Antarctic Ice Bridge Finally Breaks Off 505
GreennMann writes "An ice bridge linking a shelf of ice the size of Jamaica to two islands in Antarctica has snapped. Scientists say the collapse could mean the Wilkins Ice Shelf is on the brink of breaking away, and provides further evidence of rapid change in the region. Sited on the western side of the Antarctic Peninsula, the Wilkins shelf has been retreating since the 1990s. Researchers regarded the ice bridge as an important barrier, holding the remnant shelf structure in place. Its removal will allow ice to move more freely between Charcot and Latady islands, into the open ocean."
Well, (Score:5, Funny)
The Ice Bridge's Twit (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Otherwise boring day *sight*
Were you intending to indicate that you've sighted the floating ice bridge already? Outstanding! That damn thing must be riding on the Outer-Gotta-Get-North-Quick Current.
Re:Well, (Score:5, Funny)
Seriously, We don't play American Football in Jamaica so I'm a little Hazy as to what 4,244 sq mi (10,991 sq km) translates to in more standard SlashDot measurements.
Re:Well, (Score:4, Informative)
Including the endzones, 2,054,096 football fields. Excluding the endzones, 2,464,915.5 football fields.
Re:Well, (Score:4, Funny)
Seriously, We don't play American Football in Jamaica so I'm a little Hazy as to what 4,244 sq mi (10,991 sq km) translates to in more standard SlashDot measurements.
A more "standard" SlashDot measurement???
What is the area of a typical parental basement?
Blame me (Score:5, Funny)
Given my SUV driving has yet to save me in a crash (I've not had one since buying it)... I'm glad to see it has contributed to something productive at least.
Re:Blame me (Score:5, Funny)
Given my SUV driving has yet to save me in a crash (I've not had one since buying it)...
Don't feel bad; maybe you've crashed multiple times against bikes and pedestrians and simply didn't notice.
SUVs are not safe. (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.gladwell.com/2004/2004_01_12_a_suv.html
This isn't the tip of the iceberg... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:This isn't the tip of the iceberg... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Whew, no problem then (Score:5, Insightful)
Thank god we have the average mook on Slashdot or I might have thought this were cause for concern. I guess all of the scientists who have agreed that there are man-made effects on climate are completely incorrect, but this website is the last bastion of sanity?
Re:Whew, no problem then (Score:5, Interesting)
And I would say (Score:4, Insightful)
That if global warming really will be a very bad thing, then our energy should be spent trying to deal with it when it happens, not prevent it. Why? Well because we are pretty sure that the Earth has been much hotter (and cooler) in the past than it is now. We are about as certain as we can be that there has been a long history of climate fluctuations. Thus it doesn't matter if the current one is natural or man made, because we are going to have to deal with one like it at some point. So that means the real focus should be how to deal with the eventuality, not how to prevent this particular one, if it is in fact preventable.
Unless we can get the ability to control the climate such that fluctuations like that won't happen again (and I seriously doubt that) then preparation is what we need. If we spend a great deal of effort preventing this shift, only to get screwed over by another one, then no good is done. Likewise if it turns out this shift is natural and nothing we can do will prevent it, again no good is done.
Now this all assume you accept the idea that a slightly warmer average temperature will lead to disastrous conditions. However that does seem to be what is claimed in general. Well, if that is in fact what you believe, then you really should be advocating focusing on how to deal with it, not how to prevent it unless you believe you can prevent it when it isn't a human caused phenomena.
Re:And I would say (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So let me get this straight, your suggesting we ignore the leak in the hull and keep bailing?
I don't exactly agree with GP either, but I think he's suggesting we invest in powerful bilge pumps (to continue your analogy). At least he didn't suggest the other landlubber approach to a leaky vessel: "If water's flowing in through this hole, then let's make a bigger hole lower down so it can flow back out..."
So-called clean coal comes to mind, along with all of the arguments why less-developed countries should be allowed to increase their greenhouse emissions.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No, that is the opposite of what I argue, rather. The argument of "Let's fix this climate change because we caused it," is one that is like saying "Let's just bail the water out by hand because we made the hole in the sub, never mind that the thing may start leaking later at a rate we can't bail." My argument is that we instead spend the money on bilge pumps so we can survive the leak.
What I mean is that if we indeed are the cause of this climate shift, and if we indeed can stop it, it still isn't worth it.
