It's finally adrift. When the Larsen C Ice Shelf calved yesterday [Wednesday], it sent one of the largest icebergs ever recorded slipping into a sea frosted with smaller chunks of ice. It marked the end of a decades-long splintering first seen by satellites in the 1960s. The crack stayed small for years until, in 2014, it began racing across the Antarctic ice.
The massive iceberg holds twice as much water used in the United States every year, according to calculations by Peter Gleick of the Pacific Institute. It weighs about 1.1 trillion tons and measures 2,200 square miles. Its volume is twice that of Lake Erie.
"The iceberg is one of the largest recorded, and its future progress is difficult to predict," said Adrian Luckman of Wales' Swansea University, who led a project tracking the crack since 2015. "It may remain in one piece but is more likely to break into fragments. Some of the ice may remain in the area for decades, while parts of the iceberg may drift north into warmer waters."
By mass, the iceberg accounts for 12 percent of the Larsen C Ice Shelf. It's large enough that maps will have to be redrawn. Larsen C was the fourth-largest ice shelf in the world. Now it's the fifth.
In this particular political moment, the calving of a major iceberg has made headlines around the world. Environmental groups connected the event to climate change and the Trump administration's withdrawal from the Paris climate accords. But scientists have cautioned that the story of the iceberg, which will be known as A68, is more nuanced. Climate signals are not clear enough to attribute the event to rising levels of carbon dioxide, but human activity may have contributed to its calving nonetheless.
https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060057298
Previously:
Larsen C Calves Trillion Ton Iceberg
Larsen C Rift Branches as it Comes Within 5 km of Calving
Delaware-Sized Iceberg Could Break Off of Antarctica at Any Moment
Related Stories
A deep crack on on Antarctica's Larsen C ice shelf has nearly severed off one of the largest icebergs ever recorded:
One of the largest icebergs ever recorded — 2,500 square miles, about the size of Delaware — is about to break off Antarctica, according to the European Space Agency. The iceberg could speed up the break-off of other ice chunks, eventually eating away at a barrier that prevents ice from flowing to the sea.
The impending iceberg is being carved from one of the continent's major ice shelves, called Larsen C. Scientists have been monitoring Larsen C for months now, as a deep crack has slowly extended over the course of 120 miles. Only about three miles of ice are keeping the iceberg attached to the shelf, ESA says. No one knows when it will break off — it could be any moment — but when it does, the iceberg will likely be 620 feet thick (about the height of the Waldorf Astoria hotel in New York) and contain roughly 1 trillion tons of ice. It'll be drifting north toward South America, and could even reach the Falkland Islands. "If so it could pose a hazard for ships in Drake Passage," Anna Hogg from the University of Leeds, said in a statement.
Also at BBC.
As the Larsen C ice shelf moves closer to calving one of the largest icebergs on record, there are clear signs of changes in the part of the shelf which is about to calve. In late June 2017, the soon-to-be iceberg tripled in speed, producing the fastest flow speeds ever recorded on Larsen C, and seemed to be on the verge of breaking free.
The latest data from 6th July reveal that, in a release of built-up stresses, the rift branched several times. Using data from ESA’s Sentinel-1 satellites, we can see that there are multiple rift tips now within 5 km of the ice edge. We expect that these rifts will lead to the formation of several smaller icebergs, as well as the large iceberg which we estimate will have an area of 5,800 sq km. Despite this, the iceberg remains attached to the shelf by a thin band of ice. It is remarkable how the moment of calving is still keeping us waiting.
http://www.projectmidas.org/blog/multiple-branches/
There is a nice animation showing the rift growth since just last year: http://www.projectmidas.org/assets/rift_insar_animation_july.gif
A one trillion tonne iceberg – one of the biggest ever recorded - has calved away from the Larsen C Ice Shelf in Antarctica. The calving occurred sometime between Monday 10th July and Wednesday 12th July 2017, when a 5,800 square km section of Larsen C finally broke away. The iceberg, which is likely to be named A68, weighs more than a trillion tonnes. Its volume is twice that of Lake Erie, one of the Great Lakes.
http://www.projectmidas.org/blog/calving/
Also at BBC, PBS, The Guardian, and The Verge.
