Slashdot Mirror
A Crack in an Antarctic Ice Shelf Grew 17 Miles in the Last Two Months
Jugal K Patel, writing for the NYTimes: A rapidly advancing crack in Antarctica's fourth-largest ice shelf has scientists concerned that it is getting close to a full break. The rift has accelerated this year in an area already vulnerable to warming temperatures. Since December, the crack has grown by the length of about five football fields each day (Editor's note: the link could be paywalled; alternate source). The crack in Larsen C now reaches over 100 miles in length, and some parts of it are as wide as two miles. The tip of the rift is currently only about 20 miles from reaching the other end of the ice shelf. Once the crack reaches all the way across the ice shelf, the break will create one of the largest icebergs ever recorded, according to Project Midas, a research team that has been monitoring the rift since 2014. Because of the amount of stress the crack is placing on the remaining 20 miles of the shelf, the team expects the break soon.
It's a good thing that climate change is a load of bollocks according to the Trump administration. I'm sure a group of people as competent as the ones that are around Trump know what they're talking about. I mean, otherwise, we might have to be worried.
(THIS IS SARCASM)
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
So a chunk of ice falls into the ocean. It'll cool the ocean a bit. I though you wanted it to be colder. Make up your damned minds!
Scientists actually don't believe this particular instance to be caused by climate change. So, if people could read up a bit and post something thoughtful instead of having a knee jerk anti-Trump comment, that would be awesome.
Because of course the big money is in being a scientist. All those CEOs, CFOs, CIOs, CTOs and institutional shareholders, why they're basically peasants! Poor dears, won't someone think of the Billionaire Oil Barons?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Everyone is always so down on Global Warming. Why doesn't anyone ever look on the bright side of things? After all, once the icecaps and glaciers all melt, think of how much better the world will be:
1) Florida will be completely underwater. Not just Miami, but the "Florida Man" parts too.
2) So will large chunks of the Middle East (though admittedly they'll probably be a bit more worried about the heat than that).
3) Lots of currently undervalued inland property will become valuable beachfront areas. And without having to fire nuclear missiles at the San Andreas a la Superman!
4) Huge swathes of inhospitably cold Canadian land will be sunny, warm, and liveable, which will be good news for those of us fleeing the future American hellscape.
5) Make the Great Lakes Great Again - there will be a new Great Lake, right about where Montreal currently is. (French Canadians underwater? Bonus!)
Sure, there will be some downsides. The Netherlands will wind up completely underwater, though I'm sure they can build a wall to keep the North Sea out, since they've been doing it for decades already. Install some tidal power generation, and they can even make the North Sea pay for it, too!
National Review is not a good source for science information, sorry-- it's an opinion magazine-- and National Review quoting a story from the Daily Mail is really not a reliable source-- Daily Mail is the kind of tabloid that gives the word "tabloid jounalism" its name.
So you mean pollution from burning fossil fuels....
Yes, but the pragmatic goal is air quality, not stopping AGW. That is probably more of a side-effect as opposed to the primary motivator.
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
We can just build a wall around the crack. Problem solved.
Similarly the children of a hoarder can just build a wall around it.
Its no worse a challenge than building a wall along the Canada-Australia border.
Simple solutions for simple problems. And if that doesn't work, sign an executive order to do something about it. Heck, maybe a few tweets can fix the crack.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
Do you have any evidence at all that this is in fact a career path of any researcher? This looks more like one of those "Researchers are lazy, evil and greedy" lines of thought.
For the record, want to make lots of money, in general, don't go into the sciences. Yes, there are a few science careers that can make oodles, but for the most part, science is not a path to fame and fortune.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Actually it's just the National Review passing along an "expose" by The Daily Mail. This is the same "newspaper" that claimed a 63 year-old woman became pregnant with baby squid after eating calimari.
If you look into the objections, they're rubbish. The paper in question (Karl et al) is part of an ongoing back-and-forth by scientists over the degree of warming post-1998, so if it is part of a conspiracy by the scientific establishment to cover up contrary data it's a pretty lame conspiracy because it let both sides of the data out.