Re:Whew, no problem then (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Whew, no problem then (Score:5, Informative)
I am a climate scientist. I've never been in politics and I've never sold anything (professional student here). I also think you're completely wrong. My experiences at the 2008 Fall Meeting of the American Geophysical Union are that most (9/10) of the scientists I met agree with the IPCC [www.ipcc.ch] report on abrupt climate change.
But you've made an even more fundamental mistake. Science isn't democratic-- it's about evidence. Open up the IPCC reports yourself and focus on what's really important, instead of trying to count how many people are on each side.
For example, Vostok ice core [climateactionnetwork.ca] data confirms that for nearly half a million years, the climate has changed cyclically. But in all that time, the maximum CO2 concentration never went above 300 ppm. (It's hit higher levels millions of years ago, but that was a slow and gradual change. Plus the Earth was essentially a different planet back then, with a different solar luminosity and biosphere so comparisons across that much time are tricky.)
You're right to say that natural variations are evident in the data, but the most prominent cycles over geological time are governed by (among other effects) Milankovitch cycles [wikipedia.org] which are caused by periodic variations in the earth's orbit.
But, CO2 concentrations are at 380 ppm today. That's a level it hasn't hit in the last half million years. If we're seeing natural variability alone, it's quite a coincidence that it occurs right when we started excavating fossil fuels to fuel a billion cars.
Plus, the Vostok data is a little difficult to analyze in this manner, but it seems like at Vostok the CO2 always increased 600 years AFTER the temperature started to increase. At least, that's the way it used to work. Right now, the CO2 concentration is at an unprecedented level but the temperature is barely above normal. Again, that suggests that we're not facing natural climate change, we're dealing with anthropogenic abrupt climate change.
Re: (Score:3)
Ok, I have to adapt an internet mime for this: Peer reviewed or it didn't happen. Even then it would have to pass the critical analysis test. You present no metrics, sample pool data, or descriptive statistics and yet expect your personnal experience to be taken at face value. You make to many assumptions. Bad scientist. No grant money for you.
It is also hard to take a 'climate scientist' seriously when you qoute yourself as studing computational and theoretical physics [dumbscientist.com], which is outside climatology. A good
Re:Whew, no problem then (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm a scientist too, and I judge theories based on merit, not popular opinion.
As a rule, scientific theories are not accepted by the scientific community until they have done two things: (1) explained known observations in a more simple or fundamental way than alternative theories, and (2) made a prediction about something that is currently unknown and that other theories don't predict, which is then confirmed by observation.
Global Warming theory has met neither of those requirements. The main statement of Global Warming is something like this: "small changes in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere cause large changes in global temperature". Despite this theory, there is absolutely no evidence that a change in CO2 has ever caused the temperature to change, over the entire billions-years history of the planet. So GW theory doesn't explain past observations.
It doesn't explain current observations either: CO2 concentration has steadily increased over the past 100 years, while temperatures have gone up, then down, then up again, then down again (as they are currently). There is no dramatic warming trend as predicted by GW theory.
Finally, GW has not made any unique predictions that have later been confirmed as true. It predicted more and bigger hurricanes; that hasn't happened. It predicted significant temperature increases; that hasn't happened. In fact, the theory seems totally based on computer models that have failed to make a single correct prediction about the climate ever since I first started following the issue, in 1998.
To summarize, GW theory does not meet the standards of scientific acceptance, not by a long shot.
Re:Whew, no problem then (Score:4, Insightful)
This is contradicted by:
Look at the data again. There is most assuredly a dramatic warming trend, despite the slight decrease in global mean temperature over the past few years. Run a regression on the data, it's quite clear.
Furthermore, once periodic solar activity is factored in as an ameliorating effect due to lower output over the past few years, it becomes quite clear that the warming trend continues.
If you're such a logic scientist, how could you have missed the bare facts of the data of the past 100 years? And how could you have dismissed the impact of solar activity on temperature?
Seems to me like you don't WANT to believe in GCC, and so you don't bother reading all the evidence and theory.
Re:Whew, no problem then (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not a scientist myself, but my wife is an Earth scientist. We've been following the climate change story now for twenty five years or more in Eos and other journals.
As an interested outsider, I think one of the reasons that scientists took so long to get off the dime when it came to sounding the alarm was that most of them were waiting for the other shoe to drop. There has not been another scientific story like climate change in generations. Not since evolution.
