Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

xrm67

(21 posts)
24. Doubling time of less than 5 years has been established.
Thu Apr 9, 2015, 09:20 PM
Apr 2015

Last edited Thu Apr 9, 2015, 10:58 PM - Edit history (2)

What don't you get about this? Can you read the sentence in bold which was published in every news media outlet?

'Incredible' rate of polar ice loss alarms scientists

The planet’s two largest ice sheets – in Greenland and Antarctica – are now being depleted at an astonishing rate of 120 cubic miles each year. That is the discovery made by scientists using data from CryoSat-2, the European probe that has been measuring the thickness of Earth’s ice sheets and glaciers since it was launched by the European Space Agency in 2010.

Even more alarming, the rate of loss of ice from the two regions has more than doubled since 2009, revealing the dramatic impact that climate change is beginning to have on our world.

The researchers, based at Germany’s Alfred Wegener Institute Helmholtz Centre for Polar and Marine Research – used 200m data points across Antarctica and 14.3m across Greenland, all collected by CryoSat, to study how the ice sheets there had changed over the past three years. The satellite carries a high-precision altimeter, which sends out short radar pulses that bounce off the ice surface and then back to the satellite. By measuring the time this takes, the height of the ice beneath the spacecraft can be calculated.

It was found from the average drops in elevation that were detected by CryoSat that Greenland alone is losing about 90 cubic miles a year, while in Antarctica the annual volume loss is about 30 cubic miles. These rates of loss – described as “incredible” by one researcher – are the highest observed since altimetry satellite records began about 20 years ago, and they mean that the ice sheets’ annual contribution to sea-level rise has doubled since 2009, say the researchers whose work was published in the journal Cryosphere last week.


The Hansen article I inked to and which you are quoting from is more than 2 years old and was before the recent discoveries mentioned above. The polar ice caps are melting more than twice as fast as what Hansen and others had predicted. What don't you get about that?

And about the 70 feet of SLR already locked in, that was in my article as well which you evidently have trouble comprehending:

Melting polar and glacial ice and thermally expanding ocean water have accelerated SLR to the highest rate in at least 6000 years, and an estimated 69 feet SLR has already been set into motion.


Edit: In my last comment I did say 70 meters and actually meant feet. 69 feet = 21 meters, still beyond catastrophic.
Just One meter would be an economic catastrophe mackdaddy Apr 2015 #1
...for each meter of sea level rise, the coastline is eroded, over time, by 100 meters. xrm67 Apr 2015 #2
Good links , Thanks mackdaddy Apr 2015 #3
I wish they wouldn't say generations and use years yeoman6987 Apr 2015 #26
“The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function. dixiegrrrrl Apr 2015 #4
But what says sea level rise is exponential? muriel_volestrangler Apr 2015 #5
Death by fire and flood xrm67 Apr 2015 #6
The PIOMAS model is a linear trend of -3000 km3/decade muriel_volestrangler Apr 2015 #8
Exponential, exponential, exponential... xrm67 Apr 2015 #9
And those uses of 'exponential' are incorrect muriel_volestrangler Apr 2015 #10
Freshwater ice melt from inland glaciers is not the same as old sea ice xrm67 Apr 2015 #11
That's the first time you've mentioned freshwater, or inland glaciers muriel_volestrangler Apr 2015 #13
If you actually read the article and know a little science, it would help xrm67 Apr 2015 #14
Freshwater pulses slowing down ocean currents has nothing to do with sea level or ice area muriel_volestrangler Apr 2015 #15
How else can I explain this to you before it sinks in? xrm67 Apr 2015 #16
Well done. GliderGuider Apr 2015 #17
No, no link about a meltwater pulse in your blog post muriel_volestrangler Apr 2015 #18
I will write a blog post about this and hopefully answer your questions once and for all. xrm67 Apr 2015 #19
Again, no doubling period has been 'established' for sea level rise muriel_volestrangler Apr 2015 #22
Doubling time of less than 5 years has been established. xrm67 Apr 2015 #24
2 data points for ice loss does not mean 'exponential sea level rise' muriel_volestrangler Apr 2015 #27
Any rational person can now see than an exponential doubling period has been established xrm67 Apr 2015 #28
If you watch the video of Box I linked to in #22, you see he got the 69 feet from Alley muriel_volestrangler Apr 2015 #30
We already have several data points showing exponential growth xrm67 Apr 2015 #31
Dear Baby Jebus, where do you get the patience? Systematic Chaos Apr 2015 #44
If it's in fits and starts, it's not exponential, by definition (nt) muriel_volestrangler Apr 2015 #45
That depends on the time frame, nicht war? GliderGuider Apr 2015 #48
Any process for something to be exponential while having gaps when nothing happens muriel_volestrangler Apr 2015 #52
Here is the real condition of Arctic sea ice and it's not good xrm67 Apr 2015 #33
Limits to Growth projections were correct... We're on track for collapse of industrial civilization xrm67 Apr 2015 #12
Limits to Growth projections were correct? LouisvilleDem Apr 2015 #21
Yes, I'm sure they're all wrong. Where's my TV remote? Pass me the buttered popcorn. xrm67 Apr 2015 #23
Nice try LouisvilleDem Apr 2015 #36
You really are Clueless xrm67 Apr 2015 #42
Where is your proof? LouisvilleDem Apr 2015 #53
How do you get exponentially declining sea ice... LouisvilleDem Apr 2015 #20
Earth Sensitivity to Human Forcings is what matters xrm67 Apr 2015 #25
What's your opinion of the Earth System sensitivity estimate by Wasdell et al GliderGuider Apr 2015 #29
I'd say it's not supported by the evidence LouisvilleDem Apr 2015 #34
LOL!!! One of the authors of that paper is a climate change denier xrm67 Apr 2015 #40
Judith Curry is not a denier LouisvilleDem Apr 2015 #51
And the other author has major credibility problems as well xrm67 Apr 2015 #41
You didn't answer my question LouisvilleDem Apr 2015 #35
ALL you have to do is look at the Keeling Curve xrm67 Apr 2015 #38
CO2 != Energy LouisvilleDem Apr 2015 #46
You can't possibly be this stupid. GliderGuider Apr 2015 #49
Please LouisvilleDem Apr 2015 #50
This definitely looks like exponential energy consumption xrm67 Apr 2015 #39
Question LouisvilleDem Apr 2015 #47
So this Climate Change Denier drive the bus of humanity off a cliff.... mackdaddy Apr 2015 #32
Predictions for the Future: A Grim Outlook xrm67 Apr 2015 #7
LOL LouisvilleDem Apr 2015 #37
Pointless comment xrm67 Apr 2015 #43
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»Catastrophic Sea Level Ri...»Reply #24