7 ms·
The important takeaway from this is that we don't have to worry as much about melting in Antartica. Melting everywhere else in the world, however, is proceeding
by sageabilly 11y ago
The important takeaway from this is that we don't have to worry as much about melting in Antartica. Melting everywhere else in the world, however, is proceeding at a fast pace and is more immediately concerning. Unfortunately, I imagine this report is going to get jumped on by global warming deniers as solid evidence that climate change is not real and there's nothing to worry about.
- vixen99 11y agoThe word 'denial' does not permit of much nuance, does it? Smacks of faith and a religion, really. I wonder if & why you disagree with Judith Curry. "The definition of ‘dangerous’ climate change is ambiguous, and hypothesized catastrophic tipping points are regarded as very or extremely unlikely in the 21st century. Efforts to link dangerous impacts of extreme weather events to human-caused warming are misleading and unsupported by evidence. Climate change is a ‘wicked problem’ and ill-suited to a ‘command and control’ solution. It has been estimated that the U.S. national commitments to the UN to reduce emissions by 28% will prevent three hundredths of a degree centigrade in warming by 2100..." Evidence to the House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space and Technology
- ajross 11y agoWhat does that quote have to do with antarctic ice levels or the science in question? You seem to be the one picking a fight here with rhetoric instead of engaging on substance...
- rgbrenner 11y agoJudith Curry who wrote less than a year ago[0]: Moreover, the estimates in these empirical studies are being borne out by the much-discussed “pause” or “hiatus” in global warming—the period since 1998 during which global average surface temperatures have not significantly increased. Even though the actual data shows warming of ~0.18 deg C: http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/ http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/ 0. http://www.wsj.com/articles/judith-curry-the-global-warming-statistical-meltdown-1412901060 http://www.wsj.com/articles/judith-curry-the-global-warming-...
- midwest1 11y agoJudith Curry had something to say about the NASA data as well. I find her analysis quite level-headed. http://judithcurry.com/2015/01/16/warmest-year-pause-and-all-that/ http://judithcurry.com/2015/01/16/warmest-year-pause-and-all...
- noiv 11y agoThere seems to be a whole lot of other countries disagreeing with JC[1]. May be they realised doing nothing is not an option. Personally I disagree, because excluding economic net effects borders ignorance. The US are neither an isolated actor nor a minor player on this planet. [1]http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2015/03/paris-2015-tracking-country-climate-pledges/ http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2015/03/paris-2015-tracking-...
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- brrt 11y agoI think I agree with at least some parts of that description. (I have no idea who Judith Curry is). However, it is important to note that the phrase 'wicked' problem refers policy problems rather than science problems. And it is useful to disambiguate between climate science and climate (change) policy. Sure, climate science is hard, but not much more so than say, geology or microbiology. Climate change policy is on the other hand wickedly difficult (despite climate change itself being well-established), because there are so many practical uncertainties and so many different stakeholders, in which you could reasonably include unborn people and/or nonhuman ecosystems, which have a hard time lobbying for themselves. However, much like poverty (which is a hard policy problem, for much the same reasons), just acting like it doesn't exist, or denying the scientific evidence, is sure not to help.
- 7952 11y agoClimate change "denial" is a bit like arguing vehemently that bacteria doesn't exist and you don't need to bother about hygiene. Actually I don't really care if people believe, I just want them to wash their hands after using the toilet. People need to be persuaded that it is the right thing to do from a moral, and a practical point of view. The environment is complicated and we need to be mature in how we interact with it. That means cutting CO2 but it also means a lot of other things that are very important. The endless debate on the science wastes time that could be better spent.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- talmand 11y agoNot much different than global warming believers that point to just trends that support their position.
- llamataboot 11y agoAnthropogenic global warming is a scientific theory with a preponderance of evidence. Like all scientific theories it is open to being revised if/when contrary data emerges. At the moment, the vast majority of data supports it as a theory.
- talmand 11y agoI don't say otherwise in my statement. I am simply pointing out that both sides of the argument can cherry pick, and often do. Much like any other debate, especially on the internet.
- yarrel 11y agoYou're creating a false equivalence between a theory that has the weight of evidence on its side and critics of that theory who tend to lie about the evidence. So no.
- talmand 11y agoWell, when I see people cherry pick their data and cherry pick events that only support their side, I'm sorry to say I have to disagree with you. I have seen such things on both sides of this debate. Just because you haven't seen it, refuse to see it, or incapable of seeing it doesn't make my observations on the matter incorrect. I can pull out a fancy term as well, I think you may have a case of confirmation bias. But since I don't know you, don't know your full opinion on the matter, nor don't know what you've read, I don't think I'll label you with negativity as you have done me.
- hugh4 11y agoThis is true, and if only global warming people would start phrasing it in that way instead of the rather less scientific "It's an undeniable fact! You can't deny it! Expressing skepticism makes you a bad person!" then I could quit arguing with them. I don't know how we ever got into the situation where the big argument is between "this is undeniable fact!" and "this is probably true". The dumb part is that the actions you should take in response to a reasonable probability of deleterious consequences are not all that different to the actions you should take if the probability is one hundred point zero percent.
- Symmetry 11y agoThermal expansion of seawater has always been a more important aspect of rising sea levels than melting anyways.