So what would it cost to tow it somewhere with a need for fresh water?
Too much, even for smaller icebergs. Desalination is a cheaper option.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/may/05/could-to...
Things to know about the A68 iceberg
21–30 of 58 posts
Re: Things to know about the A68 iceberg
#22It's funny to me, because at this point, there's glaring scientific evidence to demonstrate not-trivially-reversible anthropogenic climate change, and we're sort of at that same point where we were with leaded gasoline, where it's not about whistle-blowers anymore, but there's still an intractable scientific payola to plant the seed of doubt in any conversation. Action is required at this point, regardless of transna…
I agree that there is human caused changing of the global climate due to emissions from fossil fuels, among other things. With that said, did you read the article?
> The calving of icebergs is a natural process. While climate change is affecting Antarctica in a variety of ways, this week's event does not signal that the region is entering a new state. That is happening in the Arctic, which has already been dramatically reshaped by human-caused global warming, according to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration researchers. Scientists do not believe Antarctica is in a precipitous state of warming right now. Yesterday, as news of the calving spread, many researchers were careful to note that they were not chalking it up to global warming.
Climate change is an important issue to be sure, but this seems unrelated.
Re: Things to know about the A68 iceberg
#23So what would it cost to tow it somewhere with a need for fresh water?
Too much, even for smaller icebergs. Desalination is a cheaper option. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/may/05/could-to...
BTW: Was it ever considered to offer desalinated water in California at a higher rate, so people who wish to do so can waste it on their lawn or proper showers without the shaming?
Re: Things to know about the A68 iceberg
#24TLDR: The calving of the 1.1 trillon ton ice berg (2x amount of water used in the US each year) marks the end of a decades long splintering, first seen by satellites in the 1960s. 1. What's next? It will drift north along the coast of the Antarctic Peninsula, then northeast into the south Atlantic Ocean. Likely no threat to ships navigating the area. Can take months to splinter apart. 2. Is this climate change? Calvi…
Will it make the oceans rise? barely (0.1 mm)
Re: Things to know about the A68 iceberg
#25Earlier quoted context omitted.
Too much, even for smaller icebergs. Desalination is a cheaper option. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/may/05/could-to...
BTW: Was it ever considered to offer desalinated water in California at a higher rate, so people who wish to do so can waste it on their lawn or proper showers without the shaming?
While desalinated is technically doable, is it scalable yet so that it could even be offered? I honestly don't know much about it but was under the impression it simply wouldn't work to provide California water because it's not yet able to scale enough to meet a large enough fraction of the need.
I could certainly be wrong though. I couldn't find much info googling.
Re: Things to know about the A68 iceberg
#26TLDR: The calving of the 1.1 trillon ton ice berg (2x amount of water used in the US each year) marks the end of a decades long splintering, first seen by satellites in the 1960s. 1. What's next? It will drift north along the coast of the Antarctic Peninsula, then northeast into the south Atlantic Ocean. Likely no threat to ships navigating the area. Can take months to splinter apart. 2. Is this climate change? Calvi…
Will it make the oceans rise? barely (0.1 mm) Where do they get that? The melting of already-floating icebergs has zero net effect on sea lever or (liquid) water volume. It would take a huge amount of added water to make even a .1mm effect worldwide .
It is the melting of the ice on above the water surface minus the difference in volume of the ice below the surface and the water it would become. Someone else mentioned that if the entire iceberg were melted it would cover California with 4.5in of water. If you divide that by the ratio of the ocean area to the area of California you get 0.13mm. I'm not sure how much is above the water vs below the surface but it seems like a reasonable thing for them to estimate.
Re: Things to know about the A68 iceberg
#27TLDR: The calving of the 1.1 trillon ton ice berg (2x amount of water used in the US each year) marks the end of a decades long splintering, first seen by satellites in the 1960s. 1. What's next? It will drift north along the coast of the Antarctic Peninsula, then northeast into the south Atlantic Ocean. Likely no threat to ships navigating the area. Can take months to splinter apart. 2. Is this climate change? Calvi…
Will it make the oceans rise? barely (0.1 mm) Where do they get that? The melting of already-floating icebergs has zero net effect on sea lever or (liquid) water volume. It would take a huge amount of added water to make even a .1mm effect worldwide .
The article explains that an iceberg of this size would add 3 mm to sea levels if it had not already been floating in the ocean. I'm curious, too, about the 0.1 mm.
EDIT: Apparently the 0.1 mm change is due to the difference in salinity. https://phys.org/news/2005-08-ice-sea.html
Re: Things to know about the A68 iceberg
#28Earlier quoted context omitted.
Will it make the oceans rise? barely (0.1 mm) Where do they get that? The melting of already-floating icebergs has zero net effect on sea lever or (liquid) water volume. It would take a huge amount of added water to make even a .1mm effect worldwide .
It is the melting of the ice on above the water surface minus the difference in volume of the ice below the surface and the water it would become. Someone else mentioned that if the entire iceberg were melted it would cover California with 4.5in of water. If you divide that by the ratio of the ocean area to the area of California you get 0.13mm. I'm not sure how much is above the water vs below the surface but it see…
Just enough of it is above the surface to account for the change of volume when it melts. Or equivalently, it displaces its own weight in water.
Re: Things to know about the A68 iceberg
#29Earlier quoted context omitted.
BTW: Was it ever considered to offer desalinated water in California at a higher rate, so people who wish to do so can waste it on their lawn or proper showers without the shaming?
While desalinated is technically doable, is it scalable yet so that it could even be offered? I honestly don't know much about it but was under the impression it simply wouldn't work to provide California water because it's not yet able to scale enough to meet a large enough fraction of the need. I could certainly be wrong though. I couldn't find much info googling.
Most of California's appetite for water is due to agriculture. For that, you need cheap inland water.
The Gulf countries offer desalinated water at city scale, but it's not cheap enough for irrigation.
Re: Things to know about the A68 iceberg
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
Will it make the oceans rise? barely (0.1 mm) Where do they get that? The melting of already-floating icebergs has zero net effect on sea lever or (liquid) water volume. It would take a huge amount of added water to make even a .1mm effect worldwide .
The article explains that an iceberg of this size would add 3 mm to sea levels if it had not already been floating in the ocean. I'm curious, too, about the 0.1 mm. EDIT: Apparently the 0.1 mm change is due to the difference in salinity. https://phys.org/news/2005-08-ice-sea.html
[deleted]