Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Cracks Signal Massive Iceberg Forming In Antarctica

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the taking-on-the-rocks-too-far dept.

Earth 147

Several readers have submitted news (as covered by an AFP article carried by the Sydney Morning Herald) that a massive iceberg is forming in the Antarctic. The rift in the PIne Island Glacier "is widening at a rate of two metres a day, said NASA project scientist Michael Studinger. When the ice breaks apart, it will produce an iceberg more than 880 square kilometres, said Mr Studinger, who is part of the US space agency's IceBridge project. But the process is not a result of global warming, he said." Also at the BBC.

cancel ×

147 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

See? (3, Funny)

mustPushCart (1871520) | more than 2 years ago | (#37964354)

Global warming isn't shrinking the icebergs, its creating new ones!

Re:See? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37964370)

I wonder if the anti-global-warming-ists will notice that science is actually presenting a balanced view of what's happening? That just for once they'll manage to see the difference between global warming activists and the anti-cellphone, anti-vaccine alarmists.

I ain't holding my breath.

Re:See? (2)

LordLucless (582312) | more than 2 years ago | (#37964496)

That just for once they'll manage to see the difference between global warming activists and the anti-cellphone, anti-vaccine alarmists

Given that there's people in this very thread ignoring that disclaimer, and claiming that it must be global warming, I'm not sure there's a difference to be seen.

Re:See? (1, Troll)

wisty (1335733) | more than 2 years ago | (#37964906)

Certainly. There's a world of difference between IPCC conclusions, and stuff that Green Peace will say. The IPCC tends to be, well, scientific. There's some bias in the IPCC - they tend to be believers, and tend to eliminating errors that work against them but not the errors in their favor. On the other hand, the whole organization is incredibly conservative - they don't buy the whole "precautionary principle" thing.

Re:See? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37965030)

Sorry, if you look a bit you'll find former members of the IPCC that admit their conclusions were not published as found by science but highly exaggerated to create a political and economic result.

in other words, the IPCC cannot be considered an unbiased scientific organization. Their reports and results are driven by the political needs of their parent organization, the UN.

Re:See? (1)

Sique (173459) | more than 2 years ago | (#37965812)

You'll find people who claim that their statements and assessments were taken out of context, exaggerated or whatever for non-scientific reasons in about every organization. That doesn't make the organization in question any less scientific, it just shows that humans are humans, and some will feel wronged at any given time.

Re:See? (3, Interesting)

Pharmboy (216950) | more than 2 years ago | (#37964680)

You are assuming that everyone that is a global warming activist is a perfectly rational thinking person, and that none of them are profiteering by ginning up concern that is out of proportion, as well as suggesting solutions that are profitable but aren't feasible.

Most GW activists are well meaning, but there is enough crooked or just stupid stuff going on with "green" that it dilutes the message. (The govt & Solyndra, was either stupidity or corruption, neither is good.) It doesn't help that anyone who IS rationale, qualified and questions some of the conclusions is instantly labeled as a whacko.

Everyone knows the earth is warming, but there is legitimate arguments regarding how much is man made and how much is part of a larger cycle. Again, any time a rationale person says "Yes, man is causing some of this, but there may be other forces we don't understand" they are automatically labeled crazy, a Republican or similar.

Re:See? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37964728)

At my workplace, we have a "green" initiative. In our breaks rooms we swapped out the plastic coffee stirs with wooded ones because they are biodegradable. We swapped out paper cups with plastic ones to save trees.
I'm so confused...
 

Re:See? (2)

Arlet (29997) | more than 2 years ago | (#37964750)

"Yes, man is causing some of this, but there may be other forces we don't understand"

There's nothing wrong with that, but of course, it's very vague. You'll need some probabilities. According to scientific consensus, the chance that man is predominantly responsible is >95%.

If you have reason to believe this chance is much lower, you'll need to come up with some solid numbers. If you can't provide them, don't blame people for labeling you irrational.

Re:See? (1)

budgenator (254554) | more than 2 years ago | (#37965388)

Everyone knows the earth is warming, but there is legitimate arguments regarding how much is man made and how much is part of a larger cycle. Again, any time a rationale person says "Yes, man is causing some of this, but there may be other forces we don't understand" they are automatically labeled crazy, a Republican or similar.

