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!

Newly Discovered Meltwater Streams Flow Beneath the Antarctic Ice Sheet

timothy posted 1 year,14 days | from the streams-of-whiskey-they-are-flowing dept.

Earth 130

The Telegraph reports that previously undetected streams of meltwater have been observed beneath the Antarctic ice sheet. "The streams of water, some of which are 250m in height and stretch for hundreds of kilometres, could be destabilising parts of the Antarctic ice shelf immediately around them and speeding up melting, researchers said. However, they added that it remains unclear how the localised effects of the channels will impact on the future of the floating ice sheet as a whole. The British researchers used satellite images and radar data to measure variations in the height of the Filchner-Ronne Ice Shelf in West Antarctica, which reveal how thick the ice is." The paper itself is paywalled, but the abstract is available online.

cancel ×

130 comments

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

There always has been water flow under the ice (0, Troll)

SpaceLifeForm (228190) | 1 year,14 days | (#45055451)

It is when it is visible because of the lack of ice that some of the global warming deniers will wake up. Maybe.

Re:There always has been water flow under the ice (2, Funny)

binarylarry (1338699) | 1 year,14 days | (#45055509)

Scientists have discovered that Antarctica's ice shelf is made of water!

News at 11.

Re:There always has been water flow under the ice (4, Insightful)

symbolset (646467) | 1 year,14 days | (#45056179)

The mean annual surface air temperature of the Antarctic interior is -57C. Surface melt refreezes rather promptly. But ice is great insulation, and geothermal energy comes up from the Earth to melt the bottom of the ice sheet. This meltwater flows in streams and rivers across the world's largest continent until it becomes the world's largest rivers, inevitably finding the sea. This should be obvious.

Re:There always has been water flow under the ice (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,14 days | (#45056959)

the world's largest continent

Antarctica is the fifth-largest continent.

Re:There always has been water flow under the ice (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,14 days | (#45057317)

In other words, Antarctica is the world's first fifth largest continent.

Re:There always has been water flow under the ice (0)

rossdee (243626) | 1 year,14 days | (#45057625)

Is "Antarctica is the fifth-largest continent."

Is that counting europe and Asia separately or as one big one? (And what about Afric since its also joined to Asia.
So if you count EurasiAfrica as 1, North America, and South America as 2 and 3, then Antarctica is the 4th largest
(Actually doesn't that make it the smallest continent?
(Australia is the worlds largest Island, not a continent.

Well it does seem news to you. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,14 days | (#45056977)

Because you'd been claiming that melting ice can't raise sea levels by saying "put an ice cube in your drink and when it melts, the water level stays the same" but if the ice is made of water, your "proof" becomes "put water in your drink and the water level changes".

Re:Well it does seem news to you. (2)

taiwanjohn (103839) | 1 year,14 days | (#45057643)

The distinction is between ice caps on land vs. on the ocean. The arctic ice is already in the ocean, so melting it won't raise sea levels. But the majority of antarctic is is on land (same as Greenland), so melting that ice would raise global sea levels.

And the ice is mostly NOT sea ice. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,14 days | (#45057719)

Moreover, the OP was opining that "ice is made of water" which has nothing to do with caps or ocean.

It's a piece of idiocy the OP opined and I just went forward with it to indicate by logical progression how fucking clueless it was as a statement.

Re:There always has been water flow under the ice (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,14 days | (#45056373)

Yes, yes. Because the last time the entire earth has all the water as ice (snowball earth) and the last time the earth had NO ice on it at all it was those pesky humans and AGW. Wait. they didnt even exist then.

Re:There always has been water flow under the ice (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,14 days | (#45057175)

Yes, yes. Because forest fires ravaged the earth when the dinosaurs ruled and there were no humans then, so forest fires can't be caused by humans.

Wait, humans totally can cause fires.

Re:There always has been water flow under the ice (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,14 days | (#45057549)

Sorry for this immature statement, Totally? Any more mature i would have called "BS" but are you at yALE?

Re:There always has been water flow under the ice (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,14 days | (#45056781)

Um... The Antarctic is GROWING. And the Global Warming hypothesis is collapsing. You have your propaganda hat on the wrong way... :)

Re:There always has been water flow under the ice (5, Informative)

ElBeano (570883) | 1 year,14 days | (#45056983)

The extent of sea ice during the winter seems to be growing, but the total MASS of ice, sea and land, continues to shrink. You're the propagandist.

Um, no it isn't. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,14 days | (#45057073)

The continent has no faults in the surface so it can't grow.

And the deniers make shit up and get it completely wrong. Their faith is collapsing. You have your propoganda hat mixed up with your mickey mouse costume. :-)

Re:There always has been water flow under the ice (1)

bdeclerc (129522) | 1 year,14 days | (#45057139)

uhm - Antarctic *sea ice* is growing (and that only in winter, it mostly melts away in summer), in part because Antarctic land ice is shrinking - some of it is melting, some of it is floating to sea faster than before...

So, no imminent collapse of AGW...

Re:There always has been water flow under the ice (1, Interesting)

tmosley (996283) | 1 year,14 days | (#45057799)

15 years of no warming despite CO2 emissions continuing, greatly increased Arctic Ice coverage, increasing Antarctic ice thickness. increasing Antarctic sea ice coverage, and no observed retreat in Himalayan glaciers.

Sounds kind of collapsey to me. But what do I know? I'm just the guy who has been making physical chemistry arguments that show that CO2 has no net effect on the heat capacity of the atmosphere for the last few years, arguing instead that what warming we saw was from increased water vapor emissions, which maintain a tight equilibria with their rate of emissions (thus the lost decade global growth lead to a lost decade of warming), and bringing AGW idiots to take because they are ignoring the real threat from CO2--ocean acidification and the collapse of already overstressed fisheries.

But hey, let's all ignore physics and pretend like Al Gore is is a priest of the AGW god, who we must appease by throwing money at him.

