Slashdot Mirror


City-Sized Ice Shelf Breaks Free Of Antarctica

LeadSongDog writes "Germany's TerraSAR-X satellite is showing that the Antarctic's Pine Island ice shelf has calved a 'berg of 720 square kilometres, 'the size of Hamburg.' Angelika Humbert says 'The Western Antarctic land ice is on land which is deeper than sea level. Its "bed" tends towards the land. The danger therefore exists that these large ice masses will become unstable and will start to slide.' The article extrapolates that 'If the entire West Antarctic ice shield were to flow into the Ocean, this would lead to a global rise in sea level of around 3.3 meters.' Goodbye Florida.

249 comments

  1. FINALLY! by Sparticus789 · · Score: 5, Funny

    I knew those 569 acres of land on the Arizona/California border would gain some value. Just didn't think it would happen so soon. Anyone want to buy my new ocean-front property?

    --
    sudo make me a sandwich
    1. Re:FINALLY! by NatasRevol · · Score: 2

      Wait, the drunk guy doesn't like the meth guys?

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    2. Re:FINALLY! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope I'm holding out for the land I own at 100' above sea level in Florida to become ocean front.

    3. Re:FINALLY! by g0bshiTe · · Score: 1

      Seriously?

      Floodmap According to this projection a 3.5 meter rise wouldn't flood much of CA.

      --
      I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
    4. Re:FINALLY! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously?

      Floodmap According to this projection a 3.5 meter rise wouldn't flood much of CA.

      Sure - if you leave out the Bay and Los Angeles Areas. Nobody living there, no sir.

    5. Re:FINALLY! by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      Eventually.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    6. Re:FINALLY! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ocean-front property? In Arizona?

      From the front porch you can see the sea?

    7. Re:FINALLY! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      drunks go to sleep eventually... unlike the tweekers.

    8. Re:FINALLY! by Lashat · · Score: 1

      Very cool web site. Good to know we will survive a 12 meter rise. Sorry Sacramento, bye bye.

      --
      For every benefit you receive a tax is levied. - Ralph Waldo Emerson
    9. Re:FINALLY! by Zalbik · · Score: 1

      I knew those 569 acres of land on the Arizona/California border would gain some value

      Lex Luthor, is that you?

    10. Re:FINALLY! by RabidReindeer · · Score: 2

      Nope I'm holding out for the land I own at 100' above sea level in Florida to become ocean front.

      You own land on Space Mountain???

    11. Re:FINALLY! by RabidReindeer · · Score: 1

      Ocean-front property? In Arizona?

      From the front porch you can see the sea?

      It was once. Why not again?

    12. Re:FINALLY! by Sparticus789 · · Score: 1

      His compound is on the Moon. I am Condiment King! I knew you would ketchon to me soon.

      --
      sudo make me a sandwich
    13. Re:FINALLY! by tsabra76 · · Score: 1

      Dibs on Otisville!

    14. Re:FINALLY! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whoo Hoo!!!! With only a 200m sea-level rise I will have ocean front property! I've always despaired about the lack-luster view from my back balcony but now I can literally look right out on my own arm of the New Gulf of Mexico! I wonder if my back neighbor will allow my to set my dock piers now?

    15. Re:FINALLY! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you'll buy that, I'll throw the Golden Gate in free.

    16. Re:FINALLY! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But it would flood enough to drown the people causing the most problems. Us here in the center of the country need to keep on and we can down out the socialism and shoot the escapees. So all for drowning out NYC and CA. These are good things. So is giving Arizona a coast.

    17. Re:FINALLY! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously?

      Floodmap According to this projection a 3.5 meter rise wouldn't flood much of CA.

      Welp, parts of Charleston are fuxord.

    18. Re: FINALLY! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How much more until it gets to Colorado?!?!

    19. Re:FINALLY! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the top-level poster was referring to the potential for the Gulf of California to flow into Imperial Valley, most of which is below sea level. 10 meters is the point where the answer is "clearly yes"; 8 meters, and it's a matter of whether the ocean can find a path through what is essentially a very large sand bar deposited by the Colorado River.

      3 meters seems exceedingly unlikely - but remember that sea level as defined on the map is "mean low-tide": Combined with other causes of rising sea levels, a high tide coinciding with a major storm could perhaps pile up enough water to overrun and cut through the relatively loose silt of the protective sand bar.

      Of course that is exceedingly speculative. Could such a flood event (already unlikely) cut far enough into the earth, and fast enough, to lower the land below the (now higher) sea level? If so, could the Army Corps of Engineers stop it before flooding the Imperial Valley reached an irreversible point? As the cut would occur in Mexico, would they prohibit the Corps' operation out of a sense of sovereignty?

    20. Re:FINALLY! by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

      Nice link - it says I can withstand 88m of sea level rise before my house gets wet. I'd have to invest in a boat to get out, however.

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    21. Re:FINALLY! by lefin1 · · Score: 1

      That map is cool, but it doesn't zero out properly. Most of Fiesta Island was underwater at zero. I guess that's why it's in beta. OTL is gonna have a rough time playing underwater this weekend.

    22. Re:FINALLY! by nobodie · · Score: 1

      Well, not goodbye Florida, but my Tampa home on the "heights" would have beach

      --
      Subversion of spatial scale luxury decoration ideas.
  2. Dooomed by jellomizer · · Score: 4, Funny

    Dooomed we are all doooom.
    Dooooooomed!

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    1. Re:Dooomed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who's this "we" you're referring to? I live in NJ and I welcome the ocean washing over some of the toxic waste we call "home". If we can just get a soap factory to store all its suds near our cost we can finally stop being the armpit of America.

    2. Re:Dooomed by Kenja · · Score: 4, Funny

      Puny humans do not yet know the meaning of the word "doomed".

      --

      "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    3. Re:Dooomed by polar+red · · Score: 1

      That toxic waste is not gone if the sea washes over it. it merely disperses in the food chain.

      --
      Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
    4. Re:Dooomed by sl4shd0rk · · Score: 2

      Dooooooomed!

      Yes, in general, however those living in coastal regions will dooooom first. The rest of us will need to acclimate to some intense heat and drought before the welcome relief of doooom sets in.

      --
      Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
    5. Re:Dooomed by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

      We are? I better tape this flashlight to my gun, then.

    6. Re:Dooomed by Jawnn · · Score: 1

      Dooomed we are all doooom. Dooooooomed!

      Well..., yes. None of us gets out alive, but if your intent is to sarcastically suggest that this event is not another in a line of well documented indicators of climate change, nice try.

    7. Re:Dooomed by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      I'm going to sing the doom song now. Doom de doom de doom...

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    8. Re:Dooomed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No mention in the article about what it would do to Scotland.

    9. Re:Dooomed by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

      That toxic waste is not gone if the sea washes over it. it merely disperses in the food chain.

