One Of The Biggest Icebergs Has Broken Loose In Antarctica

Post Reply New Topic

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 was removed and dropped in the Earth's ocean.

i am sorry i can not determine what you are trying to say.

it is true that landlocked ice flowing out into the sea is a problem.

as to how the ice sheets are formed, it is by humidity in winds that blow across antarctica and greenland that instantly freeze and fall as a powder that eventually becomes compressed into thick ice sheets over the millenia.

some of these ice sheets are 20,000 ft deep.
that is a lot of water.

What you said is the ice is already displacing the water, so if the ice melts it's not going to make sea levels rise.

The analogy of that is a c[g?]lass of water with a big ice cube in it. When the cube melts the water level is the same.

A demonstration to show how that's supposedly not how it works, is to place a second large ice cube in the glass to make it overflow.

Personally I got icebergs mixed up with land ice.

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").

No point trying to reason with climate change deniers. Best just to leave them with their flat earther mates mates to scream 'conspiracy' at everything.

The other category is "ice shelf," which is a floating mass of ice around a polar land margin. Like glaciers, ice shelves are in constant motion, but at glacial speeds. The Ross Shelf is the most famous. The Scott expedition died on the Ross Shelf in 1912 and are now embedded within it, and have migrated about 30 miles closer toward the open ocean over the last 100 years. When a piece of the floating shelf breaks off at the margin it forms a flat-topped "tabular" iceberg, unlike the irregular bergs that calve off the end of glaciers. Some day Scott and his men will break off in a tabular iceberg and float out to sea.

No point trying to reason with climate change deniers. Best just to leave them with their flat earther mates mates to scream 'conspiracy' at everything.

In my case it's more a matter of there have always been end of the world cataclysm scenarios. Even ones backed up by scientist and experts like Y2K.

The survivalist craze. even things like the zombie apocalypse fad.

Then there's the giant asteroid, the pandemic, nuclear war, terrorists, AI taking over etc. So not screaming conspiracy on my part, just somewhat skeptical.

No point trying to reason with climate change deniers. Best just to leave them with their flat earther mates mates to scream 'conspiracy' at everything.

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.