Chain Reaction Shattered Antarctica's Larson B Ice Shelf

New submitter Jim McNicholas writes "At the end of the summer of 2002, all 3000 lakes on the Larsen B ice shelf drained away in the space of a week. And then the 2,700-square-kilometre ice shelf, which was some 220 metres thick and might have existed for some 12,000 years, rapidly disintegrated into small icebergs. The draining of one lake on an ice shelf changes the stress field in nearby areas, causing a fracture circle to form around the lake."

Comments

It would be great

[Presto Vivace]

if we decided to take action BEFORE we turn ourselves into Easter Island.

Re:It would be great

[erpbridge]

The problem with extrapolating the same rate... is you assume that nothing is reliant on each other, nothing affects anything else, and everything is a closed system.

Icebergs calve off a glacier on the Larsen B Ice Shelf at a rate of x amount per year, meaning that the Larsen B Ice Shelf will exist for about 300 thousand years. But yet... it didn't. One lake drained away at a given rate on this ice shelf... one could extrapolate that to be that it would take decades for all the other lakes to drain away, and further say that one lake draining has no effect on other lakes, and that it will be replaced by the formation of many other meltwater lakes just like it was formed. One could also say one small lake draining would NEVER affect a large ice shelf.

But yet... it did have an effect that was not explained by a purely flat rate per time extrapolation. It wasn't quite exponential, but it definitely came in somewhere between. It was an example of how one thing happening in one place... can effect and increase speed of other nearby items.

Or, from another source... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Trends_in_global_average_absolute_sea_level,_1870-2008_(US_EPA).png. Sea levels rose 0 inches between 1910-1930. A lot different than the 2.4 millimeters per year rise that you claim. But yet... it did happen. I think you're trying to scare us by using measurable facts.

No, the 4 foot rise number is an upper limit... and not 4 foot per year. The actual is anywhere from 7 inches to 4 feet, depending on how things cascade. The biggest concern is the ice melt from the Greenland Ice Sheets, and the continued ice melt of large Antarctic ice sheets.

Re:Future?

[Jane Q. Public]

"Is useful to predict what will happen maybe soon if there are big ice shelves in similar conditions?"

This sort of thing happens all the time. It's a natural process, and the basic process hasn't changed in recorded history.

This is a bit oversimplified, but snow is deposited on top. It builds up, and gets heavy. Gradually the snow and ice migrate sideways, pushing outward. This is also (besides gravity) what moves glaciers.

So pieces are always breaking off the edges. The 2002 incident might have been one of the larger ones, but in the overall scheme of things is nothing very special.

Re:Reporting on events in 2002?

[AK Marc]

If they report it immediately, then there are complaints that we don't have all the facts in. If it's reported after the facts are in, someone will point to an unsubstantiated guess that happened to be right, but beat Slashdot by years. The best is when Slashdot does both, and gets bashed for the initial report, the "delayed" report and the dupe.

Re: Somehow this will all be Obama's fault.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's simple - when you force millions of people to buy something, the price goes up. Economics. And the wealth gap between the young and old grows to a new record.

Re:The 400 reading is from atop Mauna Lua

[Wolfling1]

OK. It doesn't sound like you're trolling, so I'll give a more useful post this time:

Check out this site. It has some really good material and references about the science behind this stuff.

You might also find this interview with one of the key scientists interesting.

I don't profess to be a climate change guru, but this stuff looks reasonably legit to me.

This was the only version (R) would accept.

[Anonymous Coward]

Since this wasn't the scheme that Obama wanted, and this is the "compromise" that the Republicans would accept, this is absolutely NOT Obama's fault, but the fault of the Republicans.

political science

[harvey the nerd]

Conclusory, political, non-factual statements included in this article. I have lost all respect for Nature.

Re:Somehow this will all be Obama's fault.

[siride]

Who needs facts when we can engage in massive hyperbole? Obama's nothing special. He ain't great. He's failed to change things that needed to change since Bush. A lot of the stuff you're complaining about is simply a continuation of existing policies or slight expansion. I'm not happy about it, but let's not pretend that he's some sort of Hitler, seizing power and single-handedly changing the shape and function of our government. Hardly. Get over yourself.