• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Large Iceberg Looks Poised to Break Off from Antarctica [W:5]

RetiredUSN said:
That's all you you have?

I find people like yourself who come off like internet chat room scientists to be very amusing.

You all seem to be great at cutting and pasting cherry picked graphs and charts, but then stumble over your own explanations when it comes to using your own words and mathematical theories. Then, you revert to posting more snippets of words written by your favorite GW alarmists. All the while, acting smug with dissenting opinions.
Click to expand...

It doesn't take a genius to understand that ice cannot "fall into the ocean under its own weight". That's not a dissenting opinion; it's a simple fact that you should have learned in school.
 
mbig said:
This is Big.
Perhaps belongs in BN-MSM, but I post it here anyway. It will make Top-Fold, Front Page, News worldwide.
I think it will change the whole debate overnight.
Most of the responses will be from deniers. Some I can guess, some will be beyond imagination.
Some may even hedge/edge to a somewhat/or more AGW position, as we've seen lately in another section, some not.

Large Iceberg Looks Poised to Break Off from Antarctica
A chunk of ice bigger than New York's Long Island is hanging on by a relative thread
By Andrea Thompson, Climate Central on January 6, 2017
Scientific American
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/large-iceberg-looks-poised-to-break-off-from-antarctica/

I encourage people to read the whole article before commenting.
I want everyone to get the full look before deciding Alarmist/not-Alarmist.
It's not long, but I am limited to the above size excerpt.


EDIT:
But in my warning about reactions above, I never imagined anything as vacuous/trolling as immediately below!
Click to expand...

Sounds like a great time to get tug boats and haul that thing up to Africa to give people fresh water! ( yes, that's from a movie, yes I know it's absurd, but so is all this alarmism over ICE!!! BREAKING!! IN THE SEA!!!)
 
Surface Detail said:
I think so. But I look forward to your explanation as to why this difference should be responsible for sea ice "falling into the ocean under its own weight".
Click to expand...

The tides can have an effect, especially around the winter solstice. The earth is near the closest it travels to the sun, plus the south pole is more the least angle to the sun. Instead of a 28 day tide induce by the moon, it's prominent tide is a 1/2 year cycle. The bouncy of the floating ice moved up and down vs. the sheet ice it is connected to. It causes cracks, weak spots, and eventually breaks free. This is normal over the years.
 
Surface Detail said:
It doesn't take a genius to understand that ice cannot "fall into the ocean under its own weight". That's not a dissenting opinion; it's a simple fact that you should have learned in school.
Click to expand...


LOL......tides and wave action don't have any bearing whatsoever.......got it!
 
RetiredUSN said:
LOL......tides and wave action don't have any bearing whatsoever.......got it!
Click to expand...

Reading comprehension is obviously also not one of your strong points. Did I say tides and wave action don't have any bearing on the ice shelf? No, I didn't. Did I say that the ice can't fall into the ocean under its own weight? Yes, I did. An ice shelf is already floating in the ocean. It cannot fall any further in, tides or no tides.
 
Surface Detail said:
Reading comprehension is obviously also not one of your strong points. Did I say tides and wave action don't have any bearing on the ice shelf? No, I didn't. Did I say that the ice can't fall into the ocean under its own weight? Yes, I did. An ice shelf is already floating in the ocean. It cannot fall any further in, tides or no tides.
Click to expand...

And and a large portion that is above the water will be in the water.

Pretty simple.
 
Lord of Planar said:
The tides can have an effect, especially around the winter solstice. The earth is near the closest it travels to the sun, plus the south pole is more the least angle to the sun. Instead of a 28 day tide induce by the moon, it's prominent tide is a 1/2 year cycle. The bouncy of the floating ice moved up and down vs. the sheet ice it is connected to. It causes cracks, weak spots, and eventually breaks free. This is normal over the years.
Click to expand...

The tides may indeed affect the stability of the ice, but they won't make it fall into the ocean under its own weight. This is so regardless of the relative contributions of the sun and the moon to the amplitude of the twice-daily tides.
 
Surface Detail said:
The tides may indeed affect the stability of the ice, but they won't make it fall into the ocean under its own weight. This is so regardless of the relative contributions of the sun and the moon to the amplitude of the twice-daily tides.
Click to expand...
The weight... actually mass, play a role. It's called buoyancy. If an ice shelf is higher than the buoyancy permits, then yes, it cracks and falls. There may be a better way to describe it, but it does drop in altitude.
 
Lord of Planar said:
The weight... actually mass, play a role. It's called buoyancy. If an ice shelf is higher than the buoyancy permits, then yes, it cracks and falls. There may be a better way to describe it, but it does drop in altitude.
Click to expand...

Nope, you're taking nonsense. Aside from a tiny area immediately adjacent to land or resting on top of land, the ice shelf floats on the sea and moves up and down with the tide. There is no loss of altitude when a large chunk splits away. The surface of the chunk remains exactly parallel with the remaining part of the ice shelf. It does not sink relative to it.
 
Surface Detail said:
Nope, you're taking nonsense. Aside from a tiny area immediately adjacent to land or resting on top of land, the ice shelf floats on the sea and moves up and down with the tide. There is no loss of altitude when a large chunk splits away. The surface of the chunk remains exactly parallel with the remaining part of the ice shelf. It does not sink relative to it.
Click to expand...

I dont think you understand. LoP is an expert on ice shelves. He reads the papers.
 
Surface Detail said:
Nope, you're taking nonsense. Aside from a tiny area immediately adjacent to land or resting on top of land, the ice shelf floats on the sea and moves up and down with the tide. There is no loss of altitude when a large chunk splits away. The surface of the chunk remains exactly parallel with the remaining part of the ice shelf. It does not sink relative to it.
Click to expand...

How do you know?

Did you measure it?
 
American said:
Think Progress????? You might as well let a Hollywood movie star write the article.
Click to expand...
I got just the one for you . Leo Dicaprio.
LOL
 
I think that wee need to send a small fleet of tug boats down there and tow it to Australia. Then harvest the ice for fresh water and irrigate that giant sandbox.
 
Surface Detail If you hang around you'll have lots of opportunities for that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom