ESA Satellite Shows Sudden Ice Loss In Southern Antarctic Peninsula 268
ddelmonte tips news that the ESA's CryoSat spacecraft has detected a sharp increase in the rate at which ice is being lost in a previously stable section of Antarctica. In 2009, glaciers at the Southern Antarctic Peninsula began rapidly shedding ice into the ocean, at a rate of roughly 60 cubic kilometers per year (abstract). From the ESA's press release:
This makes the region one of the largest contributors to sea-level rise in Antarctica, having added about 300 cubic km of water into the ocean in the past six years. Some glaciers along the coastal expanse are currently lowering by as much as four m each year. Prior to 2009, the 750 km-long Southern Antarctic Peninsula showed no signs of change. ... The ice loss in the region is so large that it has even caused small changes in Earth’s gravity field, detected by NASA’s GRACE mission. Climate models show that the sudden change cannot be explained by changes in snowfall or air temperature. Instead, the team attributes the rapid ice loss to warming oceans.
Sudden? (Score:4, Informative)
People have been talking about global warming/climate change/politically-correct-term since the last two decades but some countries just keep their head in the sand. *COUGH*U.S.A.*COUGH*
Re:Sudden? (Score:5, Funny)
Global Warming is MYTH! A MYTH, I tell you! Glub. Glub. Glub.
Re:Sudden? (Score:5, Funny)
This is another GLOBAL WARMING hoax!!!!! Ice is always melting!!!!!
Re:Sudden? (Score:5, Funny)
It's not the country, It's the drooling morons that we have running the country.
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
It's not the country, It's the drooling morons that we have running the country.
We get the politicians we deserve.
Re:Sudden? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Because people don't spend a few hours to research their politicians before voting for them. Ignorance is not an excuse nor is laziness.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Or they spend many hours researching them and have come to the logical conclusion that it doesn't matter who you vote for, they're all just slightly different flavors of the same poison.
We need to burn the existing system to the ground and rebuild it. It's the only way to put us back on the right path.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you asking for help? [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Or they spend many hours researching them and have come to the logical conclusion that it doesn't matter who you vote for, they're all just slightly different flavors of the same poison.
We need to burn the existing system to the ground and rebuild it. It's the only way to put us back on the right path.
The system you have is perfectly adequate, it is just that people don't have the required patience to use it. The obvious current flaw is a lack of additional political parties at the federal level. This can be rectified, but would have to take place gradually over the span of many electoral cycles, as most people will subscibe to the "better the devil you know" notion.
Re: (Score:3)
The financing of campaigns is quite controversial, are you suggesting our legal graft set up is the best way to go?
Not at all, political financing in America is certainly out of hand. However, that is a matter of legislation rather than constitution, and also only matters to the degree that people believe what they see on their television sets. I think the big problem in the US is mental laziness; people are willing to be told what to think, as long as they feel they are doing better than somebody else.
Re:Sudden? (Score:4, Informative)
I agree with laziness as being a problem, but I would say that it appears as people being too lazy to get their buts to the polls.
There is a large group of people who do not even bother to vote, with the 2014 election being an example of the lowest voter turnout for America in the past 70 years.
There is a smaller group people who believe the fud they are served up and are motivated to vote because of it.
As a result we saw huge wins for the gop in 2014, which is the largest user of fear driven propaganda to get their base to he polls
If the larger group remains uninvolved the smaller, easily propagandized group (and the propagandists that motivate them) will determine public policy and this country will promote policies that will end up hurting the entire planet
Re: (Score:2)
That's true. I didn't vote for Romney because he ticked 'corrupt' on this application for president.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Why is this necessarily so? In many cases, we get the politicians who's team has the most money.
It's not only the politicians but the main stream media that is owned by powerful financial interests. The media is more interested in reporting the horse race and clashes between politicians than they are in substantial reporting on the issues. Media news reporting has largely become infotainment because that's what draws the eyes of much of the American public.
Re: (Score:2)
You get the best ones money can buy........
I would ask for a refund if i where you...........
Re:Sudden? (Score:5, Insightful)
There are many cases where even republicans go on record stating man made climate change.
It is basicly the Oil industry who is trying to keep the doubt about it.
