Slashdot Mirror
Arctic Ice Extent Understated Because of "Sensor Drift"
dtjohnson writes "The National Snow and Ice Data
Center (NSIDC) has been at the forefront of predicting doom in the arctic as ice melts due to global warming. In May, 2008 they went so far as to predict that the North Pole would be ice-free during
the 2008 'melt season,' leading to a lively Slashdot discussion. Today, however, they say that they have been the victims of 'sensor drift' that led
to an underestimation of Arctic ice extent by as much as 500,000 square
kilometers. The problem was discovered after they received
emails from puzzled readers, asking why obviously sea-ice-covered
regions were showing up as ice-free, open ocean. It turns
out that the NSIDC relies on an older, less-reliable method of tracking
sea ice extent called SSM/I that does not agree with a newer method called AMSR-E. So why doesn't NSIDC use the newer AMSR-E data? 'We do not use AMSR-E data in our analysis because it
is not consistent with our historical data.' Turns out that the AMSR-E data only goes back to 2002, which is probably not long enough for the NSIDC to make sweeping conclusions about melting. The AMSR-E data is updated daily and is available to the public. Thus far, sea ice
extent in 2009 is tracking ahead of 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008, so
the predictions of an ice-free north pole might be premature."
Obviously not, too cold. The more astonishing the fact they can make such errors.
CC.
TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
"We do not use AMSR-E data in our analysis because it is not consistent with our historical data."
And our historical data shows terrible calamity awaiting us at every turn, and even if reality doesn't bear this out, it makes sense that we should continue to sound the alarm because if we do decide to face reality people may not take us and our hysterical blatherings seriously.
We'd rather just keep on using outdated modes of measurement and forecasting that give incorrect results every year because the results fit our hypothesis better. And what better to support a hypothesis than data that will back it up?
From the summary:'We do not use AMSR-E data in our analysis because it is not consistent with our historical data.'
What's the point of being consistent with a flawed methodology? I would have thought the thing to do would be to collect the new data, base newer model off that and then perform a statistically weighted correction to the older dater. Both data sets can be maintained if required.
Am not sure I see a point in consistency for consistency's sake, when you in the light of newer information you now know the original measurements are flawed.
Cheers,
Ian
instead of using sensors that move and 2 systems that don't work why not try just taking pictures or using those weather satalite things to look at whats ice and whats not
Its not my fault, someone put a wall in my way.
FTA, "Some people might ask why we don't simply switch to the EOS AMSR-E sensor. AMSR-E is a newer and more accurate passive microwave sensor. However, we do not use AMSR-E data in our analysis because it is not consistent with our historical data. Thus, while AMSR-E gives us greater accuracy and more confidence on current sea ice conditions
OK, I can see their point, but using the EOS sensor may have given pause to researchers doing a comparison to current conditions using the traditional sensor, i.e. cross-reference current conditions to be more confident that your data is correct. Nothing like screaming "the sky is falling" due to bad data. Any science experiment, especially one that can produce sensationalist news, should not just rely on one piece of data.
...the world to take global warming seriously, when these jokers are making such wildly inaccurate predictions based on obsolete technology?
Oh, by the way - we overlooked an ice block the size of Spain. Whoopsie!
Am I to understand that they will continue to measure (and predict) ice conditions based on less accurate sensors simply because these measurements tally better with older measurements, which themselves are less accurate?
Or have I missed something?
Didn't anyone notice before this that the two data sources were giving inconsistent data? Shouldn't this have alarmed someone when AMSR-E gave its first results and they disagreed significantly with the old method? You'd think that comparison would be the first thing you'd do.
Does this mean that the popular press will finally stop writing articles about the "poor drowning polar bears"?
[Insert pithy quote here]
Its bad science like this that gives various talking head pundits the ability to totally disregard and blast climate change as bogus fear mongering.
C'mon guys, you have to do better than that.
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm
But, then, look at this:
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/1023esuice.html
The result has direct connections to NASA-funded studies conducted last year that found perennial, or year-round, sea ice in the Arctic is declining at a rate of nine percent per decade and that in 2002 summer sea ice was at record low levels. Early results indicate this persisted in 2003.
Any life is made up of a single moment, the moment in which a man finds out, once and for all, who he is.
Looking at the new graph it's still pretty obvious that the trend is "downwards", there was about 2 million square kilometers less ice in September 2007 than in September 2003.
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm
But yeah, the deniers will be all over this.
No sig today...
For the climate change deniers among you, this is how science is supposed to work. Scientist A says something, scientist B says "hang on my experiment gives different results", scientist A checks and says "sorry, yes, we goofed" and it gets fixed. This is exactly the opposite of religion, where Religious Bigot A says "the Earth is 6000 years old", scientists B through aleph-null say "hang on, geology, biology and astronomy confirm this is rubbish", and Religious Bigot A says "you lie, the Earth is 6000 years old."
There is a British "science writer" named Nigel Calder who claims that AGW is a huge fraud by the scientific establishment, and that counter-evidence is always suppressed. This little episode shows that Calder is speaking out of his anus, which means it may serve some useful purpose.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
The sky is falling, the sky is falling... oh wait... my bad... This is not the melting ice cap you are looking for.
Looking at the AMST-E data it does seem to be warming up though.
For sure the lines in winter are pretty close, but if you look at the lines in August 2006 and 2007 show pretty deep dips.
If you look at the 'old' SSM/I data the same trend emerges.
If course graphs without error-bars are not to be trusted as people are wont to fixate on the exact numbers shown rather than the trend. Without error-bars you cannot even tell if the trend is real or due to sampling bias.
A nice way of doing error bars is used in the (our) national weather on TV.
Instead of showing a line to indicate the predicted rainfall, temp, etc.
They use a colored area with includes the line + error bars. Except almost none realise its error bars you're looking at. Neat.
srsly.
they already made.
Look, they made up their minds and damn it, facts are not going to get in the way.
Just be glad we have doubters and amateur scientists who call out crap for what it is. Maybe, just maybe, more people will come to realize just how bad of a model we are working with because all our facts aren't worth the paper their recorded on. Like any other bureaucracy stuff like this happens because no one wants to step forward to a) upset the status quo, b) take responsibility for a decision, c) work.
Just be glad it was caught. Just like people found temperature sensors in parking lots, readings duplicated across months, and other sorts of fun. The ineptness of some of so called scientific groups when it comes to climate science makes me wonder if we do proper vetting of who is getting the money.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
By calling them "deniers" what you're saying is that science should be thrown out the window. You do realise that science is about collecting evidence, forming a theory and then trying to disprove it.
What "alarmists" do which is the kind of science you support is to cherry pick unrelated events from around the world and scare people into agreeing with them for the purposes of making money off such schemes as carbon off setting.
This is one of those things that grabbed by the neck and whipped around like a dog shaking a dead squirrel by the "It ain't warming up" folks.
Maybe it's because we are tired of people (read: activists and politicians) trying to take away our rights based on bunk data.
Why is it that people who refuse to show ID to board a plane because it "violates their rights" are the same ones that are perfectly happy letting the state of California change the thermostat settings in their home?
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
They really aren't helping their case. One of the main arguments against their doom and gloom predictions, has been that they cherry pick their data.
This argument was used for example, against Al Gores pretty damn good documentary/movie when he used Mount Kilimanjaro as an example of glacial melting. Of all the examples he could have used, it was probably the worst one to use, since studies have shown that the retreating snow is not due to global warming. And the photos he used were deceptive, to say the least.
No, the point is that no matter which data set you look at, the trend is downwards. "Deniers" are those who completely ignore all of that data and say it's not happening at all. And trust me, they're out there.
still plenty of data from other sources, NASA in this case showing a trend of ice melting... http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?old=2006101923416
"It doesn't cost enough, and it makes too much sense."
"n May, 2008 they went so far as to predict that the North Pole would be ice-free during the 2008 'melt season,' "
No they didn't.
They said it was a remote possibility.
This was taken up by the anti global climate change, altered, and then used to "prove" that global warming wasn't happening when it didn't happen.
The fact it is presented that way by the story submitter shows which way they think, and thus how reliable the overall story is.
Nor, as you suggest, is the moon too cold. Ghosts do not have a physical presence, so the temperature of the moon would mean nothing to them.
So, my patent for a method involving the freezing and storage of moon ghosts is probably worth a little less than I had hoped... sigh...
You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
From the summary:'We do not use AMSR-E data in our analysis because it is not consistent with our historical data.' Is that the same thing as saying "We do not use AMSR-E data because it proves that we've been wrong all along!'
They wanted their conclusion to be true and therefore didn't bother questioning the data.
I like how you liken "climate change deniers" to religious bigots. "Religious zealots" would be more appropriate, and they exist on both sides.
Yeah, this is the basic idea of how science is supposed to work, but that's not the point that comes across in your post. The parent post is a troll.
When a new sensor is thought to have greater accuracy or reliabilty than an old one, but produces data which are not entirely consistent with the older one, it does NOT prevent use of the new sensor or meaningful use of data from both sensors. One standard technique is to employ both sensors simultaneously for some time - in other words, the two data series would overlap for that time. If both series show a downward trend in ice cover, then the trend probably real, even if they always disagree about the level of ice cover or the rate of decline. Over a sufficiently long time, it should be possible to build a model to quantitatively explain the difference in readings.
Come on, guys. There must be a few PhD theses waiting to be written on how to reconcile these instruments...