One of the things my wife often said over the years was, "the evidence is too good." And I'm sure she's not the only one. It goes against scientific training to get behind a theory until it's been given a serious beating, and nobody has been able to lay a glove on this one.
What people who don't have a real live Earth scientist available for observation need to understand is that even proponents of the theory would love to see the skeptical position put up a decent fight. Data this unambiguous doesn't seem scientific. It's spooky. They'd rather see the theory knocked down onto the mat, then get up to fight another round and win by decision.
People waited around for the skeptics to give this theory a solid hit, and in over twenty five years the skeptics have failed, over and over and over. First they argued that climate wasn't changing, and although they did manage to discredit some data sets, that position failed. Next they tried to explain the data in terms of non-anthropogenic causes; at best they've forced some changes in models and in the predicted ranges of change. So far as I know, no attempt to explain the changes in climate data over the last fifty years in terms of natural cycles or statistical artifacts has held up to scrutiny.
I understand that science is not a democracy; but it's not driven by individual data sets either. You have to look at how robust an hypothesis is, how it stands up under stress. Thus far, nobody has been able to seriously set the theory back. Who wouldn't want to do this, if they could? Discrediting anthropogenic climate change would be Nobel caliber work. It would be an immense service to humanity, comparable in importance if not greater than the discovery of the vaccine for polio, or penicillin was in medicine.
Re:Whew, no problem then (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, I've seen those bizarre claims as well. I don't think any physicist seriously doubts the warming properties of CO2. The spectrum of the sun, absorption lines of CO2 and their relevant thermodynamic relationships are simply too well established. They're freshman-level homework problems, not cutting edge research areas.
I brought that up because I'm concerned about the fact that current warming is highly atypical in that regard. What happens when the natural positive feedback of CO2 adds to what we've already dumped into the atmosphere?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
A rare species indeed, but they do exist [slashdot.org].
"What happens when the natural positive feedback of CO2 adds to what we've already dumped into the atmosphere?"
I assume due to the rate of the current warming the feedback rate will also be more rapid and that quite a bit of the feedback CO2 will initially be released as methane.
Just out of curiosity, would you say that the IPCC reports are conservative in their pronouncements du
Re:Whew, no problem then (Score:5, Insightful)
All those scientists that disagree? Sure, there's some disagreement, but we're talking about a very small percentage of scientists here.
The fact that a lot of people are happy to selectively discount a clear majority of scientific opinion worldwide because it doesn't fit in with their world view or political standpoint never ceases to amaze me.
Re:Whew, no problem then (Score:5, Insightful)
Someone once brought this home to me quite nicely - he said if 9 out of 10 doctors said your child had appendicitis, and only 1 said it was trapped gas, would you go home and 'wait and see'?
Even if you were nervous about the risks of an operation, the risks of ignoring it are much worse - if it turns out to be appendicitis.
Sure, it might be nothing, just like global warming might not be our fault, but would you take the chance?
Mark
Re:Whew, no problem then (Score:4, Insightful)
A more accurate analogy would be:
a) quit your job to live in a clinic indefinitely with a poor quality of life, spending $100,000 on experimental treatments before it bursts in the hope of delaying the problem that will inevitably come anyway, or
b) keep your job and save up money, wait until the appendix bursts, and spend $10,000 to have the operation to fix the problem, and get on with your life.
I'm on the fence as to whether AGW is real or not. Even if it is, the climate scientists say it is inevitable over the next century. So why spend trillions of dollars and criple the world's economy when the problem can't be reversed anyway. Better to strive for thriving economies around the world that have that have enough prosperity and wealth to deal with the consequences, and in 100 years or so internal combustion engines and coal power will be obsolete anyway.
Re:Whew, no problem then (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
We also KNOW that abdominal pain can be caused by trapped gas or appendicitis. Sorry, it's you that fails.
Re:Whew, no problem then (Score:5, Interesting)
Since so many people here think that they're Nobel Prize worthy, I'm sure it won't be hard for those who want to brush me off for not linking to a source to find exactly what I'm talking about.
No. I brush you off because I've got links to Nobel Prize winners [wikipedia.org] and the results of studies of other world-renowned scientists [www.ipcc.ch] available. You, on the other hand, are doing some handwaving about the little ice age, which is only tangentially related to the current issue of Global Warming. You seem to take yourself far more seriously than you even accuse the rest of Slashdot to be.
Re:Whew, no problem then (Score:5, Informative)
The Antarctic as a whole is not cooling, but warming with the rest of the world, some data from some places showed it was cooling and of course this was expounded by denialists as proof that warming wasn't global.
see : http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/01/state-of-antarctica-red-or-blue [realclimate.org]
The Antarctic's ice is melting much less than the arctic because the antarctic gets a lot of it's coldness from it's altitude (mountains etc), whereas the arctic is just floating ice, and is also adjacent to more land and less water - water stabilises temperature - so this makes the arctic more sensitive to temperature changes. But the edge bits are melting.
I think the ice shelves breaking is more likely to be caused by sea level rise though. Where the sea level cracks the ice off from the land. Which shows the non linear nature of ice melting. We don't just get ice melting linearly with temperature increases, we can get whole chunks breaking off and floating away
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
- Oh jeez, if you want to be taken seriously then stop using cheeseball terms that I'd expect from a Scientologist. Giving people who disagree with you some derogatory label lowers your credibility and reeks of cult behavior.
"I think the ice shelves breaking is more likely to be caused by sea level rise though."
- Data please? I'm sorry to be such a stickler on this, but since the pro-AGW crowd always expounds on the merits of science and data then I would expect they would provide some w
Good, the oceans were getting warm.... (Score:2)
...a few more really big ice cubes floating around should help a great deal.
oh, and as the saying goes "Pictures, or it didn't happen."
Ohhhhhh...... (Score:2)
Ohhhhhh...... *SNAP!*
"the wilkins ice shelf con job" (Score:3, Interesting)
Tabacoo science. (Score:5, Informative)
This is the second time this site has popped up in the last few days. It's run by one J. D'Aleo who is paid to do so by the "Science and Public Policy Institute", they are in turn backed by "Frontiers of Freedom" which is the lobbying brain child of this guy [wikipedia.org]. They have a donate button on their site but their funding is otherwise obscured.
Older readers may recall the "Frontiers of Freedom" also backed the tabacoo industry in their anti-science campaign.
Disclaimer: I don't have anything against lobbyists or politicians until they pretend to be something they are not.
The Article Makes a good point (Score:5, Insightful)
It mentions that a lot of the dynamics of this situation are poorly understood. Whether or not you believe in global warming or what you think is causing it we don't know what the results are going to be.
There are so many possibilities with some scientific basis and the whole environment as a system is so complex that we can't predict details. We can paint broad strokes of the future but saying the sea level is going to raise 2.37 feet and believing that the sea will raise exactly 2.37 feet put blinders on you just like believing that a Divine Being created the universe in 6 days.
We have an idea of what MAY happen but there is so much complexity that we don't know what WILL happen. Right now it looks like shit is going to get warmer, ice is going to melt, sea levels will get higher and who knows the Gulf Stream may stop flowing causing Europe to get cold.
Some of you seriously need to stop beating the Global Warming Manifesto like it is a Bible.
Global warming is a hoax! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Not that it matters ... (Score:5, Funny)
Now, I'm gunna drive my SUV 65 miles to work tomorrow and feel ok about it.
You may feel okay about it, but I feel bad for your gas card :).
Re:Not that it matters ... (Score:4, Informative)
Well, most gas usage experts show that driving ~65 MPH is the sweet spot for optimal MPG. It's much better then 80 MPH, or 20 MPH in stop and go traffic.
Given that wind resistance goes up as the square of your speed, and that rolling resistance is negligible at highway speeds, I am skeptical. Roughly, it takes 1.3 times the work (and 2.2 times the power) to cover a certain distance at 65mph than at 50mph. If drivetrains can be tuned to the tune of 30% just by fiddling with gearing, then cars would probably have more gears, or maybe CVTs. Also, this number is confirmed by my own very rough measurements in a few cars, when I actually have the discipline to drive 50mph over a long enough stretch of flat highway.
Of course, you stipulated "stop-and-go traffic" in which case a huge portion of your gasoline is used to heat up your brake rotors. Fair enough. But 65mph cannot possibly be a magic number given similar acceleration profiles.
Re: (Score:2)
So what? It hasn't been there forever. See, there's a natural progression on the planet. Warm. Cold. Warm. Cold. It's warming up, BFD. Now, I'm gunna drive my SUV 65 miles to work tomorrow and feel ok about it.
While you'll probably get +5 funny, your kids will one day give you -1 troll, my friend.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Not that it matters ... (Score:5, Insightful)
"See doc, there's a natural progression to blood pressure. High low high low. It's going up,BFD.
Now, I'm gunna eat this bag of potato chips and get a big mac and feel okay about it."
You have to love it how some people cling to the first rationalization that allows them to keep doing what they want, from the time they're kids right up to when they die.
Re:Not that it matters ... (Score:4, Informative)
Oh, and a few inches (or feet) of ocean won't bother me. I have no beach property, nor do I intend to. Last I checked, I'm about 950 feet above sea level..
From the FA: "While the break-up will have no direct impact on sea level because the ice is floating"....
Re:Not that it matters ... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, but what he and Lex Luthor stupidly failed to realize, is that whether you set-off nukes to trigger the San Andreas fault to drop California into the ocean, or if you drive your SUV to crank up global warming; one undeniable fact remains:
You have just drowned all the people who even WANTED to live near the ocean. Your property values will NOT go up!!!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not to argue the point, because it's always a holy war with folks, but there's some logistics to that, which you failed to see.
If the seas rise by 10 to 20 feet at the coastlines, coastal areas will flood. That means the ports will be under water, and nothing will come in by sea. International imports will be severely hampered. Pretty much, if you can't bring it in by plane, it won't happen.
If coastal areas flood, major highways, bridges, and train tracks will
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
... or eat corn grown domestically.
That being said. 20 feet rise in sea levels and out boss will need to find a new office buidling.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Not that it matters ... (Score:4, Interesting)
Already done [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
and the seas will rise faster than the planning permission beuracracy can work its magic?
It isn't called a bureaucracy for nothing.
Just wait until we form a committee to look into the possibility of considering a tendering process for the production of the guidelines for selecting a committee to look into the possibility of constructing a sea port.
Hell, this could take CENTURIES!
Re:Not that it matters ... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Not that it matters ... (Score:4, Informative)
No (obviously), but it would depend on how fast the water rises.
Besides just the pesky problem of the port, there's the infrastructure that goes with it.
For just one example, at 10', Manhattan would start looking like Venice [columbia.edu]. Tunnels, railways, and 3 major airports would become useless. There's a lot of infrastructure to rebuild elsewhere.
If you look around, a lot of airports and power plants are situated very close to sea level, on the waterfront. Airports use this for noise abatement (the planes can take off over the water to keep from annoying people). Nuclear plants require lots of sea water for cooling.
So, ports, sure they could be rebuilt. But have you ever watched what happens around the planning of new facilities? Years upon years of arguing points. People would argue about the environmental impact of the new facility, and the remains of the old facility.
I don't know what the thresholds are, but I'm sure once you reach a critical point (say 10'), more cities will have problems quicker. Say between 10' and 15', there could be not only one or two, but dozens of major coastal cities that would need to be rebuilt simultaneously.
Don't forget about fresh water reserves too. Water wells would start becoming contaminated with sea water too. You could rebuild the city near by, but can you restore their essential supplies like drinking water?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, I was thinking more like better designed population centers away from the coastline, with more of an aim towards self sufficiency. With encouragement for people to move to the better nicer places, which could operate cleaner than our existing cities, we'd not only have a chance to fix a lot of broken things, but we'd be able to reduce our pollution output, so the ocean side problem wouldn't be one. But once the coastal areas are properly cleaned, they'd be a beautiful place to vis
Re: (Score:2)
That means the ports will be under water, and nothing will come in by sea.
Sounds like an excellent opportunity for those in the business of building ports.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That or a brand new business of building cargo carrying submarines.
That might be true, but (Score:4, Insightful)
22 feet below, actually (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Our roads here are barely big enough for 2 cars to pass each other and don't have paved shoulders. Yet, I still see people riding on these roads. I think it's cool that they're not driving, but I know how dangerous it is and you won't catch me doi
Re:Not that it matters ... (Score:5, Informative)
Most estimates don't account for melting of continental Ice (Antarctic). That is because most expect the antarctic climate to be stable. The observed melting of Ice is worse than the estimates suggested by climate models.
This causes concern that the antarctic climate could be much more dynamic than we think.
A change in the climate of Antarctica could lead to large amounts of continental ice melting, which would lead to sea level rises much more than a couple of feet.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Not that it matters ... (Score:5, Informative)
You laugh, but...
http://www.physorg.com/news5619.html [physorg.com]
---linuxrocks123
Re: (Score:2)
This is cause for alarm if you're concerned about iceberg free shipping lanes, correct?
