A Hole Opens Up Under Antarctic Glacier -- Big Enough To Fit Two-Thirds of Manhattan (nbcnews.com) 281
Scientists have discovered an enormous void under an Antarctic glacier, sparking concern that the ice sheet is melting faster than anyone had realized -- and spotlighting the dire threat posed by rising seas to coastal cities around the world, including New York City and Miami. From a report: The cavity under Thwaites Glacier in West Antarctica is about six miles long and 1,000 feet deep -- representing the loss of 14 billion tons of ice. It was discovered after an analysis of data collected by Italian and German satellites, as well as NASA's Operation IceBridge, a program in which aircraft equipped with ice-penetrating radar fly over polar regions to study the terrain. The discovery is described in a paper published Jan. 30 in the journal Science Advances. The researchers expected to see significant loss of ice, but the scale of the void came as a shock.
Rats. They found me. (Score:5, Funny)
So much for my Fortress of Solitude.
Re: (Score:2)
Iron Sky 2 (Score:5, Funny)
Wasn't this the proposed theme to Iron Sky 2. Hint: It's Lizard people living down there below Antarctica.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I want to believe.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's the void the alien space craft from the X-Files movie left.
You might enjoy the novel Ice Station [wikipedia.org] by Matt Reilly [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
It's GWAR, smoking on their crack bolder.
They faked their deaths.
Re: (Score:2)
Wasn't this the proposed theme to Iron Sky 2. Hint: It's Lizard people living down there below Antarctica.
No Lizard people, but Subterranean [wikipedia.org] is a pretty good action/adventure novel by James Rollins [wikipedia.org] along these lines...
Re: (Score:2)
Quit it (Score:2)
Coastal Cities... (Score:2)
Stop Building there!
PLENTY of available land in Colorado!
Re: (Score:3)
PLENTY of available land in Colorado!
If you don't mind the alternating droughts, floods, wildfires and plagues of insects.
Re: (Score:3)
PLENTY of available land in Colorado!
If you don't mind the alternating droughts, floods, wildfires and plagues of insects.
That last one is just about gone [scientificamerican.com]
Re: (Score:2)
A reduction in wild insect biodiversity doesn't mean that, say, crop pests won't thrive.
This is evolution in action; as human impacts affect the biosphere more, you get a swing toward species that are well adapted to human disruptions.
All Full, No More Room (Score:2, Insightful)
Nope, Colorado is full. you idiots from SoCal came and parked in the fucking left lane of the interstate. That and you went to escape the cost of living down there, and brought your retarded politics to run up the cost of living here.
Re: (Score:2)
So much this. Why won't California natives learn it's their bullshit 'there should be a law against that or tax the shit out of it' ideals that bring the high cost of living with them?
Re: (Score:3)
Plenty of land until developers start taking you up on your foolish offer....
So... (Score:3)
So, there's less ice than we thought and the rise in sea levels has not been as severe as we thought for the amount of ice that has melted. How is this not a positive thing?
Re:So... (Score:5, Informative)
No, puny human, the entire ice shelf is thousands of time larger than the hole that was discovered.
However, the undermining of the ice shelf has advanced more than expected and portends the entire ice shelf, as well as the glaciers behind it melting out to sea.
Re: (Score:3)
And if this collapses, a huge chunk of glacier will be floating out to warmer waters and melting faster still.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
...90% marginal tax rates, and nationalizing all US health care...
The number is 70%, and nobody has ever talked about nationalizing all health care.
The Blaze points out who was talking about 90% rates, and, as a bonus, why they are stupid.
The nationalized healthcare falls under the euphanism "medicare for all". Before you spew your garbage laden nonsense at others, learn to use Google for a second.
Re: (Score:2)
This is the derangement syndrome AC was talking about though.
It's not any one line in particular, but the combination put together. It's as if an early AI has been put in control of individuals identifying as 'democrat'.
Passable sentences but as a collection entirely devoid of any expression that adds value to the conversation.
Or, perhaps real individuals acting as automatons regurgitating talking points commanded by the talking heads on the neon god during the 11 oClock 'News'.
Re:So... (Score:5, Informative)
I understand it's hard to grasp the scale of what we're talking about here. Just to give you a sense, the glacier in question has an area of 166,500 km^2 or roughly the same size as the country of Tunisia, and is about 300 meters thick. The area covered by Manhattan is only about 3/100 of 1% of that.
The volume of missing ice represents probably less than 1/500th of the ice in the glacier. It's not the volume lost already that's the concern, it's what the void says about the vastly larger volume of ice in that glacier. Internal melting means that there is some kind of water flow occurring, which could destabilize the entire glacier. That's over 45 gigatons of ice, enough to raise global sea level by over 1/10 of a cm.
Of course that's not very much. If this is the *only* land-based ice sheet or glacier that were unstable, it's not a sea level rise issue; it's equivalent to about one year's contribution of ocean thermal expansion to sea level rise.
This is kind of like finding a crack in an individual Airbus A380 wing; it's not very big compared to the wing's 420 m^2 area, and this is just one wing on one out of hundreds of A380 in service. That doesn't make it a small deal.
Re: (Score:2)
This is kind of like finding a crack in an individual Airbus A380 wing; it's not very big compared to the wing's 420 m^2 area, and this is just one wing on one out of hundreds of A380 in service. That doesn't make it a small deal.
It's not a small deal unless they can determine WHY there is that water flow occuring. If the A380 in question had just ran into the side of the terminal, the crack in its wing spar would not matter to the remainder of the fleet, and *might* not even be a big to this one (though, most likely it would). More interesting would be a crack in the nose gear after a particularly hard landing. This would be more likely to have ramifications for the whole fleet, since a hard landing doesn't leave the sort of evi
Re: So... (Score:2)
...by over 1/10 of a cm
Fuck's sake. Not 1/1000 of a meter??
Re: (Score:3)
Fuck's sake. Not a millimeter?
It's not a difficult unit to use. Ants. Chocolate sprinkles. Mouse cables.
Re: (Score:2)
1/500th sounds like a huge amount to me.
Seems obvious if you've ever watched ice melt; once voids appear, melting accelerates rapidly.
Like poking holes in a potato before baking; 1/500th is plenty to create air flow in a way that significantly alters the results.
When I saw somebody making scale arguments, I figured it was going to be something small like 1/50,000th, not something catastrophically huge like 1/500th!
Re: (Score:2)
In I think it's best not to rely on our intuitions formed through our experience with small scale phenomena to anything this enormous. Best to leave that to the geophysicists.
I'm just responding to the poster's apparent belief that the fact that the volume of missing ice proves that sea level rise due to ice sheet collapse is implausible.
Re: (Score:2)
I think a lot of concerns with massive glaciers is exactly where the water is going. A comparatively small amount of water can have a big impact on glacier stability if it runs off along the ice/rock interface.
How big a deal is it then? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Best to skip the media and go straight to the published paper.
Re: (Score:2)
This by itself does not mean we'll have a 2m sea level rise. Predicting sea level rise depends on predicting our future behavior. There's a big difference between RCP 2.6 (we do everything possible to reduce greenhouse emissions) and RCP 8.5 (we do nothing).
It is my understanding that the middle-of-the road projections assume that the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets will remain mostly stable, and that most of the sea level projection is due to thermal expansion. This individual finding does not *neces
Re: (Score:2)
Ever notice a "denier" makes a simple common sense statement, and then the AGW "priests" come along...
No. But I have noticed that denialists like to change the subject when confronted with facts.
Re:So... (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
They Can't Fool Me (Score:2, Funny)
It's a UFO hanger, guaranteed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Colonization? Yeah, we're colonized over here. All the land belongs to someone already. However, you have to wonder whether we'll end up with a mid-west coast and a mid-east coast if the mississippi rises along with sea levels. More global water probably means more rain, which means more water in the rivers too.
