Scientists Cut Greenland Ice Loss Estimate By Half 414
bonch writes "A new study on Greenland's and West Antarctica's rate of ice loss halves the estimate of ice loss. Published in the journal Nature Geoscience, the study takes into account a rebounding of the Earth's crust called glacial isostatic adjustment, a continuing rise of the crust after being smashed under the weight of the Ice Age. 'We have concluded that the Greenland and West Antarctica ice caps are melting at approximately half the speed originally predicted,' said researcher Bert Vermeeersen."
Global warming? (Score:2, Insightful)
Quick! Change the name!
CLIMATE CHANGE!
Yeaaah! Then we'll be able to claim we're right, even when we're wrong! woo!
Re:Global warming? (Score:4, Interesting)
Quick! Change the name!
CLIMATE CHANGE!
Yeaaah! Then we'll be able to claim we're right, even when we're wrong! woo!
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it actually the right wing and their petrochemical backers who popularized the phrase "climate change" to squeeze the words "global warming" out of the debate?
Great news! (Score:4, Insightful)
This estimate change means climate change has once again been proven wrong! Right? Right?
(Hint: No.)
Re:Great news! (Score:5, Insightful)
This estimate change means climate change has once again been proven wrong! Right? Right?
(Hint: No.)
No, it's just a change in one of the thousands of indicators. However that's only for the people who actually care for the science of climate change.
For the rest, this estimate will prove just about anything between the third coming of the messiah and the imminent destruction of the Earth by magnetic core spin reversal.
Re:Great news! (Score:5, Funny)
For the rest, this estimate will prove just about anything between the third coming of the messiah and the imminent destruction of the Earth by magnetic core spin reversal.
Hey now! Some of us just believe one or the other, that this is a sign of Jesus' return, or that the Earth's magnetic core is going to stop. It's only a lunatic fringe of our organizations that believe ice loss means Jesus is coming to stop the Earth's magnetic core!
Science! (Score:4, Funny)
"....and what also melts?"
"Cheese?"
"small stones!"
"toasters!"
"witches"
"That's right! Witches. Now who doesn't like Witches?"
"Water?"
"DUCKS!"
"Jesus?"
"Correct! Jesus hates witches... and what happens when messiah returns?"
"Frogs?"
"Mice?"
"The Destruction of Earth!"
"Very good, the destruction of earth! Now what does the earth do now?"
"Rotates around the sun?"
"Hosts Life?"
"Spins?"
"Yes it spins! Therefore when it is destroyed, it will stop spinning. What is created by spinning?"
"Centrifugal force?"
"large rats?"
"Magnetism!"
"Correct, it creates magnetism, which must cause the destruction of earth due to its stopping by Jesus because he hates witches. Quid Pro Quo."
"Applause!"
Re:Great news! (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually it just means that once again the new prediction for sea level rise falls outside of the 95% confidence interval reported in the IPCC reports. Again. Imagine the chances. They've made 3 predictions, all with 95% confidence intervals, and the new prediction falls out of all 3 of them (just like their next prediction fell outside the 95% range for their previous prediction, both for sea level rise and temperature, so actually we should square the 5%). So if their chances are accurately calculated, that they're this wrong should happen once in 10y * 1 / ( 5% * 5% * 5% ) = 80 000 years.
I'm not a global warming denialist, mind you ... this obviously means that for the next 80 000 years the IPCC will not make a single wrong prediction !
Actually this is really smart of those scientists. You see, once every 80 000 years they will make 3 sequential predictions, each wrong. It's like, really smart of them to do it right away, then they can be right for the next few dozen millenia ! Brilliant !
Re:Great news! (Score:5, Insightful)
>>They've made 3 predictions, all with 95% confidence intervals, and the new prediction falls out of all 3 of them
That's why I especially like one prediction they did (in AR4, I think) that included no change in the predicted models for 10 years out within the error bars (which was something like +0C to +4C).
So even if there's no climate change, it verifies climate change.
But if there's +5C change, then, by golly, global warming has been falsified! The results didn't match prediction.
In all seriousness, though, I think there's a real paradox in what we consider falsification and verification in science if the above two statements are both true.
Re:Great news! (Score:5, Informative)
So even if there's no climate change, it verifies climate change.
But if there's +5C change, then, by golly, global warming has been falsified! The results didn't match prediction.
In all seriousness, though, I think there's a real paradox in what we consider falsification and verification in science if the above two statements are both true.
Yes, there's a problem with what you consider falsification. Falsification applies to theories, not to observations.
If the temperature rises 5C, it would falsify the theory by which we model and predict global warming. However, the observation of global warming would be stronger than ever. So, we'd have to change our theories.
It's similar to how experiment falsified the Caloric theory of heat because the result did not match predictions, but did not falsify the concept of heat. Observations that did not match Newton's Law of Gravity did not "falsify" the observation that gravity exists.
On the other hand, a temperature change of 0 degrees, that would validate the theory by which we model and predict global warming. However the observation would be of no global warming for that period. It would be correct to say "there was no global warming in this ten year period". Just remember that unlike a theory or model, this would not "falsify" the previous observations of warming.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not a global warming denialist, mind you ... this obviously means that for the next 80 000 years the IPCC will not make a single wrong prediction !
You're not very strong at probability either. ;)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Come on, read your own post. You're basically saying that climate science is a fantasy and doesn't have anything to say about the real world.
