credits to the rescue (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29554315)

Make yourself think youve made a difference and keep a good scam going, that's what theyre for.

Re:Don't matter... (2, Funny)

Arker (91948) | about 5 years ago | (#29554501)

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?

Sure, more efficient cars (as long as they arent less safe or something) is a great idea regardless. But if we are spending time and money (and energy) on one thing that is still less to spend on other things.

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.

"Moderately stable equilibrium" might be optimistic. Long term earth's climate swings between hot house and ice age. We would like for it to hold right in the warmer part of the ice age cycle forever, but that's not an option. It's easy to say human activity affects environment - but it's hard to predict exactly how. We cant just run the earth back and forwards through time running different scenarios, outside of computer models, which are only as good as their underlying assumptions. The agricultural age probably had affects too. About 10k years ago the last glaciation reversed. We are due soon for either another glacial (cold) period or else a return to a hothouse, naturally. Which is it? There are several logical possibilities:

  1. A glaciation should be starting, but anthropogenic effects have delayed it. Mitigation could result in a resumption of glaciation. Not generally good for mankind.
  2. A glaciation should be starting, but anthropogenic effects have resulted in a swing to hothouse instead. Might or might not be possible to reverse. If not possible then todays mitigation efforts are a waste of resources that will soon be even more precious.
  3. A hothouse should be starting anyway, human emissions or not. In this case it's very likely that all mitigation efforts will be entirely futile as well.

Re:Don't matter... (2, Informative)

MartinSchou (1360093) | about 5 years ago | (#29554731)

When I said "moderately stable equilibrium" I was talking about the amount of energy that entered out atmosphere. This was not very clear in my post, and I apologize for that.

Yes, over very large periods of time, the amount of energy that has then been radiated away from our atmosphere has varied as glaciation will increase the bleed off by reflecting this.

But, when we then start to burn off fuels that are the accumulation of energy over hundreds of thousands if not millions of years inside a span that is a few hundred years, that will have an effect. What that effect will be in the long is very difficult to determine.

Maybe the increase in energy will merely result in a slightly higher average temperature resulting in slightly higher water levels and then that becomes the basis for a new equilibrium.
Maybe the increase in temperature will result in more clouds which in turn will reflect more sunshine away and dropping the temperature resulting in larger temperature fluctuations over a span of multiple years like a sinusoid with an average temperature of what we have now just with a larger amplitude.
Maybe it'll run amok from a human perspective, raising average global temperatures 10 C, raise the sea levels 3 meters (10 feet) and make Scandinavia a lush tropical jungle. Hell, I live in mid-Sweden, 120 meters above sea level - what the fuck do I care if Los Angeles, New York, London, Paris, Hamburg, Tokyo and probably a billion people end up drowning or having to move somewhere else? And since it won't happen in my lifetime and I don't have kids, I really don't have a reason to care.

Maybe it'll go the other way. Ten thousand years ago the sea levels were 40 meters (120 feet) below what they are today. That kind of change would also result in some very serious geo-political tensions, as nations that were previously separated by hundreds of miles of sea would now have a land-bridge between them. Not to mention the consequences for fishing. To give you an idea what that might look like, I encourage you to read about The Aral Sea [wikipedia.org] . Or look at Venice. That wasn't a city that was built in the middle of a lagoon. Nor was it something that happened at the pace we're facing here.

Granted, those are the extremes, but increasing or decreasing the sea levels by a meter is going to have some serious consequences we aren't prepared for. They will happen on their own over time, but then we're talking about geological time periods of thousands of years, not the span of a few decades or a single century.

I honestly believe that from where we're sitting, we're on the cab of a run away freight train. We don't have a chance of stopping it before something "bad" happens (compared to the status quo), but we can at the very least lift the foot of the accelerator. Getting there sooner is not always a good thing.

Why the hell would I care about floods? (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29554517)

Environment changes with or without us, wtf do I care which way it goes? We're sentient beings, we develop technologies and my goal as a Scientist is it keep the speed of technological development as high as possible, I couldn't care less what a bunch of tree hippies around me do or want. If, when some change in the environment does occur, we'll tackle it with the technology we've advanced by then. But by keeping the rate of our technological advancement as high as possible, we'll also be able to achieve numerous other benefits (Singularity amongst them).

Why does it matter if a bunch of species dies? I don't care, I eat beef/chicken... All animals and plants I consume are domesticated, no matter the impact we make on the environment, we can feed our own, civilised states through the use of hydroponics, genetically modified crops (which are just as good or better than any other crop, protein is protein is protein, it's all the same atoms and molecules, compounds...it's all just starch, glucose... and it doesn't matter what DNA it came from), and genetically modified meat.

I've never seen a penguin or a tiger or a giraffe, and I don't give a shit about them, if they were to be wiped out tomorrow, wouldn't affect me the slightest. And if somehow it would, I'd look towards technology to help me get over the problem... stop whining hippies, it's people like that makes me want to join the marines and go shoot and mow down with tanks some hippie college kids... I now understand why those guys enjoyed doing it during the 80s, you hippies are annoying and unproductive as shit. Just spreading useless FUD, because of your kind other nations who can't support their own populations did not take the genetically modified crops we offered that would have saved billions of people, why? because a bunch of dumb hippies kept saying that those crops would kill them...

I'm not going to conserve any energy, in fact I'll use more, why? because I can, and I want to, and it does no good for me to save it...

Re:Don't matter... (2, Funny)

coaxial (28297) | about 5 years ago | (#29554615)

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.

Of course the irony is that the people benefiting from the status quo have always whined about the cost, even when at the time it was trivial. The sad fact is, that since AGW is a positive feedback loop, the longer we have delayed taking steps to slow/reverse the process, the harder and more expensive it becomes.

The maximum would be far greater - we might well cause one climate catastrophe as we seek to avert the other.

Yeah. It would be really a shame if more people took mass transit.

Re:Don't matter... (0, Troll)

flyingfsck (986395) | about 5 years ago | (#29554213)

Why do we need to fight it? The increase in arable land due to warming more than offset the loosses around the coast lines. It will be great if we can settle and develop Antarctica.

Re:Don't matter... (1)

EsbenMoseHansen (731150) | about 5 years ago | (#29554255)

Because the costs of adjustments to the new climate exceeds the costs of avoiding it by a huge margin.

Re:Don't matter... (0, Troll)

Whatanut (203397) | about 5 years ago | (#29554337)

And that's proved by.... ?

Re:Don't matter... (1)

khayman80 (824400) | about 5 years ago | (#29554423)

... the fact that the current increase in the CO2 level is 35x faster [wordpress.com] than at any other time in the last half-million years? That the last time the climate changed this abruptly wasn't very pleasant [wikipedia.org] ? Biospheres can adapt to gradual changes, but abrupt changes can be catastrophic.

Re:Don't matter... (1)

Whatanut (203397) | about 5 years ago | (#29554525)

That doesn't prove that adapting is more costly than avoiding. I'm not saying one or the other is better. I'm just saying that making the claim that one is more costly than the other isn't a fact.

Re:Don't matter... (3, Informative)

khayman80 (824400) | about 5 years ago | (#29554565)

Okay, yes. Technically I agree. The political/economic ramifications of our response to climate change aren't completely within the domain of physical science, so they're not facts in the way that the anthropogenic origin of abrupt climate change is a fact. For example, our technology could suddenly jump forward very quickly, rendering adaptation very simple and cheap.

But we're talking about the future of the human race here. Let's choose the safest option, and try to avoid the worst effects by moving from coal power to modern nuclear power. As technology advances, solar, wind, tidal and geothermal power can play an increasing role. We've stagnated and become complacent in a world powered by cheap oil; another industrial revolution is long overdue.

Re:Don't matter... (3, Insightful)

Idiomatick (976696) | about 5 years ago | (#29554893)

Fixing CO2 emissions is a few trillion dollar problem. Having water raise a foot and having temperatures change globally will be many many trillions. As lang changes there will be massive wars. You can already see parts in the Arctic. With the US claiming up to half of it (Including islands to the south Canadian's have claimed for almost 100years.). Dealing with food shortages, massive natural disasters. This will be many trillions of dollars over a long period of time.

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... (1)

Da Fokka (94074) | about 5 years ago | (#29554561)

Wrong debate. He was asking why adaptation would me more expensive than avoiding climate change altogether, which the GP suggested.

Re:Don't matter... (2, Insightful)

EsbenMoseHansen (731150) | about 5 years ago | (#29554915)

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:Don't matter... (1)

turing_m (1030530) | about 5 years ago | (#29554411)

Why do we need to fight it?

When it comes to unintended consequences, Murphy's Law predicts outcomes pretty well in my experience. Especially when whatever is changed is irreversible.

Re:Don't matter... (1)

Yokaze (70883) | about 5 years ago | (#29554477)

Where do you get the idea, that the arable land increases due to global climate change?

