In July 2017, CNN and a number of other media outlets posted stories about iceberg A-68 calving off of Antarctica’s Larsen C Ice Shelf, with CNN suggesting we should be “freaked out” about it because of climate change. CNN was wrong. It was based on an incomplete understanding of iceberg formation and calving, driven by a rush to judgement to further the false climate disaster narrative.
For example, CNN’s John D. Sutter wrote in this article: That huge iceberg should freak you out. Here’s why:
This doesn’t NOT look like climate change.
There is no disagreement among climate scientists about whether humans are warming the Earth by burning fossil fuels and polluting the atmosphere with greenhouse gases. We are. And we see the consequences.
The climate chicken littles of the media blamed it on climate change then, but today, it looks like an Emily Litella moment has just occurred, as a new peer-reviewed scientific study says it wasn’t anything abnormal, nor should we worry about it. The new study published in Geophysical Research Letters tosses ice-cold water on those overhyped media claims. The study, MacKie et al. (2024), analyzed 47 years of observational satellite data from Antarctica and found that there has been no trend in annual Antarctic maximum calving size between 1976 and 2023.
The key findings of the study are:
- There has been no detectable upwards trend in the annual maximum iceberg area in Antarctica since 1973, based on satellite measurements.
- The break-off of Iceberg A-68 from the Larsen C Ice Shelf was not statistically notable.
- Calving events several times larger than anything observed in the modern record could occur, and still, it would not necessarily be due to climate change.
To be clear, the calving of the A-68 iceberg was “statistically unexceptional” in the historical satellite record. Let that sink in. The authors write:
This finding suggests that extreme calving events such as the recent 2017 Larsen C iceberg, A68, are statistically unexceptional and that extreme calving events are not necessarily a consequence of climate change.
The authors also underscore that calving of ice sheets and glaciers is indicative of a healthy cycle of glacier advance and retreat, rather than signaling that a glacier or ice sheet is unstable, stating,
As such, our results reveal that extreme calving events should not automatically be interpreted as a sign of ice shelf instability, but are instead representative of the natural cycle of calving front advance and retreat.
What’s more, based on results the results of the generalized extreme value (GEV) distribution model used in the study, the scientists concluded that it is statistically possible for there to be calving events several times larger than anything observed so far in the satellite dataset. For example, the authors say, “A once in a century calving event would yield an iceberg surface area approximately the size of Switzerland.”
This is backed by other historical paleoclimate data and studies such as Bentley et al., 2005 which suggest that such extreme calving events have happened previously throughout the Holocene, which the authors make note of in their discussion.
In other words, the media made a big ado about nothing.
Will this new study by MacKie et al. disproving the climate alarm noise in 2017 get a lot of press? Probably not. It doesn’t fit the sensationalistic narrative of pending climate doom promoted by the media. They’d just as soon sweep this inconvenient truth under the rug than admit they weren’t just wrong, but wildly so.
Note: A hat tip to Chris Martz on Twitter for alerting me to this new study.
Anthony Watts is a senior fellow for environment and climate at The Heartland Institute. Watts has been in the weather business both in front of, and behind the camera as an on-air television meteorologist since 1978, and currently does daily radio forecasts. He has created weather graphics presentation systems for television, specialized weather instrumentation, as well as co-authored peer-reviewed papers on climate issues. He operates the most viewed website in the world on climate, the award-winning website wattsupwiththat.com.
Originally posted at ClimateREALISM
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The alarmists don’t not look delusional.
It is not about science but about headlines. Any event will be coupled to ‘climate change’ and add to the weight of public opinion. Ergo: the public is usually unaware of science in regards to climate. They are being massaged/ messaged to retain a ‘ overwhelming mountain of evidence’. Like the nr of climate alarm papers this all adds up. An exercise in stacking to hammer naysayers to oblivion. Misinformation being both the tool AND the accusation..
I’m old enough to have been there for those original “Emily Litella” moments as we watched SNL at college in the ’70’s. “Oh, that’s very different. Never mind.”
Example: “Violins on TV”
Three favorites: violins on television, youth in Asia, Soviet jewelry.
“,,,Soviet jewelry…”
First thing that came to my mind too.
