“The Fuse is Blown”. Glaciologist’s Jaw Dropping Account of a Shattering Moment

January 22, 2015

If you’ve missed the other segments of our interview with Glaciologist Eric Rignot – do not, repeat, do not, miss this one.

Rignot was a co-author of the “holy shit moment” paper from last spring, showing that large areas of the West Antarctic Ice sheet are now in “irreversible decline”.
That news made for one of my most harrowing videos of the last year, which you can, and should view if you have not – below the fold.

I’m keeping these clips from our interviews minimally edited – I want the raw video to speak for itself to current readers, and to historians, who will undoubtedly understand all too well why we were peeling our jaws off the floor after this one.

60 Responses to ““The Fuse is Blown”. Glaciologist’s Jaw Dropping Account of a Shattering Moment”


  1. […] according to a paper in the 16 June 2014 issue of Geophysical Research Letters. ** According to NASA climate scientist Eric Rignot in early 2015, “the fuse is blown.” Rignot goes on to explain this “shattering” moment and also points out the utter […]


  2. Reblogged this on Move for Change and the Brooklyn Culture Jam and commented:
    Ice sheet stability and the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. The issue is that the six glaciers are melting and the melt is unstoppable. The problem is that the melt will not be gradual–the models show that the uneven surface of the Antarctic will cause abrupt changes and increases in sea levels. The last time carbon dioxide levels went to 400 PPM, sea levels rose 23 meters. The videos lay everything out.

  3. Flow Ir In Says:

    so how, if there is all this melting going on, has the world wide sea level NOT risen anything like the expected amount?

    Could it be that there is no correlation between ice extent and sea level and the model is entirely wrong, (given it does not take into account the inner seas connected t the surface seas by the biblical “great fountains of the deep”)?
    Indeed, the interpretation of historical sea level and ice cap extents is based on this false assumption of correlation which current ice melting and sea level puts the lie to.

    The ice melt is alarming, but not actually that alarming…


  4. Sigh… @ Flow Ir In:

    The thing is, worldwide sea level has risen MORE than expected amounts, in fact it’s ACCELERATING faster than IPCC predictions. The fact that you don’t know this doesn’t mean it isn’t happening.

    The models are wrong, but not in the way you think. In most cases, they’re underestimating the rate of change. And don’t account for many unknown factors that are contributing to the rapid changes in our ecology… Observable changes are easy to see if you choose to look. Miami is already flooding regularly and losing drinking water to the encroaching sea.

    http://www.wired.com/2015/02/rising-sea-levels-already-making-miamis-floods-worse/

    Norfolk, Virginia is also Flooding regularly. The navy has had to build multiple higher levels to their docks to accommodate the rising sea.

    http://www.npr.org/2014/06/24/324891517/as-sea-levels-rise-norfolk-is-sinking-and-planning

    America’s 1st climate refugees have already had to abandon homes and villages in Alaska as more and more land is engulfed by the sea.

    http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/05/americas-first-climate-refugees-newtok-alaska

    These scenarios are being played out in coastal cities and low lying island nations around the world. And human activities are continuing to exacerbate the predicament. We’re pumping so much ground water out of the land as result of warming induced droughts to use for our unsustainable food and energy systems, that all that freshwater making it’s way to the oceans is contributing to sea level rise.

    http://www.revealnews.org/article/overpumping-of-groundwater-is-contributing-to-global-sea-level-rise/

    In the face of all the observable physical evidence, to deny the correlations is to lie to one’s self. Denial will only be possible for so much longer. Either way, we’re f#c%ed, whether you’re alarmed or not.

    • Flow Ir In Says:

      can i give you a big SIGH back?

      If sea levels were rising, they would rise WORLDWIDE. that’s how water finding its level in a gravity well works.

      Those places you quoted are indeed seeing a local sea level change. WHY?
      let us turn to satellite based laser interferometry to find out….

      guess what. Subsidence. (http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1392/pdf/circ1392.pdf)

      that’s why i talked about “world wide sea level” as opposed to “local” or “spot” sea level. If sea levels were rising, we’d see a GLOBAL change.

      If you read further into the spate of subsidence in costal US of A, you’ll see it is linked to the pumping of groundwater – which causes the land to sag. Not the seas to rise.

      So, in face of the observable physical evidence, taking into account, you know, physics, and having a look from a wider viewpoint and not simply inferring things incorrectly from subjective data, to assert the correlation is to lie to one’s self…

      Really, read up on interferometry. The Japanese are doing wonderful things with their satellite. The images of the ground level changes in Christchurch after the earthquake are fascinating, and the pictures of what is happening the the US are educational…


      • “Global sea level has been rising since the late 1700s, according to tide gauges measurements that began in Amsterdam in 1700, in Liverpool, England in 1768 and in Stockholm, Sweden in 1774. These gauges suggest that the rise has been accelerating at 0.01mm/yr^2, and if the conditions that led to this acceleration continue, we can expect sea level will rise by 1.1 ft (0.34 m) by 2100 (Jevrejeva et al., 2008). At a minimum, sea level rise during the 21st century should equal that of the 20th century, about seven inches (0.6 feet, 0.18 m). This is the lower bound given by the IPCC in its 2007 assessment, which projected sea level rise of 0.6 – 1.9 ft (0.18 – 0.59 m) by 2100. However, they cautioned in their report that due to the lack of knowledge about how melting glaciers behave, the actual sea level rise might be higher. Since the publication of the 2007 IPCC report, a number of scientists have argued that the IPCC’s projections of sea level rise are too conservative.

        Ice sheet dynamics are still poorly understood, and many key processes controlling ice flow in a warming climate are not adequately taken into consideration in the 2007 IPCC report. Additionally, the effects of basal lubrication, dynamic glacial thinning, and increased ice stream flow after the disintegration of buttressing ice shelves are not included in current ice sheet models. Feedback loops and their impacts on sea level rise may also be underestimated. Tweaking is still needed on models of thermal expansion (Church, 2007).

        Additionally, the IPCC employed the same model to predict future sea level rise as was used to inaccurately calculate past increases – according to one scientist, “The models in the IPCC report underestimated the sea level rise that we have already observed by 40%” (Kinver). Another stated, “…very low sea-level rise values as reported in the IPCC TAR now appear rather implausible in the light of the observational data” (Rahmstorf, 2007).

    • Flow Ir In Says:

      There’s more. YEs, sea levels are slowly rising, as would be expected with the seas becoming warmer. The largest influences on sea level are not glaciers melting, but rather seasonal weather, and local gravity.
      Indeed, global sea levels, measured by satelitte, even DROPPED during 2010-2011, despite glacial and ice cap melt. So how does that work?

      • greenman3610 Says:

        like this

      • dumboldguy Says:

        “If you read further into the spate of subsidence in costal (sic) (coastal?) US of A, you’ll see it is linked to the pumping of groundwater – which causes the land to sag”.

        Spoken like someone who doe not really want to know how things “work” but instead is seeking out any bit of trash to justify his contrarian BELIEFS.

        As in “….simply inferring things incorrectly from subjective data, to assert the correlation is to lie to one’s self”

        • Flow Ir In Says:

          Did you not read the reference i posted?

          I can bring more if you like.

          The final quote was a re-wording of the original posting, which used subjective data – the appearance of sea level at a point on the coast – to infer global changes.

          NASA tracks global sea level changes, then applies a lot of ‘correction’ factors to give maps of local sea level changes. I’ve been following the (for me) more interesting gravitational effects – distortions in the gravity well leading to local sea level drops near melting ice.

          What NASA shows is that sea level is rising, as expected, hand in hand with sea temperature rise. Indeed, that single factor accounts for 98% of observed change (http://www.pnas.org/content/106/51/21527.full)

          Deviations from that temperature linked change have been attributed to weather – rain , for example. Apparently this is a larger effect than glacial melt, since it reversed the rise for a while.

          What we are not seeing is large effects from glacial melt. If anyone can post a peer reviewed article which proves a contribution, that would be great. All i’ve seen so far is the assumption. If you do post, then i’ll do what i do with every article i read: pick it to bits before i decide whether i agree with it or not.

          Why is it that people who believe in the drastic and terrible outcomes of always get so personal when their beliefs are challenged, and why do they assume it is a man that is challenging them?

          • greenman3610 Says:

            It’s a strange choice to cite a piece by Stefan Rahmstorf, whom I know and have interviewed a number of times – as some kind of evidence against a glacial component of sea level rise.
            see here, where I’ve got him right from the start

            and see his discussion here, from an event in iceland in 2013, where I was in attendance. (link should start you at 28:44 into the talk)

            clearly he is deeply concerned about sea level, and the ice sheets contributions.
            Rahmstorf also cited in this discussion
            http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2012/12/how-much-do-melting-ice-sheets-contribute-to-sea-level-rise/
            which mentions a 20 percent contribution of ice sheets in recent decades, and rising.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            Perhaps I should have guessed that you were a woman when you SIGHED on us with “….can I give you a big SIGH back?”. I myself don’t give a rodent’s rear end whether you are male, female, or a hermaphrodite, and wonder why you are so sensitive about your gender that you had to bring it up. (?????)

            No one is getting “personal” with you here on Crock because you are challenging our “beliefs”. You are talking some non-scientific nonsense, and that is what has drawn our “personal” attention. (If anyone on this thread is driven by belief, it is you, and I speak of your belief in your own intellectual superiority). I myself am concerned that you perhaps lack the scientific knowledge and logical thinking skills to understand what the science has been telling us for some time. What you said here and your posts on Quora (if that’s you) are not confidence inspiring in that regard.

            “Did you not read the reference i posted?” Yes, I read it, and have read many others regarding subsidence in the mid-Atlantic region and other places. I have lived in Virginia for over 45 years and have visited ALL the places pictured on the title page of your reference.

            “I can bring more if you like”, you say? Please do, but try to avoid the error you made by taking part of a limited study on a small area and trying to hang your hat on it while ignoring the effects of glacial isostatic adjustment or rebound.

            I speak of “If you read further into the spate of subsidence in costal (sic) (coastal?) US of A, you’ll see it is linked to the pumping of groundwater – which causes the land to sag”.

            “I’ve been following the (for me) more interesting gravitational effects – distortions in the gravity well leading to local sea level drops near melting ice”. Yes, that is interesting stuff, and the interesting part is that when that sea level drops near the melting ice sheets, the water will go somewhere and cause an even bigger rise. Melting of the Antarctic Ice sheet will lead to big sea level rise in the northern hemisphere.

            “….then i’ll do what i do with every article i read: pick it to bits before i decide whether i agree with it or not”. Sounds like a plan! On what basis do you “pick apart” articles? And on what basis do you “decide” to “agree with them or not”?


      • “As the world’s oceans rise, low-lying coastal areas will disappear. Flooding of coastal areas will become more common and more severe as storm surges have easier access to these lower-lying areas. The occurrence of extreme high water events related to storm surges, high tides, surface waves, and flooding rivers will also increase. Flooding and loss of land will have significant impacts on humans, wildlife, and entire ecosystems.

        Rising sea levels will lead to permanent and intermittent flooding in low-lying coastal areas across the world. Shorelines in Samoa have already retreated by as much as 160 feet, forcing residents to move to higher ground.”

        All of this is happening right now. You can’t pretend it’s not. LOCAL GRAVITY?!?! REALLY?!?! LOL!

        • Flow Ir In Says:

          I didn’t say sea levels were not rising, i said they were not rising faster than could be expected (from thermal expansion).
          And yes, local gravity. As Ice pack melts, the slope of spacetime around it decreases, so water is less drawn towards it and the experienced sea level nearby drops. Further away, it rises. Not from the increased water volume, but from the change in spacetime curvature. really. go look it up

  5. Flow Ir In Says:

    Thank you all. I’ve spent a lot of time reading about sea level change now, and despite there being a lot of assumptions, massaging of data and conflicting viewpoints it has still been an education. (i read lots of papers which measure ice melt and compare to sea level change. Wildly differing, but still, lots of them)

    I’m still unconvinced that the doomsaying view of ice and glacial melt is deserved, that’s a wait and see situation, and since there’s nothing we can do about it, i guess we will just have to. Some papers claim ice counts for 1/3 of observed change, others claim 2%. All assume the oceans are on the surface only (the GRACE observations). We know that is not a valid assumption.

    It does appear that there is plenty that we can do, though. Namely land based storage of water. Re-forestation would be an energy efficient way to do it, or de-salination of sea water and pumping of the result into the ground. Might help with the subsidence issues, too.

    At any rate, my initial statement “so how, if there is all this melting going on, has the world wide sea level NOT risen anything like the expected amount?” still stands. Each time more data comes in, we appear to have re-adjustments of the analysis of old data. At least we have a bunch of predictions of how much effect the melt will have, varying by a factor of 10, up from 9cm. Since you are all so convinced this is unstoppable, perhaps we could all come back here in 5 years to either pile into me some more or perhaps find excuses as to why things didn’t change as much as you hoped.

    • dumboldguy Says:

      You’ve done it again! This paragraph is nonsensical.

      “It does appear that there is plenty that we can do, though. Namely land based storage of water. Re-forestation would be an energy efficient way to do it, or de-salination of sea water and pumping of the result into the ground. Might help with the subsidence issues, too”.

