One Of The Biggest Icebergs Has Broken Loose In Antarctica

Post Reply New Topic

Tell that to the inhabitants of this island
https://www.environews.tv/world-news/na ... -jeapordy/

I know islands are going underwater.The Marshall Islanders are relocating here.
We get early warm spells and late frosts,always have.Our weather has always been erratic,tornados,ice storms,drought,floods,etc.Weather men move here becuse they like activity.That is a normal occurrence here.Being bumped from agri zone 6 to 7 is not.

I live on a peninsula you know. No one is saying anything about the waterfronts being in danger. The Navy base out in the sound isn't experiencing any issues. Neither is the little island with a community on it. Heck even the long thin manmade sandbar island isn't experiencing any issues and it's only slighly above sea level. What about the Hawaiian islands with all their beachfront hotels? Any lobbies getting flooded?

There have been articles in the news about it.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/04/scie ... begun.html
Hawaii.
https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/s ... nge-hi.pdf

None of these "doomsday" things are going to happen immediately in the future. These are "worst case scenarios," anyway.

Even in a "worst case scenario," many things won't happen for at least 50 years or so.

Ah so apparently it takes place further out at sea then.

Why can't we acknowledge, in the face of a monumental quantity of evidence, that climate change/global warming is happening at a rather rapid rate?

I'm not totally committed to a totally man-made cause for it.

But it is happening, and it could cause problems if we don't address it.

It doesn't mean the worst-case scenario events will happen. It just means they POSSIBLY might happen.

Fighting climate change would require government intervention.

Corporate propaganda has "taught" us that governments are inherently bad ... except when they are giving bailouts to big banks.

Because climate change/global warming/the-end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it is NOT happening. What "monumental quantity of evidence"? There is NO evidence.

Admittedly this is probably not the best sourse, but it is mentioned here:

https://www.cruisebe.com/muir-glacier-alaska

that "Muir Glacier has undergone very rapid, well-documented retreat since its Little Ice Age maximum position at the mouth of Glacier Bay around 1780. Between 1941 and 2004 the glacier retreated more than twelve kilometers (seven miles) and thinned by over 800 meters (2625 feet). Ocean water has filled the valley replacing the ice."

Yes, the "Little Ice Age", which is rarely, if ever, mentioned by people who accept the belief that the Earth is changing due to our sinful, industrial ways. The process that you see taking place now at this particular glacier began before the industrial revolution, when much of the Northern Hemisphere really did experience severe winters and mild summers. We can be truly thankful that the Little Ice Age came to an end during the early 1800's, for warmer weather is generally conducive to prosperity and economic development and progress (ex. during the Medieval Warm Period, after the period of stagnation and cold weather during the Dark Ages).

Misslizard, the article you link to is rather sparse on details. For example, the five islands that supposedly vanished beneath the sea. What were these islands called? How large were they? What was their precise location? Pretty basic information that one would need to establish the veracity of the central claim here is mysteriously missing. Gee, I wonder why?
The comments beneath the article are at least entertaining (and informative). "Fastfish" wrote:

"This article does not improve the credibility of anthropomorphic climate change researchers. It clearly is written in such a way as to make the researchers appear that they were on a mission to find what they were looking for. Thousands of meters of shoreline are destroyed around the world every year and has been for millennia. A castle in Scotland that was once on the coast some 1000 years ago is now a km inland. The marks that Captain Cook made (1770) when landing in Australia for high and low tide are still there and accurate. Land masses go up and down quite significantly. Storms blow through and destroy exposed islands. New islands are being created naturally (without the Chinese help). Without the complete story, this article can at best to be chalked up to poor reporting and at worst - propaganda."

So true. However, I am not the type of person to ignore contrary evidence, so:

https://phys.org/news/2014-08-sea-pacif ... ocate.html

is a better article, if only because it has a few more specific details.

"The University of Queensland worked with British Maritime Technologies WBM (BMT WBM) and Buckley Vann town planners to develop a comprehensive climate change adaptation plan to move the town of Taro, with a population of 800, to the adjacent mainland.

