Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
- Wealthiest Kissed, Weakest Kicked: Obama's Ugly 'New Deal' Offers to Cut Social Security
- What If All the World’s Debt Just Went Away
- Bolivia's Morales Calls for New Era of 'Peace and Unity' to Break Greed of Capitalism
- Sen. Bernie Sanders: 'Mr. President, I am Disappointed'
- Gun Lobby Speaks: We Need More Guns, Especially in Schools
- Wealthiest Kissed, Weakest Kicked: Obama's Ugly 'New Deal' Offers to Cut Social Security
- Bolivia's Morales Calls for New Era of 'Peace and Unity' to Break Greed of Capitalism
- Remember All the Children, Mr. President
- What If All the World’s Debt Just Went Away
- Sen. Bernie Sanders: 'Mr. President, I am Disappointed'
Popular content
Today's Top News
Antarctic Ice Loss Vaster, Faster Than Thought: Study
The East Antarctic icesheet, once seen as largely unaffected by global warming, has lost billions of tonnes of ice since 2006 and could boost sea levels in the future, according to a new study.
Scientists believe that Antarctica could lose more ice than Greenland within a few years. (Photograph: Momatiuk-Eastcott/Corbis) Published
Sunday in Nature Geoscience, the same study shows that the smaller but
less stable West Antarctic icesheet is also shedding significant mass.
Scientists worry that rising global temperatures could trigger a rapid disintegration of West Antarctica, which holds enough frozen water to push up the global ocean watermark by about five metres (16 feet).
In 2007 the UN Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) predicted sea levels would rise 18 to 59 centimetres (7.2 to 23.2 inches) by 2100, but this estimate did not factor in the potential impact of crumbling icesheets in Greenland and Antarctica.
Today many of the same scientist say that even if heat-trapping CO2 emissions are curtailed, the ocean watermark is more likely to go up by nearly a metre, enough to render several small island nations unlivable and damage fertile deltas home to hundreds of millions.
More than 190 nations gather in Copenhagen next month to hammer out a global climate deal to curb greenhouse gases and help poor countries cope with its consequences.
University of Texas professor Jianli Chen and colleagues analysed nearly seven years of data on ocean-icesheet interaction in Antarctica.
Covering the period up January 2009, the data was collected by the twin GRACE satellites, which detect mass flows in the ocean and polar regions by measuring changes in Earth's gravity field.
Consistent with earlier findings based on different methods, they found that West Antarctica dumped, on average, about 132 billion tonnes of ice into the sea each year, give or take 26 billion tonnes.
They also found for the first time that East Antarctica - on the Eastern Hemisphere side of the continent - is likewise losing mass, mostly in coastal regions, at a rate of about 57 billion tonnes annually.
The margin or error, they cautioned, is almost as large as the estimate, meaning ice loss could be a little as a few billion tonnes or more than 100.
Up to now, scientists had thought that East Antarctica was in "balance," meaning that it accumulated as much mass and it gave off, perhaps a bit more.
"Acceleration of ice loss in recent years over the entire continent is thus indicated," the authors conclude. "Antarctica may soon be contributing significantly more to global sea level rise."
Another study published last week in the journal Nature reported an upwardly-revised figure for Antarctic temperatures during prior "interglacials", warm periods such as our own that have occurred roughly every 100,000 years.
During the last interglacial which peaked some 128,000 years ago, called the Eemian Period, temperatures in the region were probably six degree Celsius (10.8 degrees Fahrenheit) higher than today, which is about 3 C (5.4 C) above previous estimates, the study said.
The findings suggest that the region may be more sensitive than scientists thought to greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere that were roughly equivalent to present day levels.
During the Eemian, sea levels were five-to-seven metres higher than today.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...

39 Comments so far
Show AllOnce upon a time most of Jesusland was under water.
And so it shall be again, brother. Finally, they'll be able to figure out which of them can walk on water.
Hey, walking on water is easy. Alls you has to do is wait for it to freeze.
Maybe if the US corporatocracy thinks Wall St is going to drown they might actually do something about it. They certainly show no interest in saving Bangladesh or the Maldives or similar areas.
Oh yes, I forgot, there aren't any rich white males living in those areas....
The feedback snowball gets larger and gains momentum by the day.
Buck, did you read a couple of weeks ago about the methane rising off the Norwegian coast? That feedback is going to turn the snowball into a giant avalanche I fear.
Yes, all the northern regions are loosing permafrost.
Forests are falling from loosing their footing.
It might be an avalanche already.
And as that permafrost goes, what happens to those "stable" pipe lines in Alaska, Canada and Russia? More oil and gas leaks? More environmental contaminations? More disruptions to the 'supply' of the same?
See, it's MUCH easier to just declare the entire thing a "liberal hoax" based on fuzzy science and go to bed, perhaps with dreams of sugar plums and minced meat pie.