      Land based storage of water? Where on land would we store the water that would result in ~12 feet of sea level rise if only 1/20th. of the Arctic and Antarctic ice sheets melted?. Since ~70% of the Earth surface is covered with water, we’d have to cover ALL the land with a ~30 foot deep lake to store it all “on land” and avoid any sea level rise.

      “Pumping of the result of desalination into the ground might help with the subsidence issues” shows that you have little understanding of the science involved there.

      “….all come back here in 5 years to either pile into me some more or perhaps find excuses as to why things didn’t change as much as you hoped” is rather snarky. It certainly doesn’t like something someone who “knows the difference between illusion, delusion and real magic” would say.

      • Flow Ir In Says:

        I flattered that you should expend so much energy researching me. Was it you that flagged one of my quora replies?

        I wasn’t hoping to be snarky with my closing statement, I was saying that until the glaciers actually melt, we are simply predicting the future. You say doom, gloom, up to X metres of sea level rise. For whatever reasons, i disagree strongly and think you are full of it, as is most of the science i’ve read – lots of assumptions (which are not corrected when new data proving them incorrect comes in) lots of ‘correction factors’ which seem very reasonable except they all correct upwards and lots of rather strange rejection of other science when it offers other stories.

        The interferometry data is real, it is extensive and it shows subsidence in all those costal areas where NASA and local data shows sea level rise. (the NASA data because it is ‘corrected’. i’d like to see raw data) Interferometry shows a lot of subsidence, 1.8mm – 4.0mm a year (2010 data is all i have access to). The VMS altimetry showed essentially zero sea level change in that location in the same period.

        But, let’s return to the other stuff, since you are feeling so intellectually superior to me. Land based storage of water. I was figuring trees. they can hold quite a lot. Or pumping it into the ground that has had the water pumped out of it. That’s where it used to be. I didn’t mention the inner seas, since that’s too new to have any real data on.

        As for ““Pumping of the result of desalination into the ground might help with the subsidence issues” shows that you have little understanding of the science involved there.” Are you telling me that you DO have an understanding of the science involved there (wherever and whatever that science might be)?
        Are we talking energy science (which i only now a little bit about), since desalination takes energy, or are we talking about the causes of subsidence, which are many and varies (and i only know a little bit about)? Or are we talking about pumping? What were you trying to say with that wee barb of yours?

        Your statement on the sea level rise if the ice caps melted is, of course, based on assumptions. It is exactly those assumptions that i was challenging in the first place. We have seen massive ice cap melting, and we see many papers claiming that it accounts for 20-30% of sea level rise, but then the global mean sea level change, rotated and adjusted for temperature is NOT significantly correlated with measured glacial melt. Prove me wrong. Show me a paper. The moment you do, i’ll shut up, but this whole time, you haven’t. You’ve been very personal and quite stalker-ish and you’ve helped introduce me to tons of new information, but you haven’t fronted up with that vital correlation. Based on assumption.

        If you would like a display of real magic, pick a colour.

        • Flow Ir In Says:

          *edit. somewhere i lost a sentence where i was talking about cheapskate bay, which makes te VMS statement make more sense

        • dumboldguy Says:

          Don’t be flattered, because it tookl no time or energy at all. A quick google of your strange name led to Quora and WAY more than anyone needs to know about you. You made up the name and legally adopted it? Why? What does it mean?

          “I was saying that until the glaciers actually melt, we are simply predicting the future”. That’s like saying “Until the sun comes up tomorrow, we won’t know of it will be light out”. You need to learn enough science to be able to distinguish truth from the “other science when it offers other stories” which comes to you
          from the denier world.

          There is no way I could feel “intellectually superior” to someone who could write this (from your Quora profile):

          “……meditating on acid. I figured out techniques for staying clear as i moved through different stages of harmonic sampling (whilst everyone else was melting, i could stay straight) and met all sorts of entities that exist at different harmonic timescales. (My first clues about the kernels of truth in all myth). I worked on the visualisation of a simplex, using old DOS 3d glasses based renderings of rotating hyper-objects and meditation. After about 3 years i managed to hold in my head a full 5D visualsiation (a rotating 5-cell, so 1D of time and 4D of physical) Experiments with LSD over, I figured out how to use the fabric of spacetime to generate a hyperspace transmitter. Then I contacted aliens, of course.
          This led to the agreed hosting of a visiting non-physical alien life form. We co-habited for a while, and then we agreed that the host me would move on, leaving the visiting me in charge”.

          And you’ve done it yet again with “Land based storage of water. I was figuring trees. they can hold quite a lot. Or pumping it into the ground that has had the water pumped out of it. That’s where it used to be. I didn’t mention the inner seas, since that’s too new to have any real data on”. More nonsense.

          And you obviously know little about the many issues related to desalination. Yes, I am telling you that I DO have an understanding of the science involved “there” (which you admit you only know a little bit about). Educate yourself and stop making foolish statements and wasting our time.

          (And it sounds like you’re having a wonderful time in Hohitka. Do the Anunnaki from Niburu visit often?)

          • Flow Ir In Says:

            How are trees nonsense? Trees combine water and carbon dioxide to build themselves, and they are massive, grow on their own and can be seeded by drone in the millions.

            How are the inner seas nonsense? They’ve only been recently confirmed to exist, and we nothing of their physical mechanisms.

            How is returning water to where it has been lost (one of the causes of subsidence identified in the papers published on the subject) be rubbish?

            you are simply being oafish. I feel that you have an emotional attachment to the idea of flooding and devastation, you are not willing to consider anything that may put your desires in jeopardy.

            With regards to desalination, you are being rude. I could say ‘you obviously know nothing about the many issues regarding , but given that any topic has an endless sea of issues associated with it, how do i know what i’m supposed to know or not know without first discussing it? You wording is simply a scaffold on which you can hang your sense of superiority on.

            As for the core topic, the lack of data showing correlation between glacial melt and sea level change – something which should be out there, given it is the core assumption of so much of the fear mongering – you have spent a lot of time insulting me, making personal attacks to divert, insulting my intelligence, generally being yobbish, that i’m sure I’ve touched a sore point.

            I’d fully expect that IF there was a published paper with that data, the moment that i posed my first question: “Could it be that there is no correlation between ice extent and sea level and the model is entirely wrong” That somebody would have said “Here is that evidence”. In reality, the question is one that you do not have an answer to.

            hence all the derailing, appeals to authority and attacks on my personality… I hope you appreciate response in the same manner.

            If you want to know what my name means, it is a long story. Your name is fairly obvious. I assume it is meant to be a kind of humble self-referential joke, as you think you are smart. Correct me if i am wrong. Mine comes from my name: “Let your love flow like the sunshine”. I felt that it was too long and too hopeful to be usable in the long term on a planet so bereft of love and kindness and so ruled by miserable expletives like yourself. So, i took my middle name, Flow, and made a joke of it. Flowirin in a devonshire accent sounds like “flowering”, which still contained the essence of my full name yet captured the concepts of rain and water, which represent sadness, something i experience every day when confronted with the blinkered self-destructiveness and hatred of this world.

            One day you will learn the links between your mind and the expression of reality that you perceive, then you will be slightly ashamed that you fought so hard to preserve your dream of a flooded world. There is a difference between being aware of potential futures and avoiding them, and being aware of potential futures and putting all your energy into bringing them into being. I’m not sure what it is you hope will prevent the floods. A complete cessation of fossil fuel burning? The immediate replacing of coal and gas fire power stations with solar and nuclear? There will be some personal investment there, something you cling to. At any rate, it is past – as this blog pointed out, we have passed the point of no return on glacial melt, so all energies need to be directed to finding some way to mitigate it. I put my energy into finding the fatal flaw in the belief system – the correlation between melt and see level rise. I’m good at what i do, so i doubt you can now fix it.

            You never picked a colour.

  6. dumboldguy Says:

    Reply to Flow Ir In 4:40 PM comment on 4/9

    Your full name is “Let your love flow like the sunshine”? Lord love a duck! I had tried to make some phonetic sense out of “Flow Ir In” and did get the impression that it sounded like “flowering”, but that by itself didn’t cut it. So “Flow” is your middle name, “Let your love” is your first name, and “Like the sunshine” is your last name? Initials are then FLL? Are you aware what that can be an acronymn for? (And I don’t feel much ‘love” flowing when you say things like “miserable expletives like yourself”, and call me “oafish”, “rude”, and “yobbish”. LOL).

    (I am going to respond only briefly to some of your nonsense).

