5 ms·

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 yea

by 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...
      - jdlegg 14y ago
        You are wrong. My dictionary defines consensus as "general agreement" and this is clearly the case when it comes to climate science. No one in the climate science arena disagrees that the changes in CO2 levels are 1) created by burning fossil fuels 2) driving the observed warming effect and 3) that the observed warming trends are outside the levels of natural variability. The IPCC Third Assessment Report [1] outlines this in much detail. This report has been signed-off on by dozens of international science academies, including the Science Council of Japan, the US National Academy of Sciences, and the Russian Academy of Sciences. Other institutions endorsing the IPCC report include NASA's Goddard Institute, NOAA, the American Meteorological Society, the Royal Society of the United Kingdom, the American Geophysical Union, and the Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society. If this doesn't constitute "consensus" then I would like to hear what you WOULD consider sufficient. There are MANY debates in climate science, but they are generally about the HOW's not the IF's or WHY's. [1] http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc%5Ftar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc%5Ftar/?src=/clim...
  - anigbrowl 14y ago
    I toned down the original article title to 'unusual weather event: 97% of Greenland ice sheet surface melts in 4 days' but one of the HN editors rewrote it.
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.

by genki 14y ago

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...
    - jdlegg 14y ago
      You are wrong. My dictionary defines consensus as "general agreement" and this is clearly the case when it comes to climate science. No one in the climate science arena disagrees that the changes in CO2 levels are 1) created by burning fossil fuels 2) driving the observed warming effect and 3) that the observed warming trends are outside the levels of natural variability. The IPCC Third Assessment Report [1] outlines this in much detail. This report has been signed-off on by dozens of international science academies, including the Science Council of Japan, the US National Academy of Sciences, and the Russian Academy of Sciences. Other institutions endorsing the IPCC report include NASA's Goddard Institute, NOAA, the American Meteorological Society, the Royal Society of the United Kingdom, the American Geophysical Union, and the Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society. If this doesn't constitute "consensus" then I would like to hear what you WOULD consider sufficient. There are MANY debates in climate science, but they are generally about the HOW's not the IF's or WHY's. [1] http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc%5Ftar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc%5Ftar/?src=/clim...
- anigbrowl 14y ago
  I toned down the original article title to 'unusual weather event: 97% of Greenland ice sheet surface melts in 4 days' but one of the HN editors rewrote it.

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.