4 ms·

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

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.

idlewords 9y ago
I cited sea ice as an example of counterintuitive effects of climate change. These shelves move fairly rapidly, and will calve with or without global warming. The Ross Ice Shelf, for example, moves northwards at about 1 km/year.
- strainer 9y ago
  I appreciate your reply but I find the argument is vague. If we are with the consensus on climate change, there is very little doubt this event is affected by it. It occurred in most warmed area of this map: http://www.realclimate.org/wp-content/uploads/ODonnell1.png http://www.realclimate.org/wp-content/uploads/ODonnell1.png From here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/12/a-brief-history-of-knowledge-about-antarctic-temperatures/ http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/12/a-brie... I dont see any sense in excluding these quite rare events from the confidence of climate change, unless we are not confident in climate change.
  - kobeya 9y ago
    TFA doesn't offer dimensions, but it does say the total area of the berg is 2,200 mi^2, which if square (overestimation given the picture) would give a depth of about 75km to this calving. The grandparent says that the ice shelf moves into the ocean at about 1km/yr. This specific calving has been going on in stages since at least the 1960's. Within the order of magnitudes of estimation, that lines up entirely with natural process that has been going on at roughly the same rate since the 60's. Climate change hasn't had a measurable effect so far, based on this limited data point. I think the scientist's quoted cautious skepticism is entirely appropriate.
    - strainer 9y ago
      I just see a hastily laid out argument. The 1km/yr we have no idea what it really means, does that relate to previous centuries? or is it just the rate observed during recent times? (while global warming has already been detected) The maps show the very location of these events, raised by several degrees C since 1950. The rate of this event is quite certainly strongly affected by local temperature, which is known to be elevated due to global warming. So the event has quite certainly been strongly affected by global warming. I can conclude this very confidently because global warming is already a given for me. Only when we doubt global warming has raised the temperature of the location of these calving events does it make any sense to say, "this could be happening naturally" However fast this could happen naturally - it is happening faster due to global warming.
      - kobeya 9y ago
        That's motivated reasoning. I'm not denying climate change. I'm just saying we should be very careful to not ascribe anything and everything to climate change unless there is clear evidence.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

idlewords 9y ago

I cited sea ice as an example of counterintuitive effects of climate change. These shelves move fairly rapidly, and will calve with or without global warming. The Ross Ice Shelf, for example, moves northwards at about 1 km/year.

strainer 9y ago
I appreciate your reply but I find the argument is vague. If we are with the consensus on climate change, there is very little doubt this event is affected by it. It occurred in most warmed area of this map: http://www.realclimate.org/wp-content/uploads/ODonnell1.png http://www.realclimate.org/wp-content/uploads/ODonnell1.png From here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/12/a-brief-history-of-knowledge-about-antarctic-temperatures/ http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/12/a-brie... I dont see any sense in excluding these quite rare events from the confidence of climate change, unless we are not confident in climate change.
- kobeya 9y ago
  TFA doesn't offer dimensions, but it does say the total area of the berg is 2,200 mi^2, which if square (overestimation given the picture) would give a depth of about 75km to this calving. The grandparent says that the ice shelf moves into the ocean at about 1km/yr. This specific calving has been going on in stages since at least the 1960's. Within the order of magnitudes of estimation, that lines up entirely with natural process that has been going on at roughly the same rate since the 60's. Climate change hasn't had a measurable effect so far, based on this limited data point. I think the scientist's quoted cautious skepticism is entirely appropriate.
  - strainer 9y ago
    I just see a hastily laid out argument. The 1km/yr we have no idea what it really means, does that relate to previous centuries? or is it just the rate observed during recent times? (while global warming has already been detected) The maps show the very location of these events, raised by several degrees C since 1950. The rate of this event is quite certainly strongly affected by local temperature, which is known to be elevated due to global warming. So the event has quite certainly been strongly affected by global warming. I can conclude this very confidently because global warming is already a given for me. Only when we doubt global warming has raised the temperature of the location of these calving events does it make any sense to say, "this could be happening naturally" However fast this could happen naturally - it is happening faster due to global warming.
    - kobeya 9y ago
      That's motivated reasoning. I'm not denying climate change. I'm just saying we should be very careful to not ascribe anything and everything to climate change unless there is clear evidence.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]