    “How are trees nonsense? Trees combine water and carbon dioxide to build themselves, and they are massive, grow on their own and can be seeded by drone in the millions”. (Yes, and we already have trees growing on the planet that help ameliorate AGW. They are already growing just about everywhere that they can grow, and we are deforesting away and degrading what tree cover now exists. Where do you suggest we plant them? In deserts? On the ocean? On the ice sheets? On parking lots and rooftops? And use drones” LMAO)

    How are the inner seas nonsense? They’ve only been recently confirmed to exist, and we nothing of their physical mechanisms. (They’re nonsense because they have not been directly confirmed to exist, we have no way of tapping them, they are likely rather poisonous, as most “deep” water is, and they are estimated to contain only as much water as the Arctic Ocean, which contains about 1.4% of the water in the oceans. The “inner seas” will NEVER be meaningful in the context you are grasping at).

    How is returning water to where it has been lost (one of the causes of subsidence identified in the papers published on the subject) be rubbish? (What good will it do down there? It will be polluted and contaminate aquifers and CANNOT “reinflate” the sunken layers of the aquifers beyond restoring a small part of the original subsidence. You really need to study the topic and stop saying such stupid things)

    “With regards to desalination, how do i know what i’m supposed to know or not know without first discussing it?” (First, you don’t “discuss” something that you admittedly “know little about” until you have gained minimal knowledge about it. Stop whining and educate yourself. You can do a google search on “disadvantages of desalination” and get 195,000 hits. The very first one is adequate for someone as ignorant as you, and the other 10 on the “hit list” on the first page will likely give you more detailed info)

    http://www.ehow.com/list_5961767_disadvantages-desalination.html

    As for the core topic, the lack of data showing correlation between glacial melt and sea level change – something which should be out there, given it is the core assumption. (Peter posted two video clips and a link to an article at 5:21 PM on 4/8. Why have you not viewed them and learned from them? Why do you keep demanding that WE do your homework for you? Why have YOU posted no links to anything but the Chesapeake Bay paper?)

    You aren’t knowledgable or intelligent enough to “respond in the same manner” to what you call “all the derailing, appeals to authority and attacks on my personality”. All your commentary here is just maundering self justification. You are clueless on much of the science, and adrift in a sea of personal delusion. You are a troll of sorts—-one who has many personal issues and you are a VERY “needy” person. I retired from a career in which I spent much time helping people like you, and I’m done with that and with you. Until you educate yourself to the point where you can demonstrate some real science knowledge to us, you will hear no more from me.

    “I’m not sure what it is you hope will prevent the floods. A complete cessation of fossil fuel burning? The immediate replacing of coal and gas fire power stations with solar and nuclear”. (That’s would be a good start, but since it won’t happen in time, “doom” approaches. You can add wind and tidal to the “replacement” list)
    .
    “I’m good at what i do” you say? We can agree on that, provided that “what you do” is present a caricature of a batshit crazy person (or FLL—Freakin’ Looney Lady).

  7. Flow Ir In Says:

    http://www.treehugger.com/clean-technology/how-do-you-plant-1-billion-trees-year-drones-course.html

    http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/36349/how-much-does-the-curvature-of-space-change-the-volume-of-earth-by

    You know nothing about the inner seas, so your statement that they will NEVER be significant is hubristic and shows your over estimation of your own intelligence.

    Ok, 5 problems with desalination, all of which could be addressed. Big deal. Nuclear power has more issues and that’s everywhere.

    I have read many papers about glacial contribution to sea level change. Most track back to Church. Looking at that data there’s nothing really conclusive, it is like a great game of whispers where everyone quotes down a chain to a bit of guesswork which, statistically is just above chance, and given uncertainty in thermal expansion is indistinguishable from chance.

    Why am i needy? I’ve identified an assumption that is the basis of a whole lot of science and called it. How is that needy? i’m not looking for your approval – i’m challenging you to respond, but all you can do is attack. It is like saying hi to a small dog and getting barked at. You scoffed at my Quora posts about hyper-dimensional visualisation. I find most people with an IQ a few SDs above average respond in that way – the idea is beyond their comprehension and they are so proud of their general superiority that they cannot accept that there are concepts beyond them. I find it amusing that you keep attacking my intelligence and you have no idea what you are talking about.

    Pick a colour, seriously. Let me show you what it is that I do.

  8. dumboldguy Says:

    You ARE hopeless! I am moving to DNFTT mode now.

    Farewell! (Get help!)

    • Flow Ir In Says:

      Amazing. So many insults, so much Ad Hominem and no manners. You can’t even acknowledge the assumption behind your mania.

      Face it – you are unsure about that assumption.

      • dumboldguy Says:

        DNFTT

        • Flow Ir In Says:

          Still no proof of the correlation, then? That makes you the baseless troll.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            DNFTT

          • Flow Ir In Says:

            Still no proof of the correlation, then? That makes you the baseless troll.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            DNFTT

          • Flow Ir In Says:

            I’m sorry, i can’t help it, i must keep feeding you. Where’s the proof of the assumption that glacial melt is correlated with sea level rise. Should have enough measurements by now.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            Yes, those like you with serious “issues” often say “I’m sorry” as they keep demonstrating to all how serious their issues really are. You say you MUST keep this up? You just CAN”T stop? Are you out of control? Yes, you DO need help, and the sooner you seek it, the sooner your recovery will begin.

            You may have noticed that only a very few of us have “fed” you, and it has been some real science. Perhaps so few bother with you because you blithely ignore whatever we have sent you and DEMAND that we cater to your obsession with “proof” of a very small part of the climate change-AGW problem.

            You have posted nothing but horseshit about space-time, 5-D visualization, inner seas, trees, drones, desalination, and subsidence—-none of it really germane to this particular post. That’s why Peter and oldspeak have given up on trying to talk sense to you. I have done so only as a “remote psychology” experiment, and I have gathered enough data to see that DNFTT is appropriate to your situation. Rather than realize that you are a rather unique sort of troll here, you insist on projecting that back on those of us who have tried to educate you.

            Why don’t you go away? Go get the help you need.

            And to all, DNFTT……………..

          • Flow Ir In Says:

            It is really quite simple. All the science you have thrown at me fails to address the validity of the basic assumption, that ice melt is correlated with sea level rise.
            In another field, had such a flaw been pointed out, then it would have been at least acknowledged, and then the lack addressed. Who would not enjoy an easy publication to add to their resume?

            Instead of the sensible and measured response, i’ve been belittled, stalked, subject to all sorts of attacks and fallacious appeals.

            The reason i’ve ‘ignored’ all the science you’ve shown me is because it is all irrelevant, and indeed, all depends upon the assumption which is what i first posted about. You’ve decided to try and turn that around and say that is some kind of lack in ME, yet in reality it is a lack in YOU. You are attempting to bully me into acceptance or submission rather that accept that my question about that basic assumption is valid. You may feel very secure in your position, but i doubt that anyone with any scientific training who is reading this exchange would think the same.

            as for “You have posted nothing but horseshit about space-time, 5-D visualization, inner seas, trees, drones, desalination, and subsidence—-none of”

            the effects of spacetime curvature on sea level rise is accurate, and indeed, YOU previously quoted it in relation to ice shelf melt. YOU posted about 5-D visualisation, not me (that was part of your stalking me on quora, remember?) subsidence is indeed highly pertinent to local sea level rise and the trees/drones/desalination and inner seas had meaning in context. If we are using that thin thread of reasoning to reject data, then anything that you posted that does not relate to the correlation between ice melt and sea level rise is equally spurious.

            Your attempts to ‘educate’ me are misguided, although appreciated. I’d prefer if you would take the opportunity to address the blind spots in your own highly dogmatic belief systems.

            Since you are such mates with the climate alarmists, perhaps you could convince them to come up with a paper to fill the void at the bottom of the doomsaying predictions?

          • dumboldguy Says:

            DNFTT

          • Flow Ir In Says:

            still no coherent response then. Look chicken little, the sky is falling

          • dumboldguy Says:

            Laugh of the day here! Perhaps the LEAST coherent current commenter on Crock, LFL herself, dares to lecture us on what constitutes “coherence”?? LMAO

            May I also suggest that your continued fixation on your delusions is reminiscent of a sort of mental and verbal “schizophrenic rocking”—-a type of “chanting”, if you will?

            (By the way, you say you now live in Hokitika? Did you move into town after your stay at Seaview? Seems like a nice little town to live in).

  9. Flow Ir In Says:

    gosh, you get more creepy. Stalking is weirdo activity, you know?
    Which delusions is it that you think i am fixated on?
    It appears to me that YOU are the delusional one. For example, you keep telling me that i’ve said things, when it is you that has said them. That’s classic schiz, not being able to tell voices in your head from reality. repetitions of DNFTT are a lot like chanting, too…

    Typically, if one is presenting a hypothesis (in your case, ice cap melt will doom us all with massive sea level change) then one has to justify the assumptions. All i have done is pointed out that the assumption that there is a correlation between ice cap melt and sea level change has never been formally proven.

