You are relying on the National Geographic for your source

No, I just liked the writeup there, which part of

Now, a team has unraveled evidence of that human influence. In a  study published Monday in Nature Geoscience, a team of scientists showed that over the past century, human-driven global warming has changed the character of the winds that blow over the ocean near some of the most fragile glaciers in West Antarctica. 

and clicking an embedded link is giving you the problem?

"... and clicking an embedded link is giving you the problem?
Dec 23, 2019 at 12:41 PM Phil Clarke"

The problem is the 97% guaranteed inaccuracies. To be credible, Climate Science needs to acknowledge and get rid of past mistakes before making more.

"Dec 23, 2019 at 11:13 AM AK
The paper referred to is co-authored by Hockey Teamster Eric Steig, presumably to confirm it matches his normal standards.
Dec 23, 2019 at 11:57 AM golf charlie"

Clarke, I've read the article.

Models.

The inevitable "This simple argument supports the importance of the wind trends, but the centennial relationship between winds and melting remains a topic of considerable uncertainty that requires much further research."

Followed by "Future Projections".

Clarity of thought leads to clear language. This paper is waffle.

The jargon is one reason I linked to the Nat Geo writeup.

In the 1920s, the winds were pretty much consistently blowing toward the west,” says Holland. “So in the old days, it was cold all the time—it flopped between cold and very cold.”

But now, because of the slow warming of the planet, the whole baseline has moved up. Instead of the cycle flipping between cold and very cold, the flip is between warm and cold.

Clear enough for you? ;-)

Flipping rubbish, Clarke.

Clear enough for you? ;-)

Dec 23, 2019 at 3:28 PM Phil Clarke

Did the Hockey Teamsters propaganda chief William M Connolly corrupt British Antarctic Survey the same way he corrupted Wikipedia?. Steig plus 2 from BAS? Is it worth checking the reliability of the fourth author?

I see I was wrong, I thought once Aha Clam Jam's unphysical nonsense on the Antarctic ice was exposed as um, unphysical nonsense, our Original Poster would move on to some new far-flung science denying blogger to keep the Gish Gallop going. But he's just back on the same old tired Anthony Watts/Paul Homewood/Daily Mail roundabout.
 
Sad.

Dec 23, 2019 at 10:15 PM Phil Clarke

You keep proving your own dishonesty, and linking to others.

Fortunately Trump is relying on the 3% of Climate Science that is based on facts and evidence.

Climate Scientists are welcome to seek asylum in the EU, now that the UK has obtained some immunity from the insanity that Climate Scientists generate with every lie that you repeat with extra cackle.

Fortunately Trump is relying on the 3% of Climate Science that is based on facts and evidence.

There's little evidence that the Donald Quixote has ever read a single academic paper.

I never understood wind. You know, I know windmills very much. They’re noisy. They kill the birds. You want to see a bird graveyard? Go under a windmill someday. You’ll see more birds than you’ve ever seen in your life.

They’re made in China and Germany mostly, But they’re manufactured tremendous if you’re into this, tremendous fumes. Gases are spewing into the atmosphere. You know we have a world, right? So the world is tiny compared to the universe. So tremendous, tremendous amount of fumes and everything.

You talk about the carbon footprint, fumes are spewing into the air, right? Spewing. Whether it’s in China, Germany, it’s going into the air. It’s our air, their air, everything, right?

You see all those windmills. They’re all different shades of color. They’re like sort of white, but one is like an orange-white. It’s my favorite color, orange.

https://twitter.com/i/status/1208881147867877377

Orange fumes, orange hair.

"There's little evidence that the Donald Quixote has ever read a single academic paper.
Dec 24, 2019 at 12:49 AM Phil Clarke"

Did you read Gergis before promoting the garbage, or did you just copy and paste someone else's script?

Why should Trump waste his time and US Dollars on 97% of Climate Science? All you do is prove its dishonesty.

William M Connolley has corrupted Wikipedia, and now it seems BAS should be treated with a bucket of cold seawater too.

If only Climate Science had listened to Steve McIntyre and got honest about Mann's busted stick

Orange fumes, orange hair.

Dec 24, 2019 at 7:10 AM AK

Could be the toxic cloud of Climate Science produced to repair the Holy Hockey Stick, and maintain all the shonky reproductions that Phil Clarke has stuck himself to.

".. a team of scientists showed that over the past century, human-driven global warming has changed the character of the winds that blow over the ocean near some of the most fragile glaciers in West Antarctica.
Dec 23, 2019 at 12:41 PM Phil Clarke"

Toxic discharges from the Green Blob are poisoning science, and unfortunately for genuine scientists, their cashflow may also be restricted.

Dec 24, 2019 at 11:40 AM Radical Rodent

Phil Clarke drivel Global Warming is a series of disasters, but they all depend on other people's money.

Have you noticed that whenever you click on a link in a CJ article, it takes you to another CJ article?

I am sure he finds himself very convincing.

Chaam Jamal (Professor Cha-am Jamal Munshi) is a bit of a puzzle. He is (or was, I believe he's retired), a legitimate scientist, albeit a chemical engineer, with some solid research to his name. And yet the 'Chaam Jamal' posts are full of errors and claims that no scientist who wants to be taken seriously would make (eg all Antarctic ice melt is geological in origin).

Turns out that Munshi 'lost interest in blogging' some time ago and the posts are now largely written by his wife, Thongchai (presumably the young lady in the picture at the top of the posts).

thank you all for your interest in our work – mostly that of my husband chaamjamal. I do most of the blogging now but my posts at tambonthongchai.com are derived mostly from his work.

Which may explain the apparent credibility deficit. One puzzle remains, however. The quotes above are from a post at CliScep authored by John Shade. Small world, but if you're going to try and claim the moral high ground, is it a good idea knowingly to pretend you're presenting content from a Professor, when it was actually written by his wife?

I'm sure there's a perfectly innocent explanation.

https://cliscep.com/2019/06/02/climate-commentaries-from-thailand/

Have you noticed that whenever you click on a link in a CJ article, it takes you to another CJ article?

I am sure he finds himself very convincing.

Dec 28, 2019 at 6:03 PM Phil Clarke.

Phil Clarke, all your links go back to lying Hockey Teamsters via dishonest publications.
Why do you think anyone should find any of them convincing?

If you, and your lying buddies could get honest about what is complete and utter crap, it would be easier to determine what is honest science, and what isn't. It is easier to assume that 97% is based on falsified statistics as preferred by John Cook.

Dec 29, 2019 at 8:54 PM Radical Rodent

"Phil Clarke" provides so many links.

Some of them might even be to Climate Science's most valued Peer reviewers, or simply supplied by them, almost guaranteed 97% unreliable, as proved so decisively by John Cook.

You were right, the claim was that the majority of ice melt was geological in origin. Still nonsense.

I looked at the first article on the site, the one quoted by JS upthread. All the links go to other Chaam Jamal articles, none reference the literarture.

It's a free world, you can believe who you like, but the Professor's wife has simply constructed an echo chamber of bollocks.

it's almost like Phil's unaware of obsession spawning projection.