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

Dante

"intuition and imagination and intelligence"
Dec 1, 2008
73,508
27,654
2,260
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.
 
The temperature threshold for extensive continental glaciation for each polar region can be read from the oxygen isotope curve. We don't have to guess what it is.
1724451961538.png
 
The temperature threshold for extensive continental glaciation for each polar region can be read from the oxygen isotope curve. We don't have to guess what it is.
View attachment 1000268

And how does that shed light on IF there is AGW: a non-natural cause in the last ie, 100-150 years?

Another irrelevant graph from the abnormal-interglacial Deluded Deist clown.

`
 
Last edited:
And how does that shed light on IF there is AGW: a non-natural cause in the last ie, 100-150 years?

Another irrelevant graph from the abnormal-interglacial Deluded Deist clown.

`
When the northern hemisphere glaciates, the oceans and the atmosphere cool. When the northern hemisphere deglaciates, the oceans and the atmosphere warm.

The northern hemisphere is deglaciating, dum dum.

1724495919423.png
 
When the northern hemisphere glaciates, the oceans and the atmosphere cool. When the northern hemisphere deglaciates, the oceans and the atmosphere warm.

The northern hemisphere is deglaciating, dum dum.

View attachment 1000560
1. One notes you are talking Only Northern Hemisphere picolo fraud.
2. No one said the earth has to warm evenly. Um
3. And of course continued and even increasing human/GHG pressure will eventually change that .. because...
4. the earth has been much warmer in the past with both poles melted by nature... just as we are capable of doing.
5. IOW, the N-Hem may cool at the beginning or any stage of warming/melt, is not a guarantee prolonged AGW won't eventually warm everywhere by our hand. In fact, obviously the planet has continued past that point many times.
(See my Pliocene/Sea Level +50' OP)

6. You are Dishonest and a fraud trying to mislead the mb.
7. Doesn't work with me you deluded god freak. You don't have the IQ points/logic.

`
 
Last edited:
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.”

There's no such thing as "Fossil fuels" and the gnat farts worth of CO2 is not warming anything
 
1. One notes you are talking Only Northern Hemisphere picolo fraud.
2. No one said the earth has to warm evenly. Um
3. And of course continued and even increasing human/GHG pressure will eventually change that .. because...
4. the earth has been much warmer in the past with both poles melted by nature... just as we are capable of doing.
5. IOW, the N-Hem may cool at the beginning or any stage of warming/melt, is not a guarantee prolonged AGW won't eventually warm everywhere by our hand. In fact, obviously the planet has continued past that point many times.
(See my Pliocene/Sea Level +50' OP)

6. You are Dishonest and a fraud trying to mislead the mb.
7. Doesn't work with me you deluded god freak. You don't have the IQ points/logic.

`
Hey, moron. The northern hemisphere has glaciated and deglaciated 30 times in the last 3 million years. When it doe the oceans and atmosphere cool and warm. It affects the entire planet, dumb ass. How can you not know this?
 
Hey, moron. The northern hemisphere has glaciated and deglaciated 30 times in the last 3 million years. When it doe the oceans and atmosphere cool and warm. It affects the entire planet, dumb ass. How can you not know this?
Because THIS warming is AGW with continued GHG thickening as the cause, not a solar/Milankovitch cycle.
The earth has oft gotten warmer than now and - for openers- the last time we hit 400 PPM (Pliocene) we had sea level 50' higher.
WE are at 425 headed for 500 by 2050.

More warming is already in the cards, just lags for decades even at 400 PPM. We are in he oven just waiting to cook through.

You ae dishonest filth and know you are wrong. (daily)
Just really another crazy Lying-for-Jesus freak in the wrong section.
Stay in Religion.

`
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top