mewo2

There's a big difference between average temperatures and peak temperatures. On Larsen C, we regularly measure localised temperatures in excess of 10˚C for days at a time. That's enough for some serious melt.

Also, surface melt is only half the story. The base of the ice is in contact with the ocean, which is also warming. Water in contact with ice is (more or less by definition) at the freezing/melting point - if it warms, the ice melts a bit, if it cools, the water freezes. So a change in ocean temperatures can have a big effect on melt rates.

Finally, it's not enough that the shelf be in equilibrium, melt-wise. The ice is constantly thinning, as it stretches and flows under its own weight. There needs to be enough extra mass added (mostly as snow) to compensate for that, if the shelf is to remain a constant thickness.

For some context on size, the calving event in this video is about 7 cubic kilometers. The Larsen C berg will be about 1000 cubic kilometers. On the other hand, this berg is overturning, so the calving is, to put it mildly, quite energetic (equivalent to a couple of hundred kilotons of TNT). The Larsen C berg will just drift away in a much less dramatic fashion.

What that bit is referring to is that the ice shelf has been thinning as a result of climate change. The temperatures on the Antarctic Peninsula have increased by about 3˚C (5˚F) over the past half century or so, which is a huge change to the climate of a region.

Unlikely, it's hard for these things to get close to the coast - remember that the base is several hundred meters below sea level, so it will ground if it gets into even remotely shallow water. More likely it'll break up, and bits will wander off into the South Atlantic and Indian oceans.

I think you might need to recalibrate your idea of the scale of this object. The iceberg weighs about a trillion (10^12) tons. For comparison, a Nimitz-class aircraft carrier is about a hundred thousand (10^5) tons. So you're talking about moving an object which weighs about a million times as much as the whole US Navy carrier fleet.

Then, once you had it back into position, you'd need to apply your "glue" to the whole crack surface, which is around 40 square kilometers, a little smaller than Manhattan Island. Also, the majority of that crack surface is hundreds of meters deep in sub-zero waters in one of the most inaccessible places on the planet.

Then, once you've done that, the same forces which caused this bit to calve off would cause a new bit to calve a year or two later.

Yeah, once these things are moving, you don't need much resolution to see them - we're talking about objects several kilometers wide, at the very least. Easily visible on even the most primitive satellite imagery. The difficulties would be cloud cover and orbital inclination.

I think there are some microorganisms in the snowpack, but other than that it's a pretty barren place, at least above the water. Below, a lot of sea life congregates around the ice front - there are nutrients that melt out of the ice - and this supports an ecosystem, but that should all just move to the new ice front. The iceberg itself will probably support a small marine ecosystem as it floats away and melts.

I'm not an ecologist though, so I'm hazy on the details.

Yes, the edges are impressive, aren't they? The ice is floating, almost flat, and has had hundreds of years to reach equilibrium, so there's practically zero vertical shear stress in the ice shelf. As well as that, the ice itself is very laterally homogeneous - there are layers within it, but all the horizontal variability is on scales of kilometers or more. There are no particular faults or planes of weakness within the material. This means that when it breaks under tension, like this, it breaks in a very clean and even way.

Also, remember, you're only seeing the top 10% or so of the berg. There can be interesting shapes below the waterline, caused by preferential melting.

As for the glaciers feeding the shelf, that's an interesting question. Floating ice on its own provides very little resistance to their flow, but the mouth of the ice shelf is narrower than the back, so the converging flow has a resistive effect, like squeezing toothpaste out of a tube. If a gap is made in the ice blocking the mouth, then there should be some speedup of the glaciers. It all depends on exactly where the rift goes next, and on the exact balance of stresses in the shelf, which there's some uncertainty about.