patrick.net

 
  forgot password?   register

#housing #investing #politics more»
750,909 comments in 77,178 posts by 11,010 registered users, 2 online now: APOCALYPSEFUCK_is_ADORABLE, HEY YOU

new post

Iceberg the size of 3000 square miles is about to leave Antarctica

By iwog   Feb 9, 12:28pm   10 links   10,767 views   107 comments   watch (0)   quote      

Perhaps you've seen the news articles about the crack that has been forming on the South Pole's Larson ice shelf. Scientists in the region are being evacuated because the crack is accelerating and breakoff is imminent. The size of this iceberg will be approximately 3000 square miles.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/02/07/science/earth/antarctic-crack.html?_r=0

The real question is why now? Luckily for all you chaps, I know why. Here's a graph of the extent of South polar ice for 2016 and 2017. Notice that all records were destroyed this year as the South Pole hit record temperatures and most of the surrounding sea ice was melted. What is left is very thick multi-year ice that takes years to accumulate, the Larson Ice Shelf being the largest of those.

Since the South Pole hasn't hit summer minimum yet, it's almost certain that melting hasn't stopped. Therefore high temperatures must be undercutting the "permanent" ice shelves and making them thinner and thinner, which is resulting in the breakdown of Larson and the giant iceberg.

\

Clearly this is the time when climate change deniers should be taking charge of world governments. Clearly.

#climate #politics

« First     « Previous     Comments 68-107 of 107     Last »

68   joeyjojojunior   883/888 = 99% civil   Feb 14, 6:14am  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike   quote    

"No. He is a scammer."

I guess that makes you a scammer too.

69   joeyjojojunior   883/888 = 99% civil   Feb 14, 6:32am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

"Anyone that subscribes to a scientific theory that calls anyone that disagrees with said theory a denier who should be throttled is more a religious nut than a person that believes in the back and forth debate of science. Are you a true believer or a denier? If it were science, it would NOT be a binary question"

Great--so what would you call someone who doesn't agree with the theory of gravity?

70   joeyjojojunior   883/888 = 99% civil   Feb 14, 6:36am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

"Gravty is a law. Global warming is theory. I thought yiu said you were educated?"

Actually gravity is both a theory and a law.

http://www.thehappyscientist.com/science-experiment/gravity-theory-or-law

I thought you said you "know science"

71   bob2356   657/662 = 99% civil   Feb 14, 6:55am  ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike   quote    

Hater says

Global warming is theory.

Global warming is a fact. Global warming from human activities is a theory. I thought you said you "know science".

72   HEY YOU   1055/1055 = 100% civil   Feb 14, 9:19am  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike   quote    

Tow that sucker to an American port. We can get rid of ice makers.

73   Tim Aurora   292/292 = 100% civil   Feb 14, 10:00am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

Hater says

Gravity is a law. Global warming is theory. I thought you said you were educated?

Gravity or world is round was a theory before it became the fact. And as far as theories go, there are deniers of evolution , global warming and many other scientifically proven facts. And if we are going to question every almost universally accepted theory, Islam is right is just putting its faith in Sharia and reject everything else.

74   bob2356   657/662 = 99% civil   Feb 14, 10:29am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

Hater says

Some of you true believers would want to jail me or worse just for questioning the religion.

Histrionics much?

75   iwog   2214/2216 = 99% civil   Feb 14, 10:35am  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike   quote    

Hater says

YES the earth is warming, but the models that predicted the hockey stick were wrong.

Well to start with, you don't know what the hockey stick references even is. It refers to existing temperature data which currently looks like a hockey stick. There is no "Predicted the hockey stick" and I'd think a guy who knows science so good would understand this.

https://www.google.com/search?q=hockey+stick+global+warming&espv=2&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi3-vL7m5DSAhXBy1QKHTfODJ8Q_AUICCgB&biw=1280&bih=894

Hater says

YES the earth is warming, but the politicians who want to scare people with catastrophic scenarios of coasts flooding and polar bears drowning so that they can steal your freedom and money, are wrong.

See here's where you're an idiot.

The polar ice caps may not melt in our lifetime. They may not even melt in the next 100 years. But what the fuck is 100 years in the scope of human history?? Maybe it's 300 years. You want to see billions of humans die 300 years from now because you decided the elimination of fossil fuels was too much for you to bother with?

Here's what the country looks like when the ice melts and California is no longer able to feed the country and the entire East Coast is under salt water. No problem right? It's 300 years from now so fuck them.

76   iwog   2214/2216 = 99% civil   Feb 14, 10:59am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

Hater says

In 300 years all living humans will be dead. Our surviving ancestors will adapt.

Right. They will adapt how exactly? 6 billion people will be forced en masse to abandon nearly every major city and do what? Build brand new cities without harbors, shipping, agriculture, and infrastructure?

How will they accomplish that exactly when most people are starving to death?

77   iwog   2214/2216 = 99% civil   Feb 14, 1:24pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

Hater says

But in the last 100 years we have had a global increase of less than 1 degree centigrade! In the scope of human history the climate has changed much more than that.

1. The curve isn't a straight line. It's parabolic. All life on earth will go extinct at about 12 degrees above where we are now. The hottest period during the age of vertebrates was called the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum and it was during the age of dinosaurs and at the very MOST global temperatures were 8 degrees hotter than they are now. (all life on earth was either cold blooded or extremely small) It's doubtful humans could live on an earth 5 degrees hotter than now and severe irreversible damage will occur to the planet at around 2 degrees. Still think 1 degree centigrade is nothing to worry about?

2. In the scope of human history the climate has barely changed at all. Even during the height of the ice age. The reason is that ice is a very efficient heat buffer that soaks up TONS of kinetic energy that would otherwise warm the earth if it wasn't spent on state change. To refresh your memory, heat used up in state change is why your cup of water filled with ice cubes is at 0 degrees centigrade and that same cup five hours later when the last ice chip is about to melt is STILL at 0 degrees centigrade. As long as there are significant amounts of ice floating in our oceans, kinetic energy (heat) will be absorbed and will not warm the planet. This is why the ice age wasn't very different from now. Ice acts as a buffer to high temperatures and also as a buffer to excessively low temperatures. We only become fucked when all the ice is gone and ALL of the energy goes directly to heating the planet.

78   iwog   2214/2216 = 99% civil   Feb 14, 1:30pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

Hater says

Hyperbole. Some humans die, the ones who can't adapt.

How do they adapt? Air conditioning?

A wet bulb temperature of 35 degrees celsius (35 degrees + 100% humidity) is always fatal to humans. You cannot survive that temperature if the humidity is that high. You will die and everyone around you will die. An entire 3rd world city without ample access to air conditioning will die. Everyone. Even the babies. Even in the shade. Even with a fan blowing air directly on you naked and covered in sweat.

Pakistan hit a wet bulb temperature of 33 degrees and 800 people simply fell down dead. Many who didn't die suffered brain damage or other permanent damage to their body. https://robertscribbler.com/tag/wet-bulb-temperatures-35-c/

We're very very close to the death of millions. Maybe this year. Maybe next year. Maybe 10 years from now but it's people like you who will make sure it happens. Lizards and snakes will be fine. Humans will not.

79   Rew   1136/1136 = 100% civil   Feb 14, 4:12pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

Hater says

How is a tax on carbon dioxide going to stop this?

It's not 'the answer'. But it does show an actual willingness to work toward addressing the problem. It shows value and building in "a" cost to what we are doing.

Just agreeing we should do something appears to be at issue here. A carbon tax is small potatoes.

The bigger question, if we are going to solve it, is how do we live without oil and specifically all the materials derived from it. Seems impossible today. That may be the state we have to work toward, though.

Doubt humanity will bind together in the face of this crisis though. It's far too distant and unapparent to us.

iwog says

How will they accomplish that exactly when most people are starving to death?

So true. We have lost a lot of primitive rudimentary skills. We are highly specialized now. It will be a dark age that will push us back further than the middle ages. Our species survival will be completely uncertain. Fermi paradox to fruition.

Hater says

The answer is, mathematically speaking, very simple.

Climate scientist or mathematician? Please link your quote sources when you argue.

Looks like this to me ...
https://wattsupwiththat.com
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watts_Up_With_That%3F

Anything more credible than assertions with backing by this blog?

80   iwog   2214/2216 = 99% civil   Feb 14, 4:18pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

Hater says

You do know that the raw data is massaged and manipulated to get that 1 degree rise in temperature over the last century don't you?

Clearly the North and South poles are also being massaged to break records almost every single year. Scientists are physically traveling to the poles and massaging the ice to heat it up and melt. BTW what's your explanation?

Hater says

"Now you can see why I said “You simply cannot do that”: When you get a discrepancy between a model and reality, you obviously can’t change the model’s known factors – they are what they are known to be. If you want to fiddle the model to match reality then you have to fiddle the unknowns. If your model started off a long way from reality then inevitably the end result is that a large part of your model’s findings come from unknowns, ie, from factors that are not understood. To put it simply, you are guessing, and therefore your model is unreliable."

Lets be real clear here. It doesn't fucking matter how fast the earth warms. If it only warms 1 degree per century, most humans will have to die by the year 2400.

However I have already pointed out that all the data is parabolic. That there is every indication that LINEAR climate models are wrong while PARABOLIC climate models are correct. I will give you one example:

Here's another example:

81   iwog   2214/2216 = 99% civil   Feb 14, 4:21pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike (1)   quote    

Hater says

Carbon taxing western civilization into pre-industrial revolution poverty will not stop China from polluting the world.

I have absolutely no doubt that we're toast but that's an aside to the REALITY which you are denying here.

82   iwog   2214/2216 = 99% civil   Feb 14, 4:23pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike (1)   quote    

Do you want to see the Hater says

It looks like a bit over a century before all the ice is gone and we start rocketing toward the next faze change of water to steam!

It's going to be far less than 100 years before people start dying by the millions due to heat waves.

83   iwog   2214/2216 = 99% civil   Feb 14, 4:24pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike (1)   quote    

Y'all want a glimpse at the end of the world? Right here:

84   iwog   2214/2216 = 99% civil   Feb 14, 4:26pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike (1)   quote    

Here's another one. We are rapidly going off the rails. Now. As in right this minute.

85   iwog   2214/2216 = 99% civil   Feb 14, 4:29pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike (1)   quote    

Hater says

Didn't you say the temp would not start rising rapidly until all of the ice was gone?

You don't understand.

A temperature of 95 degrees Fahrenheit will kill you. Every time. Without fail as long as the humidity is 100%.

This also scales based on humidity meaning the higher the temperature goes, the less humidity is required to kill you. A 110 degree temperature at 60% relative humidity will kill you just as fast. Heating the air, even slightly, allows it to carry far more water vapor which results in killing heat waves. Heating the oceans does the same thing.

Anything in red can kill you. Notice temperatures that are just a hot day in California can kill you if the humidity is high.

86   socal2   247/249 = 99% civil   Feb 14, 6:09pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

Rew says

It's not 'the answer'. But it does "show" an actual willingness to work toward addressing the problem. It "shows" value and building in "a" cost to what we are doing.

Just agreeing we should "do something" appears to be at issue here. A carbon tax is small potatoes.

I think this is a typical liberal do-gooder impulse. We need to "show" we care. We need to "do something" even if it won't have any appreciable impact to the problem other than to make us "feel" good about ourselves. Worse, this doing something can cause real human harm. Any meaningful carbon reduction program is going to have to include the 3rd world and countries like India and China. Is it really fair to make it harder for these billions of people from trying to claw their way to 2nd and 1st world living conditions?

The entire span of human history is about migration adapting to changing climates and environmental conditions. Less than 10,000 years ago, much of the US was under miles of ice. I believe we have time to innovate and can adapt or outrun the worst aspects of climate change.

87   iwog   2214/2216 = 99% civil   Feb 14, 6:15pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike (1)   quote    

socal2 says

The entire span of human history is about migration adapting to changing climates and environmental conditions. Less than 10,000 years ago, much of the US was under miles of ice. I believe we have time to innovate and can adapt or outrun the worst aspects of climate change.

Right.........loose tribes of indigenous people living off hunting and gathering and who adapted by walking somewhere else is analogous to major coastal cities with populations of millions relocating and taking all their skyscrapers with them.

Do you know what technology can't do? It can't feed people when most existing farmland is under water and what's left is sterile peat bogs.

Anyway I think killer heat waves will cause global panic far before that happens. What happened last year was just a warm up. (warm up, get it?)

88   BlueSardine   833/850 = 98% civil   Feb 14, 6:28pm  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike   quote    

Nothing mankind can do will impact the march of global evolution. We are all toast so stop being pussys and accept your fate to be ripped apart at the molecular level and reassembled thousands of years later as some alien fuck who couldn't hit the broadside of the galaxy if his starship depended on it...

89   justme   275/275 = 100% civil   Feb 14, 6:34pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

Macropodia says

global evolution.

What the fuck is "global evolution"? Is it what climate-changers believe in instead of global warming?

90   BlueSardine   833/850 = 98% civil   Feb 14, 6:49pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

Physical changes that will occur to this planet that will happen regard less of what hell mankind intoduces.
justme says

What the fuck is "global evolution"?

91   iwog   2214/2216 = 99% civil   Feb 14, 7:11pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike (1)   quote    

Hater says

I just don't Want to pay the breathing tax.

So you redefine reality to make yourself feel better about not paying more taxes.

That's fine but what you don't comprehend is what else you're buying with it.

Ignorance is a package deal.

92   iwog   2214/2216 = 99% civil   Feb 14, 7:15pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike (1)   quote    

Hater says

So you want a breathing tax?

Nope. No one is suggesting a breathing tax. That's just a straw man you invented.

93   iwog   2214/2216 = 99% civil   Feb 14, 7:30pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike (1)   quote    

Hater says

You insist that the end is inevitable and yet you still think that we should pay a carbon tax.

Nope. I never said that. Besides a carbon tax isn't a breathing tax and humans are net carbon neutral. That's what plants are for.

Hater says

I think that with technology we could overcome the challenges of pollution and overpopulation.

That almost exactly the opposite of what you just said here:

Hater says

I believe it is where the earth and life on it evolves over time. No matter what we do, or think we can do, the planet, and life on it changes.

94   iwog   2214/2216 = 99% civil   Feb 15, 9:04am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike (1)   quote    

Hater says

But if your religion requires that you cry "the sky is falling", don't try to force me to believe

You can believe whatever you want but some of us like to have a reality-based existence.

95   beershrine   1/1 = 100% civil   Feb 15, 9:28am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

Co2 is a .03%-.04% of the atmosphere so any theory this causes warming is totally flawed. The temps are warming slightly that is a fact it seems though we can do little to change natures course other than panic and make people believe the sky is falling which is something we can do.

96   iwog   2214/2216 = 99% civil   Feb 15, 9:36am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike (1)   quote    

beershrine says

Co2 is a .03%-.04% of the atmosphere so any theory this causes warming is totally flawed.

So this is all some giant coincidence? Humans double the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and just by an amazing coincidence temperatures rise and the poles melt?

97   joeyjojojunior   883/888 = 99% civil   Feb 15, 10:35am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

"Co2 is a .03%-.04% of the atmosphere so any theory this causes warming is totally flawed"

Really--why don't you add .03% Arsenic to your water each day before you drink it? That can't be a problem, right?

98   mell   63/63 = 100% civil   Feb 15, 1:30pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

Past inter-glacial periods have been much warmer with far less CO2 in the air. If we're indeed reversing and heading for a maunder minimum it will get ugly cold and the so far brutal 2017 winter will seem "warm" in comparison.

99   BayAreaObserver   1054/1055 = 99% civil   Jul 13, 2:51pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

"The calving of this iceberg leaves the Larsen C Ice Shelf reduced in area by more than 12%, and the landscape of the Antarctic Peninsula changed forever."

Luckman and O'Leary said the iceberg will probably be named "A68," and that it's one of the largest ever recorded — possibly the third-largest iceberg since satellite measurements began, according The Antarctic Report. However, Luckman said its enormous size makes its fate tough to predict.

"It may remain in one piece but is more likely to break into fragments," he said. "Some of the ice may remain in the area for decades, while parts of the iceberg may drift north into warmer waters."

Where the iceberg may go:

Although the iceberg's path is uncertain, Anna Hogg, a glaciologist at the University of Leeds, previously said that "ocean currents could drag it north, even as far as the Falkland Islands."

Those islands lie more than 1,000 miles away from the Larsen C ice shelf in Antarctica.

More: http://www.businessinsider.com/antarctica-larsen-c-iceberg-path-location-2017-7

100   BlueSardine   833/850 = 98% civil   Jul 13, 3:04pm  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike   quote    

Well at least we know what didn't cause it to break free...

Calving is a natural occurrence, but scientists have been exploring whether climate change may have played a role in expediting the rift.
The team of researchers have not yet found "any link to human-induced climate change," Martin O'Leary, a Swansea University glaciologist and member of the MIDAS project team, said in a statement.
Back in November, a satellite photo revealed just 5 km of ice connected the ice sheet to Larsen C.
Back in November, a satellite photo revealed just 5 km of ice connected the ice sheet to Larsen C.
Luckman added, "We have no evidence to link this directly to climate change, and no reason to believe that it would not have happened without the extra warming that human activity has caused. But the ice shelf is now at its most retreated position ever recorded and regional warming may have played a part in that."

http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/12/world/larsen-c-antarctica/index.html

101   komputodo   220/221 = 99% civil   Jul 13, 3:20pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

iwog says

It's going to be far less than 100 years before people start dying by the millions due to heat waves.

Okay, you've convinced me. I'm on my way to walmart in my V8 powered pickup to buy some LED lamps.

102   HEY YOU   1055/1055 = 100% civil   Jul 13, 5:42pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

BlueSardine says

The team of researchers have not yet found "any link to human-induced climate change," Martin O'Leary, a

"yet"
Because there is no evidence in one's possession does not mean evidence doesn't exist.

103   BlueSardine   833/850 = 98% civil   Jul 13, 5:58pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

Nor does it mean that
No evidence in ones possession means that there will be evidence in their possession at some future date.
HEY YOU says

yet"

Because there is no evidence in one's possession does not mean evidence doesn't exist.

104   jvolstad   195/195 = 100% civil   Jul 13, 6:37pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

Maybe a scummy Realtor can subdivide the iceberg and sell lots.

105   Tenpoundbass   1414/1416 = 99% civil   Jul 13, 6:39pm  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote    

How come this place is the exact same land mass it was in the Civil war when it was built?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Jefferson_(Florida)

106   Booger   624/624 = 100% civil   Jul 13, 7:47pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

iwog says

The size of this iceberg will be approximately 3000 square miles.

That's about the size of which state?

107   PeopleUnited   433/433 = 100% civil   Jul 13, 8:00pm  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike   quote    

Booger says

iwog says

The size of this iceberg will be approximately 3000 square miles.

That's about the size of which state?

that would be the state of Hysteria Bob.

« First     « Previous     Comments 68-107 of 107     Last »

users   about   suggestions   contact  
topics   random post   best comments   comment jail  
patrick's 40 proposals  
10 reasons it's a terrible time to buy  
8 groups who lie about the housing market  
37 bogus arguments about housing  
get a free bumper sticker:

top   bottom   home