Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Gizmodo)   Old MacDonald had a farm, E-I-E-I-O. And on this farm he had some methane-producing animals contributing a lot more to global warming than we initially estimated, E-I-E-I-OMG   ( gizmodo.com) divider line
    More: Scary  
•       •       •

4237 clicks; posted to Main » on 29 Sep 2017 at 5:20 PM (3 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



140 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2017-09-29 09:32:03 PM  

maxheck: stirfrybry: http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo3031.html

I don't think that article says what you're trying to claim.

" Assuming emissions peak and decline to below current levels by 2030, and continue thereafter on a much steeper decline, which would be historically unprecedented but consistent with a standard ambitious mitigation scenario (RCP2.6), results in a likely range of peak warming of 1.2-2.0°C above the mid-nineteenth century. If CO2 emissions are continuously adjusted over time to limit 2100 warming to 1.5°C, with ambitious non-CO2 mitigation, net future cumulative CO2 emissions are unlikely to prove less than 250GtC and unlikely greater than 540GtC. Hence, limiting warming to 1.5°C is not yet a geophysical impossibility, but is likely to require delivery on strengthened pledges for 2030 followed by challengingly deep and rapid mitigation. "


Millar was quoted that the models were "running hot". Why are you guys so averse to correcting models? Wouldn't you rather have accurate science? Admit that you wouldn't than.
https://judithcurry.com/2017/09/26/are-climate-models-overstating-war​m​ing/
 
2017-09-29 09:39:55 PM  
 IPCC AR5 WG1 chapter 9, this is also discussed in chapter 11:
"This provides evidence that some CMIP5 models have a higher transient response to GHGs and a larger response to other anthropogenic forcings (dominated by the effects of aerosols) than the real world (medium confidence).' The ASK results and the initialised predictions both suggest that those CMIP5 models that warm most rapidly over the period (1986-2005) to (2016-2035) may be inconsistent with the observations."
 
2017-09-29 09:59:51 PM  
Gyrfalcon:

Yes.

And you were still wrong.

Also, there were a maximum total of 30 million bison. There were not 30 million bison at one time.


LOL!  A simple Google search says you lack reading comprehension at best.  Google rocks.
 
2017-09-29 10:02:14 PM  

69gnarkill69: Gyrfalcon:

Yes.

And you were still wrong.

Also, there were a maximum total of 30 million bison. There were not 30 million bison at one time.

LOL!  A simple Google search says you lack reading comprehension at best.  Google rocks.


And yet it doesn't matter, per my earlier post. If we plugged all volcanoes and the did something stupid that matched them (not that volcanoes are a big contributor mind you, that's right wing nonsense) we would still want to stop doing that something stupid.
 
2017-09-29 10:06:45 PM  

69gnarkill69: Gyrfalcon:

Yes.

And you were still wrong.

Also, there were a maximum total of 30 million bison. There were not 30 million bison at one time.

LOL!  A simple Google search says you lack reading comprehension at best.  Google rocks.



Exhibit A - https://www.fws.gov/bisonrange/timeline.htm
Exhibit B - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_bison
Exhibit C - http://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know/five-things/the-great-american​-bi​son/8950/
Exhibit D - https://www.joslyn.org/Post/sections/375/Files/Buffalo%20Timeline.p​df
It goes on and on and on.
 
2017-09-29 10:11:41 PM  

Smackledorfer: 69gnarkill69: Gyrfalcon:

Yes.

And you were still wrong.

Also, there were a maximum total of 30 million bison. There were not 30 million bison at one time.

LOL!  A simple Google search says you lack reading comprehension at best.  Google rocks.

And yet it doesn't matter, per my earlier post. If we plugged all volcanoes and the did something stupid that matched them (not that volcanoes are a big contributor mind you, that's right wing nonsense) we would still want to stop doing that something stupid.


My point wasn't with your post but since you made it that way, my concern is the big hot ball of gas in the sky.  There is your climate change driver. But I'm not here to argue, I just couldn't let Gyrfalcon get away with a comment that is blatantly wrong.  I leave you to your previously interrupted discussion.  Peace out.
 
2017-09-29 10:22:21 PM  

69gnarkill69: Smackledorfer: 69gnarkill69: Gyrfalcon:

Yes.

And you were still wrong.

Also, there were a maximum total of 30 million bison. There were not 30 million bison at one time.