Of course those confidence intervals mean that according to the IPCC there is a 95% chance that the reaction of the real world will fall within the claimed range.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Study 1 uses dataset A and has result X.
Study 2 uses dataset B (wich is A + new data) and has result Z
Based on dataset A, result X is correct, this does not mean that it's true.
Based on dataset B, result Z is correct, this does not mean that it's true.
Both can have the same confidence %, both can conflict, because they are NOT THE SAME.
Re: (Score:2)
"No, it's just a change in one of the thousands of indicators...."
After reading up on post-glacial rebound, it appears the conclusion that the ice is melting half as fast is completely backwards.
So, lets assume that a 1000m thick glacier melted down to 500m over the last 50 years, judging by elevation readings on the surface of the glacier. But now we add a rise of 250m of the underlying rock due to post-glacial rebound over that same 50 year period. That means the glacier actually thinned by 75%, not the 5
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
yes, you missed something: the details of glacial/crust rebound.
They explained that all movement isn't just moving up - some is sideways, some is down.
what is happening is that N. America is rebounding up for the last 20,00 years and this
has actually pulled Greenland over/down.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What about the people that suggested the 'accepted truths' were extremely alarmist and that using such hyperbole to get a point across would be incredibly damaging to future efforts at swaying hearts and minds towards making things better?
Do we get an apology for being called deniers?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
We all know from measurements that the north pole (and Greenland) was warmer than average - we know that from direct measurements.
We all know that the ice is still melting (but slower than we thought).
So, I conclude that all our books regarding heat transfer must be wrong ;-)
Re:Great news! (Score:5, Insightful)
Given we know the rate of ocean rise with a high level of certainty. The interesting thing about this estimate is that it has flow on effects to other estimates, such that the amount of ocean rise due to thermal expansion could be higher than previously thought which could mean that the oceans thermal inertia is not as slow as we thought.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Since when do we know that ? Sure we know what we see on a few coastlines (quite a few, granted). We do not, however, have anywhere near accurate 3d heatmaps of the ocean, so we have no clue at all what is causing the variations, since to say the least, the ocean is an interesting place when it comes to temperature variations (and not just temperature variations, there's acidity, salinity, and a dozen other things that all influence eachother).
Re: (Score:2)
There are two major components that contribute to the observed rise, thermal exapansion and melting ice. If the estimate for the molten ice component goes down then given the estimated rise in sea level has not changed the estimate for the thermal expansion component must go up, no?
I don't see why you need 3D thermal heat maps to calculate a simple percen
Re:Great news! (Score:4, Interesting)
The amount of ice is dependant on altitude. I am sure that the climatologists know this, but just because the rate of melt at sea level is increasing doesn't mean that the amount of melt at moderate or high altitude is as well. If the average global temperature increased then the average air pressure would decrease meaning that snow and ice at higher altitudes would increase (due to the freezing point of water being dependant on air pressure). Therefore there will be an increase in snow/ice as you move up in altitude. So, the rate of melt might even remain constant.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Correction: the average pressure would increase
Re:Great news! (Score:5, Insightful)
If the average global temperature increased then the average air pressure would...
It would do nothing along the lines of what you are thinking. The atmosphere is not enclosed in a rigid container (external force), but held by gravity (body force).
The average pressure at sea level is the gravitational weight of the atmosphere divided by the surface area of the earth. The classical mass of the atmosphere is independent of average temperature.
Yes, local temperature changes cause local pressure changes. This does not mean global average temperature changes cause global average pressure changes.
Re:Great news! (Score:5, Informative)
This year we are going to see a new record low for arctic sea ice --- surpassing even the dramatic 2007 decline.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.recent.arctic.png [uiuc.edu]
What's really startling is that this year, both the NE and the NW passages are completely open. This animation tells the story
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/CT/animate.arctic.color.0.html [uiuc.edu]
Typically, shipping through the NE passage relies on Russian icebreakers. Judging by the satellite photos, at this point the icebreakers aren't needed
Source: cryosphere today http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/ [uiuc.edu]
Re:Great news! (Score:5, Informative)
This year we are going to see a new record low for arctic sea ice --- surpassing even the dramatic 2007 decline.
No one can say with certainty what 'might' happen...but it can be said
what has already happened with arctic sea ice extent...and you are
wrong. Arctic sea ice extent this year is greater [uaf.edu]
than it was on the same date in 2007 AND 2008.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Great news! (Score:4, Insightful)
No one claims the planet is dying. It may become quite uncomfortable for humans, though.
Re:Great news! (Score:5, Insightful)
No one claims the planet is dying. It may become quite uncomfortable for humans, though.
Actually, since the average temperature of the earth is 15 degrees celcius, and the optimum for humans (and animal life in general) is 21 degrees celcius, it will be more comfortable. Also, if history of civilization, specifically the period immediately preceding the little ice age, is considered, there will be a LOT more arable and livable land accessible to humans (Greenland, Siberia, Canada*, for one) with a 6 degree rise in temperature.
Even if, yes, a rise like this will mean moving a number of large cities. Also, the change will have winners and losers (generally the winners will be more northern or more southern, and the losers more situated around the equator, but that's at best a very inaccurate rule of thumb).
* yes, global warming will mean Canada will become a livable place, even when you're more than 10 km from the US border.
Also, we may not understand exactly what effect was responsible for creating the sahara, it appears to have been a global cooling. Perhaps (we don't know) global warming will reverse this.
Re:Great news! (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, since the average temperature of the earth is 15 degrees celcius, and the optimum for humans (and animal life in general) is 21 degrees celcius, it will be more comfortable. Also, if history of civilization, specifically the period immediately preceding the little ice age, is considered, there will be a LOT more arable and livable land accessible to humans (Greenland, Siberia, Canada*, for one) with a 6 degree rise in temperature.
You're forgetting that a lot of currently arable land becomes swamp in this context. Remember, if the ice melts the conveyor stops, then the jet stream stops (it's powered by the conveyor which is powered by the thermal differential of ice to ocean) and then we have localized weather. That means some areas get craploads of rain, and some areas get almost none. Areas that are desert become soupy. Areas that are farmland become swamp. Areas that are now scrub become eligible to become farmland once it's cleared. Areas that are now forest begin dying because the trees are no longer in the zone in which they thrive.
This is not going to be a party if it lasts long.
Re:Great news! (Score:4, Insightful)
You're talking about the average temperature on earth, not the average temperature on land, where people can live.
Though you may be considering moving to a floating city off of Antarctica, in which case I'll agree with anything you say as long as it keeps you from beating your saucepan with a wooden spoon every goddamn time any news story about climate shows up.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
But the whole point of the second paragraph, curiously absent from your post, was that there is a warmer period in the history of civilization.
And it had a LOT more usable land than we have today. And, before you claim it, if the future is independant from the past, climate science itself does not have a basis either.
Change is disruptive ... newsflash ... you believe in evolution, right ? Does "Adapt or die" sound familiar ? It's just as valid for civilizations as it is for people, mice and bacteria.
Not really! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It means that science is not to be confused with religion and changes in estimates of anything should be studied and understood and not used as a pretext to dismiss science itself as unreliable. If you prefer 'stability' over the truth then you either need religion or counselling. Or both.
Re:Not really! (Score:5, Insightful)
science should be treated, as it was always intended, with a grain of salt.
Are we talking "grain of salt" as in "not taking it so seriously" or "understanding that some changes to scientific theory and predictions are bound to occur."
Not taking science seriously, such as thinking maybe the law of gravity won't really apply this time so you can jump off that building, or not really caring whether or not global warming is occurring is dangerous and fairly illogical. Understanding that scientific theories often change with new facts, but that those changes don't mean the whole thing is bunk, that's good.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In the case of TFA they revised how fast Greenlandic ice is melting, but it is still melting at non-tr
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That there are people who blindly ignore evidence in their attempt to smear a theory with inconvenient predictions muddies the waters, and results in our current state where anyone who so much as questions any data or theory on anthropogenic climate change is an "anti-science global warming denier", and the slightest correction to data is "proof of the gubernment conspiracy", with BOTH of these being a detriment to actual climate science.
Those who raise new questions (like this study) are skeptics who advance the scientific method. Those who keep bringing up the same old "but they believed in global cooling in the 1970s" crock are deniers. There's a difference.
Re: (Score:2)
No, we're talking "letting climate scientists do their work without turning every single datapoint into a cudgel with which to pound lumps on your political enemy.
Especially if your expertise in climate science consists of learning to compile a Linux kernel.
Have you noticed that nearly everyone with a lick of sense has learned to completely stay away
Re:Not really! (Score:5, Insightful)
I think it just means that in reality, science hasn't got all the right answers, all of the time, and science should be treated, as it was always intended, with a grain of salt.
I don't think you understand what science is.
This paper is science. There is not the slightest reason to disbelief in science even the tiniest bit because one prediction has been replaced by a better prediction - because that is exactly what science is all about. Science is a highly successful method of getting ever closer to whatever the "right answer" may be, by falsification, replacement, improvement.
That real revolution in thinking has not yet made it into our ape brains. We enjoy the successes it has given us, from technology to medicine to psychology, diplomacy, social sciences, practically everything around you except sunday church and friday flirting is heavily influenced by science. But few of us have made scientific thinking our home. When was the last time you stopped yourself in a fight with your girlfriend to re-examine the facts and try to actively falsify your hypothesis about her reasons?
Our ape brains want to verify, we feel more secure if we think we are right. Science wants to falsify, to show that the model is wrong, in as much detail as possible, so we can make up a new one that is better.
Or in less individual and more social terms: Religion starts by postulating a few facts, and then killing everyone who disagrees. Science starts by postulating a few axioms, and then trying as hard as possible to show that they're wrong. On those that survive, we build more theories, again trying hard to show they're wrong.
For geeks: Science is like crypto. An untested cipher is considered weak until enough time has passed and enough people have tried breaking it that everyone else accepts that "we" as a hole don't - at least yet - know a way to do it, so for the moment it's a good cipher.
So to bring it all full circle: This is an improvement of the climate change models, and disproves them in the same way that finding a good attack on RSA breaks cryptography. It doesn't, breaking ciphers is an important part of cryptography.
Scientists (Score:3, Funny)
Scientists are wrong again, just like they were about magnets.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Scientists are wrong again, just like they were about magnets.
Just as wrong as they were about every single thing except those they've not yet been proven wrong about.
The method's kind of based on being provable wrong so, everything's going as planned. Nothing to see here unless you know how to interpret the new data.
i.e.: The news are, on themselves, useless but as a heads up for the result that will come shortly.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That is, until one of them gets it right.
Re:Scientists (Score:5, Insightful)
"We have not answered every question you have. Each answer led to more questions. But perhaps now we are confused at a more sophisticated level, and about more important things."
Science at work folks (Score:5, Insightful)
Some bright researchers managed to refine a previous model and come up with better and more accurate predictions. You may want to note how, contrary to some "skeptics" beliefs this wasn't suppressed or refused publication or any other such shenanigans. In the word of a famous person "When I'm proven wrong I change my opinion, what do you do ?".
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Science at work folks (Score:4, Insightful)
An honest skeptic would look at the Greenland melt data and say that there wasn't enough evidence. An honest Al Gore would have looked at the Greenland melt and put large error bars around his predictions. Dishonest people on either side refuse any results that disagree with their presumptions.
I recall watching CSPAN and seeing climatologists talking about how the Greenland melt rate would be 10 times greater than we'd expected, because of the wet pancake effect or something. I'm not an AGW skeptic, though I *am* critical of idiots like that, that claim more evidence than there is. He's up there scaring senators, and... he's wrong. (Or probably is - the Greenland melt is an active area of research.) I'm also critical of people like Sarah Palin who think that human beings can't possibly, ever, affect the climate.
Unfortunately, it seems most people are dishonest dogmatists for one side or another.
Re:Science at work folks (Score:4, Insightful)
And an honest commentator would have put (WARNING: POLITICIAN!) behind the name.
Re: (Score:2)
All very well and good. It's how things are supposed to work in science. I'm delighted that the models are being refined.
Of course, one might also note that shrill histrionics, cries of impending certain doom, and politically motivated proto-religious hyperbole aren't necessarily "science at work".
Re:Science at work folks (Score:4, Informative)
They've been cleared of this allegation. [wikipedia.org] From the linked wiki article:
The panel found that they did not subvert the peer review process to censor criticism as alleged, and that the key data needed to reproduce their findings was freely available to any "competent" researcher.
Re:Science at work folks (Score:5, Informative)
You really should read a little into the damn thing, and not just right-wing blogs...
In early 2003, the small journal Climate Research published a paper by climate change “skeptics” Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, which challenged the established view that the late twentieth century saw anomalously high temperatures. The paper didn’t present original research; instead, it was a literature review. Soon and Baliunas examined a wide range of “proxy records” for past temperatures, based on studies of ice cores, corals, tree rings, and other sources. They concluded that few of the records showed anything particularly unusual about twentieth century temperatures, especially when compared with the so-called “Medieval Warm Period” a thousand years ago.
Soon and Baliunas had specifically sent their paper to one Chris de Freitas at Climate Research, an editor known for opposing curbs on carbon dioxide emissions. He in turn sent the paper out for review and then accepted it for publication. That’s when the controversy began.
Soon mainstream climate scientists fought back. Thirteen authored a devastating critique of the work in the American Geophysical Union publication Eos. After seeing the critique, Climate Research editor-in-chief Hans von Storch decided he had to make changes in the journal’s editorial process. But when journal colleagues refused to go along, von Storch announced his resignation.
Several other Climate Research editors subsequently resigned over the Soon and Baliunas paper. Even journal publisher Otto Kinne eventually admitted that the paper suffered from serious flaws, basically agreeing with its critics. But by that point in time, Inhofe had already devoted a Senate hearing to trumpeting the new study. However dubious, it made a massive splash.
(source here [csicop.org], all emphasis mine).
I realize that you confused context with right wing punditry, but it's not.
Re:Science at work folks (Score:5, Interesting)
That says very little unless you also say why they did it. If they suddenly started arguing for UFO abductions in the editorials, for instance, I think we all would agree that wanting to distance yourself from them would be a reasonable thing to do.
You imply, without stating outright, that the paper CR published that climate scientists didn't like was perfectly honest, good science. It was not [wikipedia.org]. The reaction wasn't some secret scheme to manipulate the staff as you suggest, it was a highly public boycott campaign. Contributors were leaving it in droves. Even the climate scientist Hans von Storch, up to that time a darling of the climate denial movement for his bitter feud with Michael Mann, resigned in protest from his position as the board's chief editor because of that paper.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, the journal itself doesn't have a divine right to publish papers from the top researchers. If the editorial board make extremely poor decisions, why should scientists feel obliged to publish there? Why should the scientists be associated with half-baked drivel such as the paper in question?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Did you read what I wrote at all?
Conspiracies by definition are secret. This was a broad and highly public boycott campaign of a journal that had published a paper that should never have passed peer review (according to most of the people who did peer review for that journal!).
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
No.
There is no such thing as a PUBLIC conspiracy.
A publicly know boycott is obviously not a conspiracy.
Boycotting journals for publishing crappy papers is exactly the right thing to do. That is how scientists guard the quality of journals. There is no other way (that I know of).
Re:Science at work folks (Score:5, Informative)
What crap. Been reading Cato.org much recently? http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=11022 [cato.org]
Try http://climateprogress.org/2010/01/05/cato-institute-patrick-michaels-falsehood-stolen-emails-climategate-michael-mann-peer-review/ [climateprogress.org] and follow the links, notably to the statement of the Editor-in-chief of "Climate Research", here: http://coast.gkss.de/staff/storch/CR-problem/cr.2003.htm [coast.gkss.de]
"Climate Research" was indeed manipulated, but but the "skeptics", not the "warmists". One editor slipped in some crap papers (which have since been comprehensively demolished). When the other editors complained and requested that an editorial explaining what happened be printed the "skeptic" refused, so the other editors resigned.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The paper was peer reviewed. How else could these 'scientists' have known about it and fought it against publication if it wasn't? These 'scientists' didn't like the results. They really, really didn't like their own research being used against them. They probably thought that the researchers got to pick their reviewers because that's how they roll.
