Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Earth

'Zombie Ice' From Greenland Will Raise Sea Level 10 Inches (apnews.com) 113

Posted by BeauHD from the what-to-expect dept.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from the Associated Press: Zombie ice from the massive Greenland ice sheet will eventually raise global sea level by at least 10 inches (27 centimeters) on its own, according to a study released Monday. Zombie or doomed ice is ice that is still attached to thicker areas of ice, but is no longer getting fed by those larger glaciers. That's because the parent glaciers are getting less replenishing snow. Meanwhile the doomed ice is melting from climate change, said study co-author William Colgan, a glaciologist at the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland. "It's dead ice. It's just going to melt and disappear from the ice sheet," Colgan said in an interview. "This ice has been consigned to the ocean, regardless of what climate (emissions) scenario we take now." Study lead author Jason Box, a glaciologist at the Greenland survey, said it is "more like one foot in the grave."

The unavoidable ten inches in the study is more than twice as much sea level rise as scientists had previously expected from the melting of Greenland's ice sheet. The study in the journal Nature Climate Change said it could reach as much as 30 inches (78 centimeters). By contrast, last year's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report projected a range of 2 to 5 inches (6 to 13 centimeters) for likely sea level rise from Greenland ice melt by the year 2100.

What scientists did for the study was look at the ice in balance. In perfect equilibrium, snowfall in the mountains in Greenland flows down and recharges and thickens the sides of glaciers, balancing out what's melting on the edges. But in the last few decades there's less replenishment and more melting, creating imbalance. Study authors looked at the ratio of what's being added to what's being lost and calculated that 3.3% of Greenland's total ice volume will melt no matter what happens with the world cutting carbon pollution, Colgan said. One of the study authors said that more than 120 trillion tons (110 trillion metric tons) of ice is already doomed to melt from the warming ice sheet's inability to replenish its edges. When that ice melts into water, if it were concentrated only over the United States, it would be 37 feet (11 meters) deep.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

'Zombie Ice' From Greenland Will Raise Sea Level 10 Inches More

'Zombie Ice' From Greenland Will Raise Sea Level 10 Inches

Comments Filter:

  • Vampire Ice, Bigfoot Ice, Mummy Ice, Etc. (Score:3)

    by Kunedog ( 1033226 ) on Monday August 29, 2022 @10:41PM (#62835075)
    Who names these things?

    Zombie ice from the massive Greenland ice sheet will eventually raise global sea level by at least 10 inches (27 centimeters) on its own, according to a study released Monday. Zombie or doomed ice is ice that is still attached to thicker areas of ice, but is no longer getting fed by those larger glaciers.

    Then call it Gangreneland.

  • Mass hysteria!

    Or maybe just ghostbusters.

    • Re:Cats and dogs living together! (Score:5, Interesting)

      by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Monday August 29, 2022 @10:52PM (#62835095)
      Lower crop yields leading to food shortages and in turn economic instability are going to create a ton of mass hysteria not to mention wars.

      One of the major problems with human civilization is that although it's cheaper to be a good person it's more profitable to be a bad person.

  • Doesn't add up (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    If the researcher's worst case scenario of "11m concentrating over only the USA" is true, that only accounts for a sea level rise of 8.3 in. Rounding up to the nearest 10?

  • Problem solved, ecological disaster avoided.
    Maybe do wrap the iceberg in a big plastic bag to prevent any loss of water.
    Maybe Elon Musk can spare some rockets to speed up the journey.

    • Sure thing, turn the desert into a savannah, and current savannah into a jungle.

      Now if we had just left Muammar Gaddafi alone and let Pan-Africanism become a thing, maybe they would have worked together and solve a lot of those issues with irrigation, dams, and water treatment projects. No need for glacier or iceberg hauling

    • No need to drag - cut the ice shelf off and attach a system of synchronized masts and sails to it. No problem drilling 200' holes into the ice for the masts - there will always be waste. The computer can pilot the ice shelf until it gets close enough to land that a human needs to deal with it. "Solar powered".

  • I will finally have a beachfront property.
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re:Seriously (Score:5, Informative)

      by Truth_Quark ( 219407 ) on Tuesday August 30, 2022 @12:52AM (#62835271) Journal

      How is this calculated?

      From the Main section or the paper:

      Greenland’s ice budget deficit emerged after the 1980s from increases in surface meltwater run-off1,2 and ice flow discharge from its tidewater sectors3,4. Yet, despite its importance for future sea-level rise (SLR), our capacity to accurately predict Greenland’s response to climate change is hampered by process limitations in ice sheet models and their imprecise coupling to land, atmosphere and ocean boundaries5,6,7. Given these constraints, we pursue a complementary approach to obtain Greenland’s thus far lower-bound-committed SLR contribution.

      Our approach does not directly solve the transient ice flow equations but rather calculates the committed areal and volumetric changes incurred by the up-to-present ice geometrical disequilibrium with climate8,9. The method determines the ice extent and thickness perturbations required to bring the current ice sheet into equilibrium with surface mass balance (SMB). Changes in flow dynamics are implicitly accounted for by a glaciological power law scaling function that relates imposed areal changes in ice extent to an implied ice volume10. To account for marine-terminating sectors and tidewater outlets where the ablation area is truncated by iceberg calving, we introduce an effective ablation area treatment. For application to Greenland—including its peripheral ice masses—the essential empirical requirements are met with new multi-year inventories of: (1) tidewater glacier discharge4; (2) SMB (that is, snowfall accumulation minus run-off) from observational reanalysis and regional climate data11; and (3) the accumulation area ratio (AAR): the glacierized area with net annual mass gain divided by its total area, readily retrieved from optical satellite imagery12,13.

      For grounded ice masses with an ablation area, the maximum snow line elevation at the end of each melt season marks the transition between the lower-elevation dark bare ice and the bright upper-elevation snow accumulation areas. This equilibrium line and its corollary, the AAR, conveniently integrate the competing effects of surface mass loss from meltwater run-off and mass gain from snow accumulation. Minimum AAR each year demarcates hydrological years on a sector basis (Extended Data Fig. 1). By regressing annual AAR and mass balance, we obtain the statistical property of AAR in the condition of mass balance equilibrium (AAR0) that is necessary for the current ice surface morphology to be in dynamic equilibrium with climate (Fig. 1). The ratio of the observed AAR to AAR0 yields the fractional imbalance () that quantifies the area perturbation required for the ice mass to equilibrate its shape to an imposed climate shift away from that associated with AAR0 (ref. 8). This disequilibrium approach exploits how climatically driven SMB perturbations are at least an order of magnitude faster than the associated dynamic adjustment of the ice mass14. The resulting derivation for the adjustment in ice volume (V) and committed eustatic SLR follows glaciological scaling theory relating the glacierized area change to ice volume perturbation using a power law function10 (Fig. 1) with exponent () (Methods).

      While under the most up-to-date ice thickness and subglacial topography mapping15, Greenland’s current ice sheet configuration implies an area–volume scaling exponent of =1.24 that closely abides the theoretically derived value of 1.25 (ref. 10), we apply a linear exponent of 1 to avoid the mathematically intractable regional case in which some ice flux between adjacent flow sectors is inevitable. The choice of a linear exponent represents an absolute minimum committed loss, encompassing flow interaction between adjacent ice sheet sectors, since it accounts for how scaling techniques are best applied to ensembles of many ice masses10,16, which we accomplish by summing the volumes from 473 subregions of the ice sheet. While it is possible to scale

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by davide marney ( 231845 )

        And yet,

        "Time is the key unknown here and a bit of a problem with the study, said two outside ice scientists, Leigh Stearns of the University of Kansas and Sophie Nowicki of the University of Buffalo. The researchers in the study said they couldn’t estimate the timing of the committed melting, yet in the last sentence they mention, “within this century,” without supporting it, Stearns said."

        The change in climate is not being measured if you can't say by how much by when -- and if you're no

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward

          And yet,

          "Time is the key unknown here and a bit of a problem with the study, said two outside ice scientists, Leigh Stearns of the University of Kansas and Sophie Nowicki of the University of Buffalo. The researchers in the study said they couldn’t estimate the timing of the committed melting, yet in the last sentence they mention, “within this century,” without supporting it, Stearns said."

          The change in climate is not being measured if you can't say by how much by when -- and if you're not measuring, you're not applying the scientific method. Is this study just Yet Another Modeling Exercise? We don't need any more of those. We need actual experimentation and observation.

          We're doing the experiment right now, using Earth as the petri dish. HTH. Modelling has been pretty much on track so far, sometimes a bit too conservative.

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by thosdot ( 659245 )

          Is this study just Yet Another Modeling Exercise? We don't need any more of those. We need actual experimentation and observation.

          It's not like they have deliberately planned a sub-optimal experiment or set of observations. I for one am willing to take on trust that the information gained here will lead to better observations in the future. I'm also willing to accept that the precise numbers do not matter so much as the trend, and the trend is clear.

          • "I'm also willing to accept that the precise numbers do not matter so much as the trend, and the trend is clear."

            There's absolutely nothing wrong with your reasoning here, but it is not an example of using the scientific method, just to be clear. In that method, it is the details which drive a conclusion such as this is a trend, not the other way around.

            Now, the reason I say there is nothing wrong with you thinking this way is because it may very well be the case that the details do, in fact, align with the

  • Where was this conversation done? 1 inch = 2.54cm so 10 inches is 25.4cm. I could get people rounding upwards to 26cm, but how you get to 27cm is a mystery to me

    • ... but how you get to 27cm is a mystery to me.

      That's what she said.

      [ Sorry, couldn't resist. :-) ]

    • Re:Converting inches to centimeters (Score:4, Informative)

      by pjt33 ( 739471 ) on Tuesday August 30, 2022 @02:20AM (#62835361)

      The obvious explanation is that the scientists who wrote the original report used international standards and some journalist converted cm to inches for the US general public, rounding 10.63 down to 10 rather than to the nearest integer.

    • Given it's from research scientists chances are they used SI units, and the media translated it into inches for a US audience.

      The research said 27cm. They divided by 2.54 to get 10.6 something inches. They wanted to say "at least this much" and rounded 10.6 down to the nearest whole number.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

      Scientists don't work with inches. The original value is 27 cm. Someone converted it to 10.6 inches and lopped off the fractional part because rounding is apparently hard.

  • In places such as Florida where science is shunned and suppressed, any effects of climate change are prohibited from being considered [livescience.com] when constructing buildings or developments. This means all those high rises being built right on the waters edge will most likely be inundanted/destroyed when the sea levels rise.

    That in turn will mean loss the property itself and more than likely a few people killed when they drown or are crushed in building collapses. Then the fun will begin as excuses are thrown about h

    • Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)

      by davide marney ( 231845 )

      Ah yes, a large residential building, right next to the shoreline. You mean just like the mansion President Obama bought for his family, the one literally right on the shoreline? He must be a Republican, I guess, then.

      Look, if people actually believed what they were saying about climate change Armageddon, then their actions would match their words. But they don't. That's how you know the words are hollow. Do you drive your car any less now, knowing that you are "killing the planet"? I doubt it.

      But frankly,

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by drinkypoo ( 153816 )

        if people actually believed what they were saying about climate change Armageddon, then their actions would match their words.

        Lots of people are doing the best they can given the conditions. Now you want them to do more, when the economic system is set up to prevent it.

        Do you drive your car any less now, knowing that you are "killing the planet"? I doubt it.

        I do. We also replaced a vehicle with one that gets better mileage. You doubt it because you wouldn't change YOUR behaviors to avoid destroying the biosphere, because you don't give a fuck about anyone but yourself, and you expect to die before it gets much worse.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Ah yes, a large residential building, right next to the shoreline. You mean just like the mansion President Obama bought for his family, the one literally right on the shoreline? He must be a Republican, I guess, then.

        Obama's house is on a ridge overlooking the sea, IIRC, so not directly in danger. He is also sufficiently wealthy that he can afford to write off the cost of the property for the benefit it offers him now of being near the sea. So it's not in the least relevant in terms of real issues ordinary people will face.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by thosdot ( 659245 )

        And, I am certainly willing to listen to any rational suggestion for adapting behaviors to make improvements. But it has to make sense at the gut level. It can't be fake. It can't be contradicted by your own actions.

        Making sense at the gut level doesn't make sense, even as a comment.

        Many people are looking to get an EV, or at minimum a car that uses less fuel; people in many other countries (and for all I know, the US) are properly insulating their houses, and moving away from gas heating/cooking; I can't explain people continuing to buy right on the waterfront, although I suspect they're playing the odds that the local government will pick up the tab for seawalls or whatever, and that the sea will rise slowly enou

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by leonbev ( 111395 )

        Yeah, I always found it amusing that the people who scream the loudest about climate change like Bill Nye and Leonardo DiCaprio happen to live in coastal cities like LA and New York City. You would think that they would practice what they preach, considering that these areas are likely to be flooded if their dire predictions came true.

    • In places such as Florida where science is shunned and suppressed, any effects of climate change are prohibited from being considered [livescience.com] when constructing buildings or developments.

      Yes, those idiot Floridians that were told Miami would be under water decades ago are unwisely refusing to heed the latest doomsday warning about Miami being under water soon.

  • Shocking news everyone! We've never heard of this type of prediction before! This will certainly ruin the property market in places like Boston, Martha's Vineyard, and The Netherlands! And Outer Banks will be no more! I have yet to look at the stock market indexes to see what this has done, but I am worried about my 401K

  • So when do we start the engineering study on the pipeline to get all that fresh water to Lake Powell?

    Yes, I'm being slightly facetious, but only slightly. That's a valuable resource.

    • > Yes, I'm being slightly facetious, but only slightly.

      Kari Lake (a candidate for AZ governor) has announced plans to build a pipeline from the Mississippi to Arizona and pay those River states for water.

      These aren't technically or economically impossible ideas. Actually cheaper than the Transcontinental Railroad but good g-d, they'll let farms and people perish rather than issue permitting in the interim states.

      Maybe people will finally get angry and revolt when there's no water - but a total drought i

  • It won't raise sea level on the US East Coast (Score:3)

    by FeelGood314 ( 2516288 ) on Tuesday August 30, 2022 @10:15AM (#62836345)
    The mass of all the ice on top of Greenland actually moves the center of the Earth over 50m. As the ice melts water in the North Atlantic will flow to the other side of the earth. So the sea will rise in the South Pacific twice as much and actually drop in Iceland, Newfoundland and even Ireland. The change in sea level is about neutral in Florida.

  • I used to believe all this stuff. Now, I'm just getting tired of this alarmist crap.
    The alarmists have been predicting this stuff for decades. It never happens.

  • Only more tax will save us from the zombie ice!

  • 10 inches? (Score:3)

    by CAIMLAS ( 41445 ) on Tuesday August 30, 2022 @12:40PM (#62836965)

    These declarations of doom ice melt are tiresome and trite. The douchebro at the bar talking to the women about the size of his cock is more believable.

    It's now 2022... 20 years past when they were predicting the 'unavoidable' situation of the Netherlands being completely submerged by melting ice, and average summer temperatures in places like NYC being 110F. It's fear mongering nonsense.

    Meanwhile, NASA is claiming that we actually -have- lost an average of 34 feet of beachfront in the past 30 years. How they can make this claim, is beyond me:

    https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/150192/tracking-30-years-of-sea-level-rise

    "Over the course of the 20th century, global mean sea level rose at about 1.5 millimeters per year. By the early 1990s, it was about 2.5 mm per year. Over the past decade, the rate has increased to 3.9 mm (0.15 inches) per year."

    "While a few millimeters of sea level rise per year may seem small, scientists estimate that every 2.5 centimeters (1 inch) of sea level rise translates into 2.5 meters (8.5 feet) of beachfront lost along the average coast."

    Does anyone who's actually been to a coastal region believe this? If it were even half true, every bay, marina, and dock in the world would have flooded and needed to be relocated (remember: that 34' figure is -average-).

    Meanwhile, there are photos of piers and docks built in the 17th century which have the same water lines now that they did then.

    https://www.scienceunderattack.com/blog/2019/9/23/no-evidence-that-climate-change-is-accelerating-sea-level-rise-35

    I'm not saying that coastal water levels aren't higher, but there's a lot more to explain it than "rising sea levels due to globule worming" which never receives any attention - namely, the sedimentary compaction and tectonic sinking of highly populated areas, and the normal erosion of coast lines which would happen regardless of whether the sea levels rose or not. Attributing it all to 'global warming' is, quite frankly, insane. What do you want, stasis? We live in a very chaotic world, and things change beyond the urban planning mistakes of the 1950s.

  • Get back to me in the year 2100, which is when this "prediction" is slated to come to fruition.

  • And yet no-one wants to setup and use desalinization plants to turn salt water into plain water for drinking, watering, pools, etc.

    What fools are elected in our coast line states.

Slashdot Top Deals

You know you've landed gear-up when it takes full power to taxi.

Close