3 ms·

The referenced paper is from 2010. Do you suppose that the reason you haven't been hearing more about this recently is that it's just wrong? In 2011, this com

The referenced paper is from 2010. Do you suppose that the reason you haven't been hearing more about this recently is that it's just wrong? In 2011, this comment disputing it was published: https://www.nature.com/articles/nature09950 https://www.nature.com/articles/nature09950 The paper was discussed on HN earlier, as part of the discussion of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19127911 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19127911 I have a comment there pointing out that if you actually look at the data in the paper, there is really no evidence of a decline.

strainer 7y ago
The authors of the 2010 paper did follow up with another in 2014[1] so "heard nothing since disputed in 2011 - its just wrong" is at least, inaccurate. [1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0079661114000135 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S007966111... >This work builds upon an earlier analysis (Boyce et al., 2010) by taking published criticisms into account, and by using recalibrated data, and novel analysis methods.
- philipkglass 7y ago
  Good counterpoint. I upvoted you and radford-neal. Having looked at both papers now, I think that the 2014 followup confirmed the direction of the trend (downward), but it looks like it also significantly reduced the magnitude of the trend. Look at figure 2b in the 2010 paper and figure 1a in the 2014 paper. They both show "Rate of Chl change (mg m–3 yr–1)" on a grid of cells covering the world's oceans. But the scale in the 2010 paper went from -0.40 to 0.40. In the 2014 paper the extremes of the scale are only -0.10 and 0.10. It looks like re-analysis indicated less dramatic rates of change both in the cells showing increase and those showing decrease.
sieabahlpark 7y ago
HN seems to more and more turn into Reddit when it comes to upvoting articles people only read the headlines for.
- dang 7y ago
  Please don't submit comments saying that HN is turning into Reddit. It's a semi-noob illusion, as old as the hills. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
hkai 7y ago
But climate change alarmism sells so well.

strainer 7y ago

The authors of the 2010 paper did follow up with another in 2014[1] so "heard nothing since disputed in 2011 - its just wrong" is at least, inaccurate. [1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0079661114000135 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S007966111... >This work builds upon an earlier analysis (Boyce et al., 2010) by taking published criticisms into account, and by using recalibrated data, and novel analysis methods.

philipkglass 7y ago
Good counterpoint. I upvoted you and radford-neal. Having looked at both papers now, I think that the 2014 followup confirmed the direction of the trend (downward), but it looks like it also significantly reduced the magnitude of the trend. Look at figure 2b in the 2010 paper and figure 1a in the 2014 paper. They both show "Rate of Chl change (mg m–3 yr–1)" on a grid of cells covering the world's oceans. But the scale in the 2010 paper went from -0.40 to 0.40. In the 2014 paper the extremes of the scale are only -0.10 and 0.10. It looks like re-analysis indicated less dramatic rates of change both in the cells showing increase and those showing decrease.

sieabahlpark 7y ago

HN seems to more and more turn into Reddit when it comes to upvoting articles people only read the headlines for.

dang 7y ago
Please don't submit comments saying that HN is turning into Reddit. It's a semi-noob illusion, as old as the hills. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

hkai 7y ago

But climate change alarmism sells so well.