https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/cmr.00124-23

There is a good reason that economics has come to be known as the “Dismal Science.”

I agree. For me, that means presenting actual nominal or average measurements along with the scientific standard of a +/- 2-sigma uncertainty envelope, and not arm waving and pretending that the measurements are exact; for speculated likelihood of future events, that means a numeric probability with at least two significant figures and again a +/- 2-sigma margin of error, not words commonly used by lawyers such as could, may, possibly, etc. Also, assuming that is is valid to increase the reported precision of the average of measurements by taking a larger number of readings for a time series that has a trend is not acceptable; it is only acceptable for measurements that have a Gaussian distribution about a fixed value that assures that both positive and negative errors cancel — what mathematician call stationarity. Lastly, all unanswered questions, such as the coefficient for isotopic fractionation with CO2 out-gassing, and the heat output of spreading centers, hydrothermal vents, and submarine volcanoes, needs to be provided. In a word, science, not subjective opinion is the only acceptable evidence. There is too much at stake to abandon the Scientific Method and the long standing protocols for analyzing data.

It is my Rule of Thumb that the value of a published scientific study is inversely proportional to the number of authors. That is, the larger the number of authors, the more likely the ‘study’ is actually a political consensus of little scientific value. Would anyone care to count the names associated with this article? I’m not going to waste my time.

What is missing is how much a hybrid requires. Is it 240 pounds?

I count 13 red rings, amounting to about 21 cm of surface-elevation change or, I assume, a wedge of seawater about the same magnitude. That doesn’t carry much heat energy compared to a deep or thick wedge of water. Might the authors be overstating the potential impact?

You do not speak for everyone with autism. There is a huge difference between those who are mildly autistic and those who are severely affected. 25% of those with autism can’t talk or function independently. Those on the severe end of the spectrum who can communicate wish they were not autistic, and that there was a cure. Do not drown out those who would rather be less neurodivergent.

This crucial fact is almost always left out of stories about the “Doomsday” glacier, which has a long history of erratic behavior. This story, alas, is no exception.

“What do you mean? An African or a European swallow?”

Adaptation and infrastructure preparations should be the focus. Reducing carbon emissions will take none of the CO2 already added out of the atmosphere to have any effect on global temperatures. That would be counterproductive to finishing the transition to renewables and EVs. There is essentially nothing practical or realistic that can be done about this glacier except monitor it.