7 ms·

This is based on a new paper published today in Nature. Here is the NYTimes piece about it: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/31/science/global-warming-antarctica-

by cryptoz 11y ago

This is based on a new paper published today in Nature. Here is the NYTimes piece about it: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/31/science/global-warming-antarctica-ice-sheet-sea-level-rise.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/31/science/global-warming-ant... And direct link to the paper: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v531/n7596/full/nature17145.html http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v531/n7596/full/nature1... And note, this is separate from the paper last week by James Hansen et al, which discussed the newly researched effects of new feedback loops in ice-melt-surface-waters shutting down ocean circulation (and also increased the amount of sea level rise in shorter time periods). These are scary times.

reitanqild 11y ago
> And note, this is separate from the paper last week by James Hansen et al The one with a weird weird constants IIRC?
- lr4444lr 11y ago
  Upvoted. I am not a AGW denialist, but I find it disturbing that every time I come across a new finding in atmospheric science in a press release it is in some way linked to James Hansen's research or advocacy. Can anyone point to a body of research for the layperson that is independent of his influence?
  - MaysonL 11y ago
    Take a look at ecological changes: range of species, growing season change, bird migration changes in timing and whether migration happens or not. All point toward significant warming. Hansen has very little to say about them.
  - acqq 11y ago
    How do you define "influence" in serious science? Do you really think scientists believe in one person instead of using the scientific methods? In the relevant climate science, Hanson is just one of the thousand scientists from the whole world who all perform their own research and then report and agree on the summary findings internationally, you surely can't assert that all are "influenced" by just one person. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change surely isn't accepting "only his" claims. If nobody of thousands of the scientists would have similar findings, nobody would accept his work as serious: http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization_structure.shtml http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization_structure.shtml Hint: the work of denialists is exactly that: not serious, as most of them can't even make the basic assumptions right. So what should you consider for a valid "body of research"? The report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. There's no better international organization of scientists who work on these topics. See their procedures: http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization_procedures.shtml http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization_procedures.shtm... Then see their last report, on the level you can probably understand, but with a lot of fine details: http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/ http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/ Specifically, start from the summary: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/AR5_SYR_FINAL_SPM.pdf http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/AR5_SYR_FIN... Unless you read at least that, you won't even have an idea about the material for which you seem to believe you're against (even if you claim that "you're not a denialist.)" The report reflects the state of the art of that science.
    - lr4444lr 11y ago
      You missed the point of my comment. I personally am a little more familiar with the science than the average American's understanding. What I see published for the general audience however, (and I would not rank IPCC reports in that category, even the summary ones,) overwhelmingly references, quotes, or relates to Hansen. If I'm trying to open stubborn minds, and everything comprehensible I can give these people features a name that's readily tarred as a politically-motivated pariah in the denialist community, their distrust of the mainstream media reporting and belief in their own FUD only hardens.
      - acqq 11y ago
        > What I see published for the general audience however, (...) overwhelmingly references, quotes, or relates to Hansen. Red herring, it's not about any person. It's about the scientific process. This is for general audience which was exposed to the claims "it's just sun" or the variations: http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/ http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-wor... I agree that there are people who don't understand how science works (that is, they are effectively illiterate for basic scientific methods and facts), so I always try to explain them the basics of science first. Somebody who believes Earth existed for just 6000 years doesn't even know what science is all about, so you can't even expect him to plan more than until the imminent judgement day, oh happy day (sadly, there are actual influential US politicians who said such things). I start explaining such person that without using the same scientific principles, the mobile phone they carry around wouldn't be possible (just for GPS, the satellites have to carry atomic clocks and the formulas that are used every time have to consider both special and general relativity). Science works. Otherwise, how can you even talk about the fact that we scientifically know, for example, CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere of the last 800,000 years, and that it was for all that time, not counting the last decades, much lower than now (see the chart, max around 300, now we're already at 400 ppm). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glacial_period https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glacial_period And how we know? The same way we know how to make GPS. Science. And it's nothing US-based, there are other countries very capable of the best science. You know, countries able to send the probe to the comet. Once somebody understands the basics, the start about climate should be learning about IPCC, the process and conclusions.
- duaneb 11y ago
  I'm looking at the paper. I don't understand the domain well enough to find the constants to which you're referring—do you have an example and why you find it weird?
  - Laforet 11y ago
    It may be a mix-up between Hansen 1988 vs Hansen 2016 https://www.skepticalscience.com/Hansen-1988-prediction-basic.htm https://www.skepticalscience.com/Hansen-1988-prediction-basi...