Re: (Score:2)
Not saying inland ocean. Deeper/wider river, maybe. Talking about higher rainfall causing it if you read what I posted.
Re:I'll believe they truly are see a crisis (Score:4, Interesting)
When the scientific establishment calls for relocation policies that encourage colonization of "flyover country" in the US by the coastal population.
I'm perfectly willing to accept the possibility that "global warming" is happening, but until the discussion is "it's happening, but why" and all "whys" are entertained including "we have no control, move in with the Hillbillies if you don't want to drown" I'm not going to give much credence to the fearmongering because skin in the game determines the degree of commitment one has.
Really? Do you not steer your car until the last possible second before impact?
Wouldn't it be nice to do something about the issue before we have to undergo mass migrations? If you are so willing to accept the possibility that AGW is real, and since you do have skin in the game by virtue of living on this planet, why not look into it rather than dismissing warnings a "fear mongering"? Why wouldn't you consider calls for mass relocation "fear mongering"?
Re: (Score:3)
When the scientific establishment calls for relocation policies that encourage colonization of "flyover country" in the US by the coastal population.
And then people will complain about the scientific establishment interfering in policy, which happens whenever a scientist opines on a policy area.
Unfathonable number (Score:5, Funny)
How many football fields is two thirds of a Manhattan?
Re:Unfathonable number (Score:5, Funny)
How many football fields is two thirds of a Manhattan?
Meaningless number. I want to know how many Libraries of Congress it is.
Re: (Score:2)
The library of congress doesn't really cover that much land mass. Only a couple hundred thousand square feet or less than a 1/100 of a square mile.
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously, but if you take all the books out and spread them in a 1 foot grid, how much space would it cover?
Re:Unfathonable number (Score:4, Funny)
About 6.1 million olympic swimming pools' worth.
At 4385964.912 pints/swimming pool [answers.com], that's 26 trillion (26,754,385,963,200) Equivalent Guinness Stout Units. About a fortnight's supply.
Re: (Score:2)
A buttload.
Re: (Score:2)
A really large number of bathtubs, that's for sure!
Re: (Score:3)
Manhattan Island: 13.4 miles long
Football Field = 100 playable yards, 120 yards including endzones
13.4 mi. = 23,584 yards
2/3 * 23,584 = 15722 2/3 yards
15,722.6666 / 120 = 131.02
2/3 of the length of Manhattan = ~131 football fields (including endzones)
Re:Unfathonable number - Thickness? (Score:2)
So I ran some numbers...void is approximately 14 square kilometers (which is pretty big for us humans). Spread over the 362 million square kilometers of ocean, it works out to about the thickness of a human hair. Go figure.
Re:Unfathonable number (Score:4, Funny)
A looong way if you ask the Rams.
Re:Unfathonable number (Score:5, Funny)
How many football fields is two thirds of a Manhattan?
You're totally not grokking the frame of reference. A typical Manhattan is only about 5 or 6 ounces at most - so this hole is pretty darn tiny. I don't get why they are making such a big deal about this.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So.... ho much is that in Farsees?
I have a question.... (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm asking a serious question here, help me understand how this is possible...
The melting is at the BOTTOM of the glacier, where the effects of climate change are at the absolute lowest, being isolated from the air above by many feet of ice, snow and other stuff. Plus, the ice that's now melted was frozen and buried centuries ago. Plus, this is now a void, so one presumes that the conductive water flowing between the rocks below and the ice above is gone.
How is this due to global warming?
Seems to me that this void would be from the earth below is warmer at this spot than in others... But that's geothermal changes, not climate change. Is that wrong? If so, how do we know what caused this?
Re:I have a question.... (Score:4)
Possibly 'cause the water underneath is warmer than it should be. Water is a way better thermal conductor than air.
Re:I have a question.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Why didn't it melt across the expanse instead of just the center? This seems more like geothermal heat, as it is more directed. Climate change heating would have produced channels instead as it would follow currents which would expand across the entire glacier, not just the center.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:I have a question.... (Score:4, Informative)
No, the melting is caused by an increase in hydrothermal heating. The West Antarctic Rift System, 138 volcanoes known to date, is located right below it.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6014989/
(Pine Island glacier is right beside Thwaites, see map in article)
This is known since 2014:
https://oceanleadership.org/major-west-antarctic-glacier-melting-geothermal-sources/
Re:I have a question.... (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Difference to what? From the paper:
"The adjacent Thwaites glacier, which drains to the Amundsen Sea, shows strong radar returns that indicate subglacial meltwater, suggesting volcanism and high localized heat flux"
The observed 3He excesses also indicate a geothermal source, likely in the range of icelands Grimsvötn volcano and clearly larger than your suggested 1%.
Re: (Score:2)
fresh water floats on top of salt water. Salt water has a lower freezing point. Warmer water can flow underneath. This part of the glacier is over water, not land.
Re: (Score:3)
This part of the glacier is over water
Then it's an ice shelf, not a glacier. Terminology is important in science. Not so much in propaganda.
Re: (Score:2)
It's still part of the glacier. It's an NBC news headline - what do you expect? The body of the article does use the term ice shelf specifically, but a glacier is still a glacier until it is an iceberg. A thing can have two names, even if one is less specific than the other.
Re:I have a question.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
"where we should focus our attention" I would start by resolving never to buy property in Florida.
Re: (Score:2)
You've got it. I've worked in the subject field and I've been to Thwaites Glacier. I don't even get into these discussions any more. If asked my opinion, I just say, "I wouldn't buy any land in Florida that I'd intend to pass down to my grandkids."
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Sorry, you are beyond help since you showed up on /. ...
Re: (Score:3)
The void is likely a result of a net outflow of ice from the glacier over time
That tends not to carve out voids at the bottom of glaciers. When the terminal end of the glacier moves away, upper portions fracture straight through under tension, creating crevasses. One thing that does erode glaciers from the bottom is melt water. Either dropping to the base of a glacier through crevasses from the surface or due to volcanism underneath the glacier. Melt water is quite evident [livescience.com], so lacking that evidence, it really looks like volcanism.
Entrance to hollow earth (Score:2)
Can't deny it any longer.
If it turns out the glacier is hollow. (Score:2, Troll)
Re:If it turns out the glacier is hollow. (Score:5, Funny)
Well, problem is now the Stargate is accessible from off-world again.
Re: (Score:2)
Not a fan of numbers are you. The size of the hole is dwarfed by the size of the glacier. If what causes the hole also causes the glacier to slide into the ocean, then your win win looks silly.
So does that mean what I think it means? (Score:2)
Now we just need a hole big enough for New Jersey (obvious jokes aside).
I wish (Score:4, Funny)
...if only it WOULD take 2/3 of Manhattan.
Can we order up one about Washington DC sized?
If this is the outcome of warming, I'm not going to really be upset?
"A Hole Opens Up" (Score:2)
A-Hole Opens Up
Two Thirds of Manhattan?! (Score:2)
The hole is big enough to contain two thirds of Manhattan?! EVERYONE has to admit this is pretty fucking bad.
The hole needs to be at least 50% larger!
1000 foot deep cavity. (Score:2)
This is what happens if you don't brush your glacier.
Big enough to fit two-thirds of Manhattan (Score:3)
If it is a hole big enough to fit two-thirds of Manhattan, it raises the obvious question. Where should we put the other third?
1/3 more to go (Score:2)
Yes please hurry up Manhattan is in the middle of some very expensive real estate.
Re: (Score:2)
Good job on that straw man.
