7 ms·

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 c

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...
    - ekianjo 14y ago
      CO2 is not the single driver. If it were, how do you explain we do not see significant temperature increase over the past few years while there is more and more CO2 in the atmosphere. You cant have it both ways. And I repeat again, there is no consensus. Consensus in science is not like a democratic vote. The consensus in science is obtained when there is NO ONE debating anything anymore. Just like noone is casting doubt on Einstein s relativity theory in physics. Do we have that level of scientific certitude regarding climate? Hell no.
- curt 14y ago
  ...or the fact that's it's increasingly looking as if cosmic rays cause cloud formation thereby controlling climate change. The climate is a chaotic system and by it's very definition you can't predict or model said system. No real scientist would ever write what you just did. Is this like Einstein's cosmological constant, expansion of the universe, or any number of other supposed knowns that have been proven wrong.
  - nl 14y ago
    ...or the fact that's it's increasingly looking as if cosmic rays cause cloud formation thereby controlling climate change. No it isn't. A recent study showed that cosmic rays can, in some circumstances trigger liquid drop formation. However, it did not show that this happened often enough for clouds to be formed, let alone often enough for it to have any effect on the climate. http://www.skepticalscience.com/cern-cosmic-rays-basic.html http://www.skepticalscience.com/cern-cosmic-rays-basic.html http://www.skepticalscience.com/GCR-Backing-the-wrong-horse.html http://www.skepticalscience.com/GCR-Backing-the-wrong-horse....
  - justsee 14y ago
    This is a perfect example of the pseudo-scientific sentiment that has been cultivated in the non-scientific community. Assert confidently that real science knows that it is impossible to model anything accurately, and that climate change concerns are guesses that will magically be proven wrong at a later date. Also, pretend that science is about 100% certainty (which it is not) and then judge climate change theories based on that figure. There is scientific consensus (http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-co...) that humans are causing global warming, and this is based on climate models developed and refined over decades, from a variety of scientific disciplines. Yet in the face of this reality people like yourself have no qualms dismissing the science based on their own notions of science and are entirely able to convince themselves that they hold a scientific position. I think the process is as follows: 1. Construct your own notion of how science works. 2. Dismiss climate science based on 1. 3. Convince yourself you hold a scientific position.
    - 14y ago
- brc 14y ago
  Really, you linked to Mad Bill McKibbens Rolling Stone rant? The one that insists the laws of physics are changing? That guy is an embarassment as much as some of the nuttier 'there is no global warming' zealots are. Unhinged alarmism and 'big oil under the bed' is only good for preaching to the choir. Two points: - consensus isn't proof, it's just a bunch of people agreeing with each other. Scientifically, it means nothing. The list of disproven theories that once had wide consensus is deep and rich in examples. It's OK to talk about a consensus, it's not OK to use this as a line of argument that something is true. - the IPCC models are woeful at predictions, the IPCC themselves have stated as much. It's not unscientific to express doubt about the models - it's unscientific to do the opposite. The global warming movement isn't a conspiracy, but there are many interesting social phenomena that can be observed amongst it's ardent supporters.
  - justsee 14y ago
    Well yes, I thought the article captured a lot of interesting numbers. Much more useful if you skip the ad hominems (I don't care what you think of the author) and focus on critiquing the substance. What's wrong with the data? Happy to hear. Scientific consensus - no one asserted that it represents proof. You are wrong to say that scientifically it means nothing. I think you mean to say what Wikipedia says: "Scientific consensus is not by itself a scientific argument, and it is not part of the scientific method." However from a societal point of view it is important, which is clearly highlighted by the attempts of the energy industry to promote the idea that there isn't a scientific consensus when there is one. Obviously I take issue with the bits where you go on to talk about disproven theories and unreliability of models. You're veering off into that industry messaging which aims to convince a reader that the science we have is not solid enough to decide whether to act on emissions, which is completely false. It's a recipe I hereby label the "global warming denialist's unscientific method": 1. Construct your own notion of how science works. 2. Dismiss climate science based on 1. 3. Convince yourself (and others) you hold a scientific position.
- ZeroGravitas 14y ago
  What's the global warming equivalent of "the 9/11 attack allowed a group of right-wing ideologues to rapidly advance an agenda they'd been pushing and planning for years under the (very thin) guise of responding to 9/11"? Maybe something like "the current global climate change caused by humankind is a convenient backdrop for a variety of eco-warriers to advance non-scientific and innumerate 'solutions' which are more about making people feel bad about themselves than about tackling the actual problems"? In both cases the loudness of the wackos on both sides has drowned out the moderates and turned it into a political/religous debate.
  - calinet6 14y ago
    > "the current global climate change caused by humankind is a convenient backdrop for a variety of eco-warriers to advance non-scientific and innumerate 'solutions' which are more about making people feel bad about themselves than about tackling the actual problems"? What about those extreme and useless people precludes us from finding real solutions to a scientifically proven problem? Forget the hippies. They'll never get anything real done. But if you find a way to produce cheap power, everything will benefit. Better sustainability is a win-win. I'm not sure why we need a scapegoat to prevent us from doing good things for the world and possibly making a boatload of money doing so (not that that's the goal, but I imagine it's the primary concern for people with such criticisms). It's completely counter-intuitive to me why people would fight this.
  - lotharbot 14y ago
    Perhaps in the same way, "since 9/11 was a real terrorist attack, we MUST respond by invading this list of countries and enacting this list of restrictions on freedom" is analogous to "since global warming is really driven by carbon emissions, we MUST respond by subsidizing these industries, enacting these stealth taxes, and forcing consumers to engage in these behaviors" On both sides, we've got the wacko conspiracy theorists. But we also have those who recognize the problem is real and want to push stupid solutions. That's another part of "drowning out the moderates".
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.

