from the why-are-the-glaciers-moving-so-fast? dept.
AWI [Alfred Wegener Institute] researchers recently assessed subglacial lakes detected by satellite, and found very little water. But if that's the case, what is the source of the East Antarctic Ice Sheet's massive ice streams?
In the course of an extensive Antarctic expedition, researchers from the Alfred Wegener Institute Helmholtz Centre for Polar and Marine Research (AWI) investigated several lakes beneath Recovery Glacier that had been previously detected by satellite remote sensing. The experts found very few substantial bodies of water, which is a surprising result: up to that point, the scientific community had assumed that overflowing lakes below the East Antarctic Ice Sheet were the reason that ice masses began sliding and forming ice streams to begin with. This new study has just been released in the Journal of Geophysical Research.
Recovery Glacier, located in the Coats Land region of Antarctica, has always been a slumbering giant, transporting ice from the high plateau of the East Antarctic Ice Sheet down toward the Weddell Sea at a snail's pace of only 10 to 400 metres per year. Its drainage area stretches nearly 1000 kilometres inland from the Filchner Ice Shelf on the coast, and is nearly three times the size of Germany. These two aspects could make the glacier into a potential threat, in the event that climate change accelerates its tempo some time in the future. According to forecasts, if this comes to pass, Recovery may also be the stream through which East Antarctica loses the most ice. A global sea-level rise would be the direct result.
The ice sheet had been presumed to be hydroplaning on sub-glacial meltwater.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 09 2018, @04:27AM (4 children)
Who actually "believed" the previous thing and now "believes" the new thing? Fire them.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Friday November 09 2018, @04:30AM (1 child)
"Than Previously Thought" is the correct phrase.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 09 2018, @05:02AM
That's the usual phrase for a reason, but it means the same thing. Instead of thinking or believing, the ideal is to act mindlessly as if the most recent thing you heard is true. Here is where it started:
http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/231/694-706/289 [royalsocietypublishing.org]
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 09 2018, @08:49AM (1 child)
The theories were formed on fully-processed and analyzed satellite readings. That's not preliminary data at all.
And even if it were: using preliminary data to build theories to explain observed phenomena is perfectly compatible with how science should work. And the fact that these new data points lead to people challenging the prevailing theories is a sign that science is working correctly here. So I'm presuming you were advocating to fire the journalists, not the scientists?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 09 2018, @02:50PM
The problem I have is with people "believing" or "thinking" things based off preliminary data and analysis.
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Friday November 09 2018, @04:38PM (1 child)
So, in the event, this thing is more likely sitting on a substantial landmass with no substantial bodies of water below it. Would that make it a lot more stable than previously believed? So, less susceptible to "climate change" / "global warming."
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 3, Informative) by HiThere on Friday November 09 2018, @05:25PM
No, because the ice streams are an observed phenomena, and don't go away just because the prior explanation didn't work out. The observed phenomena remain observed, i.e., the ice is still streaming off. We just lost our explanation of why.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.