The News Thread

[Einherjar86]

 

[Dak]

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/...-glaciers-melts-climate-change-global-warming

The Antarctic freezing trend has not been captured well by climate models. So scientists have been trying to understand why planetary warming has not melted Antarctic sea ice like it has in the Arctic. In the new study, Son Nghiem, a researcher with NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, evaluated satellite data to zero in on an answer.

"The polar sea ice paradox is really a challenge for the science community," Nghiem said. The big difference between his research and prior studies is that the findings are based on observations and measurements, rather than modeling, he said.

So novel these days.

"One has to say that Arctic sea ice is completely different from Antarctic sea ice, which almost melts completely back each summer," said Lars Kaleschke, an ice researcher with the Center for Earth System Research and Sustainability at the University of Hamburg. "The processes of ice formation are completely different.

"The climate models do not get it right at this point," Kaleschke said. "The models project a decrease of Antarctic sea ice, which is in contrast with observations."

 

[Einherjar86]

I realize their are inaccuracies in the modeling, but the Muir Glacier is an observable phenomenon. It's not as though it grows and shrinks each year or something. It's been receding for half a century. Could be it's part of a natural cycle and unrelated to human impact, but that doesn't mean it isn't an example of climate change.

It's impacting the mixture of freshwater and seawater, for example, and affects what kind of animals can migrate into the region. It's a clear example of change, regardless of origin or cause.

 

[Dak]

The two legitimate concerns that I see put forward regarding a warming of the planet is the need for people to probably move (away from the equator/deserts, oceans) and the spread of certain tropical diseases. But other and/or similar issues would occur were the planet to cool rather than warm, and there are also balancing benefits. If the comparison is a static climate, that's just fantasy material.

 

[EternalMetal]

This is fair, I'll have to admit some predictive elements. My primary intervention here is that science facts are entirely different than science fiction. The predictive , or extrapolative, elements of science fiction aren't what we find in actual (or "normal") science. You used the word "projections," and that's much more appropriate. Too many people see normal science as predominantly speculative.

The science facts in this case dont go much further than the presentation of the data itself. Climate science falls short when it starts to eliminate uncontrolled variables, and present disingenuous correlations as though they are the facts. Everyone "knows" that glaciers are melting and sea levels are rising because of the atmospheric increase in CO2, right? It's these political fun facts/white lies that sensationalize mankind's role in the rapid degradation of the climate that I have a problem with. The projections are an issue because we are told to view them as prophetic and real, and not as the tenuous theories that they actually are. And im not just talking about the media icons like Gore or Nye, the actual scientists are guilty of this as well.

Also, there has been inaccuracy in some models because this is a live phenomenon; it's happening as we speak. That's not a reason to deny climate change, the evidence for which is everywhere. It's a reason to keep pitching models and see how close the actual climate adheres to the models we create, in the hope that we might better approximate climate systems, which are immensely complex. Accuracy in computer simulations for a global system that comprises every kind of terrestrial ecosystem (including underwater ecosystems, as you mention above) is no simple endeavor.

Agreed, and I see nothing wrong with this.

I realize their are inaccuracies in the modeling, but the Muir Glacier is an observable phenomenon. It's not as though it grows and shrinks each year or something. It's been receding for half a century. Could be it's part of a natural cycle and unrelated to human impact, but that doesn't mean it isn't an example of climate change.

It's impacting the mixture of freshwater and seawater, for example, and affects what kind of animals can migrate into the region. It's a clear example of change, regardless of origin or cause.

This is kind of the entire point. Even with comparative statistics based on numerous data sets we cannot determine the cause of one climate change event. What extent of the change is natural, and what extent (if any) is influenced by man? While these questions currently have no answers, the political agenda of the climate change movement wants you to believe that it is all our fault. Almost the entire field of climate scientists operate significantly through this lens. This is why rational skeptics on this topic exist. Some right wing morons deny all of it, which is wrong, but it is hard to dismiss the political bias of this entire field of study and the hyperbolic conclusions that result.

 

[Baroque]

Trying really hard not to jump in on this. But your problem with climate science research is that it's based on statistics? How do you think other fields of science operate?

 

[rms]

and the spread of certain tropical diseases.

havent heard of this one

But your problem with climate science research is that it's based on statistics?

sounds like the confidence in their theories than actual evidence based predictions

 

[Baroque]

havent heard of this one



sounds like the confidence in their theories than actual evidence based predictions

Climate scientists absolutely have evidence based predictions. Multiple satellites circle the globe nonstop providing a stream of climate data from above on everything from temperature to chemical breakdown of the atmosphere. There are also ground based measurements at weather centers around the world, and even mid atmosphere measurements through weather balloons and airplanes. The data can be checked and cross checked from multiple sources, and is, daily.

