back to article Antarctic ice THICKER than first feared – penguin-bot boffins

After using a submersible robot to probe the frozen waters of Antarctica, climate and ecosystem scientists conclude its sea ice "may be thicker than previously thought." Youtube video of the Linux-powered sub in action "Our surveys indicate that the floes are much thicker and more deformed than reported by most drilling and …

Page:

  1. getHandle
    Happy

    "...lines running left to right..."

    Is that your left or mine??

    1. TheVogon

      Re: "...lines running left to right..."

      ""Our surveys indicate that the floes are much thicker and more deformed than reported by most drilling and ship-based measurements of Antarctic sea ice," "

      So presumably the massive levels of Antarctic ice loss measured by the Cryogen satellite are even higher than we thought! That probably explains how it lost so much ice it even effected the planet's gravity: http://news.discovery.com/earth/global-warming/earths-gravity-dips-from-antarctic-ice-loss-141001.htm

  2. baseh

    Great word/Intel history play

    hopefully without floating point issues

    1. Darren Forster

      Re: Great word/Intel history play

      Yeah I thought so too - you don't normally hear about that now except occasional jokes about how many intel technicians does it take to change a light bulb.... funny one was when I asked one of my friends that joke he didn't get it at all - he just said well it only takes one person to change a light bulb - unfortunately like me he has Asperger's, but he does the literal interpretations thing way further than what I take it - I guess I must have learned over time how to take non-literal jokes!

      Btw also maybe they should have just used a Motorola 68060 instead - the 050 was scrapped by Motorola 'cos they too found the FPU bug, but scrapped it before it got to market - plus the Motorola 680x0 series was far superior to the Intel's 'cos it could do hardware multitasking unlike the Intel's which rely on software multitasking (which is why the mouse sometimes freezes on PC's but you never see the mouse freeze on an Amiga!)

      1. cortland

        Re: Great word/Intel history play

        I've never seen a mouse freeze on a REFRIGERATOR. Or a frieze!

  3. Monty Lovering

    Ah...

    ... the relentless cherry picking of El Reg regarding climate change. It makes me smile.

    1. codejunky Silver badge

      Re: Ah...

      @ Monty Lovering

      I guess the facts dont match your preferred theory. Presenting a fact is just that, what you take from it is your own perspective and as you demonstrate 'beliefs'. What I took away from this was how awesome it is that Ubuntu was used as the OS of choice for an underwater probe and how I would love to be part of such a project.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Ah...

        Engineering has been my lifelong passion. Having an article like this appear brightens it. Now, back to reengineering my pet supercomputer. Serious fun!

      2. Fatman
        Joke

        Re: Ah...

        What I took away from this was how awesome it is that Ubuntu was used as the OS of choice for an underwater probe ...

        Well, they really couldn't have used Windows...now could they???

        You know with those Patch Tuesdays and all of that rebooting.

        It would have been a damn shame if the sub, while running Windows (for submarines) experienced a BSoD and went to the bottom, only to be never heard from again.

        </snark>

    2. Raumkraut
      Thumb Up

      Re: Ah...

      I was fully prepared for another tiresome climate-scientist-bashing article from Ol' Reg, but what I got instead was a proper report of an interesting scientific survey.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Ah...

        I was fully prepared for another tiresome climate-scientist-bashing article from Ol' Reg, but what I got instead was a proper report of an interesting scientific survey.

        There's a very good reason for that: Lewis didn't write the article.

        1. Thought About IT

          Re: Ah...

          He probably wrote the heading, though. Note the emphasis of the word "THICKER".

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Ah...

            @ Thought About IT

            You can admit it. You like him really dont you.

          2. Leslie Graham

            Re: Ah...

            Indeed - the implied message is obvious.

            But basicaly all this means is that we now have a more accurate measuring device which can access difficullt areas and the data updaptes the previous estimates. Good news.

            The bad news is that Antartica is now losing ice at 6 times the rate it was just 15 years ago.

            Between 1992 and 2001, ice was melting from the two main ice sheets at a rate of about 64 Gt a year.

            From 2002 to 2011, the ice sheets were melting at a rate of about 362 Gt a year – an almost six-fold increase.

            The Antarctic ocean is gaining 32Gt of temporary winter sea surface ice a year - 1% per decade.

            Holland et al, J Climate (2014)

            The maths isn't difficult.

            Land ice losing 362GT per year.

            Sea ice gaining 32Gt per year as a result of all that fresh water floating on top of the more saline water.

        2. Scoular

          Re: Ah...

          The article did point out that they have only surveyed one tiny portion of the relevant sea ice.

          The results are about as interesting as surveying a village in Kent and drawing conclusions about Scotsmen. They may or may not behave similarly.

          Useful research but a lot of data gathering to go before the conclusions become meaningful.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      @Monty

      The thousands of places where you can find stories with a pro-warming slant aren't enough for you?

  4. Ilmarinen
    Happy

    Good, measury stuff

    We likes it, not like the making it up moddely stuff.

    1. CCCP

      Re: Good, measury stuff

      Seriously?

      We measure thickness with more accuracy and you shout hurrah because it is more than previously estimated. WTF?

      Has it occured to you all this measuring goodness is carried out by people who mostly believe in AGW...

      Please, show me the anti-AGW studies carried out in Antarctica.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Good, measury stuff

        What does AGW stand for (obviously GW is Global Warming) - seriously (no irony intended here) but depending on your use of the 'A' in AGW, completely skews the context of your post in a way that would make even a statistician proud. So 'A' could mean 'Anomolous', 'Artificial', or even 'Anti'

        1. Ilmarinen
          Boffin

          Re: Good, measury stuff

          What does AGW stand for?

          Anthropogenic - i.e. caused by humans.

          In order to justify the Zillions (that's a 1 with a squillion 0s after it) of dollars being spent and committed to "de-carbonize" the world, a rational person would need to show that 1) The world was warming, 2) The warming was in fact Anthropogenic, 3) The warming was likely to be Catastrophic (as in "CAGW" - or at least a big enough problem to justify the proposed remedy) and 4) That it was possible to do anything meaningful to prevent the warming. Even then, they would have to show that adapting to any change was a worse plan than trying Canute-like to prevent it.

          This is quite a tricky challenge, especially as there hasn't been much/any warming for about 2 decades, despite the continuing increase in CO2 (which is supposed to be the cause). Nevertheless, there are some people who still "Believe" in AGW.

          These tend to be anyone who's job depends on maintaining the scare or who makes a nice profit taking the green subsidies, as well as the genuine but gullible folks who just want to "save the world". Most politicians and regulators of course love it as an opportunity to raise taxes, impose ever more laws and regulations and to subsidise their friends.

    2. David Pollard

      Re: Good, measury stuff

      Presumably all previous measurements have been similarly underestimated. So although the absolute values of historical data may need to be corrected, the changes recorded using other techniques will be more or less correct.

  5. EnricoS

    More ice means more to flood us all if/when it all melts (as a result of man-made/natural climate change, which may/may not be happening).

    1. Geoff Campbell Silver badge

      Sea ice

      This is sea ice, not land. So if it melts, there is no net change in sea level.

      This does, however, seem to add weight to the idea that the extra sea ice is a result of ice flowing off of the land masses, and given that the land ice is several kilometres thick, the thickness of the sea ice is largely irrelevant in terms of net ice gain/loss.

      GJC

    2. Elmer Phud

      "More ice means more to flood us"

      But it's thinner at the top end so stuff balances out.

      Not that I care -- It'd take one hell of a lot of meltwater to get up here to the edge of the last ice age.

  6. knarf

    Thicker ice is a sign of increased temps

    Get Ready for some tin pot science

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Thicker ice is a sign of increased temps

      Less ice/more ice.

      Both are indicators of global warming doom.

      1. codejunky Silver badge

        Re: Thicker ice is a sign of increased temps

        "Both are indicators of global warming doom."

        As is sun, rain, snow, wind, tornado and pretty much everything. Although applied the other way the weather is not the climate and so not valid. If nothing happens or we face some doom we can guarantee one group will call it man made climate change. Another group will call it the hand of god. Both equally valid which isnt much.

      2. Joe Zeff
        Stop

        Re: Thicker ice is a sign of increased temps

        By now, any change like this is regarded as proof of AGW, or whatever they're calling it today. (Note that for all practical purposes, the theory never changes, just the name.) There's no possible way to falsify the theory because all data are interpreted as proof. As Popper would put it, the theory is no longer anything but a meaningless noise.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Thicker ice is a sign of increased temps

      'Get Ready for some tin pot science'

      I prefer 'pot still' science. Let me explain....

      Clearly, if sea level rises we need to find a way to use up some of the extra water.

      The answer? Whisky. According to Willam Grant, it takes 3.6 litres of water to create 70 cl of it's scotch. Make enough of it, and we can make a genuine difference to the global sea level.

      It's so simple, it's obviously taken a genius like myself to see it. Anyone suggesting that the 3.6 litres doesn't actually disappear, and who might use stupid things like 'facts' and 'science' to disprove my theory, just needs to show more faith.

      1. Elmer Phud

        Re: Thicker ice is a sign of increased temps

        Your theory is crap --- 2.9 litres disappear. (3.6 - 0.7)

        Get it right!

        1. Geoff Campbell Silver badge
          Boffin

          Re: Your theory is crap

          Scotch is at least 40% alcohol, the good stuff closer to 60%. So a bottle only contains around 0.3 litres of water.

          Now, like any good scientist, I'm off to re-test my findings. The 18 year old Jura, I think...

          GJC

          1. Ian Michael Gumby
            Coat

            @Geoff Re: Your theory is crap

            Prophecy? ;-)

            Actually I'd prefer my 30 Bowmore, but that's already half gone.

            To some they'll claim it evaporated and its a sign of impending doom.

            For me, it means that I at least have some will power to save the good stuff for special occasions.

            Mine is the jacket with the extra cork stoppers. Need to deal with dry rot and replace the corks so that it doesn't evaporate. ;-)

          2. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

            Re: Your theory is crap

            "So a bottle only contains around 0.3 litres of water."

            Bear in mind that sea water is salty and not conducive to manufacture of a good whisky. So first we need to distill the water to remove the salt which lots of left over salt laying around. Since much of the world is till in financial trouble, it might be time to return to using salt as a currency.

            Oh, look. Making whisky to reduce sea levels creates a "salary" too. Free whisky!! Profit!!

          3. ToddR

            Re: Your theory is crap

            Good stuff closer 60%?

            FFS that's dangerous levels of OH, not for drinking me old mucker, not for long anyway

            1. Geoff Campbell Silver badge

              Re: Your theory is crap

              Well, obviously one adds a splash of water before drinking. I like my throat the way it is, you see.

              GJC

          4. Stevie

            Re: Your numbers are crap

            "Scotch is at least 40% alcohol, the good stuff closer to 60%. So a bottle only contains around 0.3 litres of water.

            Now, like any good scientist, I'm off to re-test my findings. The 18 year old Jura, I think...

            "

            Like any good scientist you should remember to tell people whether your alcohol percentages are by weight or by volume.

            2/10 See me after class.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Thicker ice is a sign of increased temps

          It's this kind of detailed, peer reviewed analysis of my (frankly bloody excellent) theory that I was hoping to avoid. Here's me, coming up with a plan to save the world, and you are trying to shoot holes in it with so called 'maths', that a 7 year old could have done. Clearly you lack the vision required to save polar bears, penguins, and indeed civilisation as we know it. Luckily, I've got that one covered. You can thank me when you enjoying a future without flooding, and more importantly, one with exceptionally cheap and plentiful scotch.

          1. ToddR

            Re: Thicker ice is a sign of increased temps

            Hadvar, I like you, but no polar bears in the antarctic

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Windows

            Re: Thicker ice is a sign of increased temps

            "You can thank me when you enjoying a future without flooding, and more importantly, one with exceptionally cheap and plentiful scotch."

            If scotch is cheap and plentiful then who will care about a little flooding?

      2. Turtle

        Re: Thicker ice is a sign of increased temps

        "'Get Ready for some tin pot science' I prefer 'pot still' science. Let me explain...."

        *I* think it's "pot head" science and I don't think that there's any need to explain.

  7. John Smith 19 Gold badge
    Thumb Up

    As always observation >> climate model simulation.

    Thumbs up for a more detailed database to chew on.

    One question unanswered. Does it uplink the results or is it recovered and data dumped periodically?

  8. Mevi
    Trollface

    Pentium Anniversary Edition, 4.8Ghz overclock on liquid cooling. Great temps say research team.

  9. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    The article doesn't say whether the thickness of the ice is increasing or decreasing over time. It just says they have measured the ice and found it to be thicker than they had estimated. It is merely a snapshot of the current state, with no previous states to compare to.

  10. Elmer Phud

    S'obvious, innit?

    Antartica is at the bottom of the planet so it's only natural that the ice falls down there from the Arctic.

    Scientists eh? bloody hopeless!

    1. zen1

      Re: S'obvious, innit?

      While I appreciate the spirited debate of global warming/climate change, I think we're all overlooking one serious thing: Some moron down-voted Mr. Phud. I'll be the first to admit that humor and any sense of is quite subjective, but to down-vote something that was so clearly meant to be amusing to at least 17 people is just wrong!

      Mr. Phud, I salute you in your valiant attempt, and I support you 1000%. However, ice floats. Antarctic ice should be hot footing it up to the Arctic (pun totally intended).

      On that note, I will be drinking a pint and a shot in your honor and in the honor of the 16 other souls who upticked your post.

      God bless

  11. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I blame the climate scientists for global warming

    There's a direct correlation bethween the amount of hot air put out by an increasing number of climate scientists and climate change.

    Shoot (or at least gag) all the climate scientists and everything will go back to normal.

  12. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    You do realise that the Americans were actually measuring in feet and inches but the software says meters - so it's 'up to 17 feet' not meters. It's a classic Americanism and yes, we're all doomed.

    I for one welcome our iceberg overlords.

    1. FrankAlphaXII
      FAIL

      Considering that Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute are proper scientists and thus use SI measurements like virtually every other organization involved in scientific research or using scientific methodology worldwide (like Electrical Engineering, RF engineering/SIGINT, etc). I strongly doubt that they made that kind of mistake. Unless of course you believe in the AGW Religion, which left science behind in favor of pseudoscience and a pseudoreligious eschatological belief system which is a major disservice to actual science.

      Plus if you go and read their paper, or even the abstract from that paper, its pretty obvious that they don't use the Imperial system.

  13. Stevie

    Bah!

    I don't understand why there's a need for these Linux-loaded robosubs to judge ice thickness.

    Did we lose the notes Captain Rock Hudson took?

    1. FrankAlphaXII

      Re: Bah!

      Yeah, the Commander's notes got shredded around the time Rickover got fired. Plus, they were about the arctic anyway if you may recall.

      Joking aside though, there's less uncertainty and less error when they're directly observing it as opposed to scanning it with a Synthetic Aperture Radar system like a few scientific instruments on polar orbiting meteorological and climate satellites and some Intelligence birds up there do (or can).

Page:

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon