Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Earth

Newly Identified Tipping Point For Ice Sheets Could Mean Greater Sea Level Rise 126

Posted by BeauHD from the ocean-ice-feedback-loop dept.
In a new study published in the journal Nature Geoscience, scientists have identified a new Antarctic ice sheet "tipping point" where slight increases in the temperature of seawater infiltrating coastal ice sheets can lead to significant ice loss due to feedback loops that expand underwater cavities and accelerate ice collapse into the ocean. This mechanism could potentially cause future sea level rise to far exceed current predictions, impacting major global cities and billions of people. The Guardian reports: The researchers used computer models to show that a "very small increase" in the temperature of the intruding water could lead to a "very big increase" in the loss of ice -- ie, tipping point behavior. It is unknown how close the tipping point is, or whether it has even been crossed already. But the researchers said it could be triggered by temperature rises of just tenths of a degree, and very likely by the rises expected in the coming decades. [...] The new research [...] found that some Antarctic ice sheets were more vulnerable to seawater intrusion than others. The Pine Island glacier, currently Antarctica's largest contributor to sea level rise, is especially vulnerable, as the base of the glacier slopes down inland, meaning gravity helps the seawater penetrate. The large Larsen ice sheet is similarly at risk. The so-called "Doomsday" glacier, Thwaites, was found to be among the least vulnerable to seawater intrusion. This is because the ice is flowing into the sea so fast already that any cavities in the ice melted by seawater intrusion are quickly filled with new ice.

Newly Identified Tipping Point For Ice Sheets Could Mean Greater Sea Level Rise More | Reply

Newly Identified Tipping Point For Ice Sheets Could Mean Greater Sea Level Rise

Comments Filter:

  • Is there anyway to remove all the vomit between the Slashdot logo and the Submit button on the top of Slashdot pages? And to also kill the Topics menu bar and its associated vomit and lost screen real estate? Nothing I do in Options seems to have any effect.

  • ... is going to melt _all_ ice? Like, completely?!?? ...
    Well, no shit, Sherlock! ...
    Holy cow. They needed a study for this? Perhaps we need to update some people on basic physics.

    • Perhaps we need to update some people on basic physics.

      Yes, we absolutely do.

      Most people know roughly dick about physics. They make it through school without ever retaining... well, basically anything.

      This is a terrible tragedy because it's literally the study of how everything works, which means most people know nothing about how anything works.

      Even people without strong math skills can at least understand the basic concepts. I am living proof :)

      • I don't have a problem with people not being very knowledgeable on subjects. But there are too many that insist they know better that those of us who actually paid attention in class or those who spent several years becoming an expert in the subject.

        It's high time to be humble and let other people handle the difficult subjects. People are free to have opinions of course, but shouldn't insist their unqualified and disproven theories need the same attention as consistently demonstrable facts.

        • I don't have a problem with people not knowing everything, I have a problem with people not knowing anything. Not only are they insufferable but actions have consequences, and their actions are stupid.

        • I would say that more people need to admit that when they know very little to nothing about a subject, that they therefore have no opinion about it. But, that level of self-honesty is rare to find.
      • as a guy who used to teach Physics, I can honestly say that ANYONE can understand almost all of the basics... If they stick to only stuff before about 1850 or so and they accept that science is a process for understanding the world and Physics is a collection of learnings that Physicists constantly update to make more accurate as they go along...

        But most people want science to be 'settled' and then kept in an encyclopedia on a shelf or something, when frankly as we learn more, we learn that there is sooo

    • Once again, the problem is not the study, but the misleading headline.

      The study said that some grounded glaciers are more vulnerable to being undercut by seawater, and may be near a tipping point, but we don't know where that tipping point is. But the headline doesn't mention that not all of them are vulnerable, and some of them are less vulnerable.

      Headline writers love catastrophe headlines, and emphasize the catastrophe part. A headline "So-called 'Doomsday' glacier isn't near a tipping point, new stud

      • Well Thwaites is less vulnerable to it because it's *moving so fast already* towards the ocean. That's....not good from a sea level rise point of view.

  • So... adapt? (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Sethra ( 55187 )

    Why is the policy "Undermine everything to avoid climate change" when climate change is inevitable whether by human influence or the simple fact that the physical universe isn't a steady state?

    How about we just play to our strengths. Humans have succeeded for thousands of years because we are excellent at adaptation. We can live in virtually any climate - desert, tropical forest, frozen wastelands. Getting hot? Move further north. Sea level rising? Move further inland. For every climate even there is

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by gtall ( 79522 )

      Well, with enough sea level rise, there will be less land to live on, less land to grow crops. With enough increase in temperatures, there will be less crops grown due to desertification, see China to show how well this is working. Then there are tropical diseases which seem to like warm climates, an increase in those is already happening. And the base of the food chain, the sea, is under threat as well due to increased temperatures. The fish along Atlantic coast of the U.S. have moved further north to esca

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by evanh ( 627108 )

      That's just being dumb. It's a much much bigger concern than just what the weather is like. We're going to destroy the entire ecosystem if it goes too far. Do that and we'll wipe out even the air to breath not to mention most creatures and plants. Won't that be just great!

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by gerf ( 532474 )

      It's because they have scientists making suggestions on how to fix supposed problems, not engineers. Scientists are trained to test, describe, and document systems scientifically, whereas engineers develop fixes for problems.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by evanh ( 627108 )

        Any because's is not from science nor engineering. It's simply down to money not liking to lose our dependence on fossil fuels. They'll continue to cast doubt as long as they can. They take it because it can be taken, so to speak.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by evanh ( 627108 )

      Continuing on the dumbness topic: You do know there's no such thing as unlimited growth, right? At some point a rebound has to be assumed. The further we push the extremes the bigger the planet will hit back.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by q_e_t ( 5104099 )
      Would you suggest to an alcoholic that binge drinking is fine because they might get a liver transplant? People die, so apparently trying to stay alive must be overrated?
      • the person that you posited this to is an example of an idiot having an opinion about something they clearly shouldn't even think about, but who is very noisy about their worthless opinion.

    • Re:So... adapt? (Score:5, Informative)

      by hipp5 ( 1635263 ) on Wednesday June 26, 2024 @08:23AM (#64579271)

      Because anthropogenic climate change is really fast, so adapting is going to be effing expensive and a lot of people are going to suffer in the process.

      You're right, humans will adapt to any situation and we won't go extinct, but that doesn't mean it's going to be pleasant. There is no option that is "keep living like you're living." The options are:

      a) spend a whole bunch of money and reorganize global economies to return the rate of change to the slower, "natural" rate of change

      b) have the world change really fast on us, killing a whole bunch of people and degrading quality of life, and still requiring a whole bunch of money and a reorganization of global economies to allow us to adapt

      Given those choices, a) gives us more control over the eventual outcome and is ultimately less painful.

    • "Getting hot? Move further north. Sea level rising? Move further inland."


      Very easy to say. Very INANE. I am betting my ass off that you are far away from any climate change zone. I am also betting you are far away from, say, US southern border or Europe southern Zone. And I am betting you are certainly not proposing your region/country to give refuge to people.

      How do you expect the US to welcome dozen or even a few hundred million climate refugee going north ? Because they certainly ain't going to go

      • Re:Do you volunteer to take climate refugee ? (Score:4, Funny)

        by cayenne8 ( 626475 ) on Wednesday June 26, 2024 @10:58AM (#64579615) Homepage Journal

        How do you expect the US to welcome dozen or even a few hundred million climate refugee going north ?

        Set up a a no man's zone at our souther border, with a wall....towers manned with rifles...and maybe some land mines in front of the wall and give some real consequences of trying to enter illegally.

    • You've got it backwards. The whole point is that we're not adapting. It's our greed, our weakness that is preventing us from adapting. The strong animal adapts and prevails. Not responding, and therefore adapting to climate change is our current weakness as a species

    • Re:So... adapt? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Sique ( 173459 ) on Wednesday June 26, 2024 @09:48AM (#64579465) Homepage
      The problem with "excellent at adaption" is that it comes at a cost.

      When the Medieval Climate Optimum in Central Europe ended, and the Little Ice Age started, people in Europe indeed adapted. They colonized South and Central America, killed off a huge part of the local population and started the Thirty Years War in Europe. At the end, 1/3 of Europe's population was killed or sent overseas, while at the same time killing half of Central America's population, and the crop yields were sufficient again.

      From a biological point of view, that was successful adaptation.

      • From a biological point of view, that was successful adaptation.

        How about we use this same example but instead of humans we call them polar bears and brown bears? While the two kinds of bears are distinct enough in appearance and behavior to a point they are considered distinct species we discovered later that they can successfully interbreed, and by being able to interbreed that blurs the line on them being distinct species. That might make them more like a distinct "breed" or "race" like we'd use if they were dogs or humans respectively.

        So, we see the polar bears en

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Sique ( 173459 )
          The difference is that people have human rights, different species of Ursus do not.