Complete Calving Coverage:
Antarctic Larsen C Ice Shelf to Calve; Halley VI Research Station Plans Move
Antarctic Ice Rift Close to Calving, After Growing 17km in 6 Days
Delaware-Sized Iceberg Could Break Off of Antarctica at Any Moment
Larsen C Rift Branches as it Comes Within 5 km of Calving
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 14 2017, @10:55AM
it's different when you're dead
it's different when you're dead
it's different when you're dead
when you wake up dead
and your only friends
are bill and ted
it's different when you're dead
it's different when you're dead
it's different when you're dead
(Score: 2, Informative) by ledow on Friday July 14 2017, @11:33AM (10 children)
I read the BBC News article instead.
Where it says that people who deal in icebergs say they aren't concerned at all.
It happens all the time. It's not the biggest recorded. It could be related to global warming but the bigger concern is the overall picture (i.e. loss of a shelf), not calving of a shelf that's been calving for millennia and will still be calving for as long as it's around.
Pretty much, this is people looking at an iceberg and going OH MY GOD IT'S SEPARATING AND WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE.
While the proper climatologist are saying "That happens literally every few weeks/month/years... we're much more concerned about the overall trend over the last few decades of the whole ice shelf shrinking back, not a bit of ice that's under immense pressure all the time breaking off".
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 14 2017, @11:40AM (4 children)
The more "liberal" the source the more frantic and ignorant the reporting on this rift/iceberg gets. It's crazy:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/the-worlds-largest-iceberg-is-about-to-break-off-antarctica_us_594643e5e4b0940f84fe2f78 [huffingtonpost.com]
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2017/07/10/exxonknew-iceberg-name-it-after-climate-criminals-says-group [commondreams.org]
(Score: 2, Offtopic) by VLM on Friday July 14 2017, @01:53PM (1 child)
Its the left wing version of immigration. One immigrant vs invasion scenarios.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Ethanol-fueled on Friday July 14 2017, @11:41PM
IceBerg?!
I told you the Jews were behind it!
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Friday July 14 2017, @02:32PM
OK, well that's a cunty URL. Once you've got to the page the headline is the more restrained "One Of The World’s Largest Icebergs Is ...", but still, there's no excuse for a flat out lie in the URL.
However what's crazy about the commondreams one? It is accurately reporting that there's a group campaigning for shame-laden iceberg naming - that's a fact. It also carries quotes from real relevant scientists (i.e. glaciologists, not just random me-too climate bandw^H^H^H^H^Hscientists) with such scare-mongery sensationalism as "Large calving events such as this are normal processes of a healthy ice sheet, ..."
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday July 14 2017, @05:31PM
If you need to dredge up HuffPo opinion pieces to argue against then you might as well create actual straw-men.
From now on, instead of replying to comments posted on Sylent, I'm going to respond to trash on Breitbart that nobody posted. Much eaiser that way!
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday July 14 2017, @03:17PM (2 children)
Oooh, "people" are saying something?
There are five stories linked to this summary and every single one of them says this is a fairly normal occurrence that's simply interesting due to it's size.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by bob_super on Friday July 14 2017, @04:57PM (1 child)
They also often mention that similar calving events have recently led to the eventual collapse of Larsen A and Larsen B.
So the calving itself is only unusual by its size, but the trend can't be ignored.
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 14 2017, @05:35PM
You *still* believe it no matter what the experts say. Interesting.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 14 2017, @04:47PM (1 child)
You: "Pretty much, this is people looking at an iceberg and going OH MY GOD IT'S SEPARATING AND WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE."
TFA: "It will not likely pose any threat to ships navigating the area"
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Friday July 14 2017, @04:54PM
> TFA: "It will not likely pose any threat to ships navigating the area"
USS Fitzgerald: Challenge accepted !
