Large Ice Shelf Expected To Break From Antarctica

MollyB sends this excerpt from CNN: "A large ice shelf is 'imminently' close to breaking away from part of the Antarctic Peninsula, scientists said Friday. Satellite images released by the European Space Agency on Friday show new cracks in the Wilkins Ice Shelf where it connects to Charcot Island, a piece of land considered part of the peninsula. The cracks are quickly expanding, the ESA said. ... The Wilkins Ice Shelf — a large mass of floating ice — would still be connected to Latady Island, which is also part of the peninsula, and Alexander Island, which is not, said professor David Vaughan, a glaciologist at the British Antarctic Survey. ... If the ice shelf breaks away from the peninsula, it will not cause a rise in sea level because it is already floating, scientists say. Some plants and animals may have to adapt to the collapse."

What, No Climate Change Reference?

[pipingguy]

Ice shelves that don't calve would worry me more. But due to current media-promoted hysteria about "the environment", I think we should spend 100 trillion dollars to fix our planet. I mean, really, if we don't have a planet or environment, we're all dead. And think of the children!

"Some plants and animals may have to adapt"? Maybe we could collect them all and put them in an artificial environment so they can be safe from nature and man's evil nature. And then cuddle them - well, at least the ones that have comfy fur and cute eyes.

Re:If the ice melts

[Psychotria]

Yeah, and once it melts its salt concentration will change!... or not.

Glaciologist

[Centurix]

That's a pretty cool job.

ah, that's better.

Global Warming Is A Hoax

[KronosReaver]

Global Warming due to industry and emissions is a hoax...

The truth is the planet keeps getting warmer the closer we get to Hell.

Re:What, No Climate Change Reference? - Solved

[michaelhood]

Fortunately, Antarctica is too big to fail - rest assured our representatives are hard at work on crafting a bailout.

Re:Yeah, yeah but but...

[this great guy]

whoooooshhhhh (in slow motion anyway)

So you mean like: wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh ooooooooooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooooooooooo OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO ooooooooooooooooooooo ssssssssssssssssssssssss hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Re:If the ice melts

[Rockoon]

One of the problems is that the peer reviewer is supposed to be an expert in the papers field (ex: climate science), rather than the methodology used (ex: statistics)

A popular example is Mann's flawed implementation of Principle Component Analysis, peer reviewed and then published by one of the very same journals that you are trying to use for your arguement-from-authority fallacy.

Lets examine what Mann was doing:

AlgorihmDescription.txt [nature.com]

Thats from one of the journals you cited, so you trust that it is an accurate summary of what he did, right?

I certainly do not think that an expert in EARTH SCIENCES should be doing that stuff without supervision from an expert in what he is actualy doing.

..and as it turns out, he screwed it all up fairly badly but got published anyways.

As far as that ice data... here we have an error margin thats over 50% of the magnitude of the estimated anomaly, and thats assuming they did things right to begin with.

I still don't see evidence that a statistics expert was involved. If you have some, please enlighten.

Re:What, No Climate Change Reference?

[TapeCutter]

You can beg all you like but I won't answer your troll except to warn you that looking at my other posts will make your head explode.

Re:If the ice melts

[ArcherB]

Speaking of taking things out of context, note that psuedo-skeptics have reduced the entire enquiry down to "our committee does not believe that the climate is warming".

Please do not attempt to speak for us pseudo-skeptics. We are not saying that the climate is not warming. We are not saying that the climate IS warming. What we are saying is that we don't know. So when you say, reduced the entire enquiry down to "our committee does not believe that the climate is warming"., it should read, "our committee thinks the climate is warming. I mean, we're pretty sure. I know we keep saying that we KNOW for sure this time, only to find some boneheaded mistake someone made to either get a grant, political reasons or just stupid. Still, all that aside, we are pretty sure that the climate is warming. And while there is some debate over weather (pun, not grammar) it's warming or not, there is much more debate over why. Oh, and will someone please tell Al Gore to SHUT UP!"