    Since your response to this is to quote spurious science (“look, this paper has the same assumption!”) and get really personal in your attacks, it is clear that you are not rational, nor a good scientist, nor do you actually care.

    The only upside is that time will tell.

    • dumboldguy Says:

      “Gosh, you get more creepy. Stalking is weirdo activity, you know?”

      You flatter yourself by saying that you are being “stalked”. All I did was google “Flow Ir In” to see what meaning it had. Many self-styled intellectuals with narcissistic tendencies who comment on blogs often choose over blown and “weird” screen names with “deep” meanings to show how superior they are to the rest of us.

      I was surprised (shocked, actually) to see how really far out you are when I read your short “life and death” history on Quora. What is “weirdo activity” is unashamedly posting such delusional nonsense for THE WHOLE WORLD TO SEE.

      Thank you for proving my point by making this incoherent comment.

      And I will again ask:

      (By the way, you say you now live in Hokitika? Did you move into town after your stay at Seaview? Seems like a nice little town to live in).

      • Flow Ir In Says:

        It continues, eh. Ad hominem attacks to screen the lack of science behind the doomsday predictions.

        • dumboldguy Says:

          Yes, it continues. The seriously deluded blind squirrel is sitting there clutching her only “nut”, rocking back and forth while pushing aside all the real science that many of us have sent her way. (Or perhaps she simply doesn’t understand the science? Our girl LFL is in many ways a classic example of the Dunning-Kruger effect).

          One good example is her response to the very basic link about desalination, a topic about which she displayed extreme ignorance (and even admitted that she knew little about).

          “Ok, 5 problems with desalination, all of which could be addressed. Big deal. Nuclear power has more issues and that’s everywhere”.

          All of which COULD be addressed? No acknowledgment of the fact that desalination is not an answer? And an incoherent attempt at deflection onto nuclear power? She obviously STILL doesn’t understand desalinization, and I would suspect she is ignorant of the science behind nuclear power as well.

          She whines yet again here about “ad hominem” attacks, a term she obviously does not understand. It is not an ad hominem attack to call someone an idiot or delusional who has shown time and again that they are in fact an idiot or delusional. It is a statement of simple FACT, and LFL’s continued return to this thread is proof of that. Any person with a normal brain would have moved on long ago and stopped embarrassing themselves.

          Or is the whole Flow Ir In thing just a big spoof? Is she really some neuro-imaging research geek who has made up the bat-shit crazy LFL story for entertainment and trolls the web with it?

          She speaks of spending “7 happy YEARS using research grade mind altering drugs (meditating on acid)”. (The acid users I have worked with all fried their brains within two years).

          She speaks of allowing a “visiting non-physical alien life form” to take over her body, and of that alien becoming so unhappy that it attempted suicide while in LFL’s body. “I didn’t much like the human world. You lot are horrible, to be fair, lost in a loveless void, out of the sight of god, being mean to each other all the time and destroying the things you love”.

          She was saved, and is now living in hokitika, “rebuilding a human life, working on innate forms of language, innate sense of truth, planetary formation theory, earthquakes, whatever takes my fancy”. Does that mean she has “expelled” the alien? Is she on the path to recovery? Yes, “working on” planetary formation theory and earthquakes sounds like excellent therapy. Good luck, LFL. If your “story” is true and not a spoof, I do sincerely hope that you are getting the help you need.

          Back to DNFTT mode. Any bets on whether LFL (or her alien possessor) will respond to this? And on how delusional, incoherent, and/or down-right bat-shit crazy that response will be?

          • Flow Ir In Says:

            It doesn’t matter what science you throw at me, if that science relies on the same basic unproven assumption. It doesn’t prove the assumption.

            I understand “ad hominem”, and your posts display it. You are rejecting the validity of my question based on the nature of my person… very poor behaviour, and one that you continue to expand on.

            You are also stalking me, and finding other things i have written, then pulling them into this discussion as if they have any pertinence to the question – “is there a correlation?”

            At any rate, instead of wasting my time stalking you (creepynastydumboldguy), i’ve been emailing various scientists, from NASA and who feature in publications, expressing the same question. No answer yet. It is a more fruitful use of time than your more political approach.

            I keep coming back because with every post you make, you undermine your own standing, so i’ll keep giving you rope.

            Is there a proven correlation between ice sheet melt and sea level rise (is the model that the volume of the seas is fixed and water that melts form ice bound ice has nowhere else to go)?

            We have plenty of GRACE data, let’s see a proof.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            ZZZZZzzzzz…….!


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: