Strange Anomaly Happening In Antarctica!

[mapuc]

Is this strange anomaly because it has never happen in the Antarctica
Or
Is this strange anomaly because the human never seen it until now.

If it is the latter then it is not a strange anomaly-since it happens perhaps all the time and maybe done so for decades.

But what do I know-The video was interesting to watch.

Markus

[Jimbuna]

My lad used to visit Hubbard Glacier in Alaska on what was approximately a three-monthly interval between visits and he informs me if you looked carefully or better still if you took photographs on each visit you could see definite signs of the ice receding.

[Catfish]

Originally Posted by mapuc

Is this strange anomaly because it has never happen in the Antarctica
Or
Is this strange anomaly because the human never seen it until now.

Of course no 'human' has ever 'seen' this, those advanced apes called 'homo sapiens' are only there for a second, related to the age of 'earth'.
But this does not mean that this 'thinking' animal species has nothing to do with it. The biggest problem humans face is accepting reality.

[August]

Originally Posted by Catfish

Of course no 'human' has ever 'seen' this, those advanced apes called 'homo sapiens' are only there for a second, related to the age of 'earth'.
But this does not mean that this 'thinking' animal species has nothing to do with it. The biggest problem humans face is accepting reality.

It also doesn't mean that this "thinking animal species" DID have anything to do with it either. That's YOUR reality, it is not true just because you believe it.

[Catfish]

There is a quite exact graph showing the rise of CO levels in the atmosphere appx. until 40,000 years ago. On this graph the highest CO2 level is right now, still rising.
There is an other graph that shows the CO2 level way back to 500 million years ago. There have been some unfortunate setbacks to life on earth before, from the Deccan traps to this asteroid, to other crises of evolution.

Can you eliminate the possibility of human impact on that recent rising level, with evidence?

[Sean C]

Originally Posted by Catfish

Can you eliminate the possibility of human impact on that recent rising level, with evidence?

Another interesting question is: Can anyone eliminate any other possible cause(s)? And before you answer that, I suggest you take a look at the following charts.

[Reece]

I can see the obvious comparisons!!

[August]

One volcano can dump 100's of years of green house gasses in an afternoon and they pop off all the time. If man indeed has an effect on climate it is minuscule by comparison.

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by Sean C

Another interesting question is: Can anyone eliminate any other possible cause(s)?

It's not a very interesting question at all; the answer is simply "yes".

Numerous studies have been made on numerous subjects. Among these are completely independent studies on subjects like volcanoes, sun activity, natural climate cycles etc. By looking at the findings of all these studies, one can get a picture of how much each of those elements affect climate change and compare it against human caused effects.

[Arlo]

Individual comparison does not present an overall picture. Sum total does.

[Sean C]

It seems a few here have missed the point of my previous post. The specific content of those charts is not important. In fact, the idea that all of those things are completely unrelated is the point.

Sure, we may have eliminated "volcanoes, sun activity, natural climate cycles etc." But that is by no means an elimination of any other cause. It is also by no means a confirmation of a man-made cause. As I've said before: in order to do that, one would need a "control" Earth with no humans [but otherwise identical conditions] which does not show a similar trend of climate change. Therefore, the answer is not "simply 'yes'". There is no concrete evidence as of yet that some other [perhaps completely unknown] cause isn't driving the current climate.

There are no "obvious" relations in science. If a theory cannot be repeatably tested by anyone with the means and always produce the same results, then it remains just that - a theory. A guess. Even if it does "seem obvious". Science is not how we feel about something. And sometimes it doesn't even make sense to us, based on our current understanding of the universe. What is [or should be] obvious is that we don't know everything. In fact, we know very little - and understand even less - about how even seemingly simple things actually work. Like gravity and light, for instance.

All of that is not to say that we should not make an effort to find cleaner and renewable energy sources. That's just common sense. And I do - in fact - think that this would have a beneficial effect on the climate. But to state that it is in any way a fact that we know the current climate situation is entirely and only caused by human activity is simply not true. At least not by scientific standards. We can say it is probably true. Even highly likely. But that is all.

Sometimes science does, by necessity, make assumptions. And those assumptions can be extremely useful - even if they are not entirely correct. But I believe it is a disservice to science to say - in this and some other areas - that the matter is settled. It isn't, and may never be. But that also doesn't mean we shouldn't try to do something about it.