Slashdot Mirror
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."
The intellectual coward has it the wrong way around. The "It's natural" red-herring is stage two of the standard psudeo-skeptical denial that comes when they can no longer deny the globe is warming to a particular audience. The next stages include, "it's good for us", "economic armageden" and "god wouldn't allow it to happen".
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
>...and provides further evidence or rapid change in the region. Not everyone agrees. For another spin on this event take a look at http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Wilkins_Ice_Shelf_con.pdf which suggests that the evidence for rapid climate change in this area is missing and suggests that, at best, hyperbole is involved.
Then you come to the realization that global warming is going to happen no matter how bad it is, because there is no way the world will come together and do what's necessary to reduce the carbon dioxide output enough to make a difference. Even if you think your country would, others wouldn't.
So, sit back and enjoy the show! It gonna be exciting! Or maybe it won't. But either way, we're going to find out.
Qxe4
that there have been a number of Richter 5 earthquakes in the area in recent years that contributed a lot to the breakup of the ice.
Sure. Let's just let everybody think it's yet another indication of anthropogenic global warming.
Just look up the USGS reports. Of course, so many people just don't want to bother doing that...
>>>The "It's natural" red-herring is stage two of the standard psudeo-skeptical denial that comes when they can no longer deny the globe is warming to a particular audience.
>>>
But global warming is nothing new. It HAS happened before - once between 3000 and 2000 B.C. and again between 300 and 1400 A.D. and believe me, it did not happen because Ancient Egyptians or Romans were running-around in cars - it was a natural event. If scientists can not explain why those previous warming events happened, how on earth can we trust them? You cannot predict the future if you cannot even predict the past.
>>>The next stages include, "it's good for us"
That's because it is. When earth was in its Tropical Age (i.e. no ice on the poles), there was more abundant plant and animal life than any other period. Instead of having frozen wasteland in Northern Canada or Siberia, we could grow enough food for everybody. An Ice Age (ice on poles) is an aberration that only happens during 10% of the earth's cycle, and not the norm. The norm for this planet is a tropical climate.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Already done
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
What I want to know is the worst-case scenario. Say ALL of the world's ice melts. How high does the sea level rise? Has anyone done the definitive study? Links?
"I don't think any physicist seriously doubts the warming properties of CO2."
A rare species indeed, but they do exist.
"What happens when the natural positive feedback of CO2 adds to what we've already dumped into the atmosphere?"
I assume due to the rate of the current warming the feedback rate will also be more rapid and that quite a bit of the feedback CO2 will initially be released as methane.
Just out of curiosity, would you say that the IPCC reports are conservative in their pronouncements due to the inherent difficulty of getting that many experts to agree on the claims they publish in their reports?
BTW: IANAClimatologist and you are the first I have seen here since I started debating AGW on slashdot almost a decade ago. I hope you can find the time to post more often in these stories.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
If all the ice in the world were to melt, and the odds of this happening are virtually 0, then we're looking at a 200+ft rise in ocean levels. However, the higher probability estimates are for a 24 inch rise by 2100. Not a great source in itself but the references are not bad: http://science.howstuffworks.com/question473.htm
Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws-Plato
I am just going to nit-pick on your post a bit there is one spot I would like to point out.
"American Geophysical Union are that most (9/10) of the scientists I met agree with the IPCC [www.ipcc.ch] report on abrupt climate change."
Scientist are human like the rest of the world and tend to have many of the same fault. There is a herding mentality in science, that is prevalent. Disproving or crating an alternative to a common well accepted theory is often very dangerous (reputation wise) for a scientist. As the peer review process of your work may be stepping on some strongly held ideas of your peers, so they will not be favorable to it. So for your proof I would stay away from the age old 9 out to 10 scientist agree mantra, as it is not a formal way of proving anything. It is just playing on the insecurities of other people who figure well they must be smarter then me so I should agree with them.
This mentality in business has created the economic mess that we are in. Well all these bank brokers and economists say mortgage backed securities are a great deal, I should jump in too. Or even further back in time of the Karian Financial crises of the late 90's where a small few (but well known) investment firms sold a good portion of their stock in Karia (probably just to increase diversification of their investments) causing all the little guys to start selling in a panic thus nearly killing Karia's economy.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Do you seriously think that earthquakes wouldnt cause of cracks in ice?
As far as weathering effects in the Antarctic, precipation averages about 16.5cm annual, making it the largest desert in the world.
The surface area of Antarctica is 14,200,000/km^2, so even though it is a desert, the amount of ice which would accumulate if there were no loss is staggering. This particular loss isn't very significant, but makes for a great story due to its surface area being equatable to something (ex: The state of RI) which is considered "large."
What is important is the volume of ice lost by this event, not the area of ice lost. All of these news agencies have latched onto the area of ice lost, not its volume, and that is in part due to the scientists themselves wrapping this up as dramatic.
"His name was James Damore."
Ice has a lower density than water, wouldn't that mean that it has less gravity then the water around it?
DEMETRIUS: Villain, what hast thou done?
AARON: Villain, I have done thy mother.
Shakespeare invents 'your mom'
Not everyone lives in an area where bicycling to work is feasible. For instance, I used to try to ride to work about 15 miles one way each day. That wasn't really a big deal until I had a kid and decided to stop risking my life going to work and back each day.
Our roads here are barely big enough for 2 cars to pass each other and don't have paved shoulders. Yet, I still see people riding on these roads. I think it's cool that they're not driving, but I know how dangerous it is and you won't catch me doing it.
I'd happily pay you Tuesday for a biopsy today!
Since so many people here think that they're Nobel Prize worthy, I'm sure it won't be hard for those who want to brush me off for not linking to a source to find exactly what I'm talking about.
No. I brush you off because I've got links to Nobel Prize winners and the results of studies of other world-renowned scientists available. You, on the other hand, are doing some handwaving about the little ice age, which is only tangentially related to the current issue of Global Warming. You seem to take yourself far more seriously than you even accuse the rest of Slashdot to be.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
That or a brand new business of building cargo carrying submarines.
The Internet is generally stupid
Good for them!
I do the same thing here in Boston. Plenty of people here resent the truly unpatriotic - SUVs with magnetic Support the Troops ribbons, during wartime, in an economic and energy crisis.
If you don't have the decency to be ashamed, there are people that will risk their lives to force you to pay an asshole tax, either in brake pads, or insurance premiums, or 100 other ways you don't yet perceive.
"All these years believing you're the signified monkey, only to find out you're just a big hunk of nobody cares."