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!

Study: Antarctic Sea-Level Rising Faster Than Global Rate

samzenpus posted about 2 months ago | from the how-high's-the-water-momma? dept.

Earth 302

An anonymous reader writes with this bit of good news for everyone who is waiting for their homes to one day be on the beach. Melting ice is fuelling sea-level rise around the coast of Antarctica, a new report in Nature Geoscience finds. Near-shore waters went up by about 2mm per year more than the general trend for the Southern Ocean as a whole in the period between 1992 and 2011. Scientists say the melting of glaciers and the thinning of ice shelves are dumping 350 billion tonnes of additional water into the sea annually. This influx is warming and freshening the ocean, pushing up its surface. "Freshwater is less dense than salt water and so in regions where an excess of freshwater has accumulated we expect a localized rise in sea level," explained Dr Craig Rye from the University of Southampton, UK, and lead author on the new journal paper.

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

unfair policy (3, Funny)

turkeydance (1266624) | about 2 months ago | (#47800531)

the Arctic sea level demands compensation.

Re:unfair policy (1, Troll)

Joe_Camel (161171) | about 2 months ago | (#47800597)

It's getting its compensation.....an Arctic Ice Cap that has expanded by 41% in the past 2 years. Most ice up there since 2006. Ironically, not reported here....
I guess anything goes to advance the global warming scam.

Re:unfair policy (3, Informative)

itzly (3699663) | about 2 months ago | (#47800621)

Arctic ice is still in a downwards trend, despite some year to year fluctuations due to different weather patterns. http://psc.apl.washington.edu/... [washington.edu]

Re:unfair policy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47800669)

But...but... it was really cold here this winter. Therefore global warming is clearly bullshit. Right?

Re:unfair policy (2)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47800759)

But...but... it was really cold here this winter. Therefore global warming is clearly bullshit. Right?

No, but they way the predictions have been used we have seen colder climate than the predictions for some decade straight now.
Thats the problem with exaggerating. Eventually people get tired about someone crying wolf that they won't listen when the wolf actually shows up.
In retrospect it had been better to underreport the climate predictions and adjusted as things turn worse rather than the other way around.

Re:unfair policy (0, Offtopic)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 2 months ago | (#47801173)

Not [wordpress.com] according to Zwally, et al. [nasa.gov] (abstract, pdf)

Melting has always occurred around Antarctica. That doesn't mean it's losing ice.

The net gain (86 Gigatons / year) over the West Antarctic (WA) and East Antarctic ice sheets (WA and EA) is essentially unchanged from revised results for 1992 to 2001 from ERS radar altimetry.

[emphasis mine]

Funny how these contrary studies have never seemed to make the headlines on Slashdot.

Re:unfair policy (4, Insightful)

itzly (3699663) | about 2 months ago | (#47801435)

Funny how you react to a comment about Arctic ice with a study of Antarctic ice.

Re:unfair policy (0)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 2 months ago | (#47801595)

Funny how you react to a comment about Arctic ice with a study of Antarctic ice.

I should have read more carefully. Certainly that was my mistake. But I think it was forgivable considering that it was a comment about Arctic ice in the middle of a discussion about Antarctic ice.

Re:unfair policy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47801913)

The entire thread is about Arctic ice, not merely that comment. Maybe you should lose the agenda.

Re:unfair policy (0)

Joe_Camel (161171) | about 2 months ago | (#47801439)

That's 2 straight years that the AGW clerics got wrong.

Re:unfair policy (1)

Barsteward (969998) | about 2 months ago | (#47800637)

but is the icecap as thick as it used to be???

Re:unfair policy (0, Troll)

Pino Grigio (2232472) | about 2 months ago | (#47800765)

Certainly not as thick as many climate alarmists here, no.

Re:unfair policy (-1)

curmudgeon99 (1040054) | about 2 months ago | (#47800945)

You're an idiot.

How do you explain why all the insurance companies are convinced this is a problem? [See my comment right before yours for links to the NYTimes, Forbes, NBC News, Washington Post and the LA Times with links to articles on how damned serious the insurance companies are taking the real threat of Climate Change.]

Re:unfair policy (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47801057)

Yeah, they can raise premiums and make even more money off of all the fear mongering. Climate is always changing. The Sun, volcanic eruptions (including underwater volcanoes of Antarctica), forest fires, and other natural emissions of methane and CO2 are the driving factors, not humanity. Our CO2 emissions are so small it is statistically insignificant in the scheme of things. Read the NIPCC Reports for a collection of scientific papers referencing the same data sets used by the IPCC but without the cherry picking and political bias. The NIPCC Reports go to great lengths explaining exactly what the IPCC report on the same topic skipped over or misinterpreted. NIPCC doesn't deny that the climate is changing and doesn't say that humanity has no effect, it just points out how grossly exaggerated the IPCC reports are.

Re:unfair policy (2, Insightful)

Pino Grigio (2232472) | about 2 months ago | (#47801167)

Because it's an absolutely fantastic opportunity to make huge amounts of money from lots of poor suckers. Can you imagine it? No need for fearmongering ad campaigns; the politicians and activist-scientists do it for you. Scare everybody witless then sell them insurance.

It's such a brilliant idea I don't know why I didn't think of it before. Oh I remember now... I'm not a sociopath.

Re:unfair policy (5, Insightful)

curmudgeon99 (1040054) | about 2 months ago | (#47801679)

Here's the problem with that line of reasoning. If--as you say--the entire Climate Change thing is bogus and the insurance companies are using it to raise premiums--where is the free market? Where is the one insurance company bucking the crowd? Surely, if this is a big myth, there has to be at least one big insurance company willing to sell cheap insurance. They could make a killing, were it true.

The only problem with your theory is the missing contrarian. No insurance company is willing to buck the science. Not one.

Re:unfair policy (0)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 2 months ago | (#47801219)

How do you explain why all the insurance companies are convinced this is a problem?

That's dirt simple. If they can claim it's a problem, they can charge higher rates. So whenever they find something that they can even remotely get away with claiming to be a problem, they claim it is a problem. Whether it's true or not.

This is hardly a genius-level concept.

Re:unfair policy (1)

curmudgeon99 (1040054) | about 2 months ago | (#47801551)

What about the free market?

If there is no risk, then surely some canny insurance company can make a killing by not raising their rates and getting all that business.

I defy you to find me a big insurance company taking that gamble. They're not because they know climate change is a real danger.

Re:unfair policy (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 2 months ago | (#47801633)

How long has it been since the insurance industry in the United States actually represented a free market?

Corporate lobbying, government subsidies, "market capture" (which is another way of saying oligopoly)... all these things have been common for decades.

I defy you to find me a big insurance company taking that gamble. They're not because they know climate change is a real danger.

We both know that's not going to happen, for the reason I explained to you in my last comment, and just now here. So that doesn't prove anything.

Re:unfair policy (1)

curmudgeon99 (1040054) | about 2 months ago | (#47801731)

So are you really trying to suggest that corporate lobbying is pushing insurance companies to fake that climate change is real? Are you kidding me? There is real money on the table. Let's look at the companies with the real risk on the table: the Re-Insurance companies--the ones that backstop the primary insurance market: "No climate-change deniers to be found in the reinsurance business" [theglobeandmail.com] .

These are huge corporations with shareholders and greedy owners. They don't screw around. They don't have to prove anything to anybody--they insure the insurance companies themselves. Even they--the Re-insurance companies believe that climate change is a real problem.

Shakespeare had a good phrase for your objections, Jane: "Methinks thou dost protest too much" .

Re:unfair policy (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 2 months ago | (#47801773)

So are you really trying to suggest that corporate lobbying is pushing insurance companies to fake that climate change is real?

No, that isn't what I wrote. Try reading more carefully.

You asked me about free markets. I was explaining why it's pretty difficult today to honestly characterize the insurance industry, by and large, as a free market.

The other thing (claiming problems where there might not be any) is a different issue, and it's not valid to paste them together as you just did.

Re:unfair policy (1)

curmudgeon99 (1040054) | about 2 months ago | (#47801857)

Jane,
Okay, to me it's very clear. The insurance industry is a balance of risk versus premium income. If they misjudge risk, they go out of business paying for huge losses. If they misjudge their premium rates, they go out of business because their insurance is too expensive. For that reason, all insurance companies have armies of highly paid actuaries who get fired if they are wrong about either risk or premium rates. Do you disagree with me so far?

So, don't you find it strange that not one insurance company, not one re-insurance company is willing to gamble with their cash horde that you're right? Doesn't that mean a thing to you? They don't care what anybody else thinks. They don't care what the world's climate scientists conclude or don't conclude. If they're wrong, they stand to lose billions of dollars. Do you disagree with me so far?

If you're with me so far, don't you find it even slightly curious that not one of these big, deep-pocketed insurance companies or re-insurance companies is willing to sell cheap insurance against that "hoax" called Climate Change? Why not? Wouldn't that seem like a way to make a killing? There are no laws or regulations stopping them from doing that. Why don't even the re-insurance companies buy your logic?

Re:unfair policy (1)

itzly (3699663) | about 2 months ago | (#47801553)

Only if there's no competition between insurance companies. Otherwise, keeping the rates at a lower level will gain more market share.

Re:unfair policy (1)

curmudgeon99 (1040054) | about 2 months ago | (#47801753)

What are you talking about? Do you know shit about the insurance industry? It is intensely competitive. They are constantly at war over premium rates. They employ armies of actuaries to compare risk against premium prices. They are not charities--if they assess risk, they are convinced there is risk.

