Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Zombie ice from the massive Greenland ice sheet will eventually raise global sea level by at least 10 inches (27 centimeters) on its own, according to a study released Monday. Zombie or doomed ice is ice that is still attached to thicker areas of ice, but is no longer getting fed by those larger glaciers.
Zombie ice from the massive Greenland ice sheet will eventually raise global sea level by at least 10 inches (27 centimeters) on its own, according to a study released Monday. Zombie or doomed ice is ice that is still attached to thicker areas of ice, but is no longer getting fed by those larger glaciers.
And it's hair was perfect!
The naming rights were purchased by Robert Cummings.
He should first purchase the rights to a name that doesn't sound like he's about to cause hard to explain spots on intern dresses.
That's probably why he performs as Rob Zombie.
Sounds like we have a “war on ice”.
Study lead author Jason Box, a glaciologist at the Greenland survey, said it is "more like one foot in the grave."
Study lead author Jason Box, a glaciologist at the Greenland survey, said it is "more like one foot in the grave."
Well, more like ten inches, not a foot. Typical guy.
The same people that want you to constantly live in fear.
Who names these things? The same people that want you to constantly live in fear.
The same people that want you to constantly live in fear.
You mean the idiots selling "No vaccines" so the disease continues forever (431 deaths yesterday in the U.S.A., when does it stop?)
Why would more water, warmer weather, and more co2 lead to crop failures?
Because the places that are appropriate for particular crops will no longer be the places in which we have the infrastructure and experience to grow them. I grew up in a farming community. The crops they grow depend on wet springs from accumulated snow melt and dry summer and fall. Failure of either of those conditions has already created crop failures in the past. Both are predicted to get worse in the future.
Yeah right. Asia depends on rice even more heavily than the US depends on corn. The problem with global climate change is that it's global. Everybody gets fucked, at the same time, for however long it takes to figure out the new weather patterns and optimize for them.
Both are predicted to get worse in the future.
Both are predicted to get worse in the future.
Everything is predicted to get worse in the future. The problem is, I've been hearing that we should be under water for 30 years now. Or that the fields were all going to dry up. Too much water. And not enough water. Saudi-ish burning deserts in America. And North Pole-ish ice sheets in America. Pick your disaster movie.
When you've heard that the sky is falling all your life, and the sky doesn't fall, it's kind of hard to take the next guy serious when he says "Promise, Honest Injun, THIS time the End is n
If only there was some way of figuring out which predictions were realistic and which ones weren't. A method of some kind....
Pakistan is a historically extremely dry place. Right now it has more water than it can use. Greenhouse warming rearranges agricultural zones, rather than eliminating them.
Sure. The way it typically goes is climate patterns change, the affected civilization collapses, and in a couple hundred years another one grows up in it's place, all optimized for the new conditions.
Sucks to be the first guys though.
Hint: grow other crops. Farming is a real science. Farmers aren't stupid.
Hint: growing crops depends on specific soil conditions. Farmers may not be stupid, but they can't change reality. If you think they can, try growing crops in the Sand Hills of Nebraska.
And it's not just crops. Try raising animals when temperatures are higher and rainfall less. To wit, the thousands of heads of cattle being slaughtered as we speak because of drought in the Midwest.
Has the mid west turned into a dust bowl and no one said anything? Or are you just making stuff up? How many square miles or acres of the Midwest or California is no longer farmable?
Currently, 1/3 of land in the midwest has lost its topsoil [npr.org]. As the land becomes drier due to drought that topsoil continues to blow away worsening the condition.
Top soil loss is from bad farming practice. If it was from temperature we'd all be starving already. How much has turned to desert from heat? None. Nada. Nil. Zip. Zero.
This isn't even a case of failed correlation and causation. There's not even a timeline correlation between temp and top soil loss. Oh boy, where does this stuff come from?
And you completely ignored and deleted my core statement: grow other crops. Stop growing almonds in the California desert and shipping them overseas for cash. It'
Hint: grow other crops. Farming is a real science. Farmers aren't stupid.
Hint: grow other crops. Farming is a real science. Farmers aren't stupid.
