back to article Conclusive proof of human activity causing glacier to vanish

Even the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has had to walk back on the idea that the world's glaciers will all be gone within decades due to human-caused carbon powered global warming: but news has now emerged showing that in at least one case human action has absolutely indisputably led to the disappearance of large …


This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Manta Bloke

    Throw the bandits in the cooler!

  2. jai


    Objection, your honour! There is no evidence, these buckets of water are of no relevance to this case....

  3. TRT Silver badge

    What noise does a glacial ice cube make?


  4. amanfromearth

    Ice Bandits


    1. Anonymous Coward

      <cue silly trousers and music>

      Nice ice do do da da do do

    2. Mediocrates

      Ice Pirates is better

      But beware of Space Herpes!

  5. John A Blackley

    But of course

    man's actions have contributed to the melting of the polar ice cap. For decades we've been sending coal and oil-burning ships to the poles, loaded with oil-buring vehicles and oil and gas-heated habitats, complete with oil and gas-burning heating and gas-burning cooking stoves, all to sit on the polar ice caps and merrily heat the place up,.

    Why wouldn't the ice caps be melting under that assault?

    1. Hendala

      You are preaching to the wrong people here

      Here people will dispute gravity if if means they get to use their GPSes. here the liberals just dispute that climate change is man made, the conservatives deny that it exists, and the crazies try and convince the rest, until we get bored.

      Even if you came up with completely watertight proof that consumer society is responsible for climate change you will be trolled out of existance before most el-reg readers will even look at your evidence. A lot of people here actually have investment in the oil industry, or in related companies (which is pretty much all industries these days), and they will absolutely refuse to consider anything that will hinder their cash cow...

      1. NomNomNom

        answer me this

        if the sea is really rising how come all the boats are still on top of it?

        1. T J

          Global Floating

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        It's winter Jim, but not as we know it.

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward


        Noooo, thats not true, give me watertight proof that cant be disputed with fact and ill believe it.

        Fact of the matter in this instance is that you cant do that, no one can, on either side of the debate! So what it comes down to is what you believe to be true....

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          What proof is watertight enough for you?

          If a plane has 10% chance of crashing before reaching its destination, then there is no way I am getting on it.

          97% of climate scientists are sure there is a big problem, and that we are the cause. They study this data all day, every day and are as expert in their fields as many C and PHP programmers here are in their fields.

          Would you go to your dentist for a 2nd opinion when 97 of 100 surgeons are telling you to have an operation or die?

          Some trends can be difficult to spot in natural variations, but anyone with any ability in statistical analysis can clearly see that warming is happening, and the only plausible explanation is that us dumping billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere is the cause. The Sun's output has been waning for the last 12 years, while warming continued. and is starting to bounce back.

          The data is there for all to see on

          The profound loss of arctic ice is the canary in the coal mine, and we gotta adapt.

          Sticking heads in the sand is not helping.

          1. scarshapedstar

            Also disturbing

            The Venn diagram of "people who say climate change is impossible" and "people who say it doesn't matter because Jesus is coming to take everyone away next Thursday" is more or less a 1:1 fit.

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            If 97% of scientists whose income and prestige are reliant on agreeing with their paymasterdwhose interest it is to keep the gravy train going...

            Science is never settled. The dodgy models Mann et al are using, that don't reflect reality. The fact hot summers are "climate change", but cold winters are "weather".

            The tree ring proxies that are an absolute 100% accurate reflection of temperature, right up until the point that thermometers are invented, and all of a sudden they're not, so we now say that tree rings are 100% accurate until this point in time, but after that we'll ignore them.

            The thermometers sited next to air-con radiators, on asphalt surfaces, next to walls that have their data cherry picked as "look, everywhere's getting warmer".

            The UN has admitted that their "Climate Change" policies have nothing to do with environmental causes, and are all about "redistribution of wealth".

            I'm not sticking my head in the sand, but the predictions made a few years ago are already out by a factor of 3x, based on models. If your model doesn't reflect reality, then your model is wrong.

