8 ms·
Antarctica loses three trillion tonnes of ice in 25 years
- 11235813213455 8y agothis type of news unfortunately won't change the consumerist nature of most people
- dawhizkid 8y agoWhen I read stories like this I'm instantly reminded how small my day to day problems really are.
- cozzyd 8y agoI expect to see #FloridaMan stories about sea level rise before we do something constructive like greatly increase the gas tax.
- devmunchies 8y ago> something constructive like greatly increase the gas tax and to stop subsidizing meat and dairy production and associated crops (corn, soy).
- thinkcontext 8y agoRather than focusing on the big sounding absolute number in the headline, the more important number is the 3-fold increase since 2012. This means that the losses are accelerating, which is very concerning.
- kchronic8 8y agoYeah it's concerning. Now if you'll excuse me, I'll get back to driving my gasoline vehicle and not carpooling.
- natalyarostova 8y agoYou don't need us to excuse you, this is an internet comment thread.
- gehwartzen 8y agoBeyond that I wish articles included the total volume of ice in Antarctica; not that I believe 3 trillion tones of lost ice is not a big deal but I have no idea if that represents 1% or 50% of the available total.
- southern_cross 8y agoIt looks like the total amount of estimated ice in Antarctica is something like 30,000,000 cubic kilometers, give or take. In comparison, the amount of ice being lost here probably doesn't even amount to rounding error; it's more like just noise. (Someone else here has calculated a value of about 0.01%, but I don't know how accurate that is.) That's a common theme with such reports these days, BTW. The numbers quoted can be scary at first, but looking at the bigger picture they often turn out to fall into the margin-of-error/statistical-noise range - a bit disconcerting, maybe, but not something to get too worked up about. What's more interesting to me is usually what's left out of such reports. For example, there are claims that while ice may be melting around the edges of Antarctica (at least in certain parts of it), a lot of that may just end back up as snow in the interior instead of actually staying in the ocean. And while "warming waters" might be caused by climate change, they might also be due to geothermal activity in and around Antarctica - undersea thermal vents and such. The continent itself should have about the same level of volcanic and geothermal activity that any other continent typically has, which of course ebbs and flows, but it's generally hidden from view under all that ice.
- lostmsu 8y agoA poor estimate is that 1 trillion tones of ice is 1000 cubic kilometers.
- LinuxBender 8y agoHow many feet above current sea level will I have to reside to be safe in 10 years, 20 years?
- everdev 8y agoI don't think they're expecting much in the next decade or two, maybe a few inches? > the worst-case scenario — of seas rising nearly 4 feet due to Antarctic ice loss alone by 2100 — assumes that very high emissions continue for carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/03/30/antarctic-loss-could-double-expected-sea-level-rise-by-2100-scientists-say/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/20...
- breakyerself 8y agoThat also assumes the west Antarctic holds together until 2100. That's when it's expected to go into full retreat but the error bars are +-50 years. It could hold until 2150, but it could also start breaking up in 2050. That possibility and others are not included in those estimates.
- selectodude 8y agoIf you’re more than like 150 feet above sea level it will never be an issue.
- coldtea 8y agoWater submerging your property wont be an issue. All the tons of others far more important repercussions will still apply...
- mkempe 8y ago50cm by 2100. That's just under 20 inches for Imperialists. This assumes a linear rise of 6mm/year. So in the next 10 years sea level would rise by 6 cm (just over two inches; I understand there are twelve of those in a foot, so we're not talking "feet" until 102 years from now).
- oblong 8y agoHow much does Antarctica weigh?
- ssivark 8y agoWhy do headlines give meaningless and absolutely context-free numbers just because they sound large?!?! X-( In other news: you breathe out a bazillion molecules of carbon dioxide every breath!! /rant
- mkempe 8y agoI don't understand this part: "In total, Antarctica has shed some 2.7 trillion tonnes of ice since 1992, corresponding to an increase in global sea level of more than 7.5mm." If the melting ice of Antarctica contributes only 0.3mm per year to the annual 6mm rise of sea levels, what exactly is causing a 20x larger change? [added] On the other hand a NASA study published in 2015 [1] indicated that Antarctica has been steadily accumulating ice, thereby "taking 0.23 millimeters per year away... If the 0.27 millimeters per year of sea level rise attributed to Antarctica in the IPCC report is not really coming from Antarctica, there must be some other contribution to sea level rise that is not accounted for." [1] https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-o...
- kaybe 8y agoWater expands when it gets warmer.