This whole argument is really about restoring the Medieval Warm Period. Mann completely removed it from his proxy reconstructions and others have put f
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Well it was reviewed, and the 4 recommendations that it be rejected based on egregious errors in methodology were ignored and it was published anyway.
"These scientists" didn't fight the publication, they didn't find out about the paper until after it had been published. In fact, at first they had planned to simply to let it pass. It wasn't until the Bush Administration attempted to force the use of the paper in EPA reports against the wishes of the authors of those very same reports that they decided they
I would have thought it was worse (Score:2)
TFA says Greenland is subsiding due to mass moving to North America. I was thinking that due to the melting, the crust would be rising and thus hiding the apparent ice loss.
Very interesting...
Global warming is sooo late 20th century... (Score:2)
Missing the point... (Score:2)
OK, so people are trying to argue that this paper supports one view or another in a trivial manner. I don't think it's that simple.
I can't even being to interpret what this means without a lot more reading. I'm not even sure I know all the questions that need to be asked. But here's a couple which occur to me immediately...
1. This is a new method of measuring ice loss, and from what I can tell is rather hard to interpret given the interacting phenomena. There are long established methods which are far simpl
Re: (Score:2)
2. How do you measure sea levels ? It is also a very hard matter when you want to reach a centimeter or millimeter precision. Shores erode, oceanic beds move tectonically. Satellites can measure the distance between the gravitation center of Earth and the sea's surface but
Conveyor (Score:3, Insightful)
Less fresh water in the North Atlantic means the thermohaline convection effect will be keeping Europe warm and wet for a while longer. In the short term, that's good. In another sense, though, I suspect it's not so good: it's going to take something dramatic to move climate change out of the "we'll worry about that when we don't have anything more important" category.
Check for yourself (Score:3, Insightful)
This is something anyone on Slashdot should be able to do. First, go get the GISP2 ice core data at
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/greenland/summit/gisp2/isotopes/gisp2_temp_accum_alley2000.txt [noaa.gov]
Pull the data into Excel or R or your favourite tool and plot the most recent 10,000 years (period since the end of the last ice age). You'll find it easier to interpret if you convert the age to years AD and BC and normalize the temperatures to make them relative to current.
You'll see that the Mann Hockey Stick is right where it's supposed to be. What's surprising is how tiny it is (said the actress to the bishop).
What I find most interesting is that, since 8000BC, it's only been as cold as it is now three times, and for each time only 200 or so years. So is it going to get warmer? Yeah, that's a safe bet if we don't get an ice age first. It's going to get a lot warmer before it gets to what's been normal and comfortable for most of modern human history.
Does Mann demand an explanation? No--there's nothing exceptional about the current trend--it doesn't require an exceptional explanation. It's just the climate being the climate.
The next thing I did was superimpose the rise and fall of the great human cultures in both the Old World and the Americas, with a focus on equatorial civilizations. With a couple of exceptions, they all get their start during warming periods. A few, the Hittites, both Romes, Islam, see their fortunes literally rise and fall with temperature.
But don't take my word for it. It's an hour's work to see for yourself.
Re:Yeah right (Score:4, Insightful)
So this must be fake, but if they'd instead said it's accelerating faster, it would be true - right? Because that's what you want to hear.
Re:Yeah right (Score:4, Insightful)
Nothing would please me more than to find out that, in fact, we aren't screwing up the planet after all and that future generations will be able to enjoy a stable climate and SUVs. Really, I hope that everything turns out just great. However, it still doesn't look like it, I think we will face some very tough times. I don't know whether this new data is correct or not, just like I don't know whether the old data was correct or not. But 164 gigatonnes of glacial ice melt per year still sounds like a lot to me, even if it is less than 362 gigatonnes, so I'm not going to become complacent just because it isn't quite as bad as we thought - note that the word "bad" is still in the situation.
Also, all this means is that Greenland and West Antarctica are contributing less than 1/4 of the annual rise in sea levels rather than accounting for more than half. I guess we have to keep looking to find where the rest of the rise is coming from. None of this evidence contradicts the rise in sea levels, which is going to displace millions of people.
Why I no longer believe in global warming (Score:5, Insightful)
I no longer believe you, when you say that you would be "pleased" to hear that global warming isn't that big of a deal. If that were true, why are such stories buried and alarmist stories repeated even if based on incorrect data?
About 10 years ago, I also believed in global warming, however I stopped doing so. How is such a thing possible?
1. Climate Change
I had my first doubts about global warming, when they introduced the term climate change“ which the added claim that climate change“ may not just cause warming in some regions, but may actually cause cooling in others. So all of the sudden climate change“ may cause everything: Hot, cold, stormy, dry, wet, etc.
2. The first decade of the 21st century
If the “hockeystick” were correct, we should have experienced a record-breaking hot climate in every year or at least most years between 2000 and 2010, but that just didn't happen. Some people say that 2009 was the hottest year on the record and hotter than 1998, but even if that's true it does not really support the supposed runaway warming-scenario - at all. Now when from the 10 years following 1998 9 have been cooler and one has been warmer, that may show that the climate may be a little warmer than usual (after all 1998 has been the warmest on the record and 2009 may have broken that record), but it points more to a relatively steady climate that may be little bit too hot, but not at all to some runaway climate shift.
3. Alarmism
What also disturbs me a lot is the alarmism. The warm periods, no matter when we talk about humans (medieval warm period, little ice age, etc.) or life in general were always the better periods (where “better” means of course that more life can be sustained by the earth)
So the horror-scenarios don't make that much sense and are blown way out of proportion.
4. The “experts” opinion
It is always said that the “scientific consensus” is clear about global warming. Well, science is not a popularity contest and is also not democratic. The “scientific consensus” also said that therapy and short prison sentences would reduce crime, but crime rates in the US quadrupled in the 1960s. The “scientific consensus” said that big government will reduce poverty, yet the higher the taxes are and the more incentives is given to the poor to have large families, the more poverty there is. And of course the “experts” also worried about “global cooling” in the 1970s.
The experts have a pretty bad track record, especially when it comes to politically sensitive things.
5. Socialism
Socialism has always been marketed as rule by the scientists and experts. Everybody shall lose their “bourgeous” human rights like right to property and freedom of association (freedom of association is racist anyway, right?) and submit to “expert rule” because the experts know it all and know it better than us rednecks. Well, not only have the “experts” been very often wrong, the centralized rule from above by the experts has proven to be a bigger disaster than any global warming scenario. (Yes, you read that correctly.)
Russia has always been a traditional food exporter and was turned into country where millions starve by the “experts”. And famine and widespread starvation has been the hallmark of socialism almost everywhere it has been tried: China, Cambodia, many african countries, etc.
The “experts” seem to be able to turn a fertile country into a desert not only much faster than global warming, but also repeatedly and in the real word (not just in a computer simulation). Warming may force a change of crops and maybe even a reduction in yield (that's a big “may” - far more likely is that it increases yields because warmer was usually better in the past) but there is no land on earth that cannot be utterly ruined by the advice of an “expert”.
When the “experts” want to create
Re:Why I no longer believe in global warming (Score:5, Informative)
I had my first doubts about global warming, when they introduced the term climate change“
The general public/media did not understand that "global warming" refered to the global mean temperature. This meant it was possible for some regions to cool whilst others warmed. Despite this, the myth grew that Any cooling disproves global warming [newscientist.com]. The change in terminology was a response to this confusion amongst the public, and wouldn't have been necessary if everyone understood "mean warming" actually meant.
If the “hockeystick” were correct, we should have experienced a record-breaking hot climate in every year or at least most years between 2000 and 2010
Incorrect. As already pointed out, some regions of the world may still cool despite the global mean increasing. (Incidentally, "the Hockey stick has been proven wrong" is a myth [newscientist.com].
The warm periods, no matter when we talk about humans (medieval warm period, little ice age, etc.) or life in general were always the better periods
Climate myths: It's been far warmer in the past, what's the big deal? [newscientist.com]
Climate myths: Higher CO2 levels will boost plant growth and food production [newscientist.com]
Well, science is not a popularity contest and is also not democratic.
So we should always ignore the opinion of the majority of scientists if it disagrees with our personal opinion?
Socialism
... has nothing to do with global warming. (Unless you believe it's all a conspiracy) [newscientist.com]
Re:Why I no longer believe in global warming (Score:4, Insightful)
I didn't bother to read most of your drivel, but you should at least firm up your first argument.
The climate is complex. Which means that it is entirely possible for the global climate to warm, while a given local climate becomes cooler or drier or wetter. The term climate change is just an attempt at framing the discussion so people stop wasting time with the argument "I don't know about this global warming, last weekend the high was only 75F".
A real world example is that while much of the US was mired in record heat waves this summer, my hometown in the pacific northwest had high temperatures above 70F for less than 60 days, and highs above 80F for probably fewer than 20 days. The PNW is a drizzly climate, but even the locals got pretty punchy. If I were like most people and assumed the entire world were just the same as my own corner, I could conclude from this summer that global temperatures had cooled nearly 10F on average since 2009!
I understand the sentiment that political framing of scientific questions is fraught ground, but in my country people like to scream at each other until the loudest voice is deemed right. So, some people are trying the approach of screaming about global warming because they think the future state of humanity might depend on it. You can belittle those people if you like, but at least they're arguing over something that might matter rather than how many blocks away from a site of murder you can/should build a mosque.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
1. "I don't understand climate change". A few degrees difference over the course of a century isn't really t
Re:Why I no longer believe in global warming (Score:4, Informative)
Foul on both of you. I see no citations in either case. I'd love for this to be an honest debate or discussion. In fact, GP even states desire for good honest debate, but I see nothing in the post to back up the various "facts."
As for parent... The Irrelevant replies I'll agree with because the associated points don't deal with facts. Observations and feelings don't count for much in a discussion talking about a lack of facts. As for the "wrong" entries, I'd love to see counter-examples. I'll certainly grant that in a 10 point post, it's hard to come up with enough sources.
I'll attempt to contribute something useful now:
Point #2, or the Hockey stick, considers more than just the last 10-15 years... To see the "stick" you have to look at the last 1000 years. Assuming measurements are proper, there is a noted effect in the last 100 years... Unfortunately, this does depend heavily on "proxy" indicators. There is a good size error field, which certainly contributes to the debate. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3569604.stm [bbc.co.uk]
Point #4 may be mostly irrelevant, but I'd like to know why it's also wrong. The Global Cooling idea is certainly ingrained in the doubters, and it certainly does call into question what the research is indicating.
Point #5 does have an example in the Aral Sea. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=reclaiming-the-aral-sea&sc=rss [scientificamerican.com]
Re:Why I no longer believe in global warming (Score:4, Insightful)
Global warming will exist., so long as there is money to be made.