          3. Comments are attributed to your handle

            RE: "97% of climate scientists are sure there is a big problem..."

            Also interesting: 100% of climate scientists would be out of a job if they didn't have faux research to be doing.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              That argument is fallacious. With scientists' pitiful incomes, you think they work for money? Come on. Climate still needs monitoring and researching, whatever it is doing and the situation is alarming.

              Follow the real money. The fossil fuel industry has most to lose if people buy less of its product.

          4. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward


            Whats disputed is if if and to what level we have an effect on it.

            im not goin to sit here and site every souce an disputed results because i dont have time, but lets take sea level change, an intricate part of the effects on global warming, according to IPCC this is rising at an alarming rate, infact the maldives are going to be flooded, where did this information come from? It came from Hong Kong, but rather choose the 5 data sets from tidal guages that where showing no change above the 1mm p/y, they produced figures from the 1 data set saying its increased 4 fold, the graph looks very alarming, but what they fail to realise is that the tidal figures in that region are skewed because the land is actually sinking. Why would one use alarming, flawed results in there computer models?

            Ok satilite data, MUST be more accurate, and it is! again the IPCC pulls out a computer model of showing a flat graph (within 1mm p/y) with no further change right up until the last few years where it shoots up, but hang on a sec, that graph was adjusted, they manually added the same flawed tidal results because the graph wasnt showing any trend at all.

            Now, im not going to argue that it is or isnt rising, because im not an expert, but what i can do is say, hang on a sec, why would the IPCC make it look worse that the actual observations indicate? why would they say all the ice is melting when in fact overall its increasing, greenland being an exception, oh and lets not for Kilimanjaro, that must be GW and nothing to do with the rapid deforestation that wiped out much of the rain forest reducing the amount of new ice being replaced up the mountain

            thats all im saying, why is there a need to lie? is it because there is a vested interest in doing so? Do the Maldives have an interest in saying their sinking and its americas CO2 thats doing it when all observations (not models) tell us its not changed?

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward


              Well, our emissions are 100 times greater than all the volcanoes combined, so humans are responsible for all of the 40% increase in CO2 over the last 200 years. (280 to 392ppm)

              A 40% thicker thermal blanket is going to have effects, even with the sun having declined in output over the last few years.

              Sea level is actually rising at 3.13mm per year, after subtracting 0.3mm/y for post glacial rebound. I'm sure the IPCC consider data from many sources, not just Hong Kong, and take into account land subsidence.

              This recent article will explain more and lead to more references:


              1. Anonymous Coward

                Andy part 1 (stupid 2k limit!!)

                Im not trying to dispute everything, im simply saying something dodgy is going one when people need to lie about it.

                I take your point about Humans making more CO2 than ever, but i challenge your 40% increase in the "thermal blanket" when spread out on a planetary scale its a very small amount and not a 40% increase in thickness. But what i want answered is this, There is a significant lag in CO2 rises to temp rises, ie temps go up then so does CO2, now historically this can be explained at various point of time, however thats not always the case and just now there is no reason for this to be happening

                So if CO2 causes higher global temps why is it that temps went up first? in the past as temps drop CO2 continues to increase.... very curious

                Now, something else that kind of backs up the idea that CO2 is increasing because of higher temps is that the largest CO2 scrubber on the planet is less efficient at higher temps, that is the oceans. Also if you increase the amount of water in the oceans what effect does the larger surface area have on scrubbing CO2?........

              2. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Andy part 2 (stupid 2k limit!!)

                again, im not saying it isnt happening, all im saying is, firstly why lie? secondly its sure as shit not as simple as what its made out to be and thirdly, you cant believe anyone because it seems everyone overlooks details on both sides to support their arguments.

                Rather than spend Billions on trying to fix something that we dont understand why not spend Billions understanding what it is we need to fix?

                After all, lets say the whole world stops dumping greenhouse gasses (CO2 isnt the worst by the way) what effect will this have on the planet? will it be good for everyone? will some areas actually end up hotter/colder/wetter/dryer would those areas like this or would they rather the opposite?. At what point do we allow natural changes? when it suites us?

                I just have a very bad feeling that trying to effect something that is global by nature in ways we do not fully understand could make things a whole lot worse for some of us, the exact same argument can be used for the argument against anti GW folk so surely the most prudent thing to do is dump as much money as possible in unbiased research to find out what it is we playing with rather then spend billions on this anti CO2 crusade that may actually not work or may make things worse?

                Anyone who says they know what’s going on is talking out of their arse, no one does or there wouldn’t be a debate, we take educated guesses, but educated from what? its not always facts if it were then again the debate would be long over with.

                1. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  Dazzza pt1

                  You're right - it is complicated. CO2 isn't the only factor, but with water vapour it is one of the most significant.

                  CO2 lags behind temperature because the oceans give it back to the atmosphere as they warm up due to the Milankovich cycle, but the CO2 also coreinforces further warming - hence the sharp rise in temperature and CO2 concentration together, up to a limit of 290 ppm. As the Earth's orientation gradually shifts with Milankovich cycle, it cools again but more slowly, because CO2 helps to keep the temperature higher than would otherwise be. The excess CO2 gradually returns to the ocean until the next Milankovich trigger, when the process sets off again.

                  Each time, the temperature increase gradient is much steeper than recovery.

                  In some of the cycles, it appears that CO2 increase even precedes temperature rise, but temp and CO2 concentration are closely correlated on the positive slope.

                  We are already at an interglacial maximum, and have unwittingly dumped billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere and oceans and driven this balance totally out of equilibrium into uncharted territory at 392 ppm, and are already seeing effects on the scale of decades that would normally take many centuries or a few millennia.

                  The maximum level of CO2 at an interglacial maximum was only around 290 ppm!

                2. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  Dazzza pt2

                  Our lifetimes only occuply a tiny snapshot in history, but our overloading of CO2 into the ecosystem will have consequences lasting for at least the next 100,000 years.

                  Therefore, I don't think it is wise to mess around with climate modifying gases in such quantities that would cause unpredictable and non-linear repercussions and open all kinds of Pandora's boxes with other positive feedback processes that are probably lying in wait.

                  See for a good explanation.

                  If you have further questions, please ask there or on where there are real climate scientists answering questions. This is not the right forum!

                  1. Anonymous Coward
                    Anonymous Coward


                    i dont know who downvoted you there but what your saying is correct, although i have a different interpritation of it :) so ill upvote you to balance it out,

                    Milankovich cycle, yes ive read about that, and that is the reason for me saying that the temp rises against CO2 rises are often explained, but it doesnt always fit.

                    Personally, i think we all rely on computer models too much, unless someone can take in to account everything then they are usless whats needed is raw data on sea level rises which would be the most likely method of accurate measure on temp rises, given that ice is growing and melting, some is in the water some is on the land, both have different effects on sea levels but all of it is effected by temp increases that would give you a fairly accurate globel sized measure. Just measuring ice shelves falling off is pointless unless you take in to account all the ice extending in other places and whether or not its in the water. Just measuing CO2 is pointless because its open to change and other things like CO2 but not can have a much greater effect, measuring local temps is pointless because its local in nature, yeah you can get a global average but its not globally effected, sea level is for the most part.

          5. Handle this!


            Nicolaus Copernicus might have begged to differ.

        2. T J

          Hi, you'd be Mr WRONG then

          No. Anthropically Forced Global Warming is a proven fact. And thats all there is to it really.

      4. Old n Cynical


        "Here people will dispute gravity..."

        Ohh! Ohh! Me! Me!

        Let me humour you and go off at a slight, perhaps semantic, tangent... I assume that you are of the opinion that gravity is 'solved' and thus fully explained by Newton and Einstein? But no...

        There are plenty of anomolies to be had if you look a little closer, which is why some scientists are busy looking for a new or modified theory. Neither Newton nor Einstein provide all the answers 'as is'. In this respect there is actually some potential 'dispute' about gravity, ergo these 'people' in your argument would perhaps not be entirely wrong if they did in fact 'dispute gravity' so-to-speak.

