Kind of crazy, but I wonder if it could some how be towed back and tied to the main shelf to avoid it melting quickly once it reaches warm water.
Very slowly, and by nudging it into prevailing winds and currents [1]. Definitely within our capability to move it. Not sure if it is worth it to keep it there.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/science/2005/mar/31/thisweekssci...
Shame it isn't as simple as hoisting a huge sail on it.
That doesn’t make it lighter, i.e less subject to inertia. It just means you don’t have to contend with surface friction forces in a non-drag way.
But ya the fact that it already broke off means we have bigger things to worry about than one specific iceberg
Ice melting decreases albedo causing increased warming. Keeping it at the pole keeps it from melting.
Melting at the pole will result in ice that is current sitting on land moving to water, significantly increasing ocean level. Replacing a trillion tonnes of ice with a trillion tonnes of water at the pole, even assuming both are at exactly 0C, introduces a lot of energy to the system (333 quintillion joules, aka 333 exajoules. Wolfram alpha helpfully tells me this is about the total amount of solar energy that hits the earth in ~30 minutes, or 0.93x the total human energy consumption in 2010). It stands to reason that introducing that much additional energy to the antarctic system will increase ice melt and the chance/amount of ice sliding off of land into water.
The fine article includes some comments about how this big chunk of ice could get in the way of ecosystems.
Ultimately I doubt we can stop a trillion ton glacier from doing what it wants without expending absurd amounts of energy (to our detriment). But if we could snap our fingers and keep it where it is, I'm pretty sure we should.
Also as already observed, melting of icecaps over the landmasses does not displace water as its over landmass.
Also ice regulates ocean drifts.
All of it is a cause for concers
I'm not sure what would be capable of moving that :) https://www.esa.int/ESA_Multimedia/Images/2021/01/In_perspec...
With all that water vapor that would enter the atmosphere and increase the albedo, we’d probably solve climate change for a few generations too.
You realize excess water vapor = rain right? I have heard people say stuff like that before but I never understood the disconnect where they think throwing water into the air will somehow not result in it coming down within days or weeks.
We can just use a chain of nukes to make sure it makes it even higher beyond the troposphere.
Pushing water higher isn’t going to change anything here. Updrafts from major storms can dump a lot of water in the stratosphere, but it doesn’t stay there for long.
Heavier the molecule and the lower it stays. You only see oxygen and a little carbon dioxide at the base of the exosphere, it’s mostly hydrogen and helium.
(I’ve been reading r/VXJunkies)
1: https://www.reddit.com/r/space/comments/11lyo2i/superheavyst...
A better idea, if you can tow it, is to tow it to one of the gulf states or somewhere else with a severe potable water shortage.
And the rope required to secure it is for SURE beyond mankind's capability.
This thing is larger than some of the worlds largest cities! Even a nuclear bomb would not destroy it.
Hopefully no one gets space dementia.
The guesstimated answers needed to consider how many ships and how much fuel would be required to tow it, losses due to melting, and storage/use once it arrives at it's "destination".