The melting of Antarctica(washingtonpost.com)
washingtonpost.com
The melting of Antarctica
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/03/16/the-melting-of-antarctica-was-already-really-bad-it-just-got-worse/
8 comments
Are you asking in good faith? You seem to assume right off the bat that anybody who is skeptical is irrational since there is a "massive collection of solid data pointing towards this conclusion". And yet I disagree. I think that the warming estimates were grossly overstated, and I don't think it's difficult to justify my position. I must be crazy, right?
For example, relating specifically to the article, I could simply point out that the REGIONAL Western Antarctic melting is most certainly due to volcanic activity and that Antarctic ice levels were at all time record highs for much of last year. The article doesn't even mention the recent record-breaking ice levels?! Doesn't that seem strange? It seems any information that doesn't confirm the prevailing view is neatly filtered out. It's bizarre to watch, but strangely fascinating.
I could show you that the lynch-pin of the CAGW argument is simply assumed in the climate models. It is highly uncertain, unproven, and is not born out by observation. It's easy to do and relies entirely on mainstream climate science.
And for all this I get called a "climate denier", a term that is meant to associate me with "holocaust deniers". From your article: "DH0. Name-calling. - This is the lowest form of disagreement, and probably also the most common."
Yes, it is the most common response I get from CAGW advocates. Ironic, isn't it?
For example, relating specifically to the article, I could simply point out that the REGIONAL Western Antarctic melting is most certainly due to volcanic activity and that Antarctic ice levels were at all time record highs for much of last year. The article doesn't even mention the recent record-breaking ice levels?! Doesn't that seem strange? It seems any information that doesn't confirm the prevailing view is neatly filtered out. It's bizarre to watch, but strangely fascinating.
I could show you that the lynch-pin of the CAGW argument is simply assumed in the climate models. It is highly uncertain, unproven, and is not born out by observation. It's easy to do and relies entirely on mainstream climate science.
And for all this I get called a "climate denier", a term that is meant to associate me with "holocaust deniers". From your article: "DH0. Name-calling. - This is the lowest form of disagreement, and probably also the most common."
Yes, it is the most common response I get from CAGW advocates. Ironic, isn't it?
> ice levels were at all time record highs
That's what I though as well, but after I went investigating, I found out that actually, Antarctic sea ice levels were at record highs, which basically means that glaciers were melting more than usual (and shedding huge pieces of ice into the sea) - apparently because of winds bringing more hot air from northern (hotter) regions.
That's what I though as well, but after I went investigating, I found out that actually, Antarctic sea ice levels were at record highs, which basically means that glaciers were melting more than usual (and shedding huge pieces of ice into the sea) - apparently because of winds bringing more hot air from northern (hotter) regions.
Did you make a new account just for this comment?
That's not against the rules per se, but there have been lots of sock puppets used on global warming topics.
That's not against the rules per se, but there have been lots of sock puppets used on global warming topics.
Haha, no. I'm genuinely new and my account is 18 days old. But I can see why many people wouldn't want to be identified as 'deniers' if that's what you mean?
Please provide sources for your claims, I would be interested in reading them.
The very notion that the climate will amplify CO2 heating by as much as 4.5 times should raise red flags. Without all that extra heat amplification there is no global catastrophe and therefore no drama. There are lots of papers on climate sensitivity and the estimates are all over the map. This should indicate less certainty, not a "the science is settled" attitude.
Rather than acknowledge the uncertainty, climate scientists like Michael Mann appear to be trying to create the illusion that their climate models are more accurate than they really are. For example here is a slide from a 2012 presentation he gave: https://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/hansen1988-...
Notice that he simply lops off the temperatures after 2005 because they don't neatly fit the curve! It's bizarre to see. It's this sort of behaviour from climate scientists that initially piqued my skepticism.
When I first started looking into the CAGW debate with any scrutiny I honestly believed I would find skeptics using fake data pumped out by right-wing think tanks. Instead I found what appears to be fake data pumped out by government agencies. Go figure.
Don't get me wrong - I don't think these individuals are pumping out fake data on purpose. For example, they may believe in global warming so strongly that when the data doesn't show the expected warming they a) wonder why the data isn't showing more warming, b) come up with a plausible sounding reason as to why the data isn't showing more warming, then they c) 'fix' the data via a series of 'adjustments'. Also known as confirmation bias and group-think.
