"‘Worst-Case’ Disaster for Antarctic Ice" How Science Actually Works

Procrustes Stretched

"intuition and imagination and intelligence"
Dec 1, 2008
70,018
15,826
2,190
Location: corpus callosum
We have the science telling us that a scenario involving a ‘Worst-Case’ Disaster for Antarctic Ice" is probably less likely to occur than previously thought. I think of probabilities, possibilities, predictions, suggestions, theories and see anti-science people, who claim to not be anti-science, coming out to attack the science and especially the scientists themselves, all because political partisans and ideologues fear the science and what it suggests.

Myself, I usually, almost always go with the science. Exceptions? Cases like the supposed science surrounding cigarette smoking, tobacco products and relationships to cancer and other health issues.

‘Worst-Case’ Disaster for Antarctic Ice Looks Less Likely, Study Finds

Global warming is putting the continent’s ice at risk of destruction in many forms. But one especially calamitous scenario might be a less pressing concern, a new study found.
usmb nyt antarctic ice sheet science.jpg


snippets:

As all this ice tumbles into the ocean, and assuming that nations’ emissions of heat-trapping gases climb to extremely high levels, Antarctica could contribute more than a foot to worldwide sea-level rise before the end of the century.

This calamitous chain of events is still hypothetical, yet scientists have taken it seriously enough to include it as a “low-likelihood, high-impact” possibility in the United Nations’ latest assessment of future sea-level increase.

Now, though, a group of researchers has put forth evidence that the prospect may be more remote than previously thought. As humans burn fossil fuels and heat the planet, West Antarctica’s ice remains vulnerable to destruction in many forms. But this particular form, in which ice cliffs collapse one after the other, looks less likely, according to the scientists’ computer simulations.

“We’re not saying that we’re safe,” said Mathieu Morlighem, a professor of earth science at Dartmouth College who led the research. “The Antarctic ice sheet is going to disappear; this is going to happen. The question is how fast.”
 
We have the science telling us that a scenario involving a ‘Worst-Case’ Disaster for Antarctic Ice" is probably less likely to occur than previously thought. I think of probabilities, possibilities, predictions, suggestions, theories and see anti-science people, who claim to not be anti-science, coming out to attack the science and especially the scientists themselves, all because political partisans and ideologues fear the science and what it suggests.

Myself, I usually, almost always go with the science. Exceptions? Cases like the supposed science surrounding cigarette smoking, tobacco products and relationships to cancer and other health issues.

‘Worst-Case’ Disaster for Antarctic Ice Looks Less Likely, Study Finds

Global warming is putting the continent’s ice at risk of destruction in many forms. But one especially calamitous scenario might be a less pressing concern, a new study found.
View attachment 1000142

snippets:

As all this ice tumbles into the ocean, and assuming that nations’ emissions of heat-trapping gases climb to extremely high levels, Antarctica could contribute more than a foot to worldwide sea-level rise before the end of the century.

This calamitous chain of events is still hypothetical, yet scientists have taken it seriously enough to include it as a “low-likelihood, high-impact” possibility in the United Nations’ latest assessment of future sea-level increase.

Now, though, a group of researchers has put forth evidence that the prospect may be more remote than previously thought. As humans burn fossil fuels and heat the planet, West Antarctica’s ice remains vulnerable to destruction in many forms. But this particular form, in which ice cliffs collapse one after the other, looks less likely, according to the scientists’ computer simulations.

“We’re not saying that we’re safe,” said Mathieu Morlighem, a professor of earth science at Dartmouth College who led the research. “The Antarctic ice sheet is going to disappear; this is going to happen. The question is how fast.”
Climate cultists are 0-167 on doomsday scenarios.
 
Procustos : Myself, I usually, almost always go with the science. Exceptions? Cases like the supposed science surrounding cigarette smoking, tobacco products and relationships to cancer and other health issues.
Well now, doesn't that say it all!
 
What's the reasoning here? Are all of the Climate Change Conferences and accords and protocols really helping to change the weather in Antarctica, according to libs?
 
The truth here is that with an issue like this people pick who they want to believe, there might be two competent statisticians A and B who've studied the atmosphere and climate for decades but they disagree. In cases like this these are one's options:

1. Believe Expert A
2. Believe Expert B
3. Not care
4. Spend time studying the subject and forming one's own view'

The vast majority of us for most problems pick 1 or 2 but not on the basis of "science" but on the basis of rhetoric, politics, reputation, potential impact on our own lifestyle and so on.

This is not to be confused with science, this choosing is not itself science so lets be clear on that.
 
Last edited:
The truth here is that with an issue like this people pick who they want to believe, there might be two competent statisticians A and B who've studied the atmosphere and climate for decades but they disagree. In cases like this these are one's options:

1. Believe Expert A
2. Believe Expert B
3. Not care
4. Spend time studying the subject and forming one's own view'

The vast majority of us for most problems pick 1 or 2 but not on the basis of "science" but on the basis of rhetoric, politics, reputation, potential impact on our own lifestyle and so on.

This is not to be confused with science, this choosing is not itself science so lets be clear on that.
You're to believe A or B based on whether the deaths by shootings increase is of 'good' guys with guns or 'bad' guys with guns.

The whole purpose in Cletus's joyful remarks is in the belief that the bad guys with guns will be shot dead before the bad guy gets to shoot somebody. It might work, but then chances are that nobody in America is going to be able to agree on who the bad guys are?
 
I still know what it means. Do you mean disagreeing with assumptions or disagreeing with models or simply basing one's decision on say guesswork or something?
You're one of the people who have come out against the science on things the right has made political.

dealing with you on this subject is would be a circle jerk unworthy of serious consideration. I am sure some loon who opposes your viewpoints would engage you. That's not me.
 
You're one of the people who have come out against the science on things the right has made political.
I had a feeling you were going there, so that's why I asked you!
dealing with you on this subject is would be a circle jerk unworthy of serious consideration. I am sure some loon who opposes your viewpoints would engage you. That's not me.
But still no meaningful idea what "anti-the-science" means, so far as I can tell it means disagreeing with you and nothing more.
 

Forum List

Back
Top