If the West
sacrificedsome virgins, had outlawed capitalism and dismantled their economy, the A68 would still be there.Ah! The A68 – my favourite road! All the way up through The Borders, over Carter Bar, and on to Edinburgh. What’s not to like?
Ha, I know that road well! Driven it dozens of times to and from Edinburgh.
My favourite road is the A82. The climb out of ghastly Glasgow into the landscape of Loch Lomond is glorious.
This is true if a ‘climate scientist’ is defined as a person who believes devoutly in the dogmas of Climastrology. Heretic apostates are not ‘climate scientists’ in their book.
Why are they not caviling about trees ‘polluting’ the atmosphere with reactive oxygen?
“Why are they not caviling about trees ‘polluting’ the atmosphere with reactive oxygen?”
Because that wouldn’t advance “the cause”.
How on Earth did this get past Pal Review for The Cause???
Beeton, do you accept this peer reviewed science?
One pattern in the comments section on WUWT is crystal clear.
No climate alarmists ever comment about peer reviewed, published papers that disagree with their pre-conceived notions.
Not entirely true. Nick might complain about a misplaced comma on page 14…
If isn’t narrative compliant it is blasphemy, heresy, even.
Female footballers have shown us how – let’s build a sport free of fossil fuel deals
Male players must step up and add their voice to the campaign to stop our sport being sold out to the big polluters causing climate change
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2024/dec/08/female-footballers-have-shown-us-how-lets-build-a-sport-free-of-fossil-fuel-deals
Stop international sports!!!!
Iceberg A-68 and all your daughters – Gone and now forgotten.
Goodbye, farewell, we hardly knew ye.
This article mentions 47 years of satellite data, and a previous article about SST mentions 40 years of Satellite data. It’s the old “if it hasn’t happened in my lifetime it is UNPRECEDENTED” scam. 40 -50 years isn’t even a quick blink considering the planets age. I’m starting to think that a basic historical geology course should be mandatory in Jr. High-school so as to help add a little perspective to all this nonsense.
Next year MacKie, Millstein & Serafin will be working at McDonalds, Walmart & Amazon
No, they will just be added to the growing list of researchers unemployable by right thinking university administrators.
It changes the publish or perish directive into a whole new meaning of publish and perish.
There will be a lot of job openings at NOAA after January 20….
The story is increasingly unravelling. Not just the climate story, but more especially the energy story. Here is Rupert Darwall writing in the Spectator:
Between 2009 and 2020, the average price of electricity sold by the Big Six energy companies rose by 67 per cent from 10.71p per kilowatt hour (kWh) to 17.92p per kWh. This wasn’t caused by any increase in the cost of natural gas. In fact, the average price paid by major power generators fell by 15 per cent over the period. There was, however, a spectacular explosion in the amount of wind and solar on the grid which rose from 4.5 gigawatts (GW) in 2009 to 37.95 GW in 2020.
So much for saving money on fuel! As more and more of this is exposed in the mass media it becomes more hopeful that this madness may reach crisis and finally end in the next few years.
Worldwide inflation is the globalist plan. That way, they can inflate away the 307 trillion dollar debt they’ve all ran up since WWII.
I have tried for some time now to respond to the many articles in various publications championing the lowering cost of renewables, the lowering of the cost of solar panels, etc. Every article always ignores the end result…. increased cost to the end user. In developed countries, there is a clear correlation; the higher the % of renewables, the higher the cost of electricity to the public.
An iceberg isn’t going to worry anyone not in the Titanic !
Very nice Anthony.
If even just 3 or 4 of the past headlines (and their implications) were true, who’d be left to write the headline?
Go back to “The Coming Ice Age”, AlGore’s “Ozone Hole”, etc.
Glacial ice only calves more frequently when it is driven by MORE ice mass located upstream from the edge of the land mass. Due to gravity.
A melting glacier does NOT calve into the sea – it simply melts. Think of an ice cube in a drink – it does not break apart – it just gets smaller.
If one thinks about this even briefly, it is obvious.
Two major geological events have resulted in the development of our current climate. These are:
So from an earth science viewpoint, the only way to create runaway global warming on this planet is to block off the circum-Antarctic current.
” For example, the authors say, “A once in a century calving event would yield an iceberg surface area approximately the size of Switzerland.” “
Here comes the predictable headline: ‘An Iceberg the Size of Switzerland Due to Climate Change…”