ESA's Cryosat Mission Sees Antarctic Ice Losses Double

An anonymous reader writes in with news that seems to confirm the alarming reports last week about Antarctic ice melting. "The new assessment comes from Europe's Cryosat spacecraft, which has a radar instrument specifically designed to measure the shape of the ice sheet. The melt loss from the White Continent is sufficient to push up global sea levels by around 0.43mm per year. Scientists report the data in the journal Geophysical Research Letters (abstract). The new study incorporates three years of measurements from 2010 to 2013, and updates a synthesis of observations made by other satellites over the period 2005 to 2010. Cryosat has been using its altimeter to trace changes in the height of the ice sheet — as it gains mass through snowfall, and loses mass through melting."

0.43 mm per year, eh?

[CrimsonAvenger]

So, sea level rise will be a bit less than two inches by 2100?

And nearly 3.5 inches by 2200?

As a result of Antarctic ice melting, of course.

Color me unworried. I wasn't terribly impressed when people were talking a foot this century - a sixth of that is a complete yawner as far as threats go....

Re:0.43 mm per year, eh?

[WhiteZook]

Of course, there's more than just Antarctic ice melting, but more importantly, it is likely that the melting rate will accelerate as the planet keeps warming.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Do as the rich do

[i kan reed]

The rich aren't actually doing that. Contrary to common belief, rich people are not actually more insightful and aware of things than your typical well-educated person. There isn't a conspiracy to exploit the results of climate change. Why bother when everything is based on next quarters' earnings anyways?

Re:0.43 mm per year, eh?

[i kan reed]

Interesting. So... I have to admit I made a factual error in my post.

I shouldn't have used the word "never", it was apparently quite hyperbolic.

Re:0.43 mm per year, eh?

[interkin3tic]

I don't think anyone was suggesting it was going to be total devastation since before "Waterworld" came out, but you should be asking "How much of my tax dollars are going to be spent on things like disaster relief after more levees and such break" or "How much more expensive is food going to get because all the good farmland is in floodplains that are now going to have higher insurance premiums for flooding?" Because the answer is going to be more than you want even if you're smug that your house is more than a few inches above sea level.

History?

[Lawrence_Bird]

What historical observations is this to be compared with? By the sounds of it there is nothing prior to 2005 - certainly nothing in the 40s thru 80s. Given that the few researchers down there are not running around the perimeter of the continent checking on where ice ends and sea begins, how do we place the current observation in context? Seems that we can't.

Re:History?

[WhiteZook]

I don't think there's much useful ice volume data before special satellites were used to measure it. However, we can look at historical sea level data, and observe that levels have not been significantly higher in any period since the last ice age. We can also look at the temperature data, and try to model the ice sheet based on those. Since temperatures before 2005 have been lower, it is very unlikely ice loss was as great as it has been in the recent years.

Re:Funny thing

[Anonymous Coward]

This is completely ridiculous. Parts of the Antarctic icecap are indeed increasing. This is due to higher humidity as a result of -- wait for it -- global warming. Other parts are rapidly decreasing. And the volcanoes? Well, you know, they are so hot that it is well-known that all volcanoes outside of the Antarctic have no snow on the summits, of course.

Re:Funny thing

[WhiteZook]

Sounds like somebody needs to learn the big difference between Antarctic sea ice and grounded ice.

Re:Funny thing

[AmiMoJo]

It's so funny that you think sceptic websites are good sources. How about linking to some actual scientific studies? Oh, but wait, the links you gave cite studies? Yes, but they confused sea ice and ground ice, which you might have realized if you had gone to the actual data and understood it.

I'm afraid this is all that climate sceptics have to offer - misinterpreted data.

Re:Funny thing

[rahvin112]

And if you had actually read the real research those garbage stories are referring to you would know that those volcano's have little to no effect on the ice sheet because the ice refreezes almost immediately after it's melted due to the fact that it's under several hundred (up to thousands) feet of ice. Hell, even the steam vents refreeze all the moisture in the air before the gases reach open air (creating some rather magnificent stalactites and ice formations).

Re:.43mm/year...

[riverat1]

Assuming the rate of melt will remain the same for the next 100 years really puts the ass in assume.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:.43mm/year...

[riverat1]

It's true that the rate of sea level rise will be slow but it's also something that's probably unstoppable at this point. The last time CO2 levels in the atmosphere were as high as they are now, 400 ppm, sea level was over 60 feet higher than it is now. It might 500 or 1000 years to get there but it's going to happen regardless of what we do (unless we actively remove CO2 from the atmosphere to get it back down below 350 ppm).

In order for scientists to fully understand the climate they have to understand all sources of climate change both natural and man made. If all known sources of natural climate change are taken into account we should actually be cooling since 1990 or so. The phrase "hitting the brakes on our world economy" is just alarmist nonsense. In fact responding to global warming in some ways gives a boost to the economy because all of the things we need to change will have to be replaced with some other means of doing them. That means a lot of capital expenditures which put money back into the economy because of the materials and labor that goes into making them.

I agree that draining the reservoir because one person peed in it is rather silly but the global warming situation is more like behind the guy peeing in the reservoir there's an endless line of others waiting there turn to pee. Eventually there will be enough pee in the reservoir to make a difference.