Study Links Human Actions To Specific Arctic Ice Melt (sciencemag.org) 234
sciencehabit writes from a report via Science Magazine: Since at least the 1960s, the shrinkage of the ice cap over the Arctic Ocean has advanced in lockstep with the amount of greenhouse gases humans have sent into the atmosphere, according to a study published this week in Science. Every additional metric ton of carbon dioxide (CO2) puffed into the atmosphere appears to cost the Arctic another 3 square meters of summer sea ice -- a simple and direct observational link that has been sitting under scientists' noses. If current emission trends hold, the study suggests the Arctic will be ice free by 2045 -- far sooner than some climate models predict. The study suggests that those models are underestimating how warm the Arctic has already become and how fast that melting will proceed. And it gives the public and policymakers a concrete illustration of the consequences of burning fossil fuels. For instance, a U.S. family of four would claim nearly 200 square meters of sea ice, based on U.S. emissions in 2013. Over 3 decades, that family would be responsible for destroying more than an American football field's worth of ice.
shrinkage...puffed...emission (Score:3)
Time to take nuclear seriously.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd love for nuclear power to take off. But every time people try to put it forth, there are a squintillion (that's a lot) naysayers crapping all over the concept. They talk about anti-AGW people being thick-skulled.... Try telling a Green that Nuclear Power is a vastly superior and cleaner alternative.
Re:Time to take nuclear seriously.... (Score:5, Informative)
Try telling a Green that Nuclear Power is a vastly superior and cleaner alternative.
Actually, the "Greens" have been telling us that very thing:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/en... [wsj.com]
https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06... [nytimes.com]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The main problem with nuclear is simply that it is fairly expensive if you calculate in the all the costs outside of operating costs. You see almost no commercially funded nuclear power plants and that is for a reason.
With the rapidly increasing efficiency of solar panels and subsequently lowering price per unit of energy, even though sources like solar are not optimal to provide baseline power. the costs are coming down so rapidly that it becomes feasable to just transform solar into stored forms of energy
Re:Time to take nuclear seriously.... (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem with the Titanic is that it failed because of an engineering failure. Something didn't work as planned. Reactors such as pebble bed reactors and molten salt reactors do what they do because of the laws of physics (vs the laws of engineering where everything gets screwed up if a valve breaks.). For example, with both pebble bed and molten salt reactors, they have run tests where they have turned off all coolant. Yea, they get hot but they self modulate because of how they are designed. For them to not work would require the laws of physics to stop working as well. To dive further into the example, pebble bed reactors are basically a giant tub of balls. Each ball has a specific amount of nuclear material in the center and are surrounded by an outside shell. As the reactor runs, they get hot as you'd expect. However, as the balls heat up, they also expand and when they expand, they push the neighboring balls away which slows the reaction. For pebble bed reactors to overheat, the laws of physics that cause hot items to expand would have to cease working. Molten salt reactors work a bit differently though not that much differently.
I like solar. It is great. I'm considering installing it on my house. It just doesn't have the energy density needed to drive modern societies. How many solar panels will it take to power a steel mill? The solar projects in the Nevada desert have been a failure by and large and are more a kickback for Harry Reid than anything else. Wind it cool too. Not many places where you can install it. My brother works for the company that fixes windmills. He says they are far from environmental and are frequently abandoned as soon as the federal funding runs out. The fiberglass blades need to be constantly repaired and then replaced while the old ones go to the landfill as there isn't any way to recycle fiberglass. They leak oil like a sieve and the gearing breaks down due to the immense torque needed to ramp up the RPMs. (They gear up the RPMs from approximately 6 RPM to 1,000 RPM to get the generators to work.) I'm all for alternative sources of power. In fact, I think that most new houses should have passive solar as a matter of course. I've always been puzzled why people don't do this as it is basically free power / lower energy bills. Even so, nuclear is the only power source that can power a modern society.
Re: (Score:2)
Even so, nuclear is the only power source that can power a modern society.
