Iceberg the size of 3000 square miles is about to leave Antarctica
« prev   climate   next »

6
11

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

By anonymous following x   2017 Feb 9, 12:28pm 14,348 views   118 comments   watch   quote     share    


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 78 - 117 of 117     Last »

79   Rew   ignore (0)   2017 Feb 14, 4:12pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     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   ignore (1)   2017 Feb 14, 4:18pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     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   ignore (1)   2017 Feb 14, 4:21pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (2)     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   ignore (1)   2017 Feb 14, 4:23pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (2)     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   ignore (1)   2017 Feb 14, 4:24pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (2)     quote      

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

84   iwog   ignore (1)   2017 Feb 14, 4:26pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (2)     quote      

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

85   iwog   ignore (1)   2017 Feb 14, 4:29pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (2)     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   ignore (0)   2017 Feb 14, 6:09pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     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   ignore (1)   2017 Feb 14, 6:15pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (2)     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   ignore (1)   2017 Feb 14, 6:28pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)     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   ignore (0)   2017 Feb 14, 6:34pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Macropodia says

global evolution.

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

90   BlueSardine   ignore (1)   2017 Feb 14, 6:49pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     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   ignore (1)   2017 Feb 14, 7:11pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (2)     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   ignore (1)   2017 Feb 14, 7:15pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (2)     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   ignore (1)   2017 Feb 14, 7:30pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (2)     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   ignore (1)   2017 Feb 15, 9:04am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (2)     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   ignore (0)   2017 Feb 15, 9:28am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     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   ignore (1)   2017 Feb 15, 9:36am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (2)     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   ignore (1)   2017 Feb 15, 10:35am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     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   ignore (1)   2017 Feb 15, 1:30pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     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   ignore (1)   2017 Jul 13, 2:51pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     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   ignore (1)   2017 Jul 13, 3:04pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)     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   ignore (0)   2017 Jul 13, 3:20pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     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   ignore (7)   2017 Jul 13, 5:42pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     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   ignore (1)   2017 Jul 13, 5:58pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     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   ignore (0)   2017 Jul 13, 6:37pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

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

105   Tenpoundbass   ignore (6)   2017 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   ignore (0)   2017 Jul 13, 7:47pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

iwog says

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

That's about the size of which state?

107   PeopleUnited   ignore (2)   2017 Jul 13, 8:00pm   ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike (0)     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.

108   Sniper   ignore (8)   2017 Nov 10, 7:47am   ↑ like (5)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

iwog says
Notice that all records were destroyed this year as the South Pole hit record temperatures and most of the surrounding sea ice was melted.


iwog says
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.


Yes, it's almost CERTAIN it's being caused by "high temperatures" from Global Warming, oops, Climate Change , oops, maybe something else:

Heat source under Antarctica melting its ice sheet: NASA

A geothermal heat source called mantle plume lies deep below Antarctica's Marie Byrd Land, explaining some of the melting that creates lakes and rivers under the ice sheet, a NASA study has found.

Although the heat source is not a new or increasing threat to the West Antarctic ice sheet, it may help explain why the ice sheet collapsed rapidly in an earlier era of abrupt climate change, and why it is so unstable today.

Understanding the sources and future of the meltwater under West Antarctica is important for estimating the rate at which ice may be lost to the ocean in the future.

Sitting on a stove

About 30 years ago, a scientist at the University of Colorado Denver in the US suggested that heat from a mantle plume under Marie Byrd Land might explain regional volcanic activity and a topographic dome feature. Very recent seismic imaging has supported this concept.

"I thought it was crazy. I didn't see how we could have that amount of heat and still have ice on top of it," said Helene Seroussi of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) in California.

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/science/heat-source-under-antarctica-melting-its-ice-sheet-nasa/the-findings/slideshow/61592901.cms
109   TwoScoopsMcGee   ignore (1)   2017 Nov 10, 8:05am   ↑ like (4)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

It's heresy to point out we're in an interglaciation phase of an Ice Age.

Right now we're in an ice age. We just happen to live in a period of an ice age where glaciation is retreating, but it was just a few thousand years ago.

In the modern era, the Cenozoic era, there have been times when there were NO ICE CAPS AT ALL. Long before humans or even Australopithecines walked the earth.

Global Warming Advocates do a disservice when they act like everything is "UNPRECEDENTED! IRREVERSIBLE!". Everything produces feedback and forcing. More heat=more evaporation=more cloud cover=increasing albedo=more radiation reflected back into space=cooler temps.

A reminder when modern homo sapiens existed, just a few thousand years ago, you could walk from Holland to England, from Scotland to Norway, and not get your feet wet. That's how substantial temperature changes are. Sea Levels have been hundreds of feet both higher and lower in just the past few million years in our Mammalian Era.

Again, not in the dinosaur days, not in the days of only cyanobacteria. 55 mya in the Eocene Maximum, Warm Blooded Lizards lived in the Arctic. Temperatures were much, much higher than today, on average 8 Degrees Celsius Warmer.

Eight. Degrees. Celsius. No runaway Greenhouse Effect began, even though CO2 was double what it is today. And the Earth was Ice Free before, during, and just after this event, so even an ice free Earth did not fall into an inescapable Greenhouse Effect like the Chicken littles insist it will.

The CO2 doubled AFTER it was already warm enough to have no ICE at the poles, btw.

Everything from plate tectonics to axial tilt to solar activity is cyclical and greatly (relative to humans) impacts the environment.

And 99% of all species that ever existed went extinct, before human beings ever existed.

Alarmists have this idea that there is some kind of Stasis Point - some ideal temperature, sea level, etc. - there definitely is not.
110   Onvacation   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 10, 8:46am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

So Iwog was wrong again?
111   anon_25c83   ignore (3)   2017 Nov 10, 8:51am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Onvacation says
So Iwog was wrong again?


Looks like he was right. Why do you think he was wrong?

http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/12/world/larsen-c-antarctica/index.html
112   Sniper   ignore (8)   2017 Nov 10, 9:57am   ↑ like (6)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Onvacation says
So Iwog was wrong again?


It's going parabolic!!!!!!!

We're going to all be "wet bulbed" to death!!!!!
113   anon_25c83   ignore (3)   2017 Nov 10, 11:22am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Didn't it break off this year as predicted?
114   WorkInProgress   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 10, 2:24pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Nothing to see here. The earth is simply reclaiming itself. Prepare accordingly.
115   Quigley   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 10, 3:34pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Antarctica was a jungle at one point. And around 1200 years ago, most of the coastal ice was gone, so much so that Patagonian tribes had detailed maps of the Antarctic coastline, a coastline we’ve only been able to map with ground(ice) penetrating radar.
My theory on that is that it wasn’t due to global warming as it was due to LOCAL warming of parts of the continent by heavy tectonic/volcanic activity.
116   Quigley   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 11, 10:16am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Sniper says
Darn, what am I going to do with these 20 cases of sunscreen that I stocked up with, planning for the heat going " parabolic"?


Idk, stop listening to iwog? While doomsday scenarios are popular in every (single fucking) age, they almost never are anything close to correct. When I was little, my parents were convinced that in five years or so, the rapture or Armageddon or something would happen, or at the very least, a thermonuclear War would destroy all civilization.
It never happened.
Obviously.
Just like the global warming doomsday scenario also won’t happen.
My parents kept themselves poor by preparing for something that would never occur. I forsook that kind of reasoning, moved to Babylon (LA), and bought a house! Somehow I’m way richer and happier than they ever were.

Point is: don’t spend all your energy planning for a remote possibility. If you think there’s a significant chance, then plan accordingly. Otherwise love your life and stop listening to hucksters who just want to drain your wallet.
117   Sniper   ignore (8)   2017 Nov 11, 1:42pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Quigley says
Otherwise love your life and stop listening to hucksters who just want to drain your wallet.


So you're saying iwog is a huckster. OK, case closed.

« First    « Previous     Comments 78 - 117 of 117     Last »


Comment as anon_e42b7 or log in at top of page: