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

51–60 of 61 posts

Re: Gains in Antarctic ice might offset losses

#51

Post by Daishiman »

talmand wrote: post #48
Daishiman wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

By all means, why don't you cite said journals and papers and then we can see if they really stack up to the level of quality research demanded by peer review?

Re: Gains in Antarctic ice might offset losses

#52

Post by splawn »

midwest1 wrote: post #50
splawn wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Here is the oft-mentioned study's abstract and a link to the full study.

Abstract

We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics ‘global climate change’ or ‘global warming’. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors’ self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/0240...

Re: Gains in Antarctic ice might offset losses

#53

Post by midwest1 »

splawn wrote: post #52
midwest1 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Here is the oft-mentioned study's abstract and a link to the full study. Abstract We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics ‘global climate change’ or ‘global warming’. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% r…

I read this study earlier.

Searching the Consensus Project from Skeptical Science shows papers such as:

"Gruber, E., & Brand, M. (1991). Promoting energy conservation in small and medium-sized companies. Energy Policy, 19(3), 279–287."

"Boykoff, M. T. (2008). Lost in translation? United States television news coverage of anthropogenic climate change, 1995–2004. Climatic Change, 86(1-2), 1–11."

I am concerned that this paper qualifies social scientists, psychologists, and other soft scientists as hard science climate researchers capable of deducing the possibility and cause of global climate change. What the fuck do they know?

I'm all for believing that there are a majority of hard-science climate researchers who agree that there is human-caused global warming. This study; however, gives nothing close to a true number.

Re: Gains in Antarctic ice might offset losses

#54

Post by splawn »

midwest1 wrote: post #53
splawn wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here is the oft-mentioned study's abstract and a link to the full study. Abstract We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics ‘global climate change’ or ‘global warming’. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% r…

I read this study earlier. Searching the Consensus Project from Skeptical Science shows papers such as: "Gruber, E., & Brand, M. (1991). Promoting energy conservation in small and medium-sized companies. Energy Policy, 19(3), 279–287." "Boykoff, M. T. (2008). Lost in translation? United States television news coverage of anthropogenic climate change, 1995–2004. Climatic Change, 86(1-2), 1–11." I am concerned that thi…

The ISI search generated 12 465 papers. Eliminating papers that were not peer-reviewed (186), not climate-related (288) or without an abstract (47) reduced the analysis to 11 944 papers written by 29 083 authors and published in 1980 journals

That seems like a pretty large sample size to me. I guess you could claim that they cherry picked 11, 944 papers out of some much larger number, but that seems like a stretch. Of course meta-studies like this are always problematic, but considering the overwhelming result I think its at least safe to say that scientists producing papers that run contrary to human caused global warming are in the minority.... and to me that is the best answer we can get as far as what the consensus is. Like you, Im willing to change my view on this (or anything really), but im always going to go with wherever the scientific consensus seems to be.

Re: Gains in Antarctic ice might offset losses

#55

Post by midwest1 »

splawn wrote: post #54
midwest1 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read this study earlier. Searching the Consensus Project from Skeptical Science shows papers such as: "Gruber, E., & Brand, M. (1991). Promoting energy conservation in small and medium-sized companies. Energy Policy, 19(3), 279–287." "Boykoff, M. T. (2008). Lost in translation? United States television news coverage of anthropogenic climate change, 1995–2004. Climatic Change, 86(1-2), 1–11." I am concerned that thi…

The ISI search generated 12 465 papers. Eliminating papers that were not peer-reviewed (186), not climate-related (288) or without an abstract (47) reduced the analysis to 11 944 papers written by 29 083 authors and published in 1980 journals That seems like a pretty large sample size to me. I guess you could claim that they cherry picked 11, 944 papers out of some much larger number, but that seems like a stretch. O…

Forgive me, I'm doing my best to stay above board. This is not an attack...

You misunderstand me.

I think that 11944 was too many papers, and should be narrowed down to papers by hard scientists. I'm saying out of those 11944, a potentially huge number were social studies, news studies, and other fields that have nothing to do with climate modeling. When you remove those from the 11944, what do you have? 10000? 5000? 1000?

It's completely negligent, at the least.

So, how big is that majority, really? And how many of them agree with the IPCCs more conservative estimates vs the scary, less likely ones?

It's really hard to say with noise like this. And no, this doesn't mean I get my science opinions from Rush Limbaugh. That's noise, too.

Re: Gains in Antarctic ice might offset losses

#56

Post by talmand »

Daishiman wrote: post #51
talmand wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

By all means, why don't you cite said journals and papers and then we can see if they really stack up to the level of quality research demanded by peer review?

Why bother? I'm sure any journal I cite won't meet your expectations of peer review. No true Scotsman and all. But I'm sure if you search for the topic, science journal review bias, you'll find plenty of examples. I'm not even talking about just on papers concerning climate change. It's been in the news off and on over the past few years, it's not like I'm making this up.

Re: Gains in Antarctic ice might offset losses

#57

Post by talmand »

talmand wrote: post #6
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.

Not much different than global warming believers that point to just trends that support their position.

This has been an interesting thread. Especially the comments by people who seem to think they know my feeling about climate change. It's the usual, assume and attack. Well, not all of them I would agree. Anyway, as most of the comments to me seem to suggest, I'm not a denier. I just have problems with some of the "science" involved, on both sides.

Re: Gains in Antarctic ice might offset losses

#58

Post by brianbreslin »

civilian wrote: post #15
brianbreslin wrote: post #2

Could this be related to a shifting in the tilt/orientation of the planet? Or perhaps in an upcoming polarity flip?

Ahhh, the earth's tilt/orientation changes very slowly. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_tilt Earth's obliquity oscillates between 22.1 and 24.5 degrees on a 41,000-year cycle. It is currently 23.44 degrees and decreasing. Magnetic pole changes take 1,000 to 10,000 years to happen. So again, unlikely. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geomagnetic_reversal And also, what do magnets have to do with ice melting? I'd reco…

I have no idea what spirit science is. My question I felt was a legitimate science question for someone not familiar with geo-physics of the planet. not sure why i got downvoted.

Re: Gains in Antarctic ice might offset losses

#59

Post by civilian »

brianbreslin wrote: post #58
civilian wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ahhh, the earth's tilt/orientation changes very slowly. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_tilt Earth's obliquity oscillates between 22.1 and 24.5 degrees on a 41,000-year cycle. It is currently 23.44 degrees and decreasing. Magnetic pole changes take 1,000 to 10,000 years to happen. So again, unlikely. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geomagnetic_reversal And also, what do magnets have to do with ice melting? I'd reco…

I have no idea what spirit science is. My question I felt was a legitimate science question for someone not familiar with geo-physics of the planet. not sure why i got downvoted.

Hey, I didn't downvote you, but your questions were just... very off. I imagine that the typical HN user was just downvoting because the questions aren't even relevant.

(And sorry for he spirit science comment, it was an unfair dig. They're a pseudo-science page on facebook that often tries to connect disparate phenomena.)

Re: Gains in Antarctic ice might offset losses

#60

Post by splawn »

midwest1 wrote: post #55
splawn wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ISI search generated 12 465 papers. Eliminating papers that were not peer-reviewed (186), not climate-related (288) or without an abstract (47) reduced the analysis to 11 944 papers written by 29 083 authors and published in 1980 journals That seems like a pretty large sample size to me. I guess you could claim that they cherry picked 11, 944 papers out of some much larger number, but that seems like a stretch. O…

Forgive me, I'm doing my best to stay above board. This is not an attack... You misunderstand me. I think that 11944 was too many papers, and should be narrowed down to papers by hard scientists. I'm saying out of those 11944, a potentially huge number were social studies, news studies, and other fields that have nothing to do with climate modeling. When you remove those from the 11944, what do you have? 10000? 5000?…

No offense taken, and I can tell you are not just parroting political blogs which is refreshing. I do see your point, but as I will explain later, for a meta-study I think they did the best that they possibly could have. It says that only .07% of the abstracts reject AGW. That is a huge signal. This study shows that climate change isn't controversial within science journals as it is made out to be in the news media, which is the only reason people think it is controversial. If its not controversial among scientists then it must fit within the scientific consensus. Also, There is a problem with fixing the study in the way you mention. If they categorize scientists as "hard" or "soft" then the study becomes prone to be rejected during peer-review because at that point its results would hinge on their ability to make that distinction without bias.
Post reply on HN