      See, he's just an altruist wanting to share his with everyone else.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    10. Re:Dooomed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fucking Deekin.

    11. Re:Dooomed by Penguinisto · · Score: 1

      Who's this "we" you're referring to?

      Dude. Invader Zim. No further explanation needed or necessary.

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    12. Re:Dooomed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously, people have no idea just how big the planet is and how much water resides in the oceans. Massive icebergs (some the size of Rhode Island) have broken loose and melted in both hemispheres for centuries and you can't even detect a decline in the salinity of the sea water let alone flood cities or swamp entire Islands.

    13. Re:Dooomed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Probably improve the place

    14. Re:Dooomed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We're not so puny. We banged this planet up pretty good.

    15. Re:Dooomed by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

      I'm going to sing the doom song now. Doom de doom de doom...

      "Would you please ... stop.. singing..? " *drool*

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    16. Re:Dooomed by ultranova · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Dooomed we are all doooom.

      Pretty much, yeah. Even if this iceberg doesn't get us, and even if climate change won't, the by-now ingrained habbit of putting fingers in your ears and shitposting to drown out unpleasant facts effectively nullifies your intelligence, thus making it impossible to consider or react efficiently to any situation. Since intelligence is our sole evolutionary advantage, and since climate chance denial has made pretending stupidity fashionable, we're pretty much doomed.

      Still, at least it provides a fascinating case study about self-delusion.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    17. Re:Dooomed by kwbauer · · Score: 1

      Or not.

    18. Re:Dooomed by kwbauer · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      And constantly blathering on about how evil we are as a whole and that we are destroying the planet and that we are causing the climate to no longer be in stasis... is so much more intelligent. Just ponder that last bit. The main complaint of the AGW (ACC) crowd is that we have caused the climate to change. The proof is that the climate is changing. That means the assumption is that the climate would never change if it weren't for the evil humans. That requires accepting that the climate has never changed. And that requires ignoring a vast amount of physical evidence as well as written and oral history. And I am in denial?!? wtf

    19. Re:Dooomed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, surf's up, dude! Cowabunga!

    20. Re:Dooomed by tbannist · · Score: 2

      And constantly blathering on about how evil we are as a whole and that we are destroying the planet and that we are causing the climate to no longer be in stasis...

      Actually, the scientists and virtually all of the major groups that recognize that climate change is occurring are very much aware that the climate would be changing at a very slow rate even if humans didn't exist. In fact, they're the ones who discovered that in the first place.

      That means the assumption is that the climate would never change if it weren't for the evil humans.

      No it doesn't. That's a strawman argument, I've literally never seen that argument made by anyone who isn't actively denying the climate change is an issue.

      That requires accepting that the climate has never changed.

      No it doesn't. As previously mentioned, there are no major groups that claim that the climate has never changed.

      And that requires ignoring a vast amount of physical evidence as well as written and oral history.

      No it doesn't, because the only one making an argument that the climate has never changed in the imaginary opponent in your mind.

      And I am in denial?!? wtf

      Yes, you are. It's kind of like you are trying to argue your way out of a speeding ticket by claimin the police officer doesn't believe in continental drift and therefore couldn't accurate get a measure of your cars speed because he didn't account for it, and therefore your foot on the gas pedal shouldn't actually matter. What you are writing appears to be pretty much insane.

      The natural temperature change is around -0.02 degrees per century. Our green house gas emissions have overwhelmed the negative trend and turned it into about +2.00 degrees per century (and still accelerating). It's 100 times faster in the opposite direction. That's actually a significant change attributable entirely to human acitvity.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
  3. what? by JustNiz · · Score: 1

    >> The Western Antarctic land ice is on land which is deeper than sea level.

    Umm.. isn't it impossible to have land that isn't deeper than sea level?

    1. Re:what? by Entropius · · Score: 4, Informative

      I think the point is that the boundary between the ice and the rock is below sea level.

    2. Re:what? by Sparticus789 · · Score: 1

      My Minecraft home floats above the ocean. Does that count?

      --
      sudo make me a sandwich
    3. Re:what? by gmuslera · · Score: 1

      Check the Dead Sea in the Middle East, 423 meters below sea level,

    4. Re:what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Umm.. isn't it impossible to have land that isn't deeper than sea level?

      That's entirely possible. In fact, most of the land on Earth is no deeper than sea level.

    5. Re:what? by Microlith · · Score: 5, Informative

      Wait what?

      Umm.. isn't it impossible to have land that isn't deeper than sea level?

      By definition, that is land. My guess is that you meant to ask if it is impossible to have land below sea level, and the answer is no. Much of New Orleans and Death Valley in the US are below sea level, they just happen to be surrounded by natural (and some artificial) barriers that keep the water out.

      My understanding of the point is that the ice in question is standing on solid land below the ocean's surface, which means that its volume is not currently reflected by the height of the oceans today. In addition, the land is sloped towards the rest of the ocean so, should the ice in question calve off it will enter the ocean rather than simply cracking but staying put.

    6. Re:what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uhmm, Death Valley?

    7. Re:what? by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1
      That seems fairly straightforward I would assume that means that were the ice is sitting the the ground that ground is below sea level. What I wonder is what this means:

      Its "bed" tends towards the land. The danger therefore exists that these large ice masses will become unstable and will start to slide.

      Specifically the bed tends towards the land part as that is terminology I am not familiar with.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    8. Re:what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_Valley

    9. Re:what? by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Wait what?

      Umm.. isn't it impossible to have land that isn't deeper than sea level?

      By definition, that is land. My guess is that you meant to ask if it is impossible to have land below sea level, and the answer is no. Much of New Orleans and Death Valley in the US are below sea level, they just happen to be surrounded by natural (and some artificial) barriers that keep the water out.

      My understanding of the point is that the ice in question is standing on solid land below the ocean's surface, which means that its volume is not currently reflected by the height of the oceans today. In addition, the land is sloped towards the rest of the ocean so, should the ice in question calve off it will enter the ocean rather than simply cracking but staying put.

      An added issue, which has been seen in the past couple of decades in Greenland, is that if the ice calves and slides into the ocean, not only will mass previously perched on land enter the ocean, but the mass removed from the antarctic plate will cause the plate to rise significantly... causing less volume for the ocean in that area, and REALLY messing with plate tectonics.

      Some people think there's a correlation between the rising landmass in Greenland and some of the recent quakes in the Pacific.

    10. Re:what? by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 2

      Based on the context (the 'danger' part) I think it means that it's resting on the ground with is sloping away from shore. So that if it slips it will slip into the ocean causing sea level rise since there more ice above water than would be if it was floating.

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    11. Re:what? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 4, Insightful

      >> The Western Antarctic land ice is on land which is deeper than sea level.

      Umm.. isn't it impossible to have land that isn't deeper than sea level?

      If it's possible anywhere on Earth, it's surely possible on a continent that can have a "western" part despite covering all geographic longitudes.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    12. Re:what? by booch · · Score: 1

      Yeah, obviously they should have said the "northern" part of Antarctica.

      --
      Software sucks. Open Source sucks less.
    13. Re:what? by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 1

      "Below sea level" and "above sea level" are useful concepts. Don't quibble about how rock deep below Mount Everest is somehow "below sea level."

    14. Re:what? by polar+red · · Score: 1

      I also wonder if a big piece (like say a few cubic km) of ice slides in the water at few km/h. a really big tsunami ?

      --
      Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
    15. Re:what? by Iniamyen · · Score: 1

      The land that's under the water is not considered land, when taken in the context of the "land/sea" categorization of Earth's surface. Nice try though.

    16. Re:what? by jimshatt · · Score: 1

      Umm.. isn't it impossible to have land that isn't deeper than sea level?

      Lets cancel out some negatives here: Is it possible to have land that isn't deeper than sea level? Is it possible to have land that is higher than sea level? Why yes, that's entirely possible!

    17. Re:what? by Ioldanach · · Score: 1

      My understanding of the point is that the ice in question is standing on solid land below the ocean's surface, which means that its volume is not currently reflected by the height of the oceans today.

      But, if it all melted, that portion of the ice which is below sea level would not contribute to an increase in sea level, because the land it was on would then be inundated with water.

    18. Re:what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The article talks about West Antarctica, not western Antarctica. It's just a name that was given to an area of land. It's also called Western Antarctica and Lesser Antarctica.

    19. Re:what? by Baby+Duck · · Score: 1

      The summary says: Its "bed" tends towards the land.

      Yet you say: the land is sloped towards the rest of the ocean

      Aren't those contradictory inclines? If it tends toward the land, then wouldn't gravity more likely make it collapse toward the center of the land mass and not towards the ocean?

      --

      "Love heals scars love left." -- Henry Rollins

    20. Re:what? by H0p313ss · · Score: 4, Informative

      I also wonder if a big piece (like say a few cubic km) of ice slides in the water at few km/h. a really big tsunami ?

      Yes, if that were to happen the result would be quite dramatic. But the chunk we're talking about is the leading tongue of an ice shelf that is already floating at sea level and the crack that caused this calving has been tracked since 2011 so it's not exactly a dramatic change as the media would like you to believe.

      --
      XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
    21. Re:what? by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      >> The Western Antarctic land ice is on land which is deeper than sea level.

      Umm.. isn't it impossible to have land that isn't deeper than sea level?

      It's pretty much a requirement for the land to be able to tip over.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    22. Re:what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More accurately, "North and thataway."

    23. Re:what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Western Antarctica is the part that is in the western hemisphere.

    24. Re:what? by berashith · · Score: 1

      where i am from that is called "yonder"

    25. Re:what? by hurfy · · Score: 1

      I noticed you didn't call it 423 meters DEEPER than sea level...

      Yes, it meant the land is below sea level. Must be the translation :(

    26. Re:what? by dywolf · · Score: 1

      not an expert on tectonics and plates and stuff...

      but shouldnt hte plate still be bearing the weight of the ice even if its floating on teh ocean?
      i mean after all, the plate is bearing the weight of the ocean too,and as long as the calved ice is still above the relevant plate, that plate should be bearing the ice's weight too, right?

      i realize it maybe a little more complex than a textbook 2d example, because at the scale we're talking about the plates and ice and ocean are not planar, but rather curved, and the gravitational forces arent perfectly parallel to each other, but perpendicular to the curvature of the earth. but the core concept is still there.

      the only thing i can think of is it isnt so much the weight of the ice that is no longer being borne by the plate, but the portion (not all) of the weight of the displaced water as it redistributes to "equilibrium".

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    27. Re:what? by Livius · · Score: 1

      Umm.. isn't it impossible to have land that isn't deeper than sea level?

      I took it to mean land below sea level, but covered by ice and therefore having no liquid water above it.

    28. Re:what? by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 0

      "Umm.. isn't it impossible to have land that isn't deeper than sea level?"

      Haha. I like this one even better:

      "The article extrapolates that 'If the entire West Antarctic ice shield were to flow into the Ocean, this would lead to a global rise in sea level of around 3.3 meters."

      Well, hell. And if Mt. Kilimanjaro were to fall into San Francisco Bay, it would cause one hell of a local tsunami.

      I don't think there is much danger of either one happening soon.

    29. Re:what? by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      You got it with your last thought :) The issue is that once the ice enters the fluid (it's floating), the force is distributed around the oceans, as opposed to being directly distributed over the Antarctic plate as it was when it was sitting on bedrock.

    30. Re:what? by mevets · · Score: 1

      According to 10s of google, the average ice sheet thickness is 2000m in the region, with the greatest thickness at 4700m. Ice is about 1tonne/m^3, so I would guess that the land under the ice is compressed, and would rebound to fill the space.
      I donâ(TM)t know how far the ice has pushed the land under, but I doubt it is a significant fraction of 2000m...
      so, no.

    31. Re:what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      pity that's not the question they asked...

    32. Re:what? by kwbauer · · Score: 0

      Only as contradictory as the rest of the doom and gloom argument such as as recently as 600 years ago, a significant amount of Greenland was ice-free such that people actually built small villages with rock houses and such. In the time since then, they were completely covered year round with glaciers. Now the glaciers have receded to reveal said villages. This has always been known because of written history but was denied by the climate change crowd. Now that the glaciers have receded we have actual proof that this unprecedented level of glacial recession in Greenland is not exactly unprecedented.

    33. Re:what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You might want to check out Lake Eyre in South Australia.

    34. Re:what? by MacDork · · Score: 1

      Yeah. Only on /. can you turn "city sized" piece of ice falling off into possible "entire west antarctica" falling in too.

    35. Re:what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the dead sea is a perfect example of why you shouldn't put a sea so low. It fills with salt.

  4. Goodbye Florida... by NitzJaaron · · Score: 1

    ...hello beach front property in Alabama!

    1. Re:Goodbye Florida... by SailorNash · · Score: 1

      I actually live on the waterfront here in Alabama. More like "goodbye" for me.

    2. Re:Goodbye Florida... by postbigbang · · Score: 1

      You mean: Tennessee.

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    3. Re:Goodbye Florida... by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 4, Informative

      ...hello beach front property in Alabama!

      Ever hear about Mobile, Alabama?

      Hint: Alabama already has a Gulf Coast....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    4. Re:Goodbye Florida... by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 1

      Mobile Alabama is already adjacent to the sea. To flood the Florida panhandle, and thus expand Alabama's beach front to the east, you'd need between 30 and 40 meters of sea level rise. You'd need 60 meters to get rid of the florida peninsula entirely source.