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
A lot of them infect techy websites like dailytech for no apparent reason apart from one of "their kind" posts carefully selected anti-global-climate-change stuff. Mostly single data points, rather than overall trends of course. They don't have science on their side.
Of course it is good if they exist to ensure that the science is rigourous. Sadly they go beyond that, to actually trying to recruit believers to their cause - all too easy in a world addicted to cars - like a religion. They come up with alternate theories which the science doesn't support, much like intelligent design, creationism, etc. Considering the eventual outcome of being wrong in all this, it is highly irresponsible of them, and I hope that if things do go tits up in a pear shaped bowl that they are the ones made to pay.
Not that the extremists on the other side help. Doom-mongering damages your cause, all in the name of sensationalism. Just let the science speak for itself.
There is a lot of people interested in denying climate change whatever it takes. Taking a single error from a single study about climate change as proof of a non-existent climate problem is obtuse. The global warming shows itself in so many ways that no one can tell it isn't happening at all. Of course we can sit to discuss how are we responsible for this change and how much of the change will occur as part of a natural process. But there is no such discussion. Instead you see a bunch of corporations claiming "there is no such climate change, let us keep burning oil".
_Leo_
You think unfettered consumerism is a human right?
No sig today...
However you feel about this issue, I think it is a bit weak to try and claim a change over 4 years constitutes a 'trend' when it comes to global climate data.
Is it any more ludicrous than the now-erroneous report being picked and whipped around by "the sky is falling" folks?
When I was in elementary school, they told us that if the polar ice caps melted, only the upper floors of the highest buildings in NYC would be above sea level. A few years ago, research starting coming out saying that a high percentage of the ice at the north pole was already melted. Clearly somebody was (or is) lying. It would be nice to get real facts from time to time instead of alarmist B.S.
because it is inconsistent with our pre-determined conclusions that must adhere to the theology of global warming/climate change/name of the week.
Fuck. Yes.
Any other questions?
"linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
Listen to what you're saying. You want to punish those who don't agree with you. You've turned the global warming debate into a religion.
"...that led to an underestimation of Arctic ice extent by as much as 500,000 square kilometers."
Proof from the field as to why Science/Engineering and Accounting are indeed two separate departments.
Although, I wonder how many "Scientists" were in Accounting at Enron...
In May, 2008 they went so far as to predict that the North Pole would be ice-free during the 2008 'melt season,'
Er, no, they said it was possible and later quote "a 59% chance of a new record minimum this year". How the media chose to report this is another matter... Oh yes, note the date: May 2008.
Today, however, they say that they have been the victims of 'sensor drift' that led to an underestimation of Arctic ice extent by as much as 500,000 square kilometers.
And if you read TFA, the sensor drift started in January 2009, was spotted within a few weeks and only affected their daily images which are effectively "live" and hence haven't gone through QA.
So how exactly does an error which occurred in Jan/Feb 09, was almost immediately spotted and declared affect a (misreported) prediction made last May?
<irony>Meanwhile, I'm sure the little fairies are hard at work ensuring that the geological era's worth of sequestered CO2 we're in the process of releasing back into the atmosphere magically changes its physical properties. After all, it is made from special carbon that God put there in 4004BC for us to burn, unlike that nasty communist CO2 that exhibits the greenhouse effect in godless laboratories.</irony>
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
No nescessarily - my recent research suggets that moon-ghosts *could* be trapped by getting them really wet, and then freezing the water.
Maybe it's because we are tired of people (read: activists and politicians) trying to take away our rights based on bunk data.
I just think it's human nature to filter information to support our positions. Hypocrisy abounds in all of us in some quantity, but "with all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams,
it is still a beautiful world."
We're all hypocrites. We all have hidden parts, it's the contrast between them that make us more a hypocrite than others
as it comes and
when it comes
sorry for any "pre-mature" pre-dictions.....
hahahaha......
Yes, the earth is MUCH warmer than it used to be. 10,000 years ago my house was under a giant glacier. The ONE thing we can predict with accuracy regarding the earth's climate is that it WILL change. It has changed drastically in the past, and will continue to do so. Hell, we were in a mini-ice age as recent as the American Revolutionary war.
The argument that somehow man is responsible for the earth heating up by a few degrees C is ludicrous, and is just a tool being sharpened for global political control. He who controls energy production controls the world.
The earliest it was probable for there to be an ice free Artic was 2012. Ice free by 2050.
This is always a great falacy. Lets recap:
Parent says: "Not that the extremists on the other side help. Doom-mongering damages your cause, all in the name of sensationalism. Just let the science speak for itself."
You say he has turned debate into a religion....
Let the public be the judge.
NO SIG
Thus far, sea ice extent in 2009 is tracking ahead of 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008, so the predictions of an ice-free north pole might be premature."
Does that follow? The predictions of ice-free north pole are for it to be ice free during the summer. Its now winter so this winter might be colder than normal, but that doesn't mean the summer will be cooler also.
Any sea ice experts on slashdot?
Think Deeply.
I will continue to recycle, I will continue to commute by bus and use energy saving light bulbs, none of these scaremongerers or deep-set denialists will either make me do more or less. Whether or not these things will save the planet, they save me money, and that's what counts.
Clearly some oil company executives have been to the Arctic and moved the sensors, just to discredit the campaigners.
So all youve heard about Global Warming is in this slashdot summary?
NO SIG
Looking at the new graph it's still pretty obvious that the trend is "downwards",
Err... no. What I see looking at the data is two very low years: 2007 and to a lesser extent 2008. Calling that a "pretty obvious trend" nicely reveals your bias, but not much else. I could as easily say it is a "pretty obvious oscillation", as 2008 is "clearly" recovering from the 2007 perturbation.
I can see why the guys doing this aren't using the new data, as there is no way that there is adequate statistical power here to make a judgement about trends. Unfortunately, now that the old data have been shown to be badly flawed, the dire predictions of an imminently ice-free Arctic no longer have any very robust empirical support.
THIS is the way science works: you look at the evidence, squeeze it hard and see if it breaks. There is no doubt that the evidence for a soon-to-be-ice-free Arctic is broken. Ergo, the plausibility of dramatic climate change effects in our near future has gone down, no matter what anyone's politics drives them to prefer.
The only robust signal for global climate change I'm aware of is global ocean heat content, which seems to be increasing. However, given the number of reversals of supposedly robust results in the field of climate science I want to take a much closer look at those data before being convinced by them.
I used to be very concerned about global climate change, and in open-minded arguing with "deniers" I took a hard, critical look at the data and the models, because I wanted to find a compelling, unproblematic argument to convince my opponents, whom I credit with being able to change their minds when faced with the evidence. What I found was that neither the data nor especially the models stood up to professional scrutiny. There is good science being done, but it is not the kind of stuff you'd want to base public policy on.
There are good arguments for environmental policy that do not depend on the risk of global climate change, and the environmental movement is doing itself no good by linking policy and science together they way they have, so that people think "if there is no risk of global climate change then driving my SUV must be ok."
Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
You think declaring activities are "unfettered consumerism" is a human right?
Why is it that the people that complain about california's environmental laws are the same ones that are perfectly happy being frisked, unshooed and carded at an airport?
NO SIG
Deniers don't just use a single data point. They use every year since 1998 - and point out that every one of those years is cooler than 1998. That's a lot of data points, right? All those cool years (compared to 1998) can't be outliers, can they?
"They"
Yeah, it's "them", "they" are causing the problems!
Listen to yourself. Alternative explanations for climate observations are all testable, and many have been tested. They are NOTHING like creationism or intelligent design, which are anti-scientific nonsense.
Saying things like "variations in cosmic ray flux may result in long-term changes to Earth's albedo which could explain observed climate variations" is not anti-scientific nonsense. It is a perfectly plausible, testable hypothesis of the best scientific kind (I believe, in fact, that it has been tested and found wanting.)
Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
I have a very simple proposition that might shed some light on the argument about sea ice melting and cities going underwater.
Take a clear plastic disposable cup and fill it to any level you desire with water and any amount of ice cubes (4-5 would be plenty) you desire. Mark the level of the water. Let the cup sit out (covered if you really wish) until the ice melts. Mark the level of the water.
The results should surprise you, if you think that melting sea ice will put Florida and NYC and other low-lying areas underwater.
there was about 2 million square kilometers less ice in September 2007 than in September 2003.
... yeah, or could could oh, "randomly" pick early February and golly, gee, in 2008 and 2003 the ice area was essentially the same. Using your same logic, I guess this is an upward trend.
The problem with all of this is that it is political and not science anymore. You clearly demonstrate the standard procedure... pick a data range that fits your objectives and then use it to establish a trend. What should be of more concern is where this inaccurate data has been used to influence policy (UN anybody?). I think it is incumbent upon anyone trying to prove a theory (global warming, especially being due in largest part to man, IS a theory) to use the most accurate instruments and methods available. Sure, continue using older methods so that you can compare historical data sets, but more accurate methods should be employed as well. That is simply good science.
Government - If you think the problems we create are bad, you should see our solutions!
"Why is it that people who refuse to show ID to board a plane because it "violates their rights" are the same ones that are perfectly happy letting the state of California change the thermostat settings in their home?"
Because, just as in the time of Hammurabi, it depends upon whose ox is gored.
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
Quoting three sentences out of nearly three paragraphs and trying to use them to prove your point is stupid. You COULD have quoted something relevant to his post, but then you would have realized he was correct which obviously wasn't your goal.
No, I've heard lots about Global Warming. As you can see by the threading, I was replying to parent (comment 26915303) - now GGP - which stated 'Looking at the new graph it's still pretty obvious that the trend is "downwards", there was about 2 million square kilometers less ice in September 2007 than in September 2003.'
There is evidence to back up global warming. Of course there is. But saying that there is less ice in 2007 than there was in 2003 constitutes a downward trend is like saying climate has had a downward temperature trend here because we've had a colder winter this year here than in the last five years. It just isn't enough to constitute a 'trend'.
You think the government has a better idea of what you need, or should be permitted, to purchase than you?
Unfettered. Got it.
So, would you advocate removing all controls on lead, SO2, and CFC emissions?
Oh, and a couple of followup questions:
1) where in your local area would you prefer the next landfill and hazardous waste site to be, and how much will you be willing to increase your taxes and/or trash disposal fee in order to pay for its siting and transportation of your waste to that location?
2) how much more than the current price would you be willing to pay for access to clean water?
3) do you hope to have grandchildren someday, and what lifestyle would you like them to be able to experience when they reach adulthood?
No it's not obvious. Please explain how you interpret that graph.
God, at least someone is paying attention. Gotta love article spin that's flat out *wrong*.
dtjohnson,
...near-real-time products do not undergo the same level of quality control as the final archived products, which are used in scientific research published in peer-reviewed journals.
I love how you cherry picked the article and mislead everyone into believing the analysis and predictions of NSIDC are flawed. Did you even read the article???
From the article:
"Sensor drift, although infrequent, does occasionally occur and it is one of the things that we account for during quality control measures prior to archiving the data. See below for more details.
We caution users of the near-real-time products that any conclusions from such data must be preliminary. "
Do you understand now?
Jackass.
No, anyone who pays attention to geologic history knows we're a decade or two away from what would have been an ice age if there weren't six billion people burning things for warmth, not to mention messing with the atmospheric parameters. The geology in question predates the internal combustion engine. This fact is crucial.
The same could be said for 40 years, or even 140 years. As a species we are very young and still ignorant of most of our planet. The majority of our ocean is unexplored and our records of weather patterns are infantile in comparison to the subject we are studying. We have no "real" answer on the effects of what we do here because frankly, we can't prove this hasn't happened on its own before and won't happen five more times in the future or even if it will reverse itself. While I do agree we need to take better care of our planet, I don't agree with shills who think because they have a lab coat and a piece of paper made by other monkies that they somehow have insight into the universe of undiscovery that is our planet. Perhaps we might some day be able to predict things like this, but as it stands now they just end up using the old "science isn't an exact science" crutch.
It's not so much that we are addicted to cars, its just (at least in the U.S.) we have built an infrastructure that depends on cars, trucks, and cheap(er) gasoline and diesel. In Europe, one can travel most anywhere without needing a car. I have a former coworker who likes to travel to Germany, and he goes most anywhere he wants to go by bus or train -- no car needed.
Unless you live in a major city here in the U.S., you almost always need a car to get around. Louisville, KY, where I live now, has a decent bus system, but if you live outside Jefferson County, you need to drive in to town. When I lived in near Cleveland, Ohio, back in the '90s, we could drive up to Warrensville, park for free, and take the Rapid (light rail) all the way downtown, then walk over to Jacob's Field from Tower City to see the Tribe play.
The only way to reduce our dependence on petrol driven cars is to either redesign the transportation system to make public transportation more accessible to those outside the cities, or design vehicles that use alternate energy sources. We have spent the last century developing our current system here in the U.S., so it will take time (or a massive project) to replace it.
Beware of Sleestak
2008 was one of the coldest years on record. When are these dipshits going to admit that global warming doesn't work the way they say it does
Yeah, nice try...
...that consistancy with historical data is worthless if that data is wrong.
Using your game analogy, assume that the metric for video card speed was a specific timedemo for Game X. There exists framerate data for Game X going back 10 years, so it is nice for showing historical trends.
Then a bug is discovered in the game rendering engine that causes actual delivered framerate to be understated by somewhere between 20-50%.
Well guess what - your test is WRONG. And all that lovely historical data is worthless, no matter how pretty the graph.
DG
Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
Max was vindicated when Pluto was downgraded a year or so ago, but so strong is the force of belief that some astronomers are sztill trying to reinstate it.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
No, 2008 was the coldest year of the 21st century so far but in a larger context was one of the warmer years, about .31 degrees C above the 1961-1990 average temperatures.
Would you mind citing a credible source saying we are a decade or two away from entering an ice age?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Congratulations. You appear to have been the first person here to read beyond the flamebait summary and respond to the actual content. On a site full of people conditioned by years of rickrolling (and worse) to never RTFA, you sir, are a member of a rare and vanishing breed.
Keep up the good work.
--MarkusQ
P.S. I used to be skeptical of global warming myself (years ago), until I realized that the best the anti-HCGW crowd could offer as counter case was crap like this--the scientific analog of "Marty look, your shoe's untied."
On the one hand, tons of data, much of which is easily checked, and all of which hangs together to form a consistent picture, and on the other a hodge podge of nonsense that doesn't stand up to a moments scrutiny glued together with this sort of BS. They've gotten as bad as the anti-evolution people.
Coming up next, I fear:
GLOBAL WARMING WEBSITE ISN'T W3C COMPLIANT
How can we trust their climate data when
they can't even get their HTML/CSS right?
I did not rtfa.
Some comments on Slashdot argued that scientists don't want to mix the two methods, as it could lead to inconsistencies in the data. Others argued that doing so would only be done so the researchers could match the data to the results they predicted. I cannot help but ask why either of these even matter. If they found that the old methods of measurement were flawed and they are just now discovering this, then their old data may be worthless. If this is the case, then worrying about the researchers finding the conclusions they desire by selecting data to fit their theories or worrying about the inconsistencies of mixing data sources become pointless. Information gathering would have to start from the beginning and wait years before any conclusions could possibly be drawn.
The number of similarities between global warming and the older, more traditional religions have been documented numerous times and places: The high priesthood for whom the sins don't apply, the levied guilt, prophets of doom, attack on science by a faithful flock, the purchase of indulgences (carbon credits), concerted attempts to control the secular leadership as a means to bring the general population into line, etc., etc.
The only non-similarity -- and it's a shame, really -- is that the medieval inquisition had those really cool hooded robes. The modern Global Warming Cult has no fashion sense whatsoever, as best as I can make out.
It's been interesting to track the Global Warming/Climate Change drift over the years on Slashdot. A couple years ago, it seemed prevailing opinion (measured by high moderation scores and # of comments) favored the "consensus" Anthropogenic Global Warming view of the scientific community.
However, looking at the more recent global warming related threads, the posts moderated with 5's seem to be more and more in the "Open-minded but skeptical" camp regarding the "consensus" view.
Is this due to a miscalibration in the sensors, or are we talking about a real opinion shift here?!?
I confess I wasn't paying attention to geologic history. Could you please provide some evidence that we are a decade or two away from an ice age? I mean, it sounds nice and all, but I've never, ever, heard that we were headed for an ice age before.
.there is enough of everything for everyone.
You will find that all your points are being addressed. Why do you think there are research stations in Antarctica and Greenland? By the way, if you care to look at the thickness of the ice on the Antarctic or Greenland, you will I think agree that issues of topography and water table are somewhat irrelevant.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
You didn't quote any bits for supporting evidence, either. Here, let me help.
Considering the eventual outcome of being wrong in all this, it is highly irresponsible of them, and I hope that if things do go tits up in a pear shaped bowl that they are the ones made to pay.
Nowhere do I see the suggestion for punishing the other people for having a different opinion, even one that the author disagrees with. Rather, it appears that he believes people who cause a problem ought to be the ones who are held responsible for it. I can understand why such a concept might be difficult for some people to comprehend; accountability is such a foreign concept in today's society.
In fact, if you had actually read all those paragraphs that you counted, you might have noticed this sentiment...
Of course it is good if they exist to ensure that the science is rigourous.
Doesn't sound like someone who wants to "punish" anyone to me. But don't let me interfere with your attempts to belittle strangers over the Internet.
:(){
There is a certain irony in reading your sig after your post.
:(){
Wait a minute here. How come Mr. "Climate Fraud" GP gets a +5 insightful while the other guy gets -1 Flamebait? BOTH POSTS ARE FLAMEBAIT AND SHOULD BE MODDED APPROPRIATELY.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/02/18/nsidc-satellite-sea-ice-sensor-has-catastrophic-failure-data-faulty-for-the-last-45-days/ has all details, including a polite discussion about what this means.
Sorry but our usual puerile slashdot comments will typically be blackholed on that site.
I concede that I did ask questions. Those were honest questions, not points disguised as satire or questions. If there were a point I were making it is that too much attention has been focused on conclusions and not enough on data.
So, are the nurses looking after you alright? Can you feed yourself OK with that rubber spoon?
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe
You might want to read TFA. The sensor drift only started in Jan 2009, and it was spotted within a few weeks.
Our irresponsible behavior as a society has created a financial crisis where we have borrowed without regard for future ability to repay. We thought the housing/stock/oil/xyz market would keep going up, and up, and up. Yay free money!
Except that there is no such thing as a free lunch.
Now, you think that we can just consume fossil fuels without regard for the earth's future ability to handle them. It may be that the earth could handle it without too much trouble, but you don't know that, and the risk you want us to take is quite possibly worse than the risks that Wall Street took.
Is it really too much to ask people to live within their means, and the planet's?
:(){
"You think unfettered consumerism is a human right?"
No, I think people should buy only those things which they can afford.
"Some people might ask why we don't simply switch to the EOS AMSR-E sensor. AMSR-E is a newer and more accurate passive microwave sensor. However, we do not use AMSR-E data in our analysis because it is not consistent with our historical data. Thus, while AMSR-E gives us greater accuracy and more confidence on current sea ice conditions, it actually provides less accuracy on the long-term changes over the past thirty years. There is a balance between being as accurate as possible at any given moment and being as consistent as possible through long time periods. Our main scientific focus is on the long-term changes in Arctic sea ice. With that in mind, we have chosen to continue using the SSM/I sensor, which provides the longest record of Arctic sea ice extent."
In other words:
"We don't want to use the more accurate sensor for our primary data collection because it doesn't generate the (inaccurate) results that we want so we can continue to get funding for AGW research!"
Saying every time "those ignorant buffoons who don't understand squat about climatology but feel like they are entitled to contest world-leading researchers because the latter ones' conclusions threaten the former ones' god-given right to $1/gal. gasoline" is kind of cumbersome. "Deniers" is a good description, which also captures the irrationality of climate-change deniers: you are yourself a good example of that:
I guess you're right. Stereotyping and dismissing your critics is much easier if you can use 1 word instead of a run-on sentence. But you can include multiple assaults on their character and motivations with a long description, as you have clearly demonstrated. Using that many words, though, you should have been able to mention something about SUVs and killing kittens.
That's quite some cloak-and-dagger Illuminati conspiracy theory you have there. If climatologists were that greedy, they would:
The OP said the kind of science you support, not that any large group supports. You are the one trying to put everybody into either the "altruistic brilliant scientists and supporters" or the "ignorant greedy superstitious hick" group.
The scientific consensus is that global warming is real and anthropogenic.
Clearly, that's just wrong. There seems to be a consensus that:
The rest is up for debate. In fact, in recent months many studies have demonstrated that it is likely that the largest source of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere is methane from animals (primarily livestock like cows, pigs, sheep). Sure, that's because of human activity, too, but would you advocate cutting back on our food supply to (maybe) slow global warming? Because carbon taxes won't reduce methane.
This whole thing really has gotten too much like a religious debate (or a political debate, or abortion debate, whatever). It's really very frustrating. And it seems the two sides either want to stop burning fossil fuels or just do nothing. Since the prevalent opinion seems to be that warming is happening, maybe we should be thinking about how to prepare for that inevitability. I mean, isn't that a more reasonable approach than to undertake a massive effort to try to change the climate (or stop it from changing). Nobody is even sure if it can be done. But we can prepare. Humans have adjusted to changing climates before, and can again.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
This reminds me of the Gilliganâ(TM)s Island episode where the professor thought that the island was sinking. It turned out that Gilligan was just moving the marker to deeper water to catch bigger lobsters.
Someone got mod points and began modding down "troll" to scientific truth.
Scary....
If you look at a 100 year warming trend, its not going to be a nice curve. Its going to have lots of 5 to 10 year cooling and warming periods.
but overall its getting warmer.
You mad
What about thickness? From my reading, although the surface area may have declined, the thickness of the ice cap is increasing resulting in no change, or perhaps an increase in the total VOLUME of ice. It seems to me that SA measurement is fairly irrelevant without thickness data. I'm just sayin' ....
The Goverment
This is the norm for the Global Warming scam. The reality is man's contribution is much less than they hope we will believe.
Also, poster boy Gore stands to have direct financial gain from this so he has a large conflict of interest that almost totally discredits him.
The truth is out there. Look for it and you will find it.
Don't drink the kool aid.
Thats when you have a foregone conclusion and cherry-pick the data to support it.
This is a prime example of the sort of rationalization that passes for denialist reasoning. When confronted with a huge mass of evidence supporting an unpalatable conclusion, they cherry-pick any error, no matter how small or irrelevant to the conclusion, and insist "if this is wrong, then maybe it is all wrong." Since in any human endeavor, there are always errors, it is always possible to rationalize away any conclusion that you prefer not to confront.
This is of course quite typical. The data in question is real-time, raw data. In most scientific enterprises, such data is kept private by the researchers until it can be cross-checked and validated. But in climate research there is a level of openness and public access that is almost unparalleled in science, with even preliminary data publicly available. Of course, the actual scientists know that such data is subject to revision and do not base important conclusions upon it. So the error has no impact on the conclusion that there is a long-term decrease in Arctic ice due to global warming. But that won't stop denialists from talking about it as though it invalidates everything.
My thousands of future generations appreciate the sacrifices you're making for them now.
In the same way that when we stopped killing whales many years ago it saved all that whale oil for us today!
The term "denialists" is applied to those who irrationally deny accepted scientific fact. One encounters denialists in pretty much any area of science--there are evolution deniers, germ theory deniers, moon landing deniers, relativity denialists, etc.
For example, in the case of global warming, the fact that global warming is occurring, that it is due to human CO2 release, and that it poses a major threat has been reviewed and validated by independent elite scientific organizations worldwide, including such long-standing independent scientific societies as the US National Academy of Sciences and the Royal Society of London. This is a level of consensus that is virtually unparalleled in science. Those who reject this knowledge, based upon obviously fallacious arguments are justly referred to as "denialists."
Fearing the end of the world or a great disaster is not a religious belief as nearly as much as it is an externalization of the fear or death and a mental mechanism for realizing how little control you have over the world. It is like, the mind plays out, what is the worst that will happen, as if to remind you that your time is finite and you are not as powerful as you think.
If there was no belief in God, people would still have some show on about the end of the world. Indeed, some of the more popular documentaries now are about comets slamming into the earth, supervolcanos sending us into a snowball earth, giant tsumanis from islands falling into the ocean, mega earthquakes, the reactivation of the siberians traps, a supernova of a nearby star baking the earth with gamma radiataion, or a change in the density of intersteller dust that somehow screws up the solar system as the sun orbits the black hole in the center of the milky way. There's enough genuine geological catastrophe completely outside of our power to control that makes a fear of total disaster a reasonable thing, even if the daily risk is rather low. And against all that, what harm does it really do if some people say: "dear God, please don't slam a comet into the earth today, I have a little boy and love him." It can't hurt anything, if there is no God, and even if it isn't your bag, having someone else hedge humanity's bets on the divine for you isn't too bad of a gambling strategy either.
This is my sig.
I think that having the government not interfere in my affairs is a basic human right and so did the founding fathers of the United States of America. The fact that there are so many people who don't think that way disturbs me.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
I posted up this thread commenting that the extent of the error had been misrepresented, and deliberately being sharply critical of AGW deniers and Nigel Calder in particular. During the period when it's mainly Europeans who post, this got moderated up to +3. Then the US started to come on line and it's now down to -1 troll. I don't know whether this is a more coordinated campaign by US lobbyists, now they've lost the election, or whether it's something in the US Zeitgeist at the moment, but at least on Slashdot my suspicion is that Europe is diverging from the US. It's really odd, when you consider that it means that some US Slashdot posters now prefer the views of largely unqualified journalists to mostly American scientists. Odd and depressing, given that other threads seem to have people with limitless belief in the capabilities of those scientists and engineers.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
Suck it pro-global warming fags!
The science of climate change, by contrast, is on very solid theoretical footing; but sometimes every science has to deal with bad data, as in this case
The problem with climate science is ironically the same as the problem with economics. Chaos theory says pretty plainly that you will never have enough data to make an accurate prediction and for that reason, you have lost the ability to have a control.
I mean, the whole idea is that you can take a sort of an average of events and call that climate - like, sorta look at lorenz attractor and say "well, the average is this". But the thing is, that average is still pretty unstable and you can jigger it pretty easily, which is really where all the global warming alarm comes from.
In fact, the thing is, that economics cannot make accurate predictions should be the canary in the coal mine for climate science. Economic modelling is based on trying to understand coupled dynamic systems in the same kind of math that climate science is. Economics is just about people, and its continually wrong, so, how could climate ever really be right, when it considers not only the effect of people, but of the planet as a whole, and all the organisms responding to, and influencing climate, plus any number of celestial and geological unknowns.
This is my sig.
He has never shown solar output correlates better.
***Said*** it correlates better, maybe, but never shown it to do so.
I predict a major increase of global shitstorms in the next decades.
The shitstorm we are witnessing now will be soon considered rather small.
Sometimes, people are truly that retarded that they need to be told to shut up. Sadly, the myth that everyone is a precious jewel with something important to contribute to everything is a.... well, myth.
When people repeatedly misrepresent the same statements or are outright lying, the proper approach is to indeed call them out.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Several data points out of thousands is not "a lot". For the timeframes we're looking at, it's statistically insignificant. But you don't want to acknowledge that, do you?
When I lived in near Cleveland, Ohio, back in the '90s, we could drive up to Warrensville, park for free, and take the Rapid (light rail) all the way downtown, then walk over to Jacob's Field from Tower City to see the Tribe play.
