Larsen C Crack Is in Its Final Stages; Will Produce One of World's Largest Icebergs Ever Recorded

So science, models and methodology change from chunk of ice to chunk of ice?

I guess the point is that there is probably a reason no predictive models have ever actually accurately predicted anything.

 

On climate, your link says that they aim to try and reduce emissions. There is a goal. However the crux of the deal is for us to throw hundreds of billions at developing nations to deal with the future effects of climate change.

It is a scheme to redistribute wealth based on predictions of dire consequences that have never been accurate to date.

Show me actual studies on climate impact with, and without, the US involvement you desire.

Good luck.

 

You want studies of a global effort to reduce emissions? OK. First show me the global effort.

Ongoing efforts in a number of countries, including the US, have served to reduce outputs. This effort would expand on that and truly make it a global effort. That is until the stupidity of pulling out.

 

I would call a 7% error to the estimate to be pretty accurate.

 

I would call it a demonstration that the methodology is flawwed as they have to keep altering it as their predictions fail to bring the promised cataclysms.

 

And in other "news" the "largest ever ice berg" still doesn't represent more than .01% of the rest of the ice in Antarctica.... But who ever worries about facts?

Perhaps this will put it into context:

Dit
Gosh. Looks absolutely devastating compared to the overall volume of ice there....LOL

Notice, it isn't the entire shelf, but only a very small portion of a very small portion to begin with...

 

Do you think that larson C is the only ice glacier that is currently experiencing melting or cracking?

 

The methodology overestimated the melting by 7%. That is the way of science. You make a prediction and then compare it to the observations and make adjustments as needed. That particular glacier is still melting. The Larson C ice shelf is still about to break away from Antarctica and AGW is still occurring.

 

As it is summer, and all, no. Now, tell us all why it's unique. We'll wait. Or better, tell us all this have NEVER EVER happened in history, so we should all pay attention, and start donating to.... or whatever your fraudulent use of other people's money scheme for the day is....

 

Ice melts, and freezes. As it has been doing for millions of years. Want some predictions concerning ice that failed to come true?

Hint, its all of them.

 

Which is simply a lie. Part, a small part to be sure, is about to calf. Then what? So, no, the "Larson c" isn't about to break away, but a small part of it is. Why so transparent in your false narrative today?

 

The last time that the CO2 concentration rose by 80 points (the amount that it rose from 1900 to 2000) took place over the course of roughly 5000 years. That is a rate of change of roughly 50x faster.

And that's the point. No one is claiming that the Planet is warming to some level that's never been seen or to a level that's dangerous for the planet. We are claiming and the evidence is proving that the current rate of change is faster than many of the currently living plants and animals will be able to adjust safely.

 

You seem to fail to understand the question. What impact is our withdrawl expected to have on the climate?

There is none, because this agreement had to do with redistributing wealth, not actual addressing of emissions reduction outside of "goals" that have absolutely no means by which to reach from any regulatory standpoint.

 

I've answered that on this board a number of times.

Maybe you should read up on how our military looks at the problem of impacts due to our changing climate.

 

Which has nothing to do with this accord. My post does not address climate change its impacts on us or ours on it. My post addresses the redistribution of wealth that is the paris accord. My questions test the impact of our being in, or out, of this accord. They are mostly rhetorical questions because there is no data... because there is no actual policy outside of funneling money to developing nations to help them prepare for the impact of climate change... which is not where that money will go.

 

Science says the last Inter-Glacial Period was 10.4°F warmer than present, meaning it was 67.6°F instead of the current 57.2°F

What do you suppose happened to glaciers and ice sheets during the previous Inter-Glacial Period?

 

The analogy is perfectly accurate. Sea ice already displaces water in the oceans.

Prove the Earth's average global temperature should be 57.2°F and no warmer.

Correct and that was the case for Millions of years and no runaway effect took place.

 

57.2°F

The previous Inter-Glacial Period was 10.4°F warmer than present.

No, you don't need to part of the Paris Climate Agreement. The Agreement itself is worthless, since there is not method of enforcement, meaning countries can "cheat" and still stick it to the US.

Correct, since the warming is due to insolation, and an increase of 10.4°F is not abnormal at all.

So what?

 

Who recorded history during the last Inter-Glacial Period when average global temperatures were 10.4°F warmer than present?

You're in an Inter-Glacial Period....temperatures are supposed to increase....glaciers, sea ice and ice sheets are supposed to melt.

Prove to us that Earth's average global temperature should be only 57.2°F and no warmer.

It only appears to be faster, because the dates are cherry-picked. When taken as a whole from the time of the Mini-Ice Age, there is nothing abnormal.

 

There was no mandatory redistribution of wealth in the Paris Accord.

There WERE actions to be taken in various countries which would cost money and which a good number of nations pledged contributions to ensure the work got done. The US pledge was for less than a third of this work.

If you can substantiate your claims of where the money will "actually" go, then DO SO!

 

Quantify that. How, absent our assistance does the accord achieve its goals? Please be concise. Spelling counts.

 

Yeah, sonny. If you have something to say, I'm right here. If you want to make a speech to a crowd try a street corner.

 

You prove the contrary.

 

Actually it was 58.7 F in 2016. It was 58.0 in 2000. Your temperature is more reflective of the 70s than today.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201613

The last inter-galacial was about 130,000 years ago. I couldn't find your figure anywhere. Figures like this are all I found. And keep in mind that my figure ignores the 2 F rise seen in instrumental data.

We can cheat too. Thats what is go great about the agreement, we can set our own goals and they tend to be very flexible.

A 6 degree change is where we were from the last ice age as seen in my figure. If we move 6 degrees in the other direction we go beyond recent inter-galacials and start seeing temperatures last seen with the dinosaurs.

 

You sure are a simpleton with a myopic view.