The world's largest iceberg is rapidly breaking apart and melting away

[lonetac]

Evidently my attempt at humor was too subtle. I'll have to add a smiley face next time.

It was the context of what was being said in the conversation, your comment didnt exist in a vacuum. I was literally talking to a person down playing the impact they have.

If I missed it, I apologize but context says you were just trying to rag on the topic.

Obviously they did have an impact but humans were not around exasperating the issue with everything else.

 

[lonetac]

Well, at this point just hit ignore on that person. What a cringy toxic holier-than-thou reply...

Pointing out a bit of hypocrisy with a bit of humour didn't call for that lol

Coming from you, thats pure ironic gold. I posted fact based research on the topic of which someone was downplaying. Thats not toxic holier than thou.

Some people deny science, they are the toxic ones.

 

[scavengerspc]

Coming from you, thats pure ironic gold. I posted fact based research on the topic of which someone was downplaying.

And that is why a MAGAt might put you on ignore.

 

[Squid Surprise]

It was the context of what was being said in the conversation, your comment didnt exist in a vacuum. I was literally talking to a person down playing the impact they have.

If I missed it, I apologize but context says you were just trying to rag on the topic.

Obviously they did have an impact but humans were not around exasperating the issue with everything else.

No… everyone else figured out it was humor… you CHOSE not to to further your political agenda…

 

[lonetac]

No… everyone else figured out it was humor… you CHOSE not to to further your political agenda…

I dont have a political agenda bud. You just want to use it as an excuse to push anti science rhetoric. I used real world analysis that is peer reviewed to prove a point and you took it as an opportunity to attack me because you are a very small human who trys very hard to look big.

I even offered my apologies if I was wrong and explained why I thought so. I dont for the life of me get why you are so toxic to everyone in every thread. Thats a lie, I know why, but I cant say it.

 

[lonetac]

And that is why a MAGAt might put you on ignore.

If they could think, they wouldnt be involved in these conversations but since they cant think, here we are quoting scientific studies about cow farts.

The mental gymnastics to turn it against me when the person I was engaging with was making it look like a joke.

They really do deny and deflect as their only tactic.

 

[Squid Surprise]

I dont have a political agenda bud. You just want to use it as an excuse to push anti science rhetoric. I used real world analysis that is peer reviewed to prove a point and you took it as an opportunity to attack me because you are a very small human who trys very hard to look big.

I even offered my apologies if I was wrong and explained why I thought so. I dont for the life of me get why you are so toxic to everyone in every thread. Thats a lie, I know why, but I cant say it.

lol... yet you use "maga" to encompass everyone who disagrees with you...

I think you can take everything you just said about me - and apply it to yourself... I had no issues with your arguments (had you bothered reading MINE, I simply said that people should question "facts" as we don't actually have any REAL data from beyond a century or 2). I simply had an issue with you blasting people for no reason.

If they could think, they wouldnt be involved in these conversations but since they cant think, here we are quoting scientific studies about cow farts.

The mental gymnastics to turn it against me when the person I was engaging with was making it look like a joke.

They really do deny and deflect as their only tactic.

And here's your "they" again... since anyone who disagrees with you can't think, why bother arguing?

Again - maybe apply what you say about others to yourself?

 

[jeffbert]

Let us settle this, we can set a date and what we expect should have happened by then. It ought to include temperatures at various sites, recorded regularly, etc. Both N & S hemisphere, mountains & plains, cities & suburbs, deserts & oceans..

Perhaps we could agree on a date, say 10 years from now. Probably ought to be 20, but I expect to be dead by then. Maybe every 10 years.

As far as that goes, maybe we should examine the past 10 years & compare the expectations of a decade or two ago and the situation now.

 

[jeffbert]

Another thing, why did they switch from the specific Global Warming to the vague Climate Change?

 

[Squid Surprise]

Let us settle this, we can set a date and what we expect should have happened by then. It ought to include temperatures at various sites, recorded regularly, etc. Both N & S hemisphere, mountains & plains, cities & suburbs, deserts & oceans..

Perhaps we could agree on a date, say 10 years from now. Probably ought to be 20, but I expect to be dead by then. Maybe every 10 years.

As far as that goes, maybe we should examine the past 10 years & compare the expectations of a decade or two ago and the situation now.

Well, they’ve been doing that for decades now… the thing is, climate change is ALWAYS happening.

We can infer a correlation with humanity’s burning of fossil fuels but we can’t prove it… ever…

We can’t do a comparison with 2 planet earths where humanity isn’t burning stuff on one of them.

Is burning fossil fuels a “good thing”… probably not… but we will be doing it as long as they exist to burn - they’re way too convenient.

Right now, it’s political to “reduce carbon footprints” but most methods still rely on burning fossil fuel somewhere down the chain. For example, people love to cite Norway as a shining example for electric cars, etc… but the fact is that Norway can afford to subsidize all of that because of their enormous OIL reserve which they export to the rest of Europe…

Same goes for the much of the electricity that charges the batteries for electric cars. It comes from oil/coal plants much of the time…

 

[scavengerspc]

Another thing, why did they switch from the specific Global Warming to the vague Climate Change?

Because the much lesser lights in America (Look at previous replies for examples here)
was constantly telling the knowledgeable people that the entire planet's average temperature can't be warming, because it is very cold on their front porch today.
They couldn't grasp.........warming.

Look up Senator Jim Imhoff. He thought he proved the entire planet was not warming by bringing a snowball made from snow on the front steps into the chambers. It was one of the earliest and most pitiful of the CONServative denial of the obvious, vetted studies.

The faces change. But the clueless based comic relief remains.

"the thing is, climate change is ALWAYS happening."
Just look at this gem. That person has been told, and shown, how and why it's not the natural cycles that are the problem. It's how badly the timing AND severity of those cycles have been thrown off balance that is the problem.

I will never understand willful ignorance, not to mention being so willing to sound like fools when trying to spread it.

 

[pcnthuziast]

Even if I concede that warming is really happening and we are hastening the negative effects, I need more tangible evidence that all the proposed counters will have a profound enough effect to be meaningful and lasting.

 

[jeffbert]

Because the much lesser lights in America (Look at previous replies for examples here)
was constantly telling the knowledgeable people that the entire planet's average temperature can't be warming, because it is very cold on their front porch today.
They couldn't grasp.........warming.

Look up Senator Jim Imhoff. He thought he proved the entire planet was not warming by bringing a snowball made from snow on the front steps into the chambers. It was one of the earliest and most pitiful of the CONServative denial of the obvious, vetted studies.

The faces change. But the clueless based comic relief remains.

"the thing is, climate change is ALWAYS happening."
Just look at this gem. That person has been told, and shown, how and why it's not the natural cycles that are the problem. It's how badly the timing AND severity of those cycles have been thrown off balance that is the problem.

I will never understand willful ignorance, not to mention being so willing to sound like fools when trying to spread it.

To have global warming, you must show that over the course of years, certain sites have been warmer most years; and there ought to be more than a few of those sites scattered across the earth, both N & S hemispheres, etc.

If, for example, of those many sites, several of them show a cooling trend over those years, could we call that global warming?

I am 67, & recall a time when the looming climate crisis was an ice age!

Now, suppose there is a nice forested area, & they plow it under, & put asphalt, concrete, and steel. Without those trees, it definitely will be warmer. Thus climate change, but on a much smaller scale than world-wide.

Now the question is, if there is indeed world-wide warming, what do we do about it? The USA has had the EPA for about 50 years, & as with most of its regulatory Bureaucracies, they simply decide this or that, & everyone must comply. No Congress debates this or that, the Bureaucrats simply decree it.

So, here we have one particular nation that cares about pollution (not that other do not care), & has been regulating chemical pollutants for 50 years. On the other hand, we have an extremely populous nation, China, which as I understand it, is responsible for churning out a very large amount of greenhouse gases. In fact, a huge percentage of it. Moreover, it is building coal-fired electric plants every day. It does not bother to use filters on its chimneys. "Let the stupid/foolish Americans injure their economy, we will not do so to ours", they say.

Just thinking out loud.

 

[scavengerspc]

To have global warming, you must show that over the course of years, certain sites have been warmer most years; and there ought to be more than a few of those sites scattered across the earth, both N & S hemispheres, etc.

Climate change can cause extremes in both directions. Obviously.

I am 67, & recall a time when the looming climate crisis was an ice age!

Actually, that was some worse case scenarios many scientists gave because Time magazine (I think it was Time) asked them to. It was then repeated ad nauseam by media for decades.

What were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s?

<p>1970s ice age predictions were predominantly media based. The majority of peer reviewed research at the time predicted warming due to increasing CO2.</p>

skepticalscience.com

Results showed that despite the media claims, just ten per cent of papers predicted a cooling trend. On the other hand, 62% predicted global warming and 28% made no comment either way. The take-home from this one? It's the old media adage, “Never let the truth get in the way of a good story”
Guess who scooped it up and ran with it since with not a clue of what happened.
Of course, not a clue really sums up that bunch anyway.

Now the question is, if there is indeed world-wide warming, what do we do about it?

When you get time, search my name here for topics such as this. Dozens of posters here have contributed developing tech stories designed to help fix this.

 

[jeffbert]

Climate change can cause extremes in both directions. Obviously.


Actually, that was some worse case scenarios many scientists gave because Time magazine (I think it was Time) asked them to. It was then repeated ad nauseam by media for decades.

What were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s?

<p>1970s ice age predictions were predominantly media based. The majority of peer reviewed research at the time predicted warming due to increasing CO2.</p>

skepticalscience.com

Results showed that despite the media claims, just ten per cent of papers predicted a cooling trend. On the other hand, 62% predicted global warming and 28% made no comment either way. The take-home from this one? It's the old media adage, “Never let the truth get in the way of a good story”
Guess who scooped it up and ran with it since with not a clue of what happened.
Of course, not a clue really sums up that bunch anyway.


When you get time, search my name here for topics such as this. Dozens of posters here have contributed developing tech stories designed to help fix this.

I clicked your name, & examined this thread: https://www.techspot.com/community/...te-change-could-soon-come-back-biting.294432/

I found your response on pg. 4 (the one that was at the top of the list), but wanted to start at the top of the discussion for the sake of context. I honestly wanted to see your POV, but reading SRB's post of 08/22/2025, was interested in a link to Junk Science:

https://junkscience.com/2023/01/milloy-climate-tweet-sets-twitter-abuzz-even-musk-admits-he-is-no-believer/

Cutting to the chase, this page attributes the warming trend to El Nino, and cites data that indicate CO2 has little if anything to do with warming. Could this be accurate?

Are you willing to read the page from junkscience.com? As I said earlier, I really wanted to examine some of your posts on this subject, but found something else that piqued my interest.

Right now, I have just finished examining arctic-ice-melt-is-slowing-down-but-climate-change-could-soon-come-back-biting, & have not found even one post that takes issue with SRB's post as mentioned above that cites the junkscience.com page that says that El Nino rather than CO2 caused the warming, not even any of your own posts do so.

I recall, that earlier (maybe in a different discussion) I asked / mentioned my opinion on the CO2 issue; is it really responsible for warming? Somebody posted something about uncertainty as to whether CO2 causes warming, but we cannot afford to take the chance that it does not, since we do not have another earth that lacks all that CO2, etc.

 

[scavengerspc]

I clicked your name, & examined this thread: https://www.techspot.com/community/...te-change-could-soon-come-back-biting.294432/

I found your response on pg. 4 (the one that was at the top of the list), but wanted to start at the top of the discussion for the sake of context. I honestly wanted to see your POV, but reading SRB's post of 08/22/2025, was interested in a link to Junk Science:

https://junkscience.com/2023/01/milloy-climate-tweet-sets-twitter-abuzz-even-musk-admits-he-is-no-believer/

Cutting to the chase, this page attributes the warming trend to El Nino, and cites data that indicate CO2 has little if anything to do with warming. Could this be accurate?

Are you willing to read the page from junkscience.com? As I said earlier, I really wanted to examine some of your posts on this subject, but found something else that piqued my interest.

Right now, I have just finished examining arctic-ice-melt-is-slowing-down-but-climate-change-could-soon-come-back-biting, & have not found even one post that takes issue with SRB's post as mentioned above that cites the junkscience.com page that says that El Nino rather than CO2 caused the warming, not even any of your own posts do so.

I recall, that earlier (maybe in a different discussion) I asked / mentioned my opinion on the CO2 issue; is it really responsible for warming? Somebody posted something about uncertainty as to whether CO2 causes warming, but we cannot afford to take the chance that it does not, since we do not have another earth that lacks all that CO2, etc.

I knew I could get you to do something like this!
So here is the deal.

I read that from junkscience a few years ago. I needed a good laugh, and it worked.
It has also been posted here many times to zero success.
People like you are amazing. There is an abundance of evidence out there about climate change, and you shrug your shoulders and complain that you don't believe it.
Then you read something like that, with ZERO collaborating evidence or accepted studies, and you can't help but feel all squishy.