LOL!  A simple Google search says you lack reading comprehension at best.  Google rocks.

And yet it doesn't matter, per my earlier post. If we plugged all volcanoes and the did something stupid that matched them (not that volcanoes are a big contributor mind you, that's right wing nonsense) we would still want to stop doing that something stupid.

My point wasn't with your post but since you made it that way, my concern is the big hot ball of gas in the sky.  There is your climate change driver. But I'm not here to argue, I just couldn't let Gyrfalcon get away with a comment that is blatantly wrong.  I leave you to your previously interrupted discussion.  Peace out.


Oh, you're a moron who thinks the sun is the primary accelerant of climate change.

Well, farkied as such. Goodbye.
 
2017-09-29 10:30:14 PM  
Look, the details don't matter.  What matters is that climate scientists were not 100% accurate about something, therefore all science and scientific knowledge no more valid than whatever some guy working for "Raping the Earth For Jesus Inc." tells me.
 
2017-09-29 10:32:36 PM  

69gnarkill69: 69gnarkill69: Gyrfalcon:

Yes.

And you were still wrong.

Also, there were a maximum total of 30 million bison. There were not 30 million bison at one time.

LOL!  A simple Google search says you lack reading comprehension at best.  Google rocks.


Exhibit A - https://www.fws.gov/bisonrange/timeline.htm
Exhibit B - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_bison
Exhibiatchttp://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know/five-things/the-great-am​erican-bison/8950/
Exhibit D - https://www.joslyn.org/Post/sections/375/Files/Buffalo%20Timeline.pd​f
It goes on and on and on.


Wikipedia says there are now about 530,000 bison. That's 1% of 50 million. Does it seem reasonable that there used to be only 100 times more bison than there are now?
 
2017-09-29 10:50:51 PM  

Horizon: Part of the issue is diet. The big cattle operations feed the cows a fark ton of corn which if I remember correctly makes them fart more.


Beef cattle are sent to the feedlot when they're less than a year old to 2 years old. They spend 3-4 months being "finished", often with grain in their feed. It is unlikely that they're on an all-corn diet before then, unless corn happens to be exceptionally cheap at the time. Have you not heard that alcohol production has increased the price of corn?
 
2017-09-29 11:06:03 PM  
First, they came for the plastic six pack rings and I did not speak because I drank from bottles. Then they came for the gasoline and I did not speak because I did not have an SUV. Then they came for the coal and I did not speak because I was not a miner. Then they came for my medium-rare T-bone and there was no one left to speak for me.
 
2017-09-29 11:16:42 PM  

WelldeadLink: Wikipedia says there are now about 530,000 bison. That's 1% of 50 million. Does it seem reasonable that there used to be only 100 times more bison than there are now?


i don't know the specific numbers but do seem to remember reading about wild population fluctuations when it came to bison... maybe in the book 1491... the indians burned forests to expand the bison range, which means the population was large enough to warrant creating more grasslands but still kept in check by being the main source of protein for various tribes. But European observations of bison may have occurred after their diseases had already decimated native americans. There was likely a bison explosion caused by not being hunted by as many humans. But eventually the native american population would had stabilized against disease and they got horses, which started decreasing the bison population again and then whitey got into the bison hunting biz and that's when they collapsed to near extinction.
 
2017-09-30 12:04:31 AM  

kbronsito: WelldeadLink: Wikipedia says there are now about 530,000 bison. That's 1% of 50 million. Does it seem reasonable that there used to be only 100 times more bison than there are now?

i don't know the specific numbers but do seem to remember reading about wild population fluctuations when it came to bison... maybe in the book 1491... the indians burned forests to expand the bison range, which means the population was large enough to warrant creating more grasslands but still kept in check by being the main source of protein for various tribes. But European observations of bison may have occurred after their diseases had already decimated native americans. There was likely a bison explosion caused by not being hunted by as many humans. But eventually the native american population would had stabilized against disease and they got horses, which started decreasing the bison population again and then whitey got into the bison hunting biz and that's when they collapsed to near extinction.


Also keep in mind that apparently much of the bison population went south for the winter, then migrated north in the spring before returning south. So although there will have been scattered groups remaining south, the great herds we hear of were probably mostly part of one migrating group and not always spread out over all of the Great Plains.
 
2017-09-30 12:24:23 AM  
One thing that never gets mentioned when climate change is discussed- parking lots & roadways.

