Large Ice Shelf Expected To Break From Antarctica 278
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."
If the ice melts (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm betting it will rise a little bit because the salt concentration is different in the ice than in the ocean.
Re:Yeah, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What, No Climate Change Reference? (Score:5, Insightful)
indeed. That aside, climate change can be thought of as a diffuse property rights issue. Power plant produces CO2, CO2 warms planet and melts ice, sea levels rise, higher sea levels erode my property, who is responsible for the property damage?
that is indeed true if the rate of diversification and adaptation are high enough or the rate of change is slow enough. However, there are several instances in biological history where this planet was made uninhabitable for 3/4 of all life or more including human beings had we existed then. There is a limit to how quickly an ecosystem can adapt to a change before permanent damage occurs. This certainly may not be a "fatal" event for humanity but in so far as destroying someone else's resource I don't see how any of that can possibly be justified ethically. You talk about the cost of doing something and you have a point- the current plans for dealing with climate change often involve costly measures but it certainly doesn't need to be the case. knocking out subsidies to inefficient, polluting industries would help the environment and save the government money. relying on a market based approach to solving the problem would be more efficient than a more planned economy could ever achieve. Don't be so quick to jump on the bandwagon that claims environmental protection can't coexist with sound economic policy- it's often the case that the waste caused in planned economies is even worse for the environment.
Re:What, No Climate Change Reference? (Score:3, Insightful)
Good point, nobody ever seems to mention the environmental horrors that existed/still exist in those failed planned economies you refer to.
Re:Yeah, but... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:If the ice melts (Score:3, Insightful)
There are some 50 published papers from the journals Nature [google.com.au] and Science [google.com.au] alone, when your finished teaching them stats maybe you can teach them risk management.
Re:What's in a Name (Score:5, Insightful)
Why is it now called "Climate Change" and no longer "(Man Made) Global Warming"? [emphasis mine]
It hasn't been called "Global Warming" by anyone doing real research in a VERY long time. The mainstream continued to say "Global Warming" for a long time after researchers had stopped using the term, and unfortunately the mainstream didn't catch on until after it became as political as it has, making a lot of the people sceptical of it think that calling it "Climate Change" is a weasel attempt at making it more popular - this couldn't be further from the truth.
As the other replier pointed out, "Climate Change" is simply a more accurate and less confusing name. It DOES amount to the same thing in the long term and when you look at global scales, but to avoid people saying "it's colder where I am right now, so Global Warming is a myth", "Climate Change" is more sensible.
Re:Burn the Heretic (Score:1, Insightful)
planet is cooling
Citation needed
Re:This is news? (Score:5, Insightful)
Natural processes are not really news.
Regardless of your opinions about the cause of it, I beg to differ that natural processes are not news. Hurricanes in south-eastern US, flooding in India, bushfires in Australia, large rocks hurtling through space that might hit us and wipe out all life on earth - all of these are things are "natural processes", but always make the news every time, and quite rightly so.
Re:Global Warming Is A Hoax (Score:3, Insightful)
There is NO increase in hurricane activity (Score:2, Insightful)
That is probably because the globe's ocean heatcontent is dropping [wattsupwiththat.com]
Re:If the ice melts (Score:4, Insightful)
But now your talking about gross incompetence on a decades long intensive reasearch effort that requires a massive conspiracy by the worlds scientific institutions to cover up? Or are you saying that these same institutions do not understand undergrad stats?
Either show me your contra-evidence that asserts Mann is incorrect, the ice caps are NOT melting, or the world is NOT getting warmer. If you can't do that then there are other sites such as freerepublic where you can be intellectualy dishonest.
Re:Global Warming Is A Hoax (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that the "religion" aspect extends to BOTH sides of the debate. Those who argue that climate change could cause a "Day After Tomorrow" sort of situation are at best, completely devoid of both knowledge and reasoning skills (and at worst, complete loonies). On the other side though, those who argue that "There is 'no way' humankind could ever have an effect on our environment" are equally lacking.
I am quite convinced that we are having a measurable effect on our environment, and that without fully understanding the processes involved, it is extremely critical that we examine what we're doing, what effect it is having and, at the same time, take measures to reduce our impact until it is better understood. For this reason, many people who argue that it's all some great conspiracy would be quite quick to label me in with the nutjobs, and this is an intellectually dishonest approach. The vast majority of people that I've talked to (and seen comments from here on slashdot) appear to have the same opinion as myself, however those who argue against us tend to trot out things such as your comment about earthquakes and lump the rest of us in with that crowd. I would kindly request that you stop doing so, as it doesn't serve anyone's interests and only aims to weaken the concept of scientific understanding further.
Adapt argument shows true colours (Score:4, Insightful)
Or, if it is warming, we should adapt to the changes instead of addressing economic activity. That's when they show their true colours.
Basically all this noise is just a big psychotic roadblock to change.
Re:If the ice melts (Score:4, Insightful)
However I'm glad you fessed up after our discussion the other day, problem is we regular skeptics don't know what you guys are saying because you keep changing the subject to political conspiracy theories, when that goes nowhere you go back to cherry-picking and red-herrings....I've tried the tinfoil but it simply does not work. Perhaps it's time for you to stop behaving like the shop keeper in Monty Pythons dead parrot sketch.
Re:What's in a Name (Score:3, Insightful)
Because, to the general public, global warming is confusing. "They're saying we're making the world warmer, so how come I just saw on TV that we're having the coldest winter on record?"
Climate Change more accurately reflects that it's going out of whack in both directions.
This is largely false: things are not going out of whack in both directions, but rather just in one direction -- things are getting warmer. The IPCC clearly states that they expect an increase in the number of extreme warm events and a decrease in the number and severity of extreme cold events. The reality is that climate is still variable, with both warm and cold extremes, especially on a regional scale. A decrease in extreme cold events doesn't mean they won't happen, nor that they won't be very cold, just that they will be less frequent, and less likely to be as extremely cold. Also some rare regional issues (such as the theoretical potential for the North Atlantic thermohaline circulation sutting down bringing colder weather to Europe) may provide other sources of cold spells.
In general however, global warming is not expected to cause more cold spells, or colder extremes, but rather to descrease them.
Re:What's in a Name (Score:3, Insightful)
The weather is still the weather. What we're talking about is climate. You should've learned the difference before you left elementary school.