Slashdot Mirror


Larson B Ice Shelf In Antarctica To Disintegrate Within 5 Years

BarbaraHudson writes: A new study (abstract) from NASA scientists predicts an Antarctic ice shelf half the size of Rhode Island will disintegrate around 2020. The shelf has existed for roughly 10,000 years. "Ice shelves are the gatekeepers for glaciers flowing from Antarctica toward the ocean. Without them, glacial ice enters the ocean faster and accelerates the pace of global sea level rise." At its thickest point, the ice shelf remnant is a half kilometer tall, and spans approximately 1,600 square kilometers. "The glaciers' thicknesses and flow speeds changed only slightly in the first couple of years following the 2002 collapse, leading researchers to assume they remained stable. The new study revealed, however, that Leppard and Flask glaciers have thinned by 65-72 feet (20-22 meters) and accelerated considerably in the intervening years. The fastest-moving part of Flask Glacier had accelerated 36 percent by 2012 to a flow speed of 2,300 feet (700 meters) a year."

16 of 293 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Fight! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Quick, we need everyone to pile on for why this proves catastrophe is imminent and favored policy changes must be passed. Then the other half can pile in and explain why this means nothing and the next ice age is still coming...

    Actually that's only two thirds of the choir, the remaining third are the right wing free market fundamentalists who think climate change is a hoax and even if it isn't it just represents a fresh influx of profitable business opportunities.

  2. Good thing climate change isn't real! by sirwired · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Gee, it's a good thing Anthropogenic Global Warming is just a Big Leftist Conspiracy, or imagine how bad things would be!

    How much evidence is required before denialist clowns will be convinced that Global Warming is a thing, and it is almost certainly Our Fault? It's kind of amusing that the same people that will shovel 100's of $B and sacrifice thousands of lives to counter theoretical threats posed by countries all over the world somehow require absolute irrefutable "I must personally get burnt before I'll ever admit fire exists" proof when it comes to climate change?

    1. Re:Good thing climate change isn't real! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How much evidence is required before denialist clowns will be convinced that Global Warming is a thing, and it is almost certainly Our Fault?

      I am sorry but your assumption is invalid: that denialists are actually looking at the evidence. Denailists are watching the clowns on Fox News and listening to clowns on Talk Radio who tell them that the snow storm they just experienced is all the proof they need that Global Warming is a hoax. They consider Scientific American to be a liberal rag and scientists to be liberal elitists and therefore; to be ignored. No, I am not making that up. I was paraphrasing my Rush and Hannity listening neighbor.

    2. Re:Good thing climate change isn't real! by Whorhay · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Honestly it doesn't matter to me if this is being caused by use Humans or not. The real question is should we attempt to do something to slow down or stop the global warming? If the answer is yes, then we need to start working on that and a prime place to start is the factors that we can control, such as CO2 emissions. Playing the blame game at this point is a waste of time and effort.

    3. Re:Good thing climate change isn't real! by cbiltcliffe · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Gee, it's a good thing Anthropogenic Global Warming is just a Big Leftist Conspiracy, or imagine how bad things would be!

      How much evidence is required before denialist clowns will be convinced that Global Warming is a thing, and it is almost certainly Our Fault?

      See, this is why global warming is a religion, rather than science. If you don't agree with the entire GW dogmatic scripture, and you question anything at all, then you're straw manned as denying everything at all, being anti-science, etc.etc.etc.

      There's the position that you hold, where "AGW IS REAL!!! WE'RE CAUSING EVERY BIT OF IT AND WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIIIIIIIIIEEE!!1!1!!"
      Then there's the position you claim everyone who disagrees with you holds, where "AGW ISN'T HAPPENING! THERE IS NO WARMING! CLIMATE DOESN'T CHANGE AT ALL! YOU'RE ALL LIAAAARRRSSS!!!!11!!11"

      Your statement makes it quite clear that you think no other position exists. Regardless of your black and white view, there is a whole scale of opinions in between your two extremes.
      How about: "Yes, the earth is warming slightly. We're probably causing a little bit of it, but there have been continual climate fluctuations for millions of years, without any human cause, so it's entirely likely that this is at least somewhat natural, as well. As a natural process, it will reverse itself with time, just like it has every other time in the past."
      Or maybe: "Yes, the earth has warmed marginally over the past 50 years. It seems to have paused at the moment, though, so maybe it's going to start cooling by itself within the next couple of decades, so maybe we're not causing it at all."
      Or even: "Well, there is a bit of warming, but it's not anywhere near as quick as it was at the end of the ice age. We're probably causing most of it, but we're looking at a temperature that's still lower than it was 10,000 years ago, so we're certainly not at a point of no return yet, regardless of what the extremists are shouting."

      Regardless of you being an extremist loon, that doesn't mean that everyone who questions you is an extremist loon in the opposite direction.

      --
      "City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
    4. Re:Good thing climate change isn't real! by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The real question is how many millions of people should we kill with energy poverty?

    5. Re:Good thing climate change isn't real! by dywolf · · Score: 5, Insightful

      that's an awful long post.
      too bad its all bullshit.
      such a waste of time and effort.

      -no one is asking to give politicians "unlimited power to regulate every aspect of your life"
      -lots of people, far smarter than you, have already investigated, tested, and evaluated all the various natural process candidates.
      -no one is saying we need to get below 100ppm CO2
      -you ask for scientific evidence, when there are already tens of thousands of scientific reports and papers and findings already published.
      -actually all of the observations DO support the theory. in fact they are the basis of it.
      -actually all of the satellite data DOES support it.
      -funny you mention the "adjustments". all the adjustments made actually lower the amount of apparent warming. it's not adjusted to match the theory, its adjusted to account for changes in instruments over the years, or location, or other factors. yeah, that's right. without the adjustments, the apparent amount of warming would be 20% higher.. this may be a shock to you, but a thermometer int he sun will read a higher temperature than one in the shade just a few inches away. so that way all the data is on the same baseline.
      -nope, the models havent failed.

      seriously, just fuck off.
      your tropes are so tired and out of date, its getting boring repeatedly rebutting them every day.

      you are the equivalent of a drunk in a bar questioning Einstein. Or more accurately, several thousand Einsteins.
      (and seriously, who modded that bullshit insightful?)

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
  3. The issue isn't worth fighting over by popo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    One must note that the ice sheet has **ONLY** existed for 10,000 years.

    It's very important to stress this point, as those who do not understand geologic time are at risk of thinking that 10,000 years is a long time.

    It's a nanosecond on the geologic clock.

    This is a very young icesheet. It's loss is noteworthy, but does not have significance when viewed on macro timeframes.

    --
    ------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
    1. Re:The issue isn't worth fighting over by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The fact that this isn't an issue on geologic scales isn't what's concerning people. We're worried about whether or not this is something that will be a problem for the current and foreseeable human generations.

    2. Re:The issue isn't worth fighting over by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Sorry, but this is one of the most idiotic comments ever. Yes, this ice shelf has been stable/in equilibrium for 10,000 years, which admittedly, is drop in the bucket of our full Earth history. But those measly 10,000 years include the entire time period during which modern humans shed their hunter-gatherer past, developed farming and became more sedentary, organized higher-level civilizations and social constructs, etc. Yeah, the Holocene has been relatively stable climate-wise, and indeed, it's relatively stability has been indicated as one of the factors that permitted many of the technological and social innovations mentioned above. So now that the climate system is showing signs of instability, and going out of kilter, that doesn't worry you???

  4. 5 years by judoguy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If everything DOESN'T go to hell in 5 years, will the AGW people shut the fuck up? No, I didn't think so.

    --
    Peace is easy to achieve, just surrender. Liberty is much harder get/keep.
  5. Welcome to civilization by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Except you're wrong: On the timescales of human civilization, climate is virtually static. Civilization is pretty solidly predicated on world temperature and climatic patterns being what they are, and the oceans being the height they are (ports and coastal cities having been a Thing since the beginning of civilization). The collapse of more than one civilization can be attributed to shifts in climatic patterns over centuries, and we are now driving measurable, substantial changes on scales not comparable to the age of civilizations, but a single human lifetime and soon even mere decades.

    Knowing this fact, perhaps we shouldn't knowingly and deliberately be doing a frantic tango on some of Earth's primary climate control levers. And even if we *have been*, now that we realize it's a really bad thing we should *stop doing it*.

  6. Re:Fight! by garyisabusyguy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It is really more a case of, "Do nothing because our profit margins are set for the current situation and we do not want to incur any additional costs by recognizing risks that upset our current plan".

    --
    Wherever You Go, There You Are
  7. Re:Fight! by cbiltcliffe · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Are you really criticizing that scientists failed to accurately predict the demise of a 10,000 year old structure to a better precision than ~10 years? You're really that cynical over a change of like 0.1%? If I predicted that apple stock would double in a 2 year span, and in fact it only went up 99.9%, would you really not listen to my next stock prediction?

    The age of the structure is irrelevant to the precision of when it will disappear. If they say it will disappear in 5 years, but it really takes 15, it's not inaccurate by .1% because the structure is 10,000 years old. It's inaccurate by 300%, because their 5 year prediction took 15 years to come true. Considering how many of these "sky is falling" predictions have been made over the past few decades, virtually none of which are even close to accurate when the end date of the prediction comes along, I'd say being cynical is quite appropriate.

    --
    "City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
  8. Re:Fight! by dryeo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    While I'm sure there are nut cases who have no idea of the reality that things just can't change that fast without huge hardship, there is also the old negotiation tactics, ask for 50MPG for all cars and maybe get 30MPG, then ask for 60 and maybe get 35. This has been working, car mileage has improved quite a bit in recent years.
    Unluckily due to the nature of CO2 and its emitters, we're not going to get much more then a slowdown in the release of CO2, we're just too dependent on fossil fuels so really we should be planning on changes, many of which won't be for the better, at least short term.

    --
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
  9. I'll tell you what I don't do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I don't decide that the science must be wrong.

    Gravity's pull on objects is settled science. Things really do fall down when you let them go. I do not therefore go and think that there's no such thing as gravity.

    CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Settled science.

    CO2 increases are from humans. Settled science.

    Most or more than all (it would normally be continuing the cooling trend if not for us) of the recent warming is settled science.

    How much, precisely? Not settled.

    None or less than none? Settled. Both are bollocks.

    Is it the Sun? Settled science. It's us. The sun is cooling

    Is it cosmic rays? Not settled, 100%, but nearly so: every test so far shows no.

    Gravity? Settled.

    What causes gravity? Still debating, not settled.