back to article Scientists warn of FOUR-FOOT sea level rise from GLACIER melt

Scientists at NASA and the University of California, Irvine have concluded that the glaciers of West Antarctica are now in terminal decline and the resultant ice loss could raise global sea levels by up to four feet over the next few centuries. "The collapse of this sector of West Antarctica appears to be unstoppable," said UC …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Bronek Kozicki
    Unhappy

    Note to self

    buy only property high above sea level ...

    1. Pen-y-gors

      Re: Note to self

      ...checks map...present house is 23ft above mean sea level and 3 miles from shoreline. This could be tricky...well, only if I plan to live to 200 (which I do)

      1. Swiss Anton
        Mushroom

        Re: Note to self

        Yes, just think how much that "beach-side" property will be worth by then. I'm assuming that you aren't 3 miles from Sizewell. Oh you are. Best move now if I were you.

        1. itzman
          Facepalm

          Re: Note to self

          Sizewell is at least 20 feet above sea level and wont last 100 years.

          Idiot.

    2. Martin Budden Silver badge
      Happy

      Re: Note to self

      612m above sea level: I'm all right Jack!

      1. John Hughes

        Re: Note to self

        Ready to welcome all your new neighbours I hope.

        Abidjan, population over 2 million, is around 50cm above sea level.

        1. wowfood

          Re: Note to self

          I can see the sea from my flat... balls.

    3. Havin_it
      Joke

      I'm OK for now...

      ...but the folk downstairs are screwed.

      1. Mpeler
        Pirate

        Re: I'm OK for now...

        If I see four feet climbing out of the see, I'm heading the other way....fast....

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Note to self

      If you look at www.worldunderwater.org, you'll realise that there is nowhere on earth that won't be under water, everywhere will be under water, everywhere I tell you!

  2. Mitoo Bobsworth
    Meh

    "Scientists warn of four-foot sea level rise as West Antarctic glaciers melt"

    Again?

    1. Evan Essence

      Re: "Scientists warn of four-foot sea level rise as West Antarctic glaciers melt"

      Maybe people, like, stuck their fingers in their ears the first time?

    2. phuzz Silver badge

      Re: "Scientists warn of four-foot sea level rise as West Antarctic glaciers melt"

      Yeah, well, if they keep showing more and more data maybe people will believe them by the time the water is up round their ankles.

  3. Peter2 Silver badge

    That's good to know. Now it's admitted that stopping "climate change" by reducing Co2 emissions won't work (obviously; not using cars didn't help doggerland much) maybe we might actually start considering doing something constructive that stands a hope in hell of being useful.

    Something like mass construction of desalination plants and irrigation projects to turn deserts into gardens might slow down the rate of sea rise a little? (Massively, insanely expensive, but possibly a bit more effective than carbon trading)

    Or how about going to hydrogen based fuel cells and taking up electrolysis in a really, really big way?

    More boringly, we could just start a slow, multi century long project to build some very large, multi layered flood defences.

    1. Fluffy Bunny
      FAIL

      I do hope you're not planning on starting this gigantic waste of money now. Remember ""... it could take several centuries for all of the ice to flow into the sea". A foot a century and it hasn't even started yet. This is still all a prediction.

      However, there is good news. We now have a concrete prediction that everybody can measure. Stick those big rulers into the shoreline and come back in several centuries. If the water hasn't gone up 4 feet, we can fire all of the doomsayers. Any that are still alive, that is.

      1. ian 22

        Fire the doomsayers!

        The scientists failed to predict this, so we should ignore anything they say.

        I've been right before!

    2. TheVogon

      Or we could of course try and stop emitting so much CO2 and making the problem worse....

      1. AceRimmer

        No no no no no

        More CO2 FIXES the problem

        hot air makes Antarctica COLDER

        1. TheVogon

          I guess you didnt bother reading fully. It's not the air temperature that is causing the melting. It is the sea.

        2. Sirius Lee

          Or this report of British researchers who claim the Pine Island glacier has stopped moving.

          Antarctic ice shelf melt 'lowest EVER recorded...'

          Of course this report of British research is by Lewis Page so must be wrong while the bad news is by a researcher at those shining beacons NASA and UC Irvine so it must be correct.

          Wake me up when the 'scientists' have agreed on what's happening. Not least because they will by then have a handle on predicting chaos and that would be the REAL result.

          1. Naughtyhorse

            Wakey wakey!

            The scientists all agree

            it's twats like page that have their heads wedged too far up their own arses to hear the news

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Wakey wakey!

              What a fine scientific case you make there.

      2. Scroticus Canis
        Happy

        "Or we could of course try and stop emitting so much CO2 and making the problem worse...."

        OK, you stop breathing first. I want to see how that goes before joining in.

    3. Lallabalalla

      Reducing CO2 emissions?

      We haven't reduced CO2 emissions. They've gone UP quite markedly since all industry does is trade off their emissions against the carbon-scheme equivalent of tax avoidance.

      Cutting ordinary car emissions won't help. It hasn't helped, so no citation needed.

      The biggest 15 supercargo ships put out the same crap as all the world's cars *put together*. Stop that, first. At the same time, stop making the plastic rubbish that fills these container ships, and the problem is likely sorted overnight.

      At which time I'd like to stop being hassled by the car-haters AND I'd like my PROPER LIGHTBULBS back.

      1. AceRimmer

        Re: Reducing CO2 emissions?

        "The biggest 15 supercargo ships put out the same crap as all the world's cars *put together*."

        For the record - 15 super container ships do not emit the same CO2 as all the worlds cars put together,

        However, due to the low grade fuel they use they do emit the same pollutants (mainly sulpher based compounds) as all the worlds cars.

        http://www.gizmag.com/shipping-pollution/11526/

        1. el_oscuro

          Re: Reducing CO2 emissions?

          The simpile solution to the cargo ship problem is to buy shit made in the UK (or in the US in my case). Not everything is made in China, and not everything made in the USA is 10 times as expensive either. In fact a lot of my USA made shit costs the same or less than the same crap made in China, and is usually better quality. You just have to look at the labels. The same thing probably applies to the UK.

      2. This post has been deleted by its author

    4. itzman

      All good ideas except we wont need then as Antarctic ice is actually INCREASING massively. Except for the one small part featured in the 'study'

      1. foo_bar_baz

        Interesting

        "All good ideas except we wont need then as Antarctic ice is actually INCREASING massively. Except for the one small part featured in the 'study'"

        Link/source/quote please.

    5. Julz

      Or just move to higher ground.

    6. oolor
      Coat

      Re: desalination

      Nope, cheap:

      http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/05/02/water_vs_energy_analysis/

      1. Peter2 Silver badge

        Re: desalination

        Too small a scale. We want to create an artificial river nile in the middle of Australia or Africa. Desalinating enough water to create the equivalent of a river nile, plus hundreds of miles worth of piping to take the water from the sea to somewhere inland to make said river and then irrigate it is not going to be cheap.

        1. oolor
          Coat

          Re: desalination

          >We want to create an artificial river nile in the middle of Australia or Africa.

          I see. Where I erred was trying to stay within the realm of reason.

          >>>Last time I was just getting my coat. Now I need my damn brain medicine. It's in one of these pockets... somewhere. >>>

          1. Peter2 Silver badge

            Re: desalination

            > "I see. Where I erred was trying to stay within the realm of reason."

            Yep. If you were going to desalinate a huge amount of water and sink it into the ground, doing so right next to the sea would be a bit self defeating, wouldn't it? Especially since there is quite likely already freshwater revers used for irrigation nearby since they tend to flow into the sea.

