Slashdot Mirror
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."
Yeah, and once it melts its salt concentration will change!... or not.
ice that is floating is already displacing an amount of water equivalent to it's mass which has... the same volume as the volume of the ice once it's melted (remember that frozen water has a larger volume, lower density, than liquid water). Thus, melting ice that is already floating has zero effect on sea levels.
man, I feel like mold.
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?
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.
Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
The catch is that the ice shelves slow down the ice behind them which is pushing into the sea.
That ice is on land and WILL affect sea levels when it starts moving forward into the sea a LOT faster.
Even worse, glacier motion is lubricated by water - so if there's already a lot more meltwater under the glaciers --- whoooooshhhhh (in slow motion anyway)
Fresh water from ice and salt water in the oceans have different densities. The volume of salt water displaced by 1000 kg of frozen fresh water will be less than the volume that those same 1000 kg of ice occupy when melted, since the salt water is denser.
If your theory is different from practice, then your theory is wrong.
That's a pretty cool job.
ah, that's better.
Task Mangler
Because, to the general public, global warming is confusing. "They're saying we're making the world warmer, so how come I just saw on TV that we're having the coldest winter on record?"
Climate Change more accurately reflects that it's going out of whack in both directions.
Global Warming due to industry and emissions is a hoax...
The truth is the planet keeps getting warmer the closer we get to Hell.
The researchers found Antarctica's ice sheet decreased by 152 (plus or minus 80) cubic kilometers of...
An error margin greater than 50%? Presuming that this is based on a typical 3 standard deviations...
...the chebyshev limit says there is still a whopping 11% chance that the actual value is outside the range...
I don't see any statistics experts mentioned in that link, so I gotta assume that we cannot expect a normally distributed error, that in fact they have no idea what the distribution might be.
"His name was James Damore."
Fortunately, Antarctica is too big to fail - rest assured our representatives are hard at work on crafting a bailout.
"Are there some countries that are exempt from the global regulations? Is CO2 actually a "pollutant", and how do we define pollution? Has relatively recent human activity actually been proven to be the cause of something we can't even measure properly? What percentage of the atmosphere does CO2 actually occupy and what is it's molecular weight?"
No, Yes, A resourse out of place, Two incorrect assumptions in the question render it meaningless, Very small, Irrelevant.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
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.
My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
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.
My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
Dude, stop dragging those red-herrings around, they stink.
If by pointing to Mann's reconstruction methods you mean to imply Mann, et al's hockey stick was debunked you are simply wrong...
The statisticians at the National Academies do not agree with you, or should I say their written testimony to the senate doesn't agree with you. Anyway they are probably the best statistical experts you can find in one place and are certainly not alone in their approval of Mann's work. Furthermore the minor problems they did point out were adressed by Mann in a later publication in Science which you can look up yourself, this is how science works, no?
The reason I point to that testimony is because it's the half-truth that many psuedo-skeptical, armchair statistitians base their opinions on, whether you in particular realise that or not is irrelevant.
Quote TFL: "The basic conclusion of the 1999 paper by Dr. Mann and his colleagues was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes both additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators, such as melting on icecaps and the retreat of glaciers around the world, which in many cases appear to be unprecedented during at least the last 2,000 years
....[snip]...
We also question some of the statistical choices made in the original papers by Dr. Mann and his colleagues. However, our reservations with some aspects of the original papers by Mann et al. should not be construed as evidence that our committee does not believe that the climate is warming, and will continue to warm, as a result of human activities."
Why anyone would waste money and scientists time by having a senate enquiry on one particular graph is beyond me but whatever the reason it has served to further strengthen Mann's arguments.
As for the expert you keep demanding, that's not how science does things. Perhaps the NASA links are weak evidence by your standards because most people just rely on their reputation, but if you think they are wrong the onus is on you to provide evidence to the contrary. No matter how many papers I throw at you supporting NASA, you can continue to troll by demanding an individual expert claim an institutional publication which has nothing to do with the credibility of the evidence.
And since you obviously think you are good at stats why haven't you answered my question? - Under your stated assumptions, what's the probability that Antarctica and/or Greenland is NOT losing ice?
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Speaking of taking things out of context, note that psuedo-skeptics have reduced the entire enquiry down to "our committee does not believe that the climate is warming".
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
If by pointing to Mann's reconstruction methods you mean to imply Mann, et al's hockey stick was debunked you are simply wrong...
I said exactly what I meant to say, and you are now trying to argue against something I didnt say, which is fine as long as you don't attribute your straw man arguement it to me.
Now.. don't attribute your strawman arguement to me. OK?
Furthermore the minor problems they did point out were adressed by Mann in a later publication in Science which you can look up yourself, this is how science works, no?
I am arguing that the veracity of the current peer review process in this field is so lacking that you do not get to appeal to its authority, that these climate experts have been known for a fact (which you admit) to use faulty statistical methods which slip right by the peer review process that you appealed to.
You don't get to use the "published in Nature" arguement as valid for their statistical value, since as I pointed out, experts in statistics do not do any reviewing of these papers prior to them being published.
This is quite simple.
Accept it, reject it.. I dont really care.. but do not reply with strawman arguements that you attribute to me as if you have some sort of refutation for my actual argument, when you apparently and obviously do not.
"His name was James Damore."