Newly Identified Tipping Point For Ice Sheets Could Mean Greater Sea Level Rise 131
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.
slashdot web stuff (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Some ad blockers let you choose a part of the page to never see again.
You mean going from -1C across 0C to +1C ... (Score:2)
... 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.
Re: (Score:3)
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 :)
Re: You mean going from -1C across 0C to +1C ... (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Misleading headline. Again. (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
the cold melt water and chunks of ice (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Thus solving the problem once and for all [youtube.com]!
Related: windmills do not work that way [youtube.com]! Good night!
Summary sounds obvious (Score:2)
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:2)
1900 (Score:2)
- 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)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
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)
plymouth rock (Score:2)
Why isn't plymouth rock underwater yet?
Need to pump water on ice (Score:2)
However, this only deals with solar warming. For Antarctica, there is the issue of volcanoes erupting under the ice, which appears to be increasing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
1) it simply compared ice loss to Greenland and declared that because Greenland's loss was higher, that all ice loss in Antarctica was due to AGW i.e. classic correlation => causation.
2) nowhere does it account for what is happening as 100-200 BILLIONS OF TONNES OF MASS is lost each year.
3) nowhere does it mention about the increasing number of tremors, though to be fair, it is equally possible that it is just better measurements since on
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
citation needed. (Score:4, Funny)
citation needed.
Re: (Score:3)
I was going to say "medication dosage increase needed"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Look out the window, and try to take an inventory of everything made by humans that you can see. Think of every building, boat, plane, bridge, car, landfill, tchotchke, road, whatever. It's a lot of stuff. In a few very select places, it stacks up hundreds of meters [wikipedia.org]!
But now take all the built-up works of humanity, and average it across the entire land surface of the planet. If you are really lucky, I'd wager it doesn't average out to mor
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Even global cooling couldn’t stop raising water as long Earth continues to shrink from global mining for raw resources. Think about how many cars, trucks, planes, buildings, machines, space stations, satellites, rockets, bombs, bullets, shells, ships, trains, roads, electronics, cellphones, furniture, whatever Amazon warehouses have, anything that extract from underground to surface oand space. Earth is 25,000 miles cross, 8,000 miles deep, only few to 30 miles crust to mantle depending on where, and how many cars are already over 100,000 miles on their odometers. Earth’s gravity is pulling crust toward its core, shifting the ground to even up, then water will be overtaking wherever lower lands are. The world should be mining asteroid fields, Mars, whatever in space for raw resources instead. It’s too late now anyway. Should have chicken feed birth control instead of viraga pills long time ago but corporation greed and religion fanatics won’t allow it. I don’t know if I will be still alive to see the world end. I would have enjoy it. Very, very much.
Sure, sure, but remember all of that stuff is hollow.
Inside those cars, trucks etc, there's lots and lots of space. You've got to think about all the stuff that would've been inside those warehouses if they hadn't hollowed them out. If anything, the Earth is getting bigger from all the stuff they carve out to make all those space stations (which have to be empty or the vacuum of space would pull the insides out). It's all this consumerism generating those innards that they won't talk about, making the
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Shit like this comes out... (Score:5, Informative)
https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]
So we're now going to get this shit pushed on us AGAIN?
Figure this shit out and let us know when you're serious.
That isn't a repeat of the stupid Times article from the mid 1970's that put forth the notion we were heading for an ice age.
Yes, there are greenhouse gases. And there are anti-greenhouse gases. All involved in energy retention or rejection. Around 99.9 percent confidence. The .1 percent would be for some physics that is caused by something else, but exactly mimics the energy characteristics we see.
So it is quite plausible that the sulfur dioxide we were pumping into the air was having a damping effect on the warming effect the CO2 and Methane have. We were burning some pretty filthy stuff in oceangoing freighters. Bunker fuel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] Cheap dregs from distillation. Tar-like consistency, has to be mixed with some other fuel in order to get it to run through the engines. That was spewing a lot of Sulfur dioxide
The aerosols are bad shit, despite some people thinking we should use them to counteract the effects of the greenhouse gases. Problem is, the aerosols mix with water vapor to produce acid rain. Not a good tradeoff. Sulfuric acid is a real killer, and anyone who wants to use it to mitigate AGW, might want to take a look at the more extreme non-rain examples https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
the 'beginning ice age' stuff was basically Milankovitch cycles right? It makes some sense that orbital variations would be trending flat or downward on temps.
Things should be roughly peaking in that cycle so we're not only warming the planet but probably cancelling out the next dip in the process. But I also know there's 20/40/100,000 year variations in that.
Re: (Score:2)
the 'beginning ice age' stuff was basically Milankovitch cycles right? It makes some sense that orbital variations would be trending flat or downward on temps.
Things should be roughly peaking in that cycle so we're not only warming the planet but probably cancelling out the next dip in the process. But I also know there's 20/40/100,000 year variations in that.
It was sort of Milankovitch cycles. The main driver for the story was the 1977-1979 heavy snow winters, so people on the east coast were getting hammered. So it was a combo of that FUD, and mistaking weather for climate. My guess is that the sulfate aerosol injection made for a bit of instability in the weather, as after the early 90's things warmed up pretty well.
But the article has achieved immortality, being pointed to by deniers as "Those silly scientists can't make up their minds!"
Re:Shit like this comes out... (Score:4, Funny)
OMG, Global Paywalls! Move to Mars!
The problem with a lot of news is that they are having people more interested in Pop culture than science write the stories. And between us, "tipping points" are bullshit. This ain't no teeter totter, it's just facts.
Small increases in ocean temperature are going to melt ice at the warmest margins, and a good chance that it will be at places where the ice touches the bedrock. Once there, it is a contest between the slightly warmer sea temps and the cooling effect of the ice. Being underwater to begin with, that ice is probably not far from liquid ocean temperatures.
Better headline would be "Oh shit - regular folks never thought about this - They Don’t Think It Be Like It Is, But It Do Be"
Re: (Score:2)
The rest of your post is deal-on, but there's one minor nit:
Once there, it is a contest between the slightly warmer sea temps and the cooling effect of the ice. Being underwater to begin with, that ice is probably not far from liquid ocean temperatures.
Being a rather thermally conductive material with a hysterically large heat of fusion, the whole berg's temperature will quickly approach the melting point of the berg in the local water and stay there until it has all melted.
So the cooling rate will depend
Re: (Score:2)
So these deviations from contact-area driven melting are literally a drop in the ocean.
I see what you did there! 8^)
Re: Shit (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.miamiherald.com/ne... [miamiherald.com]
6" of rise in just 30 years.
Re: (Score:2)
"Sea levels have risen about half a foot on average since 1994 at Virginia Key’s tidal gauge"
Try again
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My brother for example, he is so far right that he thinks that fascism is a leftist ideal.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
What? Melting the floating ice does not raise the sea level? You sir, must be one of them Climate Deniers, I've heard of. Next you'll tell me that the elites should stop buying property close to sea level, on artificial sand islands in the Emirates? How daaarreeee you? :)
Glaciers sometimes hold back a lot of ice because part of the glaciers are grounded on the sea bed. Once that ice dam breaks then the ice behind can flow. Warming the water can undermine the grounding of those glaciers. How difficult is that to understand for you?
Re:I hate when ice in my drink melts and overflows (Score:4, Interesting)
After the end of the last "Ice Age", there where plenty of places on the earth where that happened.
A dam of ice holding back a large amount of water, with large I mean, gigantic large. Thousands of times bigger than the Hoover dam water basin.
North America is full with canyons that were carved by the floods when such an event happened. Whirlpools and the stones trapped in them drilled big deep holes in such canyons.
There are interesting youtube videos about geologists walking around and explaining their thoughts about what happened here and there.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: I hate when ice in my drink melts and overflow (Score:2)
https://www.washington.edu/new... [washington.edu]
Re:I hate when ice in my drink melts and overflows (Score:4, Funny)
Are you serious? "Ice dam breaks" is a concern now?
How much of an effect will that have? Any studies done on it? Do they take into account the rising of Antarctica, Greenland, etc. as the weight of the ice sheet lessens? Which would cause lowering of the Mantle around it, so lowering the sea level? This is hard to even measure, let alone predict. All we know is that it is a slow process. You know, glacial. As in, moving centimeters per year. I think beach properties are safe for now.
The more important thing is whether you would pick the shark or electrocution from a electric boat that is sinking because it is too heavy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd take my chances with the electricity, I have felt the tingle quite a few times in the past from various ungrounded crap that should have been grounded and said it was to various devices my physical therapists have hooked up on me and apparently thought it was funny to see me jumping around uncontrollably... Sharks though? I think spending 40 - 200 seconds being ripped apart into my various components would be just too much for me.
Oh, I would as well. The thing is though, you won't be electrocuted. It's the mass and consuctivity of the ocean, and you're a resistor in parallel with it, so almost no current will flow through you. It's weird the guy who is always using this in campaign speeches uses it as an example of how smart he is, when it's based on a false premise.
Now most of us probably aren't thinking in those terms - it isn't an obvious thing. But yeah, I'd prefer electrocution to being eaten alive. In this case I'd probably
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
What? Melting the floating ice does not raise the sea level? You sir, must be one of them Climate Deniers, I've heard of. Next you'll tell me that the elites should stop buying property close to sea level, on artificial sand islands in the Emirates? How daaarreeee you? :)
2 things.
If the glaciers were just unattached to anything, floating in the ocean, they wouldn't have that much of an effect as they melt.
However, they aren't floating. They are attached to land. So as they melt or break away form land and into the ocean, they will indeed cause the water level to rise. It's taking something that wasn't in the water and putting it in the water.
An experiment is to take a glass fill it 3/4 full, then take a tray of ice cubes and dump them in one by one. You will increase
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
so, those artificial islands that failed, does that mean they are for sale cheap now?
Might be - there isn't much on them though.
Re: (Score:2)
What? Melting the floating ice does not raise the sea level?
The Antarctic glacier discussed here is grounded, meaning, it's not floating ice.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:So... adapt? (Score:4, Informative)
We already see negative population growth in every advanced country.
Re: (Score:2)
But consumption continues steadily upward anyway. GDP and markets demand it.
Re: (Score:2)
And of course much of that consumerism is just creating bigger rubbish heaps.
Re: (Score:2)
Considering how many people are on the planet the trash heaps are pretty small and in most advanced countries the air is breathable, the water clean and so on. If you want to see ecological devastation go to a poor high density country. India comes to mind first but they're just the biggest example.
Re: (Score:2)
We're all in this together. Not to mention it's *our* rubbish ending up in India ... and the oceans.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, our landfills are far from small.
Main point is, no mater how well we package the waste, we aren't slowing down in producing it. Quite the opposite.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:So... adapt? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
and a)
- creates 10s/100s of millions of new jobs
- is multiple times cheaper
Do you volunteer to take climate refugee ? (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Not at all....if no one attempts to cross into the country un-invited or illegally...no one gets hurt at all, much less killed.
However, if they are acting as foreign invaders....different story.
Re: (Score:2)
I am for my country 100% over any other country.
I have the right to defend it...and I really don't give a fuck for those outside "the wall"...why should I?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:So... adapt? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)