I hope, you don't think, it just gets warmer (as the oversimplifying name "global warming" might suggest), and one can start farming in the tundra.
There are more factors involved in arability than temperature

Re:Don't matter... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29554773)

Why do we need to fight it? The increase in arable land due to warming more than offset the loosses around the coast lines. It will be great if we can settle and develop Antarctica.

We wouldn't lose arable land only along the coastline - what's marginal land today will likely turn into too hot/dry land.

We also have a disproportionately large part of the worlds population and infrastructure along the coasts...

Re:Don't matter... (3, Insightful)

icebike (68054) | about 5 years ago | (#29554229)

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... (0)

Beelzebud (1361137) | about 5 years ago | (#29554377)

Stick around. We're getting close to the point where the ice over land starts melting. That's when the show begins.

Re:Don't matter... (1)

upuv (1201447) | about 5 years ago | (#29554987)

Please read the article.

Because that is exactly what it says.

Re:Don't matter... (1)

smoker2 (750216) | about 5 years ago | (#29554649)

The NASA Earth Observation [nasa.gov] site has measurements of the ice coverage at the north pole. While their text speaks of massive ice loss and continuing doom, the actual graph they provide of the data shows that while the minimum ice cover is less than the average of a decade ago, there is actually more minimum ice cover than last year, and last year had more cover than the year before. Why do they not mention this at all ? Maybe the point is to mislead ? Sure they say "Though sea ice didn't melt as much in 2009 as it did in the previous two years ..." - that is wilfully seeing the pot as half empty. If they were to publish the proper figures for 1979 to 2000 instead of just a vague average, we could maybe see whether there is a regular fluctuation, instead of guessing that the decline has been constant. It's disingenuous and wrong.

For all we know, the year 2000 figures could be at the top of their average band. Alternatively, if it's at the bottom of that band, then it would appear that we are only at most a year away from having minimum levels back at 2000 levels. Surely that would be good ? But the crappy presentation and weasel wording make it impossible to judge. They even order the data labels the wrong way so that 2009 appears lower than 2007.

Yes I know this ice isn't that which is responsible for inundation, but I thought it was worth the rant anyway.

Re:Don't matter... (3, Informative)

khayman80 (824400) | about 5 years ago | (#29554897)

The NASA Earth Observation [nasa.gov] site has measurements of the ice coverage at the north pole. While their text speaks of massive ice loss and continuing doom, the actual graph they provide of the data shows that while the minimum ice cover is less than the average of a decade ago, there is actually more minimum ice cover than last year, and last year had more cover than the year before. Why do they not mention this at all ? Maybe the point is to mislead?

Yes, 2008 and 2009 had smaller ice extent minima [uaf.edu] than 2007. But the point is that climate models had previously predicted [demon.co.uk] larger ice extent minima than were observed in 2007. So the last several years tend to confirm that the previous measurements were due to short-term weather variability rather than a flaw in the climate models.

If they were to publish the proper figures for 1979 to 2000 instead of just a vague average, we could maybe see whether there is a regular fluctuation, instead of guessing that the decline has been constant.

Ask, and you shall receive [uiuc.edu] . No serious scientist is actually "guessing" that the decline has been constant, and no climate model that I'm aware of makes that prediction. Short term variability is expected, but the data shows a clear downward trend over the last 30 years.

Re:Don't matter... (1)

Idiomatick (976696) | about 5 years ago | (#29554905)

With regular fluctuations we could be nearing a peak for ice cover. And this would be the lowest local max we've had in 1000years for all I know... I do know however that, using yearly data in such a manner 'hey there is more ice this month therefore global warming is a sham' is also dangerous. I have seen these types of arguements pop up in this subject fairly often. I think scientists are internally careful about these sorts of things but have lost any shred of trust they had for the public.

Re:Don't matter... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29554663)

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?

Actually there has been a lot of unseasonable flooding but so far just in very low lying areas and in poorer countries that lack the dikes to moderate it. The problem is so far it's inches but eventually it'll be feet. Exactly high high up on your neck would you like it before it makes an impression? Massive changes in the Arctic should be enough to wake up most people but it hasn't made much impression. The native peoples have an oral history going back thousands of years related to climate and they have never seen anything like this so no it's not just a normal variation. Also projections have CO2 levels rising at the end of the century to the same level they were 60 million years ago when the poles were temperate. The current levels are the highest they have been since before the human race was born. Exactly how much science do people need to be convinced? I'm sure loosing coastal Florida will convince you but that will happen many years after we hit the tipping point. We can't aford to wait until the average layman can see coastal sea rise. That's akin to waiting until an asteroid is visible to the naked eye to try to divert it. If you heard there was an asteroid that was going to probably hit the Earth in ten years and it was a global killer would you want to wait until it was visible to do something or would you want some one to get off their ass and do something? That's effectively what we are talking about.

