
A huge crack is spreading across one of Antarctica’s biggest ice shelves - BudVVeezer
https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2016/08/22/a-huge-crack-is-spreading-across-one-of-antarcticas-biggest-ice-shelves.html
======
tominous
> "I have spent so much time now looking at the satellite images, and I really
> love this ice shelf, it would be such a tragic thing to see this thing go."

Reminds me of Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars trilogy. We humans can fall in love
with large chunks of ice just by looking at them long enough. How will we ever
bring ourselves to terraform another planet?

~~~
whyenot
Why is it so important that we terraform other planets? Is it really a
desirable thing to spread across the solar system and beyond like mold on
stale bread?

~~~
evincarofautumn
Well, it’s important to the mold.

~~~
Mchl
Gasp!

Could we be... just a means for mold to spread across the universe?

------
pmyjavec
There hasn't been very good news from the Antartic lately.

After seeing the reception Brian Cox received lately by Australian senator
Malcom Roberts on an episode of QanA it's pretty clear we have no hope in
world leaders doing anything significant about it. There is way too much self-
interest and sociopathic behaviour going on by the majority within these
circles of governance and "power".

Too many of us are waiting for the UN to just fix this issue; however, we've
relied on the UN and it's narratives of change for too long and the truth is,
we the masses need to change our own behaviour, it's our responsibility,
somewhere we lost our way. I know there are good people working in these
organisations and others like it, doing really good things, there just isn't
enough of them or they're not having a big enough impact.

It seems pretty clear that democratic governance has severely failed us on
this issue and many others in recent years, and as a society I think we need
to try to understand why and correct it. Democracy is obviously not a bad
idea, but in most western countries, the current configuration seems to be
problematic and corrupt. It's not sustainable.

I have a strong feeling it's now too little to late and the only hope now is
to take matters into our own hands by ignoring what democratically elected
"leaders" are telling us they're doing and start doing it, get our own hands
dirty. Divest, install solar panels (decentralisation of power production is
important), consume, travel, eat thoughtfully, don't have so many kids etc.

By the look of it, the only way to make it through the madness ahead will be
kindness and compassion for the earth, all living things and each other . If
not, mother nature will each us a very harsh lesson, I think she is already
starting to balance the books.

Unfortunately this storm is not just going to blow over, it would be nice if
it would, but it's not going to.

~~~
witty_username
> decentralisation of power production is important

Why?

~~~
pmyjavec
Because it means there can then be no single monopoly on electricity
generation, nor are people forced into consuming power which is being
generated in a way that does not align with their core values.

This was the situation in Australia until fairly recently, people wanted
alternatives but there wasn't any renewable options, then when the Government
changed and pulled rebates for new solar installations, it was even more
unthinkable for people to get started.

Also, I'm not arguing for complete and utter decentralization, but there needs
to be options.

------
zaken
From the article, regarding sea level rise:

    
    
      When ice shelves lose large chunks, it does not raise sea level because these
      bodies are already afloat. However, the loss of an ice shelf can speed up the
      seaward flow of the nonfloating glacial ice behind it, and this ice can in turn
      contribute to sea-level rise. Researchers have estimated that the loss of all
      the ice that the Larsen C ice shelf currently holds back would raise global
      sea levels by 10 centimetres.

~~~
dleslie
The faster that levels rise the sooner we are to get off our collective asses
and make a difference.

~~~
darawk
True, but the longer we have to sit on our asses, the more likely we are to
succeed in our effort to make a difference when we finally get around to it
(due to technological progression).

~~~
omosubi
I wouldn't count on this - markets don't seem to care about sea level rise at
the moment

~~~
pohl
The wealthy do love their ocean-view properties, though.

~~~
Cshelton
The wealthy can afford to move their properties back/up a few feet.

------
novaleaf
Does anyone know where I can find estimations of sea level rise over the next
10 to 200 years?

I always hear horror stories of 20 meter rises but don't know what the ranges
of "consensus" are...

~~~
mikro2nd
Seems likely that the "Bathtub Model" we have in our heads is all wrong, and
sea-level change is going to be highly variable in different parts of the
planet. Go and watch one of Jerry Mitrovica's videos[1] to get a good idea...
According to his models, some places will likely see sea-levels _fall_ by as
much as (iirc) 25m, to others where sea-levels will rise by 5 to 8m by the end
of this century. Goodbye ports, goodbye containerised shipping, goodbye global
trade.

[1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RhdY-
ZezK7w](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RhdY-ZezK7w)

~~~
acqq
Thanks. He isn't actually saying these numbers (-25 m, 8m) are expected in
2100, he's stating that the peak higher sea level in the older but comparable
times (that is during
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eemian](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eemian)
around 115 kyears ago) was up to 7 meter higher on the extreme points. Which
is a good illustration that the "bathtub mental model" is false. The
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is much more constrained to
cite that, they present the following (the 2013 results):

[https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-
report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Cha...](https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-
report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter13_FINAL.pdf)

The worst projected total average increase at 2100 is around 40 cm _if we do
some corrections in our fossil fuels use_ and around 80 cm (on average) if we
don't (so called "business as usual", they technically call it "RCP8.5" (1)).
The local increases (which we now know can be significantly different) are
drawn with the scale up to around 1 m for the "some corrections scenarios" if
I understood. But it will go up afterwards for hundreds of years, and it can't
be stopped.

Mitrovica believes these are too conservative as even the current measurements
already hit the upper bounds. It seems anyway the world is more or less
behaving in the "business as usual" sense regarding the fossil fuels.

1)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_Concentration_P...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_Concentration_Pathways)
It's worth always looking at the RCP8.5, as that's what's going to happen if
no significant changes happen. It's not "the most improbable" but "the most
probable if nothing changes" and I admit I personally tend to see the graph
with more paths as "OK this one is the highest, it's extreme" when it's the
default one!

------
jkubicek
If we took a fleet of tug-boats and towed this ice to the Middle East, I
wonder how long the fresh water would last?

~~~
walrus01
An interesting theoretical thought exercise.

The money and fuel bill for tugboats sufficient to move that would probably be
better spent on massive fields of photovoltaics and electricity-intensive
seawater desalination equipment...

~~~
jonknee
What about nuclear powered boats? Russia has a fleet of nuclear powered ice
breakers.

~~~
ricardobeat
6000 square kilometers of ice.

~~~
jonknee
Take smaller chunks of it.

~~~
mfx
How small to become profitable? You'll see, this ends in a no win situation
fast. Sadly enough.

------
esaym
350 meters thick? Global warming or not, how could it possibly get that thick
without cracking sooner is surprising to me.

------
JoeAltmaier
When it gives way, might there be a surge-wave that causes trouble when it
hits land elsewhere?

------
sulam
It's worth noting that the title of the article is somewhat misleading. The
ice shelf entirely is slightly smaller than Scotland, but the part breaking
off is (upper estimate) 12% of that, so, according to the article, slightly
larger than Prince Edward Island.

Not that this is reason to celebrate or think that this is any more than a
continuation of the ongoing and forthcoming climate excursion.

~~~
WalterBright
Thank God it's only a motion picture!
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crack_in_the_World](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crack_in_the_World)

------
sevenless
Another scary recent article: "A business-as-usual approach by humanity makes
2035 a plausible moment for the permafrost to melt and methane to escape."

[https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/aug/21/farewell-to-
ic...](https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/aug/21/farewell-to-ice-peter-
wadhams-review-climate-change)

------
saynsedit
If you're ready to do something about this, consider volunteering for
[http://brandnewcongress.org](http://brandnewcongress.org)

~~~
ethanbond
Alternatively: Use public transit, encourage friends and family not to be
wasteful, invest in alternative fuel sources, vote for people who will use
taxpayer dollars to invest in alternative fuel sources, so on and so forth.

What is anybody else going to do that you can't do yourself already?

~~~
the_duke
While personal effort is laudable, and your kind of thinking is neccessary, it
will not change things.

The decisions that can actually change something are made on government level
and depend on believes ingrained into culture / society.

A nice example is Israel and it's shortage of water. There, children are
educated from very early on (kingergarden) to be careful with and conserve
water wherever possible. It's a common and accepted fact that they have little
water and must preserve it.

But changing this kind of thinking for something way less observable and
direct, such as global warming, is harder. And needs a unified effort by
government, education and media. And takes decades.

~~~
crpatino
Personal effort by itself can only achieve marginal changes, but political
action without personal example will achieve nothing.

Politicians are not stupid. If the environmentalist grass roots do not believe
in their cause badly enough to go and change their personal lives first, they
will only receive token efforts and empty promisses. And that's because the
politicians do (correctly, IMHO) assume than environmentalist only want to
wash away their guilt, not achieve actual changes. As in, changes that will
negatively affect their personal lives.

Of course, what environmentalist say they want is to have politicians affect
everybody's lives... but in practical terms, that means to affect primarily
the lives of those that are underrepresented in the political arena. Everybody
else is going to push back when real cost come upfront. And since this is the
same people that has been thrown under the bus by every other class and group
of interest during the last few decades, they cannot be made to pay the cost.

And, more important, for the needed changes to be embraced by enough people to
matter, you need a narrative that let them believe they are achieving
something of value. That cannot be done with propaganda alone. They need
examplars, people who have done what it takes to effect a change in their own
lives, who have paid the personal costs, and who are not deprived and
miserable because of it, but actually happy and even successful.

------
Infernal

      The crack in Larsen C grew around 30 kilometres in length
      between 2011 and 2015. And as it grew, also became wider — by 
      2015, yawning some 200 meters in length.
    

It feels pedantic, but honestly something so fundamental as confusing length
and width makes this much more difficult to read at first glance than it
should be.

~~~
duskwuff
I don't see any confusion there. The "length" of the crack is its long
dimension, from end to end, and the "width" is how far the two sides have
spread away from each another.

~~~
phkahler
>> I don't see any confusion there.

"And as it grew, also became wider — by 2015, yawning some 200 meters in
length."

They use "wider" and "length" to describe the same 200 meter span.

~~~
pasquinelli
no, they use length to describe the measurement of the crack's width. totally
valid afaic.

~~~
arcticfox
You can't just use "length" to describe a width. It's grammatically valid but
semantically incorrect. An object can't be "100m long by 100m long".

~~~
pasquinelli
but that's not how it's being used. what length of rope does it take to go
around a quarter mile track? there's no ambiguity even though the track has
length and width. the dimension in question was specified already, the width
of the crack, so referring to the measure of that as its length is fine, no
ambiguity.

~~~
arcticfox
Your sentence is dramatically better than theirs because you're referring to
the length dimension of the rope _and_ the track. "What length of rope does it
take to go around a quarter-mile wide track?" <\- using the author's mistake
in your sentence. There's not enough information in the sentence to answer
correctly.

The correct word for a measurement of wideness is width.

Length [NOUN]: 1\. the longest extent of anything as measured from end to end:
the length of a river. 2\. the measure of the greatest dimension of a plane or
solid figure.

It's pretty unambiguously wrong. You can back into what the author meant
without ambiguity, but that doesn't mean the author used the correct word.