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 14 2017, @12:09PM (3 children)
https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/ef-gast-data-research-report-062717.pdf [wordpress.com] (not so much about the berg)
if you don't remember the break-in and tape-alterations -- only caught due to multiple backups elsewhere! -- there have been those who used original measurements before the newer breed who can only use the altered data because grants. .. so anytime we talk about our influence on weather, or conclusions and recommendations derived from altered data it helps to know that one's being played.
not that these scientists will get any more attention than those documenting how jet-fuel could not have burned hot enough to crash the towers, but hey, at least grab the pdf and check out the people who signed it.
(Score: 4, Informative) by jelizondo on Friday July 14 2017, @10:59PM (2 children)
Be careful with your “authors” particularly when one of them [wikipedia.org] signed a declaration that says:
He doesn't believe in climate change because of Theological reasons... To me that is enough to disqualify any “scientific” research he does, regardless of his credentials.
If he is on the side of Science he can't claim God's providence as proof of anything.
Of course, some people will believe anything said by a person whose name is prefixed with Dr.
(Score: 2) by tonyPick on Saturday July 15 2017, @12:30PM (1 child)
I'll also leave this here:
http://www.snopes.com/climatology-fraud-global-warming [snopes.com]
(Score: 2) by deimtee on Saturday July 15 2017, @03:58PM
Give it a few more years, and something will be obvious:
- If global warming is false and they are fudging the past data to fake a warming trend then in few years they are going to have the early 1900's as below zero on the equator.
- If global warming is true and they are not fudging the past data then the warming will be severe and obvious.
I think the most likely possibility is that global warming is real but less than claimed AND they are fudging the past data.
The current apparent pause in the warming could be due to lowering the early measurements and inflating the nineties/oughties measurements to make the curve look steeper.
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 14 2017, @12:59PM (2 children)
> Its volume is twice that of Lake Erie.
Lake Erie is pretty shallow, more like a giant puddle in terms of aspect ratio (depth/length or depth/width).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 14 2017, @02:31PM (1 child)
From WiKiPedia:
Average depth 62 ft (19 m)[2]
Max. depth 210 ft (64 m)[3]
It's more like a film of water!
(Score: 3, Informative) by deadstick on Friday July 14 2017, @05:02PM
To put that in perspective: If you cut a sheet of printer paper into an outline of Lake Erie, parts of the sheet would be too thick to form a scale model.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 14 2017, @03:36PM (1 child)
This is only one of the biggest ever, and yet the actual biggest did not destroy the whole planet?
Teh lulz.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 14 2017, @04:52PM
Where's the FUD? TFA: "The Larsen C iceberg will add 0.1 millimeter in sea-level rise, so it won't be detectable."
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday July 14 2017, @09:43PM (3 children)
Wasn't someone going to tow icebergs into harbors to collect and distribute the fresh water?
Anywhere I can think of that might need the water would also be environmentally devastated by the change in salinity, don't remember that being discussed in the grand plan to harvest icewater. Perhaps they could drag chunks up the Hudson River in New York, it's still trashed, so maybe this could help to clean it out?
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Saturday July 15 2017, @03:10AM (1 child)
I think this one is too big for that to be practical. But you don't want to pick one that's too small, or you won't get enough return on your investment. Perhaps it would be possible to break off a chunk that's 'just the right size". Then you've got to tow it. Not easy.
Perhaps the best way would be to break off a sizable chunk and sail it to the desired destination (with a bit of power steering).
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Saturday July 15 2017, @03:52AM
The brave could deliver it via ocean current and wind power....
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 15 2017, @02:34PM
I was wondering this myself. This iceberg seems like a great opportunity for fresh water.
I was thinking if there was some way to blast off chunks of this, and tow them to places that are starved for fresh water, it would be quite useful. However, if you do it with fossil fuel based propulsion, its going to spew a lot of carbon into the atmosphere. It seems that nuclear propulsion would be useful. However, to my knowlege, besides a few russian icebreakers, all ships that currently have nuclear propulsion are military vessels. I can't imagine any military diverting valuable assets for water harvesting.