Doom: NASA Predicts Loss Of Larsen B Ice Shelf By 2020

Will we be able to place this in the long list of failed Warmist/Enviroweenie prognostications? Will NASA post a “whoops! We were wrong” press release if it doesn’t come to pass? (note: the 2020 date is contained in the CNN headline, while the study says this will “likely” happen by the end of the decade)

(CNN) One of the last remaining sections of Antarctica’s Larsen B Ice Shelf is dramatically weakening, according to a new NASA study.

The study predicts that what remains of the once-prominent ice shelf, a thick floating platform of ice, most likely will “disintegrate completely” before the end of this decade

Ice shelves are extensions of glaciers and function as barriers. Their disappearance means glaciers potentially will diminish more quickly, as well, increasing the pace at which global sea levels rise.

Obviously, CNN and NASA are turning this into a “climate change” issue, with both dinking and dunking around the edges of Blamestorming, essentially portraying this in a manner to suggest, rather than the typical unhingedness from the Cult of Climastrology.

A team led by Ala Khazendar of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California, found evidence of the ice shelf flowing faster and becoming more fragmented. The flow is creating large cracks in the ice shelf.

“These are warning signs that the remnant is disintegrating,” Khazendar said in a NASA press release. “Although it’s fascinating scientifically to have a front-row seat to watch the ice shelf becoming unstable and breaking up, it’s bad news for our planet.”

This is all blamed on a warming world, which, in reality land, is nothing new during the Holocene, but, of course, we are meant to assume that this is all caused by Mankind and “carbon pollution”. Strangely, neither the CNN nor NASA articles mention the active volcanoes underneath.

NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory glaciologist Eric Rignot, who co-authored the paper, said the research gives insight into how ice shelves closer to the South Pole will react with the warming climate.

“What is really surprising about Larsen B is how quickly the changes are taking place,” Khazendar said. “Change has been relentless.”

Soft-selling the DOOM!!!!!!! of “climate change”, without even once discussing the natural processes that have always occurred.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

13 Responses to “Doom: NASA Predicts Loss Of Larsen B Ice Shelf By 2020”

  1. John says:

    Climate truthers used to say and you reported here yhst global cooling was going to begin in 2012
    Of course the harmful/fatal effects of climate change will fall as the Pope has said. On the most vulnerable of humans
    SoTeach when it does happen it will not bring doom to your own life only to others
    How often have you accused Obama of being narcisstic?

  2. Jeffery says:

    from the NASA release:

    This ice shelf has existed for at least 10,000 years, and soon it will be gone.

    That would cover the Holocene that Teach claims have had “much warmer” periods. Much warmer periods, yet not warm enough to cause the collapse of the ice shelf, except now. Strange.

    Here’s the only mention of global warming in the release:

    “This study of the Antarctic Peninsula glaciers provides insights about how ice shelves farther south, which hold much more land ice, will react to a warming climate,” said JPL glaciologist Eric Rignot, a coauthor of the paper.

  3. Dana says:

    Jeffrey wrote:

    This ice shelf has existed for at least 10,000 years, and soon it will be gone.

    That would cover the Holocene that Teach claims have had “much warmer” periods. Much warmer periods, yet not warm enough to cause the collapse of the ice shelf, except now. Strange.

    And if it isn’t gone by the end of 2020? What will this mean to you?

  4. Kevin says:

    It was a mistake for them to say it will happen by the end of the decade. They should have said it will happen by the end of the century. That way they’d be dead before anyone could prove that they are, collectively, an idiot.

  5. Liam Thomas says:

    I am totally up for the entire discontinuation of fossil fuel use. No more. None. Zip.

    Lets rid this planet of that evil and go back to plowing the land with sticks.

    We have to. We just do. If we dont completely stop the use of fossil fuels and transfer all our money to the UN who will use it wisely and efficiently this planet will surely meet its demise.

    The Warmists are right. Plowing fields, melting Ice, driving cars, forest fires, volcanoes, and a myraid of other things that release co2 is just flat wrong.

    Its only Massive windmill farms covering every square inch of the planet and solar panels covering that which windmills cant touch will we ever be safe.

    We must rid ourselves of cars, boats, planes, trucks, tractors, combines, motorcycles, Factories, and any other thing that would or could use fossil fuels.

    We must……we will surely die…the oceans will rise 100’s of feet and we will all be submerged….

    But…if we just build a billion windmills and a trillion solar panels in the next few years we can be spared all this……

    Its up to you guys…..I dont know Im pretty sure that the AGW crowd has it right…..we are surely all going to die if we dont hand over our money to the IPCC and return to the 15th century.

