The good news... Americans can continue to destroy the planet and get as fat and lazy as they want... it doesn't matter anymore.

The bad news... we're SCREWED!!! Call Noah and reserve your seat on the Ark!

Three massive icebergs break off Antarctic ice shelf

May 10, 2000 Web posted at: 6:41 p.m. EDT (2241 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Three enormous icebergs have broken free of Antarctica's Ronne Ice Shelf and are now floating free.

The three icebergs, each roughly rectangular and with a combined surface area slightly smaller than the state of Connecticut, are believed to have broken loose sometime between May 4 and May 6, according to observers at the National Ice Center.

The Ronne Shelf is located in the Weddell Sea, which is in the portion of Antarctica nearest to the continent of South America.

The past several years have seen an unusually rapid calving of icebergs from the Ronne Ice Shelf and from the Ross Ice Shelf, which is located on the part of Antarctica closest to New Zealand. Some scientists believe that the increased activity could be an early sign of global warming.

Mariners are concerned that these enormous bergs could break up and drift northward into the foggy waters of the South Atlantic Ocean, creating navigation hazards.

The center, which is operated jointly by the U.S. Navy, Coast Guard and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, gave the bergs alphanumeric identification numbers.

The largest iceberg, A-43A, measures 107 miles by 21 miles (211 kilometers by 33 kilometers); A-43B is 53 miles by 23 miles (85 kilometers by 37 kilometers); and A-44 is 41 miles by 20 miles (65 kilometers by 32 kilometers).

When an iceberg is first sighted, the National Ice Center documents its point of origin and assigns a letter, dividing Antarctica into quadrants. For example, A-44 is the 44th iceberg the ice center has found in quadrant A, which is the area due south of South America.

Despite their size, the three icebergs will not contribute to the anticipated sea level rise associated with predictions of global warming. Only land-bound ice, adding its volume to ocean waters, would contribute to the one- to three-foot rise in sea levels which climate scientists predict for the coming century.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), May 10, 2000

Answers

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), May 10, 2000.

Don't worry Hawk - market forces will solve the 'water' problem.

-- Analyst (@ .), May 10, 2000.

Thanks for this bit of info., Hawk.

While I'm 200 miles inland, 4,000 ft. up, as soon as I read this report from you, I checked the paint on my rowboat, I'll make it.

-- Richard (Astral-Acres@webtv.net), May 10, 2000.

Now, now -- don't panic. You say "The bad news... we're SCREWED!!! Call Noah and reserve your seat on the Ark!" What do you mean "we're" screwed. Where I am, we're just fine.

Actually, up here in Minnesota, we're miles from the nearest seashore, and 864 feet above sea level (at the Nicollet Mall in Minneapolis). I can't give you any references personally, but perhaps you might consider looking into a good Minnesota real estate agent. I kinda like it here, even if the winters can be a little mean at times. We will, however, miss those of you who are coastal residents when you go under water.

-- E.H. Porter (Just Wondering@About.it), May 10, 2000.

Besides, you've gotta take the time to read your own posts:

"Despite their size, the three icebergs will not contribute to the anticipated sea level rise associated with predictions of global warming. Only land-bound ice, adding its volume to ocean waters, would contribute to the one- to three-foot rise in sea levels which climate scientists predict for the coming century."

-- E.H. Porter (Just Wondering@About.it), May 10, 2000.

Hawk:

Before I moved here, the county that I lived in was bigger than New England. The one that I live in now is bigger than those ice cubes. On the down side, a rise in sea level could cover places like NYC and LA. Where would those people go? Here. I sure don't want that. Go new ice age!

I am presently building a beach for my new seafront property.

Best wishes,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), May 10, 2000.

E.H.,

I was being a bit sarcastic about the Noah's Ark thing, but I am certain that the human race is, for the most part, screwed.

Actually, I think rising sea level is the least of our worries, but I see this recent activity as a sign that the global warming created by pollution over the last 50 years or so is beginning to show its effects.

It's interesting that the article says...

"Some scientists believe that the increased activity could be an early sign of global warming."

The way I see it, the "early" signs were about 30 years ago, when smog became a severe problem, and the abnormal heating patterns that occurred around "urban islands" became obvious. This increased activity of huge icebergs within the last couple years is a sign that it is too late. As more ice rapidly melts into the oceans, the global temperature is going to start to rise much more quickly. Then it will be a "runaway" acceleration, and our weather and atmospheric patterns are going to go bezerk. My prediction is that within 2 decades life on this planet will only be able to survive underground. Under HIGH ground.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), May 10, 2000.

Great news Hawk,

I hope we see more of this happening.

Can you think about the positive side of it?

No more NYC, LA SF and other chess pools.

No more so called poor people who every year get washed out of low lands.

MORE oxygen to breath for the rest of us.

Man, don't be always so negative, see the good things once in a while.

-- I don't care (me@meandolyme.not), May 11, 2000.

If you look really closely at that photo you can see a figure holding a really big chisel & a really heavy sledge hammer, apparently running away from the really big icebergs.

Mike Siegel may interview this person in the next few days (blatant Coast-2-Coast AM ref).

-- Bingo1 (howe9@shentel.net), May 11, 2000.

LOL, Bingo, literally. Good one.

-- (Miss Ann@th.rope), May 11, 2000.

Hi,

Like to add a couple of thoughts here. If you raise the sealevel you are going to cover a hugh amount of vegatation. Once covered this stuff is going to rot and provide food for sealife. Increased sealife is going to fix a tremendous amount of carbon from the plant material. Talk about algea blooms! And what is this going to do...green plants make oxygen.

I have yet to see a consideration for this aspect of rising sealevels. And the fixing of carbon into new sea-based plant life.

j

-- j (jw_hsv@yahoo.com), May 12, 2000.

J,

That would amount to a net loss of oxygen and a net increase in CO2 since there would be far more vegetation lost on land than the amount of seaweed added.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), May 12, 2000.

Hawk:

That would amount to a net loss of oxygen and a net increase in CO2 since there would be far more vegetation lost on land than the amount of seaweed added.

That's not how I read the scientific literature. Think of things other than seaweed [whatever that is]. Many more phytos in the sea than kelp.

Best wishes,,,,

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), May 12, 2000.

Think of all the vegetation that grows at the lower altitudes near sea level. Particularly in the tropical climates, it is literally a jungle of vegetation. IMO, there is no way that algae and seaweed can produce as much as all those plants.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), May 12, 2000.

Hawk:

Good point, but I wasn't talking about kelp. Does the word phytoplankton ring a bell. Go to the original literature and learn about the relative contribution of land and water based plants to carbon dioxide accumulation. By original literature, I don't mean some net based scare rags.

but I see this recent activity as a sign that the global warming created by pollution

You keep saying this [like much of the press] but offer no reference to the scientific literature to support the view. While the contention may be true, there is, at the present, no scientific evidence to support the claim. That could change, but that will take time. Really makes no difference. If the change is coming, it will come no matter what is done.

Best wishes,,,

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), May 12, 2000.

Sounds like you've got a lot of homework to do as well Z. Do some serious study on Greenhouse Gas Emissions (anthropogenically produced), the Greenhouse Effect (it has been PROVEN that these gases cause this phenomenon), and the heating that results within the biosphere from these disastrous consequences of mankind's neglectful attitudes ("Urban Heat Islands" are just one example that have been thoroughly documented). Wake up and smell the smog my friend, apparently it has affected your cognitive abilities.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), May 12, 2000.

Hawk:

This isn't a review of crash investigations. I work in this field [or at least one related to it]. I just finished reviewing grant proposals for NSF in this field. As I said, give me the references to the real scientific literature. My mind is open on the matter. I will listen, if it isn't from the pulp press.

Best wishes,,,

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), May 12, 2000.

Hawk:

By the way, one of those proposals [I am looking at it now for the count], had 329 scientific references [wow]. They still couldn't reach your conclusion.

Best wishes,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), May 12, 2000.

Z,

"Go to the original literature and learn about the relative contribution of land and water based plants to carbon dioxide accumulation."

Plants consume CO2 and release Oxygen. The formula is:

6CO2+6H20+chlorophyll+sunlight--->C6H12O6+6O2.

We need more plants, especially TREES!

-- Tree Hugger (hug@a.tree.today), May 12, 2000.

Tree Hugger:

Obviously, not a rational and learned person. Phytoplankton are plants. Read the literature. They are more important than trees. If you diagree, give me the references in the scientific literature for the overwhelming support for your position.

Best wishes,,,,

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), May 12, 2000.

Tree Hugger:

If you diagree, give me the references in the scientific literature for the overwhelming support for your position.

That should have been disagree. By-the-way, I will tell you what my PhD is in and what my experience is if you go first. I am waiting. Don't expect a response from one using a fake address.

Best wishes,,,,

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), May 12, 2000.

Z,

You took my response the wrong way. I realize that I may have been unclear. By saying that we need more trees, I did not mean to imply that we don't also need more phytoplankton. We do! I just happen to like trees, and see too many dying from the effects of droughts or being cut down.

The formula for photosynthesis, taken from memory, was from my old college Botany days. If you think that it is incorrect, I will try and dig out an old reference book. That's how I remember it.

I am not a PHd, nor do I claim to be an expert.

-- Tree Hugger (just@likes.trees), May 12, 2000.

Z works for da gubmint. That figures. It's his job to deny this stuff so that they don't have to shell out any more money for research grants. Sheeesh, all of a sudden it is crystal clear why he chooses to spread propaganda. By the way Z, I'm not at all impressed by PHD's, it doesn't mean squat.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), May 12, 2000.

TH:

Thanks. There are many who use fake names to post nonsense. If you want to discuss this important subject, use a real name and addy [you can block it from spammers].

Once again, I appreciate your response.

Best wishes,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), May 12, 2000.

Hawk:

Z works for da gubmint. That figures. It's his job to deny this stuff so that they don't have to shell out any more money for research grants. Sheeesh, all of a sudden it is crystal clear why he chooses to spread propaganda. By the way Z, I'm not at all impressed by PHD's, it doesn't mean squat.

Sorry, Hawk, I don't work for "da gubmint"; but you have been wrong before. Not impressed by a PhD. You shouldn't be; you don't know what it takes to get one from a major University. Forty years of experience in the field; now that is another matter. I am not contradicting you, I am just asking you for verifiable evidence to support your position. In asking this, why do I feel like I am becoming an Anita/Cherri clone from the old days?

Best wishes,,,,

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), May 12, 2000.

Z,

How do you block a real ID from spammers?

Spamming and some of the craziness that has occurred here in the past are the main reasons that I don't use my real name and email address, although it's kind of fun to be mysterious sometimes. It's also often challenging to try and figure out who you are really talking to!

-- Flash (flash@flash.hq), May 12, 2000.

"You shouldn't be; you don't know what it takes to get one from a major University."

I have two degrees myself, and am well aware of the requirements for a PHD. The fact of the matter is that I have seen many scientists with PHD's that produce inferior studies and miss totally obvious facts. An education is meaningless if a person does not have the intellectual capacity to understand what they observe and study.

My extreme interest in weather since I was a teenager have helped me achieve a very thorough understanding of the driving forces behind global warming, and the how the anthropogenic activities of the last several decades are accelerating this phenomenon into the anamolous occurrence that we are now witnessing.

You know as well as I that producing conclusive evidence from data gathered on a phenomenon of this size is all but impossible. The fact is we have proven that many of our activities produce these types of effects, and we now have plenty of data to indicate that the expected results are occurring. Just because it is not possible to observe the actual process taking place does not mean it is not happening. I could put the same challenge to you and ask you to provide data that conclusively proves that it is some other process which is causing our oceans to warm, icecaps to melt, and weather patterns to change.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), May 12, 2000.

It's nice to believe we are largely responsible for a change we don't like, because this implies we can *do* something about it. The evidence I've seen suggests that our impact coincides with a general direction being driven by forces beyond our control and even our understanding. Our contribution appears miniscule, however, like pissing into the ocean as the tide rises and convincing ourselves that if we'd only stop pissing, the tide would stop coming in. After all, we see the liquid rising, we know we're adding liquid, we know what happens when you *add* liquid, it must be us, QED. This chain of logic is obvious to any sensible person, isn't it?

But things like smog, oceanic pollution, acid rain, these are clearly our doing. And maybe someday we'll stop it.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), May 12, 2000.

Your condescending attitude and use of innuendo sucks Flint. I don't know why you constantly try to portray everyone else as being so much dumber than you, but the only thing this tells me is that you are not as smart as you think you are. You obviously don't feel very secure about your own intellectual ability, and you don't even have enough class to give anyone else enough credit for being anything more than an idiot. Even Decker doesn't go THAT low.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), May 12, 2000.

I suspect the situation is far more complex than we'd prefer to believe. We certainly aren't helping any, but it seems entirely likely that we're irrelevant to global warming. I illustrated this with a simple analogy. Why take such offense, unless you recognize a hole in your argument? And if so, why try to plug it with name calling? Why not find a study comparing, say, engine exhaust contents and volumes with volcanoes? Because you don't like what those studies have found?

Real data (if any) support your position much more convincingly than just saying "I've spent a long time talking myself into this."

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), May 12, 2000.

"I suspect the situation is far more complex than we'd prefer to believe."

Maybe YOU don't prefer to believe it, but I already KNOW that it is very complex.

"We certainly aren't helping any, but it seems entirely likely that we're irrelevant to global warming."

How do you come to that conclusion? Where's YOUR data? Do you even understand that our atmosphere is the blanket that keeps this planet from turning to solid ice? Do you even understand what a mere 1/2 degree change in global temperature can do to such a perfectly balanced system?

"I illustrated this with a simple analogy. Why take such offense, unless you recognize a hole in your argument?"

There, you even said it yourself. You used an absurdly simple analogy to explain an extremely complex phenomenon. Either you think it is that simple, or you take me for an idiot, and you wonder why I'm offended? There is no hole in my argument, the data is available, and for you to try to dismiss it with such nonsense is an insult to my intelligence.

"And if so, why try to plug it with name calling?"

What name-calling? You insult with arrogant innuendo, I am more direct, but I called you no names.

" Why not find a study comparing, say, engine exhaust contents and volumes with volcanoes? Because you don't like what those studies have found?"

There are thousands of such studies on the Internet, be my guest. I already understand what is happening, if you don't, then you should be the one to do your homework. Why should I do it for you?

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), May 13, 2000.