31–40 of 110 posts
The crack in Larsen C grew around 30 kilometres in length between 2011 and 2015. And as it grew, also became wider — by 2015, yawning some 200 meters in length. It feels pedantic, but honestly something so fundamental as confusing length and width makes this much more difficult to read at first glance than it should be.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't see any confusion there. The "length" of the crack is its long dimension, from end to end, and the "width" is how far the two sides have spread away from each another.
>> I don't see any confusion there. "And as it grew, also became wider — by 2015, yawning some 200 meters in length." They use "wider" and "length" to describe the same 200 meter span.
> "I have spent so much time now looking at the satellite images, and I really love this ice shelf, it would be such a tragic thing to see this thing go." Reminds me of Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars trilogy. We humans can fall in love with large chunks of ice just by looking at them long enough. How will we ever bring ourselves to terraform another planet?
From the article, regarding sea level rise: When ice shelves lose large chunks, it does not raise sea level because these bodies are already afloat. However, the loss of an ice shelf can speed up the seaward flow of the nonfloating glacial ice behind it, and this ice can in turn contribute to sea-level rise. Researchers have estimated that the loss of all the ice that the Larsen C ice shelf currently holds back would…
The faster that levels rise the sooner we are to get off our collective asses and make a difference.
If you're ready to do something about this, consider volunteering for http://brandnewcongress.org
If we took a fleet of tug-boats and towed this ice to the Middle East, I wonder how long the fresh water would last?
If you're ready to do something about this, consider volunteering for http://brandnewcongress.org