  6. I wondered if Jeff or John would bite on the 10k thing. They missed that the shelf had previously broken up post-glacial period, then reformed around 10k years ago. What caused the previous collapse? What caused the breakup of Larsen A 4000 years ago, then seeing it reform?

    If you say it was nature then, why can’t it be nature now?

  7. Jeffery says:

    The stability of the ice shelves depend on the local conditions at the time. Warmer waters are causing the loss of Larsen B. It could be nature now, but it is more likely to be the warmer waters there. Remember, the oceans are warming too.

    Laim,

    I disagree with your prescriptions. To “rid ourselves of cars, boats, planes, trucks, tractors, combines, motorcycles, Factories, and any other thing that would or could use fossil fuels” without a reasonable alternative would be foolish.

  8. Liam Thomas says:

    I disagree with your prescriptions. To “rid ourselves of cars, boats, planes, trucks, tractors, combines, motorcycles, Factories, and any other thing that would or could use fossil fuels” without a reasonable alternative would be foolish.

    At least you and I can agree on that however the latest workshop of which I quoted is stating that is precisely what we should do by stating that we need a zero sum fossil fuel future in the coming few decades.

  9. Dana says:

    I agree: we should eliminate the use of fossil fuels . . . when we have the technology and it is practical to do so. But we don’t have the technology now, and it is wholly impractical, and I am very much opposed to the notion that we should impose greater costs on people for using the only forms of fuel which are reasonable and practical today.

  10. Jeffery says:

    So we all agree that we should transition from fossil fuels. How do we do that? We stop subsidizing fossil fuels for starters.

    But a question for Deniers who think we should transition: Why? If global warming is a hoax why should we be concerned about CO2 emissions?

  11. Liam Thomas says:

    But a question for Deniers who think we should transition: Why? If global warming is a hoax why should we be concerned about CO2 emissions?

    Gotcha questions are so lame and even lamer when coming from someone who pretends to be “Intelligent” and have all the answers.

    We shouldn’t be. The only thing Fossil fuels are doing is releasing back into the atmosphere that which was already here. We can neither create nor destroy matter.

    Co2 is not a problem. Our planet is healthiest when it has ample co2. Without CO2 our plants die. Without warmth our plant life dies. Without plants…..mankind dies.

    But the AGW crowd wants to eliminate fossil fuels totally because it evens up the playing field for poor nations. As in poor nations have wind and sunshine. So because progressives are anti- big business they are all for the destruction of fossil fuels. Destroying fossil fuels simply destroys several countries wealth and more importantly it destroys capitalism.

    Despite all this I have no problem with alternatives….if only it would help poorer nations become a bit richer….I want us all to be rich and prosperous….UNLIKE the AGW crowd that wants us to all go back to plowing with sticks and revisiting 15 century Europe.

  12. Dana says:

    Jeffrey deflects:

    But a question for Deniers who think we should transition: Why? If global warming is a hoax why should we be concerned about CO2 emissions?

    It’s obvious: whether global warming is true or not, burning hydrocarbons still produces other pollutants with which we have to deal. Coal burning power plants, for instance, produce flyash and bottom ash wastes, which have to be hauled off, or, in the case of flyash, some of it recycled in concrete.

    And fossil fuels will eventually run out; it makes sense to try to develop alternatives before that happens.

    But there’s a real difference between reasonable development of alternative energy sources, and the Chicken Littles running around telling us that the sky is falling.

    What we see in all of this is not science, but politics, a political position being taken by the left to impose higher taxes and more government control on everybody, because the left are just so certain that they are smarter than the rest of us, and they know what’s best for us. The quaint notions of freedom and liberty just scare the Hell out of them!

  13. Liam Thomas says:

    And fossil fuels will eventually run out; it makes sense to try to develop alternatives before that happens.

    I agree with this. I really have nothing against alternatives at all. Im all on board as long as your not turning out my lights and forcing me to eat rations because we cant feed our own people.

    A rational transition to alternatives is good. Ending subsidies to oil companies is acceptable by me….and I think with the massive fracking thats now coming online that the subsidies in the past helped offset the exorbitant costs of finding new oil.

    The rush to find new oil is not nearly as important now. Im all for those subsidies going to infrastructure spending.

    Im opposed to funding alternatives because in the end all that means is a democrat funding his rich lobbyists who could give a flying flip about making alternatives….they just want a hand in the pie.

Bad Behavior has blocked 11384 access attempts in the last 7 days.