NOAA, NASA the NWS, ECMWF all addressed that idiocy and I suggest you do your own homework and look into their findings. I did a while ago, and they ripped those fools apart.

I will say to you what I have said before, take it up with them. Or maybe the thousands of universities that have done their own research and PUBLISHED their own facts and stats.
It's not my job, or the job of many others in that Techspot thread you ignored except one small part, to educated someone that thinks knowing facts is for losers.

Ironically, if you read the whole TS article you linked to there are plenty of fact based and published studies, graphs and charts by many posters here.

There are people that think the Earth is flat, and they have many links to "prove" it.
They are no better than those who fall back on that junkscience (perfect name for them) fan fiction. You fell for it. Congrats.

 

[jeffbert]

As

I knew I could get you to do something like this!
So here is the deal.

I read that from junkscience a few years ago. I needed a good laugh, and it worked.
It has also been posted here many times to zero success.
People like you are amazing. There is an abundance of evidence out there about climate change, and you shrug your shoulders and complain that you don't believe it.
Then you read something like that, with ZERO collaborating evidence or accepted studies, and you can't help but feel all squishy.

NOAA, NASA the NWS, ECMWF all addressed that idiocy and I suggest you do your own homework and look into their findings. I did a while ago, and they ripped those fools apart.

I will say to you what I have said before, take it up with them. Or maybe the thousands of universities that have done their own research and PUBLISHED their own facts and stats.
It's not my job, or the job of many others in that Techspot thread you ignored except one small part, to educated someone that thinks knowing facts is for losers.

Ironically, if you read the whole TS article you linked to there are plenty of fact based and published studies, graphs and charts by many posters here.

There are people that think the Earth is flat, and they have many links to "prove" it.
They are no better than those who fall back on that junkscience (perfect name for them) fan fiction. You fell for it. Congrats.

I said, while looking through one of the threads you had posted in, I came across the link to junkscience. I am not a scientist, just a guy. It did seem convincing to me, anyway; but, what do I know?

As nobody, yourself included, took issue with that post, in that topic, I was thinking there must be a reason. Of course, I had not considered that argument had already been debunked on this site in other topics.

 

[jeffbert]

I knew I could get you to do something like this!
So here is the deal.

I read that from junkscience a few years ago. I needed a good laugh, and it worked.
It has also been posted here many times to zero success.
People like you are amazing. There is an abundance of evidence out there about climate change, and you shrug your shoulders and complain that you don't believe it.
Then you read something like that, with ZERO collaborating evidence or accepted studies, and you can't help but feel all squishy.

NOAA, NASA the NWS, ECMWF all addressed that idiocy and I suggest you do your own homework and look into their findings. I did a while ago, and they ripped those fools apart.

I will say to you what I have said before, take it up with them. Or maybe the thousands of universities that have done their own research and PUBLISHED their own facts and stats.
It's not my job, or the job of many others in that Techspot thread you ignored except one small part, to educated someone that thinks knowing facts is for losers.

Ironically, if you read the whole TS article you linked to there are plenty of fact based and published studies, graphs and charts by many posters here.

There are people that think the Earth is flat, and they have many links to "prove" it.
They are no better than those who fall back on that junkscience (perfect name for them) fan fiction. You fell for it. Congrats.

Why do you equate flat earthers with people who disagree with you? Why do you say MAGA is all stupid? There might be some things good about it, but from your perspective there can be none. Is such an argument scientific or religious?

Unlike you, I am open to persuasion. But when you insult those who disagree with you, do you think that adds to your argument or subtracts from it. Name-calling only weakens your ability to persuade!

Why do you assume that I did not read the posts other than the one that linked to junkscience.com? I read most of them, & skimmed the few I did not read.

I recall some people whose arguments were that their sources are good and worthwhile but anyone whom they assume watches FOX news, has null & void arguments simply based on that source being degraded by those who rely on such arguments.

 

[Squid Surprise]

Why do you equate flat earthers with people who disagree with you? Why do you say MAGA is all stupid? There might be some things good about it, but from your perspective there can be none. Is such an argument scientific or religious?

Unlike you, I am open to persuasion. But when you insult those who disagree with you, do you think that adds to your argument or subtracts from it. Name-calling only weakens your ability to persuade!

Why do you assume that I did not read the posts other than the one that linked to junkscience.com? I read most of them, & skimmed the few I did not read.

I recall some people whose arguments were that their sources are good and worthwhile but anyone whom they assume watches FOX news, has null & void arguments simply based on that source being degraded by those who rely on such arguments.

The US (and to an extent, the world) has become so polarized that anyone who is on the "wrong" side is instantly villified.

Debating devolves into "crazy right" or "crazy left"...

 

[scavengerspc]

As nobody, yourself included, took issue with that post, in that topic, I was thinking there must be a reason

I'm guessing it's because answering that load of bullshit is not something I need.
It's like explaining things to a little kid.

Why do you equate flat earthers with people who disagree with you?

I'm pretty sure as used that example to say people will ignore overwhelming evidence, and then
accept information from quacks with zero proof and zero credibility.

Why do you say MAGA is all stupid?

I don't think that.

Unlike you, I am open to persuasion. But when you insult those who disagree with you, do you think that adds to your argument or subtracts from it.

I have accepted alternate information as fact here many times. And I always thank the person that corrected me and supplied it. I just will not submit to a blowhard with no facts and all mouth. (not meaning you).

Why do you assume that I did not read the posts other than the one that linked to junkscience.com? I read most of them, & skimmed the few I did not read.

Because of all the information you could have learned from so many people in those threads, you only mentioned a link in one post. But I do apologize if you did read a lot of them.
There was just no way for me to know that.

they assume watches FOX news, has null & void arguments simply based on that source being degraded by those who rely on such arguments.

We definitely disagree there man. Fox "news" degrades themselves.
I watch bits of all 3 cable networks and like it or not, Fox just makes **** up at a much higher rate than the other 2 combined. And when they NEVER apologize for the steady flow of trash. And there are receipts backing that.

 

[scavengerspc]

The US (and to an extent, the world) has become so polarized that anyone who is on the "wrong" side is instantly villified.

Debating devolves into "crazy right" or "crazy left"...

Agree completely brother, but that is still no excuse to simply ignore the facts.

 

[wiyosaya]

I simply said that people should question "facts" as we don't actually have any REAL data from beyond a century or 2).

I agree with questioning everything, but no "REAL" data beyond a century or two?

Maybe as far as climate change with respect to industrial-age humans driving it, but perhaps you should edify yourself about Ice Cores. Here's a helping-hand. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ice_cores

Ice core - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

simple.wikipedia.org

Greenland ice core project - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

From this last link -

The project was managed by a Steering Committee of the University of Bern's Physics Institute, chaired by Professor Bernhard Stauffer.[4] Funding came from eight European nations (Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Iceland, Italy, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom), and from the European Union.[4][3] Studies of nuclear isotopes and various atmospheric constituents provided by the cores allowed the team to construct detailed records of climate change, covering the last 100,000 years.

Indeed, I can see how some would confuse 100,000 years with "a century or 2".

 

[wiyosaya]

Cutting to the chase, this page attributes the warming trend to El Nino, and cites data that indicate CO2 has little if anything to do with warming. Could this be accurate?

No. Since you are looking at previous posts/threads - have a look at this one - https://www.techspot.com/community/...-detects-co2-thread-per-staff-request.276859/
Particularly the last post where the person debating me gives up because I've called out all his crap.

Some people, including myself, give up at some point on explaining things to other people because either those other people cannot understand what is being said or refuse to understand, and frankly, my free time does not always allow me to explain things ad-infinitum to others that do not seem to get the concept.

Maybe that's on me that I don't put things in simple enough terms for everyone to understand, but still, my time is limited and valuable to me.

 

[Squid Surprise]

I agree with questioning everything, but no "REAL" data beyond a century or two?

Maybe as far as climate change with respect to industrial-age humans driving it, but perhaps you should edify yourself about Ice Cores. Here's a helping-hand. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ice_cores

Ice core - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

simple.wikipedia.org

Greenland ice core project - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

From this last link -
Indeed, I can see how some would confuse 100,000 years with "a century or 2".

That is correlation - it’s PROBABLY accurate but we can never be 100% sure of anything that happened before we had actual humans recording it.

Any model going back further than that is only an educated guess. Is it a WELL educated guess? Yes. But still just a guess.

 

[wiyosaya]

That is correlation - it’s PROBABLY accurate but we can never be 100% sure of anything that happened before we had actual humans recording it.

Any model going back further than that is only an educated guess. Is it a WELL educated guess? Yes. But still just a guess.

Yes, Dr.