Re:unfair policy (1)

curmudgeon99 (1040054) | about 2 months ago | (#47801689)

Okay, genius. You're saying that Global Warming is a hoax--and that insurance companies are all--across the board--raising their rates to take advantage of the alleged hoax.

Well, according to the free market, surely there must be at least one contrarian who is willing to buck the alleged alarmists and sell cheap insurance. If there were one big insurance company willing to do that--they could collect every insurance dollar on the planet and destroy the other companies. Why isn't that happening? Hmm?

Re: unfair policy (1)

rickb928 (945187) | about 2 months ago | (#47801587)

Couldn't be a reaction to past losses from storms, eh? Or just profiting from uncertainty?

Seriously, this isn't evidence of anything than a profit motive.

Re: unfair policy (1)

curmudgeon99 (1040054) | about 2 months ago | (#47801651)

So, if this is a myth, where is the insurance company that's willing to keep their premiums low so they can scoop up all the business? Why isn't that happening? Surely--if as you allege all these insurance companies are faking this risk--where are the contrarians willing to sell cheap insurance? You haven't thought this through. If this were a myth then there would have to be at least one company willing to be the contrarian--and there are not any. The insurance companies have actuaries that have looked in detail at this issue and they don't buy the Conservative line. They know--this is real.

Re:unfair policy (1)

ganjadude (952775) | about 2 months ago | (#47800791)

no, its not, it used to cover the entire earth...

Re:unfair policy (1)

NatasRevol (731260) | about 2 months ago | (#47800835)

Back when Homo sapiens didn't exist.

Re:unfair policy (2)

ganjadude (952775) | about 2 months ago | (#47800871)

true, however that was not the question asked, the question was is it as big as it used to be, without a time frame, the answer is always no, until it covers the entire earth once again

Re:unfair policy (1)

NatasRevol (731260) | about 2 months ago | (#47801171)

Yeah, because reasonable people assume a reasonable scope - when humans were living.

Re:unfair policy (1)

ganjadude (952775) | about 2 months ago | (#47801443)

doesnt make the response any less truthful

Re:unfair policy (1)

itzly (3699663) | about 2 months ago | (#47801343)

In addition to the answer being always no, it's also always yes, since the earth has been without any ice too. Without a time frame, the question is rather meaningless.

Re:unfair policy (4, Interesting)

curmudgeon99 (1040054) | about 2 months ago | (#47800933)

The Western side of Antarctica has gained some mass but not enough to counteract the much more massive amount the Eastern side has lost. So, a much larger net negative.

What I find most amazing is this: 97% of the best climate scientists we have on earth have concluded that we have a problem. The insurance companies ["How The Insurance Industry Sees Climate Change" [latimes.com] , "For Insurers, No Doubts on Climate Change" [nytimes.com] , "Rift Widening Between Energy and Insurance on Climate Change" [forbes.com] , "Insurer's Message: Prepare for Climate Change or Get Sued" [nbcnews.com] , "On Climate Change: Get Ready or Get Sued" [washingtonpost.com] have concluded we have a problem. But, in the interest of sticking with their political druthers, a significant fraction of the American population has decided that 97% of the climate scientists and the insurance companies must be wrong. These people--Conservatives, essentially--are willing to take a risk that 3% of climate scientists are correct and that the insurance companies and 97% of climate scientists are wrong--merely because it serves their political persuasion.

Do you think that Liberals would be successful at convincing 97% of climate scientists to take our point of view and the insurance companies too if this were bullshit? Yet, all these wiseass Conservatives are willing to take a risk with our frickin' planet just so they can jam a finger in the eye of their political rivals--ignoring the reality that has the potential to end life on the damned planet. In short, WTF is going on in the mind of Conservatives? How do you look at all these insurance companies and think: "It's a Liberal plot!" Can you be so stupid?

Re:unfair policy (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47801093)

The 97% comment is a lie [springer.com] and people who repeat it are not interested in the truth.

The link I provided shows a study of over 11,000 scientific papers on climate change where only 0.3% expressed an opinion on if it was man-made or not. Their "global consensus" is based on 0.3% of published papers.

Please look up this consensus yourself and find out where the statements come from.

Re:unfair policy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47801107)

What I find most amazing is this: 97% of the best climate scientists we have on earth

That could be 29 people out of 7,000,000,000+, if you only asked the top 30 climate scientists.

Re:unfair policy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47801145)

You sir are what we call a pyscopath.

Re:unfair policy (4, Informative)

phantomfive (622387) | about 2 months ago | (#47801195)

What I find most amazing is this: 97% of the best climate scientists we have on earth have concluded that we have a problem.

This is wrong, you read the poll wrong (maybe this one? [uic.edu] ). Here is the part you misunderstood: 97% of climate scientists say man-made CO2 has an effect on the global temperature (and the rest probably clicked the wrong box on accident).

