Lovely!
http://www.nbcnews.com/science/message-mud-east-antarctic-meltdown-could-cause-massive-sea-rise-6C10687020
QuoteMessage from the mud: East Antarctic meltdown could cause massive sea rise
John Roach NBC News
9 hours ago
The last time concentrations of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide were as high as they are today, big chunks of the seemingly stable East Antarctic ice sheet melted and helped raise global sea levels more than 65 feet higher than they are now, a new study suggests.
Scientists have long known that seas were higher during the Pliocene, a geological epoch that ran from 5.3 million to 2.6 million years ago. At the time, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels were similar to today's 400 parts per million (ppm).
"Overall, it was a warmer climate than today, but similar to what we expect to reach by the end of this century," Carys Cook, a graduate student at the Grantham Institute for Climate Change at Imperial College London and the study's lead author, told NBC News in an email.
The West Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets were likely completely melted at the time, she added. The fate of the East Antarctic ice sheet has been less clear, though at least some of it must have melted to fully account for the highest global sea levels predicted by some reconstructions of the ancient Earth.
Cook and her colleagues studied the chemical composition of sediments drilled from the ocean floor near East Antarctica. They identified the signature of a specific type of rock "only found in large quantities hundreds of kilometers inland from the current ice sheet edge," Cook said.
The signature was strongest during the warmest phases of the Pliocene. "The only way it could have been eroded is by retreating the East Antarctic ice sheet inland, which means it must have melted significantly," she explained.
Cook and colleagues suggest that much of the ice that melted was in basins that were below sea level, putting it in direct contact with the seawater. As the ocean warmed, the ice was more vulnerable to melting.
That interpretation fits with recent airborne surveys that revealed large under-ice fjords in this part of Antarctica that appeared geologically young and carved by ice, and not as a result of plate tectonics, according to Duncan Young, a geophysicist at the University of Texas at Austin, who flew some of the surveys.
"This work reinforces that result," he told NBC News in an email. The new study is also "a shot in favor" of the argument that the East Antarctic ice sheet is less stable than previously believed, "which may be significant for future sea level change estimates," said Duncan, who was not involved in the new research.
Given the similarity between the Pliocene's estimated atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and those of today, scientists consider the epoch an analog for understanding how the present-day climate will evolve.
"What the study shows is that there is a clear record of rapid(-ish) sea level response to past climate shifts," Ted Scambos, an Antarctic ice expert at the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colo., said in an email to NBC News. He was not involved in the new research.
While the East Antarctic basins are covered in ice today, they might begin to melt as the oceans continue to warm, Scambos said. He noted that a mile-thick, Colorado-sized chunk of ice sloughing into the ocean would have a "big impact" on sea levels.
"And what we're seeing in other parts of Antarctica and Greenland today tells us that the transitions can be very abrupt by geologic standards," Scambos said. "They are mercifully more manageable by human standards, at least if we decide to start managing."
Excellent. :)
Nobody cares, Timmay.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 21, 2013, 11:08:42 PM
Nobody cares, Timmay.
They'll care if sea level rises 65 feet.
Quote from: garbon on July 21, 2013, 11:19:39 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 21, 2013, 11:17:12 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 21, 2013, 11:08:42 PM
Nobody cares, Timmay.
They'll care if sea level rises 65 feet.
I'll be dead so why should I care?
I expect a significant rise within the next 30-50 years, so hopefully not.
Good, a shorter drive to the beach.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 21, 2013, 11:24:56 PM
Quote from: garbon on July 21, 2013, 11:19:39 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 21, 2013, 11:17:12 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 21, 2013, 11:08:42 PM
Nobody cares, Timmay.
They'll care if sea level rises 65 feet.
I'll be dead so why should I care?
I expect a significant rise within the next 30-50 years, so hopefully not.
Now Timmy's a climatologist.
Quote from: fhdz on July 21, 2013, 11:36:24 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 21, 2013, 11:24:56 PM
Quote from: garbon on July 21, 2013, 11:19:39 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 21, 2013, 11:17:12 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 21, 2013, 11:08:42 PM
Nobody cares, Timmay.
They'll care if sea level rises 65 feet.
I'll be dead so why should I care?
I expect a significant rise within the next 30-50 years, so hopefully not.
Now Timmy's a climatologist.
I'm not claiming any particular expertise in this matter.
Quote from: 11B4V on July 22, 2013, 03:02:11 AM
QuoteEast Antarctic meltdown could cause massive sea rise
You don't think an East Antarctic meltdown could cause a massive sea rise? Where do you think that water would go?
Quote from: frunk on July 22, 2013, 07:04:35 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on July 22, 2013, 03:02:11 AM
QuoteEast Antarctic meltdown could cause massive sea rise
You don't think an East Antarctic meltdown could cause a massive sea rise? Where do you think that water would go?
Who knows? You can't reason with those gun nuts.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 21, 2013, 11:17:12 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 21, 2013, 11:08:42 PM
Nobody cares, Timmay.
They'll care if sea level rises 65 feet.
Would the ice melting cause higher sea levels? Ice was already in the ocean displacing water and if it melts it just takes up a different form, but still the same mass. I could be wrong, curious, so let me know if that theory "holds water".
I think we should panic and feel bad about ourselves over this.
Quote from: KRonn on July 22, 2013, 12:23:14 PM
Would the ice melting cause higher sea levels? Ice was already in the ocean displacing water and if it melts it just takes up a different form, but still the same mass. I could be wrong, curious, so let me know if that theory "holds water".
This is ice resting on land in Antarctica (and Greenland), not ice that is floating in the water. You are correct that sea ice like in the Arctic has relatively little effect on global sea level.
Quote from: derspiess on July 22, 2013, 12:25:23 PM
I think we should panic and feel bad about ourselves over this.
There is another option.
The other option is to implement policies based on rational risk assessment of potential scenarios and their likelihoods, using a cost benefit analysis adjusted for probability, severity, and timing.
Since many of the words I just used are too big for radio talk show hosts, it is possible you may may find this a novel concept.
Who has a link to the rising seas map? I just want to know how long a drive will be to the new beach/coast in 65 years, I mean at 105, I will have to get someone to drive me down there.
Quote from: frunk on July 22, 2013, 12:26:23 PM
Quote from: KRonn on July 22, 2013, 12:23:14 PM
Would the ice melting cause higher sea levels? Ice was already in the ocean displacing water and if it melts it just takes up a different form, but still the same mass. I could be wrong, curious, so let me know if that theory "holds water".
This is ice resting on land in Antarctica (and Greenland), not ice that is floating in the water. You are correct that sea ice like in the Arctic has relatively little effect on global sea level.
That's right, I stand corrected! That's very different.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 22, 2013, 12:29:44 PM
There is another option.
The other option is to implement policies based on rational risk assessment of potential scenarios and their likelihoods, using a cost benefit analysis adjusted for probability, severity, and timing.
Sounds good to me.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 22, 2013, 12:29:44 PM
Quote from: derspiess on July 22, 2013, 12:25:23 PM
I think we should panic and feel bad about ourselves over this.
There is another option.
The other option is to implement policies based on rational risk assessment of potential scenarios and their likelihoods, using a cost benefit analysis adjusted for probability, severity, and timing.
Since many of the words I just used are too big for radio talk show hosts, it is possible you may may find this a novel concept.
Why do it here when we don't do it for anything else?
Quote from: frunk on July 22, 2013, 07:04:35 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on July 22, 2013, 03:02:11 AM
QuoteEast Antarctic meltdown could cause massive sea rise
You don't think an East Antarctic meltdown could cause a massive sea rise? Where do you think that water would go?
Read the message string. Tim was asking me a question.
What's tricky is that we know that sea level can change very quickly on a geologic timescale, but that's a very long timescale. So during the last ice age we know that sea levels changed ~100 meters, and that it happened within the past 20,000 years. It could have been a much quicker transition than that, but there isn't nearly accurate enough data to tell. I take the 30-50 year estimate with a grain of salt, but only a small grain. The rapid rate at which other formerly permanent glaciers have disappeared over the past 200 years could mean the melting of the Antarctic glacier could go just as quickly with catastrophic result, but it isn't a sure thing. Note that I'm not quibbling over the fact that if CO2 keeps on rising like it is that the big glaciers will melt, just over how quickly it will happen.
Quote from: 11B4V on July 22, 2013, 12:52:27 PM
Read the message string. Tim was asking me a question.
Could you say what is horseshit then? The bit that you quoted doesn't answer Tim's question.
Quote from: frunk on July 22, 2013, 07:04:35 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on July 22, 2013, 03:02:11 AM
QuoteEast Antarctic meltdown could cause massive sea rise
You don't think an East Antarctic meltdown could cause a massive sea rise? Where do you think that water would go?
Has it melted yet? Hypothetical BS. Will Yellowstone Caldera blow.....maybe. Will we get hit with an extinction level metor....maybe. Will etc.
Quote from: 11B4V on July 22, 2013, 01:18:33 PMHas it melted yet? Hypothetical BS. Will Yellowstone Caldera blow.....maybe. Will we get hit with an extinction level metor....maybe. Will etc.
Science?
What a crock!
Quote from: 11B4V on July 22, 2013, 01:18:33 PM
Quote from: frunk on July 22, 2013, 07:04:35 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on July 22, 2013, 03:02:11 AM
QuoteEast Antarctic meltdown could cause massive sea rise
You don't think an East Antarctic meltdown could cause a massive sea rise? Where do you think that water would go?
Has it melted yet? Hypothetical BS. Will Yellowstone Caldera blow.....maybe. Will we get hit with an extinction level metor....maybe. Will etc.
There is nothing we can do to prevent Yellowstone Caldera from blowing, or being hit by an extinction level meteor.
There is something we can do to prevent global warming.
I have not been paying that much attention. So, can someone tell me, that it proven by science, beyond doubt, that global warming is man made?
Quote from: lustindarkness on July 22, 2013, 01:46:36 PMI have not been paying that much attention. So, can someone tell me, that it proven by science, beyond doubt, that global warming is man made?
Depends on how you define "beyond a doubt". But if you mean that people who are actually educated in the relevant scientific fields consider it a settled question, then the answer is yes.
Quote from: IPPC AR4There is very high confidence that the net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/spms2.html
There's more reading here, if you're inclined: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.shtml#.Ue1-2T49xnI
Quote from: KRonn on July 22, 2013, 12:23:14 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 21, 2013, 11:17:12 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 21, 2013, 11:08:42 PM
Nobody cares, Timmay.
They'll care if sea level rises 65 feet.
Would the ice melting cause higher sea levels? Ice was already in the ocean displacing water and if it melts it just takes up a different form, but still the same mass. I could be wrong, curious, so let me know if that theory "holds water".
This ice is largely sitting on landmasses, although I can't say for sure if the model they've used takes into account the fact that some of the ice is floating.
I have always found it strange that in general* the group of people that demand facts and hard proof of global warming (and other related things) has a very large overlap with the group of people who have no problem having blind, unproven faith in God or another higher power.
Why are they so willing to believe in something that seems so hard to believe in and impossible to prove, yet refuse to belive in natural phenomena that happens before their eye without hard and fast evidence.
*Very generally. This is not directed at anyone specifically, here or elsewhere.
Quotevery high confidence
I guess that is as sure as they can get? Ok, thank you.
Quote from: Barrister on July 22, 2013, 01:33:21 PM
There is nothing we can do to prevent Yellowstone Caldera from blowing, or being hit by an extinction level meteor.
There is something we can do to prevent global warming.
I'm not sure the second statement is true.
Quote from: sbr on July 22, 2013, 01:57:03 PM
I have always found it strange that in general* the group of people that demand facts and hard proof of global warming (and other related things) has a very large overlap with the group of people who have no problem having blind, unproven faith in God or another higher power.
Why are they so willing to believe in something that seems so hard to believe in and impossible to prove, yet refuse to belive in natural phenomena that happens before their eye without hard and fast evidence.
*Very generally. This is not directed at anyone specifically, here or elsewhere.
Yes, very general (I don't believe in shit myself). But I always find that interesting too.
It isn't strange at all.
The ability to actually draw conclusions based on evidence is, I have found, the exception rather than the rule.
Most people have conclusions based on their culture, what they want to be true, what their parents/priest/political ideology tell them ought to be true, and then pick and choose from the facts (if even that) to support that conclusion.
The fact that this results in comically ridiculous stances should hardly be strange. It would be strange if such a irrational approach to thinking resulting in rational and reasonable outcomes.
Quote from: 11B4V on July 22, 2013, 01:18:33 PM
Has it melted yet? Hypothetical BS. Will Yellowstone Caldera blow.....maybe. Will we get hit with an extinction level metor....maybe. Will etc.
The question is, where do you think the scientists are making a mistake? Is it the amount of ice in Antarctica/Greenland? Is it the potential for it to melt due to temperature increase? Is it temperature increase itself? Is it the influence CO2 and other greenhouse gases has on temperature? Is it the assumption that we'll have plenty of dramatic but recoverable warnings other than the current glacier retreat and 1.8 mm/year sea level rise?
Yellowstone and the meteor are significantly different in that they are risks that have a hundreds of thousands to millions of years timeframe. Global climate change is a risk that is going to play out in the next hundred years.
Quote from: Barrister on July 22, 2013, 01:33:21 PM
There is nothing we can do to prevent Yellowstone Caldera from blowing, or being hit by an extinction level meteor.
There is something we can do to prevent global warming.
We absolutely have the technological capability to deflect an extinction level meteor. We just haven't built it because the government is too cheap.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 22, 2013, 04:53:21 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 22, 2013, 01:33:21 PM
There is nothing we can do to prevent Yellowstone Caldera from blowing, or being hit by an extinction level meteor.
There is something we can do to prevent global warming.
We absolutely have the technological capability to deflect an extinction level meteor. We just haven't built it because the government is too cheap.
Only at sufficient distance. And we don't do very much skywatching.
Quote from: Neil on July 22, 2013, 05:29:58 PMOnly at sufficient distance. And we don't do very much skywatching.
Given current levels of skywatching, how much warning would we likely get if one was going to strike? And how much certainty would we have? Would it be one of those "there's-a-50%-chance" deals until the very end when we realize "oh fuck, it's 100%" or "phew"?
Where is the thread for the royal baby?
Maybe it's simply the current ice age ending.
Quote from: Jacob on July 22, 2013, 05:34:33 PM
Quote from: Neil on July 22, 2013, 05:29:58 PMOnly at sufficient distance. And we don't do very much skywatching.
Given current levels of skywatching, how much warning would we likely get if one was going to strike? And how much certainty would we have? Would it be one of those "there's-a-50%-chance" deals until the very end when we realize "oh fuck, it's 100%" or "phew"?
It really depends. Using Apophis as an example, it could be 20-30 years notice. However, there's no reason to believe that would be typical.