Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Earth

Massive Ice Shelf Collapses in Antarctica (thehill.com) 107

Posted by EditorDavid from the off-the-shelf dept.
"A massive ice shelf in eastern Antartica collapsed, scientists said on Friday, marking the first time an ice shelf has done so in the region," reports the Hill: The 460-square mile wide ice shelf, which was roughly the size of New York City and helped keep the Conger and Glenzer glaciers from warmer water, collapsed between March 14 and March 16, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute ice scientist Catherine Walker told The Associated Press. University of Minnesota ice scientist Peter Neff said the collapse was worrying because eastern Antartica holds five times more ice than western Antartica, and if the whole region were to melt, it could raise sea levels across the globe more than 160 feet, according to the AP.

Scientists had long thought that the area had not been impacted heavily by climate change and was stable, according to the wire service, but Neff said the collapse of the ice shelf brought that belief into question. The Glenzer-Conger ice shelf has been shrinking since the 1970s, Neff noted. Walker added that it rapidly began losing ice in 2020, according to the AP.

"The Glenzer-Conger ice shelf presumably had been there for thousands of years, and it's not ever going to be there again," Neff told the wire service.
Last week the Washington Post reported that temperatures over the eastern Antarctic ice sheet had been "soaring 50 to 90 degrees above normal."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Massive Ice Shelf Collapses in Antarctica More

Massive Ice Shelf Collapses in Antarctica

Comments Filter:

  • I'm eagerly waiting to see what kind of things the conspiracy theorists will come up with and post in this thread.

    It'll be fun!

    • I remember Rush Limbaugh assuring us that sea level rise from Antarctica melting was totally a fake issue. Because when a cube of ice in glass of water melts the water level doesn't rise.

      It is hard to imagine people that people can become more stupid after watching a science demonstration, but that was a good demonstration of that.

      • I'm pretty sure Rush Limbaugh was talking about Arctic, because that sea ice is floating on the sea. He was correct of course, but forgot to mention that Greenland and Antarctica melting won't give as happy results.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by HiThere ( 15173 )

          Not even true for them, because warmer water takes up more space per molecule (above about 39F). Most of the rise in the ocean levels so far (well as of a few years ago) was due to the expansion of water.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by q_e_t ( 5104099 )

          I'm pretty sure Rush Limbaugh was talking about Arctic, because that sea ice is floating on the sea.

          Greenland is in the Arctic. It's not sea. Ditto lots of other bits of the Arctic.

        • Rush Limbaugh fans don't know the difference between the Arctic and Antarctic

      • Antarctica has two gigantic ice masses:
        a) the ice on the continent, afaik a 4km high ice. mountain
        b) ice floating on the water around it: called "shelf ice"

        If b) melts, it is like an ice cube in a drink - the melting levels out.
        If a) melts, or drops into the water: sea level will rise

      • Because when a cube of ice in glass of water melts the water level doesn't rise.

        Antarctica is a continent, a large landmass, not a cube of ice. The Arctic is a cube of ice. Arctic ice melting has no effect on sea level. Antarctic ice melting does.

        It is hard to imagine people that people can become more stupid after watching a science demonstration

        And yet here we are, someone who failed basic geography at school thinks that the science demonstration is relevant to the discussion at hand. Clear evidence that yes, stupid people are everywhere.

    • I'm eagerly waiting to see what kind of things the conspiracy theorists will come up with and post in this thread.

      It'll be fun!

      Doesn't seem like snarking is working ... guess we need to find some technological solutions, like CO2 scrubbing on a mass scale.

      Oh, and go nuclear.

    • Sure, my conspiracy theory about it:

      The ideological struggle behind WWII never ended. Specifically, the group of people who were back then called eugenicists, believe in a gardened or engineered world. The group representing allies believed in a laissez-faire approach.

      The claims of the former were that capitalism would lead to depletion of resources and death on scales never seen. After WWII they worked only on hiding, survival and advanced technology, and facilitating the demise.

      After catastrophic climate

    • It's because Biden is weak. Trump would have held up the ice sheet!

