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."
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.
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?
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 : )
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.
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*.
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
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......
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
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.