Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Earth Science

315 Billion-Ton Iceberg Breaks Off Antarctica (bbc.co.uk) 88

Posted by BeauHD from the no-cause-for-alarm dept.
jimminy_cricket quotes a report from the BBC: The Amery Ice Shelf in Antarctica has just produced its biggest iceberg in more than 50 years. The calved block covers 1,636 sq km in area -- a little smaller than Scotland's Isle of Skye -- and is called D28. The scale of the berg means it will have to be monitored and tracked because it could in future pose a hazard to shipping. Not since the early 1960s has Amery calved a bigger iceberg. That was a whopping 9,000 sq km in area. Amery is the third largest ice shelf in Antarctica, and is a key drainage channel for the east of the continent. D28 is calculated to be about 210 meters thick and contains some 315 billion tons of ice.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

315 Billion-Ton Iceberg Breaks Off Antarctica More

315 Billion-Ton Iceberg Breaks Off Antarctica

Comments Filter:

  • That's about 25Ã--25 miles, by the way. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by BAReFO0t ( 6240524 ) on Thursday October 03, 2019 @05:15AM (#59264608)

    Or about 40Ã--40 km. Enough to comfortably fit four cities with a population of one million.

    And about 600ft thick.
    So you could freeze those entire cities, including their tallest buildings, in there.

    • The multiplication sign (Ã--) is not a threat to your site's hackability!
      Who wants to hack a zombie anyway?

      • Or about 40Ã--40 km.

        I get 95 km by 95 km, or about 60 miles by 50 miles if it were a square, not 25.

        Enough to comfortably fit four cities with a population of one million. And about 600ft thick.
        So you could freeze those entire cities, including their tallest buildings, in there.

        New York City is 784 km^2, so you could fit 11.5 New York Cities onto that 9000 km^2 area. Or 10.5 Tokyos (city only, not the whole metropolitan area).

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by bob4u2c ( 73467 )
          New York City you say. . .

          Don't get me excited about things like this breaking off into the ocean.

          P.S. does that include New Jersey?

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Agripa ( 139780 )

          New York City is 784 km^2, so you could fit 11.5 New York Cities onto that 9000 km^2 area. Or 10.5 Tokyos (city only, not the whole metropolitan area).

          But how many New York City egos could it fit?

      • I think maybe Slashdot will even accept the HTML entity × like this: × but ignores it when it's basic UTF-8.

      • Maybe use x or * like a normal person, and none of that unnecessary unicode bullshit from your iOS device.

    • 2 × 15 = 30

      7 × 5 = 35

      The times sign is #215, not #195. #195 is Cap A with tilde.

      • And? Slashdot has a charset problem. The page announces itself as UTF-8 and accepts UTF-8 as input. But the backend database mangles multi-byte characters. They most certainly put in the right character, but Slashdot isn't storing/retrieving it correctly.

        In UTF-8, #195 followed by #151 is the multiplication sign.

        • Reference: https://www.fileformat.info/in... [fileformat.info]

          UTF-16 and HTML entities put it as 215, but if you're typing text and not using HTML entities, it is two separate bytes encoding one UTF-8 character.

          • Reference: https://www.fileformat.info/in... [fileformat.info]

            UTF-16 and HTML entities put it as 215, but if you're typing text and not using HTML entities, it is two separate bytes encoding one UTF-8 character.

            For × anyway it's two bytes. In UTF-8 characters are not always two bytes, They can be one, two, three, or four bytes, as I'm sure you know.

            And we all know that /.'s unicode handling is broken.

            • Re: (Score:3)

              by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

              And we all know that /.'s unicode handling is broken.

              No it isn't. It's completely UTF-8 compliant in that it can accept and output UTF-8 just fine.

              It's just that due to abuse over the years (search for "erocS", case sensitive), /. was the first to implement Unicode codepoint filters. In effect, it's a whitelist of allowable codepoints. Why not a blacklist? Because the blacklist requires constant maintenance and updating as new codepoints are introduced (and new ones are on a yearly basis at the minimum).

              Of

              • hahaha. It's not broken, it just doesn't work.

                Sounds like you're the person who wrote the front end or something. A little bit on the defensive side?

                Front end, back end. Whatever is stripping bits... It doesn't work. A.K.A. broken.

                And when your whitelist is every character below 128 and some number of characters above, e.g. ×, then what do you do?

                Have a nice day. It's been fun chatting with you.

                • except that the actual character × is NOT whitelisted. Slashdot is just happy to store × (or hex equivalent) in pure ASCII.

