3 ms·

The time proximity is not the point of the article, though. It's about large parts of Greenland melting at times where temperatures were not very high and ice c

by wott 10y ago

The time proximity is not the point of the article, though. It's about large parts of Greenland melting at times where temperatures were not very high and ice cover was so far supposed to have stayed stable.

wallace_f 10y ago
My reaction as well. Additionally, I'm not in agreement that the other point the OP posted in discrediting the article -- that it would fail A/B testing -- is a cause for great concern. If you look at the method of statistical sampling used in the article, and not to mention this research was published in Nature, such an expedient reason to discredit their research seems inappropriate.
- greglindahl 10y ago
  My comment is only about one word ("recent") in the title of this "news" article on gizmodo.com, not about the title or content of the actual research. Sorry it wasn't clear. The Nature commentary has the title: "Greenland once lost nearly all its ice — and could again" http://www.nature.com/news/greenland-once-lost-nearly-all-its-ice-and-could-again-1.21098 http://www.nature.com/news/greenland-once-lost-nearly-all-it... The actual paper title is: "Greenland was nearly ice-free for extended periods during the Pleistocene" http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v540/n7632/full/nature20146.html http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v540/n7632/full/nature2... I'd say the actual paper title wins by a mile.
  - wallace_f 10y ago
    I agree the scholarly article's title is better. Your comment did mention another point which appeared to discredit the article/research: >probably failed A/B testing
    - greglindahl 10y ago
      That is also a reference to the title of the "news" article on gizmodo.com. Sorry that this wasn't clear. In particular, I was imagining that gizmodo A/B tested "Most of Greenland Melted about a Million Years Ago" vs "Most of Greenland Melted in the Recent Past". The latter (to a non-geologist) is quite a bit more sensational.
      - wallace_f 10y ago
        Oh I gotchya, sorry about that.
        zaroth 10y ago
        And this entire thread could be detached and marked OT.

by wott 10y ago

wallace_f 10y ago

My reaction as well. Additionally, I'm not in agreement that the other point the OP posted in discrediting the article -- that it would fail A/B testing -- is a cause for great concern. If you look at the method of statistical sampling used in the article, and not to mention this research was published in Nature, such an expedient reason to discredit their research seems inappropriate.

greglindahl 10y ago
My comment is only about one word ("recent") in the title of this "news" article on gizmodo.com, not about the title or content of the actual research. Sorry it wasn't clear. The Nature commentary has the title: "Greenland once lost nearly all its ice — and could again" http://www.nature.com/news/greenland-once-lost-nearly-all-its-ice-and-could-again-1.21098 http://www.nature.com/news/greenland-once-lost-nearly-all-it... The actual paper title is: "Greenland was nearly ice-free for extended periods during the Pleistocene" http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v540/n7632/full/nature20146.html http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v540/n7632/full/nature2... I'd say the actual paper title wins by a mile.
- wallace_f 10y ago
  I agree the scholarly article's title is better. Your comment did mention another point which appeared to discredit the article/research: >probably failed A/B testing
  - greglindahl 10y ago
    That is also a reference to the title of the "news" article on gizmodo.com. Sorry that this wasn't clear. In particular, I was imagining that gizmodo A/B tested "Most of Greenland Melted about a Million Years Ago" vs "Most of Greenland Melted in the Recent Past". The latter (to a non-geologist) is quite a bit more sensational.
    - wallace_f 10y ago
      Oh I gotchya, sorry about that.
      - zaroth 10y ago
        And this entire thread could be detached and marked OT.