- Dan.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That said, I actually went out and looked up the temperature data for the past century not too long ago. There is certainly a general increase in global temperatures, but it was only roughly 1 degrees worth over 100 years. Now, I'm not so much of an expert to claim if that is enough to change everyone's life-style or not, but the general trend is there. Now, is it the fault of
Re:Yeah right (Score:4, Insightful)
1.1mm per year being the best available globally measured data? Outliers being 2mm? Worst case scenario being 4mm? That WILL displace people,eventually. 4mm per year means that in just under a century, sea levels will have risen a foot. This is the worst case scenario - it's more likely to be 150-200 years based on existing data (it's actually hard to measure exactly - between isostatic rebound, tidal variation, building, etc)
That's not going to chase anyone out of their homes. Flooding is more likely from heavy rainfall or really stupid building decisions such as building below the water level (New Orleans) or building on flood plains (everywhere else) than from sea level increases. Even the melting of ice causing sea level rises isn't a problem (work out 500Gt versus the amount of ice on Greenland alone), reduced salinity affecting currents is more likely to be a problem.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That's not going to chase anyone out of their homes.
Except for certain low-lying island nations in the pacific [moyak.com], but fsck'em why should we care?
Re:Yeah right (Score:4, Insightful)
Except for certain low-lying island nations in the pacific, but fsck'em why should we care?
You ask a salient point why should we care? No really, why should the other 6+ billion people living on the earth all freeze to death in the winter and bake in the summer, so a bunch of islander can continue to live somewhere a strong hurricane(or cyclone) could wipe out their entire community. But hey, you drive a Prius right?
Re:Yeah right (Score:5, Insightful)
on sea level rise alone - a lot of Tuvalu is 1m above sea level. To cover it in water would require 250 years of 4mm per year, so it's not going to disappear overnight.
Bear in mind that 250 years ago there were an estimated 1.5m colonists in North America divided between British, Dutch and French colonies, the Prussians, the Holy Roman Empire, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, the Russian Empire and others were fighting the Seven Years war, the British had just gained control of Canada by capturing Montreal from the French and beginning the end of the French and Indian war, the Marathas kingdom in India was fighting (and losing to) the Afghans to their North, and George III was raised to the British throne. :)
A quarter of a millenium is a long time
Re:Yeah right (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Unless a "rebounding crust" can also cause sea-level rise?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Yeah right (Score:4, Funny)
...and much like the MS progress bar, the whole system will crash long before the bar reaches completion.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Besides, wether or not global warming is caused by humans isn't the important bit, the important bit is that we learn to understand the dynamics of our only place to live, Earth, and how to prepare for the future.
If global warming is real, it's important that we know what this will bring in the future, what the effects will be on the weather, the oceans, the wild life,...
And even if it's not actually warming, the science that goes into study
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
No. They are just decreasing less fast than previously thought.
Re:This proves global warming! (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not even so black and white as you seem to think. Some are increasing, some are decreasing. On the net? Good question, and one I don't know. It seems from recent advances (eg this article) there is still disagreement amongst scientists.
Re:This proves global warming! (Score:5, Insightful)
That particular hypothisis has been falsified to death, it now requires a blind faith in the hypothisis afterlife to believe it.
What "republicans and oil executives" need to falsify is this - Snowfall above 3000 meters in greenland is increasing as predicted by climate models. This has nothing to do with the gulf stream (which is not significantly slowing down), it's due to increased water vapour which in turn is due to a positive feedback from global warming. Overall the extra snowfall at high altitudes does not make up for the extra loss at low altitudes, the extra snowfall may even speed up the loss of glaciers by making them top heavy.
Rain, too (Score:5, Interesting)
And: the increased precipitation, snow and rain, is further diluting the surface salinity in the North Atlantic. When it gets low enough, the Gulf Stream stops its current pattern of flowing north evaporating as it goes until it's salty enough to dive to the bottom and return deep. Much change occurs worldwide, but most immediately Europe gets colder and dryer.
That's going to be very hard to ignore, and IMHO will most likely be the turning point in public and policy-making consciousness of climate change. The question is, when?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
same as there is a western hemisphere. it's arbitrary.
Re: (Score:2)
What would you call the western side of Antarctica?
Down there, West = East.
West is towards the setting sun, and when its doing that whole "setting" thing down there, it revolves many times around the entire 360 degrees of horizon. East is towards the rising sun, and when its doing that whole "rising" thing down there, it also revolves many times around the entire 360 degrees of horizon.
So I guess I would call the west side of Antarctica the end result of a disastrously rapid continental drift that somehow managed to not kill me.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
North Antarctica?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Until, at last, when the ice age comes, someone at CRU will pick that last remaining "Time" issue with the global winter predictions, which are soooo out of fashion today, and wave it as proof.
That they were right all along.
Scientists, burn the whole bunch.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Scientists, burn the whole bunch.
That'll contribute to greenhouse gasses and help prove them correct. And then you'll feel bad for your vigilantastic actions.
Re:Ololololo (Score:4, Insightful)
In science, when your hypothesis is falsified by the data being different from its predictions, you abandon it and look for a different model.
In religion, when the predictions of your dogma turn out to be wrong, you tell your critics that they just don't understand how your religion works, and really with a deeper understanding you were right all along.
Supporters of the notion that "AGW is a serious threat" keep sounding like the latter case to me. When the data is unexpected, the models are adjusted to explain that too, and the modelers keep believing. Creationists have really entertaining explanations for the fossil record - but it doesn't help your case if the explanations come after the data, as that's sort of the opposite of a prediction.
If your belief in AGW (or anything else!) is scientific and not religious, then you can both explain the belief at a qualitative level (quick: how does a greenhouse work?) and you can explain what new data would cause you to abandon your belief. In my experience, most people who consider themselves intellectuals have a religious faith in scientists (the intellectually lazy approach) instead of having scientific beliefs.
Re:Ololololo (Score:4, Interesting)
The problem I have with the people who believe in AGW is that mostly they fall more in the religious category, anyone who tries to present results different then there's or question the methods used is subjected to public ridicule, not listened to. This is religious reasoning, not scientific, listen to the people who disagree and adjust your methods, stop believing that everything you have done is exactly correct and I will listen to you too. There are many flaws in the methodology, from sensors placed within 10 feet of AC exhaust to sensors placed in the middle of a asphalt parking lot, these things skew the results and aren't taken into account.
The 'sensors in parking lots' data supports AGW (Score:3, Informative)
Those sensors made old temperatures look warmer then they really were. Old temperature data had to be adjusted downwards to compensate, making modern readings higher by comparison.
(Yes, they've moved them...and these days they measure temperatures via satellite, not manually-read thermometers)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, I've read that paper, but Menne appears to not be an honest broker. Not only did he use the data that Watts stopped updating publicly (to avoid ad hoc analysis) but he apparently deliberately excluded Watts from the article process [wattsupwiththat.com].
The fact that I saw a false premise in the first paragraph of the paper (reviewing it again just now) didn't improve my opinion of Menne et al.
I believe the "adjustment" process is fatally flawed (hence my "make stuff up" link in my prior post). Smearing the data around do
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
So they don't actually use sensors to gather their data? Sounds more and more like religion then.
Re:Ololololo (Score:4, Informative)
To show what I am talking about:
http://scottthong.wordpress.com/2007/07/04/ground-based-temperature-recording-stations-stupid-locations-for-measuring-global-warming/ [wordpress.com]
Re:Ololololo (Score:5, Insightful)
Scientists certainly do "believe" in evolution (well, a few of them don't, I suppose) and that belief is justified by a great many successful predictions made by that theory (and not by others).
It's simply not the case that science is about adjusting the theory to fit the data (well, it happens, but it's not seen as good science). Newtons theories weren't "adjusted" by relativity, they were proven wrong. They were still useful, in fact very predictive in most cases, but nevertheless wrong.
Anyway, that whole discussion misses the point: as you say, it's not about black-or-white "right" or "wrong", its about how predictive is a hypothesis over the domain of interest. Thus far, to the extent that the climate modelers have deigned to make any predictions, the predictive value of those models has been crap. Call it "right" or "wrong", I don't care, but I call it "not sufficiently predictive to justify telling me what to do in my daily life"!
And what about you - sarhjinian - are your beliefs about AGW scientific or religious? Do you actually understand what you're arguing for, or are you just saying "I'm part of the 'in' crowd that believes in X, not one of those lossers with unfashionable beliefs".
Quick: how does a greenhouse work? Are we in an ice age right now? What's the only 10ky period of relatively stable climate in the past 400K years, per the accurate ice core data - is a stable climate norma? What's the obvious ~100ky cycle in that data? What's the highest historical level of CO2 (as a multiple of today's) since the oxygen catastrophe? How well did life on land do during that time?
Well, have you actually taght yourself about this stuff, or are you just fashionable?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
. . . its about how predictive is a hypothesis over the domain of interest. Thus far, to the extent that the climate modelers have deigned to make any predictions, the predictive value of those models has been crap
In this case, however, the proposed new estimate of current glacial loss is closer to that predicted by the climate models and the need to explain why the glaciers in Greenland are retreating faster than predicted might be averted.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I think the "theory" in question here is the sensationalism and alarmism attributed to this mess. I'd have FAR less problems believing the climatologists predictions if they would avoid the sensationalism that they've presented in the past few years. Let me list a few so you'll be aware what I'm talking about...
* Hurricanes will increase in frequency or strength, predicted specifically for 2009/2010.
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/hurricane/2007-07-29-more-hurricanes_N.htm [usatoday.com]
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/ [nationalgeographic.com]
Re:Ololololo (Score:4, Interesting)
Is it just me, or was there somebody that tried to recover planes that went down in Greenland known as the Lost Squadron and they were expecting the ice to be 10 feet thick or less (according to scientists' best estimates). When they got there, they found that the planes were 268 feet deep.
This was between 1942 and 1992. Over that 50 years the ice level went up over 5 feet per year. That's not melting. If you're trying to tell me (like the article is) that it's really the crust is going up instead of the ice level, you're full of crap.
And, creationists actually have some very good explanations for the fossil record. In some cases they are far better than their evolutionary counterparts.
Creationists have no trouble explaining why there are ocean fossils mixed with land fossils in the same areas in Kansas.
Creationists can explain why the amount of helium found in deep rock is not all gone already (notice that it's becoming rare quickly and will soon all be gone).
Creationists can explain why the fossils appear suddenly, in their modern-day forms with very few extinct species. Evolutionists actually have a hard time with that.
Never forget that evolutionists are also religious. Richard Dawkins is anti-God more than he is a scientist. And Richard Lewontin even admitted that evolutionists will believe any absurdity necessary "for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."