  4. JLV
    Big Brother

    Arrrgh. Building is on waterfront, 4ft above sea level.

    Oh, wait, am renting.

    Seriously, lots of Vancouver is borderline sea level. Richmond, right by airport, struggled with storms for a while.

    Prime waterfront props _will_ get dikes, at some point, but I wouldn't be surprised this kind this kinda forecasts would cause uncertainty in say 10-20 yrs, if they start looking likely.

    Something to take into account when parking a big chunk of your net worth for 20-30yrs?

    Tinfoil hats.

    1. Swiss Anton

      In all seriousness, I'd say sea level rise is probably the least of your worries. From what I remember of Vancouver, there's a big volcano thingy just over the border, and down by the water front there are signs warning of tsunami.

      1. FrankAlphaXII
        Boffin

        Vancouver is susceptible to multiple hazards, much like just about anywhere else.

        Volcanism, Earthquakes/Tsunami, Flooding, Urban Interface fires and potential for Radiological incidents are the five I can think of off the top of my head. Terrorism could always happen as well (However in the US that's an issue for Homeland Security mostly and not Emergency Management aside from the immediate life or death response and recovery as well as maintaining a level of preparedness so that fire and emergency medical teams can respond. I know much more about Emergency Management, my degree's in it), especially if any pissed off Uighurs decide to take it out on the Han Chinese population in Richmond, which is a very real hazard and one I hope both Vancouver and Seattle are prepared for. But this isn't unusual in the least. I strongly doubt you'll find a city of over 25,000 anywhere in the world that doesn't have about 7 to 10 hazards associated with it so its not abnormally higher in Vancouver than anywhere else.

        None of that means that a city that has those hazards is inherently unsafe either, that's largely subjective and depends quite a bit on city and higher authorities in regard to how well they plan, mitigate and respond as well as work together during all of those phases as well as recovery. In the US response is standardized under the Incident Command System that CALFIRE developed in the 70's. I'm not certain how Canada does it, its in all reality probably the same system, as the UN's International Strategy for Disaster Reduction does recommend ICS as a baseline command system.

        It simply means that a particular hazard exists and an incident may or may not occur due to that hazard at varying degrees of severity.

        1. Semtex451

          Now we all have a degree in Emergency Management

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Volcanism, Earthquakes/Tsunami, Flooding, Urban Interface fires and potential for Radiological incidents are the five I can think of off the top of my head.

          don't forget extraterrestrial attacks and godzilla; oh wait, I may be thinking of sim-city...

    2. John Smith 19 Gold badge
      Unhappy

      "Seriously, lots of Vancouver is borderline sea level. Richmond, right by airport, struggled with storms for a while."

      I think you'll find most port cities are...

      London and New York for example.

  5. The Mole

    Hard to cope with?

    So a massive 4 feet over 2 centuries is considered hard to cope with?

    The biggest problem with the whole climate change debate is people over-hyping the severity.

    In 200 years of a gradually changing average sea levels I'm sure any nation, or even local community could easily cope with this change. There will probably be some localized flooding from winter storms etc but we would had the technology to handle things like this for over 1000 years (The Westfriese Omringdijk Dyke was finished in 1250AD). So if medieval men with shovels could manage it I really doubt it will cause any long term problems with modern technology (let alone what will be developed in the next 200 years).

    1. JLV
      Boffin

      Re: Hard to cope with?

      First, IF this turns out to be true, this is 1 glacier system, albeit a major one. Greenland's not looking all that chipper either, every time it hits the news.

      Second, 4 feet in several centuries doesn't tell you what the time distribution of the rise will end up being. Could be 1.5' in the next 100 years which would be goodly chunk from just one spot.

      Third, I am sure Bengladeshis, all 155M*, fairly-impoverished-low-elevation, lot of them, would be thrilled at your optimism that they "just need to deal with it". I mean, obviously, their contribution to global warming, if it is indeed man-caused, is significant. They just have so many SUVs and 22000 sq ft mansions a la Al Gore over there.

      * One could also remark that, maybe, just maybe, they would have been wiser not to number 155M in an area less than 4 times the size of Holland. And that in aggregate they must be contributing something. But that would be un-PC, so I wouldn't dream of doing it.

      1. The Mole

        Re: Hard to cope with?

        I don't believe I said that Bangladeshis "just need to deal with it". What I said is that the world can easily deal with it (particularly if we put resources into mitigating the problems rather than wasting it on pointless counterproductive subsidies). However even the people of Bangladesh (with all its poverty) are in many ways less impoverished compared to the people 1000 years ago when dykes were first being constructed. They are significantly better able to cope, have access to better technology, skills and knowledge and could mitigate much of the problems at a local level if necessary even if the world fails to act (which realistically may be the case until after a few disasters). The high population density actually provides a benefit with regards to manpower per km of coastline.

        More importantly we are currently spending billions on ineffectual methods to stop climate change which have a negative impact on world GDP (I accept some of the millions spent will be on useful programs as well). If we spent the next 50 years investing that money in impoverished nations instead the net benefits would almost certainly be vastly greater and we'd (and more importantly Bangladesh) would be in a far better position to cope with the changes in the climate (man made or not).

        1. Naughtyhorse

          Re: particularly if we put resources into mitigating the problems..

          Can you cite any evidence of this ever happening anywhere? ever?

          and that's before the ever so successful brand of fuck you economics now practised in the first world took hold.

          yuppies in California giving up a latte to save 150million Bangladeshi?

          you must be delusional

        2. Naughtyhorse

          Re: world GDP???

          you been at the koolaid again dude?

          clue

          get one

    2. Don Jefe
      FAIL

      Re: Hard to cope with?

      What the fuck dude? Have you ever seen the ocean? Have you ever built a wall? I don't know why I even ask. It's clear you've done neither.

      You also seem to be just a bit out of date on your labor law. Dykes are dirt cheap and easy if:

      a) The bulk of the work is already done, you just have to fill in the gaps

      and

      b) The closest thing to infrastructure you risk with an engineering failure in the dyke is the local stack of firewood.

      Will sea levels rise four feet anytime soon? Who the fuck knows. But saying that four feet of change is a simple problem is a dumber thing to say than we're all doomed if we don't all go live in mud huts.

      You've got absolutely no idea of how big a problem four extra feet of ocean is for the world we live in. Little things you don't even know exist, like the vents in natural gas and petroleum transfer pipelines, the pressurized gasses in subterranean high tension power line conduits, fucking subways, sewer, storm water, drinking water, over 80% of the planets safe harbor space. Hell, the undersea cables that connect dangerously simple minded numpties to world class engineers won't even work. That's weird huh? Those are already underwater, four more feet won't hurt will it? Christ. Nobody will know how much school you missed.

      If money were no object it would still take decades to make the changes necessary to keep civilization as we know it working. It isn't just the four feet of water you can see that's the problem. Do you understand that? Four feet of sea level rise will mean telephone poles 300+ miles from the coast will no longer stand. Buildings even further from the coast will be destabilized past the point of habitability. Especially older cities like London and Paris.

      Crop and livestock production facilities within ~100 miles of the coast will be completely worthless for their current use. Hope you're not a pork or chicken fan. Wine from everywhere except Australia and some of the weird ones from Chile will be shit.

      Really stupid industrial mistakes we made 100+ years ago will be really, really big problems as nifty cool heavy metals, the first 25 years of nuclear waste, all those cool old school open pit copper mines with millions of pounds of mercury left there for safe keeping won't be safe anymore. Settling ponds will no longer be settle and decades of nifty chemicals that municipal water systems can't deal with will add new flavor to your water and food.

      The impacts of four feet of sea level rise will cause more harm to life as we know it than just about any other scenario you could possibly imagine. We could rebuild after a 1970's nuclear shooting war faster, cheaper and more effectively than four feet of global sea level rise.

      You're right about over hyping the risks of climate change. It's stupid. Should those changes come to pass the realities will be a lot worse than you imagine.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Hard to cope with?

        Can you explain exactly why a four foot (or even forty foot) sea level rise would affect the undersea cables? The places were they enter/exit the sea may need some modification so the parts that are designed not be underwater remain so, but the parts that are thousands of feet deep on the seabed?

      2. Steve Crook

        Re: Hard to cope with?

        According to what I've read the paper says that they're not expecting this four foot (metre?) rise for several hundred years, possibly a thousand. The Graun also said the report tells us that the decay of these glaciers *cannot* be stopped even if we take drastic action to curb emissions.

        We have no alternative but to do something about it. In fact, in the face of a 4m rise, we'd probably be better off going hell for leather on developing the under developed world to make sure that as much of the globe has the opportunity to adapt.

        Unless the authors of this paper are wrong. I know it's been peer reviewed and all, but it's just one paper. It might never happen or be faster, slower. It might be that the glaciers *would* slow if we dropped global temps, or that other changes in climate will cause more ice to form elsewhere in the Antarctic.

        More research please...

        1. Fluffy Bunny
          FAIL

          Re: Hard to cope with?

          "More research please..."

          We already (world-wide) spend $100B on this half science. It's time we sat back and actually looked at it for ourselves instead of through these proxies (scientists). In what other field would you let people who are running around like headless chooks dictate public policy to the whole world. If an asteroid was heading to the Earth, would you let the astronomer who first saw it dictate how people responded? Not a chance.

          1. strum

            Re: Hard to cope with?

            >In what other field would you let people who are running around like headless chooks dictate public policy to the whole world.

            You mean, like the climate change deniers in Congress & Parliament?

            You are dismissing the conclusions of people who know what they're talking about, not because you know better (you don't) but because you don't want to believe it. Faith versus Science.

        2. Tom 13

          Re: Hard to cope with?

          I don't give a rat's ass how many letters are trailing behind the reviewer's names. This paper has a fundamental flaw. The same fundamental flaw all the hyperblow rhetoric from the warmists have: the data line is too frelling short compared to the baseline. They've got 40 years of data they're trying to project 1000+ years back. Then they predict 200-800 years into the future. Those so called predictions are as reliable as shaman throwing bones or an old crone reading tea leaves.

      3. Steven Roper
        Thumb Up

        Re: Hard to cope with?

        I actually upvoted Don Jefe's post because that's got to be the best example of Poe's Law I have yet witnessed. Read his hysterical rant again if you downvoted it; his claims of the extent of the danger posed by a four foot sea-level rise are so outrageous he has to be pulling your leg. Where the Poe's Law comes in is that yes, there are actually people in this world who really believe this sort of thing; but I sincerely doubt any of them would have the cerebral capacity to read El Reg.

      4. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Hard to cope with?

        Why will a 4 foot rise in sea level mean telephone poles 300 miles from the coast will no longer stand? I assume you'll say its something to do with the water table. We didn't lose any poles when the water table rose this winter and whole counties were under water for months. Also why would a telephone pole a few hundred feet above sea level suddenly fall over?

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Hard to cope with?

          Haha I read through his post too quickly and missed that business about the telephone poles, because I didn't read past the thing about the undersea cables.

          He's obviously having his fun with us posing as an alarmist, and appears to have done well in trolling more than a few who should have known better, such as myself :)

        2. FutureShock999

          Re: Hard to cope with?

          The water tables didn't STAY risen during that flooding. This would be a permanent change, and would never dry out.

          The interesting point that Don Jefe made however is not the telephone poles - it is the impact on coastal buildings. Basically, we would have to abandon every major human city near the coast and move the entire population inland to find stable ground. Good-bye London, Paris, NYC, Hong Kong, Melbourne, Sydney, LA, San Fran, errrr,....jeeze, most of the biggies were all built by coastal resources and transportation. I think Zurich, Geneva, San Paulo, Mexico City, etc. are probably safe.

          So basically we will have to re-locate nearly every major human city over the next few centuries, while avoiding the nuclear contamination from those settling ponds that become flooded, and dealing with the loss of a hell of a lot of arable farmland. And taking in millions of desperate third-worlders that can contribute nothing to the solution, but the UN will insist that we take them in to avoid a mass outbreak of death and disease.

          Yep, we're fucked.

      5. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Hard to cope with?

        /* The previous sections is a load of unadulterated wombat turds. Land that can cope with a 5 meter storm surge hight tide can sure as heck cope with a 4 feet average sea level rise */

    3. Tom 7

      Re: Hard to cope with?

      4' - that would be easy to cope with if it was only that particular collection of glaciers that were melting.

    4. TheVogon

      Re: Hard to cope with?

      "a massive 4 feet over 2 centuries is considered hard to cope with"

      Yes, very - lots of inhabited costal areas will be below sea level. And this is from just one glacier.

    5. strum

      Re: Hard to cope with?

      Perhaps you haven't noticed that W Antarctica isn't the only ice-sheet on the planet, and that thermal expansion will account for significant rise on its own?

  6. Don Jefe

    Disappointed

    I visit The Register for the best in climate science humor. I've now now read two articles that contain nothing but humorless scientific observations. What the hell?

    That Page guy is hilarious, in a Ron White kind of way. You guys should consider having him do some illustrations to accompany his pieces. I bet he's a madman with fresh box of 64 colors! I hope he hasn't been let go. His lighthearted take on climate science is a nice break from the heady stuff.

    1. John Smith 19 Gold badge
      Happy

      Re: Disappointed

      "That Page guy is hilarious, in a Ron White kind of way. You guys should consider having him do some illustrations to accompany his pieces. I bet he's a madman with fresh box of 64 colors! I"

      Not to worry. He won't be let go anytime soon.

      He's the Editor.

      1. Don Jefe
        Happy

        Re: Disappointed

        Yeah, I keep forgetting he got promoted. I'm sure he's got the big box of 128 colors now :)

    2. Steve Crook

      Re: Disappointed

      Trouble is, the article didn't contain scientific observations, it was a review of a paper and it didn't include the vital information on the projected time it will probably take for the glaciers to completely slide into the ocean, or how long it would be before we saw ANY noticeable effect from their slide.

      If anything the article bore more resemblance to the breathless and overheated Suzanne Goldenberg review in the Graun. For a more grounded alternative, try reading Andy Revkin in the NYT.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Disappointed

        Still, a study over 40 years eh? That is huge compared to the timescales of climate cycles, so it is irrefutable. Oh wait...

  7. Herby

    So I should...

    Carry waders (Wellies?) when I visit Venice later this year?

    Oh, never mind. Venice ALWAYS floods in the winter time. Tides and all that. It was built over water!

    Note to self: Look at glass of water with ice in it. Watch the level of the water rise/fall as the ice melts.

    1. JLV
      Facepalm

      Re: So I should...

      >Note to self: Look at glass of water with ice in it. Watch the level of the water rise/fall as the ice melts.

      Note to young master. Pick up some cod liver oil @ Tesco's to give the ol' noggins a boost.

      In a glass of water with an ice cube in it, the amount of water will not change as it melts.

      How about you set a big chunk of ice on top of an upended bucket and place that bucket, with the ice emerged, in your bathtub?

      Care to prognosticate what the ice melting into the tub will do to the water level, oh clever one?

      1. proud2bgrumpy

        Re: So I should...

        The article is talking about floating ice being undercut by warmer sea water - so no matter if its Arctic or Antarctic - its floating - so unless you are actually make the argument that land-based ice will then travel to replace the floating ice, then the ice-cube-in-a-glass comment is valid.

        1. Tom 13

          Re: The article is talking about floating ice being undercut

          I think Archimedes principle depends on the entire object being immersed.

          In any event, they are claiming the ice flow from land continues until it is exhausted. And that's where the problem will be. Something will interrupt the continuous flow but they're too arrogant to admit they don't know.

      2. Tom 13

        Re: Care to prognosticate

        Same thing as the ice cube in the glass of water because the bucket is still floating in the bath tub.

        This is the problem with warmists. They don't get all the facts. Even worse, they think they know science but the don't.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: So I should...

      >Note to self: Look at glass of water with ice in it. Watch the level of the water rise/fall as the ice melts

      This is about Antarctica, not Artic. The ice is on a continent , not floating in water.

      1. Geoff Campbell Silver badge
        Coat

        Re: So I should...

        Oh, talking about land - I recall an article in New Scientist a while ago, postulating that as the huge weight of ice was removed from Antarctica and other land masses, they would rise somewhat. And that this might lead to other land masses sinking somewhat. Which might make the local effects of sea level rises in some areas rather more dramatic than just a few feet.

        Interesting times ahead...

        GJC

        1. This post has been deleted by its author

          1. Geoff Campbell Silver badge
            Black Helicopters

            Re: So I should...

            Ah, this'll be why the Tories are so keen on keeping Scotland? So they have somewhere to retreat to when England has sunk?

            GJC

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: So I should...

              I think your are confusing pointing out how deluded the SNP are with wanting Scotland.

              Most Tories undoubtedly agree that the sooner it becomes the Republic of Scotistan and we can ditch all those pikey Labour voters, the better...

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: So I should...

                :-) Personally, I think that the Scottish Independence Vote should not be restricted only to the Scots. After all, this is a vote for a break BETWEEN England and Scotland, therefore, as an Englishman, I should also have the right to vote for Scottish Independence (which I am absolutely in favour of)

    3. Tom 7

      Re: So I should...

      Its not sea level rise that causes Venice's problem - its the weight of cash they get from gullible tourists that's sinking the place.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: So I should...

        Nope - it's all those fat americans ;-)

  8. Version 1.0 Silver badge

    Evidence?

    I have no problem with the theory that mankind is a contributor to climate change but where's the evidence that the earths' climate was ever steady state? History seems to indicate that climate change has always been the norm.

    Before you all down vote me - I also believe that burning oil and coal are a stupid waste to resources - do you have any clue how much useful stuff can be made from these minerals? And we just go and burn them ... dumb dumb dumb. All the evidence suggest that mankind is going to get what it deserves - and will not like it.

    1. Don Jefe

      Re: Evidence?

      Change is most certainly the norm. It would suck if we killed ourselves, but as you say, there's a lot more fear mongering and arm chair science around climate change than any other issue. It's rather unfortunate too.

      Good information gets picked up by people who have absolutely no concept if how to deal with actual science and the big it all up for clicks. Observations are twisted and mangled to become forecasts and our plucky forecasters don't even know what the words mean.

      Both 'sides' of this whole big mess should go live somewhere together. A place where their opinions cease to be important as they come together for a big love-in under the flag of really fucking stupid. I vote we send them to Texas. That way nobody gets hurt by exposure to concentrated stupid.

      1. Burb

        Re: Evidence?

        "Change is most certainly the norm."

        However it has not been the norm during recent human history, during which agriculture and stable civilisations have been able to develop.

        The current *rate* of change is not the norm, making adaptation very difficult for many plant and animal species.

        That there has been change in the past is not a reason passively to accept damaging change now, given that we have realised that we are the cause of that change and have the ability to do something about it.

        On much longer time scales there will indeed be large changes not initiated by us. *If* we survive long enough we might develop the technology to cope with them.

        1. PhoenixRevealed

          Re: Evidence?

          "The current *rate* of change is not the norm, making adaptation very difficult for many plant and animal species."

          Not sure where you are getting your facts from. Several recent science articles I have read state that researchers have revised earlier assessments that major climate changes took a long time to happen. Due to positive feedback effects some of the revised estimates were a short as a dozen years, and certainly less than one hundred, even for life altering climactic changes..

          1. Burb

            Re: Evidence?

            "Not sure where you are getting your facts from."

            This, for example:

            http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/~/media/shared/documents/policy/Climate%20Change%20Statement%20Addendum%202013%20Final.ashx

            Note that when there have been relatively rapid changes, they have tended to be accompanied by large scale extinctions so the point remains that we want to avoid rapid change if possible.

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Evidence?

            I myself am an Experiential Circumstantial Anecdotal Referential Climatologist (can chat about weather I have experienced, seen on TV or discussed with people) of about 40 years which means my qualifications are at least as good as the bunkum that has come out of the University of East Anglia and similar Research Grant Grabbing Pseudo Scientists. Climate Change used to be called "Global Warming" and before that it was "Man Made Global Warming" until recently. Why drop the "Man Made" bit? Perhaps because they realised its not "Man Made", Why drop the "Global Warming"? Perhaps because the planet isn't really warming? Climate Change is a nice neutral title that means *Climatologists* will never have to say sorry for getting it wrong - Climates Change - it's called the weather

      2. Fluffy Bunny
        Mushroom

        Re: Evidence?

        "I vote we send them to Texas"... Better idea, send them to Canberra. It would be impossible for them to interbreed with all the greens there.

      3. John Smith 19 Gold badge
        Happy

        " concentrated stupid."

        Genius.

        Up with "conslutant" as my favorite new phrase or word.

        1. Mpeler
          Pint

          Re: " concentrated stupid."

          Conslutant....right up there with Presstitute ....

    2. veti Silver badge

      Re: Evidence?

      The *rate* of change is important.

      If you drive your car into a parking space at 1 m.p.h and misjudge the space, bumping into a wall, that's probably not going to worry you too much. But if you bump the same car into the same wall at 30 m.p.h., that's going to do some damage.

      But even at slow speeds, there'd still be no reason for complacency. It so happens that the earth is now so densely populated that moving a large number of people from *anywhere* to anywhere else is going to be pretty fraught. Time was, half a million people living in the area we now call "Bangladesh" could have just got up and hiked inland and found a new place to settle. If 100 million of them try doing that now, how far do you think they'd get?

      1. 9Rune5

        Re: Evidence?

        ...and are the good burgers of Bangladesh doing anything now? Are they finding new habitats or taking steps to reduce their population? (e.g. by instituting a one-child policy or similar?)

        I strongly suspect that the longer you hold off the inevitable, the more people will be affected. The population will continue to grow and a good flooding will be the only effective method of controlling that.

        Pardon me while I go start the engine on my cars. I'm not actually driving anywhere today, but increasing CO2 emissions seems like the humane thing to do.

      2. Naughtyhorse

        Re: how far do you think they'd get?

        100 million of em?

        as far as they F***ing wanted to m8 :-)

  9. The Axe

    Meanwhile....

    ...Antarctic sea ice has expanded to record levels for April, increasing by more than 110,000sq km a day last month to nine million square kilometres.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/12/antarctic-sea-ice-at-record-levels/

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/antarctic-sea-ice-at-record-levels/story-e6frg8y6-1226913708208#

    1. JeeBee

      Re: Meanwhile....

      Hmm, so what could be cooling the sea more than normal to create more 2m thick sea ice.

      Hmm, maybe it's those 2km thick glaciers that are melting faster and putting a lot of very cold water into the ocean.

      Note how I emphasised that sea ice is 2m thick, and these glaciers are 2km thick.

      More sea ice is evidence of warming, in this case. Bad luck (to everyone).

      Also there are multiple glaciers in this system in Antarctica, and the study studied just one glacier's contribution to sea level rise. All the other glaciers will also be contributing (they're retreating too). And once one of these glaciers hits the inland ice basin, all bets are off.

  10. Dodgy Geezer Silver badge

    New record set for Antarctic Ice today.

    Antarctic sea ice has expanded to record levels for April, increasing by more than 110,000sq km a day last month to nine million square kilometres.

    The National Snow and Ice Data Centre said the rapid expansion had continued into May and the seasonal cover was now bigger than the record “by a significant margin’’.

    “This exceeds the past record for the satellite era by about 320,000sq km, which was set in April 2008,’’ the centre said.

    I wonder how that squares with the news that Antarctica is melting...?

    1. Burb

      Re: New record set for Antarctic Ice today.

      "I wonder how that squares with the news that Antarctica is melting...?"

      The clue was near the beginning of the quote that you reproduced. Antarctic *sea* ice.

    2. Wilco 1
      Coat

      Re: New record set for Antarctic Ice today.

      Simples. The huge quantities of glacial meltwater, having no salt, reduce the salinity of the sea. That means the melting point increases, leading to more sea ice forming. So the more land ice melts, the more sea ice is formed locally.

      In other news, Antarctica land mass is at its minimum since recording began, and sea level rise is at 3.6mm per year (that's 3.6m in 100 years, assuming the rate doesn't increase any further). Eg. http://climate.nasa.gov/key_indicators/

      1. flipper

        Re: New record set for Antarctic Ice today.

        "In other news, Antarctica land mass is at its minimum since recording began, and sea level rise is at 3.6mm per year (that's 3.6m in 100 years, assuming the rate doesn't increase any further). Eg. http://climate.nasa.gov/key_indicators/"

        Are you sure about that?

        I'm pretty sure that 3.6mm * 100 = 360mm = 36cm not 3.6m

        1. ElReg!comments!Pierre

          Re: New record set for Antarctic Ice today.

          "I'm pretty sure that 3.6mm * 100 = 360mm = 36cm not 3.6m"

          perhaps he was talking imperial years, not metric ones?

        2. John Sanders
          Trollface

          Re: New record set for Antarctic Ice today.

          @flipper,

          And you had to come and ruin the fun with your metric system.

  11. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Show me....

    I'll believe these kinds of "predictions" when I see mainstream news outlets showing the sealevel increase with a ruler and bemoaning the loss of land. A permanent 1/4" rise or more, every single year for 200 years will be required.

    Anything else is called "Summer". IMHO we have been LONG been coming out of a "cold spell" we're not suffering at the hands of AGW and you should know the last time we into a cold spell (ice age) the whole state of Florida was under water and there was an ocean in the middle of the USA. There was once was a time when we had a land bridge to Russia due to low water levels and "too much ice". Things and climate CHANGES!

    Humans don't exist as individuals for hundreds of thousand of years like geological/solar cycles do. We have hardly even been societal that long. Won't be long before we blow ourselves back to the stone age. This is one reason why we will never be able to change the environment substantially either positively or negatively, we lose continuity.

    1. John Deeb

      Re: Show me....

      Slow changes spanning geological time-spans are not of the same order of impact as the same change within centuries. In the same way an overall rise of sea levels will not manifest everywhere evenly as something to be measured with a ruler. Even so, it's hard to imagine what a flood coming from such an enormous surface with slightly raised water-level would look like when you stand there with the ruler. It's a lot more water coming your way.

      I do agree though we'll just have to deal with this like with all the other major disasters, many probably larger and even more serious, and most of them little to do with CO2. Let starts not to build cities on flood planes or earthquake faults. Oops.

      1. Fluffy Bunny
        Thumb Up

        Re: Show me....

        Or next to volcanos

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Show me....

      "A permanent 1/4" rise"

      Inches - how quaint. What's that in a unit that's been taught in the last 40 years?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Show me....

        "Inches - how quaint. What's that in a unit that's been taught in the last 40 years?"

        0.25 inches..dickhead

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Show me....

          Only if you went to school in a third world country or similar backwards education system.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Show me....

            Well, the UK counts as third world I suppose, and it was a joke, and you're still a dick-head

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Show me....

        Still taught here in the USA snarky tool. Too many morons bought into a French measurement and obfuscated the actual cost of changing to metric that is still less accurate because it has less divisions. Take your superior knowledge elswhere like up yours....only real men can use English units.....

        1. ElReg!comments!Pierre
          Boffin

          Re: Show me....

          "less accurate because it has less divisions"

          Interesting. Care to elaborate how the foot has more divisions than the metre? And how that makes it more accurate? Is it because the femtofoot is smaller than the femtometre? That would make the foot 3x more accurate than the metre, give or take. Am I correct? Perdon my ignorance, I've been to school in a country where the economy was fatally crippled some hundred years ago by the massive cost of switching to a coherent unit system.

  12. Jim O'Reilly
    Pint

    Wait, Wait! AGW is COLLING the Antarctic!

    So this morning El Reg has an article on how boffins in Australia think AGW is cooling Antarctica. I guess Aussies see the world upside down, or else the Californians have been on a different planet for a while. You can't have it both ways!

    1. Don Jefe

      Re: Wait, Wait! AGW is COLLING the Antarctic!

      What is 'colling'? I checked my English to Dumbass dictionary and my English to Drunken Chucklefuck dictionary; neither has 'colling'.

      1. Irony Deficient

        What is ‘colling’?

        Don Jefe, since my mother tongue is the Teetotalitarian dialect of Chucklefuck, I might be able to answer this one — colling is what a collier does. Thus, AGW is unstoppably mining the rich vein of Western Antarctic glaciers in an attempt to slake the oceans’ thirst for fresh water.

    2. Geoff Campbell Silver badge
      Boffin

      Re: Wait, Wait! AGW is COLLING the Antarctic!

      Actually, you very much can have it both ways. The cooling effect is in the atmosphere. The warming effect reported here is in sea temperatures, which is causing thinning of the sea ice, reducing the barriers that are holding back the flow of the glaciers off of the land and into the sea. Two separate (but connected) systems.

      This also, by the way, could easily explain how melting and reduced ice *volume* can go hand in hand with increasing ice *extent*.

      GJC

  13. Anonymous Coward
    Meh

    I have to say that 200-300 years doesnt overly concern me

    And not because we won't be alive then. I have to believe that in 50-100 years, we will have a reliable energy source that will allow mass gas separation to remove CO2 from the atmosphere.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: I have to say that 200-300 years doesnt overly concern me

      And if you remove CO2 from the atmosphere what are you going to do with all the dead plants? Besides water vapour is a bigger greenhouse gas than CO2 and if you take that out of the atmosphere as well we will be in big trouble.

      1. mevets

        Re: I have to say that 200-300 years doesnt overly concern me

        Water vapour is vastly different from the carbon dioxide problem. The distribution of water amongst its states is related to the temperature of the planet + atmosphere. If the planet is cooler, there will be less gas, much more liquid, a bit more solid.

        The original poster, although suffering from head way too far up his backside, is essentially correct. If you can get your hands on loads of cheap clean energy, you can convert CO2 into something that doesn’t trap heat so efficiently, and roll back the gains in thermal efficiency we have given the planet. You can’t really repair the damage, what is lost is lost.