They store massive amounts of solar energy during the day, and then release it at night.  That's a huge departure from the same acreage of pasture lands thermal profile, and over time and considering the millions of square miles of pavement, that has to have a huge effect, maybe the biggest effect of all.

But they haven't figured out how to make a profitable game like "carbon credits" for it yet, so there's that.
 
2017-09-30 01:25:16 AM  

WelldeadLink: Horizon: Part of the issue is diet. The big cattle operations feed the cows a fark ton of corn which if I remember correctly makes them fart more.

Beef cattle are sent to the feedlot when they're less than a year old to 2 years old. They spend 3-4 months being "finished", often with grain in their feed. It is unlikely that they're on an all-corn diet before then, unless corn happens to be exceptionally cheap at the time. Have you not heard that alcohol production has increased the price of corn?


Not all are. Some are raised entirely on grass, like mine.
 
2017-09-30 06:41:26 AM  
casual disregard:
//the only way to determine cookedness is with a meat thermometer (which will always tell you how overdone it is) or by cutting

Meat Thermometer is what I call my kitchen utensil that I use to ensure properly cooked food.

/i bet you thought I was going to say penis
 
2017-09-30 07:01:48 AM  

Mister Peejay: casual disregard:
//the only way to determine cookedness is with a meat thermometer (which will always tell you how overdone it is) or by cutting

Meat Thermometer is what I call my kitchen utensil that I use to ensure properly cooked food.

/i bet you thought I was going to say penis


Your comment just made me imagine what third degree burns of the penis might look/feel like. It almost made me die.
 
2017-09-30 08:14:24 AM  
i.dailymail.co.uk

solution: capture the methane!
 
2017-09-30 11:04:57 AM  
cows & cows & cows
Youtube FavUpD_IjVY
 
2017-09-30 11:23:05 AM  

WTFDYW: docpeteyJ: Subby...

[media.tenor.com image 490x280]

In addition to livestock contributing to the release of methane, let's not forget that fake climate change resulting in the melting of glaciers, permafrost* and icecaps is also releasing ancient methane (and God knows what else) into the atmosphere.

*there's some scary ancient viruses that are seeing the light of day with the melting of the permafrost, some hat haven't been seen in thousands of years.

They have hats?


But since the ice caps are growing now, they're swallowing up all that methane now, right? Along with the cow farts?

Not to worry, I've invented a device that captures carbon dioxide in the air and fixes it in usable, biodegradable form. I call it "plants."
 
2017-09-30 11:26:05 AM  

lordjupiter: This is clearly a hoax because cows are a myth propagated by Big Farma.


This deserves more funnys.
 
2017-09-30 11:42:18 AM  

Deez Piles: WTFDYW: docpeteyJ: Subby...

[media.tenor.com image 490x280]

In addition to livestock contributing to the release of methane, let's not forget that fake climate change resulting in the melting of glaciers, permafrost* and icecaps is also releasing ancient methane (and God knows what else) into the atmosphere.

*there's some scary ancient viruses that are seeing the light of day with the melting of the permafrost, some hat haven't been seen in thousands of years.

They have hats?

But since the ice caps are growing now, they're swallowing up all that methane now, right? Along with the cow farts?

Not to worry, I've invented a device that captures carbon dioxide in the air and fixes it in usable, biodegradable form. I call it "plants."


LOLWUT?

The A,B and C Larsen Ice Shelves have been there for over 100,000 years have all FALLEN THE fark OFF the polar ice cap. That ain't normal by any stretch of the imagination. Hell, the C shelf is the size of goddamned Delaware, FFS (I don't have time to explain the impact of how the meltwater from it affects ocean temperature and salinity. Look it up).

And in case you missed it, there's a whole lotta ancient viruses*  and god knows what else being exposed by the melting of the goddamned permafrost, which has also been around a very long time. That scares the shiat out of me, because that's how you get a goddamned Zombie Apocalypse...or at the very least, a naive viral pandemic.

*and GODDAMNIT the plural of virus isn't viri (or virii), which is Latin for "men" (vir is the root of our word "virile"). The plural of virus (which, BTW, is the plural form anyway) is VIRUSES. Anyone who uses viri as the plural of virus is a pretentious douchebag guilty of Latin Abuse.
 
