Larsen C rift branches as it comes within 5 km of calving
projectmidas.org
projectmidas.org
It's clear that all of the communication about global warming so far has led to ... the USA pulling out of the Paris Accord. So, let's pause and re-evaluate how to get the message across.
You're conflating that opportunity, which is exciting, with celebrating the event itself because you think my position isn't taking it seriously. We can do both.
But to say that it's wrong to be excited still makes sense. You're taking a life to nourish yourself. It's a sacred moment.
Similar here, yes the ice sheet is beautiful and it is a gift we are alive to see the planet changing. But the changes signify a huge swath of our species dying, a huge swath of our ecologies being sent back to a distant era in time.
Some respect is warranted, for what we are killing so that we might nourish ourselves.
As I noted earlier, the people who study this rift do not agree with you:
> 'I've found the coverage of this Larsen C rift to be disquieting since I read that the people studying it don't link the event to climate change:
"The team say they have no evidence to link the growth of this rift, and the eventual calving, to climate change." https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/06/170602112819.h....
It seems that everyone in the media or commenting on the internet suddenly knows better than the experts on this topic.' https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14576772
All that says, in essence, is "We haven't studied that question specifically". It's even followed by:
> However, it is widely accepted that warming ocean and atmospheric temperatures have been a factor in earlier disintegrations of ice shelves elsewhere on the Antarctic Peninsula, most notably Larsen A (1995) and Larsen B (2002).
They point out that this is one of the fastest warming places on Earth, a feature which will certainly not have hindered the development of the rift in Larsen C.
Out-of-context, incomplete quoting is a terribly disingenuous debating tactic.
I really don't find this plausible. This is obviously a huge event getting tons of news coverage that they have been waiting for, for many years. Climate change is also a huge important topic that it is obvious to link to this one.
Despite all this, you want to interpret their phrase as "we didn't get around to checking for that yet", just so you can go on with your beliefs.
This is an observational finding, not an investigative one. That means these specific scientists are there to observe and document the event, not tell us why it happened. That's someone else's paper, which is probably being written right now.
That you don't seem to understand that fundamental aspect of the process of science more or less completely obviates anything you have to contribute to the discussion, unless you'd like to keep lobbing accusations of confirmation bias.
EDIT: phrasing.
I have never heard this before and do not see why that would be the case... it sounds like something a person unfamiliar with science would make up.
>"This is an observational finding, not an investigative one. That means these specific scientists are there to observe and document the event, not tell us why it happened. That's someone else's paper, which is probably being written right now."
This seems to presume the "observing" scientists are less familiar with the literature on their topic of expertise than all the random internet posters who have already linked it to climate change.
It is either that or everyone has somehow avoided looking at the relationship between the breakup of the ice shelf and climate change (which I find totally implausible, if that is true I will suspect there is some type of mischief involved here).
No, that's not true. There's no rule in science against asking as many questions as you want simultaneously. There's no inherent reason that the same team that is observing Larsen C could not also find and publish evidence that the current calving is caused by climate change.
The reason they have no evidence that the Larsen C calving is caused by climate change is that it is virtually impossible to definitively link any single event, no matter how extreme, to climate change. Glaciers calve, sometimes dramatically, with or without climate change. Climate change just makes it happen more often. (Until all the glaciers melt; then calving happens less often.)
In fact, it is entirely possible that the Larsen C calving in fact has nothing to do with climate change, that it really would have happened regardless. That doesn't mean that it should not serve as a reminder that climate change is in fact happening.
So? No single event can ever be definitively linked to climate change. Glaciers calve, sometimes dramatically, with or without climate change. Climate change just makes it happen more often. (Until, of course, all the glaciers melt completely. Then calving will happen less often.) So the fact that a team of scientists can't find evidence linking one event to climate change is wholly unsurprising. That doesn't mean that climate change isn't happening, or that this event should not serve as a reminder that it is happening, it is caused by humans, it is an existential threat to civilization, and that we could stop it (or at least mitigate it) a lot more effectively if there were fewer people burying their heads in the sand and raising specious arguments.
I also doubt this is what they meant. They said "there is no evidence", which presumes that there could be evidence. Your interpretation denies that it would be possible to get the evidence which leads to self contradiction.
The most likely interpretation to me is that they think this breakup is just something that was bound to happen, probably because they believe the process began hundreds of years ago or something.
That one doesn't lead to any self-contradictions or presume bizarre behavior from the people who study this ice shelf (like the other one suggested here that they have failed, for at least years if not decades, to ever investigate the relationship of the breakup with climate change).
No, they said (according to you -- the link you posted is actually dead) that they have no evidence. Just because they don't have it (yet) doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Sure, I was paraphrasing. The point is that their statement presumes that the evidence could exist, while you were interpreting it to mean you can't get such evidence since it is impossible to link any one event to climate change.