3 ms·

A different perspective: "Björnsson describes how Ok shrank rapidly during the 20th century, as shown by its area on various maps: 38 sq. Km. in 1901, 15 in 1

by Inu 7y ago

A different perspective: "Björnsson describes how Ok shrank rapidly during the 20th century, as shown by its area on various maps: 38 sq. Km. in 1901, 15 in 1910, 5 in 1945, and under one Km. in 2016. Most of this was before anthropogenic warming became the dominant cause of warming. [...] If Ok died during the Medieval Warm Period, it was born again during the Little Ice Age. It may have lived and died countless times during its long life. Its latest death is another example of weather converted into propaganda." https://fabiusmaximus.com/2019/07/24/we-killed-okjokull/ https://fabiusmaximus.com/2019/07/24/we-killed-okjokull/

Retric 7y ago
Shrinking is not a linear process that would have continued indefinitely at 1910 temperature levels.
lozenge 7y ago
There was anthropogenic warming even before the first data point, and without the anthropogenic warming the glacier may have regrown in colder years, but this didn't happen.
ldoughty 7y ago
The events of climate change are well documented. The fact the media distorts the message, or that right wing media latches onto the 2 people in the field that are funded by oil companies doesn't really change that. Look at warning tends for the last 500 years, what has happened in the last 70 is sharper than anything seen in the past short of world-ending events like an asteroid strike or super volcano (which are admittedly sharper, but that climate effected by the event, not a slow increase by human factors) This different perspective website seems to exist to promote Amazon wish lists and affiliate links and provides barely more digging than a typical news article (some of which seems to be cherry picking statements or titles)... so I will continue to stick with the belief of 97% of scientists, most of which are not financially invested/dependent on the work they produce, that says we are having a dramatic effect.

by Inu 7y ago

Retric 7y ago

Shrinking is not a linear process that would have continued indefinitely at 1910 temperature levels.

lozenge 7y ago

There was anthropogenic warming even before the first data point, and without the anthropogenic warming the glacier may have regrown in colder years, but this didn't happen.

ldoughty 7y ago

The events of climate change are well documented. The fact the media distorts the message, or that right wing media latches onto the 2 people in the field that are funded by oil companies doesn't really change that. Look at warning tends for the last 500 years, what has happened in the last 70 is sharper than anything seen in the past short of world-ending events like an asteroid strike or super volcano (which are admittedly sharper, but that climate effected by the event, not a slow increase by human factors) This different perspective website seems to exist to promote Amazon wish lists and affiliate links and provides barely more digging than a typical news article (some of which seems to be cherry picking statements or titles)... so I will continue to stick with the belief of 97% of scientists, most of which are not financially invested/dependent on the work they produce, that says we are having a dramatic effect.