Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Gains in Antarctic ice might offset losses

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 61 posts

Re: Gains in Antarctic ice might offset losses

#41

Post by 7952 »

vixen99 wrote: post #5
sageabilly wrote: post #3

The important takeaway from this is that we don't have to worry as much about melting in Antartica. Melting everywhere else in the world, however, is proceeding at a fast pace and is more immediately concerning. Unfortunately, I imagine this report is going to get jumped on by global warming deniers as solid evidence that climate change is not real and there's nothing to worry about.

The word 'denial' does not permit of much nuance, does it? Smacks of faith and a religion, really. I wonder if & why you disagree with Judith Curry. "The definition of ‘dangerous’ climate change is ambiguous, and hypothesized catastrophic tipping points are regarded as very or extremely unlikely in the 21st century. Efforts to link dangerous impacts of extreme weather events to human-caused warming are misleading and…

Climate change "denial" is a bit like arguing vehemently that bacteria doesn't exist and you don't need to bother about hygiene. Actually I don't really care if people believe, I just want them to wash their hands after using the toilet. People need to be persuaded that it is the right thing to do from a moral, and a practical point of view.

The environment is complicated and we need to be mature in how we interact with it. That means cutting CO2 but it also means a lot of other things that are very important. The endless debate on the science wastes time that could be better spent.

Re: Gains in Antarctic ice might offset losses

#42

Post by [deleted] »

vixen99 wrote: post #5
sageabilly wrote: post #3

The important takeaway from this is that we don't have to worry as much about melting in Antartica. Melting everywhere else in the world, however, is proceeding at a fast pace and is more immediately concerning. Unfortunately, I imagine this report is going to get jumped on by global warming deniers as solid evidence that climate change is not real and there's nothing to worry about.

The word 'denial' does not permit of much nuance, does it? Smacks of faith and a religion, really. I wonder if & why you disagree with Judith Curry. "The definition of ‘dangerous’ climate change is ambiguous, and hypothesized catastrophic tipping points are regarded as very or extremely unlikely in the 21st century. Efforts to link dangerous impacts of extreme weather events to human-caused warming are misleading and…

[deleted]

Re: Gains in Antarctic ice might offset losses

#43

Post by TheOtherHobbes »

hugh4 wrote: post #33
llamataboot wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anthropogenic global warming is a scientific theory with a preponderance of evidence. Like all scientific theories it is open to being revised if/when contrary data emerges. At the moment, the vast majority of data supports it as a theory.

This is true, and if only global warming people would start phrasing it in that way instead of the rather less scientific "It's an undeniable fact! You can't deny it! Expressing skepticism makes you a bad person!" then I could quit arguing with them. I don't know how we ever got into the situation where the big argument is between "this is undeniable fact!" and "this is probably true". The dumb part is that the actio…

But that's not how most people understand probability. Or science.

Remember, many deniers literally believe that climate change research is a hoax created by scientists to gain funding. A smaller but non-trivial percentage literally believe that NASA has a moon base and/or a mars base and access to free energy technology.

When faced with kookiness of that order, nuances of phrasing are politically irrelevant.

For deniers, argument by evidence is pointless, because many of them don't understand the scientific method anyway.

That's why they're deniers. If they were looking at the evidence objectively instead of cherry-picking it, or blanking it, or saying ill-informed things like "Another record cold winter - must be that global warming I keep hearing about, heh heh heh" they'd be as terrified of where we're going to be half a century from now as many climate scientists are.

All policy makers have left is argument by rhetoric - which isn't very scientific, but is more politically expedient.

Re: Gains in Antarctic ice might offset losses

#44

Post by hugh4 »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #43
hugh4 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is true, and if only global warming people would start phrasing it in that way instead of the rather less scientific "It's an undeniable fact! You can't deny it! Expressing skepticism makes you a bad person!" then I could quit arguing with them. I don't know how we ever got into the situation where the big argument is between "this is undeniable fact!" and "this is probably true". The dumb part is that the actio…

But that's not how most people understand probability. Or science. Remember, many deniers literally believe that climate change research is a hoax created by scientists to gain funding. A smaller but non-trivial percentage literally believe that NASA has a moon base and/or a mars base and access to free energy technology. When faced with kookiness of that order, nuances of phrasing are politically irrelevant. For den…

So you lie to people because you think they can't understand the subtleties of the truth, then you complain that they detect they're being lied to, which obliges you to lie even harder.

Re: Gains in Antarctic ice might offset losses

#45

Post by midwest1 »

rgbrenner wrote: post #8
vixen99 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The word 'denial' does not permit of much nuance, does it? Smacks of faith and a religion, really. I wonder if & why you disagree with Judith Curry. "The definition of ‘dangerous’ climate change is ambiguous, and hypothesized catastrophic tipping points are regarded as very or extremely unlikely in the 21st century. Efforts to link dangerous impacts of extreme weather events to human-caused warming are misleading and…

Judith Curry who wrote less than a year ago[0]: Moreover, the estimates in these empirical studies are being borne out by the much-discussed “pause” or “hiatus” in global warming—the period since 1998 during which global average surface temperatures have not significantly increased. Even though the actual data shows warming of ~0.18 deg C: http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/ 0. http://www.wsj.com/…

Judith Curry had something to say about the NASA data as well. I find her analysis quite level-headed.

http://judithcurry.com/2015/01/16/warmest-year-pause-and-all...

