Antarctic Ice Bridge Finally Breaks Off

GreennMann writes "An ice bridge linking a shelf of ice the size of Jamaica to two islands in Antarctica has snapped. Scientists say the collapse could mean the Wilkins Ice Shelf is on the brink of breaking away, and provides further evidence of rapid change in the region. Sited on the western side of the Antarctic Peninsula, the Wilkins shelf has been retreating since the 1990s. Researchers regarded the ice bridge as an important barrier, holding the remnant shelf structure in place. Its removal will allow ice to move more freely between Charcot and Latady islands, into the open ocean."

Comments

Whew, no problem then

[ryanov]

Thank god we have the average mook on Slashdot or I might have thought this were cause for concern. I guess all of the scientists who have agreed that there are man-made effects on climate are completely incorrect, but this website is the last bastion of sanity?

Re:Whew, no problem then

[biscuitlover]

All those scientists that disagree? Sure, there's some disagreement, but we're talking about a very small percentage of scientists here.

The fact that a lot of people are happy to selectively discount a clear majority of scientific opinion worldwide because it doesn't fit in with their world view or political standpoint never ceases to amaze me.

Re:Whew, no problem then

[Mark Hood]

Someone once brought this home to me quite nicely - he said if 9 out of 10 doctors said your child had appendicitis, and only 1 said it was trapped gas, would you go home and 'wait and see'?
Even if you were nervous about the risks of an operation, the risks of ignoring it are much worse - if it turns out to be appendicitis.

Sure, it might be nothing, just like global warming might not be our fault, but would you take the chance?

Mark

Re:Whew, no problem then

[khayman80]

Yes, I've seen those bizarre claims as well. I don't think any physicist seriously doubts the warming properties of CO2. The spectrum of the sun, absorption lines of CO2 and their relevant thermodynamic relationships are simply too well established. They're freshman-level homework problems, not cutting edge research areas.

I brought that up because I'm concerned about the fact that current warming is highly atypical in that regard. What happens when the natural positive feedback of CO2 adds to what we've already dumped into the atmosphere?

Re:Whew, no problem then

[m4cph1sto]

I'm a scientist too, and I judge theories based on merit, not popular opinion.

As a rule, scientific theories are not accepted by the scientific community until they have done two things: (1) explained known observations in a more simple or fundamental way than alternative theories, and (2) made a prediction about something that is currently unknown and that other theories don't predict, which is then confirmed by observation.

Global Warming theory has met neither of those requirements. The main statement of Global Warming is something like this: "small changes in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere cause large changes in global temperature". Despite this theory, there is absolutely no evidence that a change in CO2 has ever caused the temperature to change, over the entire billions-years history of the planet. So GW theory doesn't explain past observations.

It doesn't explain current observations either: CO2 concentration has steadily increased over the past 100 years, while temperatures have gone up, then down, then up again, then down again (as they are currently). There is no dramatic warming trend as predicted by GW theory.

Finally, GW has not made any unique predictions that have later been confirmed as true. It predicted more and bigger hurricanes; that hasn't happened. It predicted significant temperature increases; that hasn't happened. In fact, the theory seems totally based on computer models that have failed to make a single correct prediction about the climate ever since I first started following the issue, in 1998.

To summarize, GW theory does not meet the standards of scientific acceptance, not by a long shot.

Re:Whew, no problem then

[hey!]

I'm not a scientist myself, but my wife is an Earth scientist. We've been following the climate change story now for twenty five years or more in Eos and other journals.

As an interested outsider, I think one of the reasons that scientists took so long to get off the dime when it came to sounding the alarm was that most of them were waiting for the other shoe to drop. There has not been another scientific story like climate change in generations. Not since evolution.

One of the things my wife often said over the years was, "the evidence is too good." And I'm sure she's not the only one. It goes against scientific training to get behind a theory until it's been given a serious beating, and nobody has been able to lay a glove on this one.

What people who don't have a real live Earth scientist available for observation need to understand is that even proponents of the theory would love to see the skeptical position put up a decent fight. Data this unambiguous doesn't seem scientific. It's spooky. They'd rather see the theory knocked down onto the mat, then get up to fight another round and win by decision.

People waited around for the skeptics to give this theory a solid hit, and in over twenty five years the skeptics have failed, over and over and over. First they argued that climate wasn't changing, and although they did manage to discredit some data sets, that position failed. Next they tried to explain the data in terms of non-anthropogenic causes; at best they've forced some changes in models and in the predicted ranges of change. So far as I know, no attempt to explain the changes in climate data over the last fifty years in terms of natural cycles or statistical artifacts has held up to scrutiny.

I understand that science is not a democracy; but it's not driven by individual data sets either. You have to look at how robust an hypothesis is, how it stands up under stress. Thus far, nobody has been able to seriously set the theory back. Who wouldn't want to do this, if they could? Discrediting anthropogenic climate change would be Nobel caliber work. It would be an immense service to humanity, comparable in importance if not greater than the discovery of the vaccine for polio, or penicillin was in medicine.

Re:As I've Said Before

[TapeCutter]

So by your reasoning we Aussies should not be arresting arsonists who are responsible for starting about 1/3 of all our bushfires. We should let them continue with their bussiness as usual because we know that the other 2/3 of bushfires are started by natural causes.

BTW: This particular environmentalist doesn't care if you drive an SUV, a sherman tank, or a skateboard.

Re:Not that it matters ...

[interkin3tic]

"See doc, there's a natural progression to blood pressure. High low high low. It's going up,BFD.

Now, I'm gunna eat this bag of potato chips and get a big mac and feel okay about it."

You have to love it how some people cling to the first rationalization that allows them to keep doing what they want, from the time they're kids right up to when they die.

That might be true, but

[varghan]

the country I live in, the Netherlands, has one fourth of the land below sealevel by as much as 48 feet already. I guess we can handle a few additional feet of water. More water spurs great engineering, and has done so since medieval times. That doesn't mean you can't leave your SUV at home and take your bicycle to work today, though.

The Article Makes a good point

[Lifyre]

It mentions that a lot of the dynamics of this situation are poorly understood. Whether or not you believe in global warming or what you think is causing it we don't know what the results are going to be.

There are so many possibilities with some scientific basis and the whole environment as a system is so complex that we can't predict details. We can paint broad strokes of the future but saying the sea level is going to raise 2.37 feet and believing that the sea will raise exactly 2.37 feet put blinders on you just like believing that a Divine Being created the universe in 6 days.

We have an idea of what MAY happen but there is so much complexity that we don't know what WILL happen. Right now it looks like shit is going to get warmer, ice is going to melt, sea levels will get higher and who knows the Gulf Stream may stop flowing causing Europe to get cold.

Some of you seriously need to stop beating the Global Warming Manifesto like it is a Bible.