"Higher uncertainty of the regional effects of global warming is not a good argument for not taking action...blah blah blah"
Probably the clearest admission that Climate Science isn't about science, but about the redistribution of wealth.
The world is warming.
At a certain pace it becomes economic to reduce the warming rather than pay for damages. (Leaving aside that a central estimate of the CBR of reducing emissions is about $10 for the $1, and so action is economic even for very low climate sensitivities)
If you're unsure of the pace, that doesn't mean that the cost is going to be lower. It means that it could be lower, or it could be higher.
Therefore higher uncertainty does not mean that we should not act. Only certainty could show that.
Climate conspiracy theorist terminology for someone who thinks science and the scientific process is probably making okay use of observations and data?
But if you think that there are some scientific organizations of National or International standing that do reject the findings of human-induced effects on climate change, feel free to post them here.
Unfortunately that in itself will undermine any claims of inaccuracy in wiki, as I will update the wiki page if you do.
Google's switch [to MariaDB] may have been motivated by a lawsuit filed by Oracle over alleged use of Java patents in Google's Android operating system.
I don't know, but when you do good science, your applications for research grants should be well received.
The distortion is when otherwise mediocre scientists have raised their income through books and talks about denialism, advertised and published by the fossil fuel industry's PR groups.
> What papers exactly were Jones and Trenberth trying to keep out the the peer reviewed literature? Were they wrong to want to keep them out?
Absolutely not.
The only thing that stops a scientific journal from dropping its standards is its reputation. A private discussion about the quality of the papers in the AGU, including suggesting a boycott, is not only entirely appropriate, it's the only mechanism for maintaining scientific standards.
The Oregon Petition is an example of the denialist tactics that should embarrass anyone associated with them.
The were faked names: Approved names on the list included fictional characters from the television show M*A*S*H,[21] the movie Star Wars,[20] Spice Girls group member Geri Halliwell, English naturalist Charles Darwin (d. 1882) and prank names such as "I. C. Ewe".[22] When questioned about the pop singer during a telephone interview with Joseph Hubert of the Associated Press, Robinson acknowledged that her endorsement and degree in microbiology was inauthentic, remarking "When we're getting thousands of signatures there's no way of filtering out a fake".
The OP is a perfectly scientific discussion of a finding about the changes in Antarctic Sea Ice. How the hell did the average IQ in here drop so far that this became a George-C-Marshall deniomatic thread.
It looks rather like the "global-warming-is-man-made-sound-the-alarms" people have been cherry picking
No, this is not cherry-picking. There's not question that the earth is warming due to the enhanced greenhouse effect. The oceans are expanding. The surface temperatures are increasing.
This paper looks at the response in the Antarctic Sea Ice, and has found a possible improvement to its understanding.
No cherry picking involved.
Then when the temperatures did not support their theories, it was "well global warming causes extreme weather!".
It was always suspected that global warming would increase extreme weather events because hurricane intensity is highly related to sea surface temperature when they form, and more energy in the atmosphere gives more evaporation so heavier rainfall.
But the theories are thermodynamics, fluid mechanics and optics. They are not challenged if warming is only 0.1C per decade for a decade instead of the long term trend of 0.16C per decade.
When THAT got disproven, it was "look-look-look, all the ice is melting!" Now that THAT part of the scam is getting clobbered by the earth itself, what will the GW people predict next?
There is a lot of active research in climate science.
But this article doesn't discuss what they all are. It shows that with better modelling of wind-sea interactions in the southern ocean, we can get a much better handle on what is happening to the southern sea ice.
I might be hypersensitive to the climate conspiracy theorists on the internet, but I read "therefore cannot accurately predict what will happen in the future", as the common wrong argument that therefore trying to reduce emissions is not justified, and this is why you try to hit this point despite its irrelevance to the article?
Higher uncertainty of the regional effects of global warming is not a good argument for not taking action, unless those regional effects have a very significant effect on global costs of adjustment. The CBR is running at about $10 in benefit for each $1 in emission reduction costs at the moment. With the developing world bearing most of the disbenefit of inaction, and that coupled with the least ability to finance. (You may remember the Stern Review... The number date a bit, and you can argue the discount rate, but the orders of magnitude are pretty robust)
Eastern Antarctica is affected by ozone loss, which is a strong greenhouse gas.
It's still cold.
The Antarctic peninsular is warming at about three times the global average. That's getting quite balmy.
This does not suggest that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, nor that burning fossil fuels release it. It is a study of why the southern sea ice has been growing, not near the antarctic peninsular.
The southern ocean is still seeing devastating effects of anthropogeneic climate change on biodiversity. As are many parts of the the world. Increasing temperatures are allowing crabs to invade ecosystems on the continental shelf that have not seen such predators for millions of years. The destruction is almost total.
Studying an aspect of climate change does not refute the rest of it.
> Yet, with the introduction of additional variables, let us say n variables, which include surface interaction with seas, the presence of ice-sheets and glaciers, solar activity, volcanism, etcetera, ad infinitum... Somehow, a reliable and predictable model of planetary atmospheric climate - without prejudice or bias - is expected to be produced within the statistical expectations required to make policy decisions?
Models. It's kind of surprising that you can put a railway carriage into a computer, and check it for resonances. And then fix it by changing where the seats are bolted.
But there are also constraints. Conservation of energy requires that with a given energy imbalance at the top of the atmosphere, there will be a given amount of extra heat in the earth. And because we can estimate the economic consequences of that, we can sensibly notice that reducing emissions will be generally cheaper.
While a increase in the error of the estimated ECS is possible, the denialist industry is really pumping their papers in order to swamp the impact of the IPCC reports.
These claims of what is in them are reasonably speculative. I'm going to wait for the report before deciding the consequences of what's in it.
It turns out that making the process as difficult and expensive as possible for the patent troll is very effective. They don't have a clicks and mortar business generating cashflow or profit, so each lawsuit has to end up with positive cash.
If you start demanding that they spend time and money, they can rapidly disappear.
Slashdot Mirror
These are the two graphs that I would have responded with.
"Higher uncertainty of the regional effects of global warming is not a good argument for not taking action...blah blah blah"
Probably the clearest admission that Climate Science isn't about science, but about the redistribution of wealth.
The world is warming.
At a certain pace it becomes economic to reduce the warming rather than pay for damages. (Leaving aside that a central estimate of the CBR of reducing emissions is about $10 for the $1, and so action is economic even for very low climate sensitivities)
If you're unsure of the pace, that doesn't mean that the cost is going to be lower. It means that it could be lower, or it could be higher.
Therefore higher uncertainty does not mean that we should not act. Only certainty could show that.
"Alarmist?"
WTF is that?
Climate conspiracy theorist terminology for someone who thinks science and the scientific process is probably making okay use of observations and data?
Yes, I did.
Wiki is a reliable enough source, as encyclopedias go.
But if you think that there are some scientific organizations of National or International standing that do reject the findings of human-induced effects on climate change, feel free to post them here.
Unfortunately that in itself will undermine any claims of inaccuracy in wiki, as I will update the wiki page if you do.
Google's switch [to MariaDB] may have been motivated by a lawsuit filed by Oracle over alleged use of Java patents in Google's Android operating system.
You don't say.
On the other hand, it worked quite well in Wellington, New Zealand.
The golden era of humanity.
The CBR doesn't derive just from the science performed, but also by inspiring the coming generation to enter scientific fields.
> Ok, what grants have Mann and Jones received?
I don't know, but when you do good science, your applications for research grants should be well received.
The distortion is when otherwise mediocre scientists have raised their income through books and talks about denialism, advertised and published by the fossil fuel industry's PR groups.
> What papers exactly were Jones and Trenberth trying to keep out the the peer reviewed literature? Were they wrong to want to keep them out?
Absolutely not.
The only thing that stops a scientific journal from dropping its standards is its reputation. A private discussion about the quality of the papers in the AGU, including suggesting a boycott, is not only entirely appropriate, it's the only mechanism for maintaining scientific standards.
> Mann and Jones aren't doing science. They're doing grant farming and calling it science.
With all due respect, and I do mean none, this is not only absolute bullshit, but personal attacks on scientists is the cause of the problem.
The UN's outer space treaty dates from 1967, and the stated intentions to drive it further were never realised.
The intention seems to be to set up a framework against the weaponization of space.
And so it is the USA that puts those hopes beyond our reach.
Thanks, ally.
The Oregon Petition is an example of the denialist tactics that should embarrass anyone associated with them.
... The publish papers refuting the HIV AIDS link, and that find that gay male lifestyle significantly increases the incidence of infectious disease and shortens life expectancy by about 20 years.
The were faked names: Approved names on the list included fictional characters from the television show M*A*S*H,[21] the movie Star Wars,[20] Spice Girls group member Geri Halliwell, English naturalist Charles Darwin (d. 1882) and prank names such as "I. C. Ewe".[22] When questioned about the pop singer during a telephone interview with Joseph Hubert of the Associated Press, Robinson acknowledged that her endorsement and degree in microbiology was inauthentic, remarking "When we're getting thousands of signatures there's no way of filtering out a fake".
But the telling blow was the outright fraud in the attached paper. It was formatted to look like a publication from PNAS, including a made up volume number and page number from PNAS. The current online version includes a paper published in Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, almost a refutation in itself
Flamebait??!!
When did slashdot become a stronghold of science-denialist crackpots?
There are about ZERO scientific organizations: (as of 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement, no scientific body of national or international standing rejected the findings of human-induced effects on climate change), and about ZERO scholarly papers (Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position ) that support your denialist bullshit.
The OP is a perfectly scientific discussion of a finding about the changes in Antarctic Sea Ice. How the hell did the average IQ in here drop so far that this became a George-C-Marshall deniomatic thread.
It looks rather like the "global-warming-is-man-made-sound-the-alarms" people have been cherry picking
No, this is not cherry-picking. There's not question that the earth is warming due to the enhanced greenhouse effect. The oceans are expanding. The surface temperatures are increasing.
This paper looks at the response in the Antarctic Sea Ice, and has found a possible improvement to its understanding.
No cherry picking involved.
Then when the temperatures did not support their theories, it was "well global warming causes extreme weather!".
It was always suspected that global warming would increase extreme weather events because hurricane intensity is highly related to sea surface temperature when they form, and more energy in the atmosphere gives more evaporation so heavier rainfall.
But the theories are thermodynamics, fluid mechanics and optics. They are not challenged if warming is only 0.1C per decade for a decade instead of the long term trend of 0.16C per decade.
When THAT got disproven, it was "look-look-look, all the ice is melting!" Now that THAT part of the scam is getting clobbered by the earth itself, what will the GW people predict next?
The northern sea ice is in steep decline. The Antarctic Ice Sheet and Greenland Ice Sheet are in accelerating decline.
How on god's green earth do you manage to get to "THAT part of the scam is getting clobbered by the earth itself" for there?
Carbon dioxide is NOT a pollutant. It is stupid to treat it that way.
You've not heard of the greenhouse effect then?
There is a lot of active research in climate science.
... The number date a bit, and you can argue the discount rate, but the orders of magnitude are pretty robust)
But this article doesn't discuss what they all are. It shows that with better modelling of wind-sea interactions in the southern ocean, we can get a much better handle on what is happening to the southern sea ice.
I might be hypersensitive to the climate conspiracy theorists on the internet, but I read "therefore cannot accurately predict what will happen in the future", as the common wrong argument that therefore trying to reduce emissions is not justified, and this is why you try to hit this point despite its irrelevance to the article?
Higher uncertainty of the regional effects of global warming is not a good argument for not taking action, unless those regional effects have a very significant effect on global costs of adjustment. The CBR is running at about $10 in benefit for each $1 in emission reduction costs at the moment. With the developing world bearing most of the disbenefit of inaction, and that coupled with the least ability to finance. (You may remember the Stern Review
Eastern Antarctica is affected by ozone loss, which is a strong greenhouse gas. It's still cold. The Antarctic peninsular is warming at about three times the global average. That's getting quite balmy.
The Northern summer sea ice is still in sharp decline. This article about the southern ice. At least the pig fuckers who study this can read.
This does not suggest that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, nor that burning fossil fuels release it. It is a study of why the southern sea ice has been growing, not near the antarctic peninsular. The southern ocean is still seeing devastating effects of anthropogeneic climate change on biodiversity. As are many parts of the the world. Increasing temperatures are allowing crabs to invade ecosystems on the continental shelf that have not seen such predators for millions of years. The destruction is almost total. Studying an aspect of climate change does not refute the rest of it.
This isn't the northern sea ice. The Antarctic sea ice has been trending slowly upwards, overall. With strong loss near the peninsular.
> Yet, with the introduction of additional variables, let us say n variables, which include surface interaction with seas, the presence of ice-sheets and glaciers, solar activity, volcanism, etcetera, ad infinitum... Somehow, a reliable and predictable model of planetary atmospheric climate - without prejudice or bias - is expected to be produced within the statistical expectations required to make policy decisions? Models. It's kind of surprising that you can put a railway carriage into a computer, and check it for resonances. And then fix it by changing where the seats are bolted.
But you can.
Climate models are certainly less controlled but for some factors they've been surprisingly good: Why are climate models reproducing the observed global surface warming so well? (Reto Knutti, Geophysical Research Letters (2008))
But there are also constraints. Conservation of energy requires that with a given energy imbalance at the top of the atmosphere, there will be a given amount of extra heat in the earth. And because we can estimate the economic consequences of that, we can sensibly notice that reducing emissions will be generally cheaper.
While a increase in the error of the estimated ECS is possible, the denialist industry is really pumping their papers in order to swamp the impact of the IPCC reports.
These claims of what is in them are reasonably speculative. I'm going to wait for the report before deciding the consequences of what's in it.
Here's a refutation of this particular one.
Regional Climate Change != Global climate change.
Global Surface Temperature Trends
The Guy's a real-life troll, except as well as getting his excitement from stirring people up, he gets market share and money.
Don't feed him with this attention except where there is a real chance of getting him sued or imprisoned.
It turns out that making the process as difficult and expensive as possible for the patent troll is very effective. They don't have a clicks and mortar business generating cashflow or profit, so each lawsuit has to end up with positive cash.
If you start demanding that they spend time and money, they can rapidly disappear.
http://www.ted.com/talks/drew_curtis_how_i_beat_a_patent_troll.html
More warming means less ice, which should mean more sunlight and more plankton growth, hence more carbon tied up.
There's not much evidence of this effect dominating increase due to accelerating fossil fuel use and land use change.