It turns out that a significant portion of the recorded warming is due to these data adjustments. We're talking as much as 20% or more, depending on the data-set. That should also raise some red flags.
Been meaning to get to a better reply. As to sources, in the case of temperature adjustments, it's all there in the mainstream data-sets. I could point you to some skeptical sites that are picking the data apart if you like. There are some newspaper articles on this, all right wing outlets of course. It seems both sides only print the stuff that caters to their audience.
Rather than acknowledge the uncertainty, climate scientists like Michael Mann appear to be trying to create the illusion that their climate models are more accurate than they really are. For example here is a slide from a 2012 presentation he gave: https://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/hansen1988-...
Notice that he simply lops off the temperatures after 2005 because they don't neatly fit the curve! It's bizarre to see. It's this sort of behaviour from climate scientists that initially piqued my skepticism.
When I first started looking into the CAGW debate with any scrutiny I honestly believed I would find skeptics using fake data pumped out by right-wing think tanks. Instead I found what appears to be fake data pumped out by government agencies. Go figure.
Don't get me wrong - I don't think these individuals are pumping out fake data on purpose. For example, they may believe in global warming so strongly that when the data doesn't show the expected warming they a) wonder why the data isn't showing more warming, b) come up with a plausible sounding reason as to why the data isn't showing more warming, then they c) 'fix' the data via a series of 'adjustments'. Also known as confirmation bias and group-think.
It turns out that a significant portion of the recorded warming is due to these data adjustments. We're talking as much as 20% or more, depending on the data-set. That should also raise some red flags.
Been meaning to get to a better reply. As to sources, in the case of temperature adjustments, it's all there in the mainstream data-sets. I could point you to some skeptical sites that are picking the data apart if you like. There are some newspaper articles on this, all right wing outlets of course. It seems both sides only print the stuff that caters to their audience.
Sure. The big example is "climate sensitivity". Basically the models assume the earth's climate will amplify any CO2 heating by an extra 3 - 4 times. Without that extra heat there is no catastrophe.
Since you aren't making personal attacks, like others on this message board, I'll explain my personal point of view.
I don't deny that humans can influence earth's climate. But the tone of climate change media is beyond hysterics.
For instance, the headline from this article is, in full, "The melting of Antarctica was already really bad. It just got worse."
I posted below links to scientific studies showing that Antarctica has 12.5 million cubic km of ice. 125 cubic km of ice is "melting" each year. On top of that, surveyors noticed reductions in Antarctic ice at least as far back as 1932, far far before "climate change."
My naturally skeptical alarms go off when I realize that headlines like the OP are pure hysterics. At the current rate, Antarctica will melt in 1 million years. Of course, climate changes dramatically on that geologic time scale, so the headline completely destroys the credibility, in my mind, of the central argument -- that Antarctica is "melting."
One look a tide gauges shows that the sea level rise we've been seeing has been going on for about 150 years with no change in the rate of rise.
So, naturally, I'm going to be skeptical of hysterical claims.
As to your point about HN being hostile to climate change, I see it the complete opposite way. Any skeptical arguments, even links to objective scientific facts, are immediately flagkilled and downvoted into hell.
I don't deny that humans can influence earth's climate. But the tone of climate change media is beyond hysterics.
For instance, the headline from this article is, in full, "The melting of Antarctica was already really bad. It just got worse."
I posted below links to scientific studies showing that Antarctica has 12.5 million cubic km of ice. 125 cubic km of ice is "melting" each year. On top of that, surveyors noticed reductions in Antarctic ice at least as far back as 1932, far far before "climate change."
My naturally skeptical alarms go off when I realize that headlines like the OP are pure hysterics. At the current rate, Antarctica will melt in 1 million years. Of course, climate changes dramatically on that geologic time scale, so the headline completely destroys the credibility, in my mind, of the central argument -- that Antarctica is "melting."
One look a tide gauges shows that the sea level rise we've been seeing has been going on for about 150 years with no change in the rate of rise.
So, naturally, I'm going to be skeptical of hysterical claims.
As to your point about HN being hostile to climate change, I see it the complete opposite way. Any skeptical arguments, even links to objective scientific facts, are immediately flagkilled and downvoted into hell.
Could you use the words "hysterics" or "hysterical" a few more times? You didn't quite hit the once/paragraph ratio I was really hoping to see...
EDIT: In seriousness, so much of the "climate skepticism" I see around here is so overloaded with this kind of hyperbolic dismissal of positions that assume or support it, that it's hard to engage with them, rather than just downvote for destructive (or at least non-contributory) tone. You might try being easier to engage with, and see if that changes how your points are received...
EDIT: In seriousness, so much of the "climate skepticism" I see around here is so overloaded with this kind of hyperbolic dismissal of positions that assume or support it, that it's hard to engage with them, rather than just downvote for destructive (or at least non-contributory) tone. You might try being easier to engage with, and see if that changes how your points are received...
On top of that, surveyors noticed reductions in Antarctic ice at least as far back as 1932, far far before "climate change."
We have been increasing atmospheric CO2 since long before 1932 and Svante Arrhenius predicted that the burning of fossil fuels was increasing the earth's temperature back in 1896.
We have been increasing atmospheric CO2 since long before 1932 and Svante Arrhenius predicted that the burning of fossil fuels was increasing the earth's temperature back in 1896.
Even the IPCC doesn't claim human-induced climate change until the 1950s. The amounts of CO2 added to the atmosphere didn't seriously ramp up until after 1950.
Really?
"It is very unlikely that climate changes of at least the seven centuries prior to 1950 were due to variability generated within the climate system alone. A significant fraction of the reconstructed Northern Hemisphere inter-decadal temperature variability over those centuries is very likely attributable to volcanic eruptions and changes in solar irradiance, and it is likely that anthropogenic forcing contributed to the early 20th-century warming evident in these records." - http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-...
"It is very unlikely that climate changes of at least the seven centuries prior to 1950 were due to variability generated within the climate system alone. A significant fraction of the reconstructed Northern Hemisphere inter-decadal temperature variability over those centuries is very likely attributable to volcanic eruptions and changes in solar irradiance, and it is likely that anthropogenic forcing contributed to the early 20th-century warming evident in these records." - http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-...
Well, I stopped dead reading the article right on the first paragraph. I really could not believe. Ice on water does not raise it a millimeter whatsoever. Once again it is just stupid media writing the next Apocalypse just to sell papers or whatever because really they have nothing better or more intelligent to do.
Sea level has not changed at all in the past 200 years, I would dare to say they probably have not changed at all since the formation of the Mediterranean Sea.
On sea level, it is very simple, the moment the Dutch start fleeing The Netherlands, then I will start worrying; but if they are not buying land on the Himalayan, I will really not to worry about it.
CO2 has nothing to do with temperature of planets, whatsoever! And by the way, "greenhouse effect", the is commonly described, with irradiation and CO2, etc., does not exist!!! And call some gases in the atmosphere "greenhouse gases" is a stupidity that makes no sense whatsoever.
Volcanoes alone on any ordinary year (and last year was nothing ordinary) put at least five times more CO2 on the atmosphere than humans activities today!!! Insects, at least seven times more!!
So, no, humans are not that powerful. CO2 does not control climate. Arrhenius prediction is as much bogus as Malthus. There is no proof whatsoever, nor there can be since the whole scheme is a Physical impossibility.
CO2 is also not a pollutant, never was, never will!
All that said, yes we must find better and renewable sources of energy, since something that is not renewable will end someday. Moreover, our energy system is very inefficient (of course is a Physical impossibility to have 100% efficiency, but we should try harder).
Notwithstanding, some of the apocalyptic scenarios proclaimed may indeed come to happen, because climate (noun) changes (verb). That is what it does. If it stops changing than we would have a problem because that would be not normal! It has been cold before, it has been hotter before. Places that today are land has been under water. Deserts had been green. The planet is in constant change. We do not understand much of the process and that is the reality, not a bogus, deceitful, and damn right ridiculous idea that goes against even the most basics concepts of Physics. Any high school kid should be able to point right at it, were it not so wrapped up in fallacies.
Sea level has not changed at all in the past 200 years, I would dare to say they probably have not changed at all since the formation of the Mediterranean Sea.
On sea level, it is very simple, the moment the Dutch start fleeing The Netherlands, then I will start worrying; but if they are not buying land on the Himalayan, I will really not to worry about it.
CO2 has nothing to do with temperature of planets, whatsoever! And by the way, "greenhouse effect", the is commonly described, with irradiation and CO2, etc., does not exist!!! And call some gases in the atmosphere "greenhouse gases" is a stupidity that makes no sense whatsoever.
Volcanoes alone on any ordinary year (and last year was nothing ordinary) put at least five times more CO2 on the atmosphere than humans activities today!!! Insects, at least seven times more!!
So, no, humans are not that powerful. CO2 does not control climate. Arrhenius prediction is as much bogus as Malthus. There is no proof whatsoever, nor there can be since the whole scheme is a Physical impossibility.
CO2 is also not a pollutant, never was, never will!
All that said, yes we must find better and renewable sources of energy, since something that is not renewable will end someday. Moreover, our energy system is very inefficient (of course is a Physical impossibility to have 100% efficiency, but we should try harder).
Notwithstanding, some of the apocalyptic scenarios proclaimed may indeed come to happen, because climate (noun) changes (verb). That is what it does. If it stops changing than we would have a problem because that would be not normal! It has been cold before, it has been hotter before. Places that today are land has been under water. Deserts had been green. The planet is in constant change. We do not understand much of the process and that is the reality, not a bogus, deceitful, and damn right ridiculous idea that goes against even the most basics concepts of Physics. Any high school kid should be able to point right at it, were it not so wrapped up in fallacies.
To bring this iceberg around a bit closer to tech culture...
California is already being hit by drought, and NASA's climate change models suggest the drought can be expected to get worse as the temperature shift due to AGW increases [http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/todays...]. Silicon Valley is, of course, located in California. Does / should this news make people bearish on further deep investment in the Valley if a possible consequence of resource loss is a destabilization of that region (I don't mean "Mad Max", but one would assume that water rationing will have some negative impact on the startup scene in CA)?
California is already being hit by drought, and NASA's climate change models suggest the drought can be expected to get worse as the temperature shift due to AGW increases [http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/todays...]. Silicon Valley is, of course, located in California. Does / should this news make people bearish on further deep investment in the Valley if a possible consequence of resource loss is a destabilization of that region (I don't mean "Mad Max", but one would assume that water rationing will have some negative impact on the startup scene in CA)?
I've been thinking about this recently, wondering whether or not it's another reason to move out of California.
There are still a lot of different ways this could play out. We could have another moderately difficult Summer followed by one of the wettest and coldest Winters in recent history, and everything will keep limping along. Or, we could have a season of dry thunderstorms that cause one of the worst wildfire seasons in recent history, complete with thick smoke and the health effects that causes. Or, conflicts over water rights could add fuel to the State of Jefferson movement and turn that into years of political wrangling that drains the energy from a state government no longer being led by Brown. Or, California agriculture could suddenly take huge steps towards better water management, either due to rising water costs or public outcry as municipal water rates skyrocket and rationing is imposed. Or, agriculture might fail to adapt and there will be economic ripple effects felt in food costs and a hit to the state GDP.
Usually, things like this sort of muddle along for years and nobody really notices an acute impact. Sometimes the conditions are right for a disaster and you get something like 2008. The conditions are right now for things to get pretty awful over the next couple of years, but there are still a lot of people involved that can have some impact over how it all turns out. I hope those people get started soon.
If things do take a turn towards the worst, there really is less and less reason for most people to stay in this state. It's a nice state, but there are lots of other really nice places too, and there's been a tech diaspora over the last decade that's bearing fruit in a lot of different places around the country.
There are still a lot of different ways this could play out. We could have another moderately difficult Summer followed by one of the wettest and coldest Winters in recent history, and everything will keep limping along. Or, we could have a season of dry thunderstorms that cause one of the worst wildfire seasons in recent history, complete with thick smoke and the health effects that causes. Or, conflicts over water rights could add fuel to the State of Jefferson movement and turn that into years of political wrangling that drains the energy from a state government no longer being led by Brown. Or, California agriculture could suddenly take huge steps towards better water management, either due to rising water costs or public outcry as municipal water rates skyrocket and rationing is imposed. Or, agriculture might fail to adapt and there will be economic ripple effects felt in food costs and a hit to the state GDP.
Usually, things like this sort of muddle along for years and nobody really notices an acute impact. Sometimes the conditions are right for a disaster and you get something like 2008. The conditions are right now for things to get pretty awful over the next couple of years, but there are still a lot of people involved that can have some impact over how it all turns out. I hope those people get started soon.
If things do take a turn towards the worst, there really is less and less reason for most people to stay in this state. It's a nice state, but there are lots of other really nice places too, and there's been a tech diaspora over the last decade that's bearing fruit in a lot of different places around the country.
"Global sea level rise of 11 feet"
I would really like to see a more clear explanation as to how they extrapolated that estimation from the data.
I would really like to see a more clear explanation as to how they extrapolated that estimation from the data.
The Antarctic ice sheet is not only gigantic, larger than the continental United States, but it is kilometers thick.
Take the fraction of the volume that's anticipated to melt and spread that over the ocean, and you get that 11 foot number.
The Wikipedia page, for what it's worth, estimates that the sea level would rise 70 meters if the whole thing melted. Plus, if Antarctica melted, then all ice would've melted, including Greenland, so we'd be even more screwed.
You're right that there's not enough data here, though. I'm sure the calculation is far from simple since the ice-sheet varies dramatically in terms of topology both on the surface and underwater.
Take the fraction of the volume that's anticipated to melt and spread that over the ocean, and you get that 11 foot number.
The Wikipedia page, for what it's worth, estimates that the sea level would rise 70 meters if the whole thing melted. Plus, if Antarctica melted, then all ice would've melted, including Greenland, so we'd be even more screwed.
You're right that there's not enough data here, though. I'm sure the calculation is far from simple since the ice-sheet varies dramatically in terms of topology both on the surface and underwater.
Right from the abstract:
"We estimate that at least 3.5 m of eustatic sea level potential drains through Totten Glacier, so coastal processes in this area could have global consequences."
With calculations done here: http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/extref/ngeo...
"We estimate that at least 3.5 m of eustatic sea level potential drains through Totten Glacier, so coastal processes in this area could have global consequences."
With calculations done here: http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/extref/ngeo...
Why is Antarctica melting more now than when the ozone hole was a major issue in 90s? That was centered on Antarctica and has been largely fixed I think. Why is this happening now and not then? Or is now because of then? Can anyone provide a clear answer?
(edit: wtf? why would anyone downvote this? it's a legit and perfectly fair question.)
(edit: wtf? why would anyone downvote this? it's a legit and perfectly fair question.)
> it's a legit and perfectly fair question.
Because conflating the ozone hole with global warming (two different and unrelated phenomenon) can be a legitimate product of confusion, but it's more commonly a denialist tactic on a par with "if evolution is real, why are there still monkeys?" See enough of it, you get uncharitable.
Because conflating the ozone hole with global warming (two different and unrelated phenomenon) can be a legitimate product of confusion, but it's more commonly a denialist tactic on a par with "if evolution is real, why are there still monkeys?" See enough of it, you get uncharitable.
Actually I've heard this confusion more (i.e. on two separate occasions, IRL) from well-meaning environmental aficionados attempting to "prove" that global warming is real. I love "why are there still monkeys?", though. I think I'll be using that line sometime. b^)
Or, this kind of question is an opportunity to set the record straight for hundreds of people.
The ozone layer is AFAIK not correlated with heating. It blocks UV radiation which is harmful to humans and other living things but plays no significant role in temperature changes.
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/sci...
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/sci...
There is no link between ozone and global warming. No scientist has ever claimed there is. The problem with reduced ozone was increased ultraviolet radiation and health problems associated with that.
why would anyone downvote this?
Because the mechanism behind the melting is already explained in The Fine Article.
Because the mechanism behind the melting is already explained in The Fine Article.
[deleted]
[deleted]
jnevill(2)
> wtf? why would anyone downvote this? it's a legit and perfectly fair question
Because all science operates on the principle that theories are subject to reinterpretation upon new evidence, all science except climate change, whose dogma is not to be questioned.
Because all science operates on the principle that theories are subject to reinterpretation upon new evidence, all science except climate change, whose dogma is not to be questioned.
Questioning the official line, in any manner, is verboten.
The ozone anomaly is still there. CFC gases has never really harmed it because those gases are heavier than the air, so it is a bit hard (not impossible, though) for them to get up there. The "hole" has always been over the poles because, obviously, there's no much sun rays there, which are required for the formation and un-formation of the ozone in the first place.
As to the relation of the subjects, I have seem many of the AGW defenders to claim that CFC, HFC and all the other gazes they claim is harmful to the "ozone" also are "greenhouse gases", which as I said before is a complete stupidity.
As to the relation of the subjects, I have seem many of the AGW defenders to claim that CFC, HFC and all the other gazes they claim is harmful to the "ozone" also are "greenhouse gases", which as I said before is a complete stupidity.
skrowl(4)
This is a very click-bait-ey title. Maybe it could be changed to something more appropriate for HN?
edit: This post used to read as "The melting of Antarctica was already really bad. It just got worse." It has since been changed.
edit: This post used to read as "The melting of Antarctica was already really bad. It just got worse." It has since been changed.
> This is a very click-bait-ey title. Maybe it could be changed to something more appropriate for HN?
It's the actual story title. Since Bezos bought them, my impression is that the Washington Post has published much more click-bait and strident writing. It's sad to see that from what used to be one of the best news sources in the world.
Ten years ago there were three top-notch serious news sources in the U.S. IMHO, the Post, the NY Times, and the Wall St Journal. The Journal was purchased by News Corporation (who also own Fox News, the former News of the World, and other beacons of credibility), the Post seems to be slipping; if the NY Times doesn't survive we could have a very serious problem. Without quality, credible, independent information, how can the public have any power?
It's the actual story title. Since Bezos bought them, my impression is that the Washington Post has published much more click-bait and strident writing. It's sad to see that from what used to be one of the best news sources in the world.
Ten years ago there were three top-notch serious news sources in the U.S. IMHO, the Post, the NY Times, and the Wall St Journal. The Journal was purchased by News Corporation (who also own Fox News, the former News of the World, and other beacons of credibility), the Post seems to be slipping; if the NY Times doesn't survive we could have a very serious problem. Without quality, credible, independent information, how can the public have any power?
The HN guidelines ask submitters to use the original title unless it is misleading or linkbait. Since this one was the latter, we shortened it.
NYT isn't credible.
The headline accurately reflects the content of the article, which is a hysterical mishmash of speculation that does a massive disservice to the science. We "may" have learned about something that "could" happen "if" something else turns out to be true.
Antarctic melting is a particularly nasty consequence of anthopogenic climate change. It's a fairly robust first-order prediction of almost any analysis that gets anthropogenic heat balances correct--so unlike almost all other detailed predictions, there is a good chance of it happening--and the consequences, apart from maybe submerging Florida, are unequivocally bad for humans.
But in a debate as emotionally charged as the one over climate change and what to do about it, the last thing we need is the Washington Post ranting on in purely speculative terms.
If a friend told you, "Ten years from now, you may remember 2014 as the year that you first learned that I may have gotten a new job. Meanwhile, 2015 could be the year of the double whammy — when you learned the same about our buddy Joe, which could set in motion a road trip," you would probably look at them funny and say, "Hey, why are you telling me all this stuff that may or may nor or could or could not or might or might not happen as if it's the most important thing in the world? It sounds kind of pretentious and stupid."
Antarctic melting is a particularly nasty consequence of anthopogenic climate change. It's a fairly robust first-order prediction of almost any analysis that gets anthropogenic heat balances correct--so unlike almost all other detailed predictions, there is a good chance of it happening--and the consequences, apart from maybe submerging Florida, are unequivocally bad for humans.
But in a debate as emotionally charged as the one over climate change and what to do about it, the last thing we need is the Washington Post ranting on in purely speculative terms.
If a friend told you, "Ten years from now, you may remember 2014 as the year that you first learned that I may have gotten a new job. Meanwhile, 2015 could be the year of the double whammy — when you learned the same about our buddy Joe, which could set in motion a road trip," you would probably look at them funny and say, "Hey, why are you telling me all this stuff that may or may nor or could or could not or might or might not happen as if it's the most important thing in the world? It sounds kind of pretentious and stupid."
For some context (which media rarely provide), Antarctica has about 12.3 million cubic km of ice sheet. The latest measurements I've seen show that between 2011 and 2014, the Antarctic ice sheet lost 125 cubic km per year.
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-21692423
http://www.esa.int/spaceinimages/Images/2014/08/Antarctic_ic...
Additionally, people have been noticing a loss of ice since at least 1932: http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/23150667
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-21692423
http://www.esa.int/spaceinimages/Images/2014/08/Antarctic_ic...
Additionally, people have been noticing a loss of ice since at least 1932: http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/23150667
That didn't provide me any context at all. What are those numbers supposed to imply?
First, Antarctica is not "melting," and second it seems to have been happening for a long time.
Additionally, there has been no acceleration in sea level increases:
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.s...
Browse stations here: http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/mslUSTrendsTable.h...
Additionally, there has been no acceleration in sea level increases:
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.s...
Browse stations here: http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/mslUSTrendsTable.h...
Where does this animus spring from?
[1] http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html