Re:There always has been water flow under the ice (4, Informative)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | 1 year,14 days | (#45060301)

15 years of no warming despite CO2 emissions continuing

Convenient use of a record high as your starting point. Care to redo your calculations with any other window? Maybe, say, a 20 year window? Or even a 10 year window? What about a 12 year window?

greatly increased Arctic Ice coverage,

[Citation needed] and [Confusing a rebound from a historic low to slightly less historic lows with an increase over average].

increasing Antarctic ice thickness

[Confusing weather with climate] and [Lack of understanding of ice formation]

increasing Antarctic sea ice coverage

[Cherry-picking specific regional ice data points] and [Mistaking surface for volume].

no observed retreat in Himalayan glaciers

[More reading needed]. See also http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v4/n3/abs/ngeo1068.html [nature.com]

I'm just the guy who has been making physical chemistry arguments that show that CO2 has no net effect on the heat capacity of the atmosphere for the last few years

... which has nothing to do with the problem of CO2 trapping IR, or with why the atmosphere is heating up.

arguing instead that what warming we saw was from increased water vapor emissions, which maintain a tight equilibria with their rate of emissions

Water vapor cannot drive long-term heating. A single cold-spell will remove water vapor from the air, which will reduce temperatures, which will remove more water from the air.... Water vapor is the result of warming, not a forcing.

thus the lost decade global growth lead to a lost decade of warming

The global economy was working in overdrive until 2000-2001, and again from 2005 to 2008. Your own data calls you a liar.

bringing AGW idiots to take because they are ignoring the real threat from CO2--ocean acidification and the collapse of already overstressed fisheries.

I'm glad you'll find that all kinds of scientists, but especially marine biologists and oceanographers would love your help in spreading message. Care to sign up maybe with an organization like NOAA or the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute?

But hey, let's all ignore physics

Says the guy who mistakes anecdotes for data, cherry-picks his time frames, misunderstands the overall and problem and thinks that he has a better understanding of physics than Physicists.

Tell you what, write a paper about your insights, and if you're right, the Nobel prize in a few areas is yours. How is that for an incentive to go show up all the AGW believers? You'll be right up there with Galileo, Kopernicus, Pasteur, and a few other up-enders of the consensus.

Re:There always has been water flow under the ice (1)

ultranova (717540) | 1 year,14 days | (#45057077)

It is when it is visible because of the lack of ice that some of the global warming deniers will wake up. Maybe.

Not a chance. The nature of self-delusion is such that it becomes harder to admit the truth the more evidence you've ignored, especially when you've been vocal about it. People who have made fools of themselves by publicly speaking of international climate science conspiracies have a lot of incentive to keep believing in them. And of course there's still whatever reason - usually economic - that led them to start such games in the first place.

The more evidence is found, the more ridiculous assumptions are required to explain it away, and the more desperate the defence will be. It's the same with all communities of true believers. Unfortunately, this issue happens to have some actual impact on the world, so they can't be simply left alone in their fantasies.

Re:There always has been water flow under the ice (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,14 days | (#45058671)

The nature of self-delusion is such that it becomes harder to admit the truth the more evidence you've ignored, especially when you've been vocal about it

So considering the Antarctic is cooling, is not losing mass, is gaining ice extent - who's self delusional and has a hard time admitting it?

Re:There always has been water flow under the ice (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,14 days | (#45057527)

Give me a big drill and I can fix that. We'll just let the hydraulic forces bring the water up to the top of the glaciers, freeze there, and poof, glaciers stop moving *and* more ice mass. Nothing could possibly go wrong.

Re:There always has been water flow under the ice (1)

rufty_tufty (888596) | 1 year,14 days | (#45058997)

This is an old thought experiment of mine. They say that the mass of ice is decreasing and that surface water freezes immediately, (what with it being -50 degrees and all that) .
Would it be possible therefore to do some engineering and pump relatively warm water onto the surface ice sheets and therefore act as a heat radiator. Surely you could radiate colossal amounts of extra heat this way?
The only problem I can see with this is the quantity of water you'd have to pump. The question is for me would it help radiate more heat than it would cost to do?

Re:There always has been water flow under the ice (1)

P-niiice (1703362) | 1 year,14 days | (#45058015)

It's not warming, that much is clear. Ice doesn't always melt due to warming. Penguin urine could be adding salt to the ice and causing it to melt. Scientists are so BS.

Is the end nigh again? (5, Informative)

tftp (111690) | 1 year,14 days | (#45055507)

"newly discovered" != "new". Those streams may have been there for millions of years. They certainly were there when the continent was free of ice.

Re:Is the end nigh again? (4, Insightful)

DavidClarkeHR (2769805) | 1 year,14 days | (#45055531)

"newly discovered" != "new". Those streams may have been there for millions of years. They certainly were there when the continent was free of ice.

It's new knowledge, even if it isn't a new phenomenon (which it might be - who knows?). Kinda like ... math. Relativity (as it is). Microbes.

Even if it isn't a new development, or a new phenomenon (we don't know), we do need a baseline measurement.

Re:Is the end nigh again? (4, Insightful)

fyngyrz (762201) | 1 year,14 days | (#45055667)

we do need a baseline measurement.

Certainly. Then, and only then, will measurement of volume and rate acquire meaning. In the interim, statements like:

Even if it isn't a new development,

...and...

could be destabilising parts of the Antarctic ice shelf immediately around them and speeding up melting

...are no more than alarmist bullshit.

Now, next year (and years), when they measure those streams, if the aggregate volume is up, I'll nod in agreement when someone says "this could be a result of warming." Even more meaningful, if the trend continues upwards, we have an actual indicator. But right now we have the equivalent of "hey, here's a traffic signal" with absolutely no indication of if it's red, green, or broken.

Re:Is the end nigh again? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,14 days | (#45055755)

Now, next year (and years), when they measure those streams, if the aggregate volume is up, I'll nod in agreement when someone says "this could be a result of warming." Even more meaningful, if the trend continues upwards, we have an actual indicator. But right now we have the equivalent of "hey, here's a traffic signal" with absolutely no indication of if it's red, green, or broken.

No you wont, not if you're republican. The data for global warming is absolutely conclusive, and half the 'Merikins don't believe it.

We've already lost ... (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,14 days | (#45055809)

Now, next year (and years), when they measure those streams, if the aggregate volume is up, I'll nod in agreement when someone says "this could be a result of warming." Even more meaningful, if the trend continues upwards, we have an actual indicator. But right now we have the equivalent of "hey, here's a traffic signal" with absolutely no indication of if it's red, green, or broken.

No you wont, not if you're republican. The data for global warming is absolutely conclusive, and half the 'Merikins don't believe it.

Jeepers. If this is how the correct side presents a counter argument, it's no wonder the retards are taking over our great country.

Re:We've already lost ... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,14 days | (#45056083)

This. God, please, someone mod that up.

You can't just assert that all Republicans are automatically wrong by virtue of being Republican, nor can you belittle those with whom you disagree by asserting some sort of rusticity implying a failure to grasp reality, if you want to effect any change in America. You have to present arguments that support your points and provide others that refute your opponents' points, and most importantly, you have to do so in a way that your audience understands and finds credible.

