I just see a hastily laid out argument. The 1km/yr we have no idea what it really means, does that relate to previous centuries? or is it just the rate observed

I just see a hastily laid out argument. The 1km/yr we have no idea what it really means, does that relate to previous centuries? or is it just the rate observed during recent times? (while global warming has already been detected) The maps show the very location of these events, raised by several degrees C since 1950. The rate of this event is quite certainly strongly affected by local temperature, which is known to be elevated due to global warming. So the event has quite certainly been strongly affected by global warming. I can conclude this very confidently because global warming is already a given for me. Only when we doubt global warming has raised the temperature of the location of these calving events does it make any sense to say, "this could be happening naturally" However fast this could happen naturally - it is happening faster due to global warming.