Climate Change - The Scientific Debate

[Silver Smudger]

ViperPict said:

No such thing as climate change...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hC3VTgIPoGU

Apologies if posted before but utterly awesome - in the proper sense of the word!

Don't think anyone here thinks that climate does not change - What does this video prove?

[ViperPict]

Silver Smudger said:

ViperPict said:

No such thing as climate change...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hC3VTgIPoGU

Apologies if posted before but utterly awesome - in the proper sense of the word!

Don't think anyone here thinks that climate does not change - What does this video prove?

It proves we are in a historically extreme state of climate change.

Without solar activity being responsible.

Without volcanic activity being responsible.

Without interactive orbital phenomena being responsible.

Just saying...

[Silver Smudger]

ViperPict said:

Silver Smudger said:

ViperPict said:

No such thing as climate change...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hC3VTgIPoGU

Apologies if posted before but utterly awesome - in the proper sense of the word!

Don't think anyone here thinks that climate does not change - What does this video prove?

It proves we are in a historically extreme state of climate change.

Without solar activity being responsible.

Without volcanic activity being responsible.

Without interactive orbital phenomena being responsible.

Just saying...

Those two sentences at the end prove all that?
That is just a statement that ice has moved at two different rates in the same century, how on earth do you justify the words 'historically extreme' based on that?

[ViperPict]

Silver Smudger said:

ViperPict said:

Silver Smudger said:

ViperPict said:

No such thing as climate change...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hC3VTgIPoGU

Apologies if posted before but utterly awesome - in the proper sense of the word!

Don't think anyone here thinks that climate does not change - What does this video prove?

It proves we are in a historically extreme state of climate change.

Without solar activity being responsible.

Without volcanic activity being responsible.

Without interactive orbital phenomena being responsible.

Just saying...

Those two sentences at the end prove all that?
That is just a statement that ice has moved at two different rates in the same century, how on earth do you justify the words 'historically extreme' based on that?

It is unequivocally historically extreme - in recorded history, the glacier has retreated extremely rapidly in the most recent period. There is no argument to that. Note that the vast proportion of glaciers around the world are also in a state of rapid retreat, especially in the last 20 years.

[ViperPict]

Silver Smudger said:

ViperPict said:

Silver Smudger said:

ViperPict said:

No such thing as climate change...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hC3VTgIPoGU

Apologies if posted before but utterly awesome - in the proper sense of the word!

Don't think anyone here thinks that climate does not change - What does this video prove?

It proves we are in a historically extreme state of climate change.

Without solar activity being responsible.

Without volcanic activity being responsible.

Without interactive orbital phenomena being responsible.

Just saying...

Those two sentences at the end prove all that?
That is just a statement that ice has moved at two different rates in the same century, how on earth do you justify the words 'historically extreme' based on that?

It is unequivocally historically extreme - in recorded history, the glacier has retreated extremely rapidly in the most recent period. There is no argument to that. Note that the vast proportion of glaciers around the world are also in a state of rapid retreat, especially in the last 20 years.

Also, that is technically an 'ice stream' (the flows that 'drain' from ice sheets), much more significant than a glacier. It potentially signifies the collapse of the earth's second biggest mass of ice. Scary stuff. Especially if you live in Somerset or Norfolk.

Edited by ViperPict on Sunday 29th March 14:15

[Silver Smudger]

"A glacier does not start out as a glacier... In polar regions, where annual snowfall isgenerally very low because the air is too cold to hold much moisture, it may take snow about 1,000 years to turn into ice."

...but the last 100 of those years is all you need to worry about?

[ViperPict]

Silver Smudger said:

"A glacier does not start out as a glacier... In polar regions, where annual snowfall isgenerally very low because the air is too cold to hold much moisture, it may take snow about 1,000 years to turn into ice."

...but the last 100 of those years is all you need to worry about?

Is it not therefore worrying that ice sheets are losing mass at such high rates when they can only accumulate ice at very low rates?

[Silver Smudger]

What is there about the events described in this video that is worrying? As compared to the behavior of this glacier before 100 years ago, when the rise of man's influence is supposed to have disrupted the climate in such a dramatic way?
And remember, this is the Scientific Debate thread, so show your working ...

[ViperPict]

Silver Smudger said:

What is there about the events described in this video that is worrying? As compared to the behavior of this glacier before 100 years ago, when the rise of man's influence is supposed to have disrupted the climate in such a dramatic way?
And remember, this is the Scientific Debate thread, so show your working ...

The fact that an ice stream is calving at it's ocean terminus at such a high rate IS concerning in itself. The fact that it is doing so at an increasing rate is even more concerning. Do you have data for what the glacier did more than 100 years ago? No? Then we can only look at the data that there is. Explain to me why you think this is NOT alarming? What benign factors are causing it's rate of retreat to accelerate so much in the last 20 or so years (along with the majority of glaciers around the world)?

[Silver Smudger]

ViperPict said:

Silver Smudger said:

What is there about the events described in this video that is worrying? As compared to the behavior of this glacier before 100 years ago, when the rise of man's influence is supposed to have disrupted the climate in such a dramatic way?
And remember, this is the Scientific Debate thread, so show your working ...

The fact that an ice stream is calving at it's ocean terminus at such a high rate IS concerning in itself. The fact that it is doing so at an increasing rate is even more concerning. Do you have data for what the glacier did more than 100 years ago? No? Then we can only look at the data that there is. Explain to me why you think this is NOT alarming? What benign factors are causing it's rate of retreat to accelerate so much in the last 20 or so years (along with the majority of glaciers around the world)?

Without any data before 100 years ago, are you just assuming that the slow rate of calving is normal and the faster rate is bad - With no evidence at all?

With no other data for the last thousand years, we could be looking at a freak slow-down 100 years ago and a return to normal calving rate now - We have no idea either way!

So why is it alarming?

No reason at all, just another 'OMG! PANIIIIC!' post with no backup in science

[2013BRM]

ViperPict said:

Silver Smudger said:

What is there about the events described in this video that is worrying? As compared to the behavior of this glacier before 100 years ago, when the rise of man's influence is supposed to have disrupted the climate in such a dramatic way?
And remember, this is the Scientific Debate thread, so show your working ...

The fact that an ice stream is calving at it's ocean terminus at such a high rate IS concerning in itself. The fact that it is doing so at an increasing rate is even more concerning. Do you have data for what the glacier did more than 100 years ago? No? Then we can only look at the data that there is. Explain to me why you think this is NOT alarming? What benign factors are causing it's rate of retreat to accelerate so much in the last 20 or so years (along with the majority of glaciers around the world)?

many years ago there were no glaciers at all, was that alarming?

[Jinx]

ViperPict said:

The fact that an ice stream is calving at it's ocean terminus at such a high rate IS concerning in itself. The fact that it is doing so at an increasing rate is even more concerning. Do you have data for what the glacier did more than 100 years ago? No? Then we can only look at the data that there is. Explain to me why you think this is NOT alarming? What benign factors are causing it's rate of retreat to accelerate so much in the last 20 or so years (along with the majority of glaciers around the world)?

And how does a slight increase in global average atmospheric temperatures cause such a thing? Or could it be we are measuring something that we were unable to measure before (think ozone concentration) .

[ViperPict]

Silver Smudger said:

ViperPict said:

Silver Smudger said:

What is there about the events described in this video that is worrying? As compared to the behavior of this glacier before 100 years ago, when the rise of man's influence is supposed to have disrupted the climate in such a dramatic way?
And remember, this is the Scientific Debate thread, so show your working ...

The fact that an ice stream is calving at it's ocean terminus at such a high rate IS concerning in itself. The fact that it is doing so at an increasing rate is even more concerning. Do you have data for what the glacier did more than 100 years ago? No? Then we can only look at the data that there is. Explain to me why you think this is NOT alarming? What benign factors are causing it's rate of retreat to accelerate so much in the last 20 or so years (along with the majority of glaciers around the world)?

Without any data before 100 years ago, are you just assuming that the slow rate of calving is normal and the faster rate is bad - With no evidence at all?

With no other data for the last thousand years, we could be looking at a freak slow-down 100 years ago and a return to normal calving rate now - We have no idea either way!

So why is it alarming?

No reason at all, just another 'OMG! PANIIIIC!' post with no backup in science

So we should raise an eyebrow?! Is that seriously what you are saying?!

And Quaternary science has reasonable confidence in reconstructing pre-historic glacier/ ice sheet extents, other than with direct observation (e.g. geomorphological mapping, analysis of drop stone data, O18 analysis etc, coupled with an array of dating techniques). It is clear that glacier rates of retreat currently observed are high relative to anything that has occurred since the Younger Dryas (perhaps greater than that even).

We should be worried.

[Silver Smudger]

ViperPict said:

And Quaternary science has reasonable confidence in reconstructing pre-historic glacier/ ice sheet extents, other than with direct observation (e.g. geomorphological mapping, analysis of drop stone data, O18 analysis etc, coupled with an array of dating techniques). It is clear that glacier rates of retreat currently observed are high relative to anything that has occurred since the Younger Dryas

or

ViperPict said:

Do you have data for what the glacier did more than 100 years ago? No? Then we can only look at the data that there is.

So which is it - Data or no data?

and may I just ask again -

Silver Smudger said:

What does this video prove?

[ViperPict]

Silver Smudger said:

ViperPict said:

And Quaternary science has reasonable confidence in reconstructing pre-historic glacier/ ice sheet extents, other than with direct observation (e.g. geomorphological mapping, analysis of drop stone data, O18 analysis etc, coupled with an array of dating techniques). It is clear that glacier rates of retreat currently observed are high relative to anything that has occurred since the Younger Dryas

or

ViperPict said:

Do you have data for what the glacier did more than 100 years ago? No? Then we can only look at the data that there is.

So which is it - Data or no data?

and may I just ask again -

Silver Smudger said:

What does this video prove?

Short of an extensive literature search, you and I have the evidence of the video at hand for this specific ice stream. Dig deeper and you will find academic mapping studies of historical reconstruction of the past position of the ice. But the point is that, round the world, reconstructive data shows a consistent pattern of very accelerated retreat of ice in historical compared to pre-historical times.

I ask again, does the data that just this video shows not raise an eyebrow with you at all?

And, given that you demand a scientific debate, what are your qualifications for debating on Quaternary science?

[ViperPict]

2013BRM said:

ViperPict said:

Silver Smudger said:

What is there about the events described in this video that is worrying? As compared to the behavior of this glacier before 100 years ago, when the rise of man's influence is supposed to have disrupted the climate in such a dramatic way?
And remember, this is the Scientific Debate thread, so show your working ...

The fact that an ice stream is calving at it's ocean terminus at such a high rate IS concerning in itself. The fact that it is doing so at an increasing rate is even more concerning. Do you have data for what the glacier did more than 100 years ago? No? Then we can only look at the data that there is. Explain to me why you think this is NOT alarming? What benign factors are causing it's rate of retreat to accelerate so much in the last 20 or so years (along with the majority of glaciers around the world)?

many years ago there were no glaciers at all, was that alarming?

When were there no glaciers at all, exactly?

[rovermorris999]

Whatever the glaciers may or may not be doing I have yet to see a demonstrated causal link to CO2, man-made or otherwise. Keep turning that handle though!

[ViperPict]

rovermorris999 said:

Whatever the glaciers may or may not be doing I have yet to see a demonstrated causal link to CO2, man-made or otherwise. Keep turning that handle though!

I think you misuse the term 'causal link'...

[rovermorris999]

You should be on the stage!

[ViperPict]

rovermorris999 said:

You should be on the stage!

So what do you mean, specifically?

The mechanism is even available from a Wiki search...