It's in part because people have become very jaded (0)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | about 5 years ago | (#29554675)

Eco types have been screaming doom and gloom forever. It has been all sorts of different things that are supposed to kill us, different things that are going to run out and so on. Well guess what? None of that has come to pass. They've been batting zero on the doom predictions and the widespread scarcity predictions. The effect is the whole "Boy who cried wolf," thing. People get tired of hearing it. They hear all this dire screaming and nothing comes to pass so they stop listening. As such if this is the real deal, well then shouldn't have done so much crying earlier. If it isn't, then it is just more of the same.

Sorry, but that is just how it works. People get tired of hearing it and you lose credibility.

You also forget that there are people who believe the climate is changing but believe one or both of the following:

1) The climate change is a natural process. We are fairly certain that the climate has been much warmer and colder in the past than it is now. As such this may be nothing more than another natural cycle. If that is the case, there is probably fuck-all we can do about it. No sense in worrying over what is causing it, we need to spend our energy figuring out how to best survive it. It is inevitable that the climate will change so we should just face the reality of it.

2) The climate change, whatever its source, will have a net positive benefit for humans. More arable land, nicer weather, etc, etc. No matter what the cause is, the result is a good thing so we should welcome it, and as such not change what we are doing now.

Now I realize you don't believe either of those, that's fine, I'm saying there are people that do. While there isn't a debate that the world has had a slight warming trend over the last 100 years, there is still debate as to why. Since we don't have model Earths to run empirical tests on, there will probalby always be debate. Hard to prove, to the standard of strong inference, what is going on. Climate is extremely complex and, as I said, we can't run tests. We can only observe what happens. Computers models aren't really any help since even a perfect model doesn't prove anything (you use models to design experiments, not to make them unnecessary) and as a practical matter all the models are lousy and have failed to do a good job with predictions.

So sorry, but this is just how it is going to be. You scream wolf too much, everyone stops listening to you.

Re:It's in part because people have become very ja (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29554827)

wtf happened to my mod points....

Re:It's in part because people have become very ja (2, Insightful)

Idiomatick (976696) | about 5 years ago | (#29554927)

Ahahahahaa.... This is similar logic to saying that drinking and driving isn't dangerous since you've never died doing it yet. Total falsehood. Just because we haven't all died yet doesn't mean we haven't been in danger. And to assert that is a complete logical fallacy.

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.

I call.. BULLSHIT! (-1, Flamebait)

CranberryKing (776846) | about 5 years ago | (#29554193)

Let the Mod-Down attack begin!

Oh wait! (-1, Flamebait)

CranberryKing (776846) | about 5 years ago | (#29554197)

I changed my mind! I changed my mind!

Don't destroy my karma!

Personally... (0, Redundant)

MrKaos (858439) | about 5 years ago | (#29554261)

I'd like to welcome our water breathing overlords.

Hide in the mountains! (0)

tengeta (1594989) | about 5 years ago | (#29554267)

Our coastal cities are sinking with all this ice loss! Oh... wait. Ever put an ice cube in water and watch it melt? Or do you people seriously just listen to CNN all day while complaining about conservatives listening to Fox all day?

Re:Hide in the mountains! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29554351)

Not all of the ice water on the Earth is floating. Climatologists are concerned about the Greenland ice sheet, which is mostly above the water.

Re:Hide in the mountains! (1)

Beelzebud (1361137) | about 5 years ago | (#29554367)

A lot of us listen to the actual science, and aren't simply Rush Limbaugh parroting shills. The problem isn't from water-bound ice melting, it's from ice that is melting that is currently over land. Using your analogy, imagine your cup of water with a ledge full of ice around it. The ice starts melting, and the water runs into your glass. Do you think the water level will stay the same, or rise? Do you think?

Re:Hide in the mountains! (3, Insightful)

PinkyGigglebrain (730753) | about 5 years ago | (#29554457)

Congratulations!! You just explained by analogy how melting ice pack (ice cube), that is ALREADY floating in the water, will have no meaningful effect on sea level.

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?

Re:Hide in the mountains! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29554483)

Ice has less density than water, true, so floating ice that melts will lower the water level, not raise it. But that only applies to sea level reductions if the ice that is melting is already floating on the ocean, as it is in much of the Arctic.

However, Greenland and Antarctica have vast amounts of ice ON LAND. And together they have much more ice on land than the Arctic ocean has floating on water. When that land ice melts (and it appears that it is from TFA and others) the added water will cause the sea levels to rise, as it has been doing for some years now.