So the politicians Democrat or republican (mostly republican) who come from the Energy Producing states. Will play onto the spew to keep themselves elected.
Politics are not Pro- or Anti-Science. It is weather the science is political useful for them or not. Otherwise they will be happy putting their head in the sand.
Re: (Score:2)
It is whether the science is politically useful for them or not.
Politically, or FINANCIALLY, useful for them.
Privatize the gains, socialize the losses, be they monetary or environmental. It's the way of many of the current American politicians.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
There are many cases where even republicans go on record stating man made climate change. It is basicly the Oil industry who is trying to keep the doubt about it. So the politicians Democrat or republican (mostly republican) who come from the Energy Producing states. Will play onto the spew to keep themselves elected.
Politics are not Pro- or Anti-Science. It is weather the science is political useful for them or not. Otherwise they will be happy putting their head in the sand.
Have you ever visited a coal mining town that doesn't mine coal anymore? The end result is almost always a severely depressed area, rampant poverty, high unemployment and underemployment, high drug use and abuse, prostitution, etc. A lot (millions) of people live in oil towns and oil cities in the US. For the good of the world, maybe we need to cut back on oil and gas. But the politicians would not be doing their job if they didn't represent the people who elected them.
I see a lot of people calling f
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Ummm those towns face that inevitability anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Have you ever visited a coal mining town that doesn't mine coal anymore? The end result is almost always a severely depressed area, rampant poverty, high unemployment and underemployment, high drug use and abuse, prostitution, etc.
The same thing has happened in a lot of timber towns in Oregon. But in the end things change, the world moves on and people have to accept reality and move on with it rather than clinging to a lifestyle that is no longer viable. Yes, we should assist them with the transition but they need to help themselves as well.
Re:Sudden? (Score:5, Interesting)
Politics are not Pro- or Anti-Science. It is weather the science is political useful for them or not. Otherwise they will be happy putting their head in the sand.
This. If you know anything about lawyers and law, the first tenet is NEVER ADMIT FAULT. No good can come of it. People might then expect you to pay for damages or whatever.
Environmentalists make the mistake thinking that conservatives are stupid. That is not the case. The only thing they care about is that they will not have to pay for or be part of the solution. Any time you spend trying to convince them otherwise is wasted.
The other bit is that politics is never proactive, always reactionary. No environmental protection or anti-pollution law was ever passed until something was already FUBAR, be it due to the London yellow fog, or smog over LA, holes in the ozone layer, or Chinese urban centers shutting down due to respiratory issues. The politicians will maybe finally get around to doing something substantial about AGW after there's a refugee crises from low-lying areas, like the Netherlands, Bangladesh, Louisiana, Florida, etc. Chances are, they still won't blame AGW, since it'll be sea swell from a hurricane/typhoon that does those population centers in, but at some point they'll get tired of throwing money at those places to rebuild. Fortunately there are already a lot of migrant refugee boats in the Mediterranean and Andaman Sea for other reasons, so we're already slowly building a framework for dealing with these kinds of things.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Then who keeps electing them? In a democracy you don't always get the government you want but you always get the government you deserve.
Re: (Score:3)
To be fair, there are a lot of drooling morons in the country who believe that too.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not the country, It's the drooling morons that we have running the country.
It's entrenched powers that stand to loss a great deal of money as well as feed their opponents money, if they admit something needs to be done.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
But this cant be true......
There has been no sudden rise in the number of drooling morons......
There is no evidence that the moronic drooling is a man made phenomenon.
Godddddammmm libertards........
Random Thought (Score:2)
I wonder if China has taken into account the sea-level rise that is likely forthcoming on all those little islands they're building in the South China Sea ?
Fast forward to 2020 when China converts said islands into a submarine base . . . lol
Re:Sudden? (Score:5, Informative)
You were saying something about increasing over the past 5 years?
Yeah...no.
http://skepticalscience.com//p... [skepticalscience.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong pole, pal.
We are not talking about the Arctic (which melts every summer by the way), but the Antarctic
Re: (Score:2)
That whoosh is the context going over your head.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not saying that we shouldn't be reducing pollution; that we shouldn't be taking actions such as no encroaching into the few wild areas left - but that we're seeing hysteria regarding global warming.
