3 ms·
Wouldn't this melt "quickly" due to solar radiation based on how dark it is? That is to say, I wouldn't it most likely be closer to 100 years old than 100,000 y
by IncreasePosts 1y ago
Wouldn't this melt "quickly" due to solar radiation based on how dark it is? That is to say, I wouldn't it most likely be closer to 100 years old than 100,000 years old?
- malfist 1y agoI'm sure you know more about iceburg ages than the professor of oceanography that dated it.
- dotancohen 1y agoTo be fair, the guy who just dated it likey knows the least about it. It's the guy who broke up with it that knows the most.
- IncreasePosts 1y agoI was literally asking about the range that the oceanographer provided. I didn't assert anything
- burnt-resistor 1y agoThat's for new soot depositing on ordinary, existing glaciers with previously high albedo. That causes a spiraling feedback effect of more forest fires and accelerating glacier melt, It's probable that these dark glaciers are mostly sludge with only a bit of ice. We won't know until some field researchers go out there and gather data and samples.
- marcusverus 1y agoThis post--which actually engages with the content of the article--is being downvoted, while "Do black Labrador icebergs also have webbed feet, to swim better?" is being upvoted. Where do we run once the redditification of HN is complete?