There really hasn't been any significant warming for about 13 years, in fact when the new BEST dataset is analyzed there hasn't been any non-significant warming either

Re:See? (1)

Arlet (29997) | more than 2 years ago | (#37965630)

There really hasn't been any significant warming for about 13 years

You are disingenuous at best. The global temperatures are quite noisy compared to the trend, so it's hard to find anyperiod of 13 years where you find a statistically significant trend, either up or down.

If you look at the trend, though, there's no reason to assume the last 13 years are different from the years before that. This article has some nice graphs to show that point:

https://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/11/05/the-real-problem-with-the-global-warming-debate/#comments [wordpress.com]

Re:See? (1)

Sique (173459) | more than 2 years ago | (#37965874)

That's a completely different BEST you are talking about than the one I was reading, as the one I remember was claiming that the global warming since the 1950ies was at least 1 degree and genereally agreeing with the statements published by NOAA and other organizations.

Just to check: We are talking about the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Project [berkeleyearth.org] , right?

Re:See? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37964422)

Global warming isn't shrinking the icebergs, its creating new ones!

Umm... I know that was a joke but of course global warming would create new icebergs (not that it's responsible for this one apparently). Ice breaking away from existing stable formations, forming icebergs, is exactly what you'd expect if the ice is melting.

Re:See? (2)

finarfinjge (612748) | more than 2 years ago | (#37964930)

Global warming isn't shrinking the icebergs, its creating new ones!

Umm... I know that was a joke but of course global warming would create new icebergs (not that it's responsible for this one apparently). Ice breaking away from existing stable formations, forming icebergs, is exactly what you'd expect if the ice is melting.

Actually, glaciers advancing and pushing ice into the ocean which then breaks off is exactly how this works. If the glaciers were melting, they wouldn't be pushing into the ocean to break off and form icebergs. THAT is why smart people are careful to point out that this isn't caused by global warming. To claim that glaciers getting bigger is caused by global warming is insane. Don't go there. You will make a fool of yourself. Oops. To late.

Re:See? (3, Insightful)

jbengt (874751) | more than 2 years ago | (#37965504)

If the glaciers were melting, they wouldn't be pushing into the ocean to break off and form icebergs.

Actually, there is evidence that warming can cause meltwaters to get under glaciers and lubricate them, causing faster flow downhill. And for glaciers that end in ice shelves in the ocean, warming can cause the ice shelf to break up into icebergs faster. And when the ice shelf is reduced, it presents less resistance to the glacier flowing into the ocean, further increasing the extent of ocean ice. So, until the ice melts so much that the glaciers no longer flow into the ocean, warming will most likely cause more icebergs.

Re:See? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37966262)

Uh, this is about ice bergs and not glaciers..

Re:See? (5, Informative)

Layzej (1976930) | more than 2 years ago | (#37964466)

A paper published in Nature back in December describes the cause: http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v4/n8/full/ngeo1188.html [nature.com]

Here we combine our earlier data with measurements taken in 2009 to show that the temperature and volume of deep water in Pine Island Bay have increased. Ocean transport and tracer calculations near the ice shelf reveal a rise in meltwater production by about 50% since 1994. The faster melting seems to result mainly from stronger sub-ice-shelf circulation, as thinning ice has increased the gap above an underlying submarine bank on which the glacier was formerly grounded. We conclude that the basal melting has exceeded the increase in ice inflow, leading to the formation and enlargement of an inner cavity under the ice shelf within which sea water nearly 4C above freezing can now more readily access the grounding zone.

Re:See? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37964636)

Time to sail the New Titanic?

Where will it go? (1)

mr_lizard13 (882373) | more than 2 years ago | (#37964358)

Will it move into warmer waters (and melt?)

Re:Where will it go? (1)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 2 years ago | (#37964410)

That, or hit New York [fantasticfiction.co.uk] .

Re:Where will it go? (1)

Snard (61584) | more than 2 years ago | (#37964448)

(Prefix: I RTFA and it doesn't answer this question)

Even if the iceberg doesn't melt, if it's currently on dry land and it falls into the ocean, I assume it will raise ocean levels by some small amount. Does any know how much?