You're assuming the goal includes maintaining a modern industrialized society, or that it is even desired by many environmental/climate activists and proponents who would see de-industrialization of places like the US and a switch to a highly structured and centrally-planned low-tech agrarian society as a good thing.
Strat
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously, the only people calling for that, are the caricatures that exist solely in your head.
Reality is far different.
Re: (Score:2)
Controlling global warming is the only way to ensure continued industrial society. There are stable markets in which to sell things when natural disaster destroys a population center.
It's not like one day things are fine and then one day suddenly OMGAGWTSUNAMIHURRICANETORNADOEARTHQUAKEFLOODDROUGHT!!!11!!!
Changes will generally be extremely gradual, as changes to the climate in the past have generally been extremely gradual, occurring over large periods of time relative to the pace of change in human societies and technology. We also have the power and will have the time to adapt just as humans have always done throughout history. The climate IS going to change no matter what we do, and
Re: (Score:2)
You realize the incidence rate of hurricanes in the area has significantly dropped in recent years.
Re: (Score:3)
yet the hurricane season is beginning earlier, lasting longer, and thus ending later.
hurricanes are also vastly complex systems that are both weather AND climate, that both cause and impact both.
besides, limiting yourself to hurricanes limits you geographically, since the term is geographic.
the proper term is tropical storm, of which tropical cyclone is a subset which includes cyclones, hurricanes, and typhoons.
and last year saw several record setting typhoons, that are ignored by the fallacious statement a
Re: (Score:2)
Controlling global warming is the only way to ensure continued industrial society.
And adaptation is the obvious way to do that.
Re: (Score:2)
Minor nitpick - I used to think that too but what changed my mind was an opinion article that had been written at the time by Joseph Conrad, you can read it on Project Gutenberg. The ship hit the iceberg at speed. Whether the steel was brittle or not and whether the compartments were large or not is unlikely to have saved it. It's not as obvious situation as the "Liberty Ships" of poor design, poorer materials and where it wa
Re: (Score:2)
If you look at the demonstration/R&D reactors using these great new technologies, they failed because of unforeseen engineering problems. If you look at existing commercial reactors, the ones that have failed did so because of poor management and operational mistakes.
Say you want to develop a thorium reactor. It's going to cost you tens of billions of Euros, and in the end it might not work. You also have not solved the human factor problems, because although the design is a bit more fail-safe it only w
Re: (Score:2)
When they jam it IS possible and in fact inevitable to reach criticality
Because? Last I heard, it was not possible, much less inevitable. And air cooling was enough to prevent said heat build up.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
My view? Nuclear is a good stopgap to reduce the amount of air pollution released while we get our energy sector heading in a direction more viable in the long term.
I used to share this view. Now I see nuclear as just too expensive. A nuclear plant in my state shut down a few years ago because it wasn't cost-competitive with burning fracked natural gas. As the R&D is done to make nuclear safer and cheaper, it has to chase continuing cost reductions for solar and wind. Improvements to the grid (which are a good idea anyway), and storage are probably a better use of resources. Distributed production and storage of electricity could make for a more resilient energy in
3 square meters? (Score:3)
Um. Any one else see a problem with using surface area to describe a volumetric substance?
Re: (Score:3)
Re:3 square meters? (Score:5, Informative)
Um. Any one else see a problem with using surface area to describe a volumetric substance?
Yes, it's misleading. Since the 1960's, 40-50% of the ice has melted when measured by surface area, but 70-80% of has melted when measured by volume. The volume measurements come from the US navy who declassified historical ice thickness data from it's nuclear submarine fleet about a decade ago. More recent data comes from satellite measurements.
Re:3 square meters? (Score:4, Informative)
Sure, but they aren't describing a volumetric substance; they're describing a parameter -- sea ice extent. Sea ice volume is a different parameter.
These two parameters are of course correlated, but not in a simple way. For example wind can blow ice away from regions of ice formation, resulting in much greater extent and volume, but less volume/extent (e.g. thinner ice). This by the way is why sometimes Antarctic ice extent increases as temperatures increase -- because winds can also increase.
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
Hi, it's the Internet Science Fairy reminding you that Correlation does not imply Causation. There's nothing to wave away and nothing to build conclusions on either.
Re: 3 square meters? (Score:5, Insightful)
Bullshit. If it was impossible to build conclusions then it would be impossible to do any science at all. Viz:
* Hey look, F=ma ... but I have good reason to think it's the case too
* No ma is *correlated* with F.
* Uh but I have this nice equation which describes all these results perfectly
* Correlation is not causation.
*
* Correlation is not causation.
You can't wave away every causative relationship simply because there's a correlation in there. Causation does imply correlation so the presence of a correlation is not a negative thing.
Re: (Score:2)
You seemed to have missd the step in the middle where the hypothesis is tested by predicting fresh empirical results - you know, "the science bit".
Re: (Score:2)
You seemed to have missd the step in the middle where the hypothesis is tested by predicting fresh empirical results - you know, "the science bit".
That was implied in step 2. The point here is people keep on rabbiting on about "correlation is not causation" as if the presence of a correlation was a mark against something rather than in fact completely 100% necessary.
Re: 3 square meters? (Score:4, Insightful)
Indeed, there is a good xkcd about it. But what you have stated does not imply further measurements: it is also a valid description of a fishing expedition. Dating mining for correlations does not imply causations. Your description covers both approaches rather than implying one of them.
Welcome Global Warming Denier Trolls (Score:2, Funny)
Your pet moderators are here in force. Let the lying begin!
Re: (Score:2)
I offer many ideas (good ones) and lots of facts. I just don't bother, for the most part, engaging with global warming deniers anymore. They're liars and cheats, and I don't waste my time. On the other hand, I do enjoy pointing out that they are, in fact, liars and cheats in a low-effort, accurate manner.
Heck, I even respond sometimes to anonymous cowards, and that's really going the extra mile.
Bet I've got a lot more "5" comments than you. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
I offer many ideas (good ones) and lots of facts.
Not in your recent posts [slashdot.org]. It's a bunch of vapid quick posts as far as the eye can see. Why not practice what you preach instead of being another anti-scientific hack on the internet?
Re: (Score:2)
As I said...
And I will continue to dismiss denier trolls without wasting time debunking (for the hundredth time) yet another zombie myth.
And if you're trying to hold comments at Slashdot up to some mythical standard of excellence, you clearly haven't been paying attention. They're all over the map...as are mine.
I couldn't help but notice, by the way, that you have nothing to say even remotely acceptable by the standards you claim to espouse.
Re: (Score:2)
Liar
Re: (Score:2)
I find them amusing. When they claim that modelling is useless because no modem is exactly right, I imagine them stepping out of their house in t-shirt and shorts, then wading through a metre of snow because they didn't trust the model used by the weather forecast.
Re: (Score:2)
Reminder that the MET office said that there would be no snowfall by 2010, and children born in the 1990's would be the last to see it. 2010 was also the year you guys froze your asses off, and sent experts to us here in South-Western Ontario to teach you how to deal with rapid, fast snowfalls with accumulation amounts greater than 15cm/h. And 15cm/h isn't even hitting the high point of what we see here, seeing 30-38cm/h is common highest I think we've ever seen is around 1m/h driven by lake effect. And f
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have a link for when the Met Office said that? A quick Google didn't turn it up.
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.independent.co.uk/e... [independent.co.uk] - they have of course scrubbed their original article which linked to the MET, and they independent has also scrubbed the original article. Just a FYI. Luckily there's some pdf snapshots around. [wordpress.com] You can start working backwards from that, and all you run into is scrubbed articles, stuff removed from web.archive.org and so on. Oops as they'd say.
Wonderful economic boom - northern route shipping (Score:2)
Bibliography? (Score:3)
Isn't this the reason we have a backup? (Score:3)
So the Arctic ice will be gone, but this time we are prepared: This is precisely the reason we have a backup Gentlemen, we have the AntArctic.
What?
Completely meaningless arithmetic (Score:3)
S2 vs C3 (Score:2)
"Every additional metric ton of carbon dioxide (CO2) puffed into the atmosphere appears to cost the Arctic another 3 square meters of summer sea ice"
That's an absurd statement. They're trying to correlate volume to area. Doesn't work. What is the thickness of the 3 sq-meters that is melting? 1 molecule? 1 meter? 1 kilometer? 4 kilometers?
Sorry, but this is a nonsensical comparison. It is disinformation and propaganda. They need to stick with science.
Re: Humans are a virus (Score:3, Insightful)
Think globally, act locally. Or individually.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
We're killing this planet and I don't know what to do about it.
Well, how hard are we killing the planet? Global warming is pretty mild stuff as such things go.
We're the only organisms on the planet that can't live in harmony with it (with the exception of maybe beavers).
Except for all the many, many other plants and animals that don't live in harmony with Earth either. Unlike the vast majority of plants and animals, we've actually figured out how to control our population (in the developed world, of course).
I know I'm not going to have kids for this reason.
There you go.
Re: (Score:2)
Unlike the vast majority of plants and animals, we've actually figured out how to control our population (in the developed world, of course).
It isn't even working in the developed world. The people who actually want the Earth to become like the city of Coruscant, or like in Soylent Green, only use the relatively stable numbers of the indigenous people of the West as an excuse to import immigrants. Unfortunately the people who want this tend to be the more influential - business magnates who want the short term cheap labour, and politicians who love bigger crowds listening to them.
Re: (Score:2)
Whether life in general lives in harmony or not
My point is most life will consume as much resources and space as it can, they just don't have parking lots. They don't live in harmony any more than we do, they just don't have the same power to alter environments or transport themselves as we do.
I think it is clear, if we look ahead to a far future - say in 500 to 1000 years - we will either have found a way to live sustainably on this planet, or we will be in rapid, possibly catastropihic, decline.
I believe the developed world already figured that out. It's just a matter of spreading that knowledge to the rest of the world.
Re: (Score:2)
The developed world has by far done and continues to do the most damage.
And by "damage" you mean? When I say damage, I mean actual harm now and in the future, not fantasy projections of the future based on exaggerated models.
Re: (Score:2)
What kind of damage has the developed world done and continues to do?
Well, looking at greenhouse gas emissions:
http://www.wri.org/sites/defau... [wri.org]
http://www.wri.org/sites/defau... [wri.org]
And looking at issues like deforestation, species extinction, and fresh-water pollution, it is overwhelmingly the transnational corporations originating in the developed countries and supplying the developed countries which have had the largest destructive effects cumulatively, and are continuing to do so.
I don't have time to source
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I got depressed as a teenager in the 1980s because the Russians and Americans were gonna blow the world up with nukes...
and then I grew up.
Re: (Score:3)
Analogies are for the birds (Score:2)
You're obviously living like an ostrich with its head in the sand, not like a pheasant.
Re: (Score:2)
Humans are a virus
Humans are mammals. Would have thought the tits were a dead giveaway.
Re: (Score:2)
Old joke:
Two planets meet:
"Hey, you look bad, what's the trouble?"
"Homo sapiens"
"Oh, don't worry, it will pass"
Re: Humans are a virus (Score:2, Insightful)
If only your parents felt the same way.
Re: Humans are a virus (Score:4, Insightful)
What's selfish is those asshats who have more than two [children] (on purpose).
Bin Laden's father had 56. Bin Laden only had about 25 himself; such restraint.
Surely you are not suggesting that billionaire arabs should alter their lifestyle?
Re: (Score:2)
It increases the population relative to adopting two from an overpopulated region.
Re: OK I believe you this time (Score:2)
This.
Re: OK I believe you this time (Score:5, Informative)
A) Gore isn't a scientist, and B) his statement was that "some models" predict it in summer months. For what it's worth the summer arctic sea ice extent did fall to half of the 1981 to 2010 average in 2012. (Middle of the road models may have been spot on...)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
So which model is the accurate one?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The one that makes us the most money.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't understand how modelling works.
Since it is usually impossible to predict the future of complex systems with perfect accuracy, instead you come up with a number of models based on different parameters, weighted by likelihood.
With climate change we have the added requirement of wanting to know what will happen if we make different amounts of effort to tackle it. Do nothing, do a little, do as much as we can without reducing quality of life etc. So there are multiple models based on those different a
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
You don't understand how modelling works.
As a professional statistician, I say: "Right back at you".
Models make assumptions. They contain errors, which is to say, variance (Some climate scientists deny their models have 'errors' - ignore these). Thus, the models have what is frequently called a confidence interval, or margin of error.
As long as you made the correct assumptions, and those assumptions hold true for the entire predictive interval, then the predicted confidence interval is likely to contain the true value (dependent on the alpha cho
Re: (Score:3)
Take the ever-changing value over the CO2 forcing value. Is it 1.1 W/m^2? Is it 8.5 W/m^2?
The first order forcing of CO2 is 5.35*ln(C/C0)Wm^-2 [www.ipcc.ch]. Not a lot of controversy there. You've given it as a constant without regard to relative C. Are you sure you understood what you were looking at?
Re: (Score:3)
For what it's worth the summer arctic sea ice extent did fall to half of the 1981 to 2010 average in 2012.
Good point. Here's a graph of Arctic summer ice extent: Fairly stable until 1995 and then it seems to have fallen off a cliff. 2016 isn't shown here but it was the second lowest value on record after 2012. http://woodfortrees.org/plot/n... [woodfortrees.org]
(Middle of the road models may have been spot on...)
In fact the IPCC report projected [gstatic.com]much less arctic ice loss than has occurred.
Arctic Sea Ice Diminished by Half Since 90's. (Score:3)
Moderator guidelines (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Moderator guidelines (Score:5, Informative)
To be fair, I'm not sure the actual quote is better.
"North Polar Ice cap....75-80% chance that during summer months it will be completely and totally gone in five years..."
If you want to check the authenticity, here's the video. I was in the audience at Web 2.0 Summit when he said this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
(He's also factually wrong on the "millions of years" since there was no ice cap during summer in the beginning of the Holocene, or during the last interglacial)
Fake quotes (Score:2)
It's easy to make up shit that supposedly Al Gore said that he didn't ever actually say, and post it as anonymous coward.
Citation needed.
And not a citation to "well, here's something he said that was kinda vaguely on the same subject, I just posted that completely made up quote as clickbait to get you to engage." You put it in quotations marks. Give me a cite to that quotation.
I'm also puzzled as to why deniers are so fascinated with Al Gore. He's not a scientist. The people discussing anthropogenic g
Re: (Score:3)
Spoken like a true troll.
small, beneficial global warming and CO2... (Score:2)
The things that coal needs to cleanup are aerosolized particulates, SOx, NOx along with heavy metals.
Re: (Score:2)
Harvey, don't call yourself a nerd. You can't learn and think very well. Anyone capable of objective in-depth research and rational analysis would not reach the conclusions you just did there. You are not a nerd, or a geek. Consider that you might just have bad fashion sense.
Re: (Score:2)
What about the disasters prevented by the change in climate? How many people didn't die?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's not that Koch pays so well, it's that Soros is overextended with the election.
Re:DGW - Dinosauric Global Warming (Score:4, Insightful)
I think that a better mark against this (TFS at any rate) is that they mention this:
For instance, a U.S. family of four would claim nearly 200 square meters of sea ice, based on U.S. emissions in 2013. Over 3 decades, that family would be responsible for destroying more than an American football field's worth of ice.
So we have a length and width, but no height. So say we assume a height of 1um...doesn't seem like much ice.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:DGW - Dinosauric Global Warming (Score:5, Insightful)
Arctic ice is floating and hence, unlike glacial and continental ice it has a limited range of total thickness - you can look it up.
Sorry, why didn't the writer of the article (or at least the summary here) look it up and quote it to us? The GP's point was that an area seems to be meaningless without a thickness being given (which his mention of 1um was surely meant only to highlight, not as a serious suggestion *). The same point brought me up short too when I read TFA.
* Technically, it is a Reductio ad absurdum, a valid debating tool.
Re: (Score:2)
So we have a length and width, but no height. So say we assume a height of 1um...doesn't seem like much ice.
Arctic ice floats, at any given point in the arctic there's either ice or water.
"One football field" less ice means "one football field" more water.
It's not difficult to understand.
How science works. (Score:3)
The whole AGC platform is based on the premise that CO2 is the driver of global temperatures to a degree that makes all other sources infinitesimal in comparison, and its doctrine does not allow dissent from the premise.
The way science works in the real world is by comparing models to observations,and excluding the models that don't match the observations. The null hypothesis-- that the average temperature isn't warming-- is strongly excluded. So, if you want to propose that the effect is due to other variables: do the numbers. Make a model and show that it fits the data.
Right now, anthropogenic global warming is a model that fits the data. If you think it's wrong, find another model.
Re:DGW - Dinosauric Global Warming (Score:4, Funny)
No no no. Its Botanogenic Global Warming. The plants are farming humans for food - waiting for them to die and decompose, using fungi and microbes to render them into digestible food. And they have selected for the strains of humans that produce the most CO2, since plants thrive on that stuff.
I, for one, am turning vegan right now.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The Jurassic period. [...]
Yawn. [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
you can copy pasta this ignorant garbage all you want, on every GW thread.
but its still ignorant garbage.
Re:Just to be clear (Score:5, Informative)
...there is no intrinsic necessity that the arctic be iced over.
You are absolutely correct. Just like there is no intrinsic necessity that New Orleans, New York, and Miami are above water.
Re: (Score:3)
warmer polar regions = less ocean circulation.
less ocean circulation = more extreme climates. ie, if you live someplace cold, it's gonna get colder. live some place hot, its gonna get hotter. dry? drier. wet? wetter. ocean circulation is a gigantic moderator of planetary climate and weather.
and no, the NW Passage never existed with human memory, until now.
Re: (Score:2)
What's so difficult to understand about the process of learning?
Re: (Score:2)
What's so difficult to understand about the process of learning?
The part where you call it "learning". Words have meaning.
Re:Doomsday Cult (Score:5, Informative)
This is what is happening to the arctic sea ice:
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicen... [nsidc.org]
the line is noisy so predicting the next year is always a crapshoot, but the one thing that isn't going to happen is that the trend will change.
Re: (Score:2)
So.... there's been a relatively minor decrease in arctic sea ice over about 40 years since the late 1970's, a time when the exact same people screaming about Global Warming were claiming we were all going to die due to a new ice age?
Yes, I did see that the scale on that graph was intentionally changed to make the decrease look "scarier" than it actually is. I also noted that it started at a time of unusually high ice concentration to provide a false benchmark of what supposedly "normal" or not.
I'm not suff
Re: (Score:2)
a time when the exact same people screaming about Global Warming were claiming we were all going to die due to a new ice age
Oh I see. You are what is technically known as "fucking knobhead".
Re: (Score:2)
"Another ice age?" - published in Time magazine 1974, with lots of quotes from scientists.
"the area of ice and snow cover had suddenly increased by 12% in 1971 and the increase has persisted ever since"
"Areas of Baffin Island in the Canadian Arctic, for example, were once totally free of any snow in the summer; now they're covered all year round."
One thing that has me perplexed reading these threads is that the "warmistas" don't really seem to base their opinion on actual science, or published facts. It see
Re: (Score:3)
"Another ice age?" - published in Time magazine 1974, with lots of quotes from scientists.
Out of interest are you one of the people that laughs at the popular press' poor reporting of tech related issues?
Global cooling was never more than a very much minority opinion among scientists. You'd know this if you were interested in actually what's going on rather than taking cheap shots based on two very old, thoroughly debunked popular press articles.
It seems they (you) have a belief that they're so sure is cor
Re: (Score:2)
That quote is in the Time article as linked from the page I gave you. As to why you felt you needed to repeat the information in the page I linked to back to me I don't know. Obviously I knew it quite well.
Re: (Score:2)
As to why you felt you needed to repeat the information in the page I linked to back to me I don't know. Obviously I knew it quite well.
Yet you don't seem to understand it.
Re: (Score:2)
That's you confirming that you don't seem to be able to separate actual facts from your viewpoint of what you think they should be. I'm a regular reader of Skeptical Science, the IPCC reports, various journals etc. I even linked the very page that documents what scientific support there was for cooling vs warming in the 1970s.
With that said, the grandparent _was_ correct in that scientists claimed we might be heading back into glacial conditions ("ice age"), and that it would be catastrophic for human survi
Re: (Score:2)
With that said, the grandparent _was_ correct in that scientists claimed we might be heading back into glacial conditions ("ice age"), and that it would be catastrophic for human survival.
Hardly. The OP actually said this:
a time when the exact same people screaming about Global Warming were claiming we were all going to die due to a new ice age
Furthermore, saying "scientists" implies some sort of support, not strictly greater than one scientist. It was never more than a small minority opinion and never had
Re: (Score:2)
"Consensus" is not part of the scientific method.
In all your posts here you've managed to validate exactly what I described from the start. Those who scream most loudly (and use foul language to describe others) are the ones who know the least science.
Re: (Score:2)
Cherry picking long debunked results from at best a very tiny minority of scientists is even worse than using consensus. Remember, I'm only guilty of using foul language, you're using foul thinking which is infinitely worse.
And besides, consensus in practice is part of the scientific method. It's not the super simplified schoolboy version that non scientists like to spout, but in real science it's there. The consensus is that Newton's laws hold far from c, relativity works and that the standard model works.
Re: (Score:2)
Which each new post you continue to prove my original point. I suggest you call it a day.
consensus in practice is part of the scientific method. It's not the super simplified schoolboy version that non scientists like to spout, but in real science it's there.
vs
"In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." ... and no one "cherry picked" anything (let me guess - you spout random words in debates hoping that eventually you'll get something right?). The grandparent talked about the 70s. I quoted from one of the well known articles about it. Nothing in it has been "debunked" (again, random
Galileo Galilei
Re: (Score:2)
"In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.",
Sure, but that requires a *reasoning* individual. The people here going against the consensus have political, financial or borderline religious reasons for doing so.
In practice, glib quotes aside, consensus does not exist in a vacuum. It exists because the edivence does not make it obviously wrong, and in fact supports it. That doesn't mean the consensus is right, but to overturn it, you have to
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, but that requires a *reasoning* individual. The people here going against the consensus have political, financial or borderline religious reasons for doing so.
No, we were talking about the respected scientists having published peer reviewed papers with regards to global cooling in the 70s, as referenced and counted by Skeptical Science.
Re: (Score:2)
No, we were talking about the respected scientists
No, *you* are. You seemed to bring it up not in relation to the actual conversation which was going on..
Cooling was happening.
No it wasn't. Some people thought it was. But not many because as it turned out the data didn't support it. You are taking a not disregarded very much minority opinion and presenting it as fact all the while claiming you're being scientific. That is, frankly, laughable.
Re: (Score:2)
Flamebait is flamebait, no matter which side of the argument it is on.