4 ms·

For one thing, take the tabloid headlines with a grain of salt. This article should actually read something like "Interesting new way to measure warming oceans

For one thing, take the tabloid headlines with a grain of salt. This article should actually read something like "Interesting new way to measure warming oceans could be even more accurate". But in reality, they still model/interpolate the results between the many thousands of measuring points, which is still just part of the picture. Which hasn't really changed that much, just a gradual refining. Which is sort of how science works. By the way, as a skeptic, you have access to the raw data yourself and can come up with a hypothesis that the oceans aren't warming and prove it yourself. http://www.argodatamgt.org/Access-to-data http://www.argodatamgt.org/Access-to-data I don't think climate change is worse than we thought. It's more that it's becoming acceptable to report it in those terms and gradually that's how the populace as a whole are coming to view it. The key thing appears to be political will. You get the full spectrum of politicians. Some have been pushing for environmental policies since the 60's and 70's when it was very fringe (and scientists were already giving us plenty of warning - with claims of CO2 causing radical climate effects if unchecked... as it mostly has been). Then you've got the muppets who are still in denial and don't appear to give a shit about what sort of planet is left to the next generation(s).

credit_guy 8y ago
Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I think it's very likely you are right. Also thanks for the link to the data. I tried in the past to get access to actual raw data so I can play with it, and draw my own conclusions, but all I got was always many levels above the raw data. Your point about politicians in denial is 100% on. And as a skeptical guy it bothers me that people perceive me as being somehow in the same boat as them. It is my perception that those guys are not really trying to find truth, or what's best for humankind, or anything beyond what will get them elected in the next cycle. However, that being said, I'm still skeptical. To give you an example, how many times did you not read in the media that Greenland is melting. Well, here's the real time data about the Greenland ice sheet mass [1]. Have you ever heard that the mass accumulation for the 2017-18 year was way above the 30-year mean? Edit: Also, thanks the Hacker News community. This is the first time I express my views on climate change without using a throwaway account, and I fully expected my karma to take a huge hit. So far it didn't, it stayed about flat. I expected to be destroyed in the comments. Nope, all comments have been respectful. Well done Hacker News. [1] https://www.dmi.dk/en/groenland/maalinger/greenland-ice-sheet-surface-mass-budget/ https://www.dmi.dk/en/groenland/maalinger/greenland-ice-shee...
- threeseed 8y ago
  From the link you posted: "As mentioned, satellites measuring the ice sheet mass have observed a loss of around 200 Gt/year over the last decade." Doesn't that make the media right ?
  - credit_guy 8y ago
    Not really. The 200GT/year is about 0.008% of the total mass of the ice sheet in Greenland. At this rate, Greenland will be ice-free in about 12500 years. The last ice age ended 11700 years ago [1], and at the time the Greenland ice sheet was many times larger than today. What that means is the average annual ice loss since the last ice age ended was higher than the current 200 GT/year. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternary_glaciation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternary_glaciation
- clay_the_ripper 8y ago
  My question for you would be, what exactly are you skeptical about? (Genuinely curious). Is that global climate change exists at all? Or that it’s somehow being misprepresented? To me it’s always just come down to which do I think is more likely: A) 99% of all scientists are intentionally duping society into believing global warming for some unknown agenda that they all share and we don’t know about for an unknown benefit B) the people who stand to make billions (maybe trillions) of dollars by claiming that global warming doesn’t exist or is at least to some degree a conspiracy are behind the idea that globally warming isn’t real When i want to find out who is behind something, I typically look at who stands to make the most money from their viewpoint being accepted as the dominant one. To me it seems, given the enormous amount of money at stake, that scenario b is much more likely.
  - UncleEntity 8y ago
    Meh, no delete button and I should've known better to ponder on such subjects...
    - gotocake 8y ago

credit_guy 8y ago

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I think it's very likely you are right. Also thanks for the link to the data. I tried in the past to get access to actual raw data so I can play with it, and draw my own conclusions, but all I got was always many levels above the raw data. Your point about politicians in denial is 100% on. And as a skeptical guy it bothers me that people perceive me as being somehow in the same boat as them. It is my perception that those guys are not really trying to find truth, or what's best for humankind, or anything beyond what will get them elected in the next cycle. However, that being said, I'm still skeptical. To give you an example, how many times did you not read in the media that Greenland is melting. Well, here's the real time data about the Greenland ice sheet mass [1]. Have you ever heard that the mass accumulation for the 2017-18 year was way above the 30-year mean? Edit: Also, thanks the Hacker News community. This is the first time I express my views on climate change without using a throwaway account, and I fully expected my karma to take a huge hit. So far it didn't, it stayed about flat. I expected to be destroyed in the comments. Nope, all comments have been respectful. Well done Hacker News. [1] https://www.dmi.dk/en/groenland/maalinger/greenland-ice-sheet-surface-mass-budget/ https://www.dmi.dk/en/groenland/maalinger/greenland-ice-shee...

threeseed 8y ago
From the link you posted: "As mentioned, satellites measuring the ice sheet mass have observed a loss of around 200 Gt/year over the last decade." Doesn't that make the media right ?
- credit_guy 8y ago
  Not really. The 200GT/year is about 0.008% of the total mass of the ice sheet in Greenland. At this rate, Greenland will be ice-free in about 12500 years. The last ice age ended 11700 years ago [1], and at the time the Greenland ice sheet was many times larger than today. What that means is the average annual ice loss since the last ice age ended was higher than the current 200 GT/year. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternary_glaciation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternary_glaciation
clay_the_ripper 8y ago
My question for you would be, what exactly are you skeptical about? (Genuinely curious). Is that global climate change exists at all? Or that it’s somehow being misprepresented? To me it’s always just come down to which do I think is more likely: A) 99% of all scientists are intentionally duping society into believing global warming for some unknown agenda that they all share and we don’t know about for an unknown benefit B) the people who stand to make billions (maybe trillions) of dollars by claiming that global warming doesn’t exist or is at least to some degree a conspiracy are behind the idea that globally warming isn’t real When i want to find out who is behind something, I typically look at who stands to make the most money from their viewpoint being accepted as the dominant one. To me it seems, given the enormous amount of money at stake, that scenario b is much more likely.
- UncleEntity 8y ago
  Meh, no delete button and I should've known better to ponder on such subjects...
  - gotocake 8y ago