One of the principal points of good rhetorical training is to understand that, if you fail to convince your audience, it's not your audience's fault: it's yours. If they aren't listening, you aren't presenting your arguments in a credible fashion. If your audience is poisoned against you by those who call your data into question, you need to find a better way of demonstrating your position; try describing the methods more comprehensibly and illustrating them in vivid detail and ways that make sense to them. Use rhetoric: your opponents are, and they've apparently kicked your ass enough that half the country doesn't believe you despite the evidence you have (and that you didn't explain well enough).

The biggest mistake the left makes is assuming that the right is uneducated. They are not uneducated: don't think that the Republicans don't go to college. They are educated differently, and they often are well-educated in rhetoric, law, and business. The left gets a different education, and the scientific left dwells in clouds of numbers and graphs while the right kicks their ass on the ground amidst the plebs. They argue cases and sell products. They preach. Boy, do they preach. They know how to convince, which is why you see so many demagogues on the right (talk radio, op-eds, and TV talk shows being great examples). If anything, they're better at speaking than the left (probably why they mock Obama for his teleprompter use, or OWS members for their total failure to say anything comprehensible). Really, the right is just better at explaining, in terms that everyone can understand, what they think.

The people who automatically assume that anyone who doesn't buy a story because he is irrevocably lost or stupid -- those people are not going to win a fight no matter how much data they have. It's not enough to do research: research is a tool that an orator can use, but only one among many. Curling up into the fetal position and blaming your audience is not one of those tools.

Re:We've already lost ... (0)

MightyMartian (840721) | 1 year,14 days | (#45056199)

When your sole definition of reality is that which can be argued well, I'd say you've stepped so far from a sane way of measuring and understanding the universe that you might as well believe you live in a Road Runner and Coyote cartoon.

let me ask you, do you think the universe cares if you can debate well?

Re:We've already lost ... (4, Insightful)

Chas (5144) | 1 year,14 days | (#45056895)

No. But you're not trying to convince "the universe" to start spending out enormous quantities of money to "solve" a "problem".

You're trying to convince other people, some of whom may disagree with your position. And overtly acting or implying that they're morons tends to make it quite difficult to open their purse strings. Even in the face of potential disaster.

Remember, this is science, not math. Climate change is not as simple and straightforward a proof as "1+1=2".
As such, a modicum of eloquence is required.

Re:We've already lost ... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,14 days | (#45057825)

No. But you're not trying to convince "the universe" to start spending out enormous quantities of money to "solve" a "problem".

You're trying to convince other people, some of whom may disagree with your position. And overtly acting or implying that they're morons tends to make it quite difficult to open their purse strings. Even in the face of potential disaster.

Remember, this is science, not math. Climate change is not as simple and straightforward a proof as "1+1=2".
As such, a modicum of eloquence is required.

No. Either you believe in science and the outcome of science or you don't. Regardless of "eloquence" most people, even intelligent ones, would "debate" the scientific merit of these theories at kindergarten level. "But, climate has always varied" (yeah, the stupid scientists didn't think of that did they). you can see exactly the same discussion when it comes to the "debate" on evolution vs intelligent design.

This is why the Koch brothers founded think tanks are putting so much effort into trying discredit scientists in this field in the public debate, it is the only way to win this "debate" in the public eye, because they have very little to add to the actual scientific discussion.

Re:We've already lost ... (1)

dbIII (701233) | 1 year,14 days | (#45056845)

You can't just assert that all Republicans are automatically wrong by virtue of being Republican

Ever hear the quote "we can define our own reality"? Unfortunately such people are infesting the party mentioned and have just about taken it over, but have a bit of a way to go yet to take over the other one (not that they are not trying). Also it was never about being stupid or uneducated. It was always about being liars.
Nearly all of the science denier bullshit comes from somebody lying to gain an advantage over others. It used to be about geology, then about biology, now this time it's about climate - but really it's about having an enemy to point at.

Re:We've already lost ... (1)

Muad'Dave (255648) | 1 year,14 days | (#45058503)

...and the scientific left dwells in clouds of numbers and graphs...

I agree 100% with that; note that the truth is not among the things the 'scientific left' deals in. Lots of FUD, lots of NIMBY, lots of "save the owls". No real answers, just obstructionism. Want to know why we're still burning coal and emitting vast amounts of CO2 for power generation? NIMBY and FUD. We could stop burning coal and start using modern fast flux reactors for power in no time if we could just get the scaremongers out of the scientific and political discourse and debate FACTS. We need to break the ties between the ancient nuclear weapons program reactors and power reactors - they have very different goals and should have different designs. Modern reactors are vastly safer then the already pretty safe Gen 1 designs, but the 'scientific left' clings to their 'China Syndrome' intro to nuclear physics.

Re:We've already lost ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,14 days | (#45060795)

"Use rhetoric: your opponents are, and they've apparently kicked your ass enough that half the country doesn't believe you despite the evidence you have (and that you didn't explain well enough)."

That "half the country doesn't believe you despite the evidence" seems to be a common phenomena in the US on science topics.
According to a 2012 Gallup poll ~46% of Americans believe "God created humans in their present form". http://www.gallup.com/poll/21814/evolution-creationism-intelligent-design.aspx

I heard an expression once that might explain this phenomena "a lie can get half-way around the world while the truth is still pulling on its boots".

Re:Is the end nigh again? (2, Interesting)

CadentOrange (2429626) | 1 year,14 days | (#45057449)

I found the GP perfectly reasonable. We've discovered a new phenomenon, we need a baseline measurement before jumping to any conclusions. Claiming it is proof of warming is premature and smacks of alarmist bullshit. The sort of bullshit that is really ideologically driven.

Re:Is the end nigh again? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,14 days | (#45055987)

, I'll nod in agreement when someone says "this could be a result of warming...

Your nod, along with the rest of your life, is meaningless and irrelevant
with respect to anything of importance which is happening in the world today.

All your pedantic bullshit proves is that you are engaged in a pathetic search
for validation from someone else on this website. But even if you get that validation
your life is still utterly meaningless and worthless.

Re:Is the end nigh again? (4, Insightful)

rve (4436) | 1 year,14 days | (#45056161)

Why does any mention of ice or antarctica have to turn into an ideological battle over the climate?

This melt water is forming at the bottom, beneat an ice sheet that's more than two and a half miles thick in places. It's completely shielded from the climate, which acts on the surface and on the ocean.

There are places in northern Europe, siberia, alaska, canada, where a few hundred feet below the surface you still find permafrost left over from the last ice age. It's so far from the surface that it apparently takes more than 10,000 years to melt.

