3 ms·
Objectivity and reasoning need on be founded on data, and data is a collection of single events, unusual or not. All this guy said was "we surveyed A1 square mi
by brazzy 15y ago
Objectivity and reasoning need on be founded on data, and data is a collection of single events, unusual or not. All this guy said was "we surveyed A1 square miles of arctic ocean and found N1 live polar bears and after a storm we surveyed A2 square miles and found N2 drifting dead bears, so basic arithmetic gives an estimate of X% of bears getting killed by such a storm in such an environment." And yeah, the small sample size results in a huge margin of error, but it's one perfectly legitimate datapoint. What connects it to global warming is that the environment in question has lately become increasingly ice-deficient, forcing the bears to swim long distances which is apparently very dangerous for them.
Global warming skeptics are free to provide their own data, but they seem to be more intent on personally attacking those who disagree.
Frankly, at this point anyone who claims that global warming isn't happening is either a paid industry shill or has allowed themselves to be brainwashed by such because he doesn't want to believe in something that implies his lifestyle is not sustainable. You can have legitimate arguments about the extent, speed, and cause of global warming, but claiming that it is not happening is neither objective nor reasonable given the undisputable evidence of shrinking glaciers and arctic ice covers.
- farmerbrown 15y agoSure, some degree of global warming is probably happening. The bigger point here is that the "end-of-the-world" global warming is never going to happen. That is, the effect size of anthropogenic global warming is apparently small and does not match the original predictions put forth in the late 1980s. You can see the data (and complete lack of a rebuttal) here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/Hansen-1988-prediction-basic.htm http://www.skepticalscience.com/Hansen-1988-prediction-basic... Note that the observed global temperature anomaly, in black, tracks Scenario C, a scenario that "assumed a rapid decline in greenhouse gas emissions around the year 2000." However, during the same period, atmospheric carbon dioxide increased by approximately 40 parts per million. [1] So, where does that leave us? It leaves us with a climate sensitivity of 3°C for a DOUBLING of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Of course, this assumes the existence of positive feedbacks in the climate system. One such positive feedback might be a decrease in snowfall, something talked about in the early 2000s: "According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, within a few years winter snowfall will become 'a very rare and exciting event'." [2] Recently, though, the claims are now that "snow outside is what global warming looks like." [3] Without positive feedbacks, the climate sensitivity is more like 1.2°C for a DOUBLING of atmospheric carbon dioxide. [1] http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/#mlo_full http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/#mlo_full [2] http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-j... [3] http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/dec/20/uk-snow-global-warming http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/dec/20/uk-snow-...
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- brazzy 15y agoThe decrease of the arctic sea ice is a positive feedback that is definitely already happening: http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/seaice.html http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/seaice.html