Re:Morons (Score:5, Insightful)
As an ice age species, we have a vested interest in not accelerating the rate of change. Absolutely the glaciers are going to melt. We need to adapt, but we need to buy time too. The changes at play are much bigger than you're imagining.
Re:Morons (Score:4, Insightful)
Do these morons think that if humans had never graced the face of the Earth that these glaciers would never ever melt for all of time?
The glaciers are going to melt, because their existence is cyclical, as the very same climate "scientists" will tell you. There are well-established periods of glaciation followed by well-established periods of pole-to-pole tropics.
THE GLACIERS ARE GOING TO MELT WITH OR WITHOUT HUMAN ACTIVITY.
This means that human contributions to climate are COMPLETELY FUCKING IMMATERIAL.
We should be focusing our energy on adaptation rather than obstinate refusal to go along with mother nature. We could spend the sum total of human wealth on trying to stop it, only to buy ourselves maybe a couple hundred years, or we can just adapt.
Say what? Human contribution is, of course, completely material.
If you put an ice cube on the kitchen counter, it will melt. If you take a flame to it, it will melt much faster. But according to you, the flame is immaterial. Besides, the glaciers formed naturally many years ago. So assuming they will melt regardless does not really make sense. I'd advise you to work on your own reasoning skills before calling people morons.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
True.
False. We are in an ice age, you know, and have been for millions of years. There has been permanent ice at the north pole for the last ±2.5 million years and longer than that at the south pole.
You, sir, are full of it (Score:5, Informative)
You are willfully ignorant, and it is clear you never even read the article.
In the article, they explain that the retreat of the glacier and the sinking of the surface are explained by the interior melting. The landscape is changing, and it stands to reason that something is causing these changes. Thanks to ground penetrating radar, we know what.
If you believe the void within the glacier was there the entire time, then you have to explain why the glacier is only retreating now and why the surface has just started sinking. So, I guess I'll be waiting for your publication.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
https://www.sciencedaily.com [sciencedaily.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Volcanos you halfwit.
This is expected. They saw the isotopes in the runoff, now they know where another one is.
Re: (Score:2)
that discounts the probability that the costs have gone down because we started spending money on them.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Hey hey hey, you do realize you're calling into question their religion.
Re:Speculative PROPAGANDA! (Score:5, Informative)
"representing the loss of 14 billion tons of ice."
So they KNOW for a fact that ice has always been there? Or are we just assuming it was there because we did not find this until now? There are a lot of assumptions going on here... and because of the "Cult of Global Warming" it is now impossible have have responsible discussion.
Was the ice there before? Why is that information not being provided? Oh wait... I get it... just like people of faith are required to accept the existence of their Gods, the GW Cult expects all the deniers to take what they think on faith too!
Science these days is starting to require more faith than many religions.
This post is unintentionally hilarious. It is indeed impossible to have a responsible discussion, when one side of it doesn't even bother to know the facts. If you had read the article you would know that the researchers have been watching the area for years and have recorded an increase in the size of the void. How can you expect to be taken seriously when you can't be bothered to do some basic research?
Re:Speculative PROPAGANDA! (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe you'll find answers in the paper. Did you try reading it ?
Re: (Score:2)
A STEAM education makes you think you should install a valve system.
I thought it was the other way 'round.
Re: (Score:3)
Green Sahara (Score:2)
A hotter world is a wetter world. Already data shows since the 1970s as the world has got warmer rain in the Shara has increased and the edges are now scrubland instead of pure desert. Also famines in Africa have gone down since the 1980s as a hotter world is leading to more rain in Africa.
Global Warming may suck for Britain and Northern Europe as the Guf Stream will switch off and these places will be frozen wastelands but there are areas like Canada, Siberia which will be warmer and areas like Tibet, Saha
Re: (Score:2)
So let's all move under the ozone hole in Antarctica.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But, there is already to much man-made trash in the oceans.