9 ms·

Things to know about the A68 iceberg

90 points by nature24 9y ago

dukoid 9y ago
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.
- cybertronic 9y ago
  Thank you. You actually make me want to read it
- nonbel 9y ago
  >"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 9y ago
    >> 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 9y ago
      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.
    - nonbel 9y ago
      Just go through this thread. Almost every poster knows there is some ominous global warming stuff going on here, despite being told otherwise by the experts and being totally ignorant on the topic.
  - noiv 9y ago
    > "Climate change" doesn't make specific enough predictions about this type... Actually it does. In a warming world more frequent calving events are expectable. This part of Antarctica shows quite some positive temperature anomalies. So, asking whether Larsen C would be still intact today without Climate Change the answer is certainly yes.
    - nonbel 9y ago
      As I said a month ago when this coverage started, it is very strange how there are so many people (in the media and internet posters) who are so sure about that, when the actual people studying it claim otherwise: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14577296 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14577296 >“Although this is a natural event, and we’re not aware of any link to human-induced climate change, this puts the ice shelf in a very vulnerable position. This is the furthest back that the ice front has been in recorded history. We’re going to be watching very carefully for signs that the rest of the shelf is becoming unstable.” http://www.projectmidas.org/blog/calving/ http://www.projectmidas.org/blog/calving/ >'Andrew Shepherd, professor of Earth Observation at the University of Leeds, agreed. “Everyone loves a good iceberg, and this one is a corker,” he said. “But despite keeping us waiting for so long, I’m pretty sure that Antarctica won’t be shedding a tear when it’s gone because the continent loses plenty of its ice this way each year, and so it’s really just business as usual!”https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jul/12/giant-antarctic-iceberg-breaks-free-of-larsen-c-ice-shelf https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jul/12/giant-antarcti... >"And while climate change is accepted to have played a role in the wholesale disintegration of the Larsen A and Larsen B ice shelves, Luckman emphasised that there is no evidence that the calving of the giant iceberg is linked to such processes." https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jul/12/giant-antarctic-iceberg-breaks-free-of-larsen-c-ice-shelf https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jul/12/giant-antarcti...
- FussyZeus 9y ago
  > Calving is a natural process and Antarctica is not breaking apart, but climate change can't be ruled out. This is science's inherent weakness in the public eye: the pundits on both sides will make conclusive statements based on little data; the scientists, with all the data we have, only speak in chances, odds, and percentages. It's not their fault, it's the correct way to speak. But both sides will spin this to suit their agenda, for better or worse, and continue to muddy the waters.
- DrScump 9y ago
  Will it make the oceans rise? barely (0.1 mm) Where do they get that? The melting of already-floating icebergs has zero net effect on sea lever or (liquid) water volume. It would take a huge amount of added water to make even a .1mm effect worldwide.
  - spullara 9y ago
    It is the melting of the ice on above the water surface minus the difference in volume of the ice below the surface and the water it would become. Someone else mentioned that if the entire iceberg were melted it would cover California with 4.5in of water. If you divide that by the ratio of the ocean area to the area of California you get 0.13mm. I'm not sure how much is above the water vs below the surface but it seems like a reasonable thing for them to estimate.
    - idlewords 9y ago
      Just enough of it is above the surface to account for the change of volume when it melts. Or equivalently, it displaces its own weight in water.
      - spullara 9y ago
        Hmm. I see what you are saying. So they probably did do the calculation I referenced but I agree it is probably faulty. However, there is some rise from melting: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18841-melting-icebergs-boost-sea-level-rise/ https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18841-melting-iceberg...
  - idlewords 9y ago
    The article explains that an iceberg of this size would add 3 mm to sea levels if it had not already been floating in the ocean. I'm curious, too, about the 0.1 mm. EDIT: Apparently the 0.1 mm change is due to the difference in salinity. https://phys.org/news/2005-08-ice-sea.html https://phys.org/news/2005-08-ice-sea.html
    - deleted 9y ago
strainer 9y ago
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.
- logfromblammo 9y ago
  People tend to blame the last straw for breaking the camel's back, but each individual straw shares equal responsibility. When a tree falls, the rain that loosened the soil around the roots, the wind that pushed upon the end of the trunk-lever, and the beetle that damaged the bark such that the tree became less flexible are all responsible. When it comes to icebergs calving from glaciers, warming is a contributing factor, but so is a snowfall upon the glacier further up the slope. Ice above pushes ice below away from the support of land, and like many crystalline minerals, water-ice has far less strength under tension than it has under compression.
- ourmandave 9y ago
  If an iceberg falls in the forest, does it make a sound until someone politicizes it?
- idlewords 9y ago
  We don't have long enough experience with ice shelves to know what their baseline behavior is. And the effects of global warming in the Antarctic are less straightforward than in the Arctic. For example, winter sea ice extent there is increasing, not decreasing.
  - strainer 9y ago
    As I understand it - the sea ice extent is a quite different matter being thin and regenerating yearly. These lost iceshelves (including Larsen B in 2001) were hundreds of meters thick. I wonder what age these shelves were and what a sustainable rate of such events would be. Without seeing such information I dont trust general statements on the events meaning. As another massive iceshelf breaks off - it really looks like an event which we could connect with more for these environmentally crucial times.
voidmain 9y ago
So what would it cost to tow it somewhere with a need for fresh water?
- kbutler 9y ago
  Too much, even for smaller icebergs. Desalination is a cheaper option. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/may/05/could-towing-icebergs-to-hot-places-solve-the-worlds-water-shortage https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/may/05/could-to...
  - dukoid 9y ago
    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 9y ago
      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 9y ago
        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 9y ago
        That makes sense. Thanks!
  - 9y ago
pavement 9y ago
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 9y ago
  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 9y ago
    I did, and "seems" is a subjective term, and a matter of opinion, no?
Davia 9y ago
URGENT LOAN HELP @ 2% INTEREST RATE with Victoriafinancier@outlook.com I was stuck in a financial situation and i needed to refinance and pay my bills for my son's medication and buy a home. I tried seeking for a loans from various loan firms both private and corporate but never with success, and most banks declined my credit. But as God would have it, i was introduced to VICTORIA LAWSON Trust Loan Firm ( victoriafinancier@outlook.com ) with 2% interest by a friend, and i got a loan amount within 2 weeks because i was not always online to responds to her mails. Today am a business owner and my kids are doing well... so i want to advice any one in need of a loan to quickly contact her via email on victoriafinancier@outlook.com. I own Victoria every day appreciation for all she has done in my life. Her service is strong, big and reliable. Full Name:_________ Address:_________ Tell:_________ loan amount:_________ Loan duration:_________ Country:_________ Purpose of loan:_________ Monthly Income:__________ Occupation__________ Next of kin:_________ *Email :_________ Contact Her today { victoriafinancier@outlook.com } for quick and financial assistance
elif 9y ago
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 9y ago
  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.
dumbneurologist 9y ago
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".
anon_lastname 9y ago
Damn the ocean sure is big

90 points by nature24 9y ago

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.

cybertronic 9y ago
Thank you. You actually make me want to read it
nonbel 9y ago
>"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 9y ago
  >> 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 9y ago
    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.
  - nonbel 9y ago
    Just go through this thread. Almost every poster knows there is some ominous global warming stuff going on here, despite being told otherwise by the experts and being totally ignorant on the topic.
- noiv 9y ago
  > "Climate change" doesn't make specific enough predictions about this type... Actually it does. In a warming world more frequent calving events are expectable. This part of Antarctica shows quite some positive temperature anomalies. So, asking whether Larsen C would be still intact today without Climate Change the answer is certainly yes.
  - nonbel 9y ago
    As I said a month ago when this coverage started, it is very strange how there are so many people (in the media and internet posters) who are so sure about that, when the actual people studying it claim otherwise: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14577296 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14577296 >“Although this is a natural event, and we’re not aware of any link to human-induced climate change, this puts the ice shelf in a very vulnerable position. This is the furthest back that the ice front has been in recorded history. We’re going to be watching very carefully for signs that the rest of the shelf is becoming unstable.” http://www.projectmidas.org/blog/calving/ http://www.projectmidas.org/blog/calving/ >'Andrew Shepherd, professor of Earth Observation at the University of Leeds, agreed. “Everyone loves a good iceberg, and this one is a corker,” he said. “But despite keeping us waiting for so long, I’m pretty sure that Antarctica won’t be shedding a tear when it’s gone because the continent loses plenty of its ice this way each year, and so it’s really just business as usual!”https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jul/12/giant-antarctic-iceberg-breaks-free-of-larsen-c-ice-shelf https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jul/12/giant-antarcti... >"And while climate change is accepted to have played a role in the wholesale disintegration of the Larsen A and Larsen B ice shelves, Luckman emphasised that there is no evidence that the calving of the giant iceberg is linked to such processes." https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jul/12/giant-antarctic-iceberg-breaks-free-of-larsen-c-ice-shelf https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jul/12/giant-antarcti...
FussyZeus 9y ago
> Calving is a natural process and Antarctica is not breaking apart, but climate change can't be ruled out. This is science's inherent weakness in the public eye: the pundits on both sides will make conclusive statements based on little data; the scientists, with all the data we have, only speak in chances, odds, and percentages. It's not their fault, it's the correct way to speak. But both sides will spin this to suit their agenda, for better or worse, and continue to muddy the waters.
DrScump 9y ago
Will it make the oceans rise? barely (0.1 mm) Where do they get that? The melting of already-floating icebergs has zero net effect on sea lever or (liquid) water volume. It would take a huge amount of added water to make even a .1mm effect worldwide.
- spullara 9y ago
  It is the melting of the ice on above the water surface minus the difference in volume of the ice below the surface and the water it would become. Someone else mentioned that if the entire iceberg were melted it would cover California with 4.5in of water. If you divide that by the ratio of the ocean area to the area of California you get 0.13mm. I'm not sure how much is above the water vs below the surface but it seems like a reasonable thing for them to estimate.
  - idlewords 9y ago
    Just enough of it is above the surface to account for the change of volume when it melts. Or equivalently, it displaces its own weight in water.
    - spullara 9y ago
      Hmm. I see what you are saying. So they probably did do the calculation I referenced but I agree it is probably faulty. However, there is some rise from melting: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18841-melting-icebergs-boost-sea-level-rise/ https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18841-melting-iceberg...
- idlewords 9y ago
  The article explains that an iceberg of this size would add 3 mm to sea levels if it had not already been floating in the ocean. I'm curious, too, about the 0.1 mm. EDIT: Apparently the 0.1 mm change is due to the difference in salinity. https://phys.org/news/2005-08-ice-sea.html https://phys.org/news/2005-08-ice-sea.html
  - deleted 9y ago