    5. Re:Goodbye Florida... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      I wouldn't worry. You're already in Alabama, so it can't get much worse.

    6. Re:Goodbye Florida... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      60 meters makes Memphis TN beach front property.

    7. Re:Goodbye Florida... by Black+Parrot · · Score: 4, Funny

      Mobile Alabama is already adjacent to the sea.

      Plus it's mobile, so it can just move inland if the sea rises.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    8. Re:Goodbye Florida... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sea levels aren't going to rise 1000 feet.

    9. Re:Goodbye Florida... by pspahn · · Score: 1

      Even with just a 3 meter rise, that puts Stockton, CA on a new inland coast. Considering the real estate there is terribly distressed, it might make a good investment.

      --
      Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.
    10. Re:Goodbye Florida... by Artifakt · · Score: 1

      Highest point in Tennessee: Clingman's Dome at 6,643 feet (2,025 m),
      Highest point in Florida: Britton Hill at 345 feet (105 m).

      The lowest point in Tennessee is 178 feet above sea level, at the Mississippi River near Memphis.
      The lowest points in Florida are all at sea level (0 ft.), unless you count a few coastal sinkholes.

      The Mean Elevation of Tennessee is 900 feet above sea level.
      The Mean Elevation of Florida is 100 feet above sea level.

      So the mean locations in Florida are under 78 feet of water before the lowest point in Tenn is flooded.

      I have no idea what point postbigbang thinks he is making. I'd be interested to find out just how much ice he thinks lies over solid land, world wide. Maybe he's expecting the Mountains of Madness to be all ice and melt off.

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
    11. Re:Goodbye Florida... by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 1
  5. Floridian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I live 40m above sea level. Bite my sweaty, chapped ###.

    1. Re:Floridian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well, that's temporary. AGW at full swing means at least 70m of sea level rise.

    2. Re:Floridian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well, that's temporary. AGW at full swing means at least 70m of sea level rise.

      And all of our great-grandchildren will be long dead before that ever happens.

    3. Re:Floridian by kwbauer · · Score: 1

      AGW at the worst extreme end of the prediction model might say 70m but the confidence level for that is never published. It is probably in the range of monkeys flying out of derriers. The tame end is something like no change at all. It would be nice if the range were broken down into meaningful smaller ranges with confidence levels attached.

  6. Good bye Disney World by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 1

    Good old Walt might finally get his due... I can't wait.

    --
    Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
    1. Re:Good bye Disney World by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unlikely since Orlando (where I live) is 100 feet above sea level. We (and Disney) will still be 90 feet above the ocean. Now folks who live on the coast might have some trouble...

    2. Re:Good bye Disney World by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Being that Lake Buena Vista, Florida is 95 feet (~29m) above sea level, it might need a lot more ice to melt to be under water.

    3. Re:Good bye Disney World by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 1

      *sigh* Fine. Spoil my hopes and dreams with facts.

      --
      Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
    4. Re:Good bye Disney World by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Might actually be an improvement for Orlando, depending on how far inland the water goes. Always preferred Tampa/St. Petersburg for a visit because you get beaches to go with the weather.

    5. Re:Good bye Disney World by RabidReindeer · · Score: 1

      Might actually be an improvement for Orlando, depending on how far inland the water goes. Always preferred Tampa/St. Petersburg for a visit because you get beaches to go with the weather.

      Look at many maps of Florida and you'll notice that once you get south of Orlando (or east, for the most part), there are cross-hatch markings on the map. The biggest one will be marked "Everglades".

      The actual line between land and sea on the southern coast is as much hypothetical as it is real, since it's mostly just a matter of mangrove swamps on the boundary between the fresh waters of the Everglades flowing into the Florida Bay. Lower the sea level 2 feet and the amount of land in the Keys would probably double. Raise it 2 feet and they'd virtually disappear.

      I think it has been said that if you raise the sea level 30 feet, Kissimmee becomes oceanfront property. Looking south.

  7. The poet Smash Mouth said it best by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Judging by the hole in the satellite picture
    The ice we skate is getting pretty thin
    The water's getting warm so you might as well swim
    My world's on fire how about yours
    That's the way I like it and I never get bored

    1. Re:The poet Smash Mouth said it best by Vanderhoth · · Score: 0

      *Realization Smash Mouth was actually a band of prophets*

      Mind == blown.

    2. Re:The poet Smash Mouth said it best by Sooner+Boomer · · Score: 2, Funny

      Judging by the hole in the satellite picture
      The ice we skate is getting pretty thin
      The water's getting warm so you might as well swim
      My world's on fire how about yours
      That's the way I like it and I never get bored

      Burma Shave

      --
      Chaos maximizes locally around me.
    3. Re:The poet Smash Mouth said it best by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep, only someone with a 5 digit UID or smaller would have posted that cause no one finds it funny anymore but you old farts.

  8. How's that? by tchdab1 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Could somebody translate that into Chicago-units? Here in the US we're having trouble visualizing this.

    1. Re:How's that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good thing it wasn't a KiloHamburg (kh) sized iceberg that broke off.

    2. Re:How's that? by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 4, Funny

      My guess is it is probably equal to about 1 Chicago proper but with fewer random shooting.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    3. Re:How's that? by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      If there were a way to move Chicago to Florida, we could solve two issues at the same time.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    4. Re: How's that? by jd2112 · · Score: 4, Funny

      apparently you aren't aware of how much penguin on penguin violence goes on in Antarctica. Much of it the result of arguments over which Linux distro is best.

      --
      Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
    5. Re:How's that? by coinreturn · · Score: 1

      Could somebody translate that into Chicago-units? Here in the US we're having trouble visualizing this.

      No, everyone knows you're supposed to use X times the size of Rhode Island.

    6. Re: How's that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Is this black & white on black & white violence?

    7. Re:How's that? by Cinnamon+Whirl · · Score: 1

      And like Chicago, the 'berg is shrinking daily.

    8. Re:How's that? by LtNacho · · Score: 1
    9. Re:How's that? by nytes · · Score: 1

      3.3 meters is equal to about 2 mobsters, or 4 tommy guns.

      --
      -- I have monkeys in my pants.
    10. Re: How's that? by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      I did say shootings, not wing slappings or peckings.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    11. Re:How's that? by LoRdTAW · · Score: 2

      Hamburg is about the surface area of 7,648,706,558.13 Chicago style pizzas. Or 4,598,807,355.66 New York style pizzas (which is better :-p).

    12. Re: How's that? by H0p313ss · · Score: 1

      I did say shootings, not wing slappings or peckings.

      Penguins don't kill people, penguins with guns kill people.

      --
      XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
    13. Re: How's that? by antdude · · Score: 1

      Where are the videos and photo(graph)s of these violences from Antarctica? :P

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    14. Re:How's that? by joeyadams · · Score: 1

      It's about 1.08 millitexases, or 1.25 Chicagos.

    15. Re: How's that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's plenty of penguin shootings - how do you think the eggs get fertilised????

  9. Zecharia Sitchin - 12th Planet? by HycoWhit · · Score: 1

    Now isn't this how Sitchin theorized the Great Flood occurred? Well I guess in his books it was the pull of visiting planet that caused the ice sheet to slide into the Atlantic--but same result...

    1. Re:Zecharia Sitchin - 12th Planet? by wbr1 · · Score: 1

      It was used to better effect in Robinson's mars trilogy.

      --
      Silence is a state of mime.
    2. Re:Zecharia Sitchin - 12th Planet? by dbIII · · Score: 1

      A translation error is how a really big flood went global. The Bible is a series of stories to get points across and not a long and boring list of places and dates.

  10. The size of Hamburg? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Darn metric system! How many Libraries of Congress is that equivalent to?

    1. Re:The size of Hamburg? by Russ1642 · · Score: 1

      2.136 million olympic swimming pools

    2. Re:The size of Hamburg? by bonehead · · Score: 1

      How many state of Rhode Island's is that?

    3. Re:The size of Hamburg? by Zynder · · Score: 2

      He said Olympic SWIMMING pools, not cess pools. The units don't convert.

    4. Re:The size of Hamburg? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Granted, it's supposed to be a joke, but interestingly enough Hamburg is about 1/4 the size of Rhode Island.

  11. New Unit! by WillgasM · · Score: 2, Funny

    I propose we swiftly adopt the "Hamburg" as a new unit of measurement.

    1. Re:New Unit! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Of course subdivided in smaller units, Hamburgers, of about 1/1.500.000 that size.

    2. Re:New Unit! by Jeng · · Score: 1

      Looks like it may take approximately four Hamburg's to equal one Rhode Island.

      --
      Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
    3. Re:New Unit! by Quirkz · · Score: 1

      Only if we get Humbugs as subunits. So I can finally ask, "How many humbugs in a hamburg?"

  12. It's a new vacation resort! by ulatekh · · Score: 1

    The Swedish people that make the ice hotel can turn this into a vacation resort!

    --
    "Once we've identified and embraced our sickness, we'll have strength...and that's when we get dangerous." - John Waters
    1. Re:It's a new vacation resort! by hurfy · · Score: 1

      I hear talk of a co-venture with Carnival Cruise lines, what could go wrong...

  13. Sea Level Map by WillgasM · · Score: 3, Insightful

    A 3m rise in sea level is significant, but will hardly wipe out Florida or California. Check your map before you start building that new condo.

    1. Re:Sea Level Map by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 4, Funny

      Sounds like we really need to install a drain in the ocean now.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    2. Re:Sea Level Map by AdamThor · · Score: 1

      Awesome link on that map.

      Bummer for China! Yancheng more specifically. Also around Guangzhou. How would the resulting chaos echo politically?

      Also hard-hit... Southern tip of Vietnam, north end of the Caspian Sea, Netherlands of course. And islands.

      --
      -- "Oh. This guy again."
    3. Re:Sea Level Map by roc97007 · · Score: 2

      Sounds like we really need to install a drain in the ocean now.

      I for one welcome our new Netherland masters.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    4. Re:Sea Level Map by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... and that map isn't taking into account sedimentation. In many places, the land simply is where ever the sea level happens to be.

    5. Re:Sea Level Map by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Caspian's in the clear--just as with Death Valley, rising ocean levels have no way to get there, unless you're talking about very large rises.

    6. Re:Sea Level Map by stenvar · · Score: 1

      Large parts of the Netherlands are already below sea level, showing that that isn't necessarily a problem even for densely populated areas.

      (In the case of the Netherlands, it is their own fault, however.)

    7. Re:Sea Level Map by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1
      --
      Time to offend someone
    8. Re:Sea Level Map by emho24 · · Score: 2

      I keep trying to submerge New York with that map but it takes 60m until I'm really happy with the results.

      --
      You must gather your party before venturing forth.
    9. Re:Sea Level Map by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It depends on what you mean by "wipe out". Geographically, most of Florida would still be above water. But large parts of the developed bits would be submerged since they're right on the coast. Jacksonville, Cocoa/Melbourne, West Palm / Fort Lauderdale / Miami, Then Naples up through Tampa would have big problems. Orlando would be high and dry.

    10. Re:Sea Level Map by danbert8 · · Score: 1

      I know there are obligatory XKCD links for Slashdot articles, but I was expecting this one... http://xkcd.com/605/

      --
      Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
    11. Re:Sea Level Map by mrbester · · Score: 1

      There'll be less of Zeeland, that's for sure, but the rest will carry on as normal. They've had hundreds of years of practice after all...

      --
      "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
    12. Re:Sea Level Map by RussellTheMuscle · · Score: 1

      My house in Pembroke Pines, FL (Think far western Ft. Lauderdale) was 10 miles from the coast. My front door was 7 feet above sea level. That gives 1 extra meter of ocean water for the entire downstairs. It is noteworthy that in about 3 more miles inland, all building stops and the Everglades begins. Florida will still be there, but it will be a very different Florida.

    13. Re:Sea Level Map by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      3m rise will indeed put many areas of Florida, effectively under water
      That's almost 10' of water - and for many Floridians, that means no more beach and lots of
      other things would go away quickly. The displacement alone could cause problems for a long time if indeed it just "fell off"

    14. Re:Sea Level Map by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We've seen that one already. No need to see it again.

    15. Re:Sea Level Map by pipingguy · · Score: 1
  14. In Soviet Russia... by BreakBad · · Score: 2

    the land ice's land water is deeper than....wait...above or not as deep....fuck.

  15. Hybrid to the rescue! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Quick! Everyone! Go buy a hybrid car! THEY WILL SAVE US ALL!

  16. We don't need to worry. by Entropius · · Score: 0

    Either Jesus will come back and end everything before climate change makes a difference, or God will never let us hose His perfect creation.

    The trouble is, there are folks in Congress who believe this and set policy based on it...

    1. Re:We don't need to worry. by coinreturn · · Score: 1

      Either Jesus will come back and end everything before climate change makes a difference, or God will never let us hose His perfect creation.

      The trouble is, there are folks in Congress who believe this and set policy based on it...

      Maybe it's just time to build Noah's Ark II.

  17. I had a math professor like that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When he said "the size of Hamburg" he might've meant "the size of hamburger" for example.

    Maybe that's what happened here?

  18. Bloop? by jbmartin6 · · Score: 1

    Was there a bloop or a train?

    --
    This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
    1. Re:Bloop? by Russ1642 · · Score: 1

      Bloops and trains are specific forms of the standard bleeps, sweeps, and creeps.

    2. Re:Bloop? by Bardez · · Score: 2

      The what and the what and the what?

      --
      Perception is the thin dividing line between reality and fiction.
  19. Sigh... Again? by scsirob · · Score: 3, Informative

    Every year we get at least one or two pieces of ice breaking from the main shield. Happens at both poles. It's normal.

    And every year the article ends with some kind of fatalistic "IF blah blah blah we are DOOOMED!"
    Puhlease... We have worse things to worry about than fantasy threats.

    --
    To Terminate, or not to Terminate, that's the question - SCSIROB
    1. Re:Sigh... Again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Every year we get at least one or two pieces of ice breaking from the main shield. Happens at both poles. It's normal.

      True. What's not normal is the amount of ice breaking away. Pine Island and Thwates glacier are speeding up. They're calving more ice into the ocean than before. Sure they calved before, but not as much or as often.

    2. Re:Sigh... Again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The glaciers are disappearing and speeding up!? AHHHHH! They're going to disappear and/or kill us all!!!

    3. Re:Sigh... Again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is not normal.

    4. Re:Sigh... Again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is even remotely 'informative' about the content of that post? It's all speculation and opinion.

    5. Re:Sigh... Again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yet satellite photos show record ice production. What is the truth I wonder? http://iceagenow.info/2013/06/antarctic-sea-ice-1-3-million-km-average/

    6. Re:Sigh... Again? by LeadSongDog · · Score: 1

      Every year we get at least one or two pieces of ice breaking from the main shield. Happens at both poles. It's normal.

      True. What's not normal is the amount of ice breaking away. Pine Island and Thwates glacier are speeding up. They're calving more ice into the ocean than before. Sure they calved before, but not as much or as often.

      Just when you think you know how /. operates, along comes an AC who reads TFA....

      --
      Oh, I'm sorry sir, I thought you were referring to me, Mr. Wensleydale.
    7. Re:Sigh... Again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not supposed to be 'normal' though. Look at the pictures from the past to today. The glaciers are retreating and not being built back up.

    8. Re:Sigh... Again? by H0p313ss · · Score: 1

      Just when you think you know how /. operates, along comes an AC who reads TFA....

      Bloody bastard, who the hell does he think he is?

      --
      XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
    9. Re:Sigh... Again? by kwbauer · · Score: 1

      We can't handle it so they don't tell it to us.

  20. Still looking for the payout... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...on my lovely home at the base of the Farralon hills, my farmland on the banks of the Sacramento river in what you now call San Pablo Bay, and my Kangaroo hunting grounds that are all covered with fish. 15,000 years it's been. I'm beginning to think they won't pay.

  21. Time to drain the oceans! by RKThoadan · · Score: 3

    Thankfully the fine folks over at xkcd pointed the way to the solution yesterday: http://what-if.xkcd.com/53/

    All we need is a portal to... anywhere not in Earths gravitational influence I guess, and we'll be set!

    1. Re:Time to drain the oceans! by sanosuke001 · · Score: 2

      The regolith on the moon will accept portals; we can shoot it from the surface!

      --
      -SaNo
    2. Re:Time to drain the oceans! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just watch those portals to Mars or we'll have DOOM again.....

  22. West ??? by feufeu · · Score: 2

    Where the hell is the *west* antarctic ??? Well, west of east antarctic obviously. Stil...

    1. Re:West ??? by GonzoPhysicist · · Score: 2

      My guess would be the part in the Western hemisphere.

      --
      horror vacui
    2. Re:West ??? by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      Here's all the information you could ever want: West Antarctica.

    3. Re:West ??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Easy.

      1. Go to the south pole
      2. Face north
      3. West is now on your left.

  23. Apathy to the rescue! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Quick! Don't change a thing! Since no one thing will save us all, don't do anything!!!

    1. Re:Apathy to the rescue! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's pretty much exactly the same as buying a hybrid car. They're feel-good over-hyped hipster/yuppie tech which has zero real impact. It's better to stop fucking driving everywhere.

  24. Global Cooling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wahoo, the ocean temperatures will surely cool off ;) Ahhh balance...

  25. let us celebrate instead by 1800maxim · · Score: 4, Funny

    The oppressive regime of Antarctica has long been opressing its constituents.

    The world celebrates the ice shelf's newly found freedom, and hopes this will pave the way to democracy in the entire region. When asked about what the ice shelf plans to do with its newly found freedom, it humbly replied "just going to drift a few kms that way, hopefully leading the way for many others to follow."

    When asked for comment, the visibly agitated Penguin Brotherhood declined to comment beyond blaming the west-sponsored Carbon Revolution.

    1. Re:let us celebrate instead by Zynder · · Score: 1

      Listen, strange women lyin' in ponds distributin' swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony. You can't expect to wield supreme executive power just because some watery tart threw a sword at you. If I went round sayin I was Emperor, just because some moistened bint lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away!

      Come see the violence inherent in the system! HELP! HELP! I'm being repressed!

  26. Re:Oh well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Let me guess, Democrat.

  27. Oh no! by 0123456 · · Score: 2

    A tiny chunk of ice (relative to the size of the world) breaks off Antarctica and we're all doomed!

    It's not as though tiny chunks of ice have been breaking off Antarctica ever since it first froze, or that most of Antarctica is cooling.

    1. Re:Oh no! by dywolf · · Score: 1

      Your analysis and your data is incorrect.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    2. Re:Oh no! by Pino+Grigio · · Score: 3, Insightful

      His analysis is spot on. The "article extrapolates" [to absurdity] isn't unusual when it comes to these things, because absurd extrapolation generates grant funding from government.

    3. Re:Oh no! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A tiny chunk of ice (relative to the size of the world) breaks off Antarctica and we're all doomed!

      Keep into account that it is now full winter in Antarctica.

    4. Re:Oh no! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's what you do: Go to Google Maps and just zoom out as far as you can and then switch to satellite view. Now, go down until you find Antarctica. Now, look for a city anywhere in the world and drop that into the ocean.

      Oh, do you not see any cities on the map? Is that because they're all such tiny things that they don't even show up as a clear dot? Honestly, you could drop a chunk the size of Hawaii, and it would still be too small to cause significant sea level rise.

    5. Re:Oh no! by kwbauer · · Score: 1

      What do you mean by "since it first froze"? That implies that it was once ice free and that can't be because we all "know" that the earth's climate has always been exactly the same until about 50 years ago when all of our burning stuff started to take effect.

  28. No such thing as 'man made global warming' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    which is they they renamed it 'climate change'.

    Does this convince any of you cretins that there is no such thing as 'global warming' and that CO2 has nothing to do with it anyway?

    http://joannenova.com.au/2013/07/macquarie-university-sabotages-exiles-blackbans-strands-and-abandons-murry-salby/

    1. Re:No such thing as 'man made global warming' by TheSkepticalOptimist · · Score: 2, Interesting

      At this point, telling everyone to use a bike to go to work and acting like some smug green idealist saying "I told you so" isn't going to fix anything so shut the hell up and learn to surf.

