Slashdot Mirror


Giant Ice Shelf Snaps

Popo writes "Sattelite images have revealed that an ancient 66 square-kilometer ice shelf, the size of 11,000 football fields, has snapped off from an island in Canada's arctic. The Ayles Ice Shelf was one of 6 major shelves remaining in Canada's arctic and is estimated to be over 3000 years old. The collapse was so powerful that earthquake monitors 250 km away picked up tremors. Scientists say it is the largest event of its kind in 30 years and point their fingers at climate change as a major contributing factor."

9 of 529 comments (clear)

  1. Well... by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Scientists say it is the largest event of its kind in 30 years and point their fingers at climate change as a major contributing factor."

    So what was the cause 30 years ago?

    It's a fair question, yes? Like when I hear "such and such place recorded the highest temperature in 150 years this week!" I think "What caused the previous high 150 years agp?" My brain has a pesky habit of continually asking questions. All those X-Files episodes, I guess. Trust no one. Ideologues hate me.

    1. Re:Well... by FhnuZoag · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As for the 150 years thing, it's because they had no thermometers 150 years ago, so their records only go back 150 years.

      And in this case, the 30 years figure is because observations of this kind done with satellites has only been possible for 30 years, and any prior event would be impossible to measure.

    2. Re:Well... by rucs_hack · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm no environmental scientist, but surely there would need to be many such events measured before we could really start saying what caused it.

      Is this a natural cycle? How long has this particular event been brewing? Have there been any other factors involved that can be discovered? These questions need to be answered before causes can be decided.

      I am concerned about global warming, but I am also concerned about political motivations determining hypothesis, or special interest groups leaping on events and trumpeting them as being caused by their particular bugbear.

      Such things do not good science make, and we need good science to get to grips with the causes of these events, lest we wander too far from the truth of it.

    3. Re:Well... by Decaff · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So what was the cause 30 years ago?

      It's a fair question, yes? Like when I hear "such and such place recorded the highest temperature in 150 years this week!" I think "What caused the previous high 150 years agp?" My brain has a pesky habit of continually asking questions.


      The problem is, you need to ask the right questions - you are asking the wrong ones. What matters is not what caused an area of ice to break off 30 years ago. The correct question is: "How much faster is the ice breaking off now than then?" Just because it has taken 30 years for an area to exceed the previous record, does not mean that no ice has been breaking off since.... in fact, warming might might mean that smaller pieces break off more often, explaining the long time to break the record!

  2. Re:Because we all know by Ambitwistor · · Score: 4, Insightful

    that in 20-30 years ice this thick must have melted (as a result of global warming)... Puhlease.... It takes more than 20 years for ice this thick to melt to a shelving point... As another poster pointed out, global warming has been going on for longer than 20-30 years, it's closer to 100. And as another article on this event noted, the Canadian ice shelves have decreased in size by 90% over the last century.
  3. Re:I can't wait..... by TubeSteak · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's common for the Extreme Right, and their fellow travelers in the Media, to invent disasters from selected data so they can save us all by the application of Fascism, at the expense of our personal liberties, of course.

    Extremists are extremists.. plain and simple.
    The only difference is which liberties they want you to surrender & why.

    To be fair, sometimes they ask you to do it for the common good
    and not because of some boogeyman.

    --
    [Fuck Beta]
    o0t!
  4. Re:I can't wait..... by A+beautiful+mind · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Prior to "Global Warming" and its bogus Hockey Stick "study" it was Glaciation and/or Nuclear Winter
    Why do you declare it to be bogus? You see, in the 20th century science has grown up. The study of science became scientific too, theories have been developed as to how to do good science, Thomas Kuhn, Karl Popper, Lakatos, etc. told us what is science and how it works. It is a powerful mechanism, not comparable to the middle ages where dissenting opinion was supressed, and science only existed as an underground entity next to religion.

    I would have to mention that realclimate "debunked" the global cooling myth. It was never considered as a mainstream scientific belief, it only existed because of the popular press. The press gets most things wrong, can't distinguish between global dimming and global cooling. As for Nuclear Winter - thats the least of our worries if that many nukes were to be detonated in order to either cause an effect or not cause like that. It is a doomsday scenario, quite unlike global warming.

    It's common for the Extreme Left, and their fellow travelers in the Media, to invent disasters from selected data so they can save us all by the application of Socialism, at the expense of our personal liberties, of course.
    I have for a long time realised that categorizations like left or right don't make sense in the case of 80% of the population, especially across countries. Some of my ideas for an optimal society have socialist touches, but I also believe that personal liberties are not contradictory with them, quite the opposite. Even though the classification is quite flawed, I have to add that most of the civilized world is "extreme left" compared to the USA. Facts have a liberal bias and all that.

    Anyway, back to the topic. Global warming is not the popular opinion. Or if it is, it is irrelevant. It is the peer reviewed mainstream scientific consensus. Science is powerful, and self checking. Many scientists have tried to falsify the conclusion that global warming is happening, but didn't manage to, thus we accept it as our standing theory in relation to the projected temperature change of the planet. That's how science works, by testable theories.
    --
    It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
    Be yourself no matter what they say
  5. Where was that? by Holistic+Missile · · Score: 4, Insightful
    ..about 800 kilometres south of the North Pole.

    At the north pole, isn't every direction south?
    --
    When you're dead, you don't know you're dead. It only affects the people around you. Same thing when you're stupid.
  6. Re:Critical thinking = idiocy? by andm461c · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think you are being unfair.

    If someone tells you: "We haven't got a better football player for 20 years!", you think: "Mkay, so there *was* a better one before that!", no?
    If there were no one better, the time mentioned would be longer.
    It's only logical.

    If you do not know when thermometers were invented, and do not know when satellites were invented... For what reason would you think in another way?
    It's an incorrect way to write a statement in the first place - because it is misleading.
    A more correct way to express this would be: "We have the highest temperature yet measured." or "It is the biggest chunk of ice broken loose we have observed with our satellites."

    Yes, I am aware that the satellite part says "largest event in 30 years", the above is just an example.
    I think that can be forgiven though - don't you?