Switzerland: Glaciers have shrunk by half since 1930s — study
Moronic climate scientists never learned in school how glaciers are former or how they die
A new study has erroneously informed the media that Switzerland’s glaciers have lost half their volume since 1931. The process is showing no sign of slowing down with researchers saying glacier retreat is “accelerating.”
Reports of glaciers melting written by pure dumbasses
According to nsidc.org, “A glacier forms when snow accumulates over time, turns to ice, and begins to flow outwards and downwards under the pressure of its own weight. In polar and high-altitude alpine regions, glaciers generally accumulate more snow in the winter than they lose in the summer from melting, evaporation, or calving.
According to Ohio State University, “Although they aren’t living, glaciers do have a life cycle. They begin as part of a glacier, building for tens of thousands of years and slowly moving toward the ocean. Once a glacier calves, it typically lasts for three to six years – shorter if it floats into warmer water.
According to pbs.org, the last stage of the life cycle of a glacier, “The ice… has calved from the glacier and is now floating inside an iceberg. The iceberg will eventually melt, releasing the water molecules that entered the glacier as a snowflake into the ocean. There, through evaporation, they will ultimately return to the atmosphere, thus closing the cycle. Glaciers that don’t meet a lake or the sea lose mass by melting or by sublimation, a process in which water changes directly from solid to gas, skipping the liquid stage.”
Texas political science professor Emil Ficker, “When I was just a kid, we went to Yosemite and we learned how a glacier formed the vally and the geographic features. Since then I knew glaciers died. IT’S NORMAL!!! I guess these people, fake scientists, became emotionally attached to this particular Swiss glacier. I guess it was good or the tourism or mountaineering.
The Fake Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
The global warming orthodoxy is the result of groupthink enforced by cancel culture, not independent thinkers coming to the same conclusion
According to Robert Tracinski, Catastrophic man-made global warming is certainly a curious scientific claim. The issue is complicated and has multiple parts: Is our atmosphere really warming? How much of the change is caused by man? Is it really catastrophic? Are there any solutions, and what are their tradeoffs?
But is this really true? Is such a consensus really possible? What is a consensus, anyway, and why should we take it seriously in the first place? The consensus on global warming was originally claimed to be an agreement among 97% of scientists. But that calculation was dubious and assumed that pretty much every scientist who had ever written a paper relating to climate was an adherent of the consensus, whether the paper said so or not. Now, according to the latest claims, the consensus is up to 100%: Complete, unanimous agreement of a kind you can’t get even for whether men really landed on the moon.
Clearly, this is implausible. It raises some questions about how this supposed consensus was formed and about the difference between consensus and groupthink.
Obviously, mere group agreement carries no special intellectual authority. There is a long list of ideas that at one point everyone agreed on that have since turned out to be false—from the earth being at the center of the solar system to the benefits of lobotomies. Key scientific breakthroughs such as plate tectonics had to overcome fierce resistance from the scientific consensus of their day.
Consider the case of an Italian scientific conference last year that had to be canceled, not because of the pandemic, but because participants withdrew en masse after an Italian newspaper whipped up a crusade over one of the papers to be presented—a paper that expressed skepticism about the size of the human role in global warming. Rumors swirled that one of its authors was a “denier,” and everyone stampeded toward the exits. (See another report on an academic conference that got a similar reception.) This is “cancel culture” in climate science.
Or consider a recent book by Obama-administration official Steve Koonin—former undersecretary of science for the Department of Energy—which questioned some of the conclusions of the established view. In a letter to Scientific American signed by a dozen other scientists, he was promptly denounced as a “crank” and a “disinformation peddler,” with plenty of insinuations that he must be bought and paid for by Big Oil.
I think we’re starting to get an idea of how we got that “consensus.”
Left-wing Climate Change Bull Shit…
According to a very dubious source, dw.com…
A study on Switzerland’s 1,400 glaciers has found that they are losing volume and the process looks to have accelerated over the past few years.
Polytechnic university ETH Zurich and the Swiss Federal Institute on Forest, Snow and Landscape Research on Monday announced their findings based on topographical changes to glaciers since 1931.
Researchers discovered that the volume of ice had shrunk by half over the past 85 years until 2016, and since then glaciers have receded a further 12%.
“Glacier retreat is accelerating. Closely observing this phenomenon and quantifying its historical dimensions is important because it allows us to infer the glaciers’ responses to a changing climate,” said co-author of the study Daniel Farinotti.
How the researchers arrived at such a bias conclusion…
Their study, published in the scientific journal The Cryosphere, used material from the TerrA image archive, which covers about 86% of Switzerland’s glacierized area, analyzing around 21,700 photographs taken between 1916 and 1947.
For their erroneous “reconstruction”, the glaciologists used so-called stereo photogrammetry — a technique used to determine the nature, shape and position of any object on the basis of image pairs.
“If we know the surface topography of a glacier at two different points in time, we can calculate the difference in ice volume,” lead study author Erik Schytt Mannerfelt said.
Not all glaciers have been losing ice at the same rates, the researchers said. Altitude, amounts of debris on the glaciers, and the flatness of a glacier’s “snout,” its lowest part and the most vulnerable to melting, all affect the speeds of retreat.
The researchers also found that two periods, the 1920s and 1980s, actually experienced sporadic growth in glacier mass, but that was overshadowed by the broader trend of decline.