8 ms·

Gains in Antarctic ice might offset losses

39 points by julienchastang 11y ago

brianbreslin 11y ago
Could this be related to a shifting in the tilt/orientation of the planet? Or perhaps in an upcoming polarity flip?
- civilian 11y ago
  Ahhh, the earth's tilt/orientation changes very slowly. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_tilt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_tilt Earth's obliquity oscillates between 22.1 and 24.5 degrees on a 41,000-year cycle. It is currently 23.44 degrees and decreasing. Magnetic pole changes take 1,000 to 10,000 years to happen. So again, unlikely. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geomagnetic_reversal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geomagnetic_reversal And also, what do magnets have to do with ice melting? I'd recommend that you unfollow Spirit Science on facebook.
  - dhimes 11y ago
    Goddammit. I had never heard of Spirit Science and now I've wasted nearly an hour checking out those clowns.
  - brianbreslin 11y ago
    I have no idea what spirit science is. My question I felt was a legitimate science question for someone not familiar with geo-physics of the planet. not sure why i got downvoted.
    - civilian 11y ago
      Hey, I didn't downvote you, but your questions were just... very off. I imagine that the typical HN user was just downvoting because the questions aren't even relevant. (And sorry for he spirit science comment, it was an unfair dig. They're a pseudo-science page on facebook that often tries to connect disparate phenomena.)
sageabilly 11y ago
The important takeaway from this is that we don't have to worry as much about melting in Antartica. Melting everywhere else in the world, however, is proceeding at a fast pace and is more immediately concerning. Unfortunately, I imagine this report is going to get jumped on by global warming deniers as solid evidence that climate change is not real and there's nothing to worry about.
- vixen99 11y ago
  The word 'denial' does not permit of much nuance, does it? Smacks of faith and a religion, really. I wonder if & why you disagree with Judith Curry. "The definition of ‘dangerous’ climate change is ambiguous, and hypothesized catastrophic tipping points are regarded as very or extremely unlikely in the 21st century. Efforts to link dangerous impacts of extreme weather events to human-caused warming are misleading and unsupported by evidence. Climate change is a ‘wicked problem’ and ill-suited to a ‘command and control’ solution. It has been estimated that the U.S. national commitments to the UN to reduce emissions by 28% will prevent three hundredths of a degree centigrade in warming by 2100..." Evidence to the House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space and Technology
  - ajross 11y ago
    What does that quote have to do with antarctic ice levels or the science in question? You seem to be the one picking a fight here with rhetoric instead of engaging on substance...
  - rgbrenner 11y ago
    Judith Curry who wrote less than a year ago[0]: Moreover, the estimates in these empirical studies are being borne out by the much-discussed “pause” or “hiatus” in global warming—the period since 1998 during which global average surface temperatures have not significantly increased. Even though the actual data shows warming of ~0.18 deg C: http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/ http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/ 0. http://www.wsj.com/articles/judith-curry-the-global-warming-statistical-meltdown-1412901060 http://www.wsj.com/articles/judith-curry-the-global-warming-...
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
themgt 11y ago
If true, it's unlikely to persist for long. We know from paleoclimate data that both Greenland and Antarctica will significantly melt out w/ CO2 as high as it already is, much less any realistic peak level we could achieve.
- hugh4 11y ago
  Or if CO2 had never risen at all, right? End of ice age and all that?
  - themgt 11y ago
    Yeah, there's actually a reasonable case that our initial historical fossil fuel burning (say, up to 1950, 1980?) saved us from a new ice age that was about to dawn. We unfortunately since then have pushed the dial way, way further, likely now past a tipping point towards a mostly ice-free hothouse planet.
Pinatubo 11y ago
Hooray, the polar bears are saved!
- todd8 11y ago
  Well, not really. Polar bears live in the Northern Hemisphere. (Here's a riddle: why won't a polar bear eat a penguin even if the bear is starving? Answer: they live in different hemispheres.)
  - julienchastang 11y ago
    Except penguins lived in the Northern Hemisphere: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_auk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_auk. Great Auks are the original "penguin". What we call penguins today are not actually in the genus Pinguinus.
  - Pinatubo 11y ago
    Oh, you climate alarmists and your "scientific facts." Why do you hate freedom?
mamon 11y ago
Dumb question: if all the ice melts, especially in Arctics shouldn't the see level fall down as volume of water is smaller than volume of ice? And with increased temperature there is also increased vaporization and world's average humidity - another reason for sea levels to fall down.
- mmanfrin 11y ago
  The fear of ice melt is not from the arctic but from land. There is a significant amount of water trapped on the tops of mountains and in glaciers not in the water. Those melt and the sea will rise.
- lbenes 11y ago
  Watch Fox new much? Climate deniers love this argument. Jon Stewart answers your question here: https://youtu.be/lPgZfhnCAdI?t=459 https://youtu.be/lPgZfhnCAdI?t=459 While looking for the clip I found this gem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjuGCJJUGsg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjuGCJJUGsg
- brrt 11y ago
  There are no dumb questions :-), but no, this is not what will happen. For one thing, the ice that floats around in sea displaces exactly as much water as ice (uses the same 'water volume') as it will as water. (Almost, because the water volume per mass will actually increase with increasing temperatures, which is quite a significant effect). However, a large amount of ice is on land, where it doesn't contribute to ocean volume. If it were to melt that would be a major contributor to sea level rise. Also, the average humidity is quite stable on earth, and any excess water that evaporates into the atmosphere quickly rains out again. Furthermore, the amount of water in the atmosphere is very small in comparison to the amount of water in the oceans. (See e.g. here: http://water.usgs.gov/edu/watercycleatmosphere.html http://water.usgs.gov/edu/watercycleatmosphere.html). So it is very difficult to imagine that an increased humidity would have a significant effect on the sea level.
- dimitar 11y ago
  http://linkingweatherandclimate.com/ocean/figs/density2.png http://linkingweatherandclimate.com/ocean/figs/density2.png Look at this graph. By having the ice melt you'll have more salty water. Even if it is all fresh, the density maximum is close to 5 degrees Celsius. Ocean water is warmer in most of the oceans. Water vapor is a greenhouse gas - more water vapor will mean even higher temperatures, which would lead to more melting.

Could this be related to a shifting in the tilt/orientation of the planet? Or perhaps in an upcoming polarity flip?

civilian 11y ago
Ahhh, the earth's tilt/orientation changes very slowly. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_tilt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_tilt Earth's obliquity oscillates between 22.1 and 24.5 degrees on a 41,000-year cycle. It is currently 23.44 degrees and decreasing. Magnetic pole changes take 1,000 to 10,000 years to happen. So again, unlikely. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geomagnetic_reversal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geomagnetic_reversal And also, what do magnets have to do with ice melting? I'd recommend that you unfollow Spirit Science on facebook.
- dhimes 11y ago
  Goddammit. I had never heard of Spirit Science and now I've wasted nearly an hour checking out those clowns.
- brianbreslin 11y ago
  I have no idea what spirit science is. My question I felt was a legitimate science question for someone not familiar with geo-physics of the planet. not sure why i got downvoted.
  - civilian 11y ago
    Hey, I didn't downvote you, but your questions were just... very off. I imagine that the typical HN user was just downvoting because the questions aren't even relevant. (And sorry for he spirit science comment, it was an unfair dig. They're a pseudo-science page on facebook that often tries to connect disparate phenomena.)

The important takeaway from this is that we don't have to worry as much about melting in Antartica. Melting everywhere else in the world, however, is proceeding at a fast pace and is more immediately concerning. Unfortunately, I imagine this report is going to get jumped on by global warming deniers as solid evidence that climate change is not real and there's nothing to worry about.

vixen99 11y ago
The word 'denial' does not permit of much nuance, does it? Smacks of faith and a religion, really. I wonder if & why you disagree with Judith Curry. "The definition of ‘dangerous’ climate change is ambiguous, and hypothesized catastrophic tipping points are regarded as very or extremely unlikely in the 21st century. Efforts to link dangerous impacts of extreme weather events to human-caused warming are misleading and unsupported by evidence. Climate change is a ‘wicked problem’ and ill-suited to a ‘command and control’ solution. It has been estimated that the U.S. national commitments to the UN to reduce emissions by 28% will prevent three hundredths of a degree centigrade in warming by 2100..." Evidence to the House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space and Technology
- ajross 11y ago
  What does that quote have to do with antarctic ice levels or the science in question? You seem to be the one picking a fight here with rhetoric instead of engaging on substance...
- rgbrenner 11y ago
  Judith Curry who wrote less than a year ago[0]: Moreover, the estimates in these empirical studies are being borne out by the much-discussed “pause” or “hiatus” in global warming—the period since 1998 during which global average surface temperatures have not significantly increased. Even though the actual data shows warming of ~0.18 deg C: http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/ http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/ 0. http://www.wsj.com/articles/judith-curry-the-global-warming-statistical-meltdown-1412901060 http://www.wsj.com/articles/judith-curry-the-global-warming-...

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

themgt 11y ago

If true, it's unlikely to persist for long. We know from paleoclimate data that both Greenland and Antarctica will significantly melt out w/ CO2 as high as it already is, much less any realistic peak level we could achieve.

hugh4 11y ago
Or if CO2 had never risen at all, right? End of ice age and all that?
- themgt 11y ago
  Yeah, there's actually a reasonable case that our initial historical fossil fuel burning (say, up to 1950, 1980?) saved us from a new ice age that was about to dawn. We unfortunately since then have pushed the dial way, way further, likely now past a tipping point towards a mostly ice-free hothouse planet.

Pinatubo 11y ago

Hooray, the polar bears are saved!

todd8 11y ago
Well, not really. Polar bears live in the Northern Hemisphere. (Here's a riddle: why won't a polar bear eat a penguin even if the bear is starving? Answer: they live in different hemispheres.)
- julienchastang 11y ago
  Except penguins lived in the Northern Hemisphere: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_auk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_auk. Great Auks are the original "penguin". What we call penguins today are not actually in the genus Pinguinus.
- Pinatubo 11y ago
  Oh, you climate alarmists and your "scientific facts." Why do you hate freedom?

mamon 11y ago

Dumb question: if all the ice melts, especially in Arctics shouldn't the see level fall down as volume of water is smaller than volume of ice? And with increased temperature there is also increased vaporization and world's average humidity - another reason for sea levels to fall down.

mmanfrin 11y ago
The fear of ice melt is not from the arctic but from land. There is a significant amount of water trapped on the tops of mountains and in glaciers not in the water. Those melt and the sea will rise.
lbenes 11y ago
Watch Fox new much? Climate deniers love this argument. Jon Stewart answers your question here: https://youtu.be/lPgZfhnCAdI?t=459 https://youtu.be/lPgZfhnCAdI?t=459 While looking for the clip I found this gem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjuGCJJUGsg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjuGCJJUGsg
brrt 11y ago
There are no dumb questions :-), but no, this is not what will happen. For one thing, the ice that floats around in sea displaces exactly as much water as ice (uses the same 'water volume') as it will as water. (Almost, because the water volume per mass will actually increase with increasing temperatures, which is quite a significant effect). However, a large amount of ice is on land, where it doesn't contribute to ocean volume. If it were to melt that would be a major contributor to sea level rise. Also, the average humidity is quite stable on earth, and any excess water that evaporates into the atmosphere quickly rains out again. Furthermore, the amount of water in the atmosphere is very small in comparison to the amount of water in the oceans. (See e.g. here: http://water.usgs.gov/edu/watercycleatmosphere.html http://water.usgs.gov/edu/watercycleatmosphere.html). So it is very difficult to imagine that an increased humidity would have a significant effect on the sea level.
dimitar 11y ago
http://linkingweatherandclimate.com/ocean/figs/density2.png http://linkingweatherandclimate.com/ocean/figs/density2.png Look at this graph. By having the ice melt you'll have more salty water. Even if it is all fresh, the density maximum is close to 5 degrees Celsius. Ocean water is warmer in most of the oceans. Water vapor is a greenhouse gas - more water vapor will mean even higher temperatures, which would lead to more melting.