4 ms·

The tl;dr of the article. If the oceans conveyor belt currents stop it could lead to an even warmer Earth rather than an Ice age as is often predicted.

ballenf 8y ago
Is the grumpiness related to the reduced impact of human activity on global temperatures in this model? Or maybe more a response to the press's general tendency to report new studies as significant before there's consensus or even a chance for others in the field to fully evaluate the claims.
- yoklov 8y ago
  It seems to be related to some of the methodology used in the study. Apparently it ignores some things?
  - manicdee 8y ago
    Or falsely implies a causal link?
- pulisse 8y ago
  It's not a model. It's a correlational study. > Most of Chen and Tung's evidence for this comes from laying Atlantic circulation data next to global temperature data and noting that it looks like temperatures rose more quickly during periods when circulation slowed.
  - drallison 8y ago
    Correlation does not imply causation.
    - pulisse 8y ago
      That was, indeed, my point.
ggggtez 8y ago
That's not what the article says. The article says that scientists say that the Atlantic change would not be the cause of warming, but Aerosols, Pacific ocean changes, and volcanic eruptions. The scientists are not disagreeing about the direction of the temperature, but the cause. In this case, the new study is claiming humans are not the cause, but the new study shows no evidence to contradict the existing models. Thus scientists are "grumpy" that the study is shoddy.
- Udik 8y ago
  > Thus scientists are "grumpy" that the study is shoddy. Climate scientists have a consolidated tradition of being made grumpy by any scientific paper downplaying human responsibility for global warming. I can understand their concerns about shoddy science preventing us from acting quickly to contrast climate change; at the same time there is a clear pattern of much tighter scrutiny for results pointing in one direction rather than the other; and while this might be in the best interest of humanity, I don't think it is in the best interest of science.

ballenf 8y ago

Is the grumpiness related to the reduced impact of human activity on global temperatures in this model? Or maybe more a response to the press's general tendency to report new studies as significant before there's consensus or even a chance for others in the field to fully evaluate the claims.

yoklov 8y ago
It seems to be related to some of the methodology used in the study. Apparently it ignores some things?
- manicdee 8y ago
  Or falsely implies a causal link?
pulisse 8y ago
It's not a model. It's a correlational study. > Most of Chen and Tung's evidence for this comes from laying Atlantic circulation data next to global temperature data and noting that it looks like temperatures rose more quickly during periods when circulation slowed.
- drallison 8y ago
  Correlation does not imply causation.
  - pulisse 8y ago
    That was, indeed, my point.

ggggtez 8y ago

That's not what the article says. The article says that scientists say that the Atlantic change would not be the cause of warming, but Aerosols, Pacific ocean changes, and volcanic eruptions. The scientists are not disagreeing about the direction of the temperature, but the cause. In this case, the new study is claiming humans are not the cause, but the new study shows no evidence to contradict the existing models. Thus scientists are "grumpy" that the study is shoddy.

Udik 8y ago
> Thus scientists are "grumpy" that the study is shoddy. Climate scientists have a consolidated tradition of being made grumpy by any scientific paper downplaying human responsibility for global warming. I can understand their concerns about shoddy science preventing us from acting quickly to contrast climate change; at the same time there is a clear pattern of much tighter scrutiny for results pointing in one direction rather than the other; and while this might be in the best interest of humanity, I don't think it is in the best interest of science.