Global Warming: Do I ever mind your cross?

[tServo]

Originally Posted by Dr Sardonicus

These don't seem to have done the trick:

Larsen B (2002) 1700+ km²

A-76 (2021) 4320 km²

Would you like to supersize that?

OK, I guess we need something like Thwaites Glacier: 120,000 sq km.

Goldfinger may not be needed as it may break free by 2030:
https://www.newscientist.com/article...thin-a-decade/

[storm5510]

I have read and watched a lot about the Thwaites Glacier. In a documentary I saw, it was said that the glacier is being held in place by a single rocky ridge way down deep. Researchers placed a temperature and depth sensing device on the head of a Sea Lion hoping it would dive down to the bottom under the glacier, which it eventually did. The water temperature was 3° warmer. Relative to what, they did not say. At some point down the road, it could break away from the continent and float with the currents and melt as it goes along.

[Dr Sardonicus]

There's a web site run by The International Thwaites Glacier Collaboration which may be of interest, in particular the page About the Science. The News & Events page might also be worth looking at.

[storm5510]

Originally Posted by Dr Sardonicus

These don't seem to have done the trick:

Larsen B (2002) 1700+ km²

A-76 (2021) 4320 km²

Would you like to supersize that?

The above describes the surface area on which a person could stand. The rocky ridge I wrote about which Thwaites is resting on, it is thousands of feet down, four or six, I cannot remember. A person could do a rough calculation of the volume of ice it contains. From an environmental aspect, this would certainly be important if the entire thing breaks away and begins to travel into warmer water.

[Dr Sardonicus]

Originally Posted by Uncwilly

When the consumer does not understand the nomenclature.....
https://www.fastcompany.com/40583176/climate-positive-carbon-neutral-carbon-negative-what-do-they-mean
<snip>

Carbon positive is sometimes how organizations describe the previous two definitions. It's mainly a marketing term, and understandably confusing - we generally avoid it.

"A marketing term." That's the problem right there.

Bill Hicks had the right idea about advertising and marketing...

[Uncwilly]

If you are obtaining carbon and keeping it, that is net + carbon for you.

[kriesel]

Sheep are ruminant ungulates, so emit methane, ~23g/day/head. That's a much more effective greenhouse gas per mole than CO₂. Selective breeders are working on reducing that unwanted output. https://www.agric.wa.gov.au/climate-...hane-emissions

[tServo]

Originally Posted by kriesel

Sheep are ruminant ungulates, so emit methane, ~23g/day/head. That's a much more effective greenhouse gas per mole than CO₂. Selective breeders are working on reducing that unwanted output. https://www.agric.wa.gov.au/climate-...hane-emissions

I have also been recently reading and hearing about domesticated animal methane production. Most of the literature I saw was focused on dairy cows and beef cattle. Interestingly, for those animals, it's not their poop or farts that is the biggest problem but rather their belches. Their complex stomachs do a lot of fermentation of their feed.

A particular cow feed lot was measured from space and calculated to release 5,000 tons of methane per year.
https://www.space.com/cow-burps-meth...climate-change

[Uncwilly]

https://caes.ucdavis.edu/news/feeding-cattle-seaweed-reduces-their-greenhouse-gas-emissions-82-percent