Large Ice Shelf Expected To Break From Antarctica

MollyB sends this excerpt from CNN: "A large ice shelf is 'imminently' close to breaking away from part of the Antarctic Peninsula, scientists said Friday. Satellite images released by the European Space Agency on Friday show new cracks in the Wilkins Ice Shelf where it connects to Charcot Island, a piece of land considered part of the peninsula. The cracks are quickly expanding, the ESA said. ... The Wilkins Ice Shelf — a large mass of floating ice — would still be connected to Latady Island, which is also part of the peninsula, and Alexander Island, which is not, said professor David Vaughan, a glaciologist at the British Antarctic Survey. ... If the ice shelf breaks away from the peninsula, it will not cause a rise in sea level because it is already floating, scientists say. Some plants and animals may have to adapt to the collapse."

Comments

Re:What, No Climate Change Reference?

[wizardforce]

if we don't have a planet or environment, we're all dead.

indeed. That aside, climate change can be thought of as a diffuse property rights issue. Power plant produces CO2, CO2 warms planet and melts ice, sea levels rise, higher sea levels erode my property, who is responsible for the property damage?

"Some plants and animals may have to adapt"?

that is indeed true if the rate of diversification and adaptation are high enough or the rate of change is slow enough. However, there are several instances in biological history where this planet was made uninhabitable for 3/4 of all life or more including human beings had we existed then. There is a limit to how quickly an ecosystem can adapt to a change before permanent damage occurs. This certainly may not be a "fatal" event for humanity but in so far as destroying someone else's resource I don't see how any of that can possibly be justified ethically. You talk about the cost of doing something and you have a point- the current plans for dealing with climate change often involve costly measures but it certainly doesn't need to be the case. knocking out subsidies to inefficient, polluting industries would help the environment and save the government money. relying on a market based approach to solving the problem would be more efficient than a more planned economy could ever achieve. Don't be so quick to jump on the bandwagon that claims environmental protection can't coexist with sound economic policy- it's often the case that the waste caused in planned economies is even worse for the environment.

Re:What's in a Name

[YttriumOxide]

Why is it now called "Climate Change" and no longer "(Man Made) Global Warming"? [emphasis mine]

It hasn't been called "Global Warming" by anyone doing real research in a VERY long time. The mainstream continued to say "Global Warming" for a long time after researchers had stopped using the term, and unfortunately the mainstream didn't catch on until after it became as political as it has, making a lot of the people sceptical of it think that calling it "Climate Change" is a weasel attempt at making it more popular - this couldn't be further from the truth.

As the other replier pointed out, "Climate Change" is simply a more accurate and less confusing name. It DOES amount to the same thing in the long term and when you look at global scales, but to avoid people saying "it's colder where I am right now, so Global Warming is a myth", "Climate Change" is more sensible.

Re:This is news?

[YttriumOxide]

Natural processes are not really news.

Regardless of your opinions about the cause of it, I beg to differ that natural processes are not news. Hurricanes in south-eastern US, flooding in India, bushfires in Australia, large rocks hurtling through space that might hit us and wipe out all life on earth - all of these are things are "natural processes", but always make the news every time, and quite rightly so.

Re:Global Warming Is A Hoax

[YttriumOxide]

The problem is that the "religion" aspect extends to BOTH sides of the debate. Those who argue that climate change could cause a "Day After Tomorrow" sort of situation are at best, completely devoid of both knowledge and reasoning skills (and at worst, complete loonies). On the other side though, those who argue that "There is 'no way' humankind could ever have an effect on our environment" are equally lacking.

I am quite convinced that we are having a measurable effect on our environment, and that without fully understanding the processes involved, it is extremely critical that we examine what we're doing, what effect it is having and, at the same time, take measures to reduce our impact until it is better understood. For this reason, many people who argue that it's all some great conspiracy would be quite quick to label me in with the nutjobs, and this is an intellectually dishonest approach. The vast majority of people that I've talked to (and seen comments from here on slashdot) appear to have the same opinion as myself, however those who argue against us tend to trot out things such as your comment about earthquakes and lump the rest of us in with that crowd. I would kindly request that you stop doing so, as it doesn't serve anyone's interests and only aims to weaken the concept of scientific understanding further.