[MeganC]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

My best guess is "Squirrel!"

I am not amused.

[N_Fiddledog]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

The finding is important. The overwrought media aren't.

This consideration of the findings makes some interesting points as to cause.

$1:

Does anyone notice anything interesting? Yes, that’s right, the glacier in question, is in the vicinity of the volcano in question. And I don’t think anyone would argue that a undersea volcano can’t heat up the sea in the vicinity to a little higher temperature than it would be normally. Has it had an effect? Who knows … it doesn’t appear to have been mentioned at all in the study. But, if you go to the Guardian article you’ll see an embedded 17 second video that attempts to explain the effect of the warmer water on the glacier. It shows less dense (and therefore lighter) warm water somehow flowing under much denser and therefore heavier cold water to destabilize the glacier. The only reasonable explanation for such a flow would be if the heat source were somewhere near the bottom of the ocean, no? Otherwise its hard to explain how that warm water got below the cold water and stayed there.

But if you question things like this, you’re an ignorant nincompoop. A “denier”, which, by the way is akin to being a member of the KKK and a Holocaust denier all in one. However, I’m certainly not denying that something is happening in Antarctica. I am questioning the purported cause though. It isn’t at all unimaginable that the side of Antarctica most exposed to warmer South Pacific sea currents and experiencing volcanic activity might see some melting due to causes unrelated to CO2 put in the atmosphere by man.

http://hotair.com/archives/2014/05/14/a ... 000-years/

You yourself noticed this underwater melt is only happening on the West side. Have you asked yourself why?

[Zipperfish]

Could be the volcano, I suppose. And we are supposed to coming out of an ice age still, I gather (though I'm not muchgood at geology)) so maybe that's just what happens.

The key to AGW theory is that it should all happen very quickly, within a couple of hundred years, because the rate we are changing CO2 into the atmosphere is lightning fast in geological terms.

According to me, doubling CO2 will increase the average temperature of the earth 1 deg C. According to the IPCC it's around 3 deg C. If the IPCC is right, it'll be serious.

[BartSimpson]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

The key to AGW theory is that it should all happen very quickly

My problem with saying that AGW should occur at any specific speed denies the evidence of past catastrophic and rapid cooling/warming.

Wooly mammoth have been found that were flash frozen with their last meal still in their mouths - meaning they were frozen solid faster than the amount of time it would take them to swallow a mouthful of food.

Conversely, evidence along the eastern slope of the Sierra Mountains (particularly involving Lake Lahontan) indicates that the once vast ice fields of the Sierra melted so rapidly that lake levels rose fast enough to drown large numbers of pleistocene animals.

I suppose this is where I take umbrage at many of the predictions coming out of the AGW camp is that natural processes have done most of this stuff in the past. So while AGW may be contributing to these trends and it's reasonable to determine the size of the contribution, it's utter nonsense to conclude that AGW is driving these trends and that the ramifications are wholly unprecedented as they are not.

[BeaverFever]

$1:

Wooly mammoth have been found that were flash frozen with their last meal still in their mouths - meaning they were frozen solid faster than the amount of time it would take them to swallow a mouthful of food.

Dubious

[BartSimpson]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

$1:

Wooly mammoth have been found that were flash frozen with their last meal still in their mouths - meaning they were frozen solid faster than the amount of time it would take them to swallow a mouthful of food.

Dubious

You have Google. Use it.


That said, while there are people who are skeptical of the flash freezing theory it does follow the Occam's Razor principle as the least complex explanation for the various mammoth that have been recovered in exceptional condition.

One of the 'explanations' for a flash frozen mammoth was that the body was frozen but mummified over time. This does not satisfy the requirement that the mammoth first had to die quickly and then be preserved quickly enough for a mummification process to prevent otherwise natual processes of decay as internal bacteria would rot a corpse.

[stratos]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

$1:

Wooly mammoth have been found that were flash frozen with their last meal still in their mouths - meaning they were frozen solid faster than the amount of time it would take them to swallow a mouthful of food.

Dubious

A search on goggle shows reverences to this event but the articles are vague at best. Seems there is a debate on if it was instant freeze or death then then within a short time frozen with the advance of ice do to the ice age along with sinking into bogs and such to help preserve the carcass.

[BeaverFever]

Googling it only reveals a bunch of creationist christian websites, which pretty much proves it's bunk.

And I don't think a "flash freeze" is the least complex explanation for a well-preserved artifact. Not by a long shot. Lots of ancient artifacts and remains are found perfectly preserved for various reasons.

[BartSimpson]

Try simply freezing 5,000Kg of elephant before the gut bacteria rot and bloat it.

[BartSimpson]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

Googling it only reveals a bunch of creationist christian websites, which pretty much proves it's bunk.

And I don't think a "flash freeze" is the least complex explanation for a well-preserved artifact. Not by a long shot. Lots of ancient artifacts and remains are found perfectly preserved for various reasons.

I personally don't give a rip that some moron Creationists are hijacking something for their ignorant agenda. That doesn't diminish to me the evidence that these critters were most likely flash frozen.

[Zipperfish]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

I suppose this is where I take umbrage at many of the predictions coming out of the AGW camp is that natural processes have done most of this stuff in the past. So while AGW may be contributing to these trends and it's reasonable to determine the size of the contribution,

We agree up to this point...

$1:

it's utter nonsense to conclude that AGW is driving these trends and that the ramifications are wholly unprecedented as they are not.

...but not on this. You're speculating if you say AGW is not driving these events. Though not unprecedented, these levels of CO2, according to teh ice core data, haven't been seen for several hundred thousand years.

[Zipperfish]

$1:

'Nothing can stop retreat' of West Antarctic glaciers

or Italians for that matter.

[BartSimpson]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

You're speculating if you say AGW is not driving these events.

You're speculating if you say it absolutely and certainly does.

[Zipperfish]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

You're speculating if you say it absolutely and certainly does.

But I don't say it absolutely and certainly does. I'm saying that it's likely to be measurable and significant. That belief is based on my understanding of the greenhouse effect, the recent temperature record, the inferred historical temperature record, the satellite data, the current concentration of CO2 and its rate of increase, the levels of CO2 inferred by the ice core data, the rise in sea level, the diminishing arctic sea ice and, mosr recently, the evidence that teh WAIS in the Antarctic is breaking up.

On the other hand the temperature hasn't risen in the last 17 years or so. So there's certainly room for some skepticism.

[herbie]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

$1:

Wooly mammoth have been found that were flash frozen with their last meal still in their mouths - meaning they were frozen solid faster than the amount of time it would take them to swallow a mouthful of food.

Dubious

C'mon Beav, you're arguing with guys who think 2012 and The Day After Tomorrow were documentaries.