Yes, they are. If they weren't, they'd band together en masse and fight the massive stupidity inherent in modern farming, which is literally destroying the future of food production.
Hint: Stupidity is the primary defining factor of the age. We have unparalleled access to information, and then mostly just ignore it.
Yup, just like that. It's not like our agricultural system is highly optimized or anything. Hear it's going to be a bad year for whatever you've grown for the last century or millennium? That stuff with all the storage, transport etc. infrastructure? Just switch and grow something else this year. Next year reassess.
I'm never sure if you're an idiot or a troll. I'm leaning towards troll on this one.
Actually we deliberately grow fat plants. Plants don't naturally look or taste like the domesticated ones that we eat. Think about watermelon for example -- why on earth would a plant need so much water and sugar? If anything, it's a survival disadvantage for the plant. Basically the plant equivalent of morbid obesity.
Our anatomy is more biased towards meat consumption than plant consumption. We aren't even capable of extracting sufficient nutrients from the vast majority of wild plants, so we work around that by modifying plants to have more readily available (read: easier to digest and metabolize) materials, such as carbohydrates.
why on earth would a plant need so much water and sugar?
why on earth would a plant need so much water and sugar?
It doesn't. It needs its seeds distributed. The water and sugar are there to trick things into distributing its seeds. The only difference between a wild watermelon and the ones we grow is that ours are bigger, and have higher sugar content; but the wild ones had quite a bit of sugar that the plant had no use for already.
No, that's not why the water is there. The water is there to survive through drought conditions. And the wild version of that plant isn't sweet at all, it's very bitter.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... [nih.gov]
I hope your greenhouses have enough room for the billions of people that will be migrating away from the worn torn, expanding desert, starving hellholes that will be created by the "warmer weather". Make sure you stockpile enough beds for everyone.
Why would more water, warmer weather, and more co2 lead to crop failures?
Why would more water, warmer weather, and more co2 lead to crop failures?
Because expanding deserts with increased flood and fire damage are not conducive to land productivity.
Humanity has always thrived during warmer climate periods and suffered during colder times. Always.
Humanity has always thrived during warmer climate periods and suffered during colder times. Always.
This warm period is warmer than anything humanity or any other existent species has survived.
But more warmth and CO2 is exactly what plants need.
But more warmth and CO2 is exactly what plants need.
This depends on the plant, how warm it is already, and what other things those plants need. More or less water, less fire, less competition with weeds that do want more warmth and more CO2 are three things that negatively affect land productivity under the current high greenhouse climate.
Right now co2 is so low in the atmosphere plants are essentially suffocating.
Right now co2 is so low in the atmosphere plants are essentially suffocating.
No mate. They're doing fine.
Warmer is better for human civilization. History has spoken.
Warmer is better for human civilization. History has spoken.
This will be warmer than human history. Warmer weather (when associated with things such as drought) wiped out civilisations in human history, though. So the evidence is rather mixed. And by warmer you mean not COLDER than now by a significant degree (e.g. 8.2kya event) rather than WARMER than now. WARMER than now is unprecedented in human history. This is rolling dice and you claim it will definitely be two sixes. Some people might not want to risk the equally likely snake eyes.
Did I miss the report on the American Midwest and California turning to sand?
Did I miss the report on the American Midwest and California turning to sand?
Perhaps you did. Decrease in moisture over the period 1900-2020 is measurable throughout New Mexico, Arizona, California, Nevada, Utah and Colorado. [epa.gov]
Investigate the data yourself [dri.edu].
And thanks for making my point; in warmer weather we won't need greenhouses.
And thanks for making my point; in warmer weather we won't need greenhouses.
And the increasing temperatures will make the climate unsuitable for crops that don't need greenhouses now. And fires, floods and droughts will further impact productivity, as well as natural ecosystems.
Given a choice between living in the Roman era or Midieval Warming period vs the much colder times between and after I'll take the warmer times of abundance and prosperity over the colder periods of crop failures, misery, and death every time.
Given a choice between living in the Roman era or Midieval Warming period vs the much colder times between and after I'll take the warmer times of abundance and prosperity over the colder periods of crop failures, misery, and death every time.
Fair and irrelevant. You're not being offered a choice between the roman era or the medieval warming period.
Warmer is better for human civilization. History has spoken.
Warmer is better for human civilization. History has spoken.
Humanity has always thrived during warmer climate periods and suffered during colder times. Always.
Humanity has always thrived during warmer climate periods and suffered during colder times. Always.
Tell that to the peoples of Babylon, the Indus valley, the Khmer empire, the Maya empire, and the mesolithic Sahara. Their civilisations were all destroyed by drought.
The rest of us have empathy no problemo.
The rest of us have empathy no problemo.
You don't look around much, do you?
You think the curve of death risk vs. age is linear!!?
I suggest you go look at actual curve and find out just what order the exponential parameter is, hint it's high
Rogan is an entertainer, a comedian with a popular podcast (as far as podcasts go, anyway). He’s certainly not a political reporter or even a reliable source of information. Listening to JRE is akin to watching cartoons - it’s just entertainment, a sentiment which he himself has repeatedly expressed, on and off the show.
I’m sure some people out there take him too seriously, but those simple minds were honestly lost long ago. Even if they stopped listening to Rogan today, they’d just
Problem solved, ecological disaster avoided. Maybe do wrap the iceberg in a big plastic bag to prevent any loss of water. Maybe Elon Musk can spare some rockets to speed up the journey.
Now if we had just left Muammar Gaddafi alone and let Pan-Africanism become a thing, maybe they would have worked together and solve a lot of those issues with irrigation, dams, and water treatment projects. No need for glacier or iceberg hauling
No need to drag - cut the ice shelf off and attach a system of synchronized masts and sails to it. No problem drilling 200' holes into the ice for the masts - there will always be waste. The computer can pilot the ice shelf until it gets close enough to land that a human needs to deal with it. "Solar powered".
From the Main section or the paper: Greenland’s ice budget deficit emerged after the 1980s from increases in surface meltwater run-off1,2 and ice flow discharge from its tidewater sectors3,4. Yet, despite its importance for future sea-level rise (SLR), our capacity to accurately predict Greenland’s response to climate change is hampered by process limitations in ice sheet models and their imprecise coupling to land, atmosphere and ocean boundaries5,6,7. Given these constraints, we pursue a complementary approach to obtain Greenland’s thus far lower-bound-committed SLR contribution. Our approach does not directly solve the transient ice flow equations but rather calculates the committed areal and volumetric changes incurred by the up-to-present ice geometrical disequilibrium with climate8,9. The method determines the ice extent and thickness perturbations required to bring the current ice sheet into equilibrium with surface mass balance (SMB). Changes in flow dynamics are implicitly accounted for by a glaciological power law scaling function that relates imposed areal changes in ice extent to an implied ice volume10. To account for marine-terminating sectors and tidewater outlets where the ablation area is truncated by iceberg calving, we introduce an effective ablation area treatment. For application to Greenland—including its peripheral ice masses—the essential empirical requirements are met with new multi-year inventories of: (1) tidewater glacier discharge4; (2) SMB (that is, snowfall accumulation minus run-off) from observational reanalysis and regional climate data11; and (3) the accumulation area ratio (AAR): the glacierized area with net annual mass gain divided by its total area, readily retrieved from optical satellite imagery12,13. For grounded ice masses with an ablation area, the maximum snow line elevation at the end of each melt season marks the transition between the lower-elevation dark bare ice and the bright upper-elevation snow accumulation areas. This equilibrium line and its corollary, the AAR, conveniently integrate the competing effects of surface mass loss from meltwater run-off and mass gain from snow accumulation. Minimum AAR each year demarcates hydrological years on a sector basis (Extended Data Fig. 1). By regressing annual AAR and mass balance, we obtain the statistical property of AAR in the condition of mass balance equilibrium (AAR0) that is necessary for the current ice surface morphology to be in dynamic equilibrium with climate (Fig. 1). The ratio of the observed AAR to AAR0 yields the fractional imbalance () that quantifies the area perturbation required for the ice mass to equilibrate its shape to an imposed climate shift away from that associated with AAR0 (ref. 8). This disequilibrium approach exploits how climatically driven SMB perturbations are at least an order of magnitude faster than the associated dynamic adjustment of the ice mass14. The resulting derivation for the adjustment in ice volume (V) and committed eustatic SLR follows glaciological scaling theory relating the glacierized area change to ice volume perturbation using a power law function10 (Fig. 1) with exponent () (Methods). While under the most up-to-date ice thickness and subglacial topography mapping15, Greenland’s current ice sheet configuration implies an area–volume scaling exponent of =1.24 that closely abides the theoretically derived value of 1.25 (ref. 10), we apply a linear exponent of 1 to avoid the mathematically intractable regional case in which some ice flux between adjacent flow sectors is inevitable. The choice of a linear exponent represents an absolute minimum committed loss, encompassing flow interaction between adjacent ice sheet sectors, since it accounts for how scaling techniques are best applied to ensembles of many ice masses10,16, which we accomplish by summing the volumes from 473 subregions of the ice sheet. While it is possible to scale
"Time is the key unknown here and a bit of a problem with the study, said two outside ice scientists, Leigh Stearns of the University of Kansas and Sophie Nowicki of the University of Buffalo. The researchers in the study said they couldn’t estimate the timing of the committed melting, yet in the last sentence they mention, “within this century,” without supporting it, Stearns said."
The change in climate is not being measured if you can't say by how much by when -- and if you're no
And yet, "Time is the key unknown here and a bit of a problem with the study, said two outside ice scientists, Leigh Stearns of the University of Kansas and Sophie Nowicki of the University of Buffalo. The researchers in the study said they couldn’t estimate the timing of the committed melting, yet in the last sentence they mention, “within this century,” without supporting it, Stearns said." The change in climate is not being measured if you can't say by how much by when -- and if you're not measuring, you're not applying the scientific method. Is this study just Yet Another Modeling Exercise? We don't need any more of those. We need actual experimentation and observation.
"Time is the key unknown here and a bit of a problem with the study, said two outside ice scientists, Leigh Stearns of the University of Kansas and Sophie Nowicki of the University of Buffalo. The researchers in the study said they couldn’t estimate the timing of the committed melting, yet in the last sentence they mention, “within this century,” without supporting it, Stearns said."
The change in climate is not being measured if you can't say by how much by when -- and if you're not measuring, you're not applying the scientific method. Is this study just Yet Another Modeling Exercise? We don't need any more of those. We need actual experimentation and observation.
We're doing the experiment right now, using Earth as the petri dish. HTH. Modelling has been pretty much on track so far, sometimes a bit too conservative.
Is this study just Yet Another Modeling Exercise? We don't need any more of those. We need actual experimentation and observation.
Is this study just Yet Another Modeling Exercise? We don't need any more of those. We need actual experimentation and observation.
It's not like they have deliberately planned a sub-optimal experiment or set of observations. I for one am willing to take on trust that the information gained here will lead to better observations in the future. I'm also willing to accept that the precise numbers do not matter so much as the trend, and the trend is clear.
"I'm also willing to accept that the precise numbers do not matter so much as the trend, and the trend is clear."
There's absolutely nothing wrong with your reasoning here, but it is not an example of using the scientific method, just to be clear. In that method, it is the details which drive a conclusion such as this is a trend, not the other way around.
Now, the reason I say there is nothing wrong with you thinking this way is because it may very well be the case that the details do, in fact, align with the
... but how you get to 27cm is a mystery to me.
... but how you get to 27cm is a mystery to me.
The obvious explanation is that the scientists who wrote the original report used international standards and some journalist converted cm to inches for the US general public, rounding 10.63 down to 10 rather than to the nearest integer.
Given it's from research scientists chances are they used SI units, and the media translated it into inches for a US audience.
The research said 27cm. They divided by 2.54 to get 10.6 something inches. They wanted to say "at least this much" and rounded 10.6 down to the nearest whole number.
In other words: it was all perfectly reasonable. It's not like the original 27cm wasn't rounded from some mathematical value with 13 decimal places, is it?
In other words: it was all perfectly reasonable. It's not like the original 27cm wasn't rounded from some mathematical value with 13 decimal places, is it?
