Melting of Antarctic ice becoming unstoppable
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Twitter
Independent Minds
enlarge
The good news is that it would take more than 1,000 years to melt the massive ice sheet in west Antarctica that could raise sea levels by 16 feet.
The bad news is this event could become unstoppable this century if carbon dioxide concentrations keep rising as predicted, a study has found.
An investigation into the stability of the ice sheet has found it has collapsed before when carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere have reached about 400 parts per million, a level expected to reached by 2050.
It will almost certainly collapse when nearby ocean temperatures rise by about 5C, the likely result of global warming this century.
Two groups of researchers say the ice sheet has collapsed regularly, most recently about 400,000 years ago and one million years ago, resulting in large increases in sea levels. The two studies are published in the journal Nature.
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited
Reduce your global impact.
Comments
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/scie
And if they had to put their money where there mouthes are they wouldnt. Fancy buying some land in Bangladesh or the Seychelles? The Seychelles government is thinking of buying land for a new country! - because of rising sea levels due to GW.
By commenting in media comments sections theyre just trying to convince themselves and take comfort from seeing other deniers comments. Its really worrying that so many commentators here are in denial and think that they know more than virtually all of the finest minds in science. Ah yes but its a conspiracy they say...'the scientific evidence is manipulated' or 'it means nothing...'
Think of it this way - in the entire known universe life only exists in a thin skin around a rock - Earth - just a few kilometres from top to bottom and most of that life within say a 5km bandwidth. Theres really not a whole lot of atmosphere and environment out there. The activity of almost 7 billion people IS affecting the Earth's very limited living environment.
Human history is just a never ending catalogue of abuses to each other and our planet. Look at the history books. Doesnt that prove our inherent short sightedness and selfishness? We need to break that mould if humankind is to survive. And thats only going to happen if most people agree that we are facing a very real problem.
Even George Bush FINALLY conceded DESPITE being president of the most polluting country on Earth and in the pockets of oil companies (hence Iraq) and big business that GW IS happening and IS man made. Its time to stop fooling ourselves use that spine we have and face this very real and ultimate challenge head on.
Just proves we're all being conned!!
Then we have the financial crisis. News stories and excuses have varied on the subject to confuse people. One must always follow the money and the underlying policy and finally the evidence is becoming clearer. People are outraged at the big bankers and industrialists, government corruption and the waste of money and resources belonging to the public sector being siphoned away.
Then there's the final straw BBC; "Global crisis 'to strike by 2030'." OK so we're not in a depression it's a recession. Now aside from the fact that this is 21 years from now, has the ability to reason been lost by journalists at the whim of ersatz experts. Without going into available and occulted scientific advancement in all pertinent sectors and our creative abilities in place of destructive or indeed the fact that we may change for the better as a race when we are free of greedy evil people in and behind power.
Finally distrusting dis-information is an absolute necessity for the average human. A substantial amount of reading from various sources and some well applied common sense is likely to serve us better.
"What of the thousands of scientists talking of sun spots and the Middle Ages heat wave being of greater significance than our present situation, the question of sun spot causal behaviour and glacial cycles?"
Surely you mean the few hundred, perhaps even a few dozen when you take out those working for the carbon-producing industries? Solar effects were thoroughly debunked as a cause of global warming in the 1990s and glacial cycles occur on a far longer timescale than the current warming.
How about taking responsibility for your actions as an absolute necessity for the average human, or learning to balance the weight and credibility of your unreferenced sources? Chemical and biological pollution go hand in hand with overproduction of Co2 - they're all pollutants, affecting us in different ways and at different rates.
There are a whole bunch of reasons for us to get worried about climate change about, and most of them will bite us on the arse a lot sooner than this chunk of ice. Which isn't going anywhere soon.
But you're right: there are other impacts that an more immediate - so why is it so hard for some people to stop trying to complain that they are being conned and start perhaps energy-saving (saving money on bills), and recycling (which means in ten years time we don't have to find more places to pitch rubbish), and walking instead of driving (which has got to be better for people's health - not to mention other pedestrians respiration systems, after all that carbon monoxide cars pump out)?
'Two groups of researchers say the ice sheet has collapsed regularly, most recently about 400,000 years ago and one million years ago, resulting in large increases in sea levels. The two studies are published in the journal Nature.'
So why and how exactly are we trying to stop a regular natural event?
In our case, the increase in CO2 takes places over a few decades. There is no record of such a sharp increase in greenhouse gases for over 250 million years.
Having seen the figures, I am truly alarmed by the dismissive attitude of the general public. Failing to curb greenhouse gases emissions will lead our specie and others to disappear. I am astounded that some people are ready to put our planet in jeopardy because they are too short-sighted to realise what a mess we're putting ourselves into. Real shame...
Yes, CO2 levels have been 10 times higher than now in parts of Earth's history, temperatures have been much higher on average and the Earth as also been made into a snowball on at least 2 occasions. No one should be saying that global warming's projected changes are monumental with respect to Earth history, but we need some serious reminding that this is the first time in history there just so happens to be a bunch of humans kicking about with an overly complex technology-dependent civilisation. It won't take much climate alteration (which is inevitable anyway without GW) to throw us off send us back to god knows when, which isn't a great help either.
Grow some gills, people.
Thinking about it though you might have a point about the gills, all land animals including us might migrate back to the oceans from whence we came. According to Darwin, which I know very little of, over a few millions years Homeo Sapiens might evolve into Homeo Nauticalus. We do have gills when in the womb don't we ?
Well, there you have it, people - proof, as if it were needed, that self-righteous eco-fascism (i.e. the philosophy of the climate change brigade, which states that there is only one truth, and anyone who denies it is a dangerous, subversive dissident who should be sent to a gulag for re-education) is the new Marxism: we are all selfish and wicked and don't care about our fellow man - or the planet - just because we happen to be comfortably off.
Oooh, can I have another 10 lashes for my back, please sir!
The bad news is that your are wrong (and miss-leading people):
If ocean temperatures rise by about 5C, then the west Antarctica ice sheet will melt in very much less than a 1000 years.
And sea levels will rise by 8.06 metres (26.4 feet).
It is the EAST Antarctica ice sheet that will take a long time to melt, but when it does, sea levels will have risen by 80.32 metres (263.5 feet).
Greenland ice sheet melting = 6.55 metres (21.5 feet).
West Antarctica ice sheet melting = 8.06 metres (26.4 feet).
East Antarctica ice sheet melting = 64.8 metres (212.6 feet).
Other ice melting = 0.91 metres (3 feet).
Total = 80.32 metres (263.5 feet).
See, for example: http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs2-00/
Show me your data.
Show me your differential equations.
Those are remarkably precise predictions, given the HUGE UNCERTAINTIES that still pervade our climatic data and our mathematical models!
You didn't even state a confidence interval or a margin of error, and yet you feel confident in giving us figures of sea-level rise to TWO DECIMAL PLACES, no less.
The hubris and naivety of some in the AGW camp seriously damages their credibility, I'm afraid.
Average depth of ice = 1.600,000 km
volume of ice = 21,900,000 km3
Area of earth = 510,000,000 km2. This is your error.
You need the area of ocean, not the total area (obviously).
Area of Ocean = 71% x 510,000,000 = 362,100,000
This implies the average increase in height of water = 60.48 metres
(not 43 metres as you state, but very close to the 64.8 metres, or 212.6 feet, I stated).
(assuming your numbers and all the Antarctic ice melted)
Actually, they are at present about 385ppm, and increasing at about 2ppm per year. (Data from the Mauna Loa observatory, readily available online at http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trend
Public perceptions of climate science are something I find fascinating... and rather horrifying. Although there are heaps of wide open questions quantifying all the various factors involved in climate, it is still a basic discovery that CO2 levels are rising, driven by human activities, and that this is the primary cause of a marked increasing trend for global temperatures in recent decades. The concerted public campaign to mix up denial of such well established discoveries with all the genuinely open questions is reminiscent of the same gulf between popular views and basic biology seen in evolutionary biology; and a difficult problem for general education in science; what it is and how it works.
It's all very well objecting to a word, but the fact of the matter is that nothing is 100% certain. Especially in chaotic systems such as climate and measureing its rate of change.
TBH there is too much hand ringing about the whole debate. to much bull without any workable solutions being offered.
Governemnts talk green and tax motorists and house holders for there carbon footprint. The technology is there in part and it is not by using electric cars (how stupid! where do people think the electricity comes from?) or imposing more silly noise regulations for internal combustion engines. Rather than legislate all new houses have ground heat source heating systems (possible) why not just tax people for their carbon footprint? There. Thats the answer then. Not a solution to a problem a tax for a problem. No tax on free underground heat is there? But there is on gas, oil, electricity. Dont blame the people, blame the governments and the big corperations and stop making 'us' feel guilty.
In the distant past atmospheric carbon dioxide was as high as 7,000 parts per million and during the Jurassic levels were about 2,700 parts per million. Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are about 380 parts per million today. Also there was no correlation between carbon dioxide and temperature over that 590 million year period. Source CO2: Geocarb III, Berner and Kothalava, 2001.
Also what Nature publishes I do not trust since this Journal refused to publish the McIntyre/McKitrick and Peiser critiques, respectively, of the Hockey Stick and the Oreskes "consensus" essay. That says it all about the journal Nature.
PS I don't believe in any of this global warming nonsense.
So does that mean that you are ready to put our sole planet in jeopardy because "ooh, global warming doesn't sound good, so I'll choose not to believe in it" ?
What a criminally short-sighted view...
If we're right, and our greenhouse gases emissions DO cause catastrophic global warming, how are you going to feel then??
People denying global warming are putting the whole world a risk through their self-proclaimed ignorance. Congratulations, you are officially the stupidest creatures alive (how dumb can you be, to willingly destroy your own habitat, despite ample warning?)
source: wikipedia
So, "what next" you ask? Well, these islands will disappear below the rising water. One island has already been evacuated. I saw the pictures, everything was underwater.
Can you give me the scientific data that you mention?
It is true that it was slightly cooler in the 70's, but it is nothing compared to the increase that followed. Have a look at page 40 of the IPCC 4th Assessment report (link in previous post)
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/18/a
As a non believer I prefer to use a more measured approach. The problem with coming over all 'save the planet' is that it detracts from the facts. We all see pictures of ice melting on our televisions but not of huge ice storms over the poles forming new ice. Some goes, some comes. A bit simple I know but have a look at dated satelite images above the poles for the last few years. Then you will see an increase in the ice caps at certain times (as well as some melt). Go find your own dates and images and see before being dismissive. So there is real evidence, not predictions to show we are not in a state of continual meltdown. Remember the vast majority of 'research' is funded. Mmm. Not all independant then. Therefore no way to know that specific findings have not been deliberately looked for in favour of others. Just like an advert, telling you what the advertiser wants you to know.
Just because all of us are not convinced of total meltdown, this doesnt mean we are philistines with our collective heads in the sand. Maybe, just maybe, we like to question what we are being told. Weapons of mass destruction anyone? I didnt fall for that one either. I will keep my mind open thanks.
http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2
The icecap grows in winter and shrinks in summer, so if you compare pictures they must be at the same period.
More than 3 million square meters have disappeared since 1978. That's kind if an obvious trend, at that point.
it's only a few thousand years ago that most of Great Britain was under 3km of ice. The polar ice caps covered a significantly larger area than they do today. They did not need human interference to melt over the last 10,000 years and they will melt over the next 1000 regardless of what we do.
Let us not forget that the ice caps have melted away completely in the past, multiple times. The Earth is not static. Indeed, there have been finds of fossilised sea animals high in hills and mountains.
10,000 years is a split-second in geological timescales. The ice caps were melting long before the human race developed civilisation.
As for CO2 being responsible... correlation DOES NOT EQUAL causation.
Yes, there is a correlation between the rise of CO2 levels and rises in temperatures, but the CO2 rises *LEG BEHIND* temperature changes. Unfortunately, the Government's statistics office have obfuscated the data - reduced timescales on graphs, thickened lines, truncated graph plots, etc. - in order to conceal this.
It is worth noting that the CO2 level currently stands at around 390ppm and is rising at over 2ppm per annum, so 400ppm will certainly be exceeded by 2050 and could well be exceeded by 2015!!!
It is also worth noting that previous models for the melting of Greenland ice were found to have underestimated the rate of ice loss because it was assumed the ice would melt fairly slowly via absorption of solar energy, when in practice ice has been sliding off the land mass approximately three times faster than anticipated.