UQ School of Civil Engineering's Professor Tom Baldock said the community of Taro was under significant risk from tsunamis and ocean storms.

"As the capital of the Choiseul Province, Taro is less than two metres above sea level, presenting a significant risk to the community, which will be compounded in the future with climate change and the resulting rise in sea levels," he said."

Even so, the language used here is very imprecise, and that is one of the key problems that I have identified when it comes to articles and anything else found on the internet that discusses this issue from the perspective of trying to prove that this is a real problem. Often when details are provided, they turn out to be wrong.

A few questions:
1) What, exactly, is a "comprehensive climate change adaptation plan"? Apart from evacuating people from Taro, what does it involve? Standing on the shore and commanding, "Go back, go back" to the tides, like King Canute?
2)"Less than two metres above sea level", means what? Five millimetres? One metre? How close are they to drowning?
3) Why does this article seem so much like an advertisement for British Maritime Technologies and UQ School of Civil Engineering? Who paid for this article, and why? (Yes, I know, when it comes to true science, who funded what is utterly irrelevant, but I just thought I would ask because people who don't accept the nonsense are always accused of being "paid by the fossil-fuel industries to say what they do").

Yes, I agree, this really IS a problem. There are far too many doomsday prophets around who like to panic people about the coming apocalypse resulting from "climate change" (whatever that is), but they fail to realise that instead of scaring people into action they just turn people off, and end up making them more cynical. One would think they would have better PR people to advise them about this, especially when you consider how much money this scam rakes in every year (ex. from E.U. "carbon credits", also known as "indulgences").

Every single apocalyptic prediction made has failed to come to pass, even the ones that were "based on solid science". One would have thought that by now no one would take such nonsense seriously anymore, nonsense that continues to have a 100% failure rate.

i know i posted a rather well constructed set of sentences somewhere, but i can not determine where, so i will say it again.

on one report i heard, it was considered that the broken off ice shelf may raise ocean levels as it inevitably melted back into the sea.

that is rubbish considering that any body of ice that is floating in the sea is already displacing it's mass in the sea on which it floats, so there will be no net change in the sea level once they melt away.

it is the accumulation of water ice on land that keeps the sea level from rising substantially.


the arctic ocean icecap is entirely floating in the water, so if it melted entirely, there would be no change in sea levels.

the problem is with melt rates from dry land reservoirs of stored water.

the fact that this ice shelf broke off the coast of antarctica is just testimony to gravity and time and nothing else.
the larger the ice sheet (that that is floating in the water) becomes, the more that prevailing currents can set up an oscillation effect that just breaks it off the coastal anchor it has, and it floats off away and eventually melts.

glacial recession however is of concern, and it is true that the rise in temperature could trigger the decomposition of the organic matter in the permafrost regions (vast) and stoke the atmosphere with not only carbon dioxide, but methane as well.

if there is a runaway greenhouse effect, then in my reasoning, it will be self limiting due to the fact that higher temperatures will result in more evaporation and cloud cover which is white from above, and approximates the thermal reflectivity of all the ice and more.

the earth will not suffer a venus type fate.

but humans have to realize they live in geological time, and it is far too slow for them to compute, and so whatever.

One thing I noticed about someone giving an example if artic ice melting was that it wasn't like ice thats already in a cup melting. He had a glass of ice water in front of him and then proceeded to grab a handful of ice from a container and shove it into the glass to make it overflow.

The thing with that though is artic ice is already there. It's not being added onto from some other source like with the ice from a seperate container.

Basically what that demonstration showed to me is, what would happen if the polar ice cap from Mars (or a bigger one from wherever) was removed and dropped in the Earth's ocean.

Last edited by EzraS on 27 Jul 2017, 2:05 am, edited 1 time in total.

I heard Y2K being discussed the other day and how all the scientists and computer experts were saying in 1999 how everything was going to shut down and airplanes were going to fall out of the sky and even skeptical people were stocking up on food and water etc because of all the hype from the experts.

Last edited by EzraS on 27 Jul 2017, 2:17 am, edited 1 time in total.