Re: (Score:3)
The only way you can think that is if you get your scientific information from the introductions to newspaper articles. Seriously. Even the most egregious "No ice in 2014/2015" articles mention that these are possible outcomes (by using the words "could" and "might", which you have entirely failed to mention). The IPCC says that the sea ice should remain until ~2030.
You are showing off your ignorance as if it's something to be proud of. You've taken the gifts of knowledge and learning - given to you by
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
They certainly have. But, to the best of my knowledge, none of the actual predictions made over these years by the "alarmists" have ever materialized.
Would you care to prove the above statement wrong? Try to post a list of link-pairs: first link in each pair shall point to a prediction and the second — to its materializing... Note, that entries containing only the latter will not be accepted — when a result is known, it is too easy to find somebody having "predicted" it.
The prediction and the materialization would have to be at least 3 years apart too — successfully predicting tomorrow's weather does not count, that is.
Game?
Easy.
Many posters have noted before that the IPCC has highlighted many good predictions from models over the last while. The CMIP5 temperature projections for last decade for example, you can find their assessment of the models here [www.ipcc.ch]. They compare climate model runs against observed temperature and here's the summary:
an analysis of the full suite of CMIP5 historical simulations (augmented for the period 2006–2012 by RCP4.5 simulations, Section 9.3.2) reveals that 111 out of 114 realizations show a GMST
Re: (Score:2)
So yes, if you want to nitpick IPCC then you should provide context and full information. Not just convenient sound bites.
Re: (Score:2)
Fail. Link points to a report which contains numerous links to actual reports and paper providing what was asked.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Your post in response to a request for pairs of links contained only a single link and was thus automatically rejected. FAIL.
Your request is unreasonable. Just because you would like real-world data to take a certain format: does not mean that you get to choose the format.
It is still sufficient to invalidate the claim that: none of the actual predictions made over these years by the "alarmists" have ever materialized.
when a result is known, it is too easy to find somebody having "predicted" it.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I would accept some of such. For example: "By 2015 Arctic will be ice-free" [telegraph.co.uk]. Do you have any?
You are right, no model is perfect. Can you link to a prediction, that materialized within, say, 80% of the predicted value(s)?
Re: (Score:2)
Are you that fucking retarded? Seriously? You are citing the Telegraph, and citing it wrong in the process. The article even states "... the IPCC suggests the ice will remain in place until the 2030s...". You are hanging on the words of one researcher, and not even bothering to look at the actual research involved, or what the scientists are saying on the matter.
You don't want to be proven wrong, or you are simply terrible at logic. Pick one.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I would accept some of such. For example: "By 2015 Arctic will be ice-free" [telegraph.co.uk]. Do you have any?
The article you cite also has this line:
While the IPCC suggests the ice will remain in place until the 2030s, Dr Maslowski's study also takes into account the rate at which it is thinning and calculates that it will vanish much more quickly.
So Dr. Maslowski's prediction was at odds with the IPCC report that presents the general consensus of the field so it isn't a good example of a prediction.
Re:Any materialized predictions? (Re:Sudden?) (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm not going to try again because I've already presented you with this peer reviewed paper [iop.org] that compares IPCC projections to observations for temperature and sea level rise. The fact that you won't accept the format I present it in just shows how you lack intellectual flexibility.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Newsflash: Nobody cares about your "rules".
Try discussing things like an adult.
Dismissing valid information over technicalities (that YOU have decided are meaningful) makes you look like a small minded child.
Re:Any materialized predictions? (Re:Sudden?) (Score:5, Interesting)
I've had the same problem with mi. Apparently his mind is too simple to parse out the comparison in a single link and he rigidly requires responses be presented only in the format he wants.
In response to your post temperatures are still within the uncertainty range on the model projections so it's impossible to say they are wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
I've had the same problem with mi. Apparently his mind is too simple to parse out the comparison in a single link and he rigidly requires responses be presented only in the format he wants.
In response to your post temperatures are still within the uncertainty range on the model projections so it's impossible to say they are wrong.
True, of course we could maintain zero increase in temperature out till nearly 2030 before we'd get outside the error margins, making the notion of disprovability a bit tenuous.
Re: (Score:2)
The science is what it is and you can't change that. But a pretty rigorous statistical analysis [wordpress.com] doesn't show any distinguishable slowdown in the warming trend.
Re: (Score:3)
Here are several posts at RealClimate on the subject of whether warming has paused or not:
http://www.realclimate.org/ind... [realclimate.org]
http://www.realclimate.org/ind... [realclimate.org]
http://www.realclimate.org/ind... [realclimate.org]
http://www.realclimate.org/ind... [realclimate.org]
There are indications that the PDO is switching to a warm phase that generally favors El Ninos. If that happens temperatures may well move above climate model projections in a few years. It's all a part of the noise of natural variability. As I said before less than about 30 years is to
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you, yes, I'd like to think that I am.
Why? That it contains only one link is immediately obvious and enough to return it otherwise "unopened".
My link shows the IPCC admitting that 111 of 114 models failed to predict the actual trend since 1998. I thought you'd be more into that.
I know, it says nothing of other predictions having been right or not, but you seemed the type that'd be interested in a failed prediction too, particularly one the IPCC agrees was inaccurate and worth investigation.
Re: (Score:3)
predictions made over these years by the "alarmists"
Wow, score 1 for intellectual dishonesty. How about you look at the predictions made by the scientists rather than random pundits in the media. You don't expect the media to accurately report tech news, so the fact that you refer to predictions from "alarmists" rather than scientists implies that you are intentionally going for bad reporting rather than trying to find out what is actually going to happen.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd be happy to - could you post any? Being as "intellectually honest" as you are?
I don't know why you put "intellectually honest" in quotes. I suspect you're accusing me of dishonesty because for some reason pointing out blatant flaws in your reasoning is dishonest.
Well, it's easier to attack the person than it is to attack the argument.
So, since you're happy to be intellectually honest will you go ahead and retract all your claims measured against media pundits rather than scientists?
If you want predictio
Re: (Score:2)
I'd be happy to — could you post any? Being as "intellectually honest" as you are?
All you have to do to get the predictions made by scientists is to read the IPCC reports. Here's the latest one. [www.ipcc.ch]
Re: (Score:3)
Ok, here's the IPCC third report [www.ipcc.ch] published in 2001. You can compare the projections in it to current observations.
Re: (Score:2)
none of the actual predictions made over these years by the "alarmists" have ever materialized.
I don't know about none, there's probably one or two somewhere that have come true but essentially, yes, you're right. None of the claims made by the alarmist have come true.
On the other hand, scientists tend to be conservative and like to make predictions that are backed by a good understanding of what is happening. This is resulting in things typically being worse than the predictions that scientists were makin
Re: (Score:3)
In my college Earth Science classes, our professor taught us that there is no doubt the Earth is slowly warming. The only argument is over whether it's natural or due to mankind's effects on the environment.
I should have told him that mi, Slashdot's resident political scientist/economist/earth scientist has it all figured out, and that's not true.
Re: (Score:2)
Newsweek does not a scientific claim make.
No matter how many times you try to cite it as such.
Re:Haters gonna hate (Any materialized predictions (Score:4, Informative)
Ah, ad-hominems, they prove everything!
No, it's ad-homenim if he says "Mi is an ignorant bigot and therefore his arguments are invalid". otherwise it's just an insult.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Looking it up I see a dip due to the recession (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]). The question is if this trend will continue. The next question is if it is enough or too little.
Re: (Score:3)
Was parent modded down due to lack of citation? Maybe they were referring to this?
http://www.prb.org/Publication... [prb.org]
Re: (Score:2)
THE USA IS THE ONLY COUNTRY THAT HAS BEEN REDUCING ITS CO2 EVERY YEAR.
Let me repeat that:
THE USA IS THE ONLY COUNTRY THAT HAS BEEN REDUCING ITS CO2 EVERY YEAR.
If you don't believe me, look it up. The US is doing something. The EU and Asia are NOT.
And we are doing it by outsourcing a lot of our production overseas. Yay us!
USA!!! USA!!! USA!!!