Re:Where will it go? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37964502)

From wikipedia: [wikipedia.org]
About 98% of Antarctica is covered by ice that averages at least 1.6 kilometres (1.0 mi) in thickness.

From summary:
it will produce an iceberg more than 880 square kilometres.

From wikipedia: [wikipedia.org]
Surface area
510,072,000 km2[12][13][note 5]
148,940,000 km2 land (29.2 %)
361,132,000 km2 water (70.8 %)

From google [google.se] :
((880 (km^2)) * (1,6 km)) / (361 132 000 (km^2)) = 3,89885139 millimeters

Answer: About 4mm.

Re:Where will it go? (3, Informative)

Arlet (29997) | more than 2 years ago | (#37964536)

The end of the glacier is much thinner than the average antarctic ice sheet, and it's already floating in the water, still attached to the glacier. If it breaks off, it's not going to raise water levels any more.

Re:Where will it go? (1)

dotancohen (1015143) | more than 2 years ago | (#37965416)

Actually, the small amount of mass above the water line will go below the waterline when it melts, thus raising the waterline. However, water contracts when melting, which will more than make up for the change in level. The displacement of the ice is thus exactly the displacement of the melted water.

You can test this easily: leave some ice in a glass and note the waterline before and after melting.

Re:Where will it go? (2)

Arlet (29997) | more than 2 years ago | (#37965492)

There are some small differences though. The ice is mostly fresh water, and the surrounding seas contain salt. The melting will cause a small, net rise in sea level. This is a very small effect, though.

Also, the local gravity field from the ice pulls the surrounding sea water closer to the pole. If the pole loses mass, the water will spread out more.

Re:Where will it go? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37964508)

If it were currently on dry land, we'd call it a glacier, not an iceberg.

It's already in the ocean, so cracking off and drifting into the open ocean will not raise sea levels.

What happens when it melts? Here's an experiment for you. Put an ice cube in a small glass of water, e.g. a shot glass. Mark the water level. Wait for the ice to melt. What happened to the water level?

See, even you can do science in your kitchen.

Re:Where will it go? (3, Funny)

Canazza (1428553) | more than 2 years ago | (#37964830)

you'll also end up with a warm Gin and Tonic, but who said you didn't have to suffer for science?

Re:Where will it go? (1)

zippthorne (748122) | more than 2 years ago | (#37965508)

If there isn't any quinine in it, it's not a gin and tonic. You want to get malaria or something?

I've always wondered whether the gin was supposed to help the quinine go down, or the other way around.....

Re:Where will it go? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37965784)

"Put an ice cube in a small glass of water, e.g. a shot glass. Mark the water level. Wait for the ice to melt. What happened to the water level?"

Ok, got an empty shot glass from the shelf. Put an ice cube in it. Water level is 0.

Ice melts, glass is half full of water.

Water level rose! By an infinite percentage! There was 0 water, now there is water!

Oh, wait - you meant FLOAT A PIECE OF ICE on some water in a glass, so that it is displacing as much water as the ice weighs. OK, if you do THAT, then the water level never changes.

You need to word your experiment much more carefully if you want a good result.

Re:Where will it go? (1)

Fjandr (66656) | more than 2 years ago | (#37965928)

Cute. Pedantic, but cute. And completely incorrect.

"Glass of water" != "empty [water] glass" much like a "glass of milk" is not referred to as a "milk glass" when empty. The "of xxx" part indicates it has some quantity of xxx physically present in it.

Re:Where will it go? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37966360)

My 'glass of water' actually has water in it. What's in your glass of water? Note that I didn't write 'water glass' I wrote 'glass of water' and you even copied/quoted it.

Reading comprehension, it's not just for breakfast any more.

Re:Where will it go? (1)

qualityassurancedept (2469696) | more than 2 years ago | (#37964526)

One gigatonne of ice melting into the ocean adds about 3 microns to the surface. In this case, 880 square kilometers of ice that varies between 60 and 500 meters thick is going to take a very very long time to melt and will result an addition of water that is almost zero once evaporation is factored in... the article points out that this iceberg might end up being about the size, in terms of surface area, as Berlin. Antarctica is almost entirely covered in Ice, 44% of which is floating in the ocean, and its 1.3 time the size of all of EUROPE. Nasa, after the end of the Space Shuttle program, is looking for ways to keep itself in the news. This iceberg sounds sensational but its actually very tiny in the grand scheme of things.

Re:Where will it go? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37964646)

Yes (yes)

Not a result of Global Warming. (2)

mosb1000 (710161) | more than 2 years ago | (#37964364)

But the process is not a result of global warming, he said.

Does it bother anyone else that they had to say this? It's like doing a report on spring runoff and pointing out that it's not a result global warming. Are people really that ignorant of how natural processes work?

Re:Not a result of Global Warming. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37964378)

Do you really need an answer to this?

Re:Not a result of Global Warming. (0, Flamebait)

obarthelemy (160321) | more than 2 years ago | (#37964384)

I'm no expert. Intuitively, a block of ice breaking away from a bigger block of ice kinda makes me think there's melting, thus warming, involved.

Re:Not a result of Global Warming. (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37964446)

"...Intuitively, a block of ice breaking away from a bigger block of ice kinda makes me think there's melting, thus warming, involved..."

Why do you think that? This is the end of a GLACIER. Usually, glaciers move (slowly) downhill, until they reach warmer regions, where they melt. In this case the glacier moved downhill until it met the sea, upon which it floated out. After a fair bit has floated out, it will break off, due to flexing in the waves and tides. That is what has just happened, with a rather big bit...

Actually, if it is cold and snowy up in the mountains, the glaciers will move faster. And more bits will fall off the end of the glacier, more rapidly. This is often shot by journalists at the foot of the glacier, and used as 'confirmation of Global Warming'.....

Re:Not a result of Global Warming. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37964498)

Why are you asking why he thinks that? He already told you quite explicitly. "a block of ice breaking away from a bigger block of ice kinda makes me think there's melting, thus warming, involved"

Not everyone is an expert / knows about how these processes work. It is a bit rude to assume that everyone knows what you know. Don't look down on people for not sharing your interests.

Re:Not a result of Global Warming. (0)

tqk (413719) | more than 2 years ago | (#37965744)

Why are you asking why he thinks that? He already told you quite explicitly. "a block of ice breaking away from a bigger block of ice kinda makes me think there's melting, thus warming, involved"

Not everyone is an expert / knows about how these processes work. It is a bit rude to assume that everyone knows what you know. Don't look down on people for not sharing your interests.

Why the hell is this modded -1? All s/he's doing is stating facts, and a damn sight better than many others do.

If you can't moderate sensibly, then please don't even try.

Re:Not a result of Global Warming. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37965886)

If you can't moderate sensibly, then please don't even try.

Insulting the moderators is ineffective and adds nothing to the discussion. You could do better with your time by meta moderating, taking part in article selection, or just coming up with something worth reading.

Re:Not a result of Global Warming. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37964464)

The articles state that this glacier breaks off every 10 years or so. The last time was 2001.

Re:Not a result of Global Warming. (1)

Tomato42 (2416694) | more than 2 years ago | (#37964532)

Yes, we call that a summer, it happens on a yearly basis.

Re:Not a result of Global Warming. (1)

JustOK (667959) | more than 2 years ago | (#37964642)

Biannual. Once in the southern hemisphere, once in the north.

Re:Not a result of Global Warming. (1)

LynnwoodRooster (966895) | more than 2 years ago | (#37965186)

Just not biannual in Antarctica, however...

Re:Not a result of Global Warming. (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 2 years ago | (#37965538)

Biannual. Once in the southern hemisphere, once in the north.

Not all of us migrate.

Re:Not a result of Global Warming. (2)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 2 years ago | (#37964560)

I'm no expert. Intuitively, a block of ice breaking away from a bigger block of ice kinda makes me think there's melting, thus warming, involved.

TFA says that they're making the announcement to try and avoid all the sensationalist news stories that will appear when the mainstream media gets hold of it.

Wonder if it will work...

Re:Not a result of Global Warming. (1)

jrumney (197329) | more than 2 years ago | (#37965262)

Global warming is so last decade. I blame fracking, myself.

Re:Not a result of Global Warming. (5, Insightful)

DamonHD (794830) | more than 2 years ago | (#37964396)

It seems reasonable and responsible to avoid this being dragged into the AGW/CC debate one way or another if the scientists concerned are pretty sure that CC plays no significant part in this event, because lots of glacier/calving activity *has* been tied to CC, pro or anti.

So, it wouldn't be ignorance that would lead people to wonder. And thus forestalling inappropriate linkage is good.

Rgds

Damon

Re:Not a result of Global Warming. (0, Troll)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 2 years ago | (#37964434)

Hang on though, just by bringing up the issue, it's been dragged into the, uh, "debate". I'm pretty sure a snake oil peddling ecomental will chip in soon shrieking that it is Man Made Accelerated Climate KillDeathMurder Change, and that it's denying it makes you a tool of the corporate oppressors (now buy my book from Amazon).

Re:Not a result of Global Warming. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37964462)

You may want to look up projective identification.

Re:Not a result of Global Warming. (1)

DamonHD (794830) | more than 2 years ago | (#37965390)

And which side of the debate were you assuming that I'm on, if any?

Responsible science is just that, whether or not a particular fact easily fits with how one sees the world.

(This isn't a *whoosh*: this is really my core point.)

Rgds

Damon

Re:Not a result of Global Warming. (1)

BergZ (1680594) | more than 2 years ago | (#37965638)

Why does it matter what non-scientists have to say (pro- or con-) about the scientific theory of Global Climate Change? The theory is either mostly based on sound scientific reasoning, or it isn't; What the snake oil salesmen say doesn't change that.
The line of thinking that you have expressed reminds me of how Creationists used to argue that the theory of Evolution must be false because they believe it advocates an "atheistic" view of the universe.

Re:Not a result of Global Warming. (0)

Belial6 (794905) | more than 2 years ago | (#37965958)

Unfortunately, what non-scientists have to say matters because non-scientists make the policies that direct funding for (or away from) scientists to study things.

Re:Not a result of Global Warming. (2)

Arlet (29997) | more than 2 years ago | (#37964430)

Are people really that ignorant of how natural processes work?

Yes. I hope this doesn't come as a big surprise.

Re:Not a result of Global Warming. (1)

dwater (72834) | more than 2 years ago | (#37964450)

indeed, I am often amazed at how ignorant people are, especially when it comes to how ignorant other people are.

Re:Not a result of Global Warming. (5, Insightful)

houghi (78078) | more than 2 years ago | (#37964474)

I am amazed by the amazement of how ignorant people are about how ignorant other people are.

Re:Not a result of Global Warming. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37964572)

I am not amazed by that.

Re:Not a result of Global Warming. (1)

Provocateur (133110) | more than 2 years ago | (#37964874)

I was wondering where to insert "This isn't rocket science" and I thought this was the most appropriate spot.

Re:Not a result of Global Warming. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37964432)

Are you kidding?
We will soon have a generation full of people who will never know there was once a time when the climate changed without human intervention.

My Mistake. . . (0)

mosb1000 (710161) | more than 2 years ago | (#37964612)

Apparently many people are not aware that snow melts every spring. That was my bad.

Re:My Mistake. . . (1)

Arlet (29997) | more than 2 years ago | (#37964716)

Spring snow melting has nothing to do with this though. It's a frozen sheet of ice, slowly sliding into the ocean, and when it's gets too big and thin, a piece breaks off. The last time this happened was in 2001.

Re:Not a result of Global Warming. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37965018)

I just want to play devil's advocate here for a minute... Maybe it IS possible it is NOT a result of global warming. But in the same way continents shift (causing earth quakes), there is some shifting going on (via any possible land mass movement or the shear current constantly flowing) that is causing the cracking. I don't hear anyone blaming "how natural processes work" earth quakes on global warming. Volcanoes erupt underwater, changing water temp, and current flows (i.e. tsunamis). Other possible sciences, other than global warming, that can cause ice to crack and or break away.

Re:Not a result of Global Warming. (1)

moj0joj0 (1119977) | more than 2 years ago | (#37965854)

I suppose we could say it is related to hemispheric warming. I prefer the term Summer, however.

Global warming (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37964376)

From the BBC:

In recent years, satellite and airborne measurements have recorded a marked thinning of the PIG, which may be related to climate changes.

From The Syndey Morning Herald:

When the ice breaks apart, it will produce an iceberg more than 880 square kilometres, said Mr Studinger, who is part of the US space agency's IceBridge project. But the process is not a result of global warming, he said.

The BBC also conveniently did not include that last sentence from the source. I don't know what this tells you, but to me it appears as if the BBC intentionally wanted to scare its readers with global warming. Seems like the BBC is also illiterate and can't write properly (they write Nasa instead of NASA, yet PIG instead of Pig).

How is it not effected by global warming? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37964398)

Someone explain it please, how is the Antarctic isolated from the rest of the globe?

Re:How is it not effected by global warming? (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 2 years ago | (#37964442)

It's a continent. There is land under all that ice. As opposed to the Arctic, which is just ice all the way down until it becomes ocean. You can send a submarine under there right to the pole.

Actually not as much as you'd think (4, Insightful)

NotSoHeavyD3 (1400425) | more than 2 years ago | (#37964614)

On this image of antartic elevation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:AntarcticBedrock.jpg [wikipedia.org] you can see alot of what we think of the continent of Antartica would actually be open ocean if the ice wasn't there. (As it's below sea level.)

Re:Actually not as much as you'd think (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 2 years ago | (#37965040)

I still see a lot of land there, even if the ice extends some way off what would otherwise be the coasts.

Re:How is it not effected by global warming? (2)

Arlet (29997) | more than 2 years ago | (#37964454)

A popular theory says that the thinner ozone layer has increased the polar vortex winds. The vortex acts as a barrier to block warmer air from the rest of the planet.

Re:How is it not effected by global warming? (1)

Stirling Newberry (848268) | more than 2 years ago | (#37965342)

It isn't that that Antartica is isolated from the rest of the globe, it is that the process of cracking and calving icebergs is part of the normal hydrologic cycle: glaciers crack, calve, form icebergs, the icebergs melt, lowering the salinity of the ocean, which evaporates and produces new precipitation. Some of this lands as snow, and an equilibrium is reached. Yes, periods of warming and cooling change this equilibrium, including natural and human driven changes.
However, before we can make intelligent investigation into how human activity changes the process, we have to understand the process, often much better than we do. The reason this event is important is not because we can ascribe it to a greenhouse gases, but that we are looking at a major calving event from very early on. It is like looking for star formation, or cracks that become volcanic eruptions. It's natural forces in action, and a chance to improve our theories of ice flow and formation, which, in turn, will improve our models of climate.

Late news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37964438)

3 days after reports in mainstream.

But that's not bad for a massive iceberg - Dennis Ritchie's death was reported 4 days late at /.

Re:Late news... (-1, Offtopic)

meza (414214) | more than 2 years ago | (#37964634)

Not to feed the anonymous troll but this got me curious to do some research since I remember reading of Dennis Ritchies passing first here on Slashdot and later on other news sources. A search for "Ritchie" on Slashdot shows that the story of his passing was posted Thursday Oct 13. The initial Google+ post that the story linked to states that he passed away during the weekend, so up to four days earlier, could this troll actually be correct?

Going on to Google News I can't find any reports of his death before Oct 12. It lists only three sources on Oct 12 (although when clicking two of them they actually come up as Oct 13) and a large amount of sources from Oct 13 or later. In fact Wikipedia claims he passed away on the 12th, the source of that is possibly a New York Times article from Oct 13 which claims he was found dead in his home on the Wednesday. So aside from the difficult part of finding out when he actually died it is very obvious that Slashdot was not several days "after reports in mainstream". Instead it seems like 4 days before the Slashdot post either only his closest family knew of his death or he was even still alive.

Climate Change, not Global Warming (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37964484)

Winters are colder, hurricanes are stronger, tornadoes are more frequent, floods are bigger, etc., etc.

And because that's what the _real_ scientists call it.

Re:Climate Change, not Global Warming (3, Insightful)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 2 years ago | (#37964566)

Both of those are real things, one of them leads to the other.

Re:Climate Change, not Global Warming (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37964590)

When the GW and now CC crowd couldn't get enough money by begging, taxing, and creating tariffs to e.g. stop cutting the forests near the equator, they resorted to taking it in the form of carbon credits. It's all about stealing from future generations and making them serfs. The GW and CC crowd are just pawns and they don't even know it. Maybe they know it and they think they will be rewarded, sadly no.

Along the same lines have you been watching Greece lately? The plan is for the ESM(European Stability Mechanism) treaty to force countries to take out loans which they don't want and can't repay. Did you know the people that run the ESM are immune from prosecution, immune from taxes, immune under any court of law? Did you know the 2 people who are in line to be Prime Minister of Greece are already part of the ESM elites, banksters. With other upcoming elections around Europe, it will be interesting to see who gets put in power. Watch as more than half will be banksters and the ESM will be guaranteed.

You can clean up the world without taxes. Why do that when you can own it? Why do that when you can make everyone a serf?

Re:Climate Change, not Global Warming (3, Informative)

Arlet (29997) | more than 2 years ago | (#37964594)

Global warming, and local climate change. Past winters were actually warmer than usual, even though people remember them as cold. That's because they only look in their back yard, and not at the world as a whole.

Past winter, it was warm in South America, North Africa, the Middle East, and it was exceptionally warm in the Arctic. All averaged out over the whole world, including oceans, it was +0.43 degree Celsius warmer than the 1951-1980 baseline.

The winter of 2009-2010 was even warmer, at +0.68 deg C, even though the US and Europe were below average.

Re:Climate Change, not Global Warming (1)

LynnwoodRooster (966895) | more than 2 years ago | (#37965214)

What if you moved your baseline to, say, 1920-1950? How's that trend look then?

Re:Climate Change, not Global Warming (2)

Arlet (29997) | more than 2 years ago | (#37965244)

The period 1920-1950 was about 0.1 deg C less than 1950-1980, so all the numbers would go up by that amount. Why ?

Re:Climate Change, not Global Warming (1)

Layzej (1976930) | more than 2 years ago | (#37966610)

Here's a great site that lets you compare the various temperature reconstructions (as well as CO2 and solar output). woodfortrees.org [woodfortrees.org]

Re:Climate Change, not Global Warming (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37965820)

Hurricanes aren't stronger, tornadoes aren't more frequent, floods aren't bigger ... but you're actually correct that the US has cooled, especially winter time, for over a decade now.

(This post references peer reviewed science, not Greenpeace nor WWF propaganda. There's a difference)

To see the video.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37964602)

It drives me crazy when articles have a close up picture but don't show the context of even where something is happening

For the video:

http://media.smh.com.au/news/world-news/antarctic-glacier-to-produce-massive-iceberg-2754850.html

you're welcome

Bipolar antarctica? (1)

munky99999 (781012) | more than 2 years ago | (#37964616)

Bipolar antarctica sad about recent news.

it's the polar bears! (2, Funny)

lkcl (517947) | more than 2 years ago | (#37964628)

yeah, it's the penguins and the polar bears, they've been lighting fires.

Re:it's the polar bears! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37965126)

I knew those sneaky bastards where up to no good. That an all the dancing the penguins do to.

Re:it's the polar bears! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37965660)

Antarctic polar bears...

Video on the crack (4, Informative)

Stirling Newberry (848268) | more than 2 years ago | (#37964712)

As one of the readers who mentioned this in a submission: http://video.stv.tv/bc/ITN_041111_worldICEBERG04/?redirect=no [video.stv.tv] is a good short video story version on this, including some graphics on ice flows and pictures of the crack. Quite well done. Not this isn't a GW/CC event, but it is a chance to see the formation of a crack in progress, which we do not always catch. All icebergs start with this cracking process, and icebergs form in warm and cold periods of history. Understanding the ice dynamics of how flows of build up turn into stress is the ice equivalent of studying plate tectonics: the science of large solid plates bending, cracking, and then failing.

Clash of the titans (1)

Twinbee (767046) | more than 2 years ago | (#37964724)

What would happen if something that size hit a country or continent at say, 1 meter per second? I'm not sure of the magnitude of that kind of catastrophe at all.