Hopefully my house, 14m above sea level and 20km from the coast, will be coastal and worth lots when I sell it to move into a retirement home in a few decades! :)

Re:Hide in the mountains! (1)

mtempsch (524313) | about 5 years ago | (#29554803)

Ice has less density than water, true, so floating ice that melts will lower the water level, not raise it.

Bzzzzzzt... Mr. Archimedes begs to differ - the water level will remain unchanged

The difference in densities is what causes part of the icecube/berg to stick up above the surface. As the ice melts it will increase it density and lower its volume to perfectly fill the volume that was beneath the surface

Re:Hide in the mountains! (1)

Fred_A (10934) | about 5 years ago | (#29554667)

Our coastal cities are sinking with all this ice loss! Oh... wait.

Ever put an ice cube in water and watch it melt? Or do you people seriously just listen to CNN all day while complaining about conservatives listening to Fox all day?

Your mastery of geography has me awed.

Not to blame (1, Insightful)

Msdose (867833) | about 5 years ago | (#29554309)

One thing we can be certain of, never will any blame be laid at the door of overpopulation. There is just no solution they can come up with for that that involves the hiring of immense armies of bureaucrats and trillions of slave taxes.

Carbon Credits? (3, Funny)

retech (1228598) | about 5 years ago | (#29554357)

I thought carbon credits would have someone parked on the poles with a couple of ice making machines (perhaps like they use in a hotel but not as loud) and they'd be scooping fresh ice out to keep it topped off... why is this not happening? Have we been lied to? Where did all that carbon credit money go to? Just when I thought for sure I could sit in my apt and do something really fucking meaningful from a distance to help save all those future generations by buying offset credit every time I got on WOW and played for two days... this just has destroyed my entire weekend and trust in humanity.

National Post rebuttal (2, Insightful)

sl149q (1537343) | about 5 years ago | (#29554499)

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:National Post rebuttal (2, Informative)

hotdiggity (987032) | about 5 years ago | (#29554541)

Your link is talking about sea ice. Sea ice changes year over year according to local weather trends, and is just frozen sea water. Hamish's research is regarding ice sheets. The amount of ice we're talking about is a few scales of magnitude bigger, indicating more profound trends, and can affect sea level. Sea ice doesn't.

Re:National Post rebuttal (2, Insightful)

smoker2 (750216) | about 5 years ago | (#29554685)

So we can ignore data if it suits your argument ? Sea ice is formed from and floats in the sea (duh). Global warming causes the oceans to warm - true or false ? So more sea ice can not mean a warmer ocean can it ?

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:National Post rebuttal (1)

khayman80 (824400) | about 5 years ago | (#29554841)

So we can ignore data if it suits your argument ? Sea ice is formed from and floats in the sea (duh). Global warming causes the oceans to warm - true or false ? So more sea ice can not mean a warmer ocean can it ?

I read that article, and wondered why the authors missed the crucial part of the story. Yes, 2008 and 2009 had smaller ice extent minima [uaf.edu] than 2007. But the point is that climate models had previously predicted [demon.co.uk] larger ice extent minima than were observed in 2007. So the last several years tend to confirm that the previous measurements were due to short-term weather variability rather than a flaw in the climate models.

Re:National Post rebuttal (1)

Idiomatick (976696) | about 5 years ago | (#29554857)

The amount of ice globally is quickly reducing (including sea ice). There will be variations abound, but the fact is that the global total is shrinking rapidly is quite disconcerting. I think that was GP's point.

We will find ourself on very thin ice (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29554549)

It has already been in the news:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBb4cjjj1gI#t=1m21s

What about becoming Fearless? (1)

herojig (1625143) | about 5 years ago | (#29554923)

I guess I am just tired of the debate. When I was a kid we were all petrified by the thought of a Nuclear Winter. Now everyone is trembling over a climate change that would look like a Perpetual Summer. How much of "climate change" has to do with our apparent need to have something global to fear? I understand that we fixed the Nuclear Fear, but that was just replaced by a half dozen others. Now I just wonder what would happen if everyone overnight just became Fearless.

This is bull... Antarctica is actually gaining ice (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29554967)

Media likes to report mostly about the west Antarctica melting/warming, but fail to mention that eastern parts have gained ice.
Here are some nice ice level graphs:
Antarctica: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.anom.south.jpg
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_timeseries.png

Arctic has however melted quite a bit over the last few decades: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.anom.jpg
More interesting data here: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?