        Oh, and I am 'old school' (or that could just be, 'old') and don't personally need a GPS.


    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Coal burning ships?

      Call me dreamer I don't think they use those anymore.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      @John A Blackley

      Don't worry, they might all have been American.

    4. T J

      Heart in the right place but numbers wise not quite on the mark sorry - that amount of heating is a gnats penis in comparison to the heat absorbption capabilities of that much ice. But the greenhouse forcings caused by burning all those carbon fuels - yes, it will have added its bit to the global atmospheric warming situation we find ourselves in.

    5. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      I see your observation of two events

      "For decades we've been sending coal and oil-burning ships to the poles, loaded with oil-buring vehicles and oil and gas-heated habitats, complete with oil and gas-burning heating and gas-burning cooking stoves, all to sit on the polar ice caps and merrily heat the place up,.

      Why wouldn't the ice caps be melting under that assault?"

      But where is the causal link between the 2? We have had rock music for decades, perhaps that is the cause? Or Penicillin? Television?

      As a species we have form for making irrational connections - think eclipses and making sacrifices to the gods which "caused" the darkness to end. Until we later discovered the facts as I am sure we will do eventually. I'm not saying it is not happening, just that the cause is not proven.

  6. TeeCee Gold badge
    IT Angle

    "Capitán Prat Province"

    I am forced to speculate that this story would not be reported here at all, but for that.....

    1. This post has been deleted by its author

    2. Chris Miller

      Was he related to Juan Ponce de León (after whom is named the USS Ponce)?

      1. Hugh Pumphrey

        No, he was descended from ....

        ... Juan de Fuca. But never mind these rude-named Hispanics. Where did they get a Bernardo O'Higgins to name their national park after?

        1. Uncle Slacky



  7. Graham Bartlett

    Can we rename that area?

    To Pratagonia?

  8. Mage

    Joan Aiken

    How do you steal a lake in the Andes?

    Cut it up and cart it off when it's frozen :-)

  9. Andy Fletcher


    It's a crime to profit from the results of precipitation? Has anyone noticed Thames Water appear to be committing it too?

    1. This post has been deleted by its author

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Sadly no..

      Nice idea that it is but if you capture rainwater on land that Thames have 'rights' over for drainage etc. you could find that you're stealing off them.

  10. Tom Maddox Silver badge

    Better check his truck . . .

    . . . for space herpes before impounding it.

  11. ZenCoder

    Ice Pirates

    Seriously, no reference in the article or comments to the 1984 cult Sci FI classic "Ice Pirates"?

  12. Anonymous Coward

    Who wants a G&T!!??

    Made with organic, free-range ice!!!!

    Pirate icon in honor of today's ice pirates.....may they set an example of free enterprise for our overpopulated, starship-cruising future!!!

  13. Jim Birch

    Tenuousness as an art form

    Lewis Page has claimed the Most Tenuous Factoid Used To Attack Climate Science Award with this article, completely trashing the previous incumbent, himself. I can't image how this one could be beaten I'm sure he'll be able top it. Obsession is the mother on invention.

  14. Allan George Dyer

    No! Whatever happened to inflating the value of swag seizures?

    "a street value of around 3 million pesos - approximately £4,000"

    should read:

    "when cut with 'gin and tonic' could have a street value of around 750 million pesos - approximately £1,000,000"

  15. crosspatch


    Isn't "stealing" ice from a glacier like stealing water from the ocean or sand from a desert? Considering the billions of tons of ice, what he could take would likely be negligible. As long as he "stole" his ice from between the maximum winter advance and minimum summer retreat, he "stole" ice that was going to evaporate anyway.

  16. Sceptic Tank Silver badge

    This is a Cold Case.

  17. James Pickett

    "If your model doesn't reflect reality, then your model is wrong."

    Not if you're a climate scientist.. :-)

  18. thedweeb

    I can't believe it

    This many comments and not a single Chile/chilly reference. What's wrong with the world?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      maybe it grew up? :)

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        It grew up?

        Time to leave then,.,

This topic is closed for new posts.