As for Karl et al, it's a highly technical paper, but to cut to the chase the reason it has the denialists in an uproar is that it proposes a method that erases their precious, cherry-picked post '98 "hiatus". That hiatus didn't exist if you smoothed the data or chose any other starting point but the record setting '98, and it was was blown away by 2014-2016 anyhow. So this is beating a dead horse that was barely alive to begin with. The method in the Karl paper also suggests that the rate of warming since the early 20th C is actually lower than previously believed. Alarmist!
The thing about this kind of bullshit response is that the attraction of a conspiracy theory is that it's quick and easy to understand, as long as you don't try to square it with actual events. People find CTs credible because it says the people bearing bad news are out to get them.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
There would still be climatologists whether AGW was real or not. The value of tracking regional and global climate is pretty high. The actual fact is that it has been know for over a century that increasing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere would inevitably lead to more energy being trapped in the lower atmosphere. You can make all the claims you want that climatology is some of grant boon, but the fact of the matter is that is how most research works, particularly basic research.
Do you have an actual critique of the science, or is this just yet another "scientists are warped and twisted". You do understand that grants aren't just handed out based on the topic heading. Grant applications actually require researchers to make a strong argument for why the grant should be made. You act as if it is some sort of popularity contest, but I get it, you despise the research in question, hate the results it provides, but can't really debunk it, so it's time to attack the scientists. I fail to understand how defunding climate research will make human-caused climate change go away. When you're racing towards a brick wall, I know of no evidence that closing your eyes means you won't hit it.
Grow up. The universe is what it is, and CO2 has the properties it has, and not studying those properties and there large scale effects won't make those effects go away. Reality cannot be argued away.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
"traditional" $100-$200 million? Traditional since when? Traditional since the 19th Century when CO2 was first recognized as a potential problem, or traditional since 1959 when it became clear that there was a global issue with rising CO2 levels? Or would that have been any time in the past two centuries when the fundamentals of atmospheric physics were being worked out?
You're arguing against AGW, by using a political argument. If you want to argue that AGW is not a serious concern then you need to do it in the language of science, not allege some sort of cabal. Roy Spencer is still getting up and delivering contrarian screeds to Congress and being lead author on the sections of the IPCC report related to his specialty -- it's not like the opposing voices aren't being heard. It's that they're not persuasive in the face of the evidence. If you don't like what the science says, do better science. This is, really and truly, a meritocracy, where reproducible results are all that matter. We can prove it, because the consensus was *against* CO2-induced warming until the 1950s, and then everyone changed their mind and no one was fired. Because we didn't have jackasses like you trying to inject politics into a scientific topic by insisting that the entire field is comprised of avaricious liars. Honestly, this is just you being intellectually lazy. Go and look up the evidence for AGW. Go read about radiative transfer equations, the Stefan-Boltzmann law, the atmospheric window, carbon 14 ratios, and all the rest. When you do, come back and tell us what you think is wrong with *that*, not some irrelevant horseshit about some conspiracy of white-haired professors. The basics of AGW were worked out in 1896, and they have been supported since then by thousands and thousands of people working in cooperation around the globe since that time. We respect your right to disagree with the science; the whole point of science is to argue about models of reality. The rules of this game are mandatory and not up for debate: if you arguing against science with something other than empirical evidence, you are fighting reality itself, and you will lose. Now, do you have some novel observations on the nature of CO2 that you would like to share with us?
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
AGW is supported by evidence, your statements are supported by political conjecture. We don't have to ask scientists if AGW is correct. We can look at the science, which as it happens is over 100 years old and quite mature as a field. It's wonderful of you to call an entire academic discipline liars with just some rhetorical argument though. So did these climate researchers also go back in time and jog Tyndall's hand as he measured the thermoptic characteristics of atmospheric gases? Are we missing a carbon-dioxide-eating term in our atmospheric physics equations? Or is it that this whole "greenhouse effect" thing is a liberal myth (like the moon!)? And if we are this badly wrong about how the atmosphere works, why do the atmospheric physics laws work just fine to explain the temperatures on Jupiter and in the Solar atmosphere? And if you can't answer any of these questions, why should we listen to the opinion of someone who knows nothing about the subject?
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.