6 ms·

At this point I'll believe it when I see it. I am not saying climate change isn't happening but predictions like this are not useful. This exact same predictio

At this point I'll believe it when I see it. I am not saying climate change isn't happening but predictions like this are not useful. This exact same prediction was made in 2007. These sorts of predictions are no better than what a fortune teller can offer. [1]: https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/sep/02/john-kerry/kerry-claims-arctic-will-be-ice-free-2013/ https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/sep... [2]: https://imgur.com/9NMaTcZ https://imgur.com/9NMaTcZ

wang_li 7y ago
In 2000 the Independent was telling us that "snowfalls were a thing of the past" in England. https://web.archive.org/web/20150912124604/http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html https://web.archive.org/web/20150912124604/http://www.indepe...
- kirstenbirgit 7y ago
  For what it's worth, here in Denmark, no snow whatsoever this year. Temperatures have been in the 6-7°C range, which is really weird, since it's usually below zero these months.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
ptah 7y ago
the ice is disappearing. it's just a matter of when will it be completely gone
- hammock 7y ago
  Good ol second law of thermodynamics.
comicjk 7y ago
This is a problem of science journalism. We don't want all scientists' predictions to agree - there should be a range that reflects the real uncertainty. But combine this with the demand for big headlines, and you have a broken way of conveying predictions to the public.
- macinjosh 7y ago
  I think so too. But why don't we ever hear the scientific community come out and stand up for themselves? I imagine that would be considered news in and of itself. I reckon its because there is a social and possible economic price to pay to say anything that detracts from a sense of emergency around the climate. It is a toxic culture now similar to that of the 'woke' wing of the left or the pro-gun wing of the right. If anyone wants the general public to take this issue as seriously as it should be FUD is not the way to go. I think it hurts more than it helps.
  - comicjk 7y ago
    Well, I'm a scientist and I'm talking about it... If scientists knew how to fix science journalism, we would. It's not just climate. Cancer research and diet research have the same problem, and if battery capacity had doubled for every headline saying it had, we would be charging our phones once a year. But the science journalists argue that they're not lying, just picking the most interesting stories, and that otherwise no one would read them at all. If scientists came out with a statement that science journalism is a fraud, it might be sensational enough to make the news, but it wouldn't be true. If they said science journalism needs reform - well, I'm sure you can find plenty of blog posts arguing this, but not a lot of media coverage.
    - macinjosh 7y ago
      > If scientists came out with a statement that science journalism is a fraud, it might be sensational enough to make the news, but it wouldn't be true. You're arguing the extremes here. Scientific organizations could easily publicize their displeasure with how their work is communicated to the public without calling the media fraudsters. Give me a break.
noiv 7y ago
Since 2007 a handful more of sea ice observing satellites has been launched into orbit, hundreds if not thousands papers about sea ice have been published and sea ice models have been improved significantly - all telling the same thing: sea ice decline is happening. It's a good thing science makes progress every day, just start listening.
- casefields 7y ago
  The NASA scientist that made those erroneous predictions in OPs post: https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-o... Whoops.
  - jf22 7y ago
    Antarctic ice sheets and arctic ice sheets are on different ends of the planet. This article actually confirms the loss of arctic ice sheets because water levels are still rising despite gains in antarctic ice.
- aldoushuxley001 7y ago
  Weird cause all the models I’ve seen show basically a balance and no real change. Arctic losing more ice but Antarctica adding more sea ice such that it’s basically a wash.
- soperj 7y ago
  It's funny that you pick 2007. This is from Nsidc --> http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/1999/10/Sep_monthly_extents13yr.png http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/1999/10/Sep_monthly_... It's been flat since 2007 in the arctic. Sea Ice in the Antarctic has actually had a record high in that time period.
  - acqq 7y ago
    If observing just the plot of "each September in each year" one still misses the whole picture which is (all extents through the time, not only Septembers: http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/1999/10/Figure3.png http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/1999/10/Figure3.png Specifically, 2012 was such an extreme year that the following years seldom compete with it, but they still do, and the trend to decrease is still obvious.
take_a_breath 7y ago
"At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of the summer by 2012, much faster than previous predictions." I'm not sure why you read this as a prediction. The article mentions how this statement was made in 2007, a year that saw "record melt all over the Arctic." This fact probably accounts for the "at this rate" qualifier used above. The phrase "nearly ice-free" is also not the same as "no ice." ==I am not saying climate change isn't happening but predictions like this are not useful.== Maybe it is more about how you frame things in your mind. In this case, you inferred a prediction and used that to discredit the scientific data.
- macinjosh 7y ago
  Your quote from the article literally says 'much faster than previous predictions'. The article implies it is a prediction. I didn't infer anything. > you inferred a prediction and used that to discredit the scientific data. I did no such thing. I discredited the interpretation of scientific data. Huge difference compadre.
  - take_a_breath 7y ago
    He says, if the rate from 2007 holds up, the melt will happen faster than others predicted. He is not predicting that it will hold up or saying outright that the ice will melt by 2012. The rate from 2007 didn't hold up, which invalidates the rest of the comment. Either way, you still manage to ignore the phrase "could be nearly ice-free", as that discredits your entire assumption that he predicted it would be ice-free in 2012.
    - macinjosh 7y ago
      Statements like "could be nearly ice-free" are milk toast and meaninglessness. It is plan and simple CYA. It provides an out if the predictions don't turn out they way they expect or desire.
      - jf22 7y ago
        Are we arguing semantics or whether or not climate change is occurring or ice is melting?
bryanrasmussen 7y ago
from the politifact article - "A fair statement would be that some scientists have predicted summer ice free Arctic Ocean as soon as 2013, but others expect it to happen a little slower — say 2040-2060," Schmidt wrote.

wang_li 7y ago

In 2000 the Independent was telling us that "snowfalls were a thing of the past" in England. https://web.archive.org/web/20150912124604/http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html https://web.archive.org/web/20150912124604/http://www.indepe...

kirstenbirgit 7y ago
For what it's worth, here in Denmark, no snow whatsoever this year. Temperatures have been in the 6-7°C range, which is really weird, since it's usually below zero these months.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

ptah 7y ago

the ice is disappearing. it's just a matter of when will it be completely gone

hammock 7y ago
Good ol second law of thermodynamics.

comicjk 7y ago

This is a problem of science journalism. We don't want all scientists' predictions to agree - there should be a range that reflects the real uncertainty. But combine this with the demand for big headlines, and you have a broken way of conveying predictions to the public.

macinjosh 7y ago
I think so too. But why don't we ever hear the scientific community come out and stand up for themselves? I imagine that would be considered news in and of itself. I reckon its because there is a social and possible economic price to pay to say anything that detracts from a sense of emergency around the climate. It is a toxic culture now similar to that of the 'woke' wing of the left or the pro-gun wing of the right. If anyone wants the general public to take this issue as seriously as it should be FUD is not the way to go. I think it hurts more than it helps.
- comicjk 7y ago
  Well, I'm a scientist and I'm talking about it... If scientists knew how to fix science journalism, we would. It's not just climate. Cancer research and diet research have the same problem, and if battery capacity had doubled for every headline saying it had, we would be charging our phones once a year. But the science journalists argue that they're not lying, just picking the most interesting stories, and that otherwise no one would read them at all. If scientists came out with a statement that science journalism is a fraud, it might be sensational enough to make the news, but it wouldn't be true. If they said science journalism needs reform - well, I'm sure you can find plenty of blog posts arguing this, but not a lot of media coverage.
  - macinjosh 7y ago
    > If scientists came out with a statement that science journalism is a fraud, it might be sensational enough to make the news, but it wouldn't be true. You're arguing the extremes here. Scientific organizations could easily publicize their displeasure with how their work is communicated to the public without calling the media fraudsters. Give me a break.

noiv 7y ago

Since 2007 a handful more of sea ice observing satellites has been launched into orbit, hundreds if not thousands papers about sea ice have been published and sea ice models have been improved significantly - all telling the same thing: sea ice decline is happening. It's a good thing science makes progress every day, just start listening.

casefields 7y ago
The NASA scientist that made those erroneous predictions in OPs post: https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-o... Whoops.
- jf22 7y ago
  Antarctic ice sheets and arctic ice sheets are on different ends of the planet. This article actually confirms the loss of arctic ice sheets because water levels are still rising despite gains in antarctic ice.
aldoushuxley001 7y ago
Weird cause all the models I’ve seen show basically a balance and no real change. Arctic losing more ice but Antarctica adding more sea ice such that it’s basically a wash.
soperj 7y ago
It's funny that you pick 2007. This is from Nsidc --> http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/1999/10/Sep_monthly_extents13yr.png http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/1999/10/Sep_monthly_... It's been flat since 2007 in the arctic. Sea Ice in the Antarctic has actually had a record high in that time period.
- acqq 7y ago
  If observing just the plot of "each September in each year" one still misses the whole picture which is (all extents through the time, not only Septembers: http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/1999/10/Figure3.png http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/1999/10/Figure3.png Specifically, 2012 was such an extreme year that the following years seldom compete with it, but they still do, and the trend to decrease is still obvious.

take_a_breath 7y ago

"At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of the summer by 2012, much faster than previous predictions." I'm not sure why you read this as a prediction. The article mentions how this statement was made in 2007, a year that saw "record melt all over the Arctic." This fact probably accounts for the "at this rate" qualifier used above. The phrase "nearly ice-free" is also not the same as "no ice." ==I am not saying climate change isn't happening but predictions like this are not useful.== Maybe it is more about how you frame things in your mind. In this case, you inferred a prediction and used that to discredit the scientific data.

macinjosh 7y ago
Your quote from the article literally says 'much faster than previous predictions'. The article implies it is a prediction. I didn't infer anything. > you inferred a prediction and used that to discredit the scientific data. I did no such thing. I discredited the interpretation of scientific data. Huge difference compadre.
- take_a_breath 7y ago
  He says, if the rate from 2007 holds up, the melt will happen faster than others predicted. He is not predicting that it will hold up or saying outright that the ice will melt by 2012. The rate from 2007 didn't hold up, which invalidates the rest of the comment. Either way, you still manage to ignore the phrase "could be nearly ice-free", as that discredits your entire assumption that he predicted it would be ice-free in 2012.
  - macinjosh 7y ago
    Statements like "could be nearly ice-free" are milk toast and meaninglessness. It is plan and simple CYA. It provides an out if the predictions don't turn out they way they expect or desire.
    - jf22 7y ago
      Are we arguing semantics or whether or not climate change is occurring or ice is melting?

bryanrasmussen 7y ago

from the politifact article - "A fair statement would be that some scientists have predicted summer ice free Arctic Ocean as soon as 2013, but others expect it to happen a little slower — say 2040-2060," Schmidt wrote.