Do you understand that there is a difference between "having an effect" and "is a problem?" Because there is a huge difference, and the people answering the poll understood that there is a difference. Even scientists who are frequently labeled 'deniers' will answer yes to that poll, it's almost like asking a non-question.

Re:unfair policy (2)

itzly (3699663) | about 2 months ago | (#47801375)

Not "has an effect", but "is a significant contributing factor". There's a huge difference.

Re:unfair policy (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about 2 months ago | (#47801421)

From a statistical standpoint, "is a significant contributing factor" means the same thing to a scientist that "has an effect" would mean to a layman.

You should know this.

Re:unfair policy (1)

itzly (3699663) | about 2 months ago | (#47801541)

No, in that case, the question would have to have the words "statistically significant" in them. The word "significant" by itself means the same for scientists and laymen alike.

Re:unfair policy (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about 2 months ago | (#47801217)

Hey global warming could never end life on this planet. Our civilization as we know it, on the other hand...

Re:unfair policy (1)

curmudgeon99 (1040054) | about 2 months ago | (#47801527)

Well, isn't that a comfort.

Re:unfair policy (3, Informative)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about 2 months ago | (#47801277)

97% of the best climate scientists we have on earth have concluded that we have a problem.

While I agree with your main point that there is a broad scientific consensus on climate change, the 97% figure is bogus. 97% of research papers on climate change that stated a position on whether AGW is real, took an affirmative stance. But this ignores the many papers that were non-committal, and stated no opinion.

By exaggerating the consensus, you are just handing ammunition to the denialists. The problem with convincing skeptics of the need to take action is not evidence (which is strong), but credibility (which is lacking). Please calm down and stick to the facts.

The insurance companies ... have concluded we have a problem.

No. The insurance companies have concluded that they have a risk. They will charge more in premiums to compensate for even small risks.

Do you think that Liberals would be successful at convincing 97% of ...

And here is the crux of the problem. "Climate change" has been politically associated with the "Liberal Agenda", and is being used to justify all sorts of economic nonsense that has nothing to do with climate change. I live in California, and "Climate Change" is being used to justify a $300 billion* boondoggle to build high speed rail between SF and LA. That is about $10,000 for every person in California, for a train that on a typical day will carry 0.03% of commuters. It will have zero impact on CO2 emissions because it won't be operational for 30 years, when it is likely most cars will be electric anyway.

*Yes, I know the current projected cost is $100 billion, but on average, government boondoggles in California eventually cost three times the original cost, so $300 billion is a more reasonable estimate.

Re:unfair policy (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47801495)

The problem with convincing skeptics of the need to take action is not evidence (which is strong), but credibility (which is lacking).

No, the GP is right. We're well past the point where there's much room for skepticism*. The credibility of scientists is "lacking" only in the minds of those who think they'd falsify and exaggerate their finds just to get grant money--a pretty insane conspiracy theory**. This is definitely politically (and ideologically) motivated. It is the work of denialists, not skeptics.

And here is the crux of the problem. "Climate change" has been politically associated with the "Liberal Agenda", and is being used to justify all sorts of economic nonsense that has nothing to do with climate change. I live in California, and "Climate Change" is being used to justify a $300 billion* boondoggle to build high speed rail between SF and LA.

Sounds less like a "Liberal Agenda" than cronyism and corruption. The only thing "Liberal" about it is that "Conservatives" are apparently more heavily invested in fossil fuels and don't know how to leverage the cronyism and corruption to get a net positive while "punishing" fossil fuels.

It will have zero impact on CO2 emissions because it won't be operational for 30 years, when it is likely most cars will be electric anyway.

This is I doubt on plenty of levels. One, I don't believe we'll switch to all electric in 30 years. Two, I'm fairly certain that even if we did, there's more CO2 emissions from many electric car construction and maintenance than one high speed rail--it's why buses are better than cars even though they pollute more per vehicle. Three, presuming this weren't merely a corrupt boondoggle, a high speed rail system that would be built correctly in 10 years would provide service for hundreds of years, minimally. That this is a shitty implementation that costs way too much has everything to do with people willing to look the other way--and the high property rates of California, no doubt, which is why you build sooner rather than later and hence now is better than 30 years from now--because it's environmental--which seems a Republican thing in California too. So, with all that rambling, painting it as a Liberal Agenda thing is more a non-California thing, anyways--where not needless murdering animals makes you a pinko commie.

* Children or adults who have never really researched the subject or given it much thought? Yea, they can be skeptics. And they can do the research to rapidly cure them of their skepticism. Willful ignorance or laziness, though, aren't a reasonable explanation for continued skepticism or an acceptable basis to claim that there are still skeptics. People don't have to be knowledgeable about science or scientific principals. That just makes them uninterested, not skeptics.

** If this were a dozen scientists, perhaps. But the scope of scientists that would have to be involved is hundreds. Group think would seem to be an explanation--as that seems to be what the denialists rely upon--, but that forgets that even a few scientists who broke away and made good studies could debunk global warming if there was sufficient evidence. And there's plenty of coal/oil/natural gas corporations which would be bottomless pits of money to fund more studies in those veins. Given that, it's just as logical an argument that it's a conspiracy of oil companies, who want to be regulated, who are making up these global warming studies.

Re:unfair policy (1)

curmudgeon99 (1040054) | about 2 months ago | (#47801585)

The difference between calling it a "risk" and a "problem" is just semantics. The insurance industry is all about assessing risk. If they say there is no risk and they're wrong, they're out of business. If they charge for an assessed risk and their competitors don't, they're out of business. The insurance industry cannot afford to be wrong on either account. Either they pay for big losses or lose the premium income that is their life blood. Given all those factors, these companies--all of them--have decided the risk of Global Climate Change is the biggest risk. If this were a myth, or an exaggeration, surely some big companies would take that risk and scoop up all the world's insurance business--but they won't take that gamble.

Quibbles about the opinions of the world's climate scientists are essentially not important. The people with money and skin in the game--the insurance companies--are convinced. If they were not--surely one big insurance company would run those risks and scoop up all the world's property and casualty business. Notice that's not happening. Doesn't that imply anything?

Re:unfair policy (3, Insightful)

stjobe (78285) | about 2 months ago | (#47800647)

It's getting its compensation.....an Arctic Ice Cap that has expanded by 41% in the past 2 years. Most ice up there since 2006. Ironically, not reported here....
I guess anything goes to advance the global warming scam.

Sure, it's expanded by 41% in the last two years. What you fail to mention is that 2012 was a record low.

Guess that didn't fit into your "global warming scam" world-view?

Re:unfair policy (4, Informative)

haruchai (17472) | about 2 months ago | (#47800715)

Wrong.
If you look at the winter & spring periods, all the recent years had more ice than 2006 and yet they all finished much lower by the end of the summer melt.

That means more heat in the system - and you should research just how much heat is needed to melt ice.
HINT: it's a LOT

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicen... [nsidc.org]

This is only ice extent, which is probably the worst indicator of the decline in Arctic ice. Total ice area and volume are far better but more difficult to get accurate numbers.

Re:unfair policy (3, Insightful)

TitusC3v5 (608284) | about 2 months ago | (#47800753)

It's getting its compensation.....an Arctic Ice Cap that has expanded by 41% in the past 2 years. Most ice up there since 2006. Ironically, not reported here....
I guess anything goes to advance the global warming scam.


Pro tip: Lie Less [washington.edu]

YOu got that right! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47800777)

It's getting its compensation.....an Arctic Ice Cap that has expanded by 41% in the past 2 years. Most ice up there since 2006. Ironically, not reported here....
I guess anything goes to advance the global warming scam.

We had this horrible ICE storm here in Altanta this year!

And we all know this Global Warming scam is all about Liberals wanting all of us decent Americans to eat tofu, drive Priuses, ride bicycles, turn gay, give up our guns, stop being Christian and pay more taxes!

I am a scientist - I read the Bible and I know EVERYTHING that God has told us about science. And I tell you, these so called Climate Scientists with their Pee-H-Dees don't know SHIT!

GOD has given us this planet for us to use and abuse. And gosh darn it to H-Eee-Ell-Ell if I ain't gonna do it!

Re:YOu got that right! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47800817)

wow, a troll that exploits profiling.

guessing your really a liberal.

Re: YOu got that right! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47801139)

No shortage of you idiot trolls these days. Global stupiding is certainly no scam...

Re: unfair policy (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47800891)

Heres what I think...

All scientific studiy results and proclamations should begin with:

"Well, we don't really know, but we think... (Insert scientific mumbo jumbo here)"

Because we don't really know, do we?

I'm sick of all the global warming / climate change bullshit.

There is / isn't water on the moon / mars.

Coffee is good / bad for you

See what I mean? It's endless bullshit.

We don't REALLY know, do we?

Re:unfair policy (1)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | about 2 months ago | (#47800901)

Actually, there is a lot to learn about the accusations of institutional racism in Silicon Valley here.

If you compare the demographics of both areas, the Arctic is predominantly "white" (polar bears), while the Antarctic is overwhelmingly "black" (penguins). Thus, if institutional racism was responsible, you would expect the Arctic to be rising faster. Since this is not the case, researchers are forced to search for a more scientific explanation of the observed behavior.

Part of the answer could be found in the preferred occupations the residents. Polar bears prefer to source their food from the trash cans of humans in the city of Churchill, Canada, so they want more land for humans and their accompanying trash cans. Penguins prefer a healthier diet of fish sourced from the sea, and thus have a vested interest in a bigger sea to fish in. This may or may not be the answer to faster rising levels in the Antarctic, but in this case Silicon Valley CEOs can safely claim that it is not due to institutional racism in their industry.

I think my argument makes just about much or little sense as other arguments for claiming compensation for the Arctic or in Silicon Valley.

Re:unfair policy (1)

I'm New Around Here (1154723) | about 2 months ago | (#47801133)

Actually, penguins are "white and black", so bi-racial.

It's not just the receding shoreline (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47800541)

It's more about ocean thermal current disruption and the massive meta effects this will have on established regional weather patterns.

How does this work? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47800557)

I'm having trouble understanding the idea of "a localized rise in sea level". Waves and tides, sure, but they're both very short-term.
How does this work?

Fresh water less dense, more volume per weight (1)

grimJester (890090) | about 2 months ago | (#47800723)

If you have a source of melting fresh water, water around it will be slightly higher as long as the melting continues, as it takes time for the meltoff to mix with the rest of the ocean. It's just a 2mm difference over maybe a thousand km of sea (which is why the intuitive "should immediately even out" idea doesn't work) so I doubt you could make the same effect visible in a bathtub.

Re:Fresh water less dense, more volume per weight (1)

Pino Grigio (2232472) | about 2 months ago | (#47800779)

Yes and being just 2mm it's way outside of the range of experimental error.

Re:Fresh water less dense, more volume per weight (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47800815)

It's not a matter of mixing with the rest of the ocean, we'd expect the top layer to flow down like a 2mm high waterfall.

Re:Fresh water less dense, more volume per weight (1)

itzly (3699663) | about 2 months ago | (#47801281)

I don't know that I would expect a "waterfall", since that would imply a sudden edge. I would rather expect some sort of slope. And as long as there a source of new water flowing into the ocean, I would expect this slope to persist.

Re:How does this work? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47801895)

You might think water as a linearly spreading thing but it actually is quite wibley-wobley-timey-wimey stuff.

Failed (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47800565)

Local sea level change is not global mean sea level change.

Re:Failed (1)

Ultra64 (318705) | about 2 months ago | (#47800689)

Who said it was?

Re:Failed (1)

Bartles (1198017) | about 2 months ago | (#47801197)

Look up.

"localized rise" (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47800571)

How exactly does a "localized rise in sea level" work?

Every wave in the sea is a "localized rise".

It seems like he's saying it's permanent, which is ridiculous.

Re:"localized rise" (1)

NatasRevol (731260) | about 2 months ago | (#47800859)

It's permanent as long as there's 350 billion tons of fresh water melting into the ocean there every year.

land and plates rising causing "extra rising" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47800601)

The reduction of weight on the antarctic plate caused by the ice retreating is causing the plate to lift or possible just the land is lifting. See Eureka 7. [wikipedia.org]

What will it take? (4, Interesting)

Livius (318358) | about 2 months ago | (#47800657)

So much freshwater from melting glaciers that sea level isn't even level anymore, and some people still don't want to believe there might be a climate problem.

(I don't mean the people who question how to address the problem - that's still legitimately an open question - or the severity of the problem, I mean the people still in denial that there's a problem at all.)

Re:What will it take? (2)

timeOday (582209) | about 2 months ago | (#47800709)

The truth is, they just don't care because they'll be dead before it gets bad.

Re:What will it take? (1)

Bartles (1198017) | about 2 months ago | (#47801211)

You'll be dead long before the Sun expands and envelops the Earth. What are you doing about it today?

Re:What will it take? (1)

itzly (3699663) | about 2 months ago | (#47801259)

Is there anything we can do to prevent this from happening ? And if there's something we can do, do we need to start right now or would it be okay to wait a few million years ?

Re:What will it take? (1)

ArcherB (796902) | about 2 months ago | (#47800725)

So much freshwater from melting glaciers that sea level isn't even level anymore, and some people still don't want to believe there might be a climate problem.

(I don't mean the people who question how to address the problem - that's still legitimately an open question - or the severity of the problem, I mean the people still in denial that there's a problem at all.)

So if there's less ice, it's because of global warming. But if there's more ice, it's because of global warming.

Just curious, if global warming were not a thing, what would the ice caps be doing?

Re:What will it take? (1)

Lumpy (12016) | about 2 months ago | (#47800801)

The Ice age boogie...

Re:What will it take? (1)

itzly (3699663) | about 2 months ago | (#47800813)

But if there's more ice, it's because of global warming.

citation needed.

Re:What will it take? (1)

ganjadude (952775) | about 2 months ago | (#47800837)

playing a game of pong, what else?

Re:What will it take? (0)

curmudgeon99 (1040054) | about 2 months ago | (#47800977)

Why do the insurance companies think you're full of shit and that Climate Change is a real danger to their bottom line? [If you're uninformed about how the insurance companies view climate change, I invite you to view my comment on this article where I link to stories from Forbes, NBC News, the Washington Post and the NYTimes about this very fact on how the insurance companies view climate change--as a real and significant threat. You think the insurance companies are in the pockets of liberals?