    • I think I heard someone said that Putin was seen with a hair dryer over there just before that ice shelf collapsed.

      On a more serious note, I think 160 feet higher sea level will flood most of the land. Earth may become an island planet, with a few small island surrounded by a huge ocean.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by kenh ( 9056 )

        University of Minnesota ice scientist Peter Neff said the collapse was worrying because eastern Antartica holds five times more ice than western Antartica, and if the whole region were to melt, it could raise sea levels across the globe more than 160 feet, according to the AP.

        I'd like to see the math behind this statement, that seems a bit fantastical - and a timeframe would be nice too.

  • Barrier ice shelf and protector of the whole of eastern Antarctica is intimated lost.

    What exactly besides 50 to 90F above normal needs to occur to trigger the eastern Antarctic sheet melt? Sea rise 160 feet sounds millennial

  • The only justice from climate change seems like its going to be the devastation of the filth called humanity. A species so vile, it set its own planet on fire for the paltry profit of a dishonest few. Though humanity itself will enact no justice, because that would mean not worship the masters

  • That's a lot of feet.

    • It's risen 200 meters in the past 1000 years. Many Roman cities are two miles out under water.

      The crazies are actually the ones who think the sea won't rise and that we can stop it.

      But, hey, tax the poor into poverty to try in vein to protect the malinvestments of the wealthy elite.

      • 10,000 . GDI.

      • It's risen 200 meters in the past 1000 years. Many Roman cities are two miles out under water.
        That is double wrong. (Triple actually)
        1) it is "Has risen"
        2) it is roughly 200 meters over the last 10,000 - 12,000 years
        3) if a roman city is under water: it is due to an earthquake and not sea level rise

      • That's absurd. There many port cities in Europe that have been in the same place for more than 1000 years, but mysteriously aren't under water. You're making up nonsense.

      • They did have meters 1000 years ago. Can you state this in hands or rods?

      • Yeah, that's why Castel Dell'Oro in Naples, founded on a small island in the 6th Century BCE, where Romulus Augustulus was exiled in 476 CE, is now completely underwater.

        Only it isn't.

        Your claims are equal part ignorance and a pig headed determination to ignore what is in plain sight.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by kenh ( 9056 )

          This is what happens when climate activists simply accept without challenge anything and everything their "leaders" say, never asking "does that seem plausible", or "is this consistent with what they said before"?

          There's a similar phenomenon in homelessness and hunger. Once upon a time homelessness was easy to identify, now it has been redefined to include anyone living paycheck to paycheck ( we include people who might become homeless in the future, because the actual homeless numbers aren't big enough, ap

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by kenh ( 9056 )

        It's risen 200 meters in the past 1000 years. Many Roman cities are two miles out under water.

        Citation please? Every coastal city from the year 1,000 is now 200 meters under water? That assertion can't simply go unchallenged.

      • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • First they deny its a problem, and then they say it's too late. A bunch of mindless zombies who cannot think for themselves embrace propaganda that we cannot thrive without fossil fuel.

    We are an engineering problem away from limitless safe clean energy, but corrupt and fearful governments protecting fossil fuel stops any real progress.

    Geothermal, fusion, fission or even wind and solar are all viable options.

    But no, let's just stick our heads in the sand and watch our beautiful planet and its exquisit

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by HiThere ( 15173 )

      Geothermal is only viable in a very few places. Even in those it's a bit marginal. We can't to fusion yet, except in bombs (or on a REALLY small scale). Fission plants are horrendously complicated. We have technical solutions, but not managerial solutions. (I'm hoping some of the newer designs get away from that. Molten Salt reactors have a lot of promise, but need to prove out.) Solar and wind are viable, but require "rare earth" elements, which we have allowed to be monopolized by China on economi

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

        Those sound like engineering problems....

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by HiThere ( 15173 )

          They are either engineering or management problems. Occasionally a combination. This doesn't keep them from being real problems. Many of them obviously have solutions, but then we get into politics.

      • Geothermal hasn't had the engineering put into it that Oil drilling has. Put in research and engineering and you can expand the drilling.

        Geothermal techniques where fracking like approaches are taken end up with contaminated water like fracking creates - except we are just now starting to look at uses for this dirty toxic water. Turns out that lithium can be profitably extracted in significant amounts. More elements are likely possible too. Besides energy, it might be possible it generates more money as

      • There is a company developing deep drilling for geothermal anywhere. Several other companies are developing small nuclear reactors that can be factory produced and retrofit coal plants (e.g. NuScale). Fusion with Lithium 6 has been understood for 70 years but H-Bomb fear prevents development. All we need is government grants and support to accelerate development. The issue isn't science, it's the will to fund it because regulations and risk impede commercial development.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by HiThere ( 15173 )

          I, personally, don't rate that "deep drilling for geothermal power" as likely to succeed. Some of the other look as if they could work, but they require development that hasn't happened, so they might not. There isn't a single "small fission reactor" that I consider a certainty. (You need to include being safe in the presence of cost-cutting management.)

          And I suspect you really don't understand the problems with fusion unless you're thinking about exploding a bomb in an underground location and using the

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by kenh ( 9056 )

      We are an engineering problem away from limitless safe clean energy, but corrupt and fearful governments protecting fossil fuel stops any real progress.

      Geothermal, fusion, fission or even wind and solar are all viable options.

      But no, let's just stick our heads in the sand and watch our beautiful planet and its exquisite ecosystems die

      The lat few few multi-trillion dollar bills passed by the US government have collectively included about a trillion dollars in purported green/alternative energy programs - I don't recall any new subsidies or handouts to "big oil" in any of those bills, but the US is only one country, and this is over just a handful of years, but I can't remember the last time the US government proposed a new subsidy for "big oil" - can you cite any?

      Big Oil generates a HUGE amount of tax revenue that are supposed to fund ro

      • The oil industry is the most heavily subsidized industry in the history of mankind.

        https://e360.yale.edu/digest/f... [yale.edu]

        And that is before the health and environmental costs that are born by taxpayers. Please try to get the truth instead of consuming propaganda.
        • So what would people have been burning for energy the last 200 years? Before coal was developed most of the trees in Europe had been felled for heat and metal smelting.
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • You are 100% correct. This is the major problem with fossil fuel. The environmental cost is not factored into the cost of the product and it drives demand that accumulates debt for the future to pay.

        Unfortunately we need fossil fuel for the foreseeable future, but we also need to drive hard for viable alternatives. The free market is already doing this, but not fast enough.

  • For a roughly round continent that covers the south pole, where is East? Surely is one of the north ones.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by HiThere ( 15173 )

      IIUC, it's the part near New Zealand. Or perhaps India. Not the part near Peru or Africa, anyway, that's West Antarctica.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by splutty ( 43475 )

      Greenwich Meridian goes through Antarctica as well.

    • Simple explanation:
      Look on a map. East is right side, West is left side.

      Complex explanation: left as an exercise to the reader. Perhaps you might look carefully how the meridians are numbered on the west side and how they are numbered on the east side.

      No idea why stupid nitpickers are so stupid that they not think first when they think they found a fault (in others).

  • I must have bought a a batch of faulty drywall anchors.
  • An ice shelf of over 1191 km2, an area greater than the size of Qatar, has collapsed. If the eastern Antarctic melted, it would raise global sea levels by over 48m. Earlier, scientists reported that temperatures had increased by 27-50 degrees.

  • Where is the east coast of Antarctica?

  • Not the first time and they know it. The larsen shelf fell about two decades ago - https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/r... [nasa.gov]
    So this is natural. It happens from time to time and they know it. Just the latest round of fake man made global warming claims.

    Why do I say fake? Glad you asked. Do you know the scientific method? The one where if you have one counter example to a theory it proves the theory is wrong (as Einstein famously said)? It's a proven verifiable fact that the 1930s is the hottest decade of the 1900s.

  • I said NEAT, not on the rocks!
  • The nuclear winter resulting from WWIII will take care of climate change.

    See, the conservatives do care about the environment.

Slashdot Top Deals

Bus error -- please leave by the rear door.

Close