Re:Is the end nigh again? (3, Informative)

jovius (974690) | 1 year,14 days | (#45056651)

In a way it's connected with the climate change. The cold meltwater streams allow warmer seawater under the ice sheet when they meet the sea. Because the seas are warming up the calving underneath is pronounced.

Greenland has similar kind of meltwater streams, and at least some of them actually begin on the surface of the ice. Extreme Ice Survey [extremeicesurvey.org] has great material. That ice age permafrost is in danger [bbc.co.uk] of pronounced melting too.

Re:Is the end nigh again? (-1, Troll)

Pino Grigio (2232472) | 1 year,14 days | (#45056889)

The seas aren't warming up. Antarctic sea ice is growing [thegwpf.org] . The BBC are warmist shills.

Re:Is the end nigh again? (1)

ElBeano (570883) | 1 year,14 days | (#45056993)

Sea ice that is miles wide and inches thick doesn't comprise the main part of ice in the Antarctic. Total mass of ice, sea and land, is declining. http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htm [skepticalscience.com]

Re:Is the end nigh again? (0)

Pino Grigio (2232472) | 1 year,14 days | (#45057151)

No it isn't [joannenova.com.au] . Please don't use the hilariously named "skeptical science" as your source. It's a bit like using Pravda as a reference for global events during the cold war. It shows you up to be a crude propagandist, not interested in actual reality.

A paper published today in The Cryosphere finds Antarctica has been gaining surface ice and snow accumulation over the past 150+ years, and finds acceleration in some areas noting, “a clear increase in accumulation of more than 10% has occurred in high Surface Mass Balance coastal regions and over the highest part of the East Antarctic ice divide since the 1960s.

Re:Is the end nigh again? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,14 days | (#45057283)

Yes it is.

Please don't use the paranoid hack playing to the crowd Jo Nova as your source. It's like using Cat In The Hat to determine the solution to world hunger: eat green cheese.

"A paper published today in The Cryosphere finds Antarctica has been gaining surface ice and snow accumulation over the past 150+ years"

1) More papers than one have shown AGW to be true and accelerating. How come one that accords to your wishes (apparently, see later) is all that's needed to prove something but thousands aren't enough when you don't like it?

2) Yes, snow falls. Then it melts. If it melts faster than it falls, and it melts much faster than the snow is heavier, then you can have incrased snowfall and decreased ice mass.

Re:Is the end nigh again? (2, Informative)

KeensMustard (655606) | 1 year,14 days | (#45057367)

Joanne Nova played a mean trick on you!

You'll note that the phrase "Antarctica gaining Ice Mass (balance*) — and is not extraordinary compared to 800 years of data" implies an increase in overall volume of ice which is the take away - you are supposed to assume she is talking about volume. But she isn't:

DumbScientist below helpfully points out that Zwally is using Total Mass Balance, which is different to Surface Mass Balance. The SMB figure involves "precipitation, evaporation and snowdrift physics" but not glacier run-off. Thanks to both readers.

Neatly tucked away there is the truth, the article in question is not referring to glacial ice volumes but to snow build up due to increased precipitation, and ignores the overall loss of volume due to glacial run off. But you can see how she has structured that, so carefully, to suggest something completely different in the headline but at the detail level, to admit that the paper in question has nothing to do with ice volume ("total mass").

What a spectacular lie! Almost as good as the lie she told a few weeks ago, you remember the one, about how she had seen a draft of the IPCC report containing a halving of CO2 sensitivity and then later she said they must have taken it out in the final version? There was no such draft, and she never saw a draft, why would she? She lied.

Please don't use the hilariously named "skeptical science" as your source.

We can, and will, use whatever source we choose. It's up to you to prove that Skeptical Science is factually incorrect. Start with Tyndall, then Arrhenius and work forward.

Re:Is the end nigh again? (0, Troll)

Pino Grigio (2232472) | 1 year,14 days | (#45057499)

What a load of utter tripe. Antarctic ice sheet gains exceed losses [wattsupwiththat.com] . I would link to NASA but due to budget difficulties, their website appears to be down.

Listen, here's the deal: You lost. Your narrative of catastrophic climate change due to man emitting Co2 into the atmosphere is a busted flush. Get over it.

Re:Is the end nigh again? (3, Informative)

tbannist (230135) | 1 year,14 days | (#45058107)

What a load of utter tripe. Antarctic ice sheet gains exceed losses

That was a workshop based on preliminary results, here's the final research paper [sciencemag.org] from the same scientist:

We combined an ensemble of satellite altimetry, interferometry, and gravimetry data sets using common geographical regions, time intervals, and models of surface mass balance and glacial isostatic adjustment to estimate the mass balance of Earth’s polar ice sheets. We find that there is good agreement between different satellite methods—especially in Greenland and West Antarctica—and that combining satellite data sets leads to greater certainty. Between 1992 and 2011, the ice sheets of Greenland, East Antarctica, West Antarctica, and the Antarctic Peninsula changed in mass by –142 ± 49, +14 ± 43, –65 ± 26, and –20 ± 14 gigatonnes year1, respectively. Since 1992, the polar ice sheets have contributed, on average, 0.59 ± 0.20 millimeter year1 to the rate of global sea-level rise.

Note the total is -213 ± 142.

Listen, here's the deal: You lost. Your narrative of catastrophic climate change due to man emitting Co2 into the atmosphere is a busted flush.

I wish it were that easy.

Re:Is the end nigh again? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,14 days | (#45057405)

One of the papers referenced by Joanne Nova (the Zwally) was actually just a workshop presentation of some preliminary results. Zwally went on to co-author a paper "A Reconciled Estimate of Ice-Sheet Mass Balance" [sciencemag.org] which indicated that Antarctica is most likely losing mass.

In my experience, Skeptical Science has some experts on there who are willing to discuss the science in detail with sceptics as long as they avoid politics and sloganeering. I am not familiar with Joanne Nova but she appears to have no relevant experience in climatology. I am not sure why your link is supposed to be better than the Skeptical Science one.

Re:Is the end nigh again? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,14 days | (#45057003)

The seas are warming up and the reason why sea ice is growing is because it's melting and running off the land.

You're a republitard shill.

Re:Is the end nigh again? (2)

bdeclerc (129522) | 1 year,14 days | (#45057155)

Antarctic *sea ice* is "growing" (most of it actually melts away each summer) - Antarctic land ice is shrinking, in part because it's melting away and in part because it's more quickly flowing to the sea, where it contributes to the sea ice growth.

Sea ice growth around Antarctica is a *consequence* of global warming, not proof against it...

And the situation is profoundly different for the Antarctic then for the Arctic, due precisely to the completely different land/sea configurations at both poles...

Re:Is the end nigh again? (1)

Pino Grigio (2232472) | 1 year,14 days | (#45057305)

You missed the bit below that about overall mass. Not that I give a crap of course, because it tells you NOTHING except that "things" vary. It's useful to say it's shrinking to fit your world view and political narrative of course, which secures a lot of government funding particularly for the scientists who enjoy junkets to far flung places, Nobel Prizes for doing absolutely fuck all and research grants so they can pay their mortgages.

Re:Is the end nigh again? (1)

tbannist (230135) | 1 year,14 days | (#45058155)

Nobel Prizes for doing absolutely fuck all and research grants so they can pay their mortgages.

If you were a scientist, you couldn't use any grant money to pay your mortgage. If you did, it would be theft. Grant money must be spent on doing the actual research.

Re:Is the end nigh again? (1)

Pino Grigio (2232472) | 1 year,14 days | (#45058407)

You need to attract grants to hold a job in the first place. The system is corrupt.

Re:Is the end nigh again? (2)

rve (4436) | 1 year,14 days | (#45057297)

That ice age permafrost is in danger [bbc.co.uk] of pronounced melting too.

I think you're confusing (near) surface permafrost in the arctic, due to the average annual temperature being below freezing, and ice age permafrost 300 ft below the surface that's there because the average conditions there over the Quaternary period has been 'covered with an ice sheet' - even if that hasn't been the case in 10,000 years. In most places, I imagine (no data available that I'm aware of), what's buried that deep will probably stay there whether it's frozen or not.

Re:Is the end nigh again? (0)

KeensMustard (655606) | 1 year,14 days | (#45056245)

Your methodology is flawed - the flaw is to assume (a) that scientists ought to customise proofs to satisfy your concerns, (b) that your dispute of a scientific finding automatically means that said finding is under a cloud.

Unless you have a plausible alternative explanation or can explain, with working, why global warming would not cause the ice sheets to be undercut by streams and destabilise, you simply don't have a voice. You only get a seat at the table if you have actual science to bargain with. Otherwise I'm afraid you are simply yelling into the wind.

Re:Is the end nigh again? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,14 days | (#45055627)

ANTI-SCIENCE TROLL NOTED. Humanity didn't exist when that continent was free of ice, and if it's free of ice again we're likely dead. Nice try, Rush.

Re:Is the end nigh again? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,14 days | (#45055827)

Everyone knows the earth is 5000 years old so naturally these streams can only be the result of anthropogenic global warming. To the goremobile!

Re:Is the end nigh again? (2)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,14 days | (#45055839)

And I'm sure the scientists never once thought of that possibility or looked at this before. They should be looking to random slashdot posters for their information instead!

Re:Is the end nigh again? (1)

tftp (111690) | 1 year,14 days | (#45055915)

Don't we have enough of confirmation bias already?

Re:Is the end nigh again? (0)

KeensMustard (655606) | 1 year,14 days | (#45056211)

Don't we have enough of confirmation bias already?

In slashdot? oh yes.

Re:Is the end nigh again? (1)

Joce640k (829181) | 1 year,14 days | (#45057065)

"newly discovered" != "new". Those streams may have been there for millions of years. They certainly were there when the continent was free of ice.

Right, but now we can see them and know if they're growing or not.

It's one more item to track on the ever-growing list of proofs.

Re:Is the end nigh again? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,14 days | (#45057651)

They probably have been there off and on for a long time, and may be a general feature of large, continent-scale ice sheets as they get thick enough. For example, meltwater channels like these could be what forms tunnel valleys [wikipedia.org] . Meltwater channels aren't necessarily a sign of any more melting than normal, although if melting is accelerating you would expect them to expand and become more numerous.

Ummmm (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,14 days | (#45055679)

...since when has Antarctica be losing ice? It's common knowledge that, unlike the arctic, Antarctic ice has been increasing.

Re:Ummmm (4, Interesting)

JWSmythe (446288) | 1 year,14 days | (#45056063)

Well, if it's increasing in surface area, but decreasing in mass, that would be a problem.

I think the concern they're trying to address is the same as one of the arctic ice concerns.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outburst_flood [wikipedia.org]

About 8,300 to 7,700 years ago, the melting ice dam over Hudson Bay's southernmost extension narrowed to the point where pressure and its buoyancy lifted it free, and the ice-dam failed catastrophically. Lake Ojibway's beach terraces show that it was 250 metres (820 ft) above sea level. The volume of Lake Ojibway is commonly estimated to have been about 163,000 cubic kilometres, more than enough water to cover a flattened-out Antarctica with a sheet of water 10 metres (33 ft) deep. That volume was added to the world's oceans in a matter of months.

I'm not saying that it's possible, or even probable. It's just an example of what destabilized polar ice can do. There's a whole lot of mass there.

Remember, the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami [wikipedia.org] was caused by a 1,000 mile long rift shifting by 50 feet over a few minutes. If a sufficiently sized chunk (or chunks) of ice moved enough, there could be catastrophic effects for boating and coastal areas.

The long-term sea-level rise will be slow, and civilization will change around it. The short term effects of such events can be fast and catastrophic.

Re:Ummmm (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,14 days | (#45057379)

Did you really just compare arctic ice falling into the ocean with 1000 miles of the ocean floor permanently shifting?

Re:Ummmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,14 days | (#45057859)

Ice shelves don't abruptly move that rapidly except in relatively small pieces (say, hundreds of metres long). Other than waves that might be hazards to ships in the immediate vicinity (within km), glaciers do not produce significant tsunami. Certainly not ocean-crossing ones. None have ever been recorded, as far as I know. The effects of increased melting in Antarctica will not be "catastrophic" on the same sort of timescale and abruptness as a major tsunami like the 2004 Indian Ocean one. They will be steady and long-term sea level rise over the next few centuries. That's catastrophic enough for coastal areas without exaggerating the risks. There is no sign of any subglacial lakes on the scale of glacial Lake Ojibway and Lake Agassiz, which were special cases because the glacial ice in Hudson's Bay dammed much of the central part of northern Canada. Those were HUGE lakes formed by the ice blocking the regional drainages. The 250-300 known Antarctic glacial lakes (and, yes, Antarctica has been well-surveyed) are individually smaller and aren't expected to drain at once.

Re:Ummmm (5, Informative)

Gadget_Guy (627405) | 1 year,14 days | (#45056113)

It's common knowledge that, unlike the arctic, Antarctic ice has been increasing.

As is often the case this common knowledge is actually a common misconception. While the sea ice is increasing, the land ice is shedding mass at an accelerating rate [skepticalscience.com] . Since the sea ice is already in the sea, it does not affect sea levels at all. Thawing land ice does increase sea levels, since it introduces water to the sea that used to sit on land.

Re:Ummmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,14 days | (#45056925)

Since the sea ice is already in the sea, it does not affect sea levels at all.

How does that follow?

Re:Ummmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,14 days | (#45057167)

How doesn't it?
How do you propose sea ice would influence sea levels?

Re:Ummmm (1)

Gadget_Guy (627405) | 1 year,14 days | (#45058913)

Since the sea ice is already in the sea, it does not affect sea levels at all.

How does that follow?

If you put some ice in water and let it melt, the water level will remain the same. Even if you see ice sticking up out of the water when it floats along, the weight of it still displaces the same amount of water that the ice is made from.

This means that melting sea ice will not make the oceans rise.

Re:Ummmm (1)

mdielmann (514750) | 1 year,14 days | (#45059735)

It's common knowledge that, unlike the arctic, Antarctic ice has been increasing.

As is often the case this common knowledge is actually a common misconception. While the sea ice is increasing, the land ice is shedding mass at an accelerating rate [skepticalscience.com] . Since the sea ice is already in the sea, it does not affect sea levels at all. Thawing land ice does increase sea levels, since it introduces water to the sea that used to sit on land.

Sea ice clearly affects sea level. Take a glass of water, put in two cubes, Mark the line. Add two more ice cubes. The water will rise.

If all the ice slid off Antarctica, the sea level would rise. Calving a greater total volume of ice bergs over a given time period will cause a rise in sea levels. But the easiest way to determine the overall effect of global warming on sea levels is to measure the mass of ice that isn't floating in the ocean. It's also worth noting that the total volume of water on earth doesn't vary greatly over time (yes, we lose some water vapor to space, and gain some from comets).

Of course, total ice volumes are a determining factor in the salinity of the ocean, which is also significant.

The (actual) Surf (4, Interesting)

MrKaos (858439) | 1 year,14 days | (#45056007)

I know, the correlation/causation comment will come up, but you would never know the water temperature unless you got in the water and feel it for yourself over 2-3 decades of actually being in the water and knowing when to get in. I wouldn't call 250metres a stream, but other noticable thing is the way the weather has changed from a smooth transition to summer where it gradually got hotter to bursts of weather change where you will suddenly get days of really warm weather in winter and then back to cold and visa versa in summer.

I regularly goes for a swim or a surf on the east coast of Australia and for the last decade years the water has been really cold during seasons where I used to notice it was pretty warm. It has altered my whole habit of surfing. I used to go into the water around September and now it's late October. I love the waves but the goolie shock is just to severe. My mates would say the same thing and often the comment 'at least we know where the ice caps are melting to' would come up.

Re:The (actual) Surf (3, Interesting)

MrKaos (858439) | 1 year,14 days | (#45056051)

I also wanted to mention that it would be cool to get some little robots into these streams and map them under the ice to find out where they start and finish.

Re:The (actual) Surf (4, Insightful)

zmooc (33175) | 1 year,14 days | (#45056183)

I cannot find any data on the Pacific ocean near Australia, but in many places oceans are getting slightly cooler. This has nothing to do with melt water, though; there's much too little of that to have a measurable influence, especially at your latitude. Instead, it is most probably due to changing currents.

However, a very likely alternative cause for you guys feeling colder would be that you're getting older; as people get older, they feel colder quicker.

Re:The (actual) Surf (3, Interesting)

MrKaos (858439) | 1 year,14 days | (#45057241)

However, a very likely alternative cause for you guys feeling colder would be that you're getting older; as people get older, they feel colder quicker.

Oh no doubt about that, I have to leave my walking stick at the beach so I can find my towel!!!

I cannot find any data on the Pacific ocean near Australia, but in many places oceans are getting slightly cooler. This has nothing to do with melt water, though; there's much too little of that to have a measurable influence, especially at your latitude. Instead, it is most probably due to changing currents.

I'm generally lean but have a bit of fat after winter so the icey water just strips it from you (apart from having a wettie on - which slows me down) so it seems to balance out and I want to catch as many waves as I can.

The thing is I have to swim really hard to get the waves so I'm working a lot to get them. The waves I'm after are about the same as the ones for a board as I am a pretty big guy and I get moving pretty fast. Catching them close to shore is dangerous as the waves tend to dump you on sand and I have been badly concussed from that before. Because of that I generally swim a good 100-300 meters from shore where the waves are bigger from sand banks - which you can see underwater.

When I'm out there I can feel the difference between the first metre and, when diving down, the next four or five (I'm a shark chicken - I don't want to be lunch so I keep an eye out). The water temperature is generally more stable the deeper you go but what gets me is that it is more often consistently cold all the way to the surface than not. You can feel the difference in certain patches of water as the temperature changes when you swim through them. This is the biggest change that I note (apart from seeing less penguins, seals and turtles).

Current change seems like a good point however I would then expect it to cycle between behaviours. So it could be because I'm an old bastard however there is a distinct change in the patterns of water temperature that entails the frequency and duration of warm patches of water. Whatever is happening, something is going on.

All the observed data is perfectly normal (0)

SplashMyBandit (1543257) | 1 year,14 days | (#45056059)

Antarctica is melting at the moment because it is spring in the Southern Hemisphere (I live not far away from Antarctica, the weather is getting good, yay!).

Overall, Antarctica continues accumulating ice year upon year. Antarctica melts and freezes with the seasons, but the overall trend is that the ice is growing:
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/05/10/no-warming-in-antarctica-since-the-start-of-satellite-records/ [wordpress.com]
James Hansen has been fraudulently claiming ice loss in Antarctica, and unfortunately his job allows him to tamper with data (although he can't tamper with the satellite records, so his fraud has been exposed):
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/10/05/hansen-forecast-peak-ice-loss-in-antarctica-2/ [wordpress.com]

What is also interesting is that the *Arctic* is also putting on ice too. It had 67% more ice in 2013 compared to 2012, and a huge amount looks to be added this winter. This is neatly summarized in the following map and graph:
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/09/16/67-increase-in-arctic-ice-over-last-year-2/ [wordpress.com]
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/10/06/2013-death-spiral-vaults-into-first-place/ [wordpress.com]
This graph shows not only that Arctic freezing and melting are normal, but it perfectly summarizes the evidence that there is *no* Global Warming (otherwise the sinusoidal shape would decrease in height with time). In fact, the biased/alarmist British Meteorological office finally had to concede that the computer models from the 90s are wrong and accept the satellite observations that after a little rise in the 1990s there has been *no* global warming for 17 years. Naturally, the British Met still cling to their warming cult, so they just say warming is "paused" (as if they could see the future given their abyssal anti-scientific position so far, and their support of witch hunts for "deniers" that were actually telling the truth). Of course, alarmists are still trying to peddle junk science and get taxpayer funded Carbon Credits and other scams.