 

[rms]

Climate scientists absolutely have evidence based predictions.

I hope so, or they wouldnt be scientists. They'd be climate sociologists

don't really know what the response is for but thank you

 

[Einherjar86]

Your comment made it sound like you were implying that climate scientists don't use "actual evidence based predictions." Baroque is telling you that they do use evidence-based predictions. That's what the response "is for."

 

[rms]

but im speaking for eternalmetal

 

[Einherjar86]

Disregarding how anyone was supposed to know that for certain given the weird syntax of your comment, you quoted Baroque. Why wouldn't he respond?

This isn't worth arguing over, it's just weird that you felt the need to say "don't really know what the response is for."

 

[EternalMetal]

Yea, im pretty sure his response was geared towards me.

Trying really hard not to jump in on this. But your problem with climate science research is that it's based on statistics? How do you think other fields of science operate?

Did you read my post? I have no problem with statistics and data gathering and the presentation of what is known. I have worked as a scientist in a molecular biology lab and am familiar enough with data analysis. Im also familiar enough with data smudging, faulty statistical analyses
(the whole p-value dilemma), and presenting data with the means to persuade.

Climate scientists absolutely have evidence based predictions. Multiple satellites circle the globe nonstop providing a stream of climate data from above on everything from temperature to chemical breakdown of the atmosphere. There are also ground based measurements at weather centers around the world, and even mid atmosphere measurements through weather balloons and airplanes. The data can be checked and cross checked from multiple sources, and is, daily.

Im not doubting the data gathering aspect of climate measurements either. The data is real, but unfortunately the data set (longevity-wise) is lacking. Making definitive conclusions about mankind's direct impact on the environment based on the small data set should not be possible, but the conclusions and theories of these scientists have become practically canonized as fact. The researcher's bias is strong in this field, especially when it comes to predictions and statistical analysis.

I jumped off the the 'climate crisis' bandwagon once I saw how hyperbolic all of the predictions and claims of ~15 years ago ended up being. I prefer to take the stance of the skeptic since things have become so damn politicized.

 

[Dak]

I remember watching an Inconvenient Truth with a bunch of Marines in Iraq and being the only one scoffing at his hockeystick chart and getting shit for it. The lone voice of reason.

 

[Baroque]

Yea, im pretty sure his response was geared towards me.



Did you read my post? I have no problem with statistics and data gathering and the presentation of what is known. I have worked as a scientist in a molecular biology lab and am familiar enough with data analysis. Im also familiar enough with data smudging, faulty statistical analyses
(the whole p-value dilemma), and presenting data with the means to persuade.



Im not doubting the data gathering aspect of climate measurements either. The data is real, but unfortunately the data set (longevity-wise) is lacking. Making definitive conclusions about mankind's direct impact on the environment based on the small data set should not be possible, but the conclusions and theories of these scientists have become practically canonized as fact. The researcher's bias is strong in this field, especially when it comes to predictions and statistical analysis.

I jumped off the the 'climate crisis' bandwagon once I saw how hyperbolic all of the predictions and claims of ~15 years ago ended up being. I prefer to take the stance of the skeptic since things have become so damn politicized.

small data set

they're hiring data science interns like myself and colleagues because the data sets are too large

 

[EternalMetal]

Did you see my previous sentence? I was referring to longevity-wise.

 

[Baroque]

We also have weather records going back hundreds of years.

Do you hold other fields of science to the same standards?

Gee the theory of relativity is only a century old, better to rely on Newtonian physics right?

Man vaccinations are new, better not vaccinate your kids!

GMOs etc etc etc

 

[CiG]

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

Sea levels are already rising. Climate change is already happening. In fact, it's always happening.

That's one of the things people don't get, they think climate change is this thing that might happen. No, it's happening now.

"climate change" has been happening since the beginning of time, and the seas have slowly been rising for almost just as long. The fact that some people politicize/label it some bullshit and then accuse one side wiht nonsense such as "but you don't believe in climate change" is mindblowing tbh.

Oh and a thumbs up from me for mentioning Hayek's The Road to Serfdom .

 

[Einherjar86]

Dak originally mentioned it, I was just repeating the example. I think Hayek is great, even if I don't agree with everything he says. I have copies of Individualism and Economic Order and The Counter-revolution of Science on my bookshelf.