

A stunning year in climate science - karlherler
http://climateprogress.org/2010/11/15/year-in-climate-science-climategate/

======
KevinMS
Hysterical website brought to you by Center for American Progress.

From their website

 _Our mission is to transform progressive ideas into policy through rapid
response communications, legislative action, grassroots organizing and
advocacy, and partnerships with other progressive leaders throughout the
country and the world._

addendum: for those confused, this is political advocacy and its probably not
a good idea to post this stuff here unless you want HN to become reddit. Oh,
how can it be advocacy if everything is true? Sometimes its not what you say,
but what you leave out.

~~~
othello
Given that most of the article is made of highlights from 10 scientific
articles published in such high profile reviews as Nature, Science, or Nature
Geoscience, I do not think you can reduce it to "political advocacy" from a
"hysterical website".

~~~
russellallen
Ignoring the 'hysterical' epitaph for a moment, it is fair to note that the
website is openly a political website.

Selecting high quality scientific articles to bolster my political argument
doesn't stop my aim being political - it may just mean that I have a
convincing argument!

It is fair to be wary, however, of the process of selection in situations like
this - these were 10 articles selected from many. Why were they chosen? Was
the process of choosing neutral (such as in an independent literature survey)
or political in nature?

This is where the nature of the site may give reason to look more closely,
especially where they top and tail the actual science with partisan name
calling, such as the reference to people concerned with the transparency and
reliability of the climate science processes (ie 'Climategate') as the "anti-
science crowd".

------
papaf
I wasn't expecting much from this article but it links to recent research in
high impact journals. The ones that caught my eye were:

 _Science_ : Vast East Siberian Arctic Shelf methane stores destabilizing and
venting

 _Nature Geoscience study_ : Oceans are acidifying 10 times faster today than
55 million years ago when a mass extinction of marine species occurred

 _Royal Society_ : “There are very strong indications that the current rate of
species extinctions far exceeds anything in the fossil record.”

~~~
donall
As a disclaimer, I should first say that I haven't read any of these papers in
detail and that I therefore can't comment on their validity. I also don't wish
to take a pro- or anti-environmentalist stance. I'm strictly neutral. I'm just
talking about the nature of research publications.

Many of us in acadaemia are aware of a perceived phenomenon whereby
"fashionable" (for want of a better word) topics get published and/or attract
research. From a cynical (yet often accurate) perspective, researchers have
become adept at framing their research proposals in the context of the topic
_du jour_. I'm not saying the research is bad, just that funding is easier if
you mention buzzwords.

My point is that acadaemia goes through cycles of particular interest in
certain topics. The funding gets allocated to it and the journals are more
likely to publish research relevant to the "fashionable" topic than other
research. Now, I'm not saying the research is flawed; just that if you fund
research into environmental change, you're probably going to find a lot of
environmental change. If tomorrow you decide to massively fund research into
extraterrestrial life, you will see a surge of papers in high-impact journals
about that very subject. The environmental change hasn't gone away, it's just
that fewer people are trying to publish data about it.

Perhaps for that reason we shouldn't be impressed by the sheer volume of
research or the perceived quality of the publishing journals. We shouldn't
panic because the number of papers on the subject has increased by several
orders of magnitude in recent years. We should get a clear picture of what is
going on, ignoring the funding bias, and once we have analysed the data from a
balanced perspective and we see that it spells certain doom for all of us,
_then_ we can panic. ;)

------
brennannovak
I'm interested to hear what the HN community thinks about this article. Last
time I said anything about the "environment" a bunch of people responded with
"Whatever hippie, go back to the woods then!" I'm an entrepreneur and a lover
of tech, but without our environment... we're sorta ya know... screwed!

~~~
nodata
I would like to see words such as "our" and "we" removed from the debate. "Our
planet", what must "we do", etc. It doesn't help. If it's "ours" it's someone
else's problem. What shall "we" do? Nothing.

Better would be to make it direct, from up high: "YOU won't be able to do X
because of Y. This must be done now otherwise Z."

------
mithaler
The response in the comments here is perplexing to me.

The article is presenting well-cited scientific studies, with summaries and
disclaimers where statistical issues have been correctly raised. Together, the
article's point is that the "climategate" emails were a distraction that the
media followed instead of all of the numerous studies coming out in the same
year on the subject.

With that in mind, yes, it may be political advocacy, but no one here has
raised any real reason why the research behind them shouldn't be taken
seriously. If someone posted a list of articles coming out at the same time
that rebutted their findings, I might think differently, but as it is I can't
help thinking from observing the response here that the article's point may be
truer than even its writers imagined. There's real science here! Discussion
about the discussion is a distraction from it. If you think we shouldn't be
discussing climate change, show me why you think the research is bogus instead
of just telling me "political issues don't belong on HN". It's political
because there's a lot of money at stake, not because the science is
controversial; and please, if you think I'm wrong about that, show me why. I
really, really, really want to be. Other scientific articles are fine on HN,
so why not this?

------
mmphosis
_Elizabeth Kolbert’s Field Notes from a Catastrophe: “It may seem impossible
to imagine that a technologically advanced society could choose, in essence,
to destroy itself, but that is what we are now in the process of doing.”_

I look away from the glow of this noisy MacBook, and ponder how foolish I am
to be typing this on a computer that in only a few distant years from now will
no longer work. I know that global ocean temperatures have been rising
steadily for the past 100 hundred years -- this is based on maps of world
ocean temperatures displayed to the public in the lobby of an Ocean Sciences
building that I was able to view years ago.

Yes, Number 1 [http://climateprogress.org/2010/07/29/nature-decline-
ocean-p...](http://climateprogress.org/2010/07/29/nature-decline-ocean-
phytoplankton-global-warming-boris-worm/) is stunning. Don't stay stunned for
too much longer.

~~~
nodata
But if we're stunned and apathetic we don't need to do anything.

------
blasdel
_> The last year or so has seen more scientific papers and presentations that
raise the genuine prospect of catastrophe (if we stay on our current emissions
path) that I can recall seeing in any other year._

Missed a great opportunity for a hockey-stick graph! :)

------
robryan
Sure maybe this like many other sources sensationalizes things but one of the
problems with climate is that I just can't see worldwide action until either
it is right in governments faces ie. to late, or they are drawn in my
sensationalist tones on correct science.

Climate is one of those things that governments will be able to wash there
hands of if everything turns bad, because no one can be 100% sure of causes
and the whole climate gate thing the article was referring to.

I don't really expect any drastic action as unless every country acts those
who don't will have a big trading advantage, at least in the short term.

~~~
ErrantX
Ah... a pet topic of mine.

This starts at home; and _always_ will do if we want to make a difference.

Reduce your energy usage, buy local produce, install solar (and other
sustainable) power. All of these changes can be done for very little
additional cost. And if you _really_ care it is the approach to take.

With enough of us doing these things it increases pressure and awareness a lot
more than blogging about it etc.

While the final fix rests with the governments, we have to do our bit. Just,
we're going to have to do it first.

At the moment "Green" is big business; but it is not so much actual green, as
"brand Green". With enough consumers going after more eco-efficient lifestyles
it increases the real green market and therefore pressure at a national level.

If everyone in the country went and installed solar panels tomorrow....

------
davidj
There is absolutely no scientific evidence of man made climate change.
[http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5576670191369613647...](http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5576670191369613647#)

------
codyguy
Climate-science has become an oxymoron.