The good news for all of us is we don't have to revert to a pre-industrial life style. In fact, it seems there is a sight cooling of the Earth, so not only can be use lots of energy to improve the lives of everyone, but it'll also help the planet too (although, apart from pollution, human emissions are fairly negligible compared to the other effects going on - such as the emissions from volcanic sea vents etc).

There is a great deal more to learn about the climate and the exposes the deliberate Global Warming fraud and how it operated (of course, the shysters have switched to a new meme, "Climate Change" in which case they can win no matter what happens - since the climate has always changed through *natural* processes):
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/ [wordpress.com]

Be free people. Don't let your Government tax you or regulate you to death with junk science about "Global Warming" and "Climate Change". Don't pollute though, please - it hurts animals (especially if you are a boatie and chuck stuff out at sea - the plastic ring that joins multiple beer cans together is especially bad).

Re:All the observed data is perfectly normal (0)

MightyMartian (840721) | 1 year,14 days | (#45056205)

and doubtless this Blogster has published his incredible finds that unseat what almost every climatologist in the fucking world says, right? I mean, you woujldnt just be buying into something that confirms your preexisting prejudices

Re:All the observed data is perfectly normal (1)

SplashMyBandit (1543257) | 1 year,14 days | (#45056469)

I understand your point of view. Do you have any observational data to counter those that I posted in links? The Scientific Method requires me to look at any counter-facts you can produce. So I'd be grateful if you have any additional data - especially data that could invalidate my current point-of-view.

that unseat what almost every climatologist in the fucking world says

Science is not performed by "consensus". There was a consensus against Galileo, but guess who was right? What matters are observations and explanations of the observations that account for all the known facts. "Almost every climatologist" simply believes the data they are given by people like James Hansen and Michael Mann - both of which have been tampering with the data (they remove "outliers" that don't fit their preconceived hypothesis - which is hideously anti-scientific). Fortunately the satellite data is harder to tamper with, and agrees with the raw terrestrial data that has not been tampered with. The site I linked to explains what it going on and demonstrates with the data. You can evaluate the validity for yourself. I'm not asking that you believe me. I'm asking you evaluate unbiased data from multiple sources for yourself.

I mean, you woujldnt just be buying into something that confirms your preexisting prejudices

If the observations are proof of Global Warming then I'm cool with that. However, the data I see (eg. that magnificent sinusoidal graph, or the satellite visual imagery of the massive Arctic ice cover) does not support this hypothesis. I would hope that you also take an objective look at the data I have linked to. If I'm wrong then I'm wrong - but I have not seen any recent data that supports the computer models of the 1990s. Hence, I *must* conclude what the observations are saying. After the mid-1990s there has been no substantial global warming. In fact, it looks like a slight cooling if the Southern Hemisphere data is combined with Northern data.

Sorry if that bursts your bubble. All I ask is that you look with fresh eyes and an open mind at the data I have presented. Or present counter-data if you have it. I simply hope to share with Slashdotters my discovering of *recent* observations and the impact this has on the older and possibly out-of-date Global Warming meme. I hope you check out the links I posted so you can make your own mind up. Thanks.

Slashdotters are smart people. All I'm doing is pointing them at some data they may not have seen before. They can make up their own minds as to whether that data is good or not - and whether the null hypothesis should be chosen over the Global Warming theory.

Re:All the observed data is perfectly normal (1)

ElBeano (570883) | 1 year,14 days | (#45057027)

Total mass of ice in the Antarctic continues to decline: http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htm [skepticalscience.com] Temperature trends since the 90s indicate more gradual warming, not cooling. http://www.sciencealert.com.au/news/20121705-23396.html [sciencealert.com.au] In the past, ice at the poles has never coexisted with atmospheric CO2 above 400ppm, a threshold that we just crossed. Time will prove you drastically wrong, but some of us are running low on patience for the trolling.

Re:All the observed data is perfectly normal (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,14 days | (#45057639)

Where did you get that information from, remember the earth is not the same as a year ago, things shift around a bit. What was happening a thousand years ago, why was it warm then? What was happening before that? Remember yours is the first generation to extrapolate what was going on, we have direct records. We have no direct records of what was really going on before then, and what if your wrong? Have you just made someone else poorer, or let them die? Just on a science jag.
I agree with education, from there we can alter paths from the brutish leading the world to enlightenment of all. I don't see that from warmists, and I don't see that from the Koch's or Adelmans. They all seem brutish.

Re:All the observed data is perfectly normal (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,14 days | (#45056577)

(although, apart from pollution, human emissions are fairly negligible compared to the other effects going on - such as the emissions from volcanic sea vents etc).

Interesting, how about this? Apart from claws and teeth, tiger related injuries are fairly negligible compared with other effects going on.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming.htm
Do volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans?
What the science says...
Humans emit 100 times more CO2 than volcanoes.
Volcanoes emit around 0.3 billion tonnes of CO2 per year. This is about 1% of human CO2 emissions which is around 29 billion tonnes per year.

SplashMyBandit is obviously an AGW troll, even if he does recycle those old gems.

Re:All the observed data is perfectly normal (1)

Sique (173459) | 1 year,14 days | (#45056847)

If someone predicts something, and it doesn't happen, then the prediction was offbase, but to conclude fraud ist quite far fetched. If my navigation system predicts an arrival time of 1:55 pm, but I arrive at 2:05 pm or at 1:45 pm, would you conclude that TomTom deliberately gave a fraudulent estimate? I mistrust everyone, who can only conclude fraud if some prediction doesn't fit the real development. People can be honestly at fault. People always have incomplete information. And every future development is partly determined by unforeseeable events. If someone calls this a fraud, he's either clueless, or he just wants to blame someone.

And the area of the ice shelf at the Arctis is indeed larger (my numbers say 50%, 5.1 million square kilometers in 2013 instead of 3.4 square kilometers in 2012) than the year before, but it's still less than the long term average. This is at 13.9 million square kilometers for the years 1979-2000. So while 2012 might have been an extreme minimum, we are in 2013 still far away of any normalization.

Re:All the observed data is perfectly normal (2)

bdeclerc (129522) | 1 year,14 days | (#45057181)

What Steve Goddard "forgets" to mention is that it's actually only the Antarctic sea ice that is growing, while the land-ice there is melting away ever faster...

And the 67% more ice in 2013 compared to 2012 still puts 2013 in 6th lowest position for arctic ice-extent in the observational record, curiously together with 2007-2008-2009-2010-2011-2012) - so it is lower than *any* observed ice-extent prior to 2007... Doing better than the single worst year on record is not proof that nothing's wrong, it's just proof of the fact that there are significant annual fluctuations in ice-extent, primarily due to short-term weather.

Average thickness and ice-volume in the Arctic are actually far more relevant measurements (as unlike "extent", they measure the *amount* of ice, not how thinly it's spread out) and those have been dropping almost without fail year after year after year...

Re:All the observed data is perfectly normal (1)

hey! (33014) | 1 year,14 days | (#45057773)

Once again, a denialist conflates seasonal *sea* ice with permanent *land* ice.

Be free people.

Freedom of conscience doesn't mean freedom from consequences, as much as we'd wish it so.

FAT CAT CLIMATE SCIENTISTS AT IT AGAIN!!! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,14 days | (#45056091)

I thought we furloughed all those assholes!

Re:FAT CAT CLIMATE SCIENTISTS AT IT AGAIN!!! (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,14 days | (#45056677)

Fat cat scientists? Are you a fucking idiot? Check out the fat cats around the world - multilmillionaires, billionaires.

Bill Gates - computer scientist or businessman?

Businessman.

John Key, prime minister of New Zealand - scientist, or businessman?

Businessman.

Obama - scientist?

In fact, if you could list the scientists who are "fat cat" millioniares, I'd quite appreciate it. I'm waiting....

Slashdot demands recognition! (1, Interesting)

Ellie K (1804464) | 1 year,14 days | (#45056107)

Altmetrics is a new-ish bibliometic service for scholarly journal articles, including Nature, which is where this was published. Altmetrics includes mainstream media coverage as as well as social media appearance counts e.g. SciBlogs, Twitter as valid data. Physorg is mentioned but I do not see Slashdot [nature.com] . We, the Slashdot collective, demand recognition!

* Unless we are deemed insufficiently social? Anti-social? Of course not.
** Altmetrics is beta-ish, possibly open source, so my indignation is mostly insincere.

Why it matters (2, Insightful)

quantaman (517394) | 1 year,14 days | (#45056703)

Antarctica is one of the major feedbacks [gwynnedyer.com] :

The protective covering of floating ice that has shielded the Arctic Ocean from solar heating for so long is now going fast, and we will probably see an ice-free Arctic Ocean in the August-September period as early as the 2020s. Mercifully, this is the smallest of the three major feedbacks in terms of its impact – but it triggers a bigger one.

The warmer air and water in the Arctic then starts to melt the permanently frozen ground and coastal seabed (permafrost) that extends over more than ten million square km. (3 million sq. mi.) of territory, a considerably larger area than Australia. This melting releases a huge amount of methane that has been locked into the ground for millions of years. Methane is a far more effective warming agent than carbon dioxide, and so we spin closer to runaway.

[...]

Those are the killer feedbacks. Earth has lurched suddenly into a climate 5-6 degrees C higher than now a number of times in the past. The original warming usually came from massive, long-lasting volcanic eruptions that put a large amount of CO2 into the atmosphere – but in every case it was feedbacks like these that carried the planet up into a temperature regime where there was a massive dieback of animals and plants.

Considering we're already experiencing major extinctions I'm not sure I want to stack ecological disasters.

Re:Why it matters (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,14 days | (#45057067)

The nature article is about the Antarctic while your link is about the Arctic don't mix them.

Re:Why it matters (1)

tmosley (996283) | 1 year,14 days | (#45057897)

Yeah, especially since the rebound in Arctic ice that started even before the end of summer has already been so extreme that it destroys the "ice free Arctic" "thesis".

sounds like fun (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,14 days | (#45056987)

I for one would like to live in a time where the antarctic is ice free.
Just imagine all the things we could find under there.
Animals, trees and all kinds of stuff just sitting there frozen.

We are emerging from an ice age (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,14 days | (#45057195)

Just 12,000 years ago the Earth was in an ice age, and it has been emerging from it since, without the help of humans. It will continue to emerge from the ice age despite humanity's insane and obsessive desire to stop it.

Re:We are emerging from an ice age (1)

bdeclerc (129522) | 1 year,14 days | (#45057571)

Before AGW, we'de been in a slow cooling phase for 5,000 years- yeah, we emerged from an ice age 12,000 years ago, but we haven't been "emerging from it since".

But let's not let *facts* get in the way of our preconceptions..

Re:We are emerging from an ice age (1)

tmosley (996283) | 1 year,14 days | (#45057911)

lol, that's the first time I heard that one. How about a source there, Chicken Little?

Yes, because car exhaust warms the earth's center. (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,14 days | (#45057485)

Only two people in this entire comment section have successfully dodged the global warming spin hucksters to note the following:

The mean annual surface air temperature of the Antarctic interior is -57C. Surface melt refreezes rather promptly. But ice is great insulation, and geothermal energy comes up from the Earth to melt the bottom of the ice sheet. This meltwater flows in streams and rivers across the world's largest continent until it becomes the world's largest rivers, inevitably finding the sea. This should be obvious.

This has nothing to do with industrial exhaust.

So chill out. (In fact, you don't have any other choice. We're entering another ice age. Wise up. Be prepared for a really shitty snow-heavy winter.)

Re:Yes, because car exhaust warms the earth's cent (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,14 days | (#45059127)

You have no idea what you're babbling about. You assert things that have no scientific value.

You are a pro-pollution shill of no consequence. You fool nobody. You are the fool.

Re:Yes, because car exhaust warms the earth's cent (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,14 days | (#45059425)

For contrast, people who do know something about that which they speak.

http://phys.org/news/2013-09-newly-climate-action.html#nRlv

Fix your brain. Use a hammer.

CLIMATE CHANGE DENIALISTS ARE MORONS. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,14 days | (#45057885)

Period. End of discussion and thread.

Tangled Streams (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,14 days | (#45059339)

If these streams manage to tangle, there be hurricanes over the British soil!

How high are other rivers? (1)

G3ckoG33k (647276) | 1 year,14 days | (#45059499)

"The streams of water, some of which are 250m in height and stretch for hundreds of kilometres"

WTF?

Since when did we start measuring rivers' height?

Re:How high are other rivers? (1)

iggymanz (596061) | 1 year,14 days | (#45060283)

these are above ground level; the ice cap is nearly three miles thick (4700 meters) in places!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?