
Massive glacier collapse - relham
http://unofficialnetworks.com/collapse-video-glacial-size-city-116670/
======
MichaelGG
Can anyone recommend a good book (preferably on Kindle) that explains climate
change and our actual scientific knowledge? The issue seems to be so
politicized that all sources seem incredibly biased. Sure, there might changes
happening, but from history, isn't that what the climate does? It seems that
one side portrays it as no big deal, and the other says we'll all die in a few
decades.

I'm not looking for something telling me how to behave or react, just
something that covers how/what we know for certain. Or is the science and
understanding required too far out of reach for laymen?

~~~
run4yourlives
The problem is that nobody really "knows" what is going on. Climate science is
still very much a work in progress. This is the sad truth of the matter.

Trying to figure out whether or not humans are a direct cause of climate
change is like trying to figure out if exposure to a certain household product
gives you cancer. People get cancer all the time from various sources, and
while certain folk can point directly to said chemical being a carcinogen,
even if that agreement exists it starts to open up a whole new debate about
whether or not there is _enough_ of a link to matter.

From what I can tell, ignoring the single idiots on either side, we've got:

1\. A general consensus that the world is warming;

2\. A slightly less strong consensus that humans are contributing to this
warming;

3\. A majority (but not a consensus, IMO) extending that to humans being the
most direct and primary cause of warming;

4\. A strong consensus that we should reduce our overall carbon emissions (for
obvious reasons), regardless;

5\. A small but significant _scientific_ group arguing that we are not the
primary cause of warming, even though we may be a contributing factor;

6\. A large contingent of non-science laymen that feel that because 5 may be a
valid opinion, the entire study of climate science is bunk;

That's basically the best I've found. There are zealots in every camp above.
There are also those that feel that each individual point being right means we
should either ignore everything else, be it science or consequence.

Given how complex the earth's climate is, and how little we know about things
like the sun, earth's climate history, and the long term effects of particular
chemical compositions in our atmosphere, I feel we won't progress much past
our current stage in enough time to make much a difference overall. IMHO, if
we believe that climate change is real, we should be focusing all efforts on
dealing with it as best we can.

~~~
JPKab
Fact: CO2 traps heat. Fact: CO2, which was pulled in by plants and processed
into hydrocarbons and was buried in the earth for millions of years, is now
being reinjected by use of said hydrocarbons for energy back into the
atmosphere after a millions years long abscence. Fact: This is causing a
measurable increase in PPM concentrations of CO2.

I think its pretty fucking logical that this would cause or contribute to
warming. Obviously figuring out the magnitude is difficult.

~~~
olalonde
I'm on neither side of the debate but I can tell you that saying stuff like "I
think its pretty fucking logical" automatically puts you in the zealots
category. I would advise you not to use such emotionally charged language if
you want to get your point across, especially not on HN.

~~~
JPKab
Zealots? I wouldn't say that, considering that I don't even think that
reduction of CO2 emissions on a global scale is a realistic solution. The
zealots tend to stick with that one though. I'm actually wishing for a debate
on the best way to deal with rapid increases of CO2 concentrations, either
through reduction or geo-engineering solutions.

BTW, calling it a "debate" pretty much automatically puts you in a category
also. The only reason it's even put into the public's mind as a debate is
because of the huge business interests which are threatened by the science.
You might as well say that you aren't on either side of the "cigarettes cause
lung cancer" debate. Do you think Exxon is going to do anything different than
R.J. Reynolds and Phillip Morris did when they spent decades challenging the
science of tobacco induced cancers?

I am all for questioning and challenging the science WITH SCIENCE, as opposed
to economic arguments and ad hominem attacks.

~~~
vixen99
Your use of the emotive word 'fucking' in this context is suggestive of a
zealot but you confirm with your second paragraph above. Crystal clear that
you simply have not read any of the recent peer-reviewed literature relating
to climate. If you want to comment on this subject in public, get informed
first. Once you have done so your comments will be a good deal more nuanced.

~~~
JPKab
My use of the word 'fucking' was more of a casual, matter of fact nature, If
this was verbal, it would be a soft spoken, rather than a shouted expletive.
But to be fair, use of foul language clearly diminishes any written statement.
Your commment indicates that something I said has been contradicted in recent
peer reviewed research. However, your statement is completely nebulous. What
peer-reviewed research? What points in my statements prove I'm not aware of
said research? Can you elaborate, or perhaps provide a link to said study? I
am always interested in learning more facts about this topic.

~~~
ghshephard
I'm not really paying much attention to this thread, but I kind of skimmed
over your comment when you started with the foul language as well. At the very
least, it doesn't win you any points, and at worst, people ignore what you
write.

------
cryptoz
I saw Chasing Ice at the cinema a couple of weeks ago. I went with friends who
study adaptation to climate change in the Arctic communities, and all of them,
and I too, came out of the movie in a state of minor shock. It's truly
incredible how much these intense visuals make this strike home, even for
those who are already environmentally aware and focused. It's the kind of
movie that solidifies the thoughts I've been having recently: my life
absolutely must be about working to mitigate and slow global climate change.
Any other career path or choice would be so morally wrong I would have great
difficultly living with that decision.

Everyone should see this movie.

~~~
ChuckMcM
_my life absolutely must be about working to mitigate and slow global climate
change._

Be careful, there are two equally unsupportable view points on climate, one is
that the climate isn't changing, and the other is that humans _can direct_
climate change.

We know from records, both recent and geological, that the climate will
change, we also know there are things well beyond our foreseeable control that
can change climate significantly (volcanic activity, asteroid impact, changes
in solar activity, earth-solar orbital variations)

Invest in surviving change.

~~~
kjackson2012
As usual, ChuckMcM steps in as the voice of complete reason.

I have no doubts that we are undergoing climate change, however, since when
have we NOT undergone climate change?

We have had catastrophic ice ages and the Medieval Warming Period, when the
Earth was warmer than it is now. All without the help of man-made "greenhouse
gases". We know that extreme climate changes have occurred in the PAST, and we
know that extreme climate changes will occur in the FUTURE. What makes THIS
particular climate change so different and more significant from the previous
ones? Just because we happen to be alive for this one? A theory that only
answers one particular observation but can't explain other observations
doesn't feel particularly valuable to me.

~~~
anigbrowl
_Medieval Warming Period, when the Earth was warmer than it is now._

Not actually true, and in any case a much more gradual warming over a longer
timescale; it's well summarized at
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warming_Period>

I can't help being struck by the contrast between climate skeptic's loud
insistence on greater scientific rigor in discussions of the present climate,
and their hand-waving invocations of the MWP as a general-purpose tool of
dismissal. I mean, all you need to do is look at a graph of the temperature
data to see how different the rate of change is between the MWP and today.

~~~
zosima
It is worth noting that method for producing the data 1900-2010 data and the
0-1900 data in the top graph is wildly different.

First and foremost: The black line is an actual temperature measurement, while
all the other lines are estimates based on proxies. Except of course: Secondly
all the proxies appears to be correlated to the black line, because they have
been chosen to do so. That is, the correlation to the black line is
manufactured, and not a finding.

The rest of the graph is made in a completely different manner, and the
proxies are allowed to carry the signal for themselves. I think it is very
interesting that you can see a small medieval warming period from the proxy
data, but nevertheless one shouldn't be too eager to compare the right part
and the left part of the graph, as the methods used are actually not the same.

One can also show that the noise in the proxies will tend to pull the data
towards the average and away from the extremes, which is exactly the lower
rate of change and lower peaks you see. So that graph is really not very good,
at all...

------
snowwrestler
This is incredible footage, but the amounts of ice in this video (while
massive to us) are tiny drops in the bucket of the global ice balance.

I'm uncomfortable when outlet glacier calving events like this--which are very
common, geologically speaking--are used as proof of climate change, or to
advocate for action on climate change. They are spectacular looking, but I
think it's intellectually dishonest. Outlet glaciers advance and retreat
constantly, based largely on local climate variations.

The best proof that humans are affecting the climate is the huge bulk of
rigorous scientific data that has been collected and analyzed for decades.
It's rarely cool-looking, but it's right.

------
ericcholis
I've had the pleasure of spending some time in (literally) and around a much
smaller glacier. My wife and I spent about a week ice climbing on the Lower
Coleman Glacier in Washington.

We also had the pleasure of hearing and witnessing a huge icefall off one of
the faces of Mt. Baker. Imagine the loudest thunder you've ever heard, rolling
continually for about 5 minutes.

I can only imagine what a fall of this magnitude sounded like in person. One
might believe that the earth was splitting in half.

~~~
wiredfool
I watched this video the first time over iPad speakers.

The second time, through good headphones. There's a low rumble and roar that
is missed on the smaller speakers. (I should hook up the sub. )

I can't imagine what it must have been like in person.

------
arethuza
The BBC had a rather splendid pair of documentaries on glaciers and icebergs:

<http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00tvcnx>

The scene where there is a significant calving event on the glacier is pretty
awesome....

------
sethbannon
As the site is down, here's a direct link to the youtube video:
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hC3VTgIPoGU>

~~~
Hilyin
google cache:
[http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:unoffic...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:unofficialnetworks.com/collapse-
video-glacial-size-city-116670/&ion=1)

------
albemuth
1:57 looks like a frozen whale, does that even happen?

~~~
njharman
Totally. It made me think this was "fake" and a trailer for "monsters in the
ice" or something movie, until, there was just more ice.

------
raphdg
Thought it was AWS again.

~~~
benburton
I was actually pretty worried that I'd lost a bunch of archived data for about
30 seconds. Whew!

~~~
cryptoz
> Whew!

You're relieved? How? The implications of the film and the clip you see should
be far more worrying and scary than some data loss that you should have a
backup of anyway.

~~~
obstacle1
My god you're coming across as a zealot here. People are allowed to care about
the security of their data, you know. Global warming doesn't stop time and not
everyone needs to be working on that problem. Further being relieved about
secure data is wholly independent of being worried about global warming; one
can be both.

~~~
cryptoz
Well, the tone of the commeter was "Whew! It's only a video about catastrophic
climate change. As long as my stuff is okay, thank heavens". It just seems an
absolutely selfish and silly response.

I'll try to be less zealot-y. Pretty much every other person here is saying
"meh, calm down everybody, not a big deal." Sometimes someone has to be a
zealot, you know?

~~~
tjr
Maybe the not lost archived data in question is research pertaining to
avoiding catastrophic climate change problems... :-)

------
reustle
I'm glad I have tickets to go see Chasing Ice already. If you don't, you
should go watch the trailer.

------
Shivetya
I wonder if events in Greenland are similar to those playing out in the
Antarctic where movement of under ice water sources is causing fractures or
movement in the ice sheets.

I remember reading stories recently about Lake Vostok and the drilling going
on there. One item of note was the the location of the under ice water was not
a constant and that its shifting could or is affecting the ice sheets above
it.

Given that Greenland has a bit more volcanic activity than the Antarctic what
role does that play?

~~~
arethuza
"Given that Greenland has a bit more volcanic activity than the Antarctic"

Do you have any links for that? There is a fair amount of volcanic activity
around Antartica and I've never heard of anything on Greenland.

~~~
Shivetya
<http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21231380> is the article I read
before, specifically the paragraph above a picture of the landmass which
starts with the words "Indeed, satellite measurements"

The water moves underneath the sheets causing them to move, this movement has
to be part of the reason if not the entire reason sheets fracture.

I am far more the believer that was is under the ice sheet has more affect
than what is above it

------
junto
At 1m50s a huge piece of ancient blue ice rises, reminiscent of a blue whale
breaching from the ocean depths. Beautiful:
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hC3VTgIPoGU&t=1m50s](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hC3VTgIPoGU&t=1m50s)