2017-09-30 12:21:03 PM  

docpeteyJ: Deez Piles: WTFDYW: docpeteyJ: Subby...

[media.tenor.com image 490x280]

In addition to livestock contributing to the release of methane, let's not forget that fake climate change resulting in the melting of glaciers, permafrost* and icecaps is also releasing ancient methane (and God knows what else) into the atmosphere.

*there's some scary ancient viruses that are seeing the light of day with the melting of the permafrost, some hat haven't been seen in thousands of years.

They have hats?

But since the ice caps are growing now, they're swallowing up all that methane now, right? Along with the cow farts?

Not to worry, I've invented a device that captures carbon dioxide in the air and fixes it in usable, biodegradable form. I call it "plants."

LOLWUT?

The A,B and C Larsen Ice Shelves have been there for over 100,000 years have all FALLEN THE fark OFF the polar ice cap. That ain't normal by any stretch of the imagination. Hell, the C shelf is the size of goddamned Delaware, FFS (I don't have time to explain the impact of how the meltwater from it affects ocean temperature and salinity. Look it up).

And in case you missed it, there's a whole lotta ancient viruses*  and god knows what else being exposed by the melting of the goddamned permafrost, which has also been around a very long time. That scares the shiat out of me, because that's how you get a goddamned Zombie Apocalypse...or at the very least, a naive viral pandemic.

*and GODDAMNIT the plural of virus isn't viri (or virii), which is Latin for "men" (vir is the root of our word "virile"). The plural of virus (which, BTW, is the plural form anyway) is VIRUSES. Anyone who uses viri as the plural of virus is a pretentious douchebag guilty of Latin Abuse.


Not unusual at all. Ice shelves collapse all the time. They also grow back. Cracks form in one place and ice grows somewhere else.

The world has been growing warmer since the Little Ice Age and should get cooler again in a few years, as a new sunspot minimum is set to begin around 2030. There should be plenty of ice-shelf regrowth then.

In Antarctica specifically, there's been no warming in the past 30 years, and more recently the winter ice pack has reached record-setting levels (trapping in ice one boatload of climate-botherers, aboard the USS No Sense of Irony). The Larsen B glacial area is close to six active volcanoes, a far more likely explanation for this localized breakup than magical pixie dust.

Don't take my word for it -- ask the climate alarmists themselves. Even the IPCC is admitting (though it suppressed the information until after the climate conference) that the models are "running too hot" -- i.e. flat wrong.

At another time I may explain the purpose of this hoax but I think the above is enough truthification for now.

Finally, I take your point about the plural of virus. I've always wondered why the plurals of hippopotamus and rhinoceros aren't hippopotamoi and rhinocerontes.
 
2017-09-30 12:33:02 PM  

Kit Fister: [i.dailymail.co.uk image 634x416]

solution: capture the methane!


img.fark.net
 
2017-09-30 12:46:26 PM  

Deez Piles: docpeteyJ: Deez Piles: WTFDYW: docpeteyJ: Subby...

[media.tenor.com image 490x280]

In addition to livestock contributing to the release of methane, let's not forget that fake climate change resulting in the melting of glaciers, permafrost* and icecaps is also releasing ancient methane (and God knows what else) into the atmosphere.

*there's some scary ancient viruses that are seeing the light of day with the melting of the permafrost, some hat haven't been seen in thousands of years.

They have hats?

But since the ice caps are growing now, they're swallowing up all that methane now, right? Along with the cow farts?

Not to worry, I've invented a device that captures carbon dioxide in the air and fixes it in usable, biodegradable form. I call it "plants."

LOLWUT?

The A,B and C Larsen Ice Shelves have been there for over 100,000 years have all FALLEN THE fark OFF the polar ice cap. That ain't normal by any stretch of the imagination. Hell, the C shelf is the size of goddamned Delaware, FFS (I don't have time to explain the impact of how the meltwater from it affects ocean temperature and salinity. Look it up).

And in case you missed it, there's a whole lotta ancient viruses*  and god knows what else being exposed by the melting of the goddamned permafrost, which has also been around a very long time. That scares the shiat out of me, because that's how you get a goddamned Zombie Apocalypse...or at the very least, a naive viral pandemic.

*and GODDAMNIT the plural of virus isn't viri (or virii), which is Latin for "men" (vir is the root of our word "virile"). The plural of virus (which, BTW, is the plural form anyway) is VIRUSES. Anyone who uses viri as the plural of virus is a pretentious douchebag guilty of Latin Abuse.