Those 13 decimal places do not mean anything, they are just an artifact of our mathematics. It could as well be an infinite number of decimal places if there was a factor of 1/3 or pi somewhere in the calculations. Rounding is not something arbitrary, there are well understood rules for it: Significant digits [wikipedia.org].
Scientists don't work with inches. The original value is 27 cm. Someone converted it to 10.6 inches and lopped off the fractional part because rounding is apparently hard.
In places such as Florida where science is shunned and suppressed, any effects of climate change are prohibited from being considered [livescience.com] when constructing buildings or developments. This means all those high rises being built right on the waters edge will most likely be inundanted/destroyed when the sea levels rise.
That in turn will mean loss the property itself and more than likely a few people killed when they drown or are crushed in building collapses. Then the fun will begin as excuses are thrown about h
Ah yes, a large residential building, right next to the shoreline. You mean just like the mansion President Obama bought for his family, the one literally right on the shoreline? He must be a Republican, I guess, then.
Look, if people actually believed what they were saying about climate change Armageddon, then their actions would match their words. But they don't. That's how you know the words are hollow. Do you drive your car any less now, knowing that you are "killing the planet"? I doubt it.
if people actually believed what they were saying about climate change Armageddon, then their actions would match their words.
if people actually believed what they were saying about climate change Armageddon, then their actions would match their words.
Lots of people are doing the best they can given the conditions. Now you want them to do more, when the economic system is set up to prevent it.
Do you drive your car any less now, knowing that you are "killing the planet"? I doubt it.
Do you drive your car any less now, knowing that you are "killing the planet"? I doubt it.
I do. We also replaced a vehicle with one that gets better mileage. You doubt it because you wouldn't change YOUR behaviors to avoid destroying the biosphere, because you don't give a fuck about anyone but yourself, and you expect to die before it gets much worse.
Ah yes, a large residential building, right next to the shoreline. You mean just like the mansion President Obama bought for his family, the one literally right on the shoreline? He must be a Republican, I guess, then.
Ah yes, a large residential building, right next to the shoreline. You mean just like the mansion President Obama bought for his family, the one literally right on the shoreline? He must be a Republican, I guess, then.
Obama's house is on a ridge overlooking the sea, IIRC, so not directly in danger. He is also sufficiently wealthy that he can afford to write off the cost of the property for the benefit it offers him now of being near the sea. So it's not in the least relevant in terms of real issues ordinary people will face.
And, I am certainly willing to listen to any rational suggestion for adapting behaviors to make improvements. But it has to make sense at the gut level. It can't be fake. It can't be contradicted by your own actions.
And, I am certainly willing to listen to any rational suggestion for adapting behaviors to make improvements. But it has to make sense at the gut level. It can't be fake. It can't be contradicted by your own actions.
Making sense at the gut level doesn't make sense, even as a comment.
Many people are looking to get an EV, or at minimum a car that uses less fuel; people in many other countries (and for all I know, the US) are properly insulating their houses, and moving away from gas heating/cooking; I can't explain people continuing to buy right on the waterfront, although I suspect they're playing the odds that the local government will pick up the tab for seawalls or whatever, and that the sea will rise slowly enou
Yeah, I always found it amusing that the people who scream the loudest about climate change like Bill Nye and Leonardo DiCaprio happen to live in coastal cities like LA and New York City. You would think that they would practice what they preach, considering that these areas are likely to be flooded if their dire predictions came true.
In places such as Florida where science is shunned and suppressed, any effects of climate change are prohibited from being considered [livescience.com] when constructing buildings or developments.
In places such as Florida where science is shunned and suppressed, any effects of climate change are prohibited from being considered [livescience.com] when constructing buildings or developments.
Yes, those idiot Floridians that were told Miami would be under water decades ago are unwisely refusing to heed the latest doomsday warning about Miami being under water soon.
Shocking news everyone! We've never heard of this type of prediction before! This will certainly ruin the property market in places like Boston, Martha's Vineyard, and The Netherlands! And Outer Banks will be no more! I have yet to look at the stock market indexes to see what this has done, but I am worried about my 401K
Watch for big money to start buying up property one block inland. Until that happens don't believe it.
So when do we start the engineering study on the pipeline to get all that fresh water to Lake Powell?
Yes, I'm being slightly facetious, but only slightly. That's a valuable resource.
> Yes, I'm being slightly facetious, but only slightly.
Kari Lake (a candidate for AZ governor) has announced plans to build a pipeline from the Mississippi to Arizona and pay those River states for water.
These aren't technically or economically impossible ideas. Actually cheaper than the Transcontinental Railroad but good g-d, they'll let farms and people perish rather than issue permitting in the interim states.
Maybe people will finally get angry and revolt when there's no water - but a total drought i
I used to believe all this stuff. Now, I'm just getting tired of this alarmist crap. The alarmists have been predicting this stuff for decades. It never happens.
These declarations of doom ice melt are tiresome and trite. The douchebro at the bar talking to the women about the size of his cock is more believable.
It's now 2022... 20 years past when they were predicting the 'unavoidable' situation of the Netherlands being completely submerged by melting ice, and average summer temperatures in places like NYC being 110F. It's fear mongering nonsense.
Meanwhile, NASA is claiming that we actually -have- lost an average of 34 feet of beachfront in the past 30 years. How they can make this claim, is beyond me:
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/150192/tracking-30-years-of-sea-level-rise
"Over the course of the 20th century, global mean sea level rose at about 1.5 millimeters per year. By the early 1990s, it was about 2.5 mm per year. Over the past decade, the rate has increased to 3.9 mm (0.15 inches) per year."
"While a few millimeters of sea level rise per year may seem small, scientists estimate that every 2.5 centimeters (1 inch) of sea level rise translates into 2.5 meters (8.5 feet) of beachfront lost along the average coast."
Does anyone who's actually been to a coastal region believe this? If it were even half true, every bay, marina, and dock in the world would have flooded and needed to be relocated (remember: that 34' figure is -average-).
Meanwhile, there are photos of piers and docks built in the 17th century which have the same water lines now that they did then.
https://www.scienceunderattack.com/blog/2019/9/23/no-evidence-that-climate-change-is-accelerating-sea-level-rise-35
I'm not saying that coastal water levels aren't higher, but there's a lot more to explain it than "rising sea levels due to globule worming" which never receives any attention - namely, the sedimentary compaction and tectonic sinking of highly populated areas, and the normal erosion of coast lines which would happen regardless of whether the sea levels rose or not. Attributing it all to 'global warming' is, quite frankly, insane. What do you want, stasis? We live in a very chaotic world, and things change beyond the urban planning mistakes of the 1950s.
Get back to me in the year 2100, which is when this "prediction" is slated to come to fruition.
I got the impression the deluge in the bible was more in the hundreds of metres to kilometres range.
I got the impression the deluge in the bible was more in the hundreds of metres to kilometres range.
and I know from Dr. Who that these measurements can be deceiving.. the Tardis is only 4ft square on the outside but a huge room within. Oh wait that's also a piece of fiction.
I got the impression the deluge in the bible was more in the hundreds of metres to kilometres range.
I got the impression the deluge in the bible was more in the hundreds of metres to kilometres range.
That's because the goatherders who wrote it were dumb as shit, and thought what they could see was the whole world. Yet somehow it makes sense to people to pretend to run their whole lives by this book based on what someone told them about it, when what it actually says is to give away everything you own to people less fortunate than you are, and love one another.
That's because the goatherders who wrote it were dumb as shit, and thought what they could see was the whole world.
That's because the goatherders who wrote it were dumb as shit, and thought what they could see was the whole world.
Surely the flood myth wasn't something that the author(s) of Genesis saw. The story is in large part borrowed from the epic of Gilgamesh, probably written 1000 years earlier, which in turn seems to have the flood myth patched in from Atra-Hasis, Nevertheless, 27 cm wouldn't have cut the mustard. Instead of drowning the people of the world that would have given the people of the world wet feet until they moved up the beach a bit.
There may be more comments in this discussion. Without JavaScript enabled, you might want to turn on Classic Discussion System in your preferences instead.
AMD Launches Zen 4 Ryzen 7000 CPUs
"There is no distinctly American criminal class except Congress." -- Mark Twain