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

on a volcano spewing CO2

[raymorris]

And that "alarming" measurement was on a volcano that emits CO2. It's unfortunate that most climate science isn't science. There IS something going on, something very subtle, but it's nearly impossible to any real understanding of it because there is so much politics.

  Most everything published on the topic isn't just slanted, it's so ridiculously off to one side or another that's it's useless. I mean seriously, you take your "atmospheric" CO2 measurements on a volcano? That's not even acceptable by propaganda standards. Baghdad Bob would laugh at you and suggest that somewhere in the desert or sea would be much more believable, just do it a 200 miles downwind of Los Angeles.

Re:on a volcano spewing CO2

[Pino Grigio]

Of course, denier sites focus on the increase sea ice

Using the term denier in a scientific debate demonstrates you have no understanding whatsoever how science works. Worse, you claim that the Antarctic is losing ice because it's gaining ice because of calving, which is the most incredible nonsense. But then, when Arctic ice grows or shrinks, it's always due to warming, never due to the wind moving the freely floating ice around.

Really, what is the point in debating with people like you? I have no idea.

Re:on a volcano spewing CO2

[serviscope_minor]

Using the term denier in a scientific debate demonstrates you have no understanding whatsoever how science works.

You seem to be confusing "scientific debate" with "engaging cranks who hold to a disproven hypothesis no matter the weight of evidence agains them".

Re:on a volcano spewing CO2

[Pino Grigio]

It's a label for people who deny scientific results.

It's a label to shut down any debate and prevent people disputing a scientific hypothesis, disputing the statistical treatment of real world data (which is woeful in Climate Science), or disputing the output of computer models, especially computer models that appear to be completely wrong when compared to actually real-world data.

The 400 reading is from atop Mauna Lua

[raymorris]

The only 400 reading publicized was here on Slashdot a few weeks ago. The measurement was from atop Mauna Lua - a volcano that emits CO2 constantly. You'll note that the defender below acknowledges that fact while saying it's okay because the person who did the reading edited the data to come up with the 400 estimate.

That's seriously the best "defense" - "it's okay, we cooked the data to say 400 because we think that's what it might have been if we weren't on a volcano."