Iceberg half the size of Greater London calves off Antarctic glacier | Environment | guardian.co.uk
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Grok 3 Trusts The Government
- NPR Climate Experts
- Defending Democracy In Ukraine
- “Siberia might stay livable”
- Deep Thinking From The Atlantic
- Making Up Fake Numbers At CBS News
- Your Tax Dollars At Work
- “experts warn”
- End Of Snow Update
- CBS News Defines Free Speech
- “Experts Warn”
- Consensus Science With Remarkable Precision
- Is New York About To Drown?
- “Anti-science conservatives must be stopped”
- Disappearing New York
- New York To Drown Soon
- “halt steadily increasing climate extremism”
- “LARGE PART OF NORTHERN CALIF ABLAZE”
- Climate Trends In The Congo
- “100% noncarbon energy mix by 2030”
- Understanding The US Government
- Cooling Australia’s Past
- Saving The World From Fossil Fuels
- Propaganda Based Forecasting
- “He Who Must Not Be Named”
Recent Comments
- Bob G on Grok 3 Trusts The Government
- arn on Defending Democracy In Ukraine
- William on Defending Democracy In Ukraine
- gordon vigurs on “Siberia might stay livable”
- conrad ziefle on NPR Climate Experts
- conrad ziefle on NPR Climate Experts
- conrad ziefle on Defending Democracy In Ukraine
- conrad ziefle on “Siberia might stay livable”
- Timo, not that one! on “Siberia might stay livable”
- arn on Defending Democracy In Ukraine
It’s still propaganda fluff.
It doesn’t matter if they say it isn’t global warming, they get the phrase itself inserted into the article’s sub-headline.
Then there’s the body of the article…
First there’s this: Prof Angelika Humbert, a glaciologist and ice modeller with the Alfred Wegener Institute – “I use the images from the satellite to model the flow of the glacier and how the grounding line is retreating which allows us to predict the behaviour of the ice sheet over the next hundreds to thousands of years.”
In other words, expect a study from Angelika Humbert within a year which will probably contain the following: “Based on our modeling we expect a collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet within x years (probably a time period hinted at in her quote above – “hundreds to thousands of years”) but we need more funding to refine our models due to the severe nature of this threat and the broad spectrum of socioeconomic impacts upon low-lying regions, especially in poor countries which will be worst hit.”
Sound about right?
In fact, they already give it away just a little further down the article: “The flow of the ice stream from the Pine Island Glacier has accelerated in recent years. Smith said: “The Pine Island glacier is quite significant because it is losing more ice to the sea than any other glacier in the world. The glacier is changing a lot and quickly.”
Complete melting of the Pine Island glacier in the future would not only increase global sea-levels but it is also predicted that it could destabilise the entire West Antarctic ice sheet. Studying the glacier can help scientists to understand what factors contribute to the melting.”
And there it is. We’re not going to say this is global warming today but after we model all this (and announce our pre-arrived conclusion) it will be.
So this article, while saying this calving event isn’t global warming, implies it throughout the rest of the story.
And before she assigned her hypothesis for this particular glacier I bet she searched for a glacier that was losing ice than one that was gaining ice so to make her hypothesis worthy.
“Natural event unrelated to global warming…”
Isn’t global warming a natural event? It always has been before. Or did Al Gore invent it? 😉
Retreating glacier, bad
Advancing glacier, bad
Reblogged this on The Firewall.