No, I think you're a Conservative Moron who lives in fantasy land where you can ignore a threat because it doesn't fit your politics.

Re:What will it take? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47801493)

I will say something that qualify me as a psychopath: I am happy about the climate change because of my geographical location, sure our metropolis will get flooded but my city like many other cities in similar location will prosper. I do not give a damn about unknown peoples dieing, since the climate change will brings my descendant prosperity I says fuck the people who lives on coastal cities, fuck the loser species that are going extinct as they will get replaced and let's keep burning petroleum.

Re:What will it take? (1)

Livius (318358) | about 2 months ago | (#47801577)

Unless you already live in a place with such hostile climate that it could only improve, you don't actually know that things will be better for your location. And remember economic dislocations very far away can affect you.

Re:What will it take? (1)

curmudgeon99 (1040054) | about 2 months ago | (#47801629)

So you're cool with the tropical diseases? You're fine with the world's forests all being unsuited for their environments because the growning zones have moved? You think climate change is something manageable? You're more of an idiot than I imagined.

Re:What will it take? (5, Interesting)

Bender0x7D1 (536254) | about 2 months ago | (#47801209)

So if there's less ice, it's because of global warming. But if there's more ice, it's because of global warming.

Yes. There is less ice in some areas due to global warming and more ice in other areas due to global warming.

Think of it this way: Imagine the entire planet heated up by 20C, we wouldn't expect to see any permanent ice outside of Antarctica. (The North Pole might get some seasonal ice, but the much warmer oceans would melt it fairly quickly.) Now, with all of the oceans that much warmer, think how much additional water vapor would make it into the atmosphere. When the additional water vapor ends up over the South Pole, it will be cold enough for it to freeze and fall as snow. As the snow accumulates, it compacts into ice and we end up with a LOT more ice at the South Pole.

So: Less ice everywhere but Antarctica due to global warming, but a lot more ice in Antarctica due to global warming.

(And, yes; I do realize that this example is a vast simplification - and overstatement - I just used it to illustrate the point.)

Re:What will it take? (1)

Livius (318358) | about 2 months ago | (#47801561)

It's called global climate change. The 'global' part means that it affects more than one place.

Re:What will it take? (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 2 months ago | (#47800799)

Do what I do, stop caring and move inland. Let the deniers settle at the shore and shoot them when they try to outrun the flood.

Re: What will it take? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47800929)

It never has been level...various oceans have had slightly different levels.

What will it take? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47800995)

Climate change "skepticism" is highly organized and well funded. It's a billion dollar effort. All those people who glibly tell you it's not real aren't skeptics at all, they're just kool-aid drinkers.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-money-funds-climate-change-denial-effort/
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/feb/14/funding-climate-change-denial-thinktanks-network
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/dec/20/conservative-groups-1bn-against-climate-change

And ... guess what? It's mostly American Conservatives behind it. No surprises there.

What will it take? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47801141)

Climate change "alarmism" is highly organized and well funded. It's a billion dollar effort. All those people who glibly tell you it's not real aren't believers at all, they're just kool-aid drinkers.

http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2011/11/28/nova-publishes-chart-showing-climate-alarmism-funding

And ... guess what? It's mostly American Liberals behind it. No surprises there.

Re:What will it take? (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about 2 months ago | (#47801245)

(I don't mean the people who question how to address the problem - that's still legitimately an open question - or the severity of the problem, I mean the people still in denial that there's a problem at all.)

Careful what you wish for - the next, and final stage in the evolution of climate denialism is for it to take a rather different, more difficult form:

Climate obstructionism.

Re:What will it take? (4, Insightful)

zr (19885) | about 2 months ago | (#47801457)

the next story on slashdot—on iCloud nude pics leakage—collected more comments. ..i'm sorry to disappoint you but it really is not more complex than that..

Re:What will it take? (1)

argStyopa (232550) | about 2 months ago | (#47801673)

I don't see it as a "climate problem" any more than I see aging as a "chronology problem".

It's climate.
It changes.
Adapt or die.

Building a city on a coastline might be incredibly convenient, but it is exactly like building it on the edge of a volcano. The only difference is a matter of scale.

Re:What will it take? (0)

dtjohnson (102237) | about 2 months ago | (#47801761)

Okay, here are some facts. The atmospheric co2 concentration is increasing by about 2 ppm per year. The world currently produces about 4.9 x 10^13 kg of co2 per year from the combustion of fossil fuels. That means that the earth currently sequesters all of the co2 produced by living organisms, decay, natural methane seeps, etc. as well as approximately 80 percent of all of the co2 produced from the world combustion of coal, oil, and natural gas. Based on all known reserves, there are approximately 75 years remaining of fossil fuels at current consumption rates. That means that, even if the natural sequestration rate remains unchanged, the atmospheric c02 concentration will not increase more than 150 ppm ultimately reaching a concentration of approximately 550 ppm from the current 400 ppm. Even that increase, however, is unlikely, as fossil fuel prices and the diminishing returns of production will mean that global consumption fossil fuels will likely decline over the next century as it is replaced by solar, wind power, nuclear power, conservation measures, and increase energy efficiencies. Therefore, rather than reach a maximum of 550 ppm and then decline precipitously as the last chunk of coal is burned, the atmospheric co2 concentration will more likely never reach that number as consumption tapers off and consumption continues at a lower rate of several centuries. What this means to an AGW true believer is that you have to believe that the earth's climate would dramatically warm if the atmospheric concentration of co2 went from 400 ppm to 550 (or less) and, there is absolutely no scientific basis for that belief. The atmospheric co2 concentration has increased by approximately 84 ppm since co2 measurements began in 1958 and the earth's climate has not changed dramatically. Even the small amount of warming that we have seen during that time is more likely to have resulted from changes in solar activity and other climate effects than an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration. Moreover, there are signs of climate cooling as both the arctic and antarctic ice extent have increased in recent years (TFA notwithstanding). If antarctic continental ice is melting, it is likely due to subsurface volcanic activity and geothermal heat input rather than warmer atmospheric temperatures which never rise above freezing in antarctica away from the coastlines.

What will it take to abate your fear? (0)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 2 months ago | (#47801927)

Climate warming occurs naturally, it's historically been warmer before than it is now. So this was destined to happen sometime - why are you afraid of it now? The rise is still so gradual sea-side communities can still adapt, and overall rise is something like a foot and a half over 150-200 years. That's hardly anything to get worked up over.

It is amusing though to think you probably bought into the whole "global warming pause is because oceans are storing heat" story when we find from this story ocean temperatures are rising from glacial melt entering the ocean... which has to be affecting measured temperatures.

Just all around so much fear and total misunderstanding of what climate change actually means from the people who deny natural climate change exists...

ta3o (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47800883)

Users of BSD/OS. A suffering *BSD been looking for! the gay niggers Beyond the sc0pe of keep, and I won't Our ability to

Re: ta3o (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47801181)

Ladies and gentlemen: this has been a demonstration of inbreeding and opining. STILL think stupid is harmless?

Why... (1)

ExXter (1361251) | about 2 months ago | (#47800953)

does this article not cover the other site of the apple.

While we have sea lvls on the rise we also have this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/... [washingtonpost.com]

Now lets be some proper physicists and analyse it correctly. We have sea lvls rising and also we have ice lvls rising in the antartic... this means... yes that the water lvl is rising faster in antartic than anywhere else. But why? Not hard to explain. The earths outer shell is elasto-viscous which means it reacts time-delayed on outer increase or decrease of pressure. Exerted by water (ice) or land. Since the ice lvl is rising on the antartic continent it also pressures the plates down, additionally the sea lvl is rising. At the end of the day we have a higher sea lvl rise in antartic since two effects exerted over a long period of time add up. On the other hand we ll see far more secondary and tertiary effects...

I love sience.

Re:Why... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47801147)

Why... was that so painful to read? There is a stupid mistake in nearly every sentence. And what is it with this 'lvl' business? I mean how much effort is it to type a couple of 'e's?

And having got past that, what you wrote is a pile of shite anyway.

Re:Why... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47801383)

The article is shit. They really expect us to believe anything anymore. "Water piles up on itself in a heap and doesn't seek its own level because global warming", explained Dr. Craig Rye, who should be believed by virtue of having special letters placed in front of his name. If you have to get your rocks off by fooling people, at least come up with some bullshit that helps me bang women. Now that would be something I could get behind.

displacement (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47801055)

Ice consumes more space than water alone. If there was *more* sea ice, then the water would rise too.

attention all 12 year olds (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47801531)

Please explain to the dopey adults around you that a 2mm "local" rise in sea level in an ocean of 6 foot swells is just plain dumb. As another experiment, give one of your dopey parents a glass of ice water and have them blow through a straw into the glass. Watch their puzzled expression as you explain that the temperature rise isn't really from CO2.
There are many things you can do to educate the dopey adults around you, you have the advantage of being in school and learning things. Those poor dopes learn everything they know from MTV. One other thing though kids. Keep believing in God. The alternative is to put your faith into these fucking morons who think you will believe everything they tell you. None of it is true.

Yawn. (1)

Famak1994 (3743441) | about 2 months ago | (#47801959)

Even if all the ice in the world melted tomorrow we'd still have more than enough land mass for nature and humans to thrive on. Sure, many coastal cities would vanish under the waves, but that would force us to build in smarter places instead of wasting tons of resources on something that will eventually get swallowed.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?