How do you define southern Antarctica? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How do you define southern Antarctica? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
You win one internet.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Apparently, the Antarctic Peninsula is a specific feature. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_Peninsula
Since peninsulas stick out into the ocean and the ocean is (of course) north of antarctica, I assume "Southern Antarctic Peninsula" describes the base of the peninsula, rather than referring to some nebulous "Southern Antarctica", which would be nothing more than an amusing way to refer to the pole. Giving directions there has got to be very confusing. Clocks basically turn east down there.
Re: (Score:2)
Being as it is the continent that encompasses the south pole, how do you define what is southern?
Antarctic is a big continent. The Antarctic Peninsula stretches out toward South America. The article specifically talks about the southern Antarctic Peninsula which is well north of the South Pole.
Re: (Score:2)
"Southern" = the part closer to the south pole
Funnel the water somewhere else (Score:5, Funny)
Build a trench from the ocean to the desert. Let the excess water pool there. Problem solved.
Warming oceans causing ice melt (Score:2)
Not sure how this is news for nerds. Warming oceans are melting ice. That's not a surprise, it's not something new. We already know the oceans are warming. We already had a pretty good idea that warmer water meant ice would melt. We already know sea level is rising, meaning ice is melting.
The news part would be if this was unexpected or otherwise faster than expected, which really doesn't seem to be the case, so yawn. I suppose it does open a platform for people to yell catastrophe, denier and other none se
Re: (Score:2)
There are some kickass "glacier calving" videos on youtube, though...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
There's the bit at the end that shows glaciers have been receding more in the last 10 years than they have in the last 100 years, so there's that...
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure how this is news for nerds. Warming oceans are melting ice. That's not a surprise, it's not something new.
Yes it seems obvious but realise: if you put an ice block in a cup of coffee, it causes convection and a pump-like effect because the water near the ice block is made cold and sinks and warm water takes it place.
Similarly, a warm surface layer is sufficient to produce a rapid speedup in the melting. So that's why it is news, the warming ocean near the glaciers is rapidly increasing the ice melt. And if you think about it, why wouldn't that continue to be the case?
Sorry for being anonymous, I apologize.
That's not really new though either. It's not like scientists in the 90's didn't already understand all that. More over, the abstract notes the observed melting as constituting a major fraction of Antarctica’s contribution to rising sea level. It looks like a more detailed look at Antarctica's contribution to sea level rise. It doesn't seem to be calling into question the larger macro of Antarctic contribution to sea level rise or overall ice loss?
My point is more simply the article seems less interes
Strangely mixed signals here (Score:2, Interesting)
The post accepted by Slashdot cites European Space Agency's satellite as evidence of ice-loss.
And earlier submission [slashdot.org] citing NASA's satellites leading to the opposite conclusion [forbes.com] was not accepted. Kind a strange for a normally unabashedly US-centric Slashdot to so openly favour European satellite-data over American — makes one suspect a certain pre-existing bias...
I don't see any substantial changes here [uiuc.edu], do you?
Re:Strangely mixed signals here (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And even the graph shows a downward trend.
For ice trends it's important to note if you are talking Arctic versus Antarctic as well as land versus sea ice. Here's a link for sea ice extent in both Arctic and Antarctic from NASA [nasa.gov]. Shows pretty clear downwards trends in Arctic and upward in Antarctic. Incidentally, the IPCC first report in 1990 estimated warming would reduce Arctic sea ice, but precipitation changes would increase overall ice mass in Antarctic...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
One of them reports what the actual scientists have concluded from meticulous study of the data, the other reports what a Forbes columnist has concluded from looking at some charts and having a hunch?
Re:Strangely mixed signals here (Score:5, Insightful)
In psuedo-skeptic world a thousand peer reviewed studies aren't worth a single paid Frank Spencer pro-fossil fuel shill piece in the WSJ.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Response from uiuc (the source of their chart) accuses the Forbes article of cherry-picking data and arriving at unwarranted conclusions. I don't think we should consider the Forbes article an unbiased source.
http://www.atmos.illinois.edu/~wlchapma/Forbes.article.response.pdf
Re: (Score:3)
Er, did you read the Forbes link before you shared it? It was about sea ice. The ice loss in evidence is land ice. You are trying to imply that there is a contradiction when there is none?
Moreover, the link is to an opinion piece, not a news source. No wonder it was rejected.
But if you want to talk about the Forbes piece, it claims there is *no* polar sea ice retreat (and the headline is worse, it claims there is no polar ice retreat at all, sea or otherwise). It fails to distinguish between Arctic sea ice
Re: (Score:2)
Would not posting a submission whose only source is a biased opinion piece (more than) hint at a bias?
Re: (Score:2)
Bye Felicia
Re: (Score:2)
Too bad that area gain is in the winter time. Not much incident heat when you are a polar region pointed away from the Sun.
Has anyone seen Gru? (Score:2)
This sounds more like the work of a master villain than regular global warming!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The site you link to has no peer reviewed papers, charts with out proper methodology cited, and links to essentially nowhere. Not acceptable.
Re: (Score:2)
Haha, I had seen the second site you linked, but not the first one. It's just as funny!!!
Re: (Score:2)
Im there too man, Pasig city.... thank god for A/C......
Re: (Score:3)
I'm in the Philippines at the monent and its 40 degrees celsius plus and all the malls and everything else seems to be airconditioned down to 22 degrees celsius or so. Could someone crunch the numbers of the global heating caused by air conditioning starting with their power consumption and efficiency for example? I'm thinking that insulation might be a better investment to prevent climate change because otherwise, what we are doing is expending huge amounts of energy to cool small sections (and thereby heating everything else) on a massive and unprecedented scale...
The numbers have been crunched here. [skepticalscience.com] They show that the heat emitted by all human activities are about 1% of the heat from enhanced greenhouse warming so it's pretty much just at the rounding error level.
Re: (Score:2)
Cool, lets all move to taytay, antipolo or baguio
Re: (Score:2)
Most of the interior is a desert, no more than a few centimeters of ice crystal precipitation per year.
Re: (Score:2)
And your source for data that says ice is accumulating in the Antarctic Interior?
Most of the interior is a desert, no more than a few centimeters of ice crystal precipitation per year.
I don't know about the parent's sources for interior ice, but here is a link from NASA [nasa.gov] for sea ice extent and area of both the Arctic and Antarctic. Pretty clearly shows a downward trend since 78 for the Arctic and upward since 78 for Antarctic. Pretty much in keeping with the IPCC original predictions back as far as 1990 expecting warming to reduce Arctic sea ice, and resulting precipitation to increase accumulations in Antarctic.
Re: (Score:2)
The GRACE satellites show that the Antarctic ice sheet is losing mass as a whole and the rate of loss is accelerating. So the ice loss is not being balanced by accumulation in the interior.
Re: (Score:2)
What does your authoritative source have for the measurements of increasing Antarctic Ice mass? Especially in the interior of Antarctica (which is officially a desert climate)?
Re: (Score:2)
No the only Antarctic ice that is increasing some is the sea ice. Even with the increase in sea ice the continent as a whole is losing more ice than it's gaining and the rate of loss is accelerating. 300 km^3 is only talking about one small area in the southern Antarctic Peninsula.
Re: (Score:2)
I have been trying to understand the true scale of the 300 cubic kilometers in lost ice. According to USGS.gov total planet water is 1,386,000,000 cubic kilometers. That makes ice loss about 0.0000216% of the total water. Based on total water surface area of 361,132,000 square kilometers (eoearth.org), 300 cubic kilometers works out to 0.831 mm - about 0.5% of the global rise of 8 inches since 1880 (globalchange.gov).
No doubt that this is a very BIG topic.
Don't forget ice doesn't convert directly to water as ice is less dense. An easier to grasp reference might be that Antarctic ice is about 26 million cubic meters, so the 300 lost is 0.001% of all the ice in Antarctica.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget ice doesn't convert directly to water as ice is less dense. An easier to grasp reference might be that Antarctic ice is about 26 million cubic meters, so the 300 lost is 0.001% of all the ice in Antarctica.
ugh, should read Antarctic ice is about 26 million cubic kilometers. :(
Re: (Score:2)
It's amazing how so many people think one volcano under one lobe of an Antarctic glacier translates to volcanoes under ice all over the continent.