And all the while, the deniers camp is frothing at the mouth and posting wildly over the fraudulent e-mails 'proving' that climate change is a hoax...
I would bet serious money that the e-mails in question have the same providence as the forged Niger uranium documents used to start the Iraqi occupation.
Isn't it curious that these e-mails 'surfaced' just ahead of the Copenhagen Climate Summit? Just in time to throw a nice big wrench in the works and keep anything substantive from being done, as they will no doubt be used by the Corporate side to 'prove' that there is no climate change after all.
I think it is high time to take these thugs to task.
In the street.
Or Dan Rather's damming document,
or Lewinski's dress,
or .....
Reading, Dr. Orrin Pilkey's new book "The Rising Sea" I've noted that Pilkey who is the dean of US Coastal Geologists out of Duke U. says that we can expect sea rise of at least 20 ft. by 2100! He says that most scientists, Govt's and all the media misunderstood the 2006 IPCC report on global sea rise. What happened was the basis for predicting sea rise was altered from the 2001 report that had included polar ice sheet and greenland melting. These areas were excluded from the revised report in 2006! This made it look as if the ests. for sea rise had fallen not risen. Pilkey pts. out that this had the effect of confusing everyone. The real sea rise estimates are now far higher even since the 2006 report because its NOW known that Greenland and the Antarctic are all melting at increasingly rapid rates!
One little silver lining to all this...
At a sea level rise of just 15 feet (4.5m) the tidal Potomac's waters are is lapping at the bottom steps of the US Capitol, at 55 feet (16.5m), it spills into the Rotunda and fills the congressional chambers.
If this happened, the Republicans STILL wouldn't believe in global warming.
They're like this.... their thinking.
I have a brother like this; show him the facts from a reliable source and he still won't believe something if it doesn't "fit" with his original idea.
Much as there was "flat Earthers" for many years after the globe was circumnavigated, so too will the paid &/or deluded climate deniers be with us even as low lying lands become part of the ocean floor. What needs to be done is that they need to be made as irrelevant to the discussion at hand as flat Earthers became during the end of the 16th Century. Mockery works for me.
Here's a fun thing to do if you live near the coast. Beg, borrow or steal a GPS. Most of them can tell you your distance above sea level. Now get a big piece of blue chalk and go for a walk by the beach. Mark walls and trees and bridges at the four meter height. I use a blue wavy line that turns into '350.org'.
I dream of an action involving a powerful rotating laser, like those fancy carpenter's laser levels, but mounted four meters up from the water level on a sailboat's mast. I'd tour the harbours of the world, drawing the updated waterline with a line of laser light on the city's streets and buildings at night.
Of course you'd have to adjust your line height every two days or so when worse news comes in from the scientific community.
If you want even more fun try to figure out if the ports will still be able to function after a sea level rise of even 1 meter. Then look into the amount of goods that still get transported by sea.
If you're a climate denier, everything is just ok. Nothing to worry about at all, til ya can't get oil for the car anyhow, as the port can't offload fuel from the tankers anymore.
"Up to now, scientists had thought that East Antarctica was in "balance," meaning that it accumulated as much mass and it gave off, perhaps a bit more."
I believe this is 'game-changing' news. Up to now, the belief has been that the West Antarctica ice sheet was the problem. But most of the ice is in the East, and it was even hoped that increases there might compensate for losses in the West. No longer. We now have a fairly complete picture:
Arctic: melting
Greenland: melting
W Antarctic: melting
E Antarctic: melting
I'm more confident than ever that my prediction of a month ago that a sea level rise of 3 ft (1m) within 20 years is correct. The bad news just keeps on accelerating.
ubrew, "accelerating" is the definitive word that scientists keep leaving out of their projections.
From that old song, "Baby, you ain't seen nothing yet!"
When the people fear their government there is tyranny,
when the government fears the people there is liberty.
~ Thomas Jefferson
sadly, our government is beyond fearing its people. we need some new "slogans"!
Yes, back in Thomas Jefferson's day, the government didn't have aircraft, tanks, submarines, etc. etc. Today, anyone is mistaken who thinks that a gun is going to hold its own against troops in tanks, troops in jets, troops with cutting-edge high-tech handheld weaponry, with night-vision and body armor.
I am very liberal (in the mold of Ralph Nader, Dennis Kucinich, etc.) and I am NOT happy about what our country has become during the past 30 years.
Thanks for pointing this out. Modern-day revolutionaries in the US couldn't stand against the CIA, let alone the US Military.
If all this must come to pass--and it's looking more and more that way--I just hope it wipes every single human off the face of the earth, because while individually humans can be quite brilliant, collectively we are simply too stupid to live.
This "acceleration" is simply the effect of the scientists, afraid of bring "alarmist", are only issuing predictions that are 95 percent certain. Coming from a civil engineering background, I find this to be an insane approach. One does not design anything, or set policy, based on the forces or events (winds, rain, earthquakes, the density of the starting-pack crossing the Verazzano Narrows Bridge in the New York Marathon) that one is "sure" of. A design or policy is based preventing the unlikely but truly catastrophic scenarios that kill lots of poeple - leaving out only the extreme improbable forces or combination thereof.
Of course, in the case of global warming, the known, reasonable, credible "design-basis" event would be a repeat of the great Permian-Triassic extinction. THIS is the "prediction" they should advising the policymakers of.
I know I'm a broken record on this, but this is all part of the unfolding, sixth extinction. Indeed, we ain't seen nothin' yet!
The film version of Cormac McCarthy's "The Road" opens on Wednesday.
Denialists will use the large error bars being nearly as big as the estimate to suggest that the estimate of ice loss is wrong.
The ice sheets may be one third gone before there is statistical one hundred per cent certainty. And carbon dioxide levels may be past 450 ppm before error bars clearly indicate the rise is hundred percent human triggered.
At least the melting of ice will be helping to keep the oceans and the earth a bit cooler, and offset the larger temperature rises that will eventually happen after the ice goes and the northern tundra has melted.
After this our world will be in end stage pandemonium with climate catastrophe. Coming soon to be a reality that will effect us all.
And still right now, those that benefit most from the carbon economy resist with all their polical might and money, any scheme that will reduce carbon emissions for the benefit of all. I hope they live to see the fruits of denial. Coming real soon to become harsher reality for you.
I was a bit disappointed at possibly being dead before major changes occur (I hope to last until around 2060)...I feel better, now, that I may have a chance to be a part of much...even if I just get to, briefly, be in a big crowd of rebellious people getting tazed or lasered from a flying platform as we run for higher ground, where our out-of-shape leaders have holed up and sequestered the really good food, water, women and pot...
I can't help you with the food, water, and women, but.....
Climate change will never affect the pot crop. That stuff grows in jungles and deserts.
"really good women" is a plutographic illusion. They're all good. Or, all the men are good. Or, if you're bi, ...
The main differences between the ones in magazines and the ones down the street are vast amounts of makeup, chest augmentation surgery and acting lessons.
And, in the USA, especially here in the rust belt, reasonable calorie intake, and exercise.
Not to mention air-brushing and Photoshop.
It's not the sea level rise that will ruin your beachfront house. It's the storm surges from the super-hurricanes that will carry your house up the street, or the peak wind gusts and more occasional twisters that will scatter your roof about a mile downwind. You don't really have to wait as long as 50 years for 380 ppm of CO2 to bag your house 2 or 3 times before you give up and move inland. Actually, your home insurance company wants to raise your rates right now.
The problem with the East Antarctic Ice Sheet (the really big one!) is that a portion of it rests on the seabed. Relatively warm ocean waters can undermine the ice sheet even in freezing temperatures. Then sections of the ice sheet can crumble and float off to warmer waters. A large section of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet has the same problem. The westernmost part of the Greenland Ice Sheet is also resting on the sea bed.
After the ice sheets melt, we will have to redraw Greenland and Antarctica to match the new reality. Of course, by then the oceans will all be 100 to 200 feet higher so we'll need new world maps anyway.
Facing reality has never been the strong suit of the US. Spin is not new. What was called manifest destiny was a campaign of greed, theft, murder, under the rag called 'old glory'.
Back to the ice a mo. If it rests on the sea bed it is effectively partly floating, so surely the displacement will be less than if it were totally land bound?
Anyway, there are too many of us all wanting a fun, lazy life, which soon we won't be able to have. We'll fight and kill and destroy, and only a few rich a a lot of poor slaving for them will be left. I'll get killed, so I won't see the outcome. Pity.
That's right. The levels will rise mostly from land based ice melting and thermal expansion. But, the temp rise is excellarated by the loss of reflectivity, water absorbs heat-ice reflects. This is another of the feedback loops.
Ice that is two miles thick and resting on the sea bed 200 feet below sea level is standing 98% above sea level. It's not floating. Not unless it crumbles. Sorry.
Another possible factor---
As land-borne icesheets melt, the water mass flows to the oceans and spreads out by centrifugal force, most of it at the equatorial bulge.
When spinning mass changes locations, forces (torque?? angular momentum??)change on the tectonic plates, as well as the unburdened land surfaces they melted off of tending to rise (very slowly, but massively).
The thing is, that the resulting magma flows (mostly undersea at plate boundaries) from the tectonic activity may be the source of the last 2-3 degrees of warming that will bring us to the Eemian limit much sooner than other data show.
How about a real Geologist commenting on this?
Offering to sell oceanfront property in Arizona may not be a joke much longer!
Parts of the (currently sucked dry) Colorado River, where it crosses from Arizona/California to Mexico, are no more than a few feet above sea level. Yes, Arizona can have oceanfront.