>In an earlier version of this article, the story incorrectly stated the iceberg was a similar size to Jamaica. This has been changed to say a similar shape to Jamaica.
Calling this a "disaster" seems a bit overblown? It's an iceberg, drifting around is what they do, and it'll eventually melt away. South Georgia is already an exceptionally cold place, it's not like this is going to go freeze the corals at the Great Barrier Reef or something.
The actual disaster here is the possibility of global warming causing the ice caps to melt en masse, but that's a different problem.
> If the berg lodges at the island’s flank, it could remain a fixture for up to 10 years before the ice melts or breaks away, Tarling said. That could block some of the island’s 2 million penguins – including King penguins, Gentoos, Macaronis and Chinstraps – from reaching the waters to feed their young. The melting freshwater could also make the waters inhospitable for phytoplankton and other sea creatures that are crucial
parts of the food chain.
Melting away isn't what is expected, is what turns this into a localised disaster.
Which all doesn't matter at all because it'll recover afterwards. Framing it as an ecological disaster is just a way to engage all the people who are prone to worrying about the environment.
Do you rally think the global environment is in a process of recovery?
How much damage has to happen before the global environment becomes unrecoverable?
The fact is the majority of penguin species today have declining populations. Those are not recovering. A couple of million of them getting wiped out is unlikely to help reverse that downward trend.
> How much damage has to happen before the global environment becomes unrecoverable?
Where the damage in question consists of dumping freshwater into the sea? It would take more water than exists in the world to do irrecoverable damage that way. Try to avoid learning about rivers.
> Over 68 percent of the fresh water on Earth is found in icecaps and glaciers, and just over 30 percent is found in ground water. Only about 0.3 percent of our fresh water is found in the surface water of lakes, rivers, and swamps [1].
Fresh water has a different density than salt water, and ice melting in the artic and antarctica is resulting in a huge influx of fresh water that can disrupt ocean currents [2]. These currents currently distribute a lot of heat around the world, and them stopping would result in places like europe getting much colder, while other regions would become much hotter (and with the warmer oceans, probably also have extremer hurricanes).
The gulf stream that brings warm water from the Caribbean up towards Britain is driven by dense salty water in northern latitudes sinking and flowing south, but the North Atlantic is being flooded with fresh water from Greenland and the North polar ice. Roll those dice!
The majority of the ozone depletion has in fact recovered. The planet is currently experiencing a greening of massive plant growth. The worst thing we do to ourselves as a species and to all other forms of life, is pollution. Chemical pollution. All life on this planet is carbon based. Plants eat carbon. Plants are in fact, up-taking more carbon via evolution.
> Which all doesn't matter at all because it'll recover afterwards. Framing it as an ecological disaster is just a way...
That is a _very_ odd definition of a disaster. The Earth recovered from several mass extinction events. Does that mean that they were not in point of fact, disasters? That nothing is a disaster?
It is a localised disaster. Not all disasters have to be on the global scale to have relevance.
It's a disaster because we, humans made the world so.
A few hundred years ago it wouldn't be a disaster because you'd have millions of seals and penguins everywhere. And such an impact would affect a minor fraction of a percent of a population.
These days, however, even the most populous species are constantly on the brink of extinction.
I agree here. We get to see geology in action, a short time scale ice/glacier action on land and sea floor. I find the kinetics of what would happen fascinating. “Some” of the local penguins will undoubtedly perish, yes. But I dont think anyone is predicting this to be an extinction event for them, i think the overall danger to them is overblown. Not saying its not bad, but we have “rational” people here suggesting unleashing nuclear weapons to save a fraction of a small animal population....?
I see this as nature in action. Our environment is constantly in flux. Yes, this was indirectly caused by human activities, but we would get to witness first hand how this changes the environment. And maybe some good would come of it.
As horrible as this could potentially be for the flora and fauna of South Georgia Island, I hope we record the collision in high fidelity and use it as a teaching tool.
I bet most people have never conceived of a mass of ice this size colliding with anything. Watching it unfold should be captivating and unsettling.
A spectacular high impact collision unlikely. The "disaster" is that the iceberg grounds in shallower waters around the Islands blocking the fauna from being able to hunt for food.
It would be spectacularly boring. The ice would just slowly run aground and stop. The reason it’s so damaging is because it just parked on the entire shallow ecosystem, not because it’s gonna blast into the island like an asteroid.
It covers over 4,000 sq km of ocean and sea floor. To disrupt that you'd need to pepper it with nukes.
So basically instead of letting an ice sheet disrupt the ecosystem across many thousands of square km, you think it would be better to nuke many thousands of square km of ecosystem. Huh.
As you pointed out yourself [1], the iceberg is causing problems already by melting into the local ecosystem. A radioactive iceberg melting into the local ecosystem seems likely to be worse.
Do you really think nukes will only affect the ice? No effect on the ocean environment and sea floor beneath the berg? Surely to maximise the disruption of the ice sheet you'd need to explode the nukes underneath it. Otherwise you'll need to use more nukes, and even exploded on the surface they're still going to blast and cook a fair swathe of ocean and sea floor.
The article is from 11 December. The situation looks like it's getting better, according to Wikipedia.
"As of 17 December 2020, a part of the iceberg was just 50 km (31 mi) from South Georgia, but the concern seemed to have lessened. National Geographic reported that "[s]cientists expect the iceberg ... to either anchor in the shallow waters around the island or move past it in the coming days." On this date it was also reported that a corner had been knocked off A-68A, most likely due to impact with the seabed. The new free floating iceberg has been designated A-68D."
We see the above-water ecological impact, and say "Oh no! The penguins!"
But an iceberg has a profound impact on the ocean ecosystem its melting into. This enormous iceberg is having a continuous impact, for better or for worse, just by existing.
44 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 110 ms ] thread>In an earlier version of this article, the story incorrectly stated the iceberg was a similar size to Jamaica. This has been changed to say a similar shape to Jamaica.
Still, at 2/5 the size of Jamaica, this freely moving ice mass is enormous.
The actual disaster here is the possibility of global warming causing the ice caps to melt en masse, but that's a different problem.
Melting away isn't what is expected, is what turns this into a localised disaster.
How much damage has to happen before the global environment becomes unrecoverable?
The fact is the majority of penguin species today have declining populations. Those are not recovering. A couple of million of them getting wiped out is unlikely to help reverse that downward trend.
Where the damage in question consists of dumping freshwater into the sea? It would take more water than exists in the world to do irrecoverable damage that way. Try to avoid learning about rivers.
Fresh water has a different density than salt water, and ice melting in the artic and antarctica is resulting in a huge influx of fresh water that can disrupt ocean currents [2]. These currents currently distribute a lot of heat around the world, and them stopping would result in places like europe getting much colder, while other regions would become much hotter (and with the warmer oceans, probably also have extremer hurricanes).
[1] https://www.nationalgeographic.org/media/earths-fresh-water/
[2] https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Shutdown_of_thermohaline_circulat...
That is a _very_ odd definition of a disaster. The Earth recovered from several mass extinction events. Does that mean that they were not in point of fact, disasters? That nothing is a disaster?
It is a localised disaster. Not all disasters have to be on the global scale to have relevance.
And Antarctic waters are biologically rich: https://discoveringantarctica.org.uk/ecosystems-and-foodwebs...
A few hundred years ago it wouldn't be a disaster because you'd have millions of seals and penguins everywhere. And such an impact would affect a minor fraction of a percent of a population.
These days, however, even the most populous species are constantly on the brink of extinction.
In case of most animal and bird species, however, they are a metaphorical iceberg away from serious existential threat.
I see this as nature in action. Our environment is constantly in flux. Yes, this was indirectly caused by human activities, but we would get to witness first hand how this changes the environment. And maybe some good would come of it.
You can keep updated on the progress yourself at the link below. You can also incrementally scroll through he dates using the hour and days.
https://zoom.earth/#view=-55.22,-33.635,7z/date=2020-12-20,1...
https://zoom.earth/#view=-55.849,-35.645,7z/date=2020-12-21,...
https://www.windy.com/-Satellite-satellite?satellite,-55.933...
I bet most people have never conceived of a mass of ice this size colliding with anything. Watching it unfold should be captivating and unsettling.
As bad as this is, there's probably more to come.
Multiple mechanisms.
More like a really slow, flat comet!
(and no, an iceberg is NOT anything like a hurricane, which is a heat engine phenomena -- you can definitely shatter an iceberg)
Trump recently asked if nukes could be used for disrupting hurricanes, and the answer was resoundingly no.
(Perhaps space-beamed microwaves, but there's an issue of scale and interaction with the ozone.)
Perhaps check out 'Seveneves' by Neal Stephenson for a (fictional) look at why shattering large things isn't always a good idea.
So basically instead of letting an ice sheet disrupt the ecosystem across many thousands of square km, you think it would be better to nuke many thousands of square km of ecosystem. Huh.
[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25495063
"As of 17 December 2020, a part of the iceberg was just 50 km (31 mi) from South Georgia, but the concern seemed to have lessened. National Geographic reported that "[s]cientists expect the iceberg ... to either anchor in the shallow waters around the island or move past it in the coming days." On this date it was also reported that a corner had been knocked off A-68A, most likely due to impact with the seabed. The new free floating iceberg has been designated A-68D."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iceberg_A-68
It's also a bit late at this point. The time to get things done was years ago.
But an iceberg has a profound impact on the ocean ecosystem its melting into. This enormous iceberg is having a continuous impact, for better or for worse, just by existing.