by cryptoz 11y ago

reitanqild 11y ago

> And note, this is separate from the paper last week by James Hansen et al The one with a weird weird constants IIRC?

lr4444lr 11y ago
Upvoted. I am not a AGW denialist, but I find it disturbing that every time I come across a new finding in atmospheric science in a press release it is in some way linked to James Hansen's research or advocacy. Can anyone point to a body of research for the layperson that is independent of his influence?
- MaysonL 11y ago
  Take a look at ecological changes: range of species, growing season change, bird migration changes in timing and whether migration happens or not. All point toward significant warming. Hansen has very little to say about them.
- acqq 11y ago
  How do you define "influence" in serious science? Do you really think scientists believe in one person instead of using the scientific methods? In the relevant climate science, Hanson is just one of the thousand scientists from the whole world who all perform their own research and then report and agree on the summary findings internationally, you surely can't assert that all are "influenced" by just one person. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change surely isn't accepting "only his" claims. If nobody of thousands of the scientists would have similar findings, nobody would accept his work as serious: http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization_structure.shtml http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization_structure.shtml Hint: the work of denialists is exactly that: not serious, as most of them can't even make the basic assumptions right. So what should you consider for a valid "body of research"? The report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. There's no better international organization of scientists who work on these topics. See their procedures: http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization_procedures.shtml http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization_procedures.shtm... Then see their last report, on the level you can probably understand, but with a lot of fine details: http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/ http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/ Specifically, start from the summary: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/AR5_SYR_FINAL_SPM.pdf http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/AR5_SYR_FIN... Unless you read at least that, you won't even have an idea about the material for which you seem to believe you're against (even if you claim that "you're not a denialist.)" The report reflects the state of the art of that science.
  - lr4444lr 11y ago
    You missed the point of my comment. I personally am a little more familiar with the science than the average American's understanding. What I see published for the general audience however, (and I would not rank IPCC reports in that category, even the summary ones,) overwhelmingly references, quotes, or relates to Hansen. If I'm trying to open stubborn minds, and everything comprehensible I can give these people features a name that's readily tarred as a politically-motivated pariah in the denialist community, their distrust of the mainstream media reporting and belief in their own FUD only hardens.
    - acqq 11y ago
      > What I see published for the general audience however, (...) overwhelmingly references, quotes, or relates to Hansen. Red herring, it's not about any person. It's about the scientific process. This is for general audience which was exposed to the claims "it's just sun" or the variations: http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/ http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-wor... I agree that there are people who don't understand how science works (that is, they are effectively illiterate for basic scientific methods and facts), so I always try to explain them the basics of science first. Somebody who believes Earth existed for just 6000 years doesn't even know what science is all about, so you can't even expect him to plan more than until the imminent judgement day, oh happy day (sadly, there are actual influential US politicians who said such things). I start explaining such person that without using the same scientific principles, the mobile phone they carry around wouldn't be possible (just for GPS, the satellites have to carry atomic clocks and the formulas that are used every time have to consider both special and general relativity). Science works. Otherwise, how can you even talk about the fact that we scientifically know, for example, CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere of the last 800,000 years, and that it was for all that time, not counting the last decades, much lower than now (see the chart, max around 300, now we're already at 400 ppm). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glacial_period https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glacial_period And how we know? The same way we know how to make GPS. Science. And it's nothing US-based, there are other countries very capable of the best science. You know, countries able to send the probe to the comet. Once somebody understands the basics, the start about climate should be learning about IPCC, the process and conclusions.
duaneb 11y ago
I'm looking at the paper. I don't understand the domain well enough to find the constants to which you're referring—do you have an example and why you find it weird?
- Laforet 11y ago
  It may be a mix-up between Hansen 1988 vs Hansen 2016 https://www.skepticalscience.com/Hansen-1988-prediction-basic.htm https://www.skepticalscience.com/Hansen-1988-prediction-basi...