This Antarctic glacier dramatically retreated. Then, its ice shelf totally collapsed (satellite image)

Dec 27, 2022
17
2
15
Visit site
There's no way they can separate whatever's special about this glacier that made it do what it did even though it's neighbors did not behave the same way from natural shifts in climate (because didn't most of these glaciers form kind of around the same time) and then human causes.

Any separation they're making is going to be ridiculous speculation. Because by their own admission they don't understand it. And as it stands, they're always finding new variables that have to do with this type of thing. So it's just stupid to me every time I see them just throw it in when there's not yet a justification for it. Just a base assumption that it's climate change. Like what if it's not. What if it's not this time
 
Nov 29, 2023
2
0
10
Visit site
By the article's own admission, this particular glacier is an edge case that is not representative of the majority of glaciers in Antarctica. If I were more skeptical of the bias in scientific publications regarding climate change I would be inclined to conclude that the researches of this were cherry picking a glacier to fit their preconceived conclusions.
 
Dec 1, 2023
1
0
10
Visit site
...and Nero played the fiddle while Rome burned.
I cannot understand willful ignorance. I get that people who have their money wrapped up in an industry that contributes to global warming will go to their death denying it's existence. But the other 2 commenters here for example - do they just enjoy being contrary? I would guess it's simple stupidity but I assume most people reading here are above average intelligence..? Well, apparently I'm probably not because I can't understand why some people are so adamant about their denial of the reality of global warming.
 
Nov 29, 2023
2
0
10
Visit site
...and Nero played the fiddle while Rome burned.
I cannot understand willful ignorance. I get that people who have their money wrapped up in an industry that contributes to global warming will go to their death denying it's existence. But the other 2 commenters here for example - do they just enjoy being contrary? I would guess it's simple stupidity but I assume most people reading here are above average intelligence..? Well, apparently I'm probably not because I can't understand why some people are so adamant about their denial of the reality of global warming.
Glaciers retract and proceed as part of their natural processes. It's called 'calving'. The only way to show that calving is connected to global climate change is if it were part of a wide scale and long term trend. This study and the article makes no such connection but does imply conclusions about global warming that are pure unsubstantiated claims. There is nothing ignorant or stupid about critical analysis of such. That is part of the scientific method actually. At least you can admit that you don't understand criticism of claims of global warming. That is a good starting point for doing your own research and beginning the process of learning instead of just parroting your belief in something.
 
Dec 1, 2023
1
0
10
Visit site
As a retired academic I have looked at one side vs the other arguments about "climate change", its causes, it's trends etc. It's obvious that this is another propaganda effort by the inventors of the covid scam. Human activity, compared to the impact of volcanic activity, the oceans, decomposing organic matter the world over does not impact CO2 levels. But then, CO2 levels FOLLOW, changes in temperature by more or less 800 years. So let's please shelve CO2 as an argument for a "green" economy, net zero bollocks etc. It's all nonsense. We need more CO2 because it makes plants grow really well. Climate changes over hundreds of years, but rather thousands. Less than that is weather, not climate. Climate changes due to all things out of human control, namely our path around the sun, solar activity, clouds etc. I'll stop here. All not as simple as I tried to represent here I know because climate is so complex and multi-faceted that climatologists, physicists etc acknowledge that we don't know how it works yet and therefore all those computer models are just attempts at trying to figure things out but they're basically useless. Let's focus on real science, truthful academic activity rather than paid for alarmist reports to politicians by academic prostitutes.
 
While I agree that climate is changing, and I believe that humans are having an effect on that change, I think the discussions of how much effect humans are having and how much we can control it are not realistic.

For one thing, just looking at the geological evidence tells us that the sea level in previous interglacial periods reached higher levels than exist today. So, even if humans are having no effect on sea level rise, it would still be stupid to assume that natural progression of this interglacial would not result in higher sea level. The peak sea level in the previous interglacial was about 25 feet higher than sea level is today. We need to recognize that sea level is definitely going to increase in our future, and start planning to live with that reality.

For another thing, the geological evidence is that CO2 levels in the atmosphere are related to climate is pretty clear. There were no ice ages when it was higher than when there were ice ages, looking over the last several million years. So, it is not inconceivable that human caused emissions of CO2 have altered the climate to preclude more ice ages in the future.

However, that does not mean that climate will not continue to change. The Milankovitch Cycles surely will continue to affect climate. And, we really still don't understand exactly how Earth's climate actually changes with those cycles. There seem to be changes in atmospheric and oceanic circulation that cause swings in climate to be amplified, But, last time I checked, we still don't have climate models that can "back cast" the ice ages we have geological records of so as to match that geological data. So, we really don't have models that are "proven" with respect to how climate actually changes.

So what I take from articles like this is that they are exploring the "how" and "how fast" aspects of the climate modeling efforts.

Those are what is really unknown. I would bet large money that sea level is going to rise by 25 feet or more in our future, but I would not bet a dime on a schedule for that to happen. (So I do not expect to live long enough to collect on any such bets.)
 

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts