Slashdot Mirror
Iceberg the Size of Delaware, Among Biggest Ever Recorded, Snaps Off Antarctica (marketwatch.com)
A giant iceberg about the size of Delaware that had been under scientists' watch has broken off from an ice shelf on the Antarctica Peninsula and is now adrift in the Weddell Sea. From a report: The 2,200 square-mile, trillion metric-ton section of the Larsen C ice shelf "calved" off sometime between Monday and Wednesday, a team of researchers at Swansea University's Project MIDAS has reported, citing imaging from NASA's Aqua MODIS satellite instrument. Scientists have tracked the crack for more than a decade and they warned in June that the section was "hanging by a thread." Its break, from Antarctica's fourth-largest ice shelf, changes the border shape of the peninsula forever even though the remaining ice shelf will continue to grow. "The iceberg is one of the largest recorded and its future progress is difficult to predict," said professor Adrian Luckman of Swansea University, lead investigator of the MIDAS project. "It may remain in one piece but is more likely to break into fragments. Some of the ice may remain in the area for decades, while parts of the iceberg may drift north into warmer waters."
To build a new, unsinkable, super cruise liner ship. At least four chimneys will be required.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
I firstly read about this in a Spanish newspaper claiming that it was bigger than Madrid. Afterwards, I found out in Twitter that it was bigger than London. And now I know that it is as big as Delaware! And the worst part is that I don't even have a reasonably accurate idea about how big it is! LOL.
Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
The logic is, if it can be tied to AGW, it is and is "Climate Change". If it doesn't fit AGW, it is "weather".
And if it is something we humans haven't seen before in recorded history, it is AGW, but only if it fits the narrative. Record Snow falls, never before seen before ... not so much. And Recorded history being ... about 200 years or so.
This is why it is hard to have rational discussions on the merits of AGW, causes and effects. The Greening Of Africa is another great example ignored. http://news.nationalgeographic...
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
they've always wanted one.
Worst drought in Africa since 1945.
http://www.africanews.com/2017...
Worst among the countries are Somalia, South Sudan, and Nigeria in West Africa who are part of the more than 20 million people estimated by the United Nations to be facing severe famine and starvation in the world.
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
Why use Delaware? It's less taxing than other states!
(add your own rimshot noise)
No, it's hard to have a have rational discussions on the merits of AGW when politicians toss snowballs around the senate as proof that climate change isn't happening.
The 5 hottest years on record have all been since 2010. 11 of the 12 hottest years have been since 2000.
Local cold snaps don't disprove that, can you point to any researchers who have claimed that climate change will prevent local cold snaps? The average temperatures speak for themselves, expect to boneheads and oil shills.
Don't want to hear it? Then you'll have to prove the work of a vast number of scientists working for a vast number institutes in a vast number of countries all wrong.
Oh and in case anyone feels the need to claim scientists are just protecting their research grants, the only reason this research is needed is because politicians are pushing back on the findings. If the world had acted on carbon emissions in the 80s like it did on CFCs then there wouldn't be the need for this research would there?
The logic is, if it can be tied to AGW, it is and is "Climate Change". If it doesn't fit AGW, it is "weather".
The difference between weather and climate is time. What we know is the oceans are getting warmer and that's a change in climate. However, one of the outcomes of climate change is more extreme weather patterns. It's climate change regardless if it's good weather or bad weather because weather is a local phenomenon.
This is why it is hard to have rational discussions on the merits of AGW, causes and effects. The Greening Of Africa is another great example ignored.
Getting particular predictions incorrect does not diminish the point that the climate is changing. What we do know for sure is that the oceans are getting warmer at an alarming rate.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
So, let's tow the iceberg to the Sahara, and use it to irrigate and cool the desert, and in the process bind up much of the water in an extension of water cycle to lots of surface area that currently does not participate. No? Just because it will cost a trillion dollars or so? When did costs become an important part of the climate narrative?
Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.
As the glaciers melt and sea levels rise, coastal cities around the world will be flooded, and arctic wastelands will spring to life.Russia is an arctic nation, which will benefit greatly from global sea levels. Most of America's business and culture is near the sea, and will be devastated by sea level rise.
Not sure why this is rated "troll". Actually, global warming probably will be good for Russia. At least, will be good for large parts of Russia.
Global warming isn't bad for everybody. It will be bad for places close to the equator, and places with cities on or near the ocean. But that's not true of most of Russia.
The comment seem rather accurate.
(the second part, sarcasm about Putin and Trump, is not, however.)
Poor folk stay behind in Eritrea and Ethiopia where there is little food.
FTFY.
</truth>
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
But the periodicity for glacial advance and retreat is 100,000 years-- the hundred year time scale you mention is a bit fast. A new glaciation isn't coming that soon.
Don't forget about Antarctica - it will become an earthly paradise as global warming takes effect.
Probably not. Average temperature of Antarctica is -70F. Average high is -49.
It will take more than the few degrees of warming we can produce with greenhouse effect gasses to make that "an earthly paradise."
Guess what, humans move when climate changes
No. Humans will move when wars fought over resource redistribution finally pushes them into moving.
The logic is, if it can be tied to AGW, it is and is "Climate Change". If it doesn't fit AGW, it is "weather".
Well, yeah. Not certain the point that you are trying to make. These scientists you hate have said they can't tie this to global warming.
And if it is something we humans haven't seen before in recorded history, it is AGW, but only if it fits the narrative.
As noted before, the narrative here is a strawman made up in your head, so that you can slay it with your alternate facts.
Here is what a team member spokesman had to say
“Although this is a natural event, and we’re not aware of any link to human-induced climate change, this puts the ice shelf in a very vulnerable position. This is the furthest back that the ice front has been in recorded history. We’re going to be watching very carefully for signs that the rest of the shelf is becoming unstable.”
And that is the narrative directly from the horses mouth. No awareness of any link.
Which in no way shape or form fits with your strawman narrative.
Record Snow falls, never before seen before ... not so much. And Recorded history being ... about 200 years or so.
Snowfalls can be indicative of warming. There is an area in the US known as the "Snow Belt" It egts a lot of snow every year. And it is further south than where I live. Snow requires moisture and freezing temperatures, but not too cold. In the Antarctic there really isn't that much snowfall. Too cold. What falls doesn't melt much, os it seems like a lot. But warm moist air from the gulf heading north and hitting cold air form the arctic can make for some yuge snowstorms. And the Snow Belt has crept northward. Philadelphis and Washington have been hammered in recent years. The idea that many science deniers have that GW is going to be tropical teas everywhere with no snow is simply wrong. Seasons still happen, and most places that got cold and snnow before still will. Thewarmer areas will just move north some - or south some depending on which side of the equator they are on. Moving on - So you believe that we can only make climate and temperature data for about 200 years or so? This is another illustration of exactly why science deniers are not getting the picture, it is possible you are ignorant of all of the dating methods that allow us to develop climate data.
Ice cores, land features, geological records - chemistry comes into play here as well, certain minerals form only under certain conditions. These are correlated with other measurements.
Think of it this way. If you do not believe in the data that shows what climate was like before 200 years ago, you cannot believe in global cooling or warming ever happened either. Many of the situations that determined the climate of ages past is linked to atmospheric composition, solar activity, and mineral composition It is not possible to believe that any ice ages or warm ages ever occurred because you reject the data that also shows that warming happened. You don't get to pick and choose. Back to the iceberg. Icebergs calve all the time. Any one is only linked to itself. It is a function of ice and gravity as snow accumulates and compacts itself into ice, it will move if it can. Downhill, just like an extremely slow motion avalanche. Eventually it will break off after enough of it extends out into the ocean. Trying to tie that to AGW is very difficult.
But that being true, it does not negate the so called energy retention effects of the greenhouse gases, or the energy rejection effects of the anti-greenhouse gases. 800 some Terawatts of energy retention via radiative forcing.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
There were relatively easy alternatives to CFCs. Not so much for carbon emissions. Other than just not existing.
Actually in this case, its more emblematic than anything. From the BBC article:
http://www.bbc.com/news/scienc...
Obviously its great to have massive events like this to draw attention to the cause, and keep climate change at the front of peoples minds, but it seems like this isnt that big a deal. It isnt raising sea levels or single handidly causing giant problems by its calving alone.
Just part of the program these days.
As a potential lottery winner, I totally support tax cuts for the wealthy
Sea level rise due to climate change is 1-2 ft per century, and there are physical limits to how much faster ice masses can melt. It would take many centuries for cities to get flooded. Of course, advanced and wealthy places like the Netherlands function perfectly fine even below sea level. Fossil fuels will be replaced for economic reasons within a few decades without any government intervention or carbon taxes or Paris accords. So, no risk of flooding.
Humans migrate all the time, for reasons other than war. Resources become scarce, humans will war until the demand changes. The rich and powerful will always control the weak and poor, and it doesn't matter what political philosophy you embrace, this is true of all of them.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Its break, from Antarctica's fourth-largest ice shelf, changes the border shape of the peninsula forever even though the remaining ice shelf will continue to grow.
It is the use of words like this that make me wonder about the sanity of the people writing this shit.
The headline should be: Unfathomably large chunk of ice just broke off of an ice shelf in Antarctica.
Why would anyone care if the fucking coastline has changed? Forever. The universe is not a static place, coasts even less static than most. Why is the coastline changing forever even a part of this story?
I am sure such insanity is being promulgated for a reason. I have no idea if it is to drive me away from, or to, whatever mouthbreathing thing they are trying to push but I am weary of it.
Just provide facts. A VERY light touch of speculation of what it could mean is okay as long the writer specifically mentions it is speculation. It is almost as if we can't think for ourselves or something... or actively being prevented from thinking?
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
I WAS kidding, right? Although SF (e.g. Oath of Fealty, Niven and Pournelle) speculates on towing medium sized icebergs for just this purpose (providing fresh water in a water-scarce zone). But yeah, an iceberg the size of Delaware, or whatever metaphor for a 50x40 mile chunk of area many meters thick you would prefer to use, would be rather expensive to move.
What will be interesting will be if it floats north. It's big enough to significantly cool a good sized chunk of sea surface as it melts, at a guess. This, in turn, might affect many things in good and/or bad ways. For example, interrupting or diverting the thermohaline circulation would be "interesting"...
Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.
People will move, and then they'll discover that where they want to move to already has people, and those people won't make way. Now what?
Don't just stand there, get that other dog!
The 5 hottest years on record have all been since 2010. 11 of the 12 hottest years have been since 2000.
Only if you accept adjusted temperature readings..
That would explain why some skeptics at Berkeley didn't accept them, made their own measurements and got the same results.
You will not drink with us, but you would taste our steel? - Walter Matthau, The Pirates
At the end of the video we get "It was a natural event that had been anticipated for months and was not directly caused by climate change."
Putting this 'insignificant' piece of information at the end speaks volumes as to why people are tuning out MSM.