16 ms·

Near the very end: "Ice cores from Summit show that melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average. With the last one happening in 188

by cpr 14y ago

Near the very end: "Ice cores from Summit show that melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average. With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time," said Lora Koenig, a Goddard glaciologist and a member of the research team analyzing the satellite data. "But if we continue to observe melting events like this in upcoming years, it will be worrisome." Makes it a bit less scary. I think this is called burying the lede. ;-)

genki 14y ago
I wonder about the article title, too. How do they justify calling it "unprecedented" when they clearly state there's a precedent (melting events every 150 years on average)? Seems disingenuous at best.
- Smudge 14y ago
  Hard to say for sure with the information provided. While there is evidence that this has happened before, this degree of melting in such a short span of time is certainly "unprecedented" for as long as we've been observing, and it may well be a different kind of event than that which caused 1889's melting. Either way, could use plenty of clarification.
  - krautsourced 14y ago
    Still, the title is really misleading, even though it may be true in a very, very narrow sense. Tbh. I think someone just went overboard there. The problem of course is that we just don't know. We have our models, but they are all built on assumptions that can change any day. Some say that long term predictions are much more reliable than short term ones (aka. the weather forecast), yet still we are constantly surprised by climate events. The article itself is quite nice, so why fear mongering title (and I'm not even speaking about the HN title, that one is just completely misleading).
    - justsee 14y ago
      Yes, the title certainly is misleading based on that final paragraphs. However considering we have numerous alarming data points across the globe in 2012 related to climate (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/global-warmings-terrifying-new-math-20120719 http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/global-warmings-te...) perhaps that context means events like this are viewed in a more pessimistic fashion. The sentiment you express: that we don't know for sure, our models are not fool-proof etc is a very particular, unscientific line of reasoning pumped out to convince the layman that there is no real scientific consensus, which is simply false. There is scientific consensus, climate scientists never state that the test for scientific theories is 100% certainty, nor do they claim their models are completely accurate (every model is wrong to a degree, by definition!) The climate scientists and meteorologists in my family have moved on from debating with people now, seeing it as about as valuable as arguing about gravity with someone. It feels like the 'global warming conspiracy' is the '9/11 was an inside job conspiracy' for right-wingers: http://whowhatwhy.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/395940_842169154111_1010664_37712606_1688554057_n1.jpg http://whowhatwhy.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/395940_8421... Both utterly absurd to the core.
      - ekianjo 14y ago
        "There is scientific consensus"... No, there is not. Of you have been sleeping for a few years, then. Many scientists have come out in the recent past to stand against the "global warming" theory. It is nothing like gravity where we can clearly experiment and it's predictable. Climate change is no way certain nor predictable, and anyone who pretends otherwise is either a fool or an ignorant. Climate models are based on so much data (standard variation is HUGE) that you cannot even draw a line without being laughed at by a statistician.
        nl 14y ago
        "There is scientific consensus"... No, there is not. Sorry, but there is[1]. You are welcome to debate whether those scientist are right, and welcome to debate if other, non-climate specialists are better qualified to offer their opinion, but trying to argue against there being a consensus is misguided. [1] http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-co...
- jfoutz 14y ago
  They meant the imagery was unprecedented, not the melting. NASA is more about cool space cameras than pushing climate change. (imho)
  - guylhem 14y ago
    "Satellite imaging in 1889 was severely lacking, so the imagery is unprecendented." But I guess we will never see that line in an alarmist global warming report.
veb 14y ago
I'm not sure if that makes it any less scary. I wonder what reactions are going to stem from this event? You know, to every action there is always an equal and opposite reaction. EDIT: Explain the down-votes. Things don't just happen without something else feeling it. Just like how the Maori ate all the Moas and the Haast Eagle died because it had no more food.
2muchcoffeeman 14y ago
But also 1889+150 = 2039 2039-2012 = 27 So if this sort of melting was noticeable in 1889, and we notice it again now, then maybe we are 27 years too early. What is the variation in the melting cycle? I can't find data.
- Symmetry 14y ago
  That's 150 years on average. There isn't any cycle, its just statistical.
  - 2muchcoffeeman 14y ago
    They also say in the article that this is not unexpected based on previous events. So I guess it is happening about every 150 years to get a meaningful average. Otherwise they are just averaging a bunch of differences in dates. So to get an idea of how normal this is, don't we look at how many times this has happened before, and what the deviation from the 150 years is to get a better idea of what is happening?
ry0ohki 14y ago
Right, considering Ireland was covered in ice only 5,000 years ago, it's hard to take much stock in short term weather hype.
mncolinlee 14y ago
Way to go, HN! There's nothing quite like quibbling about semantics and praising the latest OSX while the planet burns. If we saw the same kind of Chomskyan linguistics applied to OSX Mountain Lion as we apply to climate science, we wouldn't know whether HiDPI was actually included or falsely advertised. They didn't say melting over the Summit was unprecedented. They said the 97% melt was unprecedented in the thirty years we've been able to measure ice melts. The last 328 consecutive months of above average global temperatures have also been unprecedented. The odds of that occurring by random chance is less than one in 3.7 x 10^99.
- cpr 14y ago
  It might be helpful to put this in perspective. See Burt Rutan's critique of global warming "science": http://rps3.com/Files/AGW/EngrCritique.AGW-Science.v4.3.pdf http://rps3.com/Files/AGW/EngrCritique.AGW-Science.v4.3.pdf Page 5 in particular shows the insignificance of the current warming period, using publicly available ice core data. His whole presentation on CAGW is worth reading, as it adds a huge amount of context and data that you'll never get from the alarmists. When you see the data in this light, you can't help but question the current CAGW orthodoxy.
  - mncolinlee 14y ago
    You might find solace in rehashed and widely disproven arguments from a source who is reputable in the field of aerospace. The fact that most scientists and most aerospace engineers disagree with him should be a strong indication that this issue demands more than merely tired, old arguments retold by a different name. You need a smoking gun-- proof that recent climate events are either not record-breaking or not anthropogenic. Allegations of "Climategate" is not sufficient nor is a non-reviewed journal article because it is not open to the scientific method. The shotgun approach to disprove both climate change and its anthropogenic roots shows desperation, not evidence. It hardly presents a rational, scientific argument to say that climate change doesn't exist, but IF it does, it isn't anthropogenic. Regional or point temperatures are not sufficient to prove or disprove climate change. The Medieval Warm Period is only significant in a small area of Europe and certainly not like the charts Rutan shows. Only a global average temperature proves climate forcing. Most research shows data that does not agree with Burt Rutan's charts on page 5 or any other page. http://www.snolab.ca/public/JournalClub/Chris.pdf http://www.snolab.ca/public/JournalClub/Chris.pdf http://www.geo.umass.edu/faculty/bradley/bradley2003b.pdf http://www.geo.umass.edu/faculty/bradley/bradley2003b.pdf

by cpr 14y ago

genki 14y ago

I wonder about the article title, too. How do they justify calling it "unprecedented" when they clearly state there's a precedent (melting events every 150 years on average)? Seems disingenuous at best.

Smudge 14y ago
Hard to say for sure with the information provided. While there is evidence that this has happened before, this degree of melting in such a short span of time is certainly "unprecedented" for as long as we've been observing, and it may well be a different kind of event than that which caused 1889's melting. Either way, could use plenty of clarification.
- krautsourced 14y ago
  Still, the title is really misleading, even though it may be true in a very, very narrow sense. Tbh. I think someone just went overboard there. The problem of course is that we just don't know. We have our models, but they are all built on assumptions that can change any day. Some say that long term predictions are much more reliable than short term ones (aka. the weather forecast), yet still we are constantly surprised by climate events. The article itself is quite nice, so why fear mongering title (and I'm not even speaking about the HN title, that one is just completely misleading).
  - justsee 14y ago
    Yes, the title certainly is misleading based on that final paragraphs. However considering we have numerous alarming data points across the globe in 2012 related to climate (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/global-warmings-terrifying-new-math-20120719 http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/global-warmings-te...) perhaps that context means events like this are viewed in a more pessimistic fashion. The sentiment you express: that we don't know for sure, our models are not fool-proof etc is a very particular, unscientific line of reasoning pumped out to convince the layman that there is no real scientific consensus, which is simply false. There is scientific consensus, climate scientists never state that the test for scientific theories is 100% certainty, nor do they claim their models are completely accurate (every model is wrong to a degree, by definition!) The climate scientists and meteorologists in my family have moved on from debating with people now, seeing it as about as valuable as arguing about gravity with someone. It feels like the 'global warming conspiracy' is the '9/11 was an inside job conspiracy' for right-wingers: http://whowhatwhy.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/395940_842169154111_1010664_37712606_1688554057_n1.jpg http://whowhatwhy.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/395940_8421... Both utterly absurd to the core.
    - ekianjo 14y ago
      "There is scientific consensus"... No, there is not. Of you have been sleeping for a few years, then. Many scientists have come out in the recent past to stand against the "global warming" theory. It is nothing like gravity where we can clearly experiment and it's predictable. Climate change is no way certain nor predictable, and anyone who pretends otherwise is either a fool or an ignorant. Climate models are based on so much data (standard variation is HUGE) that you cannot even draw a line without being laughed at by a statistician.
      - nl 14y ago
        "There is scientific consensus"... No, there is not. Sorry, but there is[1]. You are welcome to debate whether those scientist are right, and welcome to debate if other, non-climate specialists are better qualified to offer their opinion, but trying to argue against there being a consensus is misguided. [1] http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-co...
jfoutz 14y ago
They meant the imagery was unprecedented, not the melting. NASA is more about cool space cameras than pushing climate change. (imho)
- guylhem 14y ago
  "Satellite imaging in 1889 was severely lacking, so the imagery is unprecendented." But I guess we will never see that line in an alarmist global warming report.

veb 14y ago

I'm not sure if that makes it any less scary. I wonder what reactions are going to stem from this event? You know, to every action there is always an equal and opposite reaction. EDIT: Explain the down-votes. Things don't just happen without something else feeling it. Just like how the Maori ate all the Moas and the Haast Eagle died because it had no more food.

2muchcoffeeman 14y ago

But also 1889+150 = 2039 2039-2012 = 27 So if this sort of melting was noticeable in 1889, and we notice it again now, then maybe we are 27 years too early. What is the variation in the melting cycle? I can't find data.

Symmetry 14y ago
That's 150 years on average. There isn't any cycle, its just statistical.
- 2muchcoffeeman 14y ago
  They also say in the article that this is not unexpected based on previous events. So I guess it is happening about every 150 years to get a meaningful average. Otherwise they are just averaging a bunch of differences in dates. So to get an idea of how normal this is, don't we look at how many times this has happened before, and what the deviation from the 150 years is to get a better idea of what is happening?

ry0ohki 14y ago

Right, considering Ireland was covered in ice only 5,000 years ago, it's hard to take much stock in short term weather hype.

mncolinlee 14y ago

Way to go, HN! There's nothing quite like quibbling about semantics and praising the latest OSX while the planet burns. If we saw the same kind of Chomskyan linguistics applied to OSX Mountain Lion as we apply to climate science, we wouldn't know whether HiDPI was actually included or falsely advertised. They didn't say melting over the Summit was unprecedented. They said the 97% melt was unprecedented in the thirty years we've been able to measure ice melts. The last 328 consecutive months of above average global temperatures have also been unprecedented. The odds of that occurring by random chance is less than one in 3.7 x 10^99.

cpr 14y ago
It might be helpful to put this in perspective. See Burt Rutan's critique of global warming "science": http://rps3.com/Files/AGW/EngrCritique.AGW-Science.v4.3.pdf http://rps3.com/Files/AGW/EngrCritique.AGW-Science.v4.3.pdf Page 5 in particular shows the insignificance of the current warming period, using publicly available ice core data. His whole presentation on CAGW is worth reading, as it adds a huge amount of context and data that you'll never get from the alarmists. When you see the data in this light, you can't help but question the current CAGW orthodoxy.
- mncolinlee 14y ago
  You might find solace in rehashed and widely disproven arguments from a source who is reputable in the field of aerospace. The fact that most scientists and most aerospace engineers disagree with him should be a strong indication that this issue demands more than merely tired, old arguments retold by a different name. You need a smoking gun-- proof that recent climate events are either not record-breaking or not anthropogenic. Allegations of "Climategate" is not sufficient nor is a non-reviewed journal article because it is not open to the scientific method. The shotgun approach to disprove both climate change and its anthropogenic roots shows desperation, not evidence. It hardly presents a rational, scientific argument to say that climate change doesn't exist, but IF it does, it isn't anthropogenic. Regional or point temperatures are not sufficient to prove or disprove climate change. The Medieval Warm Period is only significant in a small area of Europe and certainly not like the charts Rutan shows. Only a global average temperature proves climate forcing. Most research shows data that does not agree with Burt Rutan's charts on page 5 or any other page. http://www.snolab.ca/public/JournalClub/Chris.pdf http://www.snolab.ca/public/JournalClub/Chris.pdf http://www.geo.umass.edu/faculty/bradley/bradley2003b.pdf http://www.geo.umass.edu/faculty/bradley/bradley2003b.pdf