Re:Clash of the titans (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37964772)

The same thing that happens when similar sized bergs hit land, as they do all the time in the polar regions.

They ground in water which is about 100-200ft depth, and leave big gouges in the bottom.

Re:Clash of the titans (1)

Twinbee (767046) | more than 2 years ago | (#37964800)

Which I'm sure would be awesome to see which is probably why there's no video footage of that kind of thing anywhere (let alone in high resolution).

Re:Clash of the titans (0)

mevets (322601) | more than 2 years ago | (#37965148)

I think I smell an action flick here. Maybe we can send Bruce Willis and Clint Eastwood on a suicide mission (please!) to nuke the iceberg before it makes landfall.

Of course, they would have to battle laser equipped sharks and a stultifying bureaucracy....

Re:Clash of the titans (1)

tqk (413719) | more than 2 years ago | (#37966068)

I think I smell an action flick here. Maybe we can send Bruce Willis and Clint Eastwood on a suicide mission (please!) to nuke the iceberg before it makes landfall.

Of course, they would have to battle laser equipped sharks and a stultifying bureaucracy....

... and "terrist" Guaa'ulds who'd secretly loaded the berg with Naquadria and were driving it up the Potomac toward the Pentagon! Wanna try to get a Kickstarter project going?

[Obligatory Grammar Nazi contribution: is that an elipsis followed by a period?]

Re:Clash of the titans (3, Interesting)

Stirling Newberry (848268) | more than 2 years ago | (#37965282)

You should look up the epic of iceberg B-15, for a time "the largest floating thing on the planet." It was one of the Icebergs that calved from the break up of the Ross Ice Shelf, and 11,000 km^2 – that's the size of Jamaica, Bylot, or Bloshevik Island, and larger than the "big island" of Hawai'i. It broke apart several times, bashed into the Drygalski Ice Tongue, gouging out an 8km^2 piece, and floated on, breaking into smaller pieces, though some of its remains are still wandering around the Antarctic Ocean.
http://www.esa.int/esaCP/ESAAQTTHN6D_index_0.html [esa.int] [ESA]
The ESA has a great deal of imagery on it.

Maybe libertarians should build their utopia on it (-1, Offtopic)

Dr. Spork (142693) | more than 2 years ago | (#37964742)

If it's 880 square kilometers, it means it won't melt for a damn long time, and once it separates from Antarctica it won't be covered by all the treaties that forbid development there. It will just be a big chunk of ice in international waters. If it managed to float to a warmer place, it would actually make a pretty nice platform for a small country. I wouldn't move there, but that's because I don't like libertarians, not because I don't like ice.

Re:Maybe libertarians should build their utopia on (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37964774)

You're an off topic asshole either way.

Re:Maybe libertarians should build their utopia on (1)

dbIII (701233) | more than 2 years ago | (#37965372)

I thought their utopia was owning an unregistered coal mine in China? No regulations and you can call the Army in to drag away any workers that give you trouble.

A 2D iceberg? (1)

lwriemen (763666) | more than 2 years ago | (#37964832)

Shouldn't it be measured in cubic kilometers?

Re:A 2D iceberg? (1)

LynnwoodRooster (966895) | more than 2 years ago | (#37965220)

Actually I believe the proper units are libraries of Congress...

The Crack In The World (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37965896)

Da da da da da da ... boom boom boom boom boom boom ... ... "splash". Que the orchestra followed by sceen of crying children then cut to the sceen of towering smokestacks billowing (water vapor) carbon dioxide ... blah blah blah ... ad nauseam.

A new IPCC round is about to begin, this time in South Africa, so the drums are beating at an ever increasingly furious pace to match the pondiferously rising declarations of the Anthrocentrismics as their mystics dance around the center-stage pillor fire of cleansing propganda and spectacle.

Old woman in the balcony turns and asks, "How much we pay for this?"
Old man in the balcony turns and replies, "about one Obama."
The whole peanut gallery then erupts in laughter and delight ... a good laugh well payed for indeed.

))

FINALLY! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37966086)

Now maybe we can get to the bottom of this planet.

There's somethin you don't know about me Joe Rogan (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37966586)

I smoke rocks.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>