
Things to know about the A68 iceberg - nature24
https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060057298
======
dukoid
TLDR:

The calving of the 1.1 trillon ton ice berg (2x amount of water used in the US
each year) marks the end of a decades long splintering, first seen by
satellites in the 1960s.

1\. _What 's next?_ It will drift north along the coast of the Antarctic
Peninsula, then northeast into the south Atlantic Ocean. Likely no threat to
ships navigating the area. Can take months to splinter apart.

2\. _Is this climate change?_ Calving is a natural process and Antarctica is
not breaking apart, but climate change can't be ruled out.

3\. _What does it mean for Antarctica?_ Not much on its own, but could be a
signal that other major changes are on the way. Paying attention to the
Thwaites Glacier, which could raise sea levels 10 feet if it collapses.

4\. _Will it make the oceans rise?_ barely (0.1 mm)

5\. _Politics:_ The calving was barely noticed on Capitol Hill, which is
distracted by a bitter health care debate, federal budget bills, and the
controversy surrounding President Trump and Russia.

P.S.: Read the full article -- it's worth it and has interesting illustrations
showing the scale of the event.

~~~
nonbel
>"2\. Is this climate change? Calving is a natural process and Antarctica is
not breaking apart, but climate change can't be ruled out."

"Climate change" doesn't make specific enough predictions about this type of
stuff to ever be ruled out, people could just keep coming up with ideas about
X indefinitely:

    
    
      Climate Change -> X -> Larsen C rift 
    

A more accurate way to put it is that, up until now, all proposed ideas for X
have been ruled out (I am basing this all on the comments from the MIDAS team
about the ice thickening, etc).

At the same time I find it totally implausible that there is zero link between
this event (or anything else that happens on earth) and the climate. So "no
link" should be taken as shorthand "any influence due to climate change is a
negligible factor".

Also, it is clear to me from reading the news and comments about this event
that many people _really_ , _really_ want this to be linked to climate change.
It is to the point that cognitive dissonance ensues when it is pointed out the
experts are in disagreement with them. That is unhealthy.

~~~
phkahler
>> Also, it is clear to me from reading the news and comments about this event
that many people really, really want this to be linked to climate change. It
is to the point that cognitive dissonance ensues when it is pointed out the
experts are in disagreement with them. That is unhealthy.

I think it's healthy. The people who experience cognitive dissonance are so
personally invested in their belief that they are no longer able to see things
objectively. That's not a good place to be in any case.

~~~
nonbel
Go through my comment history for this topic, you will find some of the most
bizarre reasons proposed for why the MIDAS team was being quoted as saying
this is probably natural and not anything ominous.

------
dumbneurologist
it seems to me that the way scientists address the question of "is this global
warming?" is wrong-headed, even though it's not literally wrong.

We deal with this frequently in medicine. There are lots of questions that the
non-expert doesn't know how to ask, or asks clumsily. When patients ask
"doctor: does this medication have any risks?" The literal answer is "yes;
dozens of side effects are possible, ranging from mild to life-threatening".

But that answer is so accurate that it's useless. What almost all patients
_really_ want is "help me understand the most common side effects, and tell me
what to watch out for regrading rare-but-serious side effects".

With respect to global warming, we don't _really_ care whether this event can
be tied back to antropegenic climate change in a linear way. What we really
are asking is "should we be taking climate change seriously?". And the answer
is an emphatic "hell yes".

This is an opportunity for people to focus on climate issues. I worry that HN
will think I'm a paternalist jerk, but scientists shouldn't get bogged down in
the literal answer to the literal question in this case.

My best answer would be "climate change is real, accelerating (meaning getting
worse every day we continue to consume more fossil fuels), and the biggest
threat we have to face as a species".

------
voidmain
So what would it cost to tow it somewhere with a need for fresh water?

~~~
kbutler
Too much, even for smaller icebergs. Desalination is a cheaper option.