strainer 9y ago

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.

logfromblammo 9y ago
People tend to blame the last straw for breaking the camel's back, but each individual straw shares equal responsibility. When a tree falls, the rain that loosened the soil around the roots, the wind that pushed upon the end of the trunk-lever, and the beetle that damaged the bark such that the tree became less flexible are all responsible. When it comes to icebergs calving from glaciers, warming is a contributing factor, but so is a snowfall upon the glacier further up the slope. Ice above pushes ice below away from the support of land, and like many crystalline minerals, water-ice has far less strength under tension than it has under compression.
ourmandave 9y ago
If an iceberg falls in the forest, does it make a sound until someone politicizes it?
idlewords 9y ago
We don't have long enough experience with ice shelves to know what their baseline behavior is. And the effects of global warming in the Antarctic are less straightforward than in the Arctic. For example, winter sea ice extent there is increasing, not decreasing.
- strainer 9y ago
  As I understand it - the sea ice extent is a quite different matter being thin and regenerating yearly. These lost iceshelves (including Larsen B in 2001) were hundreds of meters thick. I wonder what age these shelves were and what a sustainable rate of such events would be. Without seeing such information I dont trust general statements on the events meaning. As another massive iceshelf breaks off - it really looks like an event which we could connect with more for these environmentally crucial times.

voidmain 9y ago

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

kbutler 9y ago
Too much, even for smaller icebergs. Desalination is a cheaper option. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/may/05/could-towing-icebergs-to-hot-places-solve-the-worlds-water-shortage https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/may/05/could-to...
- dukoid 9y ago
  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 9y ago
    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 9y ago
      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 9y ago
        That makes sense. Thanks!
- 9y ago

pavement 9y ago

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 9y ago
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 9y ago
  I did, and "seems" is a subjective term, and a matter of opinion, no?

Davia 9y ago

URGENT LOAN HELP @ 2% INTEREST RATE with Victoriafinancier@outlook.com I was stuck in a financial situation and i needed to refinance and pay my bills for my son's medication and buy a home. I tried seeking for a loans from various loan firms both private and corporate but never with success, and most banks declined my credit. But as God would have it, i was introduced to VICTORIA LAWSON Trust Loan Firm ( victoriafinancier@outlook.com ) with 2% interest by a friend, and i got a loan amount within 2 weeks because i was not always online to responds to her mails. Today am a business owner and my kids are doing well... so i want to advice any one in need of a loan to quickly contact her via email on victoriafinancier@outlook.com. I own Victoria every day appreciation for all she has done in my life. Her service is strong, big and reliable. Full Name:_________ Address:_________ Tell:_________ loan amount:_________ Loan duration:_________ Country:_________ Purpose of loan:_________ Monthly Income:__________ Occupation__________ Next of kin:_________ *Email :_________ Contact Her today { victoriafinancier@outlook.com } for quick and financial assistance

elif 9y ago

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 9y ago
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.

dumbneurologist 9y ago

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".

anon_lastname 9y ago

Damn the ocean sure is big