Re: Gains in Antarctic ice might offset losses

#46

Post by midwest1 »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #43
hugh4 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is true, and if only global warming people would start phrasing it in that way instead of the rather less scientific "It's an undeniable fact! You can't deny it! Expressing skepticism makes you a bad person!" then I could quit arguing with them. I don't know how we ever got into the situation where the big argument is between "this is undeniable fact!" and "this is probably true". The dumb part is that the actio…

But that's not how most people understand probability. Or science. Remember, many deniers literally believe that climate change research is a hoax created by scientists to gain funding. A smaller but non-trivial percentage literally believe that NASA has a moon base and/or a mars base and access to free energy technology. When faced with kookiness of that order, nuances of phrasing are politically irrelevant. For den…

I used to agree with your characterization. Most global warming deniers do not understand the nature of climate change. I do like to get all sides of a debate, unless of course the debate includes your average Trump voter.

There are a minority of climate researchers who are not certain our level of CO2 emissions warrant any action. I understand that this is not the climate-scientist-majority position; however, I've seen so many red flags from the majority over the past few years that I've re-evaluated my position that deniers are all either morons or evil.

Perhaps Judith Curry is a soulless leach paid off by powerful polluting interests, I do not know. In the absence of evidence for her corruption, applied with a neutral judging eye (i.e. applying the same standard to both sides) I'm going to assume she has something valid to say.

And she's a climate modeler, not a statistician, or a reporter, or Breitbart.

Re: Gains in Antarctic ice might offset losses

#47

Post by talmand »

yarrel wrote: post #32
talmand wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't say otherwise in my statement. I am simply pointing out that both sides of the argument can cherry pick, and often do. Much like any other debate, especially on the internet.

You're creating a false equivalence between a theory that has the weight of evidence on its side and critics of that theory who tend to lie about the evidence. So no.

Well, when I see people cherry pick their data and cherry pick events that only support their side, I'm sorry to say I have to disagree with you. I have seen such things on both sides of this debate. Just because you haven't seen it, refuse to see it, or incapable of seeing it doesn't make my observations on the matter incorrect.

I can pull out a fancy term as well, I think you may have a case of confirmation bias. But since I don't know you, don't know your full opinion on the matter, nor don't know what you've read, I don't think I'll label you with negativity as you have done me.

Re: Gains in Antarctic ice might offset losses

#48

Post by talmand »

Daishiman wrote: post #39
rimantas wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually it would help if there was more focus on evidence and less on "consensus". I don't get why this consensus thing is pushed so much, in my eyes it just cheapens and weakens the argument.

You can check any of the climate science journals, the IPCC reports which summarize the loads of different, independent lines of evidence, the explanations of the physical models that describe the process of warming and how that maps out to different geographic areas of the world, along with all the predictions that leads to in timeframes that span over a century for now. But no, I guess complaining to people who act…

Does this include the science journals that have a history of squashing papers they disagree with on a political or emotional level?

Re: Gains in Antarctic ice might offset losses

#49

Post by talmand »

splawn wrote: post #31
talmand wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmmm, I reread what I wrote. I don't see where I made that claim.

Would you also say that gravity, evolution, and germ theory believers also point to just trends that support their position? Of course the thing these all have in common with climate change is scientific consensus..they just lack all the political "opposition". Actually it just hit me that people still debate evolution too.. lol.

>> Would you also say that gravity, evolution, and germ theory believers also point to just trends that support their position?

Most of them don't, but as for the few that do? I denounce them the same as any other scientist, climate or otherwise, that cherry picks their data and trends that only support their side of the debate. That was not the kind of science I learned in school.

Re: Gains in Antarctic ice might offset losses

#50

Post by midwest1 »

splawn wrote: post #36
rimantas wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Climate science is complicated by the fact that there are gazillions of variables and we hardly understand them and their interaction. Gravity is predictable enough for us to fly some apparatus millions of kilometres and land it on the comet. We are far far away from this kind of precision in regard of climate.

Are you claiming there isn't scientific consensus on climate change? Edit: and by "climate change" I mean the notion of "humans are causing the planet to warm up with CO2"

The term consensus seems... polluted.

The scientific consensus refers to the number of scientists that believe in anthro-climate change, but not the number of scientists who actually study climate change detection and its relation to greenhouse gases.

In other words, the opinion of a natural scientist, who relies on models developed by scientists who study climate change detection and attribution, does not matter at all. In the same way my opinion on relativity, as an engineer, means nothing about the consensus of people who can say relativity is an accurate theory.

I believe there is definitely a majority. But the oft-mentioned studies mentioning 97% consensus are highly misleading.

Post reply on HN