  • Bigger chunks breaking off could have many causes:
    - There's more ice, so when it breaks off there's a bigger chunk.
    - Ice breaking off is kind of random and sometimes you get a much bigger chunk at once, randomly.
    - Instead of breaking into smaller pieces first and then breaking off, it went all at once.

    • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

      by geekmux ( 1040042 )

      Bigger chunks breaking off could have many causes: - There's more ice, so when it breaks off there's a bigger chunk. - Ice breaking off is kind of random and sometimes you get a much bigger chunk at once, randomly. - Instead of breaking into smaller pieces first and then breaking off, it went all at once.

      Thank you for recognizing the factor of randomness, which is still relevant when it comes to events in nature. Panic? There shouldn't even be a cause for concern until we determine if this anomaly is truly something to be worried about.

      Bah, what am I saying? We shouldn't worry about people overreacting. I mean it's not like the sky-is-falling climate change activists will abuse some spoiled teenager to berate the shit out of humanity on a global stage or anything...

      • "Loose Tooth" (Score:5, Informative)

        by Layzej ( 1976930 ) on Thursday October 03, 2019 @06:25AM (#59264742)
        NASA has some info on this ice shelf. Looks like this “loose tooth.” has been loosening for over a decade as part of a natural cyclical process: https://earthobservatory.nasa.... [nasa.gov]

      • The idea that there is an immediate danger from a chunk like this to shipping itself is beyond you, ain't it? If I had to sail down there, I would rather worry about hitting this beast. As you might know, ice bergs are larger below than above water, when you get to spot this beast it might already be too late to turn your oil tanker around.

        • It's a 1,600 sq km block of ice, that makes it what 40 km on aside?

          It takes two miles to stop an oil tanker running at full speed [thetimes.co.uk], to change course should be considerably less. Icebergs go deep, not wide below the surface.

          So the issue is can a ship's captain, given tools like radar, "see" two miles ahead in order to avoid a near motionless 40 square kilometer mass? I suspect the answer is yes.

          Should it be tracked? Absolutely. Should it strike terror in the hearts of ship captains and crews on cargo ships af

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by rossdee ( 243626 )

          "If I had to sail down there, I would rather worry about hitting this beast. "

          I don't think anybody has to sail down there, apart from ships supplying Antarctic research bases. (which would be well equipped with radar and sonar,)

        • It's great that they're tracking this, but why is there a tag with "Climate change" attached to this article? When the text of the article explicitely says:

          The Scripps researcher stressed that there was no link between this event and climate change.

      • Re:And what's the entire surface area? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Layzej ( 1976930 ) on Thursday October 03, 2019 @08:28AM (#59264970)

        Bah, what am I saying? We shouldn't worry about people overreacting. I mean it's not like the sky-is-falling climate change activists ...

        So far only contrarians have mentioned climate change. Calving of ice doesn't tell you anything about the climate. For climate you need to look at the trend.

        The trend shows that antarctic sea ice has actually expanded [blogs.egu.eu] since 1979. The reasons are not entirely understood, although it is believed to be some combination of natural variability, ozone hole expansion, and increased melting of arctic land ice,

        The article concludes: It is very tricky to distinguish what is natural variability, what is human induced, or a complicated combination of two. This means we don’t really know whether the observed large decrease in Antarctic sea ice extent seen in 2016/2017 (read more about it here [blogs.egu.eu]) is just an anomaly or the start of a decreasing trend. So, in summary Antarctic sea ice is confusing, and we still can’t claim to completely understand observed variability. But this makes it interesting and means there is still a wealth of secrets left to be discovered about Antarctic sea ice!

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by holloway ( 46404 )

          For climate you need to look at the trend. The trend shows that antarctic sea ice

          If you're really looking at trends then don't solely focus on Antarctica... https://youtu.be/RLqXkYrdmjY?t... [youtu.be]

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Layzej ( 1976930 )
            Yes. The Earth's ice is melting. Antarctica sea ice, stubbornly, is not... except for the past few years where antarctic sea ice plunged to record lows. My guess is that the long term trend is more telling than the last few years as far as the future goes, but I wouldn't place money on either side.
        • I guess you missed the article being tagged with "Climate change"

      • Re:And what's the entire surface area? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Geoffrey.landis ( 926948 ) on Thursday October 03, 2019 @08:53AM (#59265058) Homepage

        Thank you for recognizing the factor of randomness, which is still relevant when it comes to events in nature. Panic? There shouldn't even be a cause for concern until we determine if this anomaly is truly something to be worried about.

        Bah, what am I saying? We shouldn't worry about people overreacting. I mean it's not like the sky-is-falling climate change activists will abuse some spoiled teenager to berate the shit out of humanity on a global stage or anything...

        I'm not sure why you use the words "panic", or "cause for concern". I don't see any sign of this in the article, nor even "people overreacting.". In fact, the article cited specifically states "'No role' for climate in Halley iceberg", and gives more details in the link here: https://www.bbc.com/news/scien... [bbc.com]

        So, what I'm more puzzled by is, why does any mention of anything even tangentially climate related get some slashdotters shouting "OMG THEY"RE OVERREACTING"?

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by JustAnotherOldGuy ( 4145623 )

          So, what I'm more puzzled by is, why does any mention of anything even tangentially climate related get some slashdotters shouting "OMG THEY"RE OVERREACTING"?

          Because they have to protect the conservative/GOP narrative that "everything is fine" and that climate change is all just a made-up fake communist news Chinese hoax started by Obama and Hillary and Biden and George Soros and the Deep State and the satanists.

          If you mentioned that it was raining, they'd scream about how it rained back in the 1930s and we didn't have an Ice Age then, so obviously you're part of the Deep State bent on overthrowing the Chosen One.

          • It's not a climate event, the article specifically says that.
            Yet it's also tagged with "Climate change", suspicious.
            And CO2 isn't a pollutant, every scientist knows that.
            Even the hypothesis that it causes global warming has been proven false.
            That's why they use climate change now, so any natural change in the weather and therefore climate, can be blamed on human activity.
            • I really need an edit instead of preview option, the following sentence is wrong:

              That's why they use climate change now, so any natural change in the weather and therefore climate, can be blamed on human activity.

              It should be:
              Climate is the average weather of the past 30 years, so it changes by definition.
              That's why they use climate change now.
              It gurantee's an endless source of problems to blame on human activity for.

  • Opportunity (Score:4, Interesting)

    by FishTankX ( 1539069 ) on Thursday October 03, 2019 @05:59AM (#59264700)

    I wonder if this would be possible for the middle east to tow in. That would eliminate the possibility of the melt raising the sea levels and keep CO2 out of the air by displacing desalination.

    I'd imagine you'd need to break it up into chunks as even a fleet of tugs couldn't tow something that massive easily. But it would be a fascinating endeavor.

    • ... you would enter the port with enough ice cubes to fill one whole soda glass.

      Fascinatingly stupid is the right term, in any case.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by necro81 ( 917438 )

        ... you would enter the port with enough ice cubes to fill one whole soda glass.

        I think you fail to grasp just how much energy would have to be absorbed to melt a chunk of ice the size of city. Yes, there would be loss along the way, but the ice in the middle of that volume cannot begin to melt until the ice on the exterior has warmed up then melted or flaked off.

        My prediction: the yield would be closer to 50% than 0.000005%

        • My prediction: the yield would be closer to 50% than 0.000005%

          So it would shrink from approx. 40 sq km to 30 sq km? That seems like a reasonable amount.

          Of course, then comes the issue of mining the ice while it sits outside the harbor - has anything like that ever been done before?

          • Of course, then comes the issue of mining the ice while it sits outside the harbor - has anything like that ever been done before?

            We have harvested natural ice, although probably never directly from an iceberg. You would probably want a specialized port to do it. The hard part would be getting the iceberg to the harvesting site.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

            • Stupid. Harvest on site, on the fucking iceberg itself, and move smaller chunks. Yes, you'll lose more ice by cutting it up and exposing more surface area. That will be more than offset by the reduced cost and time compared to moving the entire thing and figuring out what to do with it and wasting time processing it while it's melting away in warmer waters at your port.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by hey! ( 33014 )

          Iceberg B-15, the prior record holder, broke off from the Ross Ice Shelf in 2000, and as of last year four parts of it were still floating around that had areas of greater than 20 square miles. We're not talking ice cubes here.

          Intuition formed on small scale doesn't really hold up very well even with moderate increases in size. In the 1800s, 100 pound blocks of ice were packed in ships in Boston and shipped to Calcutta, a four month trip. A typical cargo would be about six hundred tons of ice. While me

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by ebvwfbw ( 864834 )

        ... you would enter the port with enough ice cubes to fill one whole soda glass.

        Fascinatingly stupid is the right term, in any case.

