Climate Change - The Scientific Debate

[rovermorris999]

Comedy is your forte.

[Silver Smudger]

ViperPict said:

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?

Assume I, as a viewer of this clip, know nothing about Quaternary science and have taken no particular side in the climate debate -

So you posted the video with the comment 'No such thing as climate change...', which shows a very dramatic calving event, and commentary states that it is much more dramatic now than it was at a previous time.

There is no attempt at explaining why this might be different, no data to give a bigger picture of the life of a glacier - No attempt at linking this event in a scientific way to co2 emissions or man's part in this - No reasoned attempt at explaining anything at all, just a 'Wooo! Scary! We are doomed!' headline-grabbing event.

Not really very convincing, is it? So what was the point of posting this video in this (scientific) thread?

[ViperPict]

Silver Smudger said:

ViperPict said:

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?

Assume I, as a viewer of this clip, know nothing about Quaternary science and have taken no particular side in the climate debate -

So you posted the video with the comment 'No such thing as climate change...', which shows a very dramatic calving event, and commentary states that it is much more dramatic now than it was at a previous time.

There is no attempt at explaining why this might be different, no data to give a bigger picture of the life of a glacier - No attempt at linking this event in a scientific way to co2 emissions or man's part in this - No reasoned attempt at explaining anything at all, just a 'Wooo! Scary! We are doomed!' headline-grabbing event.

Not really very convincing, is it? So what was the point of posting this video in this (scientific) thread?

I am going on the assumption that anyone reading this 'scientific' thread would appreciate the genuine significance of such a massive (and it is, even if you need the commentary on the film to tell you!) calving event. Evidently I can't make such assumptions with folk coming at this with such little background knowledge.

[Silver Smudger]

So the video tells nothing at all, because either I should have this information already, or I cannot understand the significance because it is not explained.

Am I the only person to have seen this video and not instantly grasped that surely this is a sign of imminent catastrophe? Should I be able to see, in this message, that Climate Change is at once real, and man-made and terrifying?

Was all this there for me in this video, yet I am unable to grasp this truth?

[mondeoman]

ViperPict said:

When were there no glaciers at all, exactly?

We currently live in an “icehouse” — a climate in which large continental ice sheets exist, in this case at both poles. The onset of this icehouse began in Antarctica 34 million years ago and in the Arctic about 2 million years ago. The latter stages of human evolution occurred in this bipolar icehouse, and human civilization unfolded during the relatively stable, most recent interglacial phase of this icehouse (the glacial times are popularly known as ice ages). This particular climate state, however, represents only a fraction of 1 percent of Earth’s history. Thus, humans evolved during, and are adapted to, an atypical climate state.

[ViperPict]

mondeoman said:

ViperPict said:

When were there no glaciers at all, exactly?

We currently live in an “icehouse” — a climate in which large continental ice sheets exist, in this case at both poles. The onset of this icehouse began in Antarctica 34 million years ago and in the Arctic about 2 million years ago. The latter stages of human evolution occurred in this bipolar icehouse, and human civilization unfolded during the relatively stable, most recent interglacial phase of this icehouse (the glacial times are popularly known as ice ages). This particular climate state, however, represents only a fraction of 1 percent of Earth’s history. Thus, humans evolved during, and are adapted to, an atypical climate state.

Actually, it is the correct use of the term 'Ice Age' to describe a tectonically-driven (i.e. through land-mass over one or both of the poles) condition of the earth having a relatively high proportion of water stored as ice. Within this Ice Age, we are in an anomalously ice-free condition (interglacial) - 80% of the time in an Ice Age there are large ice sheets over North America and Scandinavia (a glacial period). There have been at least 26 interglacials during this Ice Age. What is unusual about this one is that it is showing such rapid ice retreat/ thinning 10k years into the interglacial. Although that may be the immediate precursor to the next glacial cycle...

[ViperPict]

Silver Smudger said:

So the video tells nothing at all, because either I should have this information already, or I cannot understand the significance because it is not explained.

Am I the only person to have seen this video and not instantly grasped that surely this is a sign of imminent catastrophe? Should I be able to see, in this message, that Climate Change is at once real, and man-made and terrifying?

Was all this there for me in this video, yet I am unable to grasp this truth?

It should at least make you question what is happening and why. Yet you choose not to

A little bit of research would tell you that this is not a typical sort of calving event but something of very high magnitude/ low frequency.

[Silver Smudger]

ViperPict said:

It should at least make you question what is happening and why. Yet you choose not to

A little bit of research would tell you that this is not a typical sort of calving event but something of very high magnitude/ low frequency.

I feel like I have been questioning since Saturday lunchtime, but I will ask just one more - What did you get from that video that compelled you to post it on here as you did?

[ViperPict]

Silver Smudger said:

I feel like I have been questioning since Saturday lunchtime, but I will ask just one more - What did you get from that video that compelled you to post it on here as you did?

It is an unprecedented event with significant significance to an objective debate on climate change. I did expect such a subjective and loaded response.

Do the events reported in the video make you think objectively for a moment as to the processes which resulted in it? Not even for a second? If not then you have no place posting in a forum about science.

In other news, the highest ever temperature in Antarctica was recorded in the last week. As you were...

[Silver Smudger]

ViperPict said:

Do the events reported in the video make you think objectively for a moment as to the processes which resulted in it? Not even for a second?

Yes, it was interesting and impressive, but did not really contain much about the process or the causes of it, did it?

ViperPict said:

I did expect such a subjective and loaded response.

Then post better science

ViperPict said:

It is an unprecedented event with significant significance to an objective debate on climate change.

"an unprecedented event with significant significance" ? - Good night!

[ViperPict]

Silver Smudger said:

ViperPict said:

Do the events reported in the video make you think objectively for a moment as to the processes which resulted in it? Not even for a second?

Yes, it was interesting and impressive, but did not really contain much about the process or the causes of it, did it?

ViperPict said:

I did expect such a subjective and loaded response.

Then post better science

ViperPict said:

It is an unprecedented event with significant significance to an objective debate on climate change.

"an unprecedented event with significant significance" ? - Good night!

What do YOU think we're the processes that caused it? Think man, think!

[Catatafish]

ViperPict said:

What do YOU think we're the processes that caused it? Think man, think!

Rising CO2 concentration resulting in increasing apostrophe violations?

[IainT]

ViperPict said:

Silver Smudger said:

I feel like I have been questioning since Saturday lunchtime, but I will ask just one more - What did you get from that video that compelled you to post it on here as you did?

It is an unprecedented event with significant significance to an objective debate on climate change.

Unprecedented in what time frame?

Sicnce...

• ever?
• accurate data was collected?
• last glacial retreat?
• we had no ice caps?
• last Tuesday lunchtime?

[ViperPict]

Catatafish said:

ViperPict said:

What do YOU think we're the processes that caused it? Think man, think!

Rising CO2 concentration resulting in increasing apostrophe violations?

Sorry, lots of typos in recent posts due to being restricted to composing responses on iPhone!

[ViperPict]

IainT said:

ViperPict said:

Silver Smudger said:

I feel like I have been questioning since Saturday lunchtime, but I will ask just one more - What did you get from that video that compelled you to post it on here as you did?

It is an unprecedented event with significant significance to an objective debate on climate change.

Unprecedented in what time frame?

Sicnce...

• ever?
• accurate data was collected?
• last glacial retreat?
• we had no ice caps?
• last Tuesday lunchtime?

Holocene

[IainT]

ViperPict said:

Holocene

So we know that there have been no periods of glacial retreat in the scale of the current in the last 12k years?

What is the current unprecedented even time-frame? 10, 20, 30, 100 years?
What is the granularity of the proxy data we have for previous retreat?

[ViperPict]

IainT said:

ViperPict said:

Holocene

So we know that there have been no periods of glacial retreat in the scale of the current in the last 12k years?

What is the current unprecedented even time-frame? 10, 20, 30, 100 years?
What is the granularity of the proxy data we have for previous retreat?

There is very limited evidence of this type of event in the Holocene.

What do you mean by 'granularity of the proxy data'?! Sediment size distribution analysis of glacial deposits?

Edited by ViperPict on Tuesday 31st March 12:30

[durbster]

IainT said:

Unprecedented in what time frame?

Sicnce...

• ever?
• accurate data was collected?
• last glacial retreat?
• we had no ice caps?
• last Tuesday lunchtime?

How about; based on the data we have, this is what we think is happening. You know, science.

Otherwise you're perilously close to the creationist argument that we are yet to find "the missing link" in the fossil record i.e. we can't trust any of these findings because we don't have absolute and comprehensive data from the beginning of time.

[IainT]

ViperPict said:

There is very limited evidence of this type of event in the Holocene.

What do you mean by 'granularity of the proxy data'?! Sediment size distribution analysis of glacial deposits?

Sorry VP - rate and temporal granularity. i.e. is the current measured rate of change significant when viewed within the accuracy we draw from proxies and do the proxies allow sufficient rate detail.

i.e. there is reason to ask questions if the time period of observations is short and the accuracy of time series of a proxy is 'long'.

If we're measuring the worrying rate over 30 years but the proxy has a resolution of 300 years there are a lot of issues. Equally if we have accurate observations for 30 years and extrapolate them to a 300 year period we have the same issues.

Unprecedented implies certainty that is dangerously close to unscientific.

[IainT]

durbster said:

IainT said:

Unprecedented in what time frame?

Sicnce...

• ever?
• accurate data was collected?
• last glacial retreat?
• we had no ice caps?
• last Tuesday lunchtime?

How about; based on the data we have, this is what we think is happening. You know, science.

Otherwise you're perilously close to the creationist argument that we are yet to find "the missing link" in the fossil record i.e. we can't trust any of these findings because we don't have absolute and comprehensive data from the beginning of time.

Not at all - "unprecedented" needs to be clearly defined for a period in time to compare to - the longer you stretch unprecedented to cover the greater the guesswork in reconstructing changes. We only have proxies for historical events not observations and their accuracy is increasingly in doubt the further from present you go.