Not unusual at all. Ice shelves collapse all the time. They also grow back. Cracks form in one place and ice grows somewhere else.

The world has been growing warmer since the Little Ice Age and should get cooler again in a few years, as a new s ...


You're quite right.... except for the whole being factually wrong part. But hey, it sounds truthy if you repeat it enough.
 
2017-09-30 01:02:40 PM  

maxheck: You're quite right.... except for the whole being factually wrong part. But hey, it sounds truthy if you repeat it enough.


THIS.  I guess all those satellite photos taken over the last few decades showing that the northern ice caps have been steadily shrinking are just a hoax, like the moon landing.
 
2017-09-30 01:14:42 PM  
7 week account, guys.
 
2017-09-30 02:56:21 PM  

maxheck: You're quite right.... except for the whole being factually wrong part. But hey, it sounds truthy if you repeat it enough.


the whole thing about the planet eventually growing cooler again because of sun spots is factually wrong and stupid. But if climate change results in farking up crops or extreme natural disasters leading to civil unrest and wars that result in millions of deaths, there'd be less humans to burn fossil fuels and forests may take over some of the abandoned towns, cities, and abandoned farmland. New forests should capture carbon and the problem should correct itself, right? We just need to make sure that we maximize casualties in any upcoming conflicts. Sooooo chessmate, libtardos?
 
2017-09-30 03:33:19 PM  

kbronsito: Sooooo chessmate, libtardos?


Not sure if this is snark against liberals or you saying "this is what republicans actually think!", but...

assets.pewresearch.org

Unlike the party-line straddling idiocy of anti-vaxxers, this idiocy is almost all republican.
 
2017-09-30 03:53:01 PM  

WelldeadLink: bigdanc: Of course - why hasn't anyone invented a way to capture this methane?  There has to, at least, be enough produced to power a generator.

But to collect the methane to power one generator, you have to send up a huge balloon fleet of nuclear-powered gas separators.


Oh, I mean as the cows are farting, you'd just have to put a diaper of sorts on them, maybe?  Maybe it's not a great idea, but balloons tethered to cows asses could do it, the solid waste falls through some sort of check valve and you can see how full the balloon is to know if it's worth your time to collect it.  Maybe the manure could be collected as it falls too, if that's a big source of methane, if it's not a source of methane you could collect it anyways and sell it as fertilizer.  I mean, cows are strong so they could tow some type of contraption around.  It would be even easier with dairy or factory meat cows because they don't really move.
 
2017-09-30 03:54:10 PM  

WTFDYW: bigdanc: WelldeadLink: Yet somehow the models have the right numbers.

it means the models are wrong and it's worth than we thought

You have a lithsp. Lol


hahaha
 
2017-09-30 05:12:59 PM  
You know, I really don't give a shiat whether or not you believe that humans are responsible for climate change. I really don't care whether or not you think it's a natural phenomenon.

Putting that aside, you can't dispute that the earth right now is warmer than it was 20 or 50 years ago. You can't dispute that there are significant health problems relating to smog and the amount of pollutants there are in the air and environment. You can't dispute that we're seeing major changes to our environment including the extinction of species.

Whether or not you believe this is entirely a man-made issue or not, none of those facts alone are in dispute (Among the population that are reasonably intelligent. Those of you so dumb that you can't even believe reports that have nothing to do with climate change directly because whatever reason, I really can't help you).

We need better sources of energy that create less pollution. We need better resources that don't destroy our forests and our land. We need lifestyles that don't amount to rivers full of chemicals and garbage.

So who the fark gives a crap whether humans caused climate change or not? Why are you fighting against actively pushing for a system where we live better in a cleaner world? Do you *enjoy* living in a world where there's garbage everywhere, the water's nigh undrinkable, and there's no wildlife left to look at?
 
2017-09-30 06:27:15 PM  

Kit Fister: You know, I really don't give a shiat whether or not you believe that humans are responsible for climate change. I really don't care whether or not you think it's a natural phenomenon.

Putting that aside, you can't dispute that the earth right now is warmer than it was 20 or 50 years ago. You can't dispute that there are significant health problems relating to smog and the amount of pollutants there are in the air and environment. You can't dispute that we're seeing major changes to our environment including the extinction of species.