        Mmmmm. 500 million year old ice!

    • Re:Opportunity (Score:4, Funny)

      by PolygamousRanchKid ( 1290638 ) on Thursday October 03, 2019 @06:46AM (#59264776)

      I wonder if this would be possible for the middle east to tow in.

      Since it is now technically part of Antarctica anymore, an Evil Scientist could plant his flag there, and declare his own country. From there he could stage his operations for world domination.

      Of course, there would be a danger that his country would melt, but Evil Scientists are smart, and that would be just a puny problem to solve.

      • Of course, there would be a danger that his country would melt, but Evil Scientists are smart, and that would be just a puny problem to solve.

        Are they really? I'm willing to be the first Evil Scientist who moves in builds a volcano on the island.

    • I wonder if this would be possible for the middle east to tow in. That would eliminate the possibility of the melt raising the sea levels and keep CO2 out of the air by displacing desalination.

      While the behemothic amounts of diesel fuel the Middle East would have to use for towing adds much more CO2 to the air. That would mean still more loose bergs to tow - genius!

    • It has already broken off, so the sea level has already been raised. Melting will raise it no further. I can't figure out what this has to do with CO2 except perhaps for the emissions caused by the towing.

      • Re:Opportunity (Score:4)

        by jwhyche ( 6192 ) on Thursday October 03, 2019 @09:10AM (#59265114) Homepage

        The breaking off a large chuck of Antarctic ice will have little effect on the rising of sea levels. So that is not the issue of concern here. The issue of concern is the introduction of large amounts of freshwater, from melting icebergs, into the Global Ocean Conveyor. The density change this will induce in the sea water could alter the currents that keep the northern latitudes warm. New ice age anyone?

        https://scied.ucar.edu/longcon... [ucar.edu]

        • The breaking off a large chuck of Antarctic ice will have little effect on the rising of sea levels. [snip]

          I'd say it has already caused all of the sea level rise it can, since it's now floating. (ie, displacing water equal to its mass)

    • I wonder if this would be possible for the middle east to tow in. That would eliminate the possibility of the melt raising the sea levels and keep CO2 out of the air by displacing desalination.

      I'd imagine you'd need to break it up into chunks as even a fleet of tugs couldn't tow something that massive easily. But it would be a fascinating endeavor.

      Salvage 1: Hard Water https://www.oldies.com/product... [oldies.com]

    • Sounds like a great interview question - how would you transport... ?

      Maybe strap a few spacex rockets to it on their sides

    • I wonder if this would be possible for the middle east to tow in.

      Someone more better than me at physics can do the math, but the amount of energy that would be required to "tow" a 315 Billion-ton iceberg from Antarctica all the way to the Middle East would be astronomical.

      Not to mention the energy required to stop it, once you actually got the thing moving.

  • ...I hope though, that they will direct their energy to the industrialized countries.

    These countries:

    • fly out for vacations most,
    • drive most,
    • manufacture & consume manufactured products most,
    • eat [out] most,
    • use paper, petroleum & water resources most

    In fact, they control the world agenda most effectively, though mostly to the detriment of the environment.

  • In the 1960s... (Score:1, Flamebait)

    by kenh ( 9056 )

    ...a profoundly larger glacier 'calved' - it was about 5x larger than today's iceberg.

    Not since the early 1960s has Amery calved a bigger iceberg. That was a whopping 9,000 sq km in area.

    An honest person would take this to mean the icebergs are getting smaller, is that the problem?

    • An honest person would take this to mean the icebergs are getting smaller

      Climate change!

    • An honest, or at least a competent person, would take it as 2 data points among thousands, and not draw any conclusions.

      Of course, when you actually analyze the totality of the data... The picture that starts to emerge makes a lot of people uncomfortable. So definitely don't look at the big picture. Make sure you pick and choose. Today, you can get a personalized assemblage of alternative facts to fit your chosen alt-reality. There's no excuse for having to come to terms with standard-reality.

  • This is SO money!
  • Drag it to the Middle East and split it between Iran and Saudi Arabia so they can chill out.
  • Oh I can here the stories of "sea levels" rising LOL.
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • I'm sensing a tasty snack headed for Sydney beach food shops!

  • When 51% of Americans decide that 99.9% of all published papers MUST BE WRONG because Koch says so, America is doomed
  • Do remember that as ice in a glass of water melts, the water level goes down.

Slashdot Top Deals

As you will see, I told them, in no uncertain terms, to see Figure one. -- Dave "First Strike" Pare

Close