Huge Antarctic ice block set to break off: scientists

January 6, 2017 by Marlowe Hood
This NASA photo released December 1, 2016 shows what scientists on NASA's IceBridge mission photographed in a view of a massive rift in the Antarctic Peninsula's Larsen C ice shelf on November 10, 2016

A massive ice block nearly 100 times the area of Manhattan is poised to break off Antarctica's Larsen C ice shelf, scientists reported Friday.

A slow-progressing rift suddenly grew by 18 kilometres (11 miles) at the end of December, leaving the finger-shaped chunk—350 metres thick—connected along only a small fraction of its length.

The rift has also widened, from less than 50 metres (160 feet) in 2011 to nearly 500 metres today.

"If it doesn't go in the next few months, I'll be amazed," said Adrian Luckman, a professor at Swansea University in Wales, and leader of Britain's Project Midas, which tracks changes in West Antarctic ice formations.

By itself, the soon-to-be iceberg will not add to sea levels, the likely consequence of ice sheet disintegration that most worries scientists.

The real danger is from inland glaciers, held in place by the floating, cliff-like ice shelves that straddle land and sea.

The fragile West Antarctic ice sheet—where Larsen C is located—holds enough frozen water to raise global oceans by at least four metres (13 feet).

Recent studies have suggested that may already have condemned large chunks of it to disintegration, though whether on a time scale of centuries or millennia is not known.

The breaking off, or calving, of ice shelves is a natural process, but global warming is thought to have accelerated the process.

Warming ocean water erodes their underbelly, while rising air temperatures weaken them from above.

The nearby Larsen A ice shelf collapsed in 1995, and Larsen B dramatically broke up seven years later.

The ice block currently separating from Larsen C contains about 10 percent of its mass, and would be among the 10 largest break-offs ever recorded, Luckman said.

If all the ice held back by Larsen C entered the sea, it would lift global oceans by about 10 centimetres (four inches).

"We are convinced—although others are not—that the remaining will be less stable than the present one," Luckman said in a statement.

Oceans in recent decades have absorbed much of the excess heat generated by climate change, which has lifted average global air temperatures by one degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit).

The world's nations have undertaken in the Paris Agreement, inked in the French capital in December 2015, to cap at "well under" two degrees Celsius (3.5 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial era levels.

Explore further: Mysterious 'crater' on Antarctica indication of vulnerable ice sheet (Update)

Related Stories

Giant iceberg set to calve from Larsen C ice shelf

January 6, 2017

A huge iceberg, roughly the size of Norfolk, looks set to break away from the Larsen C ice shelf on the Antarctic Peninsula.  Larsen C is more than twice the size of Wales. Satellite observations from December 2016 show ...

Antarctic ice safety band at risk

February 9, 2016

Antarctica is surrounded by huge ice shelves. New research, using ice velocity data from satellites such as ESA's heritage Envisat, has revealed that there is a critical point where these shelves act as a safety band, holding ...

Recommended for you

New magma pathways after giant lateral volcano collapses

October 23, 2017

Giant lateral collapses are huge landslides occurring at the flanks of a volcano. Giant lateral collapses are rather common events during the evolution of a large volcanic edifice, often with dramatic consequences such as ...

Scientists warn that saline lakes in dire situation worldwide

October 23, 2017

Saline lakes around the world are shrinking in size at alarming rates. But what—or who—is to blame? Lakes like Utah's Great Salt Lake, Asia's Aral Sea, the Dead Sea in Jordan and Israel, China's huge Lop Nur and Bolivia's ...

Mountain glaciers shrinking across the West

October 22, 2017

Until recently, glaciers in the United States have been measured in two ways: placing stakes in the snow, as federal scientists have done each year since 1957 at South Cascade Glacier in Washington state; or tracking glacier ...

83 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

SamB
1 / 5 (5) Jan 06, 2017
Wow.. That would be really neat to watch. Not every day you would get to watch a gigantic ice cube plop into the ocean!
Da Schneib
4.1 / 5 (13) Jan 07, 2017
Larsen B redux. Yes, huge chunks of ice really are breaking off Antarctica and increasing sea levels.

Get over it, deniers.
antigoracle
1.3 / 5 (15) Jan 07, 2017
Larsen B redux. Yes, huge chunks of ice really are breaking off Antarctica and increasing sea levels.

Get over it, deniers.

LOL
Da Retard brays. Ice shelfs do NOT contribute to sea level rise.
Get a brain, RETARD.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (13) Jan 07, 2017
Ice shelves are floating ice and so will not contribute to sea level rise.
It's beyond amusing that the only place the AGW Cult can find globull warming in Antarctica is where there is extensive geothermal activity and earthquakes.
Da Schneib
4.7 / 5 (14) Jan 07, 2017
How many incidents do you need, @antiboreacle?

C'mon, we're past idiot here and moving into frank delusion. Not that this is the first time.
aksdad
1.6 / 5 (13) Jan 07, 2017
Oceans in recent decades have absorbed much of the excess heat generated by climate change

Not a scientific statement. Speculation.

We are convinced—although others are not—that the remaining ice shelf will be less stable than the present one

Hmmm...let's explore why others are not convinced the remaining ice shelf will be less stable, shall we? Although it would detract from the glorious convivial doom that envelopes climate alarmists like Beijing smog.
SteveS
5 / 5 (13) Jan 07, 2017
Oceans in recent decades have absorbed much of the excess heat generated by climate change

Not a scientific statement. Speculation.


http://onlinelibr...abstract

A scientific statement.
antigoracle
1.3 / 5 (13) Jan 07, 2017
How many incidents do you need, @antiboreacle?

C'mon, we're past idiot here and moving into frank delusion. Not that this is the first time.

Da Retard babbles. Uh huh, you have definitely passed idiot and is into Retard territory.
Tell us, as you claim, how ice shelves contribute to sea level rise?
gkam
3.8 / 5 (13) Jan 07, 2017
anti, stop your hateful and adolescent retorts. Can you be a real person for once?

Were you called retard before? Is that why you think it stings others?
snoosebaum
4.9 / 5 (10) Jan 07, 2017
i agree gkam , i want to hear serious arguments from him
gkam
3.4 / 5 (10) Jan 07, 2017
He can do it, snoose.

This thing is the plug in the flow of meltwater and glacier ice which will now find easier sledding down to the sea, raising the sea level. We may not notice its sea level rise itself, but this is the pop before the fizz.
rodkeh
1 / 5 (14) Jan 07, 2017
I was down to the sea just the other day and the sea level was exactly the same as it has been for the last 60 years.

There is no threat from sea levels! And if there were, it would have nothing to do with human activity.

AGW is a farce and a lie and the hard scientific facts prove it!
HeloMenelo
4.6 / 5 (10) Jan 07, 2017
Larsen B redux. Yes, huge chunks of ice really are breaking off Antarctica and increasing sea levels.

Get over it, deniers.

LOL
Da Retard brays. Ice shelfs do NOT contribute to sea level rise.
Get a brain, RETARD.


But putting your fingers in your nose while closing your mouth does inflate the pressure in your skull, hence we repeatedly and consistently see 2 brain celled answers coming from you and your clan of socks ;)
HeloMenelo
4.3 / 5 (11) Jan 07, 2017
How many incidents do you need, @antiboreacle?

C'mon, we're past idiot here and moving into frank delusion. Not that this is the first time.


Monkey antigoracle still needs to get from the retarded to idiot state, he is still trying to figure out what idiot means, however he will soon be enlightened when he wakes up and look into the mirror :D
HeloMenelo
4.1 / 5 (9) Jan 07, 2017
Oceans in recent decades have absorbed much of the excess heat generated by climate change

Not a scientific statement. Speculation.

We are convinced—although others are not—that the remaining ice shelf will be less stable than the present one

Hmmm...let's explore why others are not convinced the remaining ice shelf will be less stable, shall we? Although it would detract from the glorious convivial doom that envelopes climate alarmists like Beijing smog.


The only smog we see is that of being between your ears, but being an antigoracle sock it is not unusual, when will your ever ask your daddy to give you an answer ?
HeloMenelo
4.6 / 5 (11) Jan 07, 2017
Oceans in recent decades have absorbed much of the excess heat generated by climate change

Not a scientific statement. Speculation.


http://onlinelibr...abstract

A scientific statement.


Good link :) +1
HeloMenelo
4.2 / 5 (10) Jan 07, 2017
I was down to the sea just the other day and the sea level was exactly the same as it has been for the last 60 years.

There is no threat from sea levels! And if there were, it would have nothing to do with human activity.

AGW is a farce and a lie and the hard scientific facts prove it!


Posing as a sock (antigoracle) does not make you look any more clever, it does push your reputation to the very bottom though, and everyone gets to see the circus you and your monkey socks dance to with the ringmasters cringing with laughter. ;)
rodkeh
1.7 / 5 (11) Jan 07, 2017
Posing as a sock (antigoracle) does not make you look any more clever, it does push your reputation to the very bottom though, and everyone gets to see the circus you and your monkey socks dance to with the ringmasters cringing with laughter. ;)


So,.... you're the village idiot?
geokstr
2.2 / 5 (10) Jan 07, 2017
I've been hanging around here for many years, and I can attest to the fact that the vile, vicious ad hominems were begun by the political left. One guy used dozens of different IDs, jumping to new ones as the old ones were banned and all he did was attack, attack, attack. Vendicar Decarian I believe was one of them.

If you don't believe 100% the AGW apocalyptic argument that we're all gonna die unless we give all our treasure and liberties to algore and the UN totalitarians, you will be followed to every category here and downvoted. Leftists cannot abide dissent from Marxist religious dogma.

SteveS
5 / 5 (11) Jan 08, 2017
If you don't believe 100% the AGW apocalyptic argument that we're all gonna die unless we give all our treasure and liberties to algore and the UN totalitarians, you will be followed to every category here and downvoted. Leftists cannot abide dissent from Marxist religious dogma.


https://sciencex....ml?v=act

Blame the victim.
humy
5 / 5 (10) Jan 08, 2017
Ice shelves are floating ice and so will not contribute to sea level rise..

You appear to be completely ignorant of how this works; many of those huge masses of floating ice are helping to hold back and slow down the glassier movement of ice from over the land mass to the sea.
+ , if all else stays equal, if that floating ice disappears then the albedo of the Earth decreases thus more warming thus faster melting of ice over land masses and greater thermal expansion of sea water away from the poles, which also contributes to sea level rise.

So Da Schneib was right; and you and antigoracle are wrong; huge chunks of ice really are breaking off Antarctica and increasing sea levels.
humy
5 / 5 (9) Jan 08, 2017
many of those huge masses of floating ice are helping to hold back and slow down the glassier movement of ice from over the land mass to the sea.

Miner correction to what I said there; that generally only applies to those that are only partly floating because they are scraping the bottom of the sea bed.

I should also point out that measurements show net lose of ice over land and the corresponding increase in sea level that cannot be explained by other causes. Thus to deny this is to deny science.
SteveS
5 / 5 (10) Jan 08, 2017
We are convinced—although others are not—that the remaining ice shelf will be less stable than the present one

Hmmm...let's explore why others are not convinced the remaining ice shelf will be less stable, shall we? Although it would detract from the glorious convivial doom that envelopes climate alarmists like Beijing smog.


https://phys.org/...med.html

This is the way science works, no conspiracy here.
humy
5 / 5 (11) Jan 08, 2017

https://phys.org/...med.html

This is the way science works, no conspiracy here.

Exactly.
And just one of the many big problems with the claim by warming deniers who claim global warming is one big conspiracy is that just too many scientists (the overwhelming majority, in fact) have a conscience and would never agree to a mass conspiracy and scientists have too many diverse opinions and conflicting interests and rivalry to make it creditable that the vast majority would get together and actually agree with the same conspiracy and then for that conspiracy to remain not completely blown. This whole idea of this conspiracy really couldn't be any more absurd; like that that the moon landings are fake
HeloMenelo
4 / 5 (8) Jan 08, 2017
Posing as a sock (antigoracle) does not make you look any more clever, it does push your reputation to the very bottom though, and everyone gets to see the circus you and your monkey socks dance to with the ringmasters cringing with laughter. ;)


So,.... you're the village idiot?

Nope, one of the ringmasters ;)
I know it's hard for you as a puppet to get out of the circus you find yourself in here, but maybe one day when you can understand science, we might promote you to something more respectable (not holding our breaths though) :D
Benni
1 / 5 (10) Jan 08, 2017
Larsen B redux. Yes, huge chunks of ice really are breaking off Antarctica and increasing sea levels.

Get over it, deniers.


Schneibo, you need to learn something about the physics of ice melt...........when a given volume of ice melts, the resultant displacement volume of water is 10% less than the volume of ice it melted from. You see Schneibo, this is already an an iceshelf in water connected to the shoreline which makes it an iceberg which is one of the 10 largest ever recorded. When it breaks the sea levels will DROP, but I guess that math is far beyond your childlike math skills, yeah, talk about others being "deniers", you're the posterboy for it.
gkam
3.2 / 5 (9) Jan 08, 2017
It is the cork, benni, . . the cork.

We do not worry about the volume of the cork, but what comes behind it.
gkam
2.8 / 5 (9) Jan 08, 2017
"this is already an an iceshelf in water connected to the shoreline which makes it an iceberg which is one of the 10 largest ever recorded. When it breaks the sea levels will DROP,"
----------------------------

NOPE!

Got you.
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (3) Jan 08, 2017
https://www.skept...p;n=1019

this is complex , consider the articles 2nd last comment
gkam
2.8 / 5 (9) Jan 08, 2017
I want benni to inform us how adding ice to water will make the level drop. It can only rise. The mass resting on land will add to the sea level, while the already floating mass will add nothing.

But it will NOT drop.

Conservative science.
Benni
1 / 5 (9) Jan 08, 2017
"this is already an an iceshelf in water connected to the shoreline which makes it an iceberg which is one of the 10 largest ever recorded. When it breaks the sea levels will DROP,"
----------------------------

NOPE!.
.......DENIER........you do't know what an "iceshelf" is do you? You're a perfect example of the Dishonest Media.

Here from the article:

"poised to break off Antarctica's Larsen C ice shelf, scientists reported Friday." ........see it geek? "poised to break off from the ice shelf", and when it melts the wordwide ocean levels will DROP, but I see you have the same math & physics problem Schneibo has.
snoosebaum
5 / 5 (3) Jan 08, 2017
from the horses mouth

https://nsidc.org...ves.html

''Because ice shelves already float in the ocean, they do not contribute directly to sea level rise when they break up. However, ice shelf collapse [[[could]]]] contribute to sea level rise indirectly. Ice streams and glaciers constantly push on ice shelves, but the ''
rodkeh
1 / 5 (4) Jan 08, 2017
Nope, one of the ringmasters ;)
I know it's hard for you as a puppet to get out of the circus you find yourself in here, but maybe one day when you can understand science, we might promote you to something more respectable (not holding our breaths though) :D


I can never understand, where clowns like you come from.
Benni
1 / 5 (5) Jan 08, 2017
'Because ice shelves already float in the ocean, they do not contribute directly to sea level rise when they break up. However, ice shelf collapse [[[could]]]] contribute to sea level rise indirectly. Ice streams and glaciers constantly push on ice shelves
......"do not contribute directly", "contribute...indirectly".

Don'tcha just gotta love the way the Dishonest Media acolytes try to say: "We were right even when we were wrong".

OK geek & schneibo, your acolytes in the Dishonest Media are their best get you off the hook for your math & physics mistakes, but you're not fooling those of us Science Professionals who know how paper thin that covering was while doing their best to cover for your screwups.

rodkeh
1.6 / 5 (7) Jan 08, 2017
EVERYBODY............ is missing the point!

Iceberg calving is an everyday occurrence, the size of this calf is significant, only in that which it implies!

What it implies is, that the current ice is thicker and stronger than normal, or it would have calved in smaller, more normal sized, icebergs, instead of this much larger iceberg.

It is telling us that the climate is getting colder at the South Pole. In contrast to the warming at the North Pole and what that means is, that Warming is NOT "Global", it is "Regional" and regional warming and cooling are commonplace and of no, or little concern to anyone, except to those directly affected and that adaptation is the only reasonable and practical response, because there is nothing we can do about it and CO2 is a blessing not a curse.
Benni
1 / 5 (6) Jan 08, 2017
I want benni to inform us how adding ice to water will make the level drop.
........because the ice wasn't added, it was already in the water by definition of "iceshelf", and when that iceshelf already in the water melts there will be 10% less volume displacement when the ice is fully melts in the warmer water of the ocean.

Why do I feel as if I'm a baby sitter when exchanging posts with you & schneibo.
zz5555
5 / 5 (7) Jan 08, 2017
Or, it just could be that the ocean around Antarctica and the air around Antarctica is warming up and the ice shelves are speeding up, resulting in larger ice masses breaking off. Since that's what the data says (e.g., http://climatenew...ce-melt/ ) and since there's no data to suggest any cooling, I think it's probably better to go with the warming.

By the way, there's an enormous amount of data to indicate that the warming is global. Measurement of the growing energy imbalance alone means that the earth must be warming as a whole, even if we didn't globally have temperature measuring stations to monitor the warming.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (5) Jan 08, 2017
Or, it just could be that the ocean around Antarctica and the air around Antarctica is warming up...

Or, you could try to NOT be an ignorant Chicken Little and get someone with a brain to show you the scientific fact that this is not the case.
rodkeh
1.6 / 5 (7) Jan 08, 2017
Here is a document showing that the total Antarctic ice is increasing:
https://www.nasa....-maximum
The same article goes on to say that Climate, is in fact regional and the North and South Polar regions, are experiencing opposite climate change, so Global Warming/Cooling or Anything Else, are erroneous concepts. It is all just fear mongering hype.
rodkeh
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 08, 2017
By the way, there's an enormous amount of data to indicate that the warming is global. Measurement of the growing energy imbalance alone means that the earth must be warming as a whole, even if we didn't globally have temperature measuring stations to monitor the warming.


This myopic view of climate is common. You think weather is climate. It is NOT! And it is Not Cooking either! You can't just throw everything in one pot and make a stew! Climate is not just rendered down weather and throwing it all together in one pot, totally destroys any relevance to anything and renders the results, meaningless.

Weather is not Climate and although weather IS entirely dependent on Climate, Climate has little or nothing to do with weather.
zz5555
5 / 5 (7) Jan 08, 2017
Here is a document showing that the total Antarctic ice is increasing:
https://www.nasa....-maximum

That article discusses antarctic sea ice. Direct measurement suggests that ice on Antarctica is decreasing. By the way, as your link says:
One clue, Parkinson said, could be found around the Antarctic Peninsula – a finger of land stretching up toward South America. There, the temperatures are warming, and in the Bellingshausen Sea just to the west of the peninsula the sea ice is shrinking.

This peninsula is just where the Larsen Ice Shelf is located. I will take this as an admission on your part that your claim of cooling being wrong.
zz5555
5 / 5 (9) Jan 08, 2017
Also from your link:
A warming climate changes weather patterns, said Walt Meier, a research scientist at Goddard. Sometimes those weather patterns will bring cooler air to some areas.

So, yes, the climate overall is warming. But, for some areas, this global warming will bring cooler weather temporarily.

By the way, your link discusses some of the ways that the warming of Antarctica can lead to an increase in antarctic sea ice. I've already seen that information elsewhere, but your link may help others who mistakenly believe that increasing antarctic sea ice is caused by a cooling climate. Thanks!
zz5555
5 / 5 (7) Jan 08, 2017
Weather is not Climate and although weather IS entirely dependent on Climate, Climate has little or nothing to do with weather.

Your statement of "weather IS entirely dependent on Climate" seems to contradict your statement of "Climate has little or nothing to do with weather". There's a great deal of evidence that climate change/global warming has a huge influence on regional weather - hurricanes, droughts, floods, heat waves, heavy snow storms, etc. Perhaps you mean that weather can't influence climate. I don't think that's quite true. Weather can change albedo, which can certainly affect the rate of climate change.

By the way, there's a great deal of evidence that the climate is warming. See above about the long term energy imbalance which would require the climate to warm.
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (2) Jan 08, 2017


By the way, there's a great deal of evidence that the climate is warming


I've been adding up all the times i took a position on major issues opposite the MSM have been right, so i and i'm sure many others have little faith in these claims. Propaganda doesn't help your cause, having corrected data support models 100% of the time doesn't help your cause,
Meanwhile if renewables are viable well and good .
Benni
1 / 5 (4) Jan 08, 2017
This peninsula is just where the Larsen Ice Shelf is located.
......no, not quite, it is located in the water immediately adjacent to the peninsula, not ON it.
rodkeh
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 08, 2017
I don't think that's quite true. Weather can change albedo, which can certainly affect the rate of climate change.

By the way, there's a great deal of evidence that the climate is warming. See above about the long term energy imbalance which would require the climate to warm.


One thing is certainly clear, "You don't think!" And then you back it up with a lot of meaningless drivel.
rodkeh
1.6 / 5 (7) Jan 08, 2017
Also from your link:
A warming climate changes weather patterns, said Walt Meier, a research scientist at Goddard. Sometimes those weather patterns will bring cooler air to some areas.

So, yes, the climate overall is warming. But, for some areas, this global warming will bring cooler weather temporarily.

By the way, your link discusses some of the ways that the warming of Antarctica can lead to an increase in antarctic sea ice. I've already seen that information elsewhere, but your link may help others who mistakenly believe that increasing antarctic sea ice is caused by a cooling climate. Thanks!


You need to get your head out of the blender...... Come up for air and take a breath.

So you are admitting that climate is regional, with some regions warmer and others cooler.

Thank you for the affirmation.
rodkeh
1.5 / 5 (8) Jan 08, 2017
Here is a document showing that the total Antarctic ice is increasing:
https://www.nasa....-maximum

That article discusses antarctic sea ice. Direct measurement suggests that ice on Antarctica is decreasing. By the way, as your link says:
One clue, Parkinson said, could be found around the Antarctic Peninsula – a finger of land stretching up toward South America. There, the temperatures are warming, and in the Bellingshausen Sea just to the west of the peninsula the sea ice is shrinking.

This peninsula is just where the Larsen Ice Shelf is located. I will take this as an admission on your part that your claim of cooling being wrong.


So once again you admit that climate is regional. Great, I agree with you, climate is regional, not global and AGW is a joke, a farce and a lie.
zz5555
5 / 5 (7) Jan 08, 2017
So you are admitting that climate is regional, with some regions warmer and others cooler.

Sure, that's how it's always been. The fact that the earth is warming overall won't change that. I'm not sure why you thought it would.

I'm interested here that, so far, you've shown that your argument of cooling was false and have been completely unable to provide any evidence of your claim that "AGW is a joke, a farce and a lie". This despite overwhelming evidence that AGW is real and a serious issue (see, for example, http://www.nature...5a0.html ).
rodkeh
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 08, 2017
So you are admitting that climate is regional, with some regions warmer and others cooler.

Sure, that's how it's always been. The fact that the earth is warming overall won't change that. I'm not sure why you thought it would.

I'm interested here that, so far, you've shown that your argument of cooling was false and have been completely unable to provide any evidence of your claim that "AGW is a joke, a farce and a lie". This despite overwhelming evidence that AGW is real and a serious issue (see, for example, http://www.nature...5a0.html ).


It is only an issue in the minds of the scientifically illiterate.
howhot3
5 / 5 (7) Jan 08, 2017
So once again you admit that climate is regional. Great, I agree with you, climate is regional, not global and AGW is a joke, a farce and a lie.

Your a complete fool and idiot if you think AGW is a joke, a farce or a lie. The proof of AGW is beyond dispute. The denier goon squad needs to get that in their heads and figure out how they are going to save their sorry asses in 10 to 20 years.
rodkeh
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 09, 2017
Your a complete fool and idiot if you think AGW is a joke, a farce or a lie. The proof of AGW is beyond dispute. The denier goon squad needs to get that in their heads and figure out how they are going to save their sorry asses in 10 to 20 years.


Only your ignorance is beyond dispute.
Da Schneib
4.4 / 5 (7) Jan 09, 2017
I don't have a dog in this hunt; never did. Where I live floods can't get me, the climate is mild because I'm near the sea, and I'm not so near I'll have to worry about rising sea levels in my lifetime.

So why do I care if idiots persist in climate denial?

Two reasons:
1. Simple support for scientific results. Science WORKS. Get over it.
2. I don't really want to see a couple billion people die and that's what climate change is coming down to. I don't care if it's not on my side of the world; I don't care if they speak my language or have my color of skin; I don't care if they're countries full of despicable people (and I don't believe that anyway). I don't want to see it.

Both reasons are ethical. To thine own self be true.
Benni
1 / 5 (4) Jan 09, 2017
So why do I care if idiots persist in climate denial?


For 4 billion years the climate has been changing and you've just recently discovered this? But you label those who recognized this before you just recently discovered it as being "idiots"? No wonder the physics of melting ice in water is beyond your math skills.

antialias_physorg
4.6 / 5 (9) Jan 09, 2017
Two reasons:
2. I don't really want to see a couple billion people die and that's what climate change is coming down to.

Not much ethical reasons for me. I just don't want to
a) pay through the nose for the measures needed to fortify all the coastal cities. The cost doesn't just scale linearly with sea level rise.
b) deal with all the problems of people fleeing places that become uninhabitable who wiillthen crowd into the smaller and smaller habitable spaces
c) pay for rising food costs because farmland gets unusable (drought and increased salinity near shores)

On the plus side I like the clean air as a result of using renewables. Also the independence from fickle energy suppliers and the resulting geopolitical tensions (including all the taxmoney that is needed to keep militaries funded because of this. I'd rather spend my taxmoney on a windfarm than tanks. Lots cheaper, too. )

For me it's just a pragmatic choice.
antigoracle
3 / 5 (6) Jan 09, 2017
I don't really want to see a couple billion people die and that's what climate change is coming down to........
Both reasons are ethical. To thine own self be true.

Da Retard bray.

Really??
Ethical and true to yourself, are you?

Then, tell us, when did you stop burning fossil fuels?
gkam
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 09, 2017
Poco a poco "goricle". We are winning and you are losing.

Call us all the silly and adolescent names you can, . . . I am sure it will work eventually.

barakn
4.3 / 5 (11) Jan 09, 2017
Schneibo, you need to learn something about the physics of ice melt...........when a given volume of ice melts, the resultant displacement volume of water is 10% less than the volume of ice it melted from. You see Schneibo, this is already an an iceshelf in water connected to the shoreline which makes it an iceberg which is one of the 10 largest ever recorded. When it breaks the sea levels will DROP, but I guess that math is far beyond your childlike math skills, yeah, talk about others being "deniers", you're the posterboy for it. -Benni

Haha, that's hilarious. Benni, this is an experiment you could try at home. Put some water and ice in a glass, mark the water level with a pen, let the ice melt, check the water level again. And then, when the water level fails to drop, tell us so, because honest scientists report all their observations.
gkam
1 / 5 (4) Jan 09, 2017
I predict trouble with the meniscus.
snoosebaum
5 / 5 (1) Jan 09, 2017
barakin ,,

https://nsidc.org...ves.html

''Because ice shelves already float in the ocean, they do not contribute directly to sea level rise when they break up. However, ice shelf collapse [[[could]]]] contribute to sea level rise indirectly. Ice streams and glaciers constantly push on ice shelves, but the ''

Uncle Ira
4.6 / 5 (11) Jan 09, 2017
I think Bennie-Skippy's problem in understanding this stuffs is because he is applying the wrong fact he learn in the grade to the problem.

Yeah Bennie-Skippy, ice does take up a larger volume than liquid water. But if the ice is already floating, it won't make the volume of the water smaller. That's because the mass of the ice decides how much of the water is getting displaced while it is floating. The mass of the ice is equal to the mass of the melted water, so the displacement and volume of water will stay the same.

You don't have to believe me, it's not my ideas,,,,,Archimedes-Skippy gave the idea to Boyle-Skippy and he passed it along to us.
Benni
1 / 5 (4) Jan 09, 2017
Schneibo, you need to learn something about the physics of ice melt...........when a given volume of ice melts, the resultant displacement volume of water is 10% less than the volume of ice it melted from. You see Schneibo, this is already an an iceshelf in water connected to the shoreline which makes it an iceberg which is one of the 10 largest ever recorded. When it breaks the sea levels will DROP, but I guess that math is far beyond your childlike math skills, yeah, talk about others being "deniers",

Haha, that's hilarious. Benni, this is an experiment you could try at home. Put some water and ice in a glass, mark the water level with a pen, let the ice melt, check the water level again. And then, when the water level fails to drop, tell us so
.......then do it for yourself, it's one of the first interesting experiments kids do in gradeschool, but I guess you haven't gotten that far yet because you got part of the procedure backwards.
Benni
1 / 5 (5) Jan 09, 2017
barakn- It's a really easy experiment to set up.......put a few ounces of water in a suitable container, then place it in your freezer, after the water is frozen you will see that it has changed from the previous volume of space to that which is greater than the amount than when it was pure liquid. Then liquefy the water & watch it return to the original level prior to having been frozen........but I caution you Bboy, this can be a very challenging experiment if you don't have at least a grade school education.
gkam
Jan 09, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (1) Jan 09, 2017
glacial ice is only 50 % water by volume , i saw
SteveS
5 / 5 (5) Jan 10, 2017
glacial ice is only 50 % water by volume , i saw


http://www.physic...0ae.html

"Glacial ice has a density of about 850 kilograms per cubic meter."

So if only 50% of that is water, what do you think the other 425 kg is?

gkam
1 / 5 (4) Jan 10, 2017
"So if only 50% of that is water, what do you think the other 425 kg is? "
---------------------------------

Must be them-there "WMD!"

They never found them, did they? Did we squander that $4,000,000,000,000 and 4,000 American lives for just the idea of a goober son of a former CIA Director?

Yup. But not me. I knew better.
snoosebaum
3 / 5 (2) Jan 10, 2017
https://www.skept...p;n=1019

bottom of page responder claims this , claim not rebutted

i dunno ,the entire question is way beyond melting an ice cube in a glass , way beyond me
SteveS
5 / 5 (3) Jan 10, 2017
https://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?p=2&t=61&&n=1019

bottom of page responder claims this , claim not rebutted

i dunno ,the entire question is way beyond melting an ice cube in a glass , way beyond me


I take it you mean this comment

"Spaded Ace at 16:03 PM on 5 January, 2017"

I think you will find that Spaded Ace is talking out of his ****.

It all comes down to who you want to believe, Spaded Ace or Dr. Michael Pidwirny & Scott Jones of the University of British Columbia Okanagan.

"Glacial ice has a density of about 850 kilograms per cubic meter."

So if only 50% of that is water, what do you think the other 425 kg is? Maybe you should ask you expert of choice, Spaded Ace.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (4) Jan 10, 2017
https://www.skept...p;n=1019

bottom of page responder claims this , claim not rebutted

i dunno ,the entire question is way beyond melting an ice cube in a glass , way beyond me

Glacier ice is filled with air compared with ice from your fridge. Combined with the fact that these ice shelves are attached to the land and not exactly floating, chances are they are sitting lower in the water and so when they do break off and melt they will result in a net drop in sea level.
gkam
1 / 5 (4) Jan 10, 2017
No, anti it is freshwater ice in salt water, which gives it way too much buoyancy to be stuck to the land. It floats, and when the stuff stuck on land slides into the sea, the level will rise.
barakn
4 / 5 (4) Jan 10, 2017
Glacier ice is filled with air compared with ice from your fridge. Combined with the fact that these ice shelves are attached to the land and not exactly floating, chances are they are sitting lower in the water and so when they do break off and melt they will result in a net drop in sea level. -antigoracle
Attached shelves are LOWER in the water? Attached shelves' weight is partially supported by the land, making them HIGHER than if they were free-floating. And the density of the glacial ice is irrelevant. Once free floating, the ice displaces an amount of seawater equivalent to the mass of water in the ice. If there's more air in the ice, that just means more of the ice will be above the water surface. Take a 100 cc ice cube that's 1 g water (1 cc water). It will float so well that only 1 cc of the cube will be below water. When it melts, the 1 gram of water will exactly fill the 1 cc hole in the seawater.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (4) Jan 11, 2017
Attached shelves are LOWER in the water? Attached shelves' weight is partially supported by the land, making them HIGHER than if they were free-floating. And the density of the glacial ice is irrelevant.

Firstly, the fact that glacier ice contains air is confirmed by its use in dating ice that's been compacting for over a million years.
Secondly, a shelf is formed by glacier moving from the land out onto the seabed and the fact that its density is lower means it displaces more water than if it was actually free and floating.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (7) Jan 11, 2017
I want benni to inform us how adding ice to water will make the level drop.
........because the ice wasn't added, it was already in the water by definition of "iceshelf", and when that iceshelf already in the water melts there will be 10% less volume displacement when the ice is fully melts in the warmer water of the ocean.

Except that - approx 12.5% is still ABOVE water...
barakn
4.5 / 5 (8) Jan 11, 2017
Secondly, a shelf is formed by glacier moving from the land out onto the seabed and the fact that its density is lower means it displaces more water than if it was actually free and floating. -antigoracle
So you've decided to double down on stupid.
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (2) Jan 11, 2017
end of discussion, next topic , 2016-17 warmest winter evah !
antigoracle
1 / 5 (6) Jan 11, 2017
Secondly, a shelf is formed by glacier moving from the land out onto the seabed and the fact that its density is lower means it displaces more water than if it was actually free and floating. -antigoracle
So you've decided to double down on stupid.

LOL
It's totally beyond the capacity of the Chicken Little tard to come up with an original insult and it is so proud of its ignorance.
Curious George Sr
4 / 5 (4) Jan 11, 2017
Most commenters here lack the basic understanding of physics. Archimedes was better off.
barakn
4.6 / 5 (9) Jan 13, 2017
Secondly, a shelf is formed by glacier moving from the land out onto the seabed and the fact that its density is lower means it displaces more water than if it was actually free and floating. -antigoracle
I'm curious about the picture that you have in your head of this. Perhaps you think this air-void-ridden ice is so mechanically strong that the glacier is like a steel beam moving at a slight inclination down into the water. Or perhaps you think the ice, which very desperately wants to float because it's not very dense, has tiny little hands which it uses to attach itself and pull itself across the seafloor. Whatever your mental image is, it's wrong.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (5) Jan 13, 2017
Whatever your mental image is, it's wrong.

The typical response of the Chicken Little who is incapable of an independent thought.
So, tell us, what's right?
gkam
2.1 / 5 (7) Jan 13, 2017
I want anti to explain how less-dense ice does not float in seawater.

It will come as a big surprise to the folk on the Titanic.
novaman
5 / 5 (2) Jan 14, 2017
Whatever your mental image is, it's wrong.

The typical response of the Chicken Little who is incapable of an independent thought.
So, tell us, what's right?

The Evidence throughout the years is right, not the hot air you spout about dumb thumping your keyboard everytime you see the pretty buttons.
novaman
Jan 14, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.