Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • Every once in a while, the reality of what it means to be participating in this thread sinks in and the mundanity of life smacks me in the face like a wet, herpes infected carp.

Topic: Size of Larsen C iceberg calculated (Read 664 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
  • Pingu
Re: Size of Larsen C iceberg calculated
Reply #50
I have no clue why F X is posting those graphs and maps.
Then you are some kind of blind idiot.  I wrote the area was cooling, and then showed scientific data to explain why I wrote that.  If you can't understand this, stop posting.

Why is evidence that the area is cooling relevant to the topic of the ice-shelf detaching?

Or were you just spamming?

I guess because people are blaming it on global warming - in a shock result. 

Well how about you and F X actually address those people instead of spamming the thread with implicit attacks on straw men?

I was wrong earlier and there are indeed the usual crowd pitching up to the party with their unevidenced claims of global warming.  Here we see the arm of NASA dedicated to claiming everything is caused by human global warming admitting they have no evidence but nonetheless the article is redolent with emotionally charged pregnant accusations like

Quote
"The Antarctic Peninsula has been one of the fastest warming places on the planet throughout the latter half of the 20th century. This warming has driven really profound environmental changes, including the collapse of Larsen A and B," McGrath said. "But with the rift on Larsen C, we haven't made a direct connection with the warming climate. Still, there are definitely mechanisms by which this rift could be linked to climate change, most notably through warmer ocean waters eating away at the base of the shelf."

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2606/massive-iceberg-breaks-off-from-antarctica/

which is clearly designed to leave the reader in no doubt at all that this was definitely caused by global warming really - even though they have no actual evidence to support such a conclusion.

So the climate machine and media are once more in motion using this natural event as a bogus support for the AGW hypothesis.  Could it possibly be that F X is countering these arguments with data?  A wild concept I know but still - looks like that's what he's doing to me.

If that's what he's doing he needs to say so, instead of spamming a thread about an awesome iceberg with graphs about global warming.

I have a Darwin-debased mind.

  • F X
  • The one and only
Re: Size of Larsen C iceberg calculated
Reply #51
Calm down
It is baffling that someone who seems hyper-reluctant to make inferences from data should so habitually make inferences that bear no relation to the data.
"If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and man."
― Mark Twain 🔭

  • Pingu
Re: Size of Larsen C iceberg calculated
Reply #52
I'm not the one spamming the thread with irrelevant graphics about climate change.
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

  • F X
  • The one and only
Re: Size of Larsen C iceberg calculated
Reply #53
You know, just because you type words out, that doesn't make them true.  I posted official data (and linked to the sources), just as I always have.  I find it most strange that the exact region where this huge ice berg just calved is the one region with the most cooling at the south pole.
 
The crack was first noticed in the 60s, and with rising temps there it is reasonable to think changes might influence the ice sheet.  But to find that it's actually been cooling there (for decades) was a surprise. 
"If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and man."
― Mark Twain 🔭

Re: Size of Larsen C iceberg calculated
Reply #54
If the media weren't spamming the world with irrelevant bs about climate change on the subject of this berg then I doubt F X would be talking about it here either.  But anyway, it seems there's been quite a lot of West Antarctic ice shelf collapsing going on over the period of global warming pause - Larsen A, Larsen B, Wilkins, Ross and now Larsen C.  What's going on?  Ice shelves are bound to calve naturally since they cannot grow indefinitely while remaining stable and so long as snow is falling on the continent the glaciers will push ice out into the shelves.  But is there more to it than that in West Antarctica?  Why is East Antarctica gaining mass while the West is losing mass with a net gain?  Difficult to see a global warming-based mechanism which uniquely targets West Antarctica.

There is though a rift system which is rifting West away from East along with the inevitable volcanoes associated with that rift - and surely there's a thread on it somewhere.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

http://www.largeigneousprovinces.org/13apr

Difficult to find those volcanoes buried under all of that ice but more are being discovered as geological research progresses.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/glacial-geology/subglacial-volcanoes/

But can't help wondering if they might have something to do with ice loss from West Antarctica.  There's certainly a lot of research seems to lean that way.  And it certainly does seem a little more plausible at least than human emitted carbon dioxide being able to spookily heat West Antarctica whilst leaving the East largely unaffected and happily piling on the old white stuff.

  • Pingu
Re: Size of Larsen C iceberg calculated
Reply #55
You know, just because you type words out, that doesn't make them true.  I posted official data (and linked to the sources), just as I always have.  I find it most strange that the exact region where this huge ice berg just calved is the one region with the most cooling at the south pole.
 
The crack was first noticed in the 60s, and with rising temps there it is reasonable to think changes might influence the ice sheet.  But to find that it's actually been cooling there (for decades) was a surprise.

Well, thanks for finally making your point.
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

  • MikeB
Re: Size of Larsen C iceberg calculated
Reply #56
Seems that regardless of small climate changes, this calving is an established process probably not much affected in the short (100s years) term.

Re: Size of Larsen C iceberg calculated
Reply #57
Lol here we go. 

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=11904110

Quote
Dr Bingham was shocked to find the active peaks concentrated in the west Antarctic rift system, which stretches 3,500km from Antarctica's Ross ice shelf to the Antarctic peninsula.

"We were amazed. We had not expected to find anything like that number.

"We have almost trebled the number of volcanoes known to exist in west Antarctica.

"We also suspect there are even more on the bed of the sea that lies under the Ross ice shelf, so that I think it is very likely this region will turn out to be the densest region of volcanoes in the world, greater even than east Africa, where mounts Nyiragongo, Kilimanjaro, Longonot and all the other active volcanoes are concentrated."

The volcanic activity could have crucial implications for Earth. If one erupts, it could further destabilise ice sheets in the region, where global warming has already had an impact.

Dr Bingham's fear is that the Antarctic ocean's meltwater outflows will cause sea levels to rise.

So the facts, as supported by the evidence, are that East Antarctica is gaining ice mass while West Antarctica is losing it and underneath West Antarctica there exists one of the most active volcanic regions on the planet with a rift running along the West Antarctic Peninsular and along the edge of the Ross Sea.  Those are the undeniable facts and yet here we have the clear implication that all ice loss to date is due to human emitted GHG caused global warming - asserted without any shred of evidence - but this volcanism may contribute to it in the future.

And this is supposed to be science?  It doesn't matter what happens or what evidence is presented it's always human caused global warming as the main driver - without any supporting evidence being presented and flying in the face of all evidence to the contrary.  Even the great tectonic planetary forces are now subsumed by the deadly planet-destroying trace atmospheric compound - but always just the human emitted fraction of it of course.  It's as though people are still doing science but under a regime similar in nature to the Inquisition of Galileo's day.  You're allowed to do the science but there must always be due observance of the scriptural doctrine of carbon dioxide and woe betide anyone who is rash enough to question the preeminence of that evil gas in shaping the future of this planet.
  • Last Edit: August 14, 2017, 02:16:08 AM by Cephus0

  • F X
  • The one and only
Re: Size of Larsen C iceberg calculated
Reply #58
Quote
IT is widely understood that the collapse of the West Antarctic ice sheet (WAIS) would cause a global sea level rise of 6 m, yet there continues to be considerable debate about the detailed response of this ice sheet to climate changel-3. Because its bed is grounded well below sea level, the stability of the WAIS may depend on geologically controlled conditions at the base which are independent of climate.

https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v361/n6412/abs/361526a0.html



(11 February 1993)
"If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and man."
― Mark Twain 🔭

Re: Size of Larsen C iceberg calculated
Reply #59
How nostalgic and what a difference a quarter century makes.  Back then the cult - while in its ascendency - had not yet peaked and extended its slimy tentacles into every interstice of the scientific establishment and it was still possible to publicly entertain the idea that there might be some debate about the role of carbon dioxide as the driver of everything.

Going to be a fabulous show going forward watching the priesthood construct ever more bizarre and complex hierarchies of unevidenced epicyclic carbon-based hypotheses to keep the cult alive :popcorn:

  • F X
  • The one and only
Re: Size of Larsen C iceberg calculated
Reply #60
"If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and man."
― Mark Twain 🔭

  • F X
  • The one and only
Re: Size of Larsen C iceberg calculated
Reply #61
I will admit I haven't really been skeptical about the assumed effect itself.  Now I am starting to wonder if I am wrong.

I would start a topic, but really, nobody cares.
"If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and man."
― Mark Twain 🔭

  • F X
  • The one and only
Re: Size of Larsen C iceberg calculated
Reply #62
See?
"If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and man."
― Mark Twain 🔭

  • Pingu
Re: Size of Larsen C iceberg calculated
Reply #63
Yeah.

Nobody is interested in your conspiracy theories, or in papers by pseudonymic scientists.
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

  • F X
  • The one and only
Re: Size of Larsen C iceberg calculated
Reply #64
"If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and man."
― Mark Twain 🔭