Considering there's about zero [sciencemag.org] shipping lanes near Antarctica I'd say this doesn't rank up there on the priority list.
Re:the main concern... (Score:4, Insightful)
You presume that the ice will not float northwards into the shipping lanes. All that ice can travel a long ways before melting.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:the main concern... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:the main concern... (Score:4, Funny)
Of course we can't. And what's worse, they can fire while cloaked.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:the main concern... (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, but that still requires you to go around them, boosting costs as they need to burn more fuel.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:the main concern... (Score:5, Funny)
Speaking from naval experience here...
What does your bellybutton have to do with icebergs?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
That's what she said !
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Somewhere in the USA... (Score:5, Funny)
I'm waiting to see the live video footage of that scene where the poor sweet little baby polar bear is trapped on an ice floe which shrinks until he falls off to be eaten by sharks or some garbage like that *splash*
It would be quite remarkable to have video footage of polar bears in the Antarctic.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I'm waiting to see the live video footage of that scene where the poor sweet little baby polar bear is trapped on an ice floe which shrinks until he falls off to be eaten by sharks or some garbage like that *splash*
It would be quite remarkable to have video footage of polar bears in the Antarctic.
Here in the southern hemisphere we call them Polar Koalas.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This is it the season that it recedes. Its winter down there and only moving more into winter. Also, this shelf has been there for centuries, and now the whole thing is going to come unhinged.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Not so much. Winter is just starting in the southern hemisphere. The equinox was March 20 so in Antarctica the sun only went down a few weeks ago.
Re:C'mon Mods.... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:As I've Said Before (Score:4, Funny)
You'd need to go back to a time when you can't blame humans.
I still blame Canada. They obviously failed to hold on to the ice caps when they had the chance.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Hey, you got your information all wrong! Everyone knows you can go to your local neighbourhood Tim Horton's and buy an Ice Cap for $2.99.
Re:As I've Said Before (Score:5, Funny)
If you really, really wanted to save the polar ice caps, you'd create a time machine and travel back..say, 19,000 years ago. Back when the polar ice cap extended down into what is modern day Illinois. Which predates SUVs and industrialization by around...19,000 years or so.
You could also increase the number of pirates [berkeley.edu].
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
This isn't offtopic... The mods must not have known that global warming is inversely proportional to the number of pirates on the high seas.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:As I've Said Before (Score:5, Insightful)
BTW: This particular environmentalist doesn't care if you drive an SUV, a sherman tank, or a skateboard.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Carbon needs an internationaly agreed and enforced CAP on total emmissions in order to create an economically and environmentally sound market to TRADE it.
That will not produce a shortest path solution to the problem. The fastest, least expensive and most humane solution is to quickly get the developing world past the high-pollution stage of industrialization. There are essentially two ways to make cleaner energy sources cost-competitive with dirtier ones: make the dirty ones more expensive or make the
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
If you really, really wanted to save the polar ice caps, you'd create a time machine and travel back..say, 19,000 years ago. Back when the polar ice cap extended down into what is modern day Illinois.
Which predates SUVs and industrialization by around...19,000 years or so.
Did I pull my gun? Yea.
Did I shoot? Yepp.
Did I shoot second time. Sure!
Did I kill him? No!
I mean, come on, average life expectancy is 66 years, and he was over 70, that's waaay long before I bought this gun.
So, am I free to go now?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The argument of "it's natural" is stupid. If it's natural, modify nature. We are constantly doing it.
Why? Because this change does NOT benefit us.
So, nature doesn't want to change (or we don't know how to coerce her)?
Well, at least don't help the change!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Metric (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Metric (Score:4, Funny)
Belgium's area (assuming no mountains or hills) is 30,528 km^2. [Wikipedia]
Jamaica's area is 11,100 km^2.
Dividing, we see that there are 2.75 Jamaicas for every Belgium.
On that basis, the Ice shelf is just over a third (0.364) the size of Belgium. Damn Flanders.
Re:Metric (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
As far as weathering effects in the Antarctic, precipation averages about 16.5cm annual, making it the largest desert in the world.
The surface area of Antarctica is 14,200,000/km^2, so even though it is a desert, the amount of ice which would accumulate if there were no loss is staggering. This particular loss isn't very significant, but makes for a great story due to its surface area being equatable to something (ex: The state of RI