[https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/may/05/could-
to...](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/may/05/could-towing-
icebergs-to-hot-places-solve-the-worlds-water-shortage)

~~~
dukoid
BTW: Was it ever considered to offer desalinated water in California at a
higher rate, so people who wish to do so can waste it on their lawn or proper
showers without the shaming?

~~~
BinaryIdiot
While desalinated is technically doable, is it scalable yet so that it could
even be offered? I honestly don't know much about it but was under the
impression it simply wouldn't work to provide California water because it's
not yet able to scale enough to meet a large enough fraction of the need.

I could certainly be wrong though. I couldn't find much info googling.

~~~
idlewords
Most of California's appetite for water is due to agriculture. For that, you
need cheap inland water.

The Gulf countries offer desalinated water at city scale, but it's not cheap
enough for irrigation.

~~~
BinaryIdiot
That makes sense. Thanks!

------
strainer
I think this advice which is in all reports of this event is quite tenuous:

 _" The calving of icebergs is a natural process. ... as news of the calving
spread, many researchers were careful to note that they were not chalking it
up to global warming."_

The falling of trees is a natural process but when they fall in a storm we
don't often say to not chalk it up to the storm.

~~~
phkahler
The thing is... If we wanted to not in interfere, and let the natural process
do its thing, we'd be looking at the end of the inter-glacial period in the
next 1000 years. After that we'd see glaciation starting to cover a lot of the
northern hemisphere. Sea levels would start to drop - ultimately several
hundred feet, exposing the continental shelf everywhere. All our coastal
cities would be inland.

Some have said that even all the CO2 we can produce won't be enough to stop
the natural cycle. I wonder if it will actually speed it up a little bit.
Something triggers the end of the inter-glacial and clearly we are not there
yet. Therefore, I conclude that the planet was never at the steady state the
climate alarmists pretend it was before humans interfered.

~~~
ericd
Nobody pretends the planet was in steady state before humans ramped up CO2
production, everyone knows about the last ice age.

~~~
phkahler
Yes, they do pretend. Sea levels have been rising for 10000 years and they act
like that trend stopped and the rise from here on out is all caused by human
activity.

~~~
ericd
No, they're saying that we've caused it to accelerate massively. 10k years is
probably long enough for us to adapt, 50 is probably not.

------
elif
Good news about the bedrock holding the iceberg in place.

As a casual earth science enthusiast, I believe this means that the melt-water
will stay proximal, and will encourage accelerated freezing on the coast,
somewhat "repairing" the damage.

When it breaks up/drifts away, the coast will be subject to normal freezing
patterns from the briny water.

~~~
mbrookes
I think you may have misunderstood - it is the Larsen C shelf that is held in
place, not the iceberg that it calved:

 _An iceberg the size of Delaware is now in motion. If it follows the path of
previous icebergs from the Larsen Ice Shelf, it will drift north along the
coast of the Antarctic Peninsula before heading northeast into the south
Atlantic Ocean, according to NASA._

------
pavement
It's funny to me, because at this point, there's glaring scientific evidence
to demonstrate not-trivially-reversible anthropogenic climate change, and
we're sort of at that same point where we were with leaded gasoline, where
it's not about whistle-blowers anymore, but there's still an intractable
scientific payola to plant the seed of doubt in any conversation.

Action is required at this point, regardless of transnational economic
inertia.

What does it take to root out scientific provocateurs, and shut them up?

~~~
tych0
I agree that there is human caused changing of the global climate due to
emissions from fossil fuels, among other things. With that said, did you read
the article?

> The calving of icebergs is a natural process. While climate change is
> affecting Antarctica in a variety of ways, this week's event does not signal
> that the region is entering a new state. That is happening in the Arctic,
> which has already been dramatically reshaped by human-caused global warming,
> according to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration researchers.
> Scientists do not believe Antarctica is in a precipitous state of warming
> right now. Yesterday, as news of the calving spread, many researchers were
> careful to note that they were not chalking it up to global warming.

Climate change is an important issue to be sure, but this seems unrelated.

~~~
pavement
I did, and " _seems_ " is a subjective term, and a matter of opinion, no?