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...
  - ekianjo 14y ago
    CO2 is not the single driver. If it were, how do you explain we do not see significant temperature increase over the past few years while there is more and more CO2 in the atmosphere. You cant have it both ways. And I repeat again, there is no consensus. Consensus in science is not like a democratic vote. The consensus in science is obtained when there is NO ONE debating anything anymore. Just like noone is casting doubt on Einstein s relativity theory in physics. Do we have that level of scientific certitude regarding climate? Hell no.
curt 14y ago
...or the fact that's it's increasingly looking as if cosmic rays cause cloud formation thereby controlling climate change. The climate is a chaotic system and by it's very definition you can't predict or model said system. No real scientist would ever write what you just did. Is this like Einstein's cosmological constant, expansion of the universe, or any number of other supposed knowns that have been proven wrong.
- nl 14y ago
  ...or the fact that's it's increasingly looking as if cosmic rays cause cloud formation thereby controlling climate change. No it isn't. A recent study showed that cosmic rays can, in some circumstances trigger liquid drop formation. However, it did not show that this happened often enough for clouds to be formed, let alone often enough for it to have any effect on the climate. http://www.skepticalscience.com/cern-cosmic-rays-basic.html http://www.skepticalscience.com/cern-cosmic-rays-basic.html http://www.skepticalscience.com/GCR-Backing-the-wrong-horse.html http://www.skepticalscience.com/GCR-Backing-the-wrong-horse....
- justsee 14y ago
  This is a perfect example of the pseudo-scientific sentiment that has been cultivated in the non-scientific community. Assert confidently that real science knows that it is impossible to model anything accurately, and that climate change concerns are guesses that will magically be proven wrong at a later date. Also, pretend that science is about 100% certainty (which it is not) and then judge climate change theories based on that figure. There is scientific consensus (http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-co...) that humans are causing global warming, and this is based on climate models developed and refined over decades, from a variety of scientific disciplines. Yet in the face of this reality people like yourself have no qualms dismissing the science based on their own notions of science and are entirely able to convince themselves that they hold a scientific position. I think the process is as follows: 1. Construct your own notion of how science works. 2. Dismiss climate science based on 1. 3. Convince yourself you hold a scientific position.
  - 14y ago
brc 14y ago
Really, you linked to Mad Bill McKibbens Rolling Stone rant? The one that insists the laws of physics are changing? That guy is an embarassment as much as some of the nuttier 'there is no global warming' zealots are. Unhinged alarmism and 'big oil under the bed' is only good for preaching to the choir. Two points: - consensus isn't proof, it's just a bunch of people agreeing with each other. Scientifically, it means nothing. The list of disproven theories that once had wide consensus is deep and rich in examples. It's OK to talk about a consensus, it's not OK to use this as a line of argument that something is true. - the IPCC models are woeful at predictions, the IPCC themselves have stated as much. It's not unscientific to express doubt about the models - it's unscientific to do the opposite. The global warming movement isn't a conspiracy, but there are many interesting social phenomena that can be observed amongst it's ardent supporters.
- justsee 14y ago
  Well yes, I thought the article captured a lot of interesting numbers. Much more useful if you skip the ad hominems (I don't care what you think of the author) and focus on critiquing the substance. What's wrong with the data? Happy to hear. Scientific consensus - no one asserted that it represents proof. You are wrong to say that scientifically it means nothing. I think you mean to say what Wikipedia says: "Scientific consensus is not by itself a scientific argument, and it is not part of the scientific method." However from a societal point of view it is important, which is clearly highlighted by the attempts of the energy industry to promote the idea that there isn't a scientific consensus when there is one. Obviously I take issue with the bits where you go on to talk about disproven theories and unreliability of models. You're veering off into that industry messaging which aims to convince a reader that the science we have is not solid enough to decide whether to act on emissions, which is completely false. It's a recipe I hereby label the "global warming denialist's unscientific method": 1. Construct your own notion of how science works. 2. Dismiss climate science based on 1. 3. Convince yourself (and others) you hold a scientific position.
ZeroGravitas 14y ago
What's the global warming equivalent of "the 9/11 attack allowed a group of right-wing ideologues to rapidly advance an agenda they'd been pushing and planning for years under the (very thin) guise of responding to 9/11"? Maybe something like "the current global climate change caused by humankind is a convenient backdrop for a variety of eco-warriers to advance non-scientific and innumerate 'solutions' which are more about making people feel bad about themselves than about tackling the actual problems"? In both cases the loudness of the wackos on both sides has drowned out the moderates and turned it into a political/religous debate.
- calinet6 14y ago
  > "the current global climate change caused by humankind is a convenient backdrop for a variety of eco-warriers to advance non-scientific and innumerate 'solutions' which are more about making people feel bad about themselves than about tackling the actual problems"? What about those extreme and useless people precludes us from finding real solutions to a scientifically proven problem? Forget the hippies. They'll never get anything real done. But if you find a way to produce cheap power, everything will benefit. Better sustainability is a win-win. I'm not sure why we need a scapegoat to prevent us from doing good things for the world and possibly making a boatload of money doing so (not that that's the goal, but I imagine it's the primary concern for people with such criticisms). It's completely counter-intuitive to me why people would fight this.
- lotharbot 14y ago
  Perhaps in the same way, "since 9/11 was a real terrorist attack, we MUST respond by invading this list of countries and enacting this list of restrictions on freedom" is analogous to "since global warming is really driven by carbon emissions, we MUST respond by subsidizing these industries, enacting these stealth taxes, and forcing consumers to engage in these behaviors" On both sides, we've got the wacko conspiracy theorists. But we also have those who recognize the problem is real and want to push stupid solutions. That's another part of "drowning out the moderates".

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.