          The lesson is: Yes, Homo sapiens sapiens L. will probably survive Global Warming. But the cost will be huge. And some people have that crazy idea of lowering that cost by lowering the impact Global Warming will have. Other people like to ignore the problem by claiming that it is o.k. to have huge amounts of people killed off instead, because for some reason, they don't think they will be among those killed.

          • The difference is that people have human rights, different species of Ursus do not.

            One thing is that this view of people having human rights is cultural, and not all human cultures believe those from a foreign culture have human rights. The definition on who or what is "foreign" will differ, therefore it will differ on who or what is "human" in the eyes of people and worthy of any kinds of rights.

            Another thing is that we can have competition among differing subspecies without it turning into fighting by tooth and claw where the loser must die. We can have full respect of human, or ursin

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by q_e_t ( 5104099 )
              China is building lots of renewables and nuclear and coal use us already peaking. Your example is a poor one

    • One inevitable adaptation for the changing environment that must be made is adapting to an environment with less access to fossil fuels. I also believe we will continue to see humans thrive in nearly every climate on Earth through adaptation. Should we continue to burn fossil fuels and see global warming then that will require not just adaptation to different temperatures and rainfall but also greater difficulty in finding coal, petroleum, and natural gas to burn for energy.

      If the local climate is getting

    • "Why do anything to avoid car-related injuries and deaths? We're all going to die anyway."

    • We don't need to hold the earth in stasis. Just perhaps, not supercharge it's rate of change. So far we haven't been able to do that lately.

      "Undermine everything to avoid climate change" - what if it's cheaper than not doing so? 'Moving Miami/NYC inland' isn't exactly cheap.

    • Why is the policy "Undermine everything to avoid climate change" when climate change is inevitable whether by human influence or the simple fact that the physical universe isn't a steady state?

      Because the economists and scientists agree that the most expensive thing to do would be to attempt to adapt to climate change. Think of it this way, America is shitting it's collective panties over a few people at the southern border, what do you think will happen globally when a billion plus people start being on the move as they "adapt" to the changing liveable areas.

      Climate change den... well not deniers, but rather anti-alarmists, those who have resolved to the idea that since we have tried nothing and

  • should also have a cooling effect on the oceans at least for a few months

  • I assume that the real results are a bit more specific, because the summary sounds not only obvious, but like something the models should already include.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Academia exists in a world of nuance and detail.

      Modern journalism exists in a world of reduction and broad strokes.

      It's easy to get mad when reading headlines. If you want to be mad about something, be mad about the fact that you are being manipulated by the author of the headline to evoke an emotional response and generate clicks.

  • Yawn, one more tipping point. All of the land-based ice sheets of the planet have been clearly in decline since about 1900 ... so wasn't the most important "tipping point" whatever happened then? Global warming is one giant pile of positive feedback loops, do we really care if half of Southern Florida is under water by 2050 or 2060? It will be under water.
    - Sea ice-albedo feedback: As sea ice melts, it exposes darker ocean water which absorbs more sunlight, warming the ocean and melting more ice
    - Ice

  • No (Score:2)

    by The Cat ( 19816 )

    There is no sea level rise. The mud flats in Northern California (which are below sea level) remain unchanged 40 years running.

    We have photographs (ground level and aerial) of the region going back to the late 1950s. No sea water. No change in the size of the beach. No change in the tides.

    Sea level rise is scientifically debunked bullshit.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by q_e_t ( 5104099 )
      By this logic, there has been no building anywhere on earth in the last 40 years as if I look out the window right now I can't see any buildings less than 40 years old.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by The Cat ( 19816 )

        It's a simple matter of physics and gravity. If the sea level rises, sea water would spill into the mudflats and flood them.

        It is physically and scientifically impossible for sea level to rise and for the mudflats to exist simultaneously.

        Since we know the mudflats existed in the 1950s (we have photographic proof) and we know they exist in virtually identical condition today, it is a scientific fact there has been no rise in sea levels. Case closed.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by q_e_t ( 5104099 )
          You should get onto NOAA right now to tell them that 10s of thousands of scientists have been wrong for decades. I'm sure they will thank you for saving them so much time in future. I look forward to your paper in Nature.

  • Why isn't plymouth rock underwater yet?

  • Seriously, need to pump water on top of ice when cold enough and build up the ice layer. This needs to be done at both poles. This would work esp during spring/early summer and fall. By building up sea ice thickness, combined with snow, should help restore the reflection of the poles.

    However, this only deals with solar warming. For Antarctica, there is the issue of volcanoes erupting under the ice, which appears to be increasing.

Slashdot Top Deals

Your mode of life will be changed to EBCDIC.

Close