It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A huge crack is spreading across one of Antarctica's biggest ice shelves

page: 1
11

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 23 2016 @ 10:32 AM
link   
There's growing concern over the ice shelf in Antarctica known as Larsen C and a giant crack within it that's growing. Apparently, it's already floating on water so the increase in sea level rise shouldn't be that much of a concern but there's a debate over how much there is to worry about.



For some time, scientists who focus on Antarctica have been watching the progression of a large crack in one of the world's great ice shelves — Larsen C, the most northern major ice shelf of the Antarctic peninsula, and the fourth largest Antarctic ice shelf overall. Larsen C, according to the British Antarctic Survey, is "slightly smaller than Scotland." It's called an ice "shelf" because the entirety of this country-sized area is covered by 350 meter thick ice that is floating on top of deep ocean waters. The crack in Larsen C grew around 30 kilometers (18.6 miles) in length between 2011 and 2015. And as it grew, also became wider — by 2015, yawning some 200 meters in length. Since then, growth has only continued — and now, a team of researchers monitoring Larsen C say that with the intense winter polar night over Antarctica coming to an end, they've been able to catch of glimpse of what happened to the crack during the time when it could not be observed by satellite. The result was astonishing.

The rift had grown another 22 kilometers (13.67 miles) since it was last observed in March 2016, and has widened to about 350 meters, report researchers from Project MIDAS, a British Antarctic Survey funded collaboration of researchers from Swansea and Aberystwyth Universities in Wales, and other institutions. The full length of the rift is now 130 km, or over 80 miles.

What this means is that it may be only a matter of time before we see the loss of an enormous chunk of Larsen C — an historic event that would bring to mind the losses of the Larsen A ice shelf in 1995 and the sudden breakup of Larsen B in 2002. When that last event happened, the National Snow and Ice Data Center remarked that the Earth had lost a major feature that had "likely existed since the end of the last major glaciation 12,000 years ago."


What does this development mean for us and the environment? It probably won't cause the oceans to rise all that much but the extra water could shift the Earth's rotation? change its wobble, etc...? Will it cause a change of seasons, etc? What says ATS?

www.chicagotribune.com...




posted on Aug, 23 2016 @ 10:47 AM
link   
a reply to: lostbook



What this means is that it may be only a matter of time before we see the loss of an enormous chunk of Larsen C — an historic event that would bring to mind the losses of the Larsen A ice shelf in 1995 and the sudden breakup of Larsen B in 2002.

Not that historic, then. We've only been monitoring from space for about that long, so...


When that last event happened, the National Snow and Ice Data Center remarked that the Earth had lost a major feature that had "likely existed since the end of the last major glaciation 12,000 years ago."

'Three times' in recorded historic period of 20 years is the reality, not "12000 years" for which there is no record.



posted on Aug, 23 2016 @ 10:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: lostbook



What this means is that it may be only a matter of time before we see the loss of an enormous chunk of Larsen C — an historic event that would bring to mind the losses of the Larsen A ice shelf in 1995 and the sudden breakup of Larsen B in 2002.

Not that historic, then. We've only been monitoring from space for about that long, so...


When that last event happened, the National Snow and Ice Data Center remarked that the Earth had lost a major feature that had "likely existed since the end of the last major glaciation 12,000 years ago."

'Three times' in recorded historic period of 20 years is the reality, not "12000 years" for which there is no record.


I get your point but doesn't this alarm you in the least bit?



posted on Aug, 23 2016 @ 11:03 AM
link   
a reply to: lostbook

If its happened twice before in the twenty five years we have been monitoring, how can I be sure this isn't a 'regular' event over the last '12000 years'.



posted on Aug, 23 2016 @ 11:08 AM
link   
Luckily larsen C is on on a penisula, were the Ross ice shelf to collapse or one of the other big ones holding back trillions of tons of glacier, which presumably would accelerate without that buffer then I would start looking a lot deeper into this.

have a look at Antarctica in images with ice shelves labelled and you'll see what I mean


example

Is not a bad image


Its the ice(glaciers) on the land that will raise sea levels when they melt en masse be that however long away.
Any ice already floating has already raised the sea level by a nanometre or whatever



posted on Aug, 23 2016 @ 11:35 AM
link   
OH NOEs!!! its...."The day after tomrrow!!!"



posted on Aug, 23 2016 @ 11:43 AM
link   
how much faith do you put in the old maps that are supposedly show the coast line of Antarctica?

If the old maps are correct, that means that the Earth has "been there and done that" and the map is the T-shirt.



posted on Aug, 23 2016 @ 11:46 AM
link   
Get a battalion of engineers with some super glue and sticky tape and the problem will soon be fixed!

...right?




posted on Aug, 23 2016 @ 12:13 PM
link   
NAw. just get hilary to go stare at it with those cold dead eyes. It will go back to normal quick!!



posted on Aug, 23 2016 @ 12:14 PM
link   
Good...it's about time that lazy ice melts and does something with its life..

-Christosterone



posted on Aug, 23 2016 @ 01:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: lostbook

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: lostbook



What this means is that it may be only a matter of time before we see the loss of an enormous chunk of Larsen C — an historic event that would bring to mind the losses of the Larsen A ice shelf in 1995 and the sudden breakup of Larsen B in 2002.

Not that historic, then. We've only been monitoring from space for about that long, so...


When that last event happened, the National Snow and Ice Data Center remarked that the Earth had lost a major feature that had "likely existed since the end of the last major glaciation 12,000 years ago."

'Three times' in recorded historic period of 20 years is the reality, not "12000 years" for which there is no record.


I get your point but doesn't this alarm you in the least bit?


Yes, It does alarm me, so thanks for the thread. I don't have a full understanding of the relative significance, so I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss it...but that's just me. Thanks again.

CF



posted on Aug, 23 2016 @ 01:49 PM
link   
Ducktape!!!! It fixes everything!a reply to: Ohanka




posted on Aug, 23 2016 @ 02:06 PM
link   
Thta's been going on for some time now, and as I recall they are moving the British Antarctic Survey station Halley VI to a better location as of now.
I'm not sure that it is anything to do with GW though, the huge abyss was always there but dormant until around 2012, while Antarctica is actually gaining ice.

www.telegraph.co.uk...
edit on 23-8-2016 by smurfy because: Text.



posted on Aug, 23 2016 @ 02:06 PM
link   
Yes, it scares me. The North West passage is open right now, 2016 might see Arctic sea ice fall to a new low, Kuwait hit 129F this summer, the monsoon in India is unprecedentedly bad and parts of Antarctica that are normally classified as desert (as in little if any precipitation) are seeing heavy snow. Our weather is heating up. Will the Earth survive? Of course it will, don't be silly. Humanity however might be seeing extreme weather-based disruption on the horizon. Anyone remember that Pentagon report saying that climate change is a national security risk?



posted on Aug, 23 2016 @ 03:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ohanka
Get a battalion of engineers with some super glue and sticky tape and the problem will soon be fixed!

...right?



Hey, think of the good stuff. I wonder what type of frozen dinosaur will be released in the oceans. Oh right, that might be bad. Support our Orca army now! Warm blood for life!
edit on 23-8-2016 by makemap because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2016 @ 03:45 PM
link   
The Halley research Station was moved because of that crack, they have been monitoring it for years now
(BBC Horizon "Ice Station Antarctica")



posted on Aug, 23 2016 @ 04:59 PM
link   
a reply to: thinline




how much faith do you put in the old maps that are supposedly show the coast line of Antarctica? If the old maps are correct, that means that the Earth has "been there and done that" and the map is the T-shirt.


I think you have brought up the best point so far. The map of which you speak of is the Piri Reis map dated to 1513. I think this doesn't point to scientists being wrong about these being major once-in-12,000 year events, but rather that sailing civilizations capable of creating maps were in existence over 12,000 years ago. Think about that.



posted on Aug, 23 2016 @ 06:07 PM
link   
a reply to: lostbook

The ice in Antarctica has been melting and refreezing for thousands of years. A chunk falling into ocean is not going to do much. It will float around causing problems for ships until it melts.

The main problem is the glaciers on land. As they no longer have to cross a giant ice field they will dump into the oceans. That is where sea levels rise comes from. While calving glaciers do produce waves they are not that huge the further away you are. I know some people that were on their sea kayaks watching a glacier calve and then it registered: the wave is going to hit us! All they did was turn around, let it get close, then catch a ride.

So no earth wobble changes! The oceans are pretty big and can absorb the ice.

The driving factor is sub-sea water movement. How Larsen C effects that is not very well understood but scientists do realize that a majority of ocean warming is directly tied to how Antarctica drives these cold currents. That is more of a concern IMO.



posted on Aug, 23 2016 @ 09:37 PM
link   
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

well if you live in a desert you have no right to complain about the heat lol



new topics

top topics



 
11

log in

join