        How far the water rises is really besides the point in terms of the looming disaster. The large blocks of ice on the planet serve to moderate the climate. As these moderators disappear, we will experience extremes and shorter transitions between the extremes. Some say we are already experiencing that, but given how much ice is still around, I think that might be calling the game a bit early.

        Secondarily, if there is less ice, then there is more water and more water vapour. However the distribution function works, more water vapour means more precipitation. More precipitation means that streams, rivers, lakes, etc.. will also expand, so Chicago may have more to worry about than Miami.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: I have to say that 200-300 years doesnt overly concern me

      There is plenty of coal left - that is quite a 'reliable energy source'

  14. Fan of Mr. Obvious

    Maybe they should stop poking bear?

    Would it not be completely ironic if they found all the core samples are contributing to the decline? As a kid I drilled my fair share of holes in lake ice. If it was cold enough the hole would seal up, although it would remain softer under the surface for a while. If the air was warming, then sure enough that hole would just keep getting bigger.

    Yes, far-fetched, even laughable. Still good to ask what if.

    1. Youngdog

      Re: Maybe they should stop poking bear?

      I really do want to know what goes through the mind of down-voters sometimes. Was it a catastrophic sense of humour failure, a bad day in the office or a genuine full-blown po-faced superiority complex rearing it's head?

      Downvoter, whoever, wherever you are - if you were half as high-minded as you think you would have taken time to answer FoMO's question!

      1. JeeBee

        Re: Maybe they should stop poking bear?

        I expect it's because your joke was indistinguishable from the "drunken chucklefuckery" that many people write about their non-scientific opinion of global warming! You should have put a smiley in, or something!

  15. Chris G

    Incomprehensible

    The more times I read an article about climate change and then the comments that follow the more I wonder how people are able to comment without having made any attempt at comprehending the article, or bothering to understand just how big and complex planetary climate is.

    Maybe the confusion is that they all think it is weather and the same as forecasting rain for te weekend.

    Still, I do get to laugh occasionally. especially Don Jefe's remark about Texas, I have a few friends there and would love to see their faces after reading that.

    1. Sir Runcible Spoon
      Joke

      Re: Incomprehensible

      "and would love to see their faces after reading that."

      I'm sure they would be dumb-founded

  16. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    First they denied the change, now they admit it

    Now they admit the climate change but deny that it is man made. It is all just "natural" But they had to wait until it was declared unstoppable to admit it. How nice.

    Congratulations, you made it. We're now past the point of no return, so now it is no longer useful to debate what is causing it and instead we should focus now on how to deal with this big, horrible mess.

    Of course, now we can forget about those silly carbon emission rules, can't we? Surely the fix for our problems is to keep burning even more fossils.

    1. Fluffy Bunny
      FAIL

      Re: First they denied the change, now they admit it

      You just love your tipping points don't you. No sooner to we plug one than another pops up, just a stupid as the first. If it isn't gigantic reserves of methan on the ocean floor that have lasted millions of years about to pop to the surface because you forgot to turn that light off, it's a glacier that has already committed to plunging into the ocean like at the bottom of a helter skelter.

      Please, all you warmist fear-mongers, please stop making stuff up!!!

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: First they denied the change, now they admit it

        This is not about tipping points. It is about a trend. Deny the trend whatever you want. There are people that will deny it even when the flood reaches their doors.

    2. Toltec

      Re: First they denied the change, now they admit it

      "Now they admit the climate change but deny that it is man made. It is all just "natural" But they had to wait until it was declared unstoppable to admit it. How nice."

      Who are they?

      Few intelligent people denied that the climate changes, AGW on the other hand...

      Few intelligent people think you can stop the climate changing, the CC lot on the other hand...

      You can deal with an issue, this does not include creative carbon accounting, and try to ensure you make the best of the situation or you can wail about it being everyones fault that your feet are getting wet.

  17. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    What about the Arctic?

    I also read some time ago that couple of winters back (was it last year?) that Arctic sea ice was the largest in more than a decade?

    So checks and balances. More vapour (due to warming of oceans mean more Snow/Rain in northern latitudes which get compacted over time on the ice sheets and polar regions. Do you remember the severe past 3 winters? Recycling in action, eh.

    Just as scientists observe that the magentic polarity of the molten core seems to have reversed.

    SO nothing to worry from this madcap global warming doomsters.

    Go out and enjoy the med climate if it comes to our shores. Sea rising levels is scaremongering, due to compensation elsewhere, which these doomsayers dont mention.

    1. Wilco 1
      Alert

      Re: What about the Arctic?

      Arctic summer ice extent was smallest ever in 2012. See http://climate.nasa.gov/key_indicators/

      So what exactly is compensating sea level rise or increase in CO2 levels already observed? If there was any compensation, then there could have been no rise at all, right? So there is no compensation.

      Or are you claiming there will be a tipping point where some unknown negative feedback will kick in? Go ahead, tells us all about it - it will make you rich beyond your dreams if you were right. 7 Billion of us are depending on your ideas. We're waiting...

  18. JaitcH
    Meh

    One politician to another: Decades and Centuries? Doesn't concern me!

    The report should have omitted the line: "This sector will be a major contributor to sea level rise in the decades and centuries to come," Rignot said. "A conservative estimate is that it could take several centuries for all of the ice to flow into the sea."

    Politicians, with their 4, 5 or 6 years political horizons, will seize on this as not worthy of consideration as is outside their foreseeable budget concerns.

  19. lunatik96

    The big one

    I invested in cheap desert property in Nevada, just waiting for the big one in CA to make me wealthy beyond my wildest dreams. Muhwahaha!

  20. Goat Jam

    A

    A week ago the antarctic was shown to have record levels of ice.

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/antarctic-sea-ice-at-record-levels/story-e6frg8y6-1226913708208#

    So sick of this bullshit from the Church of Global Warming.

    1. MacroRodent

      Re: A

      That news was about sea ice, that comes and goes every year. The glacier is land ice that is gone for good when it has "collapsed".

      Phil Plait's "Bad Astronomy" blog has a good writeup here: http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/05/12/global_warming_antarctic_glacier_collapse_may_now_be_inevitable.html

    2. Wilco 1
      Facepalm

      The force of denial is strong with this one

      Increasing Antarctic sea ice is actually more proof of global warming...

    3. foo_bar_baz

      @Goat Jam

      Any headline to bolster pre-existing opinions, without any thought applied, right?

      "floating sea ice, not to be confused with land ice. Land ice at both poles and in glaciers around the world is sliding into the ocean at an accelerating rate. "

      Source

      1. Philip Lewis

        Re: @Goat Jam

        "... land ice at both poles"

        The North Pole is on land, who knew ?

  21. Faux Science Slayer

    "Reality of Long Range Weather & Climate"

    Visit the ThunderboltsProject site for the Piers Corbyn video on the CERTAIN NEW ICE AGE !

  22. andreas koch
    Holmes

    WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!1!!11!

    Yup.

  23. JCitizen
    Boffin

    I used to work in science research...

    my lead scientist was clear in that the number one thing to do as a scientist is to pander for more research dollars - otherwise you are out of a job! Not a good thing for a fellow who risked his money for 8 years of pure hell studying at the university. So we are all in this theory stuff from someone who desperately must jump willy-nilly on the climate change band wagon and FAST, or risk losing valuable government larder! I'm sorry, but we are listening to the wrong source for this. Talk to a geologist, and he will sardonically tell you the earth has seen all this before, including the CO2 levels long before modern man existed.

    The climate change "birthers" push on data collected in the last few years of an earth system which has arguably lasted 4.1 billion years. And we only look at the last few centuries, and are willing to risk all of civilization on that thin evidence?! I'm sorry, but I must guard my pocket book on this, if I can charge my EV with wind and solar cheaper than petrol, then I will darn well do that, but only if it is cheaper! We all got to survive after all!

    1. Tom 7

      Re: I used to work in science research...

      Wind and PV could easily be cheaper than petrol. It just need some investment at the R&D level and not at the 'well no point in doing anything other than collecting FIT" level.

      I got some PV (in the UK) and its looking as if it is going to pay for itself in about 8 years so its better than having the money in an ISA - and this is before an FIT payments are taken into account so a large proportion of my electricity is already cheaper than petrol. And PV panels are seriously more expensive in the UK than, say India, where they don't need a 'certificate' to get FIT.

      Wind power is similarly overpriced due to FIT - a next door farm to me has a couple of 30m jobbies and he's creaming it in at the moment and once again if you take out the FIT payments he's looking at about a 12 year payback time - nearer 5 with FIT. Now these are hand made bit of equipment - even the inverters are largely hand wire when a few hundred thousand investment would make them largly solid state. So lets go to the bank and ask for some investment money to make some mass produced stuff that will be really cheap: 'Hello Mr Bank Manager can you let me have £50Million so I can make some mass produced wind turbines that will knock several billion of your other power shares?"

    2. Don Jefe

      Re: I used to work in science research...

      Did he tell you how much the average research grant across all disciplines was in the US? Go take a look... Find it? No? It's there, but it's probably the size that's throwing you off.

      In 2013 the average research grant was $28,700 with an average project timeline of 26 months. That whopping, we'll say $29k, has to fund every single part of a project, including salaries over more than two years. That's it. That's all the money for the project. That's why most non bioscience research is done in universities. If you had to buy your lab kit, or pay real wages nothing would ever get done.

      Let's dig on in here. Earth science, of which climate science is a part, falls somewhere between studying the composition of dog farts and the long term effects of Valium on clams; pretty low is what I'm saying. Want to know why? Probably not, but I'll tell you anyway. There's no commercial viability for any climate science research output. None.

      Think about it. What is there to patent or license? Fuck all. Nothing. Politicians, advocacy groups and misguided journalists just make up whatever they want. The research that gets done pays enough to keep the lead scientist in poverty until they retire, but that's not really bullshit corruption worth news is it?

      In commercial science there is a race for funding, but it's a really small group of people researching a very small category of 'stuff'. For example, I fund quite a few materials research projects, with a not insubstantial amount of money, but the goal is commercializing the findings. It's all a business operation. If projects aren't leading to promising results I shut them down and move on to something else.

      Because there's something I can package and sell on the other side. Something not subject to opinion or editorializing. Something like climate science for example, has less than zero commercial use. There's nothing to sell. The data is published, all people have to do is support or refute that data and that's a PR exercise, not science.

      Your understanding of the business of science is greatly lacking. There is less than a living in most kinds of science. Someone who hits a six figure salary in non commercial research is an oddity, worthy of study themselves. Climate science proposals aren't even accepted at funding showcases where scientists go to beg for money. Nobody messes with it because there's no money in it. That will never change either. There will be nothing worthwhile to sell from any climate research, ever.

      You are grossly misinformed.

      1. foo_bar_baz

        @Don Jefe

        "There will be nothing worthwhile to sell from any climate research, ever."

        You'll want to tell that to insurance companies, who are funding climate research.

        "Three global initiatives between 1995 and 2009 have spurred 129 insurance firms from 29 countries to engage in activities ranging from supporting climate research to quantifying and disclosing climate risks. "

    3. strum

      Re: I used to work in science research...

      >And we only look at the last few centuries, and are willing to risk all of civilization on that thin evidence?!

      Ahem! It's you who is risking civilisation, on no evidence at all. There's absolutely no need for any dramatic loss of civilisation, in reducing our carbon footprint.

  24. Alan Welk

    2030...

    ..."Smart Robot Dam Builders 2.0 3D" has been released after the first set of 3D printed BYOD SRDB's failed to build a wall no higher than 4 inches, a mistake in the tamper proof encrypted firmware is believed to have caused the problem.

    Note: BYOD not to be confused with the noughties phrase of "Bring your own Device", which as we know caused the world economic meltdown of 2017.

  25. sausagemaker

    I earned my engineering degree in 1961 (World Population 3,000 Million people). According to political statisticians the world population exceeded 7,000 million - that's 7 Billion by U.S. counting.

    One of my professor's swore that any engineer could do for a penny, what any group of politicians could do for a few hundred dollars. So here it goes, and wouldn't even cost a penny.

    First human's contribute to global warming. They suck in oxygen and exhaust Carbon Dioxide, Methane, and assorted nasty gases every day they live. An adult also generates as much heat as a hundred watt bulb. Not only have the politicians failed to reverse the population explosion, they have failed to maintain their targeted poverty level. Hundreds of millions of people now live and work in air conditioned buildings, wastefully drive large personal automobiles, and travel vast distances on fuel-guzzling jet aircraft for work and play. Despite wars, floods, pestilence, and venal politicians population continues to grow.

    May I suggest a simple baby step. Convince the United Nations, the seat of all good government, to prohibit the breeding and ownership of all pets. Eliminating this wasteful source of global warming, billions of dogs, cats, horses, birds, etc., will greatly reduce both CO2 and methane emissions. Moreover, as a fringe benefit it will greatly accelerate the demise of thousands of non-producing elderly.

  26. ex_ussr1

    Only one tiny problem with all this.

    Antarctic ice is widely recognised as being at record levels and increasing as the (quickly forgotten) example of Akademik Shokalskiy demonstrated.

    Being as the earth's temperature has been 2-3C warmer than currently, at least TWICE in the last 2000 years, and we still have plenty of polar bears and ice, we can say for sure, most of the hot air is coming from the scum who draft these scamming reports.

    1. JeeBee

      Again, sea ice is not glacial ice (it melts every year and doesn't contribute to sea level rise). More sea ice forming is evidence of a local cooling effect in the oceans it is forming it. That cooling effect is coming from glacial ice melting into the ocean nearby. These 2km thick glaciers and ice basins are not resting on the sea, so when they melt, they contribute to sea level rise.

      1. Fading

        Bit of a stretch

        This is only on the one side and a small part of Antarctica - you are erroneously extending this to the entire Antarctic. The record ice extent is around most of Antarctica not just near this glacier. Hence what you say does not apply.

  27. Dale Welch

    Load of Cobblers

    Take a glass, bowl or whatever you like and fill it with ice, then water to the top. Check to see when ice melts if it over flows the container.....

    1. Sir Runcible Spoon
      Mushroom

      Re: Load of Cobblers

      You Sir, are brain-dead.

      Try filling a bowl with water and put some ice on a ledge above the bowl that slopes towards the water, then see what the water level does.

    2. JeeBee

      Re: Load of Cobblers

      Yes, that's what happens when sea ice melts. It's already in the sea.

      Sadly, this article is about glacial ice, which is not already in the sea.

      So your example would be a full bowl of water, with ice cubes being added to it. Does it overflow? What happens when you add ice cubes at twice the rate?

  28. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Geothermal activity?

    I distinctly recall reading/seeing a heat map showing high geothermal activity in this area of the Antarctic. It was on the NASA site somewhere, satellite imaging and such. IIRC this was cited as a melt cause, rather than AGW.

    I may be mistaken.

  29. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Er...

    See http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/05/13/indian_boffins_himalayan_glaciers_are_not_melting_ipcc_alarmist_global_warming/

  30. Wayland Sothcott 1

    This has always happened

    There are many cities under the sea showing hundreds of feet of sea level rise in some cases. 4 feet is nothing.

    1. MacroRodent

      Re: This has always happened

      In those cases, the reason is that the land has sunk locally, not that the sea level has risen. This can happen for various reasons like earthquakes, or subsidence of land.

  31. fixit_f

    Metres or feet?

    The Guardian reckons 4 metres not feet. Who is right?

    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/may/12/western-antarctic-ice-sheet-collapse-has-already-begun-scientists-warn

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Metres or feet?

      When faced with a funding scarcity, why not over emphasize the supposed measurement? That way governments will be scared into spending more on useless studies that support their views!

  32. smartypants

    This is nothing. Kate Humble says the entire planet is "At Risk"

    I watched a small bit of the dreadful Kate-Humble World-Holiday vehicle called 'Orbit' the other night and discovered that the the earth is "at risk" due to its position in the solar system.

    Apparently, if we get too close to the Sun, we will all die!

    Surely this puts everything into perspective. Deal with the orbit problem now (whatever that means), then sort out this measly little sea level issue later. Priorities, people!

    Thanks go to Kate Humble, whose wisdom on such matters was an education to me.

  33. chivo243 Silver badge
    Coat

    Planning a houseboat

    Damn, already at sea level here in the west of The Netherlands. Anybody recommend software for building a houseboat? Google Earth tells me I am 1' above sea level here in my second floor office!

    Maybe a population explosion would help, as we are 75% water...

    Getting my coat as it rhymes with boat...

  34. Scott Terril

    Note to self

    Create new yearly "to do" task to move lawn furniture back 1/4 inch...

  35. itzman

    Josh has it covered..

    here

  36. Curly4

    Upon reading this I did a little internet research to find what the volume of Greenland and the polar icecaps and and the surface area of the oceans. I divided the volume of the three icecaps, Antarctica , Arctic and Greenland, by the surface area of the oceans. The answer turned out to be less than one meter. Now that was the total volume of the three icecaps not just sections of only one. See below.

    Scientists at NASA and the University of California, Irvine have concluded that the glaciers of West Antarctica are now in terminal decline and the resultant ice loss could raise global sea levels by up to four feet over the next few centuries. "The collapse of this sector of West Antarctica appears to be unstoppable," said UC …

    Now I know why they call it climate change. They cannot make up their mind what the result is going to be.

  37. timmythegeek
    WTF?

    A real Question but it sounds like a Joke

    So can any of the real AGW crowd tell me why all the Big AGW'rs are the ones with the biggest carbon footprint. They jet around the world leaving tons of carbon in the atmosphere to explain to the downtrodden masses that we are all going to be dying from the ocean rising or the temperature dropping or rising depends on the week.

    I believe in the climate change it has happened many times during this planet's life and it will happen again. To think we could change anything that can cause an ice age is a god complex. Does anyone know how much carbon and sulfur a volcano puts out? I am quite sure it is more than all off the people on earth emit in the same time period.

    We all think there is a solution in science, yet if we all bury are cars and live like we did 10000 years ago, the climate will still change, and we will all be worse off. We ignore the fact that we are so small to this planet, we have only been on it for a 10000 years in our current form but supposedly we wrecked the planet in 100 years. We are all part of this grand experiment but how we experience it with fear or amazement is up to the individual

    Think about it

    1. NomNomNom

      Re: A real Question but it sounds like a Joke

      "Does anyone know how much carbon and sulfur a volcano puts out? I am quite sure it is more than all off the people on earth emit in the same time period."

      No, its far less. That's why it's not a good idea to rely on assuming nature is too big for man to affect.

      1. timmythegeek
        Mushroom

        Re: A real Question but it sounds like a Joke

        As much as I would love to say your right prove me wrong.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcano#Effects_of_volcanoes

        This link also has what happens if too many do erupt or a super becomes active.

        But once again let us believe in data that no one has shared and the screaming continues......

        1. DR-BEBAN
          FAIL

          Re: A real Question but it sounds like a Joke

          1) Volcanos don't erupt very often, Mt St Helens doesnt exactly erupt once a year does it? And as far as a super-volcano is concerned, it would give off a load of ash and trigger a 5 year volcanic winter (asuming the eruption was a VEI8 - supereruption)

          2) CFCs, chemicals made only by man that do not occur naturally - these have caused holes in the ozone layer, infact, CFCs react with UV light in what is known as photo-induced scission. This basically means, they form a highly reactive molecule that reacts with ozone in a chain reaction and stays in the atmosphere for a very long time. We know that CFCs are responsible, because the depletion of ozone and increase in use of CFCs coincide . Proof - we have a big effect on the world :)

  38. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Beware of the Sea Peoples

    as Rameses would say

  39. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I Get Knocked Down, But I Get Up Again!

    According to the New York Times starting way back in 1855: The Climate is Warming; 1870 -- Cooling; 1888 -- Warming; 1889 -- Cooling; 1890 -- Cooling; 1908 -- Warming; 1934 -- Cooling; 1947 -- Warming; 1950 -- Warming; 1953 -- Warming; 1956 -- Warming; 1958 -- Cooling; 1959 -- Cooling; 1961 -- Cooling; 1967 -- Cooling; 1968 -- Warming; 1969 -- Warming; 1970 -- Cooling; 1972 -- Cooling; 1972 -- Both!; 1974 -- Both!; 1975 -- Both!; 1975 -- Cooling; 1976 -- Cooling; 1978 -- Neither!; 1979 -- Cooling; 1980 -- Cooling; 1990 -- Warming.

    There does not appear to be a genuine consensus here. Only the contiuance of what was, previously, a healthy scientific debate. Now, after Herr Al Gore and his money schemes got involved, the debate has taken on an entirely different tone. It is no longer about science, but about the use of resources and money. Oh, and the United Nations powerlusters want an excuse to take over from the US. They think that they will get what they are after by playing this "climate card."

    1. NomNomNom

      Re: I Get Knocked Down, But I Get Up Again!

      "There does not appear to be a genuine consensus here."

      In the New York times? Try look at the *science*. There certainly is a consensus there. The world is warming and it's caused by us.

  40. Bunbury

    Start Digging

    Rather than spending lots on sea defences in case of sea level rises, why not deepen the oceans?

    More sea than land so take an average metre off the sea floor and sea level drops several metres. Plonk the waste in a desert having searched it for useful minerals first. Or plonk it on the coast as a temporary barrier.

  41. Zmodem

    if all the ice in the world melts the grand canyon fills back up global rise

  42. realtking9

    "In the Antarctic, sea ice continued to reach record high extents." from National Snow and Ice Data Center. The Global warming Nazis follow the advice from Joseph Goebbels. The sun produces more effect on our climate in one day than man can do accumulating from day one. Read the facts yourself instead of listening to lie often and loud enough.

  43. JCitizen
    Big Brother

    This has all happened in Earth history before...

    The only thing we have to fear is how FAST it changes. which, I will admit is something for fear! If the tropical fish in the sea die because the temperature isn't just right, or there are giant ocean animal deaths because the salinity of the water is not right for their survival - then yes! We have a problem. Instead of fretting and wasting money about that, we should realize that a giant part of the frozen tundra will be freed up for growing food year round and feed the world even better! I'm just not afraid of global change - I think more of us should have faith. Especially since most of the believable scientists say it is too late already!

This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like