Slashdot Mirror


Cracks Signal Massive Iceberg Forming In Antarctica

Several readers have submitted news (as covered by an AFP article carried by the Sydney Morning Herald) that a massive iceberg is forming in the Antarctic. The rift in the PIne Island Glacier "is widening at a rate of two metres a day, said NASA project scientist Michael Studinger. When the ice breaks apart, it will produce an iceberg more than 880 square kilometres, said Mr Studinger, who is part of the US space agency's IceBridge project. But the process is not a result of global warming, he said." Also at the BBC.

31 of 147 comments (clear)

  1. See? by mustPushCart · · Score: 3, Funny

    Global warming isn't shrinking the icebergs, its creating new ones!

    1. Re:See? by Layzej · · Score: 5, Informative

      A paper published in Nature back in December describes the cause: http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v4/n8/full/ngeo1188.html

      Here we combine our earlier data with measurements taken in 2009 to show that the temperature and volume of deep water in Pine Island Bay have increased. Ocean transport and tracer calculations near the ice shelf reveal a rise in meltwater production by about 50% since 1994. The faster melting seems to result mainly from stronger sub-ice-shelf circulation, as thinning ice has increased the gap above an underlying submarine bank on which the glacier was formerly grounded. We conclude that the basal melting has exceeded the increase in ice inflow, leading to the formation and enlargement of an inner cavity under the ice shelf within which sea water nearly 4C above freezing can now more readily access the grounding zone.

    2. Re:See? by LordLucless · · Score: 2

      That just for once they'll manage to see the difference between global warming activists and the anti-cellphone, anti-vaccine alarmists

      Given that there's people in this very thread ignoring that disclaimer, and claiming that it must be global warming, I'm not sure there's a difference to be seen.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    3. Re:See? by Pharmboy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You are assuming that everyone that is a global warming activist is a perfectly rational thinking person, and that none of them are profiteering by ginning up concern that is out of proportion, as well as suggesting solutions that are profitable but aren't feasible.

      Most GW activists are well meaning, but there is enough crooked or just stupid stuff going on with "green" that it dilutes the message. (The govt & Solyndra, was either stupidity or corruption, neither is good.) It doesn't help that anyone who IS rationale, qualified and questions some of the conclusions is instantly labeled as a whacko.

      Everyone knows the earth is warming, but there is legitimate arguments regarding how much is man made and how much is part of a larger cycle. Again, any time a rationale person says "Yes, man is causing some of this, but there may be other forces we don't understand" they are automatically labeled crazy, a Republican or similar.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    4. Re:See? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      At my workplace, we have a "green" initiative. In our breaks rooms we swapped out the plastic coffee stirs with wooded ones because they are biodegradable. We swapped out paper cups with plastic ones to save trees.
      I'm so confused...
       

    5. Re:See? by Arlet · · Score: 2

      "Yes, man is causing some of this, but there may be other forces we don't understand"

      There's nothing wrong with that, but of course, it's very vague. You'll need some probabilities. According to scientific consensus, the chance that man is predominantly responsible is >95%.

      If you have reason to believe this chance is much lower, you'll need to come up with some solid numbers. If you can't provide them, don't blame people for labeling you irrational.

    6. Re:See? by finarfinjge · · Score: 2

      Global warming isn't shrinking the icebergs, its creating new ones!

      Umm... I know that was a joke but of course global warming would create new icebergs (not that it's responsible for this one apparently). Ice breaking away from existing stable formations, forming icebergs, is exactly what you'd expect if the ice is melting.

      Actually, glaciers advancing and pushing ice into the ocean which then breaks off is exactly how this works. If the glaciers were melting, they wouldn't be pushing into the ocean to break off and form icebergs. THAT is why smart people are careful to point out that this isn't caused by global warming. To claim that glaciers getting bigger is caused by global warming is insane. Don't go there. You will make a fool of yourself. Oops. To late.

    7. Re:See? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Sorry, if you look a bit you'll find former members of the IPCC that admit their conclusions were not published as found by science but highly exaggerated to create a political and economic result.

      in other words, the IPCC cannot be considered an unbiased scientific organization. Their reports and results are driven by the political needs of their parent organization, the UN.

    8. Re:See? by jbengt · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If the glaciers were melting, they wouldn't be pushing into the ocean to break off and form icebergs.

      Actually, there is evidence that warming can cause meltwaters to get under glaciers and lubricate them, causing faster flow downhill. And for glaciers that end in ice shelves in the ocean, warming can cause the ice shelf to break up into icebergs faster. And when the ice shelf is reduced, it presents less resistance to the glacier flowing into the ocean, further increasing the extent of ocean ice. So, until the ice melts so much that the glaciers no longer flow into the ocean, warming will most likely cause more icebergs.

    9. Re:See? by tehcyder · · Score: 2

      At my workplace, we have a "green" initiative. In our breaks rooms we swapped out the plastic coffee stirs with wooded ones because they are biodegradable. We swapped out paper cups with plastic ones to save trees. I'm so confused...

      To be green you should use proper coffee mugs and teaspoons. Anything that is used once then thrown away, compared to something that can be reused thousands of times, is wasting resources.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    10. Re:See? by Anguirel · · Score: 2

      Water passes through the system -- used, but not "thrown away" in the same sense as something destined for a land fill or incinerator. Depending on the soap used, it can also just end up as a nice fertilizer downstream.

      --
      ~Anguirel (lit. Living Star-Iron)
      QA: The art of telling someone that their baby is ugly without getting punched.
  2. Not a result of Global Warming. by mosb1000 · · Score: 2

    But the process is not a result of global warming, he said.

    Does it bother anyone else that they had to say this? It's like doing a report on spring runoff and pointing out that it's not a result global warming. Are people really that ignorant of how natural processes work?

    1. Re:Not a result of Global Warming. by DamonHD · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It seems reasonable and responsible to avoid this being dragged into the AGW/CC debate one way or another if the scientists concerned are pretty sure that CC plays no significant part in this event, because lots of glacier/calving activity *has* been tied to CC, pro or anti.

      So, it wouldn't be ignorance that would lead people to wonder. And thus forestalling inappropriate linkage is good.

      Rgds

      Damon

      --
      http://m.earth.org.uk/
    2. Re:Not a result of Global Warming. by Arlet · · Score: 2

      Are people really that ignorant of how natural processes work?

      Yes. I hope this doesn't come as a big surprise.

    3. Re:Not a result of Global Warming. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      "...Intuitively, a block of ice breaking away from a bigger block of ice kinda makes me think there's melting, thus warming, involved..."

      Why do you think that? This is the end of a GLACIER. Usually, glaciers move (slowly) downhill, until they reach warmer regions, where they melt. In this case the glacier moved downhill until it met the sea, upon which it floated out. After a fair bit has floated out, it will break off, due to flexing in the waves and tides. That is what has just happened, with a rather big bit...

      Actually, if it is cold and snowy up in the mountains, the glaciers will move faster. And more bits will fall off the end of the glacier, more rapidly. This is often shot by journalists at the foot of the glacier, and used as 'confirmation of Global Warming'.....

    4. Re:Not a result of Global Warming. by houghi · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I am amazed by the amazement of how ignorant people are about how ignorant other people are.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    5. Re:Not a result of Global Warming. by Joce640k · · Score: 2

      I'm no expert. Intuitively, a block of ice breaking away from a bigger block of ice kinda makes me think there's melting, thus warming, involved.

      TFA says that they're making the announcement to try and avoid all the sensationalist news stories that will appear when the mainstream media gets hold of it.

      Wonder if it will work...

      --
      No sig today...
  3. Re:How is it not effected by global warming? by Arlet · · Score: 2

    A popular theory says that the thinner ozone layer has increased the polar vortex winds. The vortex acts as a barrier to block warmer air from the rest of the planet.

  4. Re:Where will it go? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    From wikipedia:
    About 98% of Antarctica is covered by ice that averages at least 1.6 kilometres (1.0 mi) in thickness.

    From summary:
    it will produce an iceberg more than 880 square kilometres.

    From wikipedia:
    Surface area
    510,072,000 km2[12][13][note 5]
    148,940,000 km2 land (29.2 %)
    361,132,000 km2 water (70.8 %)

    From google:
    ((880 (km^2)) * (1,6 km)) / (361 132 000 (km^2)) = 3,89885139 millimeters

    Answer: About 4mm.

  5. Re:Where will it go? by Arlet · · Score: 3, Informative

    The end of the glacier is much thinner than the average antarctic ice sheet, and it's already floating in the water, still attached to the glacier. If it breaks off, it's not going to raise water levels any more.

  6. Re:Climate Change, not Global Warming by Joce640k · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Both of those are real things, one of them leads to the other.

    --
    No sig today...
  7. Re:Climate Change, not Global Warming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    When the GW and now CC crowd couldn't get enough money by begging, taxing, and creating tariffs to e.g. stop cutting the forests near the equator, they resorted to taking it in the form of carbon credits. It's all about stealing from future generations and making them serfs. The GW and CC crowd are just pawns and they don't even know it. Maybe they know it and they think they will be rewarded, sadly no.

    Along the same lines have you been watching Greece lately? The plan is for the ESM(European Stability Mechanism) treaty to force countries to take out loans which they don't want and can't repay. Did you know the people that run the ESM are immune from prosecution, immune from taxes, immune under any court of law? Did you know the 2 people who are in line to be Prime Minister of Greece are already part of the ESM elites, banksters. With other upcoming elections around Europe, it will be interesting to see who gets put in power. Watch as more than half will be banksters and the ESM will be guaranteed.

    You can clean up the world without taxes. Why do that when you can own it? Why do that when you can make everyone a serf?

  8. Re:Climate Change, not Global Warming by Arlet · · Score: 3, Informative

    Global warming, and local climate change. Past winters were actually warmer than usual, even though people remember them as cold. That's because they only look in their back yard, and not at the world as a whole.

    Past winter, it was warm in South America, North Africa, the Middle East, and it was exceptionally warm in the Arctic. All averaged out over the whole world, including oceans, it was +0.43 degree Celsius warmer than the 1951-1980 baseline.

    The winter of 2009-2010 was even warmer, at +0.68 deg C, even though the US and Europe were below average.

  9. Actually not as much as you'd think by NotSoHeavyD3 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    On this image of antartic elevation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:AntarcticBedrock.jpg you can see alot of what we think of the continent of Antartica would actually be open ocean if the ice wasn't there. (As it's below sea level.)

    --
    Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
  10. it's the polar bears! by lkcl · · Score: 2, Funny

    yeah, it's the penguins and the polar bears, they've been lighting fires.

  11. Video on the crack by Stirling+Newberry · · Score: 4, Informative

    As one of the readers who mentioned this in a submission: http://video.stv.tv/bc/ITN_041111_worldICEBERG04/?redirect=no is a good short video story version on this, including some graphics on ice flows and pictures of the crack. Quite well done. Not this isn't a GW/CC event, but it is a chance to see the formation of a crack in progress, which we do not always catch. All icebergs start with this cracking process, and icebergs form in warm and cold periods of history. Understanding the ice dynamics of how flows of build up turn into stress is the ice equivalent of studying plate tectonics: the science of large solid plates bending, cracking, and then failing.

  12. Re:Clash of the titans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The same thing that happens when similar sized bergs hit land, as they do all the time in the polar regions.

    They ground in water which is about 100-200ft depth, and leave big gouges in the bottom.

  13. Re:Where will it go? by Canazza · · Score: 3, Funny

    you'll also end up with a warm Gin and Tonic, but who said you didn't have to suffer for science?

    --
    It pays to be obvious, especially if you have a reputation for being subtle.
  14. Re:Climate Change, not Global Warming by Arlet · · Score: 2

    The period 1920-1950 was about 0.1 deg C less than 1950-1980, so all the numbers would go up by that amount. Why ?

  15. Re:Clash of the titans by Stirling+Newberry · · Score: 3, Interesting

    You should look up the epic of iceberg B-15, for a time "the largest floating thing on the planet." It was one of the Icebergs that calved from the break up of the Ross Ice Shelf, and 11,000 km^2 – that's the size of Jamaica, Bylot, or Bloshevik Island, and larger than the "big island" of Hawai'i. It broke apart several times, bashed into the Drygalski Ice Tongue, gouging out an 8km^2 piece, and floated on, breaking into smaller pieces, though some of its remains are still wandering around the Antarctic Ocean.
    http://www.esa.int/esaCP/ESAAQTTHN6D_index_0.html [ESA]
    The ESA has a great deal of imagery on it.

  16. Re:Where will it go? by Arlet · · Score: 2

    There are some small differences though. The ice is mostly fresh water, and the surrounding seas contain salt. The melting will cause a small, net rise in sea level. This is a very small effect, though.

    Also, the local gravity field from the ice pulls the surrounding sea water closer to the pole. If the pole loses mass, the water will spread out more.