- mkempe 8y agoOn the other hand, "In the most recent estimate, for 1993–2008, the contribution from land ice increased to 68 percent, the contribution from thermal expansion decreased to 35 percent". [1] Something is not right. Either ice melting has been contributing 4mm/year to recent decades of sea rise, or the contribution is slightly negative (in the largest ice sheet, over Antarctica). Thermal expansion of ocean water on its own does not adequately explain it. [1] Contributions to Global Sea-Level Rise https://www.nap.edu/read/13389/chapter/5 https://www.nap.edu/read/13389/chapter/5 --- One could dogmatically down-vote, or one could provide references to scientific discussions that cover the contradictory stories... You know who you are.
- kaybe 8y agohttps://ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter03_FINAL.pdf https://ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter... Check page 291 for an overview of components and time lines. This is still the current scientific consensus AFAIK (no major updates).
- ThJ 8y agoLook... Humanity... You know you could do something about this, right? ... No, faster than that. You can do it faster. You just don't want to, do you? ... Because you're too selfish and short-sighted! Can't you see that? ... Of course you can't. Listen... No, listen... You're f%$&ed. Don't you get it? You're f%$&ed, and you're making it worse, and you're refusing to listen because you're smart enough to fly to the moon, but too dumb to save yourself! Sigh.
- f4rker 8y ago>>>"We can't say when it started - we didn't collect measurements in the sea back then,"<<<
- mkempe 8y agoFor context: there are 26.5 million cubic km of ice in Antarctica, weighing 24.3 million Gt (26.5 / 1.091). Assuming these estimated 2,700 Gt (the rounded 3 trillion) have not been steadily replaced by new water on top of the ice sheet [1] the reported loss amounts to a mere 0.01% of the total ice sheet. I don't see cause for panic. [1] https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-o...
- rkul 8y agoHow do you know 0.01% is not a cause for panic?
- mkempe 8y agoAt that rate it would take 25,000 years for 10% of the Antarctica ice sheet to melt. On the other hand 20,000 years ago was the peak of the last Ice Age. Sea level was 120m lower than today. There was more ice in the Northern hemisphere's ice sheets than there is in Antarctica. We happen to live in an interglacial, one that is not even as warm as the previous one. It is far more reasonable to fret over the coming return of the Ice Age than to panic about minor variations in a warm, agriculture-friendly climate. Further, another NASA study indicated in 2015 that the Antarctica ice sheet is growing (not shrinking) by almost 0.01% every 25 years. Did you panic over that report? More generally, is there a specific, perfect, fixed amount of ice that should be in Antarctica? has there ever been? by what standard?
- iconjack 8y agoAlso NASA: Antarctic Sea Ice Reaches New Record Maximum (2014) [1] NASA Study: Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses (2015) [2] etc etc etc [1] https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-record-maximum https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reach... [2] https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-o...
- nherment 8y agoI think maybe these are worth reading past the title? [1]: > While the Antarctic sea ice yearly wintertime maximum extent hit record highs from 2012 to 2014 before returning to average levels in 2015, both the Arctic wintertime maximum and its summer minimum extent have been in a sharp decline for the past decades. Studies show that globally, the decreases in Arctic sea ice far exceed the increases in Antarctic sea ice. [2] "We’re essentially in agreement with other studies that show an increase in ice discharge in the Antarctic Peninsula and the Thwaites and Pine Island region of West Antarctica" ... "“Our main disagreement is for East Antarctica and the interior of West Antarctica" ... "If the losses of the Antarctic Peninsula and parts of West Antarctica continue to increase at the same rate they’ve been increasing for the last two decades, the losses will catch up with the long-term gain in East Antarctica in 20 or 30 years -- I don’t think there will be enough snowfall increase to offset these losses."
- acqq 8y agoNo, over years, Antarctic loses total ice, 125 GTons per year on average: https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/30880 https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/30880 "Sea ice" from the titles you quote is just a subset of "ice" and "extent" is just one dimension of all its presence, and there's constantly less total ice (minus seasonal variation). Your title selection misuses some people's unawareness of the difference.
- sgolecha 8y agoOh Dear !!! Climate change is a slow moving disaster which we humans have not evolved to completely comprehend. Once the oceans are not able to absorb any more C02, the temperatures are going to soar pretty fast and that C02 will remain in the atmosphere for a long time (unless some magic carbon capture thing comes along..which I doubt).
- AngryData 8y agoRight now ocean currents are near one full turnover from around the start of the industrial revolution. Up until now, as deep ocean currents rose to the surface it was exposing fresh water unladen with excess CO2, but now the current coming up is carrying CO2 saturated water from the industrial revolution.