"Only 50 of approximately 100,000 glaciers in Alaska are tidewater glaciers, and they’re some of the biggest."
The takeaways are not that all glaciers are melting faster but that this kind of glacier is melting faster and that similar underwater measurement now needs to be done on other types of glaciers (notably valley glaciers).
Most Alaskan glaciers don't end in the ocean, which is one significant factor. For Greenland where many do the ocean water is quite a bit colder - "water in LeConte Bay is warm relative to the ice, and even other fjords around the world."
Of course, further studies may end up being done without unemployed University of Alaska researchers[0][1].
> The success of the new method “opens the door for researchers to do this all over the world,” says Sutherland. Specifically, insight from the research at LeConte Glacier in Alaska could be used to study glaciers in Greenland and Antarctica. “Submarine melting may matter everywhere,” says Enderlin.
People should try reading the actual science instead of some journalist's cherry-picked take on the science. It's also interesting that Disney ("evil media corporation") now controls NatGeo.
As Bill Gates recently noted, climate alarmists are more of a problem than the "deniers." Here's a story from the BBC this week titled, Climate change: 12 years to save the planet? Make that 18 months:
This is getting ridiculous. The submitter, in this case, appears to have issues with civility, and is obsessively submitting climate related articles for an account that's less than 60 days.
The BBC story reminded me of Al Gore's 2006 prediction that stated unless nations took “drastic measures” then the Earth "would reach a point of no return within 10 years."[1]
It's weird how the deadline for point of no return is being pushed ahead every few years.
One problem with the current data ecosystem is that often misinformation is free, while hard science (and other reliable sources) are hidden behind paywalls. For example, I can read the abstract, which doesn't seem to conflict with the OP, but if I want to see the full text, I'm SOL.
I even have the Unpaywall extension installed (http://unpaywall.org), precisely to avoid this situation, but unfortunately the extension wasn't able to find a free version of this article.
This is one reason Open Access publishing is so crucially important to the public discourse. "Alternate facts" will win if people can read them for free but must pay to read peer-reviewed science.
Whether or not you think National Geographic has mischaracterized the science in this instance, I hope we can all agree that access to the original source would help everyone get their facts straight.
It would be a lie if I said I was surprised, currently I hear news from everywhere that climate change is moving faster forward than expected. The time window we have left to rescue what is left is shrinking. This worries me a lot.
(I was once talking to a friend over beers, ranting about some politics I was unhappy about. And he asked me: So what are you doing about it? Of course, I wasn't doing anything besides complaining, and this made something click in my head. All of my self-important opinions were worth nothing if I couldn't be bothered to do anything about them. I think about this a lot and it has changed the way I see the world.)
I hope people use this news to motivate changing their behavior. Of course we want governments, corporations, and other institutions to act. History shows that the fastest most effective way is for each of us to start first.
Even if disaster is inevitable, there are degrees of disaster and even individual actions can reduce suffering later.
The biggest thing I see everyone getting wrong about the environment is that acting on one's environmental values is a burden or chore. I used to think so, but found doing so improved my life, despite my expectations before acting.
Flying less, cutting out animal food, avoiding packaged food, etc. . . Now that I do them, I wish I had changed earlier.
> Of course we want governments, corporations, and other institutions to act. History shows that the fastest most effective way is for each of us to start first.
Exactly what history shows this? Every major case of social change I can think of (civil rights, women's rights, labor rights, what environmental regulations we have) has happened through mass movements not independent individual choices.
The time is for collective action on this. @GretaThunberg has been quite articulate about the need for immediate systemic change not just personal choices. Also, great news today, thanks to action on the part of @sunrisemvmt CNN will host a climate-focused Democratic primary debate. Movements can change what is "possible".
Title seems a bit click-baity implying some new discovery showing massive underestimation re global warming. The study itself was how fast does glacial ice melt when it's under water, nothing particular related to climate change.
[+] [-] fencepost|6 years ago|reply
The takeaways are not that all glaciers are melting faster but that this kind of glacier is melting faster and that similar underwater measurement now needs to be done on other types of glaciers (notably valley glaciers).
Most Alaskan glaciers don't end in the ocean, which is one significant factor. For Greenland where many do the ocean water is quite a bit colder - "water in LeConte Bay is warm relative to the ice, and even other fjords around the world."
Of course, further studies may end up being done without unemployed University of Alaska researchers[0][1].
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20479471
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20383708
[+] [-] QuickToBan|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 18pfsmt|6 years ago|reply
https://science.sciencemag.org/cgi/doi/10.1126/science.aax35...
People should try reading the actual science instead of some journalist's cherry-picked take on the science. It's also interesting that Disney ("evil media corporation") now controls NatGeo.
As Bill Gates recently noted, climate alarmists are more of a problem than the "deniers." Here's a story from the BBC this week titled, Climate change: 12 years to save the planet? Make that 18 months:
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-48964736
This is getting ridiculous. The submitter, in this case, appears to have issues with civility, and is obsessively submitting climate related articles for an account that's less than 60 days.
[+] [-] sbmthakur|6 years ago|reply
It's weird how the deadline for point of no return is being pushed ahead every few years.
1. https://www.cnsnews.com/blog/annabel-scott/gore-dodges-fact-...
[+] [-] mikeash|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] skyfaller|6 years ago|reply
I even have the Unpaywall extension installed (http://unpaywall.org), precisely to avoid this situation, but unfortunately the extension wasn't able to find a free version of this article.
This is one reason Open Access publishing is so crucially important to the public discourse. "Alternate facts" will win if people can read them for free but must pay to read peer-reviewed science.
Whether or not you think National Geographic has mischaracterized the science in this instance, I hope we can all agree that access to the original source would help everyone get their facts straight.
[+] [-] QuickToBan|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] tehabe|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lph|6 years ago|reply
(I was once talking to a friend over beers, ranting about some politics I was unhappy about. And he asked me: So what are you doing about it? Of course, I wasn't doing anything besides complaining, and this made something click in my head. All of my self-important opinions were worth nothing if I couldn't be bothered to do anything about them. I think about this a lot and it has changed the way I see the world.)
[+] [-] spodek|6 years ago|reply
Even if disaster is inevitable, there are degrees of disaster and even individual actions can reduce suffering later.
The biggest thing I see everyone getting wrong about the environment is that acting on one's environmental values is a burden or chore. I used to think so, but found doing so improved my life, despite my expectations before acting.
Flying less, cutting out animal food, avoiding packaged food, etc. . . Now that I do them, I wish I had changed earlier.
[+] [-] abalone|6 years ago|reply
Exactly what history shows this? Every major case of social change I can think of (civil rights, women's rights, labor rights, what environmental regulations we have) has happened through mass movements not independent individual choices.
The time is for collective action on this. @GretaThunberg has been quite articulate about the need for immediate systemic change not just personal choices. Also, great news today, thanks to action on the part of @sunrisemvmt CNN will host a climate-focused Democratic primary debate. Movements can change what is "possible".
[+] [-] billions|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] daxfohl|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] buraequete|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] abalone|6 years ago|reply
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_adaptation_in_N...
[+] [-] cosmic_shame|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] booboolayla|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] effnorwood|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] FrumpyDonut|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] paulddraper|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] sappapp|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] patientplatypus|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jfnixon|6 years ago|reply
Wait, you mean you actually have to validate assumptions against actual measurement to make accurate conclusions? Who knew?
[+] [-] billions|6 years ago|reply