      --
      I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
    2. Re:No such thing as 'man made global warming' by RenderSeven · · Score: 2, Informative

      FTFA (which you should have read before posting): Are ice breaks caused by climate change? Angelika Humbert does not so far see any direct connection: "The creation of cracks in the shelf ice and the development of new icebergs are natural processes", says the glaciologist. Not arguing one way or the other, but the FTFA says its not related.

    3. Re:No such thing as 'man made global warming' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is only related when there is grant money on the line.

  29. Why would the sea level increase?? by eminencja · · Score: 1

    A piece of ice breaks off, it flows to a warmer area. 10% of the ice is above the water surface, 90% is below. It dissolves. This makes it's volume _smaller_ -- by the 10% that was above the water surface. So why say goodbye to Florida?

    1. Re:Why would the sea level increase?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are talking about ice that's resting on solid ground, not floating in water. Melting of land ice means water that was stacked on top of land will flow into the ocean and raise the global water level.

    2. Re:Why would the sea level increase?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Antarctica is a continent. That ice is not floating on water but sitting on top of landmass. Therefore the amount of water to be displaced is quite large.

    3. Re:Why would the sea level increase?? by spitzak · · Score: 2

      This is probably a troll, but if you are genuinely being ignorant:

      The water rises when the piece of ice breaks off and enters the ocean, not when it later melts.

      Before it was sitting on land and displacing less than 90% of it's volume of water (it would be displacing 0% if the land was above the ocean surface, but it is non-zero in this case because the land is below the surface). When floating it is displacing 90% of it's volume. The difference means the extra displaced water has to go somewhere.

    4. Re:Why would the sea level increase?? by SpaceManFlip · · Score: 1

      they were talking about ice shelves that currently sit on top of land - possibly sliding into the sea from the land in the future as a result of the big ass piece of ice that was in front of them sliding off into the ocean (what happened already, the "city-sized ice shelf" breaking free)

    5. Re:Why would the sea level increase?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because before it broke off, it was on land, not displacing any seawater at all.

    6. Re:Why would the sea level increase?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And this extra water that goes somewhere will increase the sea level by 3 meters? So how much of this ice is above the water surface? Have a look at the map and see how tiny Antarctica is. This iceberg could be as tall as Mount Everest and it would still make little difference.

    7. Re:Why would the sea level increase?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But how large is it?

    8. Re:Why would the sea level increase?? by manu0601 · · Score: 1

      For the same mass, ice uses more volume that liquid water.

      Just melt and iceberg and you get a small sea rise.

      Melt a huge area of ice and you get 3.3 meters rise.

      Melt all antartica, and IIRC you get a 70 meters rise.

  30. where is this sentiment going? by nimbius · · Score: 1

    Goodbye Florida.

    if you're trying to imply some sort of value by comparing an ice shelf to florida, you may be mistaken to find the ice shelf greatly outvalues florida in the opinion of quite a number of americans.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
  31. Re:Oh well by NatasRevol · · Score: 2

    Why are you making fun of NASA?

    --
    There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
  32. my family in colorado thanks AGW by alen · · Score: 1

    its been pretty dry there the last decade, except for this year
    the lake is full and lots of water in the reservoir for drinking water from the spring snow melts

  33. No such thing as a meter in Florida by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They don't measure things in meters in Florida. Therefore, they should be safe!

  34. sucks for baseball by alen · · Score: 1

    lots of games being rained out this year
    more water in the atmosphere will play havoc with their crazy 162 game schedule

  35. Hamburg? WTF?! Conversion please... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How many Detroits is that equal to?

    1. Re:Hamburg? WTF?! Conversion please... by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Negative six. Detroit has a pretty high negative value.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  36. Here's my plan for Florida by damn_registrars · · Score: 3, Funny

    1. Tell everyone in Florida that 3.3 meters of water is coming

    2. Allow the person who understands what 3.3 meters of water means to move to wherever they want

    3. Celebrate

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    1. Re:Here's my plan for Florida by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      1. Tell everyone in Florida that 3.3 meters of water is coming

      2. Allow the person who understands what 3.3 meters of water means to move to wherever they want

      3. Celebrate

      4. Profit!

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  37. Baghdad Bob here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    nothing to see or get worried about! Earth has been doing this types of things off and on for the last 4 billion years. Pay not attention to our little 200 years of industrial productions!

  38. Re:Oh well by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    The snow birds are particularly dumb. Almost Mass dumb. Like you say they make the rednecks look like Einsteins.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  39. Edgar Cayce could end up being right again... by SpaceManFlip · · Score: 1

    he predicted sea levels would rise around the turn of the 21st century and that the coastal areas of the southeast US would be underwater etc

    1. Re:Edgar Cayce could end up being right again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh come on, a broken clock is right twice a day....just because some guy made a woo lolprediction doesnt mean hes onto something.

    2. Re:Edgar Cayce could end up being right again... by kwbauer · · Score: 1

      He is deemed to have correctly predicted that portions of Florida are already under water or is he deemed to be correct because somebody else has also made a similar prediction?

      Or are you talking about that he is actually a true prophet but he was talking about the housing market instead of the ocean levels?

  40. Life's a beach by jaxinabox · · Score: 1

    Always wanted water front property

    --
    Jaxinabox
  41. Anybody got a picture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    of either the iceberg, or the city of Hamburg, and could you add a banana for scale?

  42. Re:Oh well by coinreturn · · Score: 2

    Nothing of value would be lost if Florida suddenly was underwater permanetly. Other then a bunch of old folks who were probably near death anyway, brain dead party people aka animals, and just a bunch of ignorant and stupid people that make the rednecks in the southern usa look like einstein's in comparison.

    My irony meter pegged at 11 with "einstein's."

  43. Douglas Adams, meet Anonymous... by Thud457 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Either Jesus will come back and end everything before climate change makes a difference, or God will never let us hose His perfect creation.

    The trouble is, there are folks in Congress who believe this and set policy based on it...

    Maybe it's just time to build Noah's Ark II.

    Also known as the /b/ Ark.

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  44. Smell that? by tmosley · · Score: 2

    Smells like fearmongering.

  45. Crud by Limburgher · · Score: 1

    Posting to undo a bad mod.

    --

    You are not the customer.

    1. Re:Crud by Wolfling1 · · Score: 1

      I'd mod this up if I had points...

  46. ... goodbye florida by bferrell · · Score: 1

    You say that like it's a bad thing

  47. I always thought... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It was short for Exxon-Mobile... hence all the oil washing up on shore. :)

    1. Re:I always thought... by washort · · Score: 1

      They're where "Mobile homes" got their names from. http://www.snopes.com/lost/mobile.asp

  48. Brewster's Millions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What we really need is some barges to tow the iceberg to our parched deserts. Where is Brewster when we need him?

    http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/08/the-many-failures-and-few-successes-of-zany-iceberg-towing-schemes/243364/

  49. Florida flooded would be horrible poetic justice by jbeach · · Score: 1
    Florida is one of the worst states regarding global warming denial.

    Of course, they would probably blame it on Obama's weather machines. And not their own hot air.

    --
    The Invisible Hand of the Free Market is what punches workers in the nuts.
  50. Fun scenarios by operagost · · Score: 1

    The article extrapolates that 'If the entire West Antarctic ice shield were to flow into the Ocean, this would lead to a global rise in sea level of around 3.3 meters.' Goodbye Florida.

    And if all the natural gas in the earth were to spontaneously combust, we would all be incinerated.

    --

    Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    1. Re:Fun scenarios by kwbauer · · Score: 1

      And if monkeys were to fly out of my butt, it would hurt.

    2. Re:Fun scenarios by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, an excellent comparison. Apart from the fact that one of these scenarios has a real scientifically plausible chance of happening in the foreseeable future, and the other one is, as far as we know, physically impossible.

      Although the competition is pretty hot, you're definitely in the running for retard of the week for this post.

  51. "Normal" Compared to what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's 4 billion+ years of Earth's history and continental shelf movement.

    So you are saying the ice shelves are speeding and melting more ice into the ocean than before the last 4 billion years+ ?

    This is the whole point of parent and "Fantasy Threats". Just because the ego of humanity needs to be nourished and make us feel we are special, we as a species that we know about are a drop in the bucket compared to the overall picture of "normal" in the geological makeup and movement and environment of the earth. This kind of 100-200 year thinking is very dangerous.

    And yet you were modded insightful...

  52. Sand Bars in NJ by billstewart · · Score: 1

    I used to live in Sea Bright NJ, which is a barrier peninsula community consisting of a bunch of sand, a sea wall, and some bridges and roads connecting it to the mainland. 200 years ago, the Sandy Hook end of it was an island, and it seems to want to become an island again, though the Army Corps of Engineers periodically pours another $10m of cement onto the sea wall to tell the tides to stop.

    I knew I was renting the place I lived; some of my neighbors thought that they actually owned something. I lived on what passed for high ground, about 3 feet above river level. Downtown would occasionally flood during the winter. If the sea level rises much at all, the place is doomed.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
    1. Re:Sand Bars in NJ by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      I knew I was renting the place I lived

      See, that's a very responsible attitude, but so rare. Even driving by the sea wall in Seabright always made me wary, especially when the crashers were coming onto the road.

      When I was a kid, we'd walk the boardwalk in Point Pleasant and it was lined with bungalows. They all dated from before the National Flood Insurance Program. Nobody would insure those against water, so they weren't much more than shacks that could take some wind. My friend's grandmother owned one, and it was a place to go to hang out at the shore, but we always new a big hurricane might just make it disappear.

      Fast forward to today, and Italianate mansions line that same boardwalk, all owned by millionaires. The poor people in the rest of the country now subsidize their high-life coastal living.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    2. Re:Sand Bars in NJ by billstewart · · Score: 1

      It was easy to have a responsible attitude about it, because I actually *was* renting. And my landlords were trying to sell the place (which I think they managed to do before winter.)

      --

      Bill Stewart
      New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  53. Interactive Map by dmomo · · Score: 1

    Here is what Florida (and the rest of the World) would look like if the sea level rose:
    http://geology.com/sea-level-rise/florida.shtml

  54. Tow it? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

    Who's worked out the relative energy costs of towing an ice shelf vs. doing desalinization?

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  55. Big deal by readingaccount · · Score: 1

    this would lead to a global rise in sea level of around 3.3 meters.' Goodbye Florida.

    And nothing of value would be lost. Except perhaps the Florida Fark tag.

  56. Re:Weird physics at play. by Technician · · Score: 1

    Weird physics at play here.

    Ice floats because it is less dense than water. I ice melts and becomes water. A floating object displaces it's mass in water.

    Are any of the above statements not true?

    So if a floating ice shelf floats off and melts turning into water, it will only become the volume of water it was displacing.

    Only if it was not floating and slid into the sea would it have added volume to the sea. There is no sea rise unless ice that is NOT floating goes into the sea displacing additional water. Ice already displacing water by floating will not rise sea levels by melting.

    Home experiment. Fill a glass with ice to the rim. Fill with water to the rim so the ice floats above the rim. Many who do not know the above principals will swear the melting ice will overflow the glass. In reality the ice melts and turns to water so melted ice of the same weight as the floating ice now occupies the space in the glass that used to contain ice. The level does not rise except for some thermal expansion of warming water and condensed water from the air if the humidity is at a higher dewpoint than the melting temperature of water.

    --
    The truth shall set you free!
  57. Re:Weird physics at play. by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 1

    Home experiment:

    Take an 10 ice cubes 1 inch thick and place them on a sloped board 1/2" under the surface of the water. Now push them into the water and notice the level rise.

    The article is talking about how this sheet is resting on the bottom, hence it's not floating and isn't yet fully accounted for in the current sea level.

    --
    People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
  58. The ruling class... by Circlotron · · Score: 1

    ...have beach-front properties in many (till now) desirable places around the world. When the water starts coming up under their back fences it will certainly get their attention, more so than when some third world country floods and thousands die.

  59. Re:Weird physics at play. by MindCrusher · · Score: 2

    Ice has a density of only 9/10 of the water. That is why ice floats on water. You might know the expression: "only the tip if the iceberg". It means that there is 9 times more iceberg under the water level than above. When ice becomes water its volume increases by 10%. Hence the sea level rises.

  60. What if... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What if we could somehow pick this gigantic iceberg up and dump it in the middle of the sahara?

    How long would it take to melt?
    What effect would it have on the local climate and wildlife?
    Would it create a new river or lake? How long would that river / lake last before it all evaporated? Would the changes to the local climate and flora be enough to renew the water supply indefinitely?

    Quick, someone call xkcd.

  61. Well it's about time! by sabbede · · Score: 0
    Goodbye Florida

    Hey, if as an American I have to hide my wang, it's only fair that America does too.

  62. NSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The NSA, which knows all and sees all, saw this coming.

  63. check the arithmetic by northernpaddler · · Score: 1

    using some of the stats on Wikipedia - Volume of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet = 2.2E12 m^3 - Rough equivalent volume as fresh water = 2E12 m^3 - Global Oceanic surface area = 3.6E14 m^2 - Rise in sea level if the water volume of WAIS were evenly distributed across the world's seas = 6 mm Yes, millimeters