Whether or not you believe this is entirely a man-made issue or not, none of those facts alone are in dispute (Among the population that are reasonably intelligent. Those of you so dumb that you can't even believe reports that have nothing to do with climate change directly because whatever reason, I really can't help you).

We need better sources of energy that create less pollution. We need better resources that don't destroy our forests and our land. We need lifestyles that don't amount to rivers full of chemicals and garbage.

So who the fark gives a crap whether humans caused climate change or not? Why are you fighting against actively pushing for a system where we live better in a cleaner world? Do you *enjoy* living in a world where there's garbage everywhere, the water's nigh undrinkable, and there's no wildlife left to look at?


It's got electrolytes
 
2017-09-30 09:43:29 PM  

docpeteyJ: The A,B and C Larsen Ice Shelves have been there for over 100,000 years have all FALLEN THE fark OFF the polar ice cap. That ain't normal by any stretch of the imagination.


How do you know that?
 
2017-09-30 09:59:39 PM  

WelldeadLink: docpeteyJ: The A,B and C Larsen Ice Shelves have been there for over 100,000 years have all FALLEN THE fark OFF the polar ice cap. That ain't normal by any stretch of the imagination.

How do you know that?


Because I actually follow the scientific study regarding the collapse of the Larsen Ice Shelves.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/04/160412-ice-sheet-collapse-​a​ntarctica-sea-level-rise/
 
2017-09-30 11:44:21 PM  

Smackledorfer: 7 week account, guys.


Another!?
 
2017-10-01 12:23:32 AM  

docpeteyJ: WelldeadLink: docpeteyJ: The A,B and C Larsen Ice Shelves have been there for over 100,000 years have all FALLEN THE fark OFF the polar ice cap. That ain't normal by any stretch of the imagination.

How do you know that?

Because I actually follow the scientific study regarding the collapse of the Larsen Ice Shelves.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/04/160412-ice-sheet-collapse-a​ntarctica-sea-level-rise/


That doesn't say that this isn't normal.
 
2017-10-01 12:44:07 AM  

WelldeadLink: docpeteyJ: WelldeadLink: docpeteyJ: The A,B and C Larsen Ice Shelves have been there for over 100,000 years have all FALLEN THE fark OFF the polar ice cap. That ain't normal by any stretch of the imagination.

How do you know that?

Because I actually follow the scientific study regarding the collapse of the Larsen Ice Shelves.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/04/160412-ice-sheet-collapse-a​ntarctica-sea-level-rise/

That doesn't say that this isn't normal.


Common sense says that it isn't normal, since those ice shelves have been there for at least 100,000 years without change (except that until recently, they've been slowly growing over the centuries. It's only very recently that warmer temperatures have caused the shelves to collapse.

Not only that, but the melting of the northern permafrost isn't normal, either. These are unusual occurrences, regardless of the cause. Climate change IS happening. The sad part is we are all so caught up in arguing about WHY it is happening while doing nothing to prepare for the impact it will have on our civilization. Denying climate change is just an exercise in burying your head in the sand.
 
2017-10-01 02:01:57 AM  
Your link mentions a melting 120,000 years ago -- but of a different ice area and that the model results don't match other numbers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larsen_Ice_Shelf
Wikipedia says one of the Larsen areas is 4,000 years old, and another at least 10,000. So, how normal is it for them to break off sometimes?
Also, those areas are on the leeward side of the Antarctic Peninsula ridge so are prone to adiabatic heating.
 
2017-10-01 02:30:23 AM  

WelldeadLink: Your link mentions a melting 120,000 years ago -- but of a different ice area and that the model results don't match other numbers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larsen_Ice_Shelf
Wikipedia says one of the Larsen areas is 4,000 years old, and another at least 10,000. So, how normal is it for them to break off sometimes?
Also, those areas are on the leeward side of the Antarctic Peninsula ridge so are prone to adiabatic heating.


At the risk of repeating myself, the Larsen C shelf was dated by South Korean scientists at around 100K years old; the excitement is that is has exposed a similarly old part of the sea floor, which they are hurrying to study while they can.

Again, you are missing my point: regardless of WHAT is causing climate change, it does exist, and it's highly irresponsible that people are more concerned with arguing over the cause rather than preparing for the changes on our society that are inevitable.
 
Displayed 40 of 140 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report