Cleveland's an interesting example: they have one of the better public transit systems in the country, and it is quite possible to manage without a car with a bit of planning (I did that for a couple of years). However, the challenge is that there are significant areas of town that are popular and completely inaccessible by public transit without walking well over a mile. These areas are places like major shopping plazas, office parks, and the IX Convention Center. The lack of public transit I chalk up to either people with cars not thinking about people who rely on public transit, or organizers trying to keep out "undesirables".
I am officially gone from
...the fact that their faulty, sensationalist predictions are being used to support the formation national policies which will affect nearly everyone's economic situation.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
A more productive conversation would result - from the point of view of everybody - if people would take the time to click on the links in the posts. They clearly distinguish between the data products used for drawing long term conclusions and the "quick look" data that are at fault here. The long term trends require careful calibration. Presumably this calibration includes comparisons with data from different sensors, different spacecraft, and perhaps even ground-based sensors and reports.
In short, this report is evidence of how carefully the facts are being checked. It supports, rather than undercuts, the long term conclusions.
"And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?"
This tends to reflect my feelings on the matter too.
I want more fuel efficient vehicles. There are several reasons for this, and, frankly, global climate change doesn't make the top 10. Reducing my out-of-pocket driving expenses (gas) does. Reducing my country's (USA) exporting of wealth to nations that fund religious extremists does.
I want cleaner production methods, and better enforcement of environmental regulations. I like breathing air that doesn't make my lungs and eyes burn. I like camping and hiking, and not finding industrial sludge on the banks of rivers. I like scuba diving, and not seeing coral reefs covered in red algae from sewage waste disposal pipes (West Palm Beach, I'm looking at you.).
Simple, solid, personal-self-interest reasons to support better efficiency and good environmental stewardship. I don't need doom prophecies to support that. Clear rational open science.
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is... Oops. Frank, I've got your sig again! Where's mine?
Are they ALL warmer than 1999?
No.
Cherry picking.
Try 1800.
"Science isn't an exact science"
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but isn't exactness the whole point of science? Doesn't science rely on controlled experimentation to conclusively disprove or fail to disprove a hypothesis? Has "pop science" become the new science? Is it now considered acceptable to reach a conclusion without the support of controlled experimentation, but still call it a scientific conclusion? How is this new breed of science any different than guessing?
I think the true scientists among us need to find a new word to describe what they do.
50:50 is a remote possibility?
http://fabiusmaximus.wordpress.com/2009/02/18/disinformation/
Ok So making batteries is pretty evil. Mining the earth for nickle and such. So Hydrogen Fuel cells. OK. Well what happens when 800 million cars start belching out water? Won't that create a permanent cloud layer around the planet given enough time and exponential human growth? We will always need more energy. We run out of ways to make that at some point. Even making a solar panels uses resources that will sill someday run out of. Just to be clear we are not killing the planet. We are killing the planets ability to sustain humans. Well we already have more people then can be supplied with proper food on the planet. We need population control on a massive level or nothing we do about climate change is going to matter AT ALL.
OMG Ponies!!! with Glitter!!!! I miss Pink
We need legislation to address the impending magnetic field reversal.
The doom and gloom crowd is the root source of most of the "message clouding". Every time we have a record hot day in summer somewhere, it's pointed out as evidence by supporters (note that I did not say scientists) of AGW. As the rational among us know, a data point does not a trend make, and this creates a greater opposite reaction from "denier" crowd.
It doesn't help the case either when we see stories like this. It makes AGW proponents look like chicken little - meanwhile a calm and cool Foxy Loxy is saying "Dude, I don't care what your measurements say, I see ice over there."
It reminds me of a story I saw a few years ago talking about the massive melt of antarctic ice - hundreds of thousands of square kilometers. While it was true as far as it went, it was only a half truth. What the story did not explain was this was actually due to normal annual melt, was expected, and it would all be regained by next year.
The moral of the story is, if you think your cause is so dire that the ends justify the means, and the means are to rely on propagandizing even a portion of the story, then you should not be surprised when a skeptic starts doubting and nitpicking all your facts.
And, instead of getting your message across, you end up obscuring it.
>Fuck. Yes.
>Any other questions?
Ever been to a third-world country? Asshole?
What if "your affairs" are harming other people? Should the government continue to leave you alone?
Or should it step in to protect other people's "affairs"?
That's just silly talk, if you threw (see correct spelling) water at a moon ghost, the water would just go through (wow, correct use and spelling of homonyms on slashdot, who'da thunk it) them and frees when it hit the ground (or perhaps on the way since it would only fall 1/6 as fast). You could never freeze a oon ghost.
...considering that man-made global warming is a hoax to control every aspect of your life.
Deniers don't just use a single data point. They use every year since 1998 - and point out that every one of those years is cooler than 1998. That's a lot of data points, right? All those cool years (compared to 1998) can't be outliers, can they?
I'm assuming this was sarcasm, but just in case it's not:
1998 is the outlier. It was pretty much at the peak of both the solar and El nino cycles and was an extreme on top of that.
Currently we're around the minimum of the solar and La nina.
Tim.
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = -@B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t," and there was light.
First of all, SSM/I and AMSR-E are not "methods" as the article states. They are sensors.
Secondly, this article takes these statements out of context, from the sources. Without context, almost anything can be construed negatively.
Third, the use of the older SSM/I sensor is still valid and essential to creating a long-running consistent record. Assuming that the sensor gathers data similarly today than it did in 1980, the trend in the data should still be clear. Most importantly, the sensor did not start degrading until early in 2009, and is still likely to be correctable.
Lastly, there sure are a lot of people commenting here about the general inaccuracy of the scientists and the scientific method (especially with climate scientists). Keep in mind, the same method that is used to create and improve medical technologies that have kept you (yes, YOU) alive, and that keep your car moving down the road, and the computer that you are typing your messages on, is the same method that provides the foundation for climate research. If you're more capable of finding answers about the climate, than scientists, then please.... start. Speculations and personal opinions have no credibility, unless accompanied by data. Bad scientific data is vastly superior to guesses and personal opinions of the uneducated.
But raising fewer livestock wouldn't mean cutting back on our food supply, since we'd be using fewer crops to feed livestock.
And this will largely go unreported. I wish I was wrong, and I'll be the first to admit I was wrong (then again, who else would be first to admit that I was wrong?) if I see any mention of this error on Good Morning America or some news broadcast. Nope, there's no money in it. Heck, what would Al Gore do without his pet money-maker?
What initially showed promise as a potentially fruitful dialectical encounter has ultimately proven to be barren.
Bye. Don't hesitate to call when you get interesting.
Set your phasers on "funky"!
This whole thing really has gotten too much like a religious debate (or a political debate, or abortion debate, whatever). It's really very frustrating. And it seems the two sides either want to stop burning fossil fuels or just do nothing.
I think my posting history readily demonstrates that I'm a skeptic of AGW, and in particular a skeptic that any changes humanity as a whole makes today will have any noticeable effect for generations.
Having said that, you'd be thoroughly wrong to assume that I want to do nothing. There are technologies available now that are touted as being environmentally friendlier than current arrangements that I would be pleased to adopt just as soon as it's feasible.
I want LED lighting. Just as soon as the spectrum and brightness issues are worked out and the cost drops below my pain threshold, I'd be delighted to switch my entire house over to LED lights. If they deliver on their promises, LED lights will be physically smaller, drastically lower power, drastically less fragile, dramatically more flexible in form factor, and substantially longer lasting than either incandescent or compact fluorescent bulbs. Once the initial purchase price is reasonable, all of those things will combine to save me money and improve my quality of life. I want that.
I want an electric car. If I could afford it, I would order a Tesla Roadster in a heartbeat, despite not being in any of their service areas. Why? Because it's a better transportation machine than an internal combustion engine vehicle. The low speed torque of an electric motor is monsterous. They're quiet, they don't stink of combustion fumes, they save me the nuisance of visiting a gas station every week, they're safer for me since they can't be consumed in a gasoline fire (of their own making, anyway), and they're simpler and cheaper to maintain. If lots of people adopted them, my country could stop sending outrageous amounts of money to a region of the world that has become twisted and broken by the largest wealth disparity in human history. Once the initial purchase price is reasonable, all of those things will combine to save me money and improve my quality of life. I want that.
I want a solar powered house, with a bank of nickel iron batteries in the basement. If I could afford it, I would order a full system in a heartbeat. I would be delighted to be substantially energy independent (not counting food). I would be delighted to have battery backup capacity sufficient to keep my house running for a few weeks. We have winter ice storms and summer tornadoes where I live. Every year, thousands of homes are without power for days at a time. Sometimes that includes my house. Once the initial purchase price is reasoanble, all of those things will combine to save me money and improve my quality of life. I want that.
I don't need any AGW freaks who go around calling people deniers to convince me of the benefits of the things I've named. Quite the opposite. Religious fanaticism puts me off. And most of them never even talk about such things in the first place. They only talk about how everybody is doomed. What would doom me is trying to buy just the three things I named. My personal finances would implode under that burden. It's impossible.
I'm a skeptic and no amount of fear-mongering by fanatics who hate humanity can engender the kind of fear they're obviously trying for. When their Great God Ghu, the IPCC, predicts a total average warming of 1 Celsius degree in a century, it's impossible to get excited about it. Doomsayers predict rising sea levels and crop failures because of it. The first is irrelevant to me and the second is bullshit. Plants survive weather. A climactic change that small is utterly lost in the noise, to the plants struggling to grow every year.
Does any of it motivate me to buy solar panels or LED lights or electric cars? Not in the slightest. I'm motivated to buy them bec
I said that those that were wrong should be made to pay.
If there isn't global warming, there are no damages anyway, hurrah!
If there is global warming, then there will be damages. Booo! But why should those people that actually did their bit to help pay again? Therefore the people that were irresponsible should be made to pay.
I am not a climate scientist, but ...
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=594
Here is some discussion of the matter. It is not at all clear there is any consensus which methodology is better. Or how to resolve the difference. The point I see here is you can be slightly wrong about surface or slightly wrong about depth and they seem to think here despite all that there is a lot of agreement. So the point is both metrics are off, the discrepancy is expected, despite that at the time of the thread the agreement seemed good.
So lets quit the bullshit climate scientists are constantly working on their methodology. It is complex they understand the problems they are shrinking the uncertainty. It is ya know _science_. The only reason people care about this crap outside of climate science is to BS nitpick a one prediction and claim all the predictions are not as well founded. The IPCC predictions (which is the work huge number of scientists) seems pretty reasonable about stating uncertainty and it looks like good science. I haven't seen good science on the 'other side' that challenge the fundamentals of those findings.
By calling them "deniers" what you're saying is that science should be thrown out the window.
So I can't call someone an "evolution denier" anymore? What's your politically correct term then? "Rationally handicapped"?
My karma for some mod points.
People just need to admit to themselves that it is OK to want to make changes to make their environment better for themselves and their fellow members of the species. It's not some selfish, evil desire. You don't have to hide behind the banner of "SAVING THE PLANET!".
Controlling pollution could lead to a better standard of living and lower health care costs.
Slowing the hemorrhaging loss of money to foreign countries that don't have our best interests in mind is a good thing.
Understanding that renewable resources are actually *gasp* renewable allows for more efficient and economical use of those resources. Understanding that there really is no such thing as a free lunch will let us choose which resources to make use of in a more logical and economical manner.
Also that conservation and stewardship (something which most "environmentalists" don't really understand) do not mean locking an environment into a state of stasis. All those brush fires in California? Well, if you don't burn off or clear out the little stuff before it accumulates you're going to get the big fires that have enough fuel to burn hot and long enough that the system can't withstand it and it gets wiped out. Even though you were "protecting" by not allowing anything to change.
The existence of moderators who modded this "troll" is a disturbing fact about the world's social realities: people on slashdot who do not have critical reading skills or who choose not to use them are affecting the quality of discourse.
Fixed that for ya.
Will someone please mod parent post into oblivion? A couple more "trolls" would do nicely. "Overrated" would not have the same long term affect on karma, so I think "troll" would do a better job of helping to keep future slashdot discussions on track.
You need to learn the difference between "trolling" and "disagreeing with your biased, uninformed opinion" or "stating an uncomfortable truth."
When your nan is found feet up with a knife in her chest, the police STILL think it could be human caused death.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
What should be of more concern is where this inaccurate data has been used to influence policy (UN anybody?).
It doesn't work that way. The general trend is accurate, but with a few inaccurate details. This isn't like the "evidence" to support invading Iraq, which was almost entirely bogus. Any action the UN has taken (and it seems unlikely that they have taken any, given the time frame) is probably justified.
Sure, continue using older methods so that you can compare historical data sets, but more accurate methods should be employed as well.
The more accurate methods *have* been employed since 2002, as the summary suggests. What's the problem here?
ten years too early with this perspective. At least knowledgeable Christians recognize and have come to terms with the faith part of their religion -- post-modern scientism is in full-on denial mode. -
Duh. Yes.
What kind of question even is that? What did you expect the answer to be? "No, Communism works so much better, obviously!"
Comment of the year
"Unfortunately, now that the old data have been shown to be badly flawed"
This is false - there was a BRIEF inconsistency in the data due to drift for only a few weeks. Let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater...
To be honest I don't think that we're going to avoid global climate change. I don't want it to happen, but I don't think there is the will to do anything worthwhile about it. A few cars and wind turbines emitting less CO2 won't help in a global view of things, and even if it did, the consensus is that it will only delay the inevitable. The cleaner air is nice though, that's a good reason to have cleaner cars and energy regardless of your viewpoint on climate change.
Therefore should we be investing now, or soon, to minimise the effects of the inevitable? Sea wall building, stopping planning permission on low lying land, etc.
The other aspect is that cutting down emissions might limit the damage, and it appears that cutting down sooner rather than later will have a major effect. It could be the difference between a 1 metre sea level rise and a 10 metre sea level rise. As I'm 10 to 15 metres above sea level, 50 miles inland, the latter would annoy me (although I'll probably be too old to care by then).
But I don't know everything, and I read up and keep abreast of the general situation. I will side with the consensus scientific viewpoint (because I don't fear science and believe that people that commit their life to research for what is a pitiful salary should get some respect, and amongst climate scientists the consensus is around 20:1 in favour of climate change), and argue against those who argue against that viewpoint if they aren't a climate scientist, or who get backing from entities that stand to lose now if things change now.
On the other hand, I do want to find a bookmakers that is run by a climate change denier... could get some good odds on things like artic ice being clear by 2030, etc.
And if someone could find compelling evidence that indicated global warming wasn't happening, that would be welcomed by the climate science community. New evidence that overturns an old understanding is the holy grail of science.
I'll grant you for a moment that the climate is warming.
If so, considering that the climate has been both significantly warmer and colder in recorded human history than it is now, why panic? Why the apocolyptic talk?
Past that, what are the upsides of global warming? A longer growing season would certainly be an asset. Rising ocean levels- if they occur- can be managed (ref: Netherlands).
What the true believers of AGW suffer from is a lack of faith in human invention, and an unbridled fear of change. I have seen proposals for trillion dollar projects to 'turn back the clock', when several billion in dikes and relocations would manage the problem.
Now, back to my point...
Even if you are as pure as the driven snow, AGW has been forever tainted by demands for control and taxation by those who think themselves our betters.
I will consider treating it as a crisis when AGWs biggest proponents treat it as a crisis. As long as UN AGW conferences are plagued by a shortage of private jet parking and Al Gore buys carbon credit indulgences from his own companies in order to 'justify' his rich lifestyle*, I'm pretty sure I'm being bullshitted somewhere down the line.
Your science and research, pure as the driven snow as it might be, is represented by these sorts of clowns. It is a stench you will never escape.
*I have no problem with his lifestyle, per se. It's the whole preaching-doom-and-gloom-to-us while-excusing-himself thing I have a problem with.
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
"The fact is, Volcanoes are still far and away the #1 producer of greenhouse gasses on the planet, human activity doesn't really come close."
Hmm. So how much CO2 are volcanoes producing each year today?
Now, compare with the oil industry claims of selling 17 trillion kg of petrol last year, most of which is carbon.
Which one "doesn't come close"?
Your facts need work. As does your skepticism.
high-priest position in this new religion...
-
damaged by dogma
And you know that that's not part of a larger cooling/warming period... how?
This is live data. It hasn't been QC'd or checked and therefore never got into ANY paper. The QC'd data that did get used will have an explanation of how they ratified the data as useful.
But this data? Never got into any paper. Which quite obviously excludes any paper telling how there's an error in it...
What if "your affairs" are harming other people? Should the government continue to leave you alone?
Or should it step in to protect other people's "affairs"?
The government has no business deciding whose affairs are more important. Nor does the government have the right to limit my consumption. The only things that should limit my consumption are my available resources and self control. You have no right to take something off my plate simply because YOU think that I eat too much.
Now if you can show me that the climate did not change until we started driving SUV's, then you may have a point. But the climate has always changed. It has either gotten warmer or cooler every single day since the birth of the Earth. Don't try to use it as an excuse to take stuff away from people you don't like.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
A silly and specious argument. Lots of "actual scientists" hype the data to get research money, just like lots of politicians have used the issue to drive public/tax/energy policy. This romantic notion of the "noble climate scientist toiling quietly in pursuit of the truth" simply flies in the face of facts. They're more than happy to abandon the "truth" if it advances their personal agenda or the level of funding they get. That's why the issue is so tightly coupled with politics - that's where the $$ is.
I don't think I'd go so far as to say the evidence is broken. Aside from what the article says, you might also be interested to know that right now we are in the coldest part of two major cycles with a significant impact on Arctic sea ice.
We are at the minimum of the 11-year solar cycle. Total Solar Irradiance will most likely increase significantly over the next year.
We are also at the cold end of the ENSO cycle - in a mild La Nina which will likely end this year. Models predict the current La Nina weakening through Spring 2009.
40% of variance in sea ice extent is linearly correlated with ENSO fluctuations.
include $sig;
1;
Damn straight. You and the GP.
Looking at the moderation profile of this and other threads, it seems that the ancestor AC prediction was right on target.
Victims of 9/11: <3000. Traffic in the US: >30,000/y
I have a simple metric to determine whether someone pushing "global warming panic" is really serious about CO2 emissions:
Do they favor nuclear power?
It is flatly impossible for someone to be serious about reducing CO2 and oppose nuclear power. They can assert their seriousness all they like, and they can, indeed, be quite convinced they are right, and be quite emotionally attached to the proposition.
Seriousness, however, means that one takes the effort to be informed.
I think that having the government not interfere in my affairs is a basic human right
It is, so long as your affairs are yours only, and do not interfere in the affairs of others. In the case of GW and the activities that induce it, it concerns us all, and is not something that can be decided on an individualist basis.
What about those that complain about both? Too bad they are shunned by both camps....
Listen to yourself. Alternative explanations for climate observations are all testable, and many have been tested. They are NOTHING like creationism or intelligent design, which are anti-scientific nonsense.
And where is this lab you have that exactly models the entire planet where you can definitively test these alternate explanations? At best they make guesses based on the little they understand about the functioning of the planet. In reality the system is so complex and our understanding of it is so limited that accurate scientific analysis is outside the scope of our capabilities.
Who is John Galt?
Who's going to clean this up?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pacific_Garbage_Patch
It's a direct result of people exercising their "rights". As is the current economic crisis, etc.
No sig today...
Why didn't the climate scientists factor those things in when making predictions for this year? It seems to me that they should have been mentioned - if not in the crap science "articles" - then at least in the statements actually made by various scientific groups. Including the group that said it was "quite possible" there would be no ice in the arctic this last year. WTF man. Come on - we need predictions that work. I don't need to know tomorrow's temperature, but I certainly expect the models to give us next year's average temperature, with a degree of accuracy. Don't you? If not, then why are you will to gamble trillions of dollars on the predictions being made?
"We stress, however, that this error in no way changes the scientific conclusions about the long-term decline of Arctic sea ice, which is based on the the consistent, quality-controlled data archive discussed above."
Hmm...
Algor: "Global warming is melting the arctic icecap. Our sensors show open Arctic Ocean.
Duhfact: "Al, we have satellite imagery showing icecap where your sensors say there is open ocean"
Algor: "Umm.. we have a little problem with sensor drift"
Duhfact: "So, your statements about the melting of the icecap are incorrect?"
Algor: "No, our 'sensor drift' just proves our point. Those sensors are drifting because of the ice cap melting"
Duhfact: "Actually we have measurements showing increasing icecaps for the past five years"
Algor: "Our drifting sensors have been drifting for at least 20 years so that just proves how much of the icecap has already melted"
Duhfact: (head explodes)
Algor: "And the science on this is in - no one disagrees with the conclusions".
Their conclusion is consistent with a need for increased funding to continue to conclude that the icecaps are really melting. But, their data is anything but consistent and their "quality control" is somewhat more dubious than the "accounting controls" of Bernie Madoff.
You either believe in rational thought or you don't
And unless you have kids yourself, you'll never understand why we need to filter porn on the Internet.
Look I agree with you on the limited use of DDT for disease control. And unlike the grandparent post, I know that such use is still allowed.
I'm not a big fan of emotional manipulation though. My wife barely survived a bout with malaria in Madagascar (plus 2 relapses). But I know that doesn't make me informed on all the various aspects of DDT regulation.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
-G.O.B.
How do scientists advance their career and secure grant money? By proving other scientists wrong.
Individual scientists may be flawed but the system of science is highly competitive and produces a good result. There are huge incentives to show that data was incomplete, conclusions unsupported, or anything outright faked. Huge. If you were the scientist who showed conclusively that Einstein was wrong about gravity, you would become the next Einstein.
If you proved, objectively and conclusively, that humans are not causing the climate to warm, you don't think there would be fame and financial reward? But the fact is that no one has done that yet, because it is really really hard to do.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
F**k the sensors, send me up there with a six pack and a ruler :P then at least you can get consistent inconsistency.
We're fucking sick of posting the same links over and over, refuting the same tired points over and over, and in general we're sick of people with no scientific training asking the same simplistic questions over and over and over again. Basically we're sick of getting trolled.
People: if you know more about the climate than the scientists do, publish your findings and get rich and famous. Best of luck!
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
The only things that should limit my consumption are my available resources and self control. You have no right to take something off my plate simply because YOU think that I eat too much.
The Tragedy of the Commons.
Would you continue to recycle, even if it uses more energy than just throwing things away ?
Man...
Granted im not a native english speaker, but I really was attempting to be sarcastic at the AC's post.
I mean, i thought the parent post was very serene and clear and that the two phrases of the AC were idiotic....
So i just dont get your point.
NO SIG
Shoo, stop complaining.
NO SIG
Shit man. I need my expresso. Havent slept in like 48 hours.
NO SIG
What I found was that neither the data nor especially the models stood up to professional scrutiny.
I would be interested to know the criteria and qualifications you use to define "professional scrutiny" in this context.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
I feel the same way about pouring old paint into the creek in my backyard. Who the hell are these scientists to tell me it's bad for the Chesapeake Bay??
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
I asked you for the name of the scientist and a link to a press release or publication documenting the alleged announcement that it was "the hottest October in history" based on the faulty data.
You responded with a link to Climateaudit, a denialist site that is somewhat notorious for claiming credit for all corrections of climate data, regardless of who actually found the error first. They also have in the past accused climate scientists of making "claims" that they did not actually make. The article that you reference does not appear to contain either the name of the scientist who made the alleged "announcement," or the alleged publication or press release. Second-hand accusations on denialist sites such as climateaudit do not qualify as citations.
No, it is the government's business deciding whose affairs are more important. When two peoples' rights come into conflict, there has to be some sort of compromise. That's the entire friggen point of the legal system.
Retreat to conspiracy thinking when the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly against them is another hallmark of the denialist. Very often, denialists insist that scientists they disagree with are driven by pecuniary motives. Of course, this is fairly ridiculous in the case of global warming, where we have just had 8 years of an administration hostile to the concept of global warming, and presumably receptive to funding research that would disprove global warming, if any could be found. In addition, the existence of well-funded lobbying groups opposing global warming indicates that there is plenty of industrial money available as well.
Moreover, the accusation of financial interest fails to explain why review committees of independent, elite societies such as the National Academy of Sciences and the Royal Academy of London, comprised of scientists from many different fields, most of who receive their funding from sources that have nothing to do with global warming, have concluded that global warming concerns are valid.
Hello,
You are exactly correct. Getting immunizations is not just about protecting yourself, it's about protecting everyone in your community. Babies younger than 3 months cannot be immunized for whooping cough. If they get the disease at that age, chances are good they'll die.
If, however, everyone surrounding that baby is immunized vs. whooping cough and the baby is never exposed, they are safe.
As it turns out, my co-worker's child died from whooping cough. The infant was younger than 3 months and had not been immunized. Apparently the local "herd" wasn't sufficiently immunized, and the child caught the disease.
Moral: if you don't get your shots, you may kill other people's babies.
Please have you and those you're responsible for up to date on immunizations. Please encourage people to get their shots. We don't need more dead babies.
--PeterM
Nice cherry picking.
The fact that a couple of those years are in the top 10 hottest periods seem to be ignored.
Sure, 98 may have hit a high, and the following few years been colder then 1998, but don't confuse that with cooling overall, unfortunately the trend for an increase in temperature is still there.
The increase is full of spikes and gullies. That's not the trend.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
When your affairs impact other people, then the government step in.
Even the founding fathers agreed to that.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
If you are throwing your leftover waste into my yard then I do have a right to stop you.
You want o do whatever you want? fine, just be sure no byproduct of what you do ever leaves your property.
You our completly ignorant of what people are talking about when they say global warming. Is that willful ignorance, or are you just simple?
Everyone know the climate has changed in the past and will keep changing, that's NOT IN CONTENTION.
The issue here is how fast it is increasing, and how much CO2 is in the air. CO2 sampling goes back 750K year, soon to be a million. There is planty of evidence to support that CO2 is causing an unprecedented change in cycle, as well as poisoning the earth.
We are release trillions of Tons of CO2 that has not been in the Air for millions of years, and we are releasing millions of years worth of CO2.
This mean there is no naturally mechanism currently in place to deal with the volume of CO2 in the air.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
3. We have to "do something".
I'm not saying that it didn't happen that way but this is actually contrary to the medical proffesions credo of "first do no harm".
"That is far from certain."
We are about a certain as science can be that increased CO2 means increased ground tempratures (below 5km), we are much less certain about feedback mechanisims dampening or enhancing the RATE of warming.
Reducing CO2 emmissions is an example of the medical credo, it is not an attempt to "do something" it's a call to STOP "doing something".
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Um, December WAS IN 2008. You have left the realm of skeptics into denier. Every time you ahve pointed out something, you reasoning ahs been flawed. If you were actually thinking, I'm sure you wouldn't have made these mistakes.
And no, scientist DID NOT say the north pole would be ice free, they said:
"The issue is that, for the first time that I am aware of, the North Pole is covered with extensive first-year ice â" ice that formed last autumn and winter. I'd say it's even-odds whether the North Pole melts out," said Dr Serreze.
Even odds mean 50-50.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I think the word is skepticism, not denial.
Apparently his grasp of English is better than yours. His sentence made perfect sense. Denial carries a strong connotation that he clearly did not mean to convey. Saying someone is experiencing denial about an issue is different than saying someone is in denial about an issue. This is the kind of distinction a non-native English speaker often has trouble with, but native English speakers generally understand. Kinda funny -- it's the exact opposite here, huh?
Hmm, that mentality always works fine for the Global Warming camp, why can't skeptics use it too ?
You make an assumption that there exists a large collection of data refuting climate change. You are wrong. Further, you make the claim that if a piece of data within this collection should prove erroneous that those who believe climate change exists would cite this as proof that climate change exists. I'll give you a chance to cite a reference first, but I'm fairly confident in saying, again, you're wrong.
By the way, the argument "you do it so why can't I" is not terribly persuasive.
Not from the Global Warming camp anyway, from where I sit, those who are skeptical keep insisting this is required, but the Global Warming camp insists it's not a question of 'If' any more.
So out of all climate experts, only those who disagree with the general consensus are interested in the question of mankind's role in the change of climate? Come one.
But my favorite...
Instead you see a bunch of corporations claiming "there is no such climate change, let us keep burning oil"
Can you name one of these corporations ?. (nice punctuation! I usually forget the space before the question mark)
This may be the stupidest demand for a reference I have ever seen. You're really going to question whether some corporations are arguing against climate change? Are you serious? Have you every seen a car? Do you know what makes cars go? What about ships? You know, they don't use sails on transport vessels these days. Companies involved with a few small industries (with funny names like "transportation" and "energy") make more money when their use of oil is less restricted. And since the whole point of a modern American corporation is to maximize profits, the cost of a few attorneys and paid "experts" is a worthwhile investment.
By the way, have you heard that smoking kills? Yeah I didn't believe it either because that nice guy Phillip Morris paid said it wasn't true. I mean, why would he lie to me?
And let's pretend for a moment that no companies are denying climate change since you're comment is layered idiocy. Like an onion of stupid. How weak is your argument if corporations who's livelihood is at stake won't even put up an argument against the general consensus of climate change?
Grandparent poster was made very intelligent (and understandable!) points but made some odd grammatical errors. This usually means they're not a native English speaker. Use this information to avoid being a prick in the future.
It isn't so much that we're "deniers", it's more that we aren't credulous morons. The distinction is, I feel, an important one.
Real courageous, anonymous.
No, it is the government's business deciding whose affairs are more important. When two peoples' rights come into conflict, there has to be some sort of compromise. That's the entire friggen point of the legal system.
Bullshit! That's not what is going on here. You are trying to get the government to come into my home to take what is mine and tell me what I am allowed to do with the rest... all because you don't want me having it or don't like what I do with it. If I run my AC at 60 degrees all day, that doesn't conflict with your rights. You may say it does so you can try to control me, but sorry, it doesn't. As long as I pay my electric bill, it's none of your damn business!
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
I don't think I'd go so far as to say the evidence is broken.
Yeah, that'll show me for not RTFM'ing before posting. Bent a little, maybe, and I'd really like to see the raw data published for open review--perhaps they already are, but I got the impression from the article that they are not, which is why they have to go back and review things themselves.
This is a good example of why science that is used as a basis for public policy must be subject to public and highly critical scrutiny. Anyone who's done an experiment knows that you get these weird things happening, and a lot of eyes are needed to catch the inconsistencies and problems. If people are going to be asked to trust the data, they need to see the data, all of it, so that it can be independently scrutinized.
Thanks for the links--I wasn't aware of the ESNO connection. It will be very interesting to see what happens to Arctic sea ice in the next few years, one way or the other.
Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
Unfortunately, now that the old data have been shown to be badly flawed,
Actually, it was only data for the last month or so that was flawed due to the sensor malfunction. They use the old method of estimation exactly so they can monitor for long-term trends. That way the error stays consistent. The method of estimation is pretty well correlated by actual observations, so it's well understood what its shortcomings are. While not as accurate, it's still better than good enough for long-term trend analysis.
Nor does the government have the right to limit my consumption. The only things that should limit my consumption are my available resources and self control.
I don't think anyone cares about your consumption. We only care that you don't poison the village well - because if you do despite us repeatedly warning you not to, we'll string you up by your balls, cut you to little pieces, and use you for dog food.
Drive your SUV, but feed the tailpipe into the cabin and breathe your own toxic filth. Nobody cares if you do - just don't blow your crap into the same air the rest of us breathe.
Just one: Do you know anything about a place called "Easter Island"?
No sig today...
That way the error stays consistent.
The uncritical claim that the error stays consistent while the variable they are measuring purportedly nears zero is problematic at best.
There is no a priori reason to believe that the error in the old method will be constant over such a large range of variation, or that "precision can be achieved when accuracy is low simply by applying a consistent method across a wide range of values."
When the the value under consideration might approach zero, nothing but accuracy will do.
Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
I bought you a one-way ticket to Venezuela. Have fun!
So they got the ice extent wrong for a whole month. What's all the excitement for? http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/ And they never said the Arctic would be ice free in 2008. That's just media hyperbole.
Yeah, that stuff's reasonable science. The problem is, so far no-one's proposed an alternative explanation that results in anything more than minor adjustments to the models.
The problem is that most people say something like "but what about the sun?!???!one" and ignore the fact that the actual data we have /disproves/ that proposal - /that/ is denial, and it has nothing to do with the reasonable science that it piggybacks on.
himi
My very own DeCSS mirror.
Science isn't an exact science, people are involved and people make mistakes. Scientist need to remember that they are human too and they will make mistakes
Those are weasel words. Hmmm, the same kind of weasel words used to attack anyone who dares to commit the heresy of "Global Warming Denial".
You people trumpeting "the warmest ... on record" need a wake up call.
Global Warming is to Science as
Microsoft Windows is to Computer Science.
QED
Um, didn't they say that there would be NO ICE on the north pole in 2008?
No, but thanks for playing.
... and then they built the supercollider.
Everything this guy says is true. Facts can not be troll.
Well it is a shame there is absolutely no data on polar ice extent before 2002 :(
The most dangerous drug
So how long has the earth been around? How many years of ice data do you have? Your number of collected data over years the earth been around.
Lets be generous and say 200 years of data over 6 billion years of planet. That means your statistical value or accuracy is 3.33 x 10^-8. Yup I'd bet my life/world that I'm right on that number. Sarcasm off....In all seriousness though. Protecting the planet is of great importance. But screaming from the top of the world, the sky is falling doesn't strengthen your position. Lastly, science is mostly theory and conjecture. If you really get down to your theory it's like looking at a beach, seeing 1 grain of sand that is black and then saying the whole beach is nothing but black sand, yet you only took a look at one grain of sand from the whole beach. The truth will set you free.
I am? You don't know what policies I support for dealing with global climate change, so don't push accusations on me, ok buddy? I suspect you'd find my position on this subject a lot more nuanced than your beloved strawman.
Again, the problem here is that you're assuming that keeping your thermostat on at 60 all day produces no rights conflict. The scientists are producing evidence that using more fossil-fuel based energy does have consequences on people, which means that there is some validity to making policy around the use of that energy.
Denyers' solution to this "dilemma" is to loudly and boldly proclaim that using fossil-based energy doesn't affect other people, despite the evidence.
Lets assume for the case of argument that keeping your thermostat at 60 degrees means that I have to abandon my house next to the coast? Or we have food shortages from drought? Are you going to boldly proclaim that you have the right to fuck over everyone else? If so, why don't you respect the rights of others? Are only yours important?
The outlier in the group was 1998. It was extraordinarily hot that year. The decade since 1998 has still been hotter than any other decade that doesn't include 1998.
"Nothing like screaming "the sky is falling" due to bad data. Any science experiment, especially one that can produce sensationalist news, should not just rely on one piece of data."....
Sensationalist news of this type can also produce a large fiscal gain as witnessed by the recent anti Stimulus. Maybe NSIDC and take some of the 400billion and look into updated technology?
Err... no. What I see looking at the data is two very low years: 2007 and to a lesser extent 2008.
You are incorrect. Try looking at one of the cryosphere tracking sites, like this one: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/
The trend is downward, and it's been heading downward for more than just a couple of years.
There is no doubt that the evidence for a soon-to-be-ice-free Arctic is broken.
I don't know of a single peer reviewed scientific article that has ever made claims that the arctic will be ice free in a matter of years. Worst case predictions are on the scales of several decades.
Do not confuse wingnuts and media hype with scientific research.
However, there have been several articles on the fact that ice melt has increased faster than predicted.
Ergo, the plausibility of dramatic climate change effects in our near future has gone down, no matter what anyone's politics drives them to prefer.
Define "near future". I consider 50-100 years fairly near term. We are already experiencing effects. Just because they are not impacting you very much doesn't mean it hasn't been affecting others significantly. We're a highly developed nation with a lot of resources. It would take some pretty strong impacts before we became inconvenienced in any meaningful way. For example, a year of drought here isn't noticed. A year of drought in a third world nation means big problems.
The only robust signal for global climate change I'm aware of is global ocean heat content, which seems to be increasing.
O_o
Really. Out of all the scientific research, papers, and articles that is the only thing you've noticed. Wow. Just wow.
What I found was that neither the data nor especially the models stood up to professional scrutiny. There is good science being done, but it is not the kind of stuff you'd want to base public policy on.
Uh huh. And you're climatological credentials are what exactly? I would assume that, making such a statement, you have a Ph. D in atmospheric dynamics or related field, with decades of study in the field with at least a handful of peer reviewed articles on the subject showing the flaws and fallacies of said data and models.
No?
Then your "professional" opinion matters as much as a Wal-Mart greeter's opinion on advanced techniques in neurosurgery.
You see, scientists perform science. And that science is peer reviewed by others in their field who usually have A LOT of experience in the subject material. Therefore, unless YOU have submitted scientific research in contribution to that science that the experts in the field agree with or at least determine their is some merit of debate, then your personal opinions or beliefs or research means jack.
I don't go to a Food Lion grocery bagger for open-heart surgery. I go to a well experienced professional in the field. The same applies to climatological research; I'll go to the experts.
~X~
~X~