

 Clearest indication yet that polar ice sheets are melting fast - jfoucher
http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/12/clearest-indication-yet-that-polar-ice-sheets-are-melting-fast

======
sighagain
This is what is laughable. The original IPCC report on global warming
predicted an average rate of global mean sea level rise of about 6 cm per
decade. The reality? 11 mm or less over the last 2 decades! That's over a
factor of 100 miss. Nobody seems to notice how the goal posts on this issue
are constantly moving. In the end, yes, there is global warming, but it is not
even close to what was predicted in the late 1980s and early 1990s.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_First_Assessment_Report>

~~~
nitrogen
Science is science because it is allowed to change its mind when presented
with new data.

~~~
CamperBob2
Economics is a bit different. When you make economic decisions based on
questionable data, people suffer.

~~~
nitrogen
I've never understood this argument in the context of AGW. It sounds like
saying, "What if we clean up the air and breathe easier for no good reason?"

~~~
CamperBob2
And I, in turn, have never understood the argument you mention. Regulations
have effects, both malevolent and benign. When regulations are enforced,
someone wins, someone else loses. If we "clean up the air and breathe easier"
as you put, it but millions of people end up in poverty (or worse), is that a
net win?

We would unquestionably have cleaner air if we shut down all coal-fired
generating plants and banned the internal combustion engine tomorrow. There
are _excellent_ reasons to do just that, environmentally speaking. But does it
sound like a good idea to you? If so, then you may need to think things
through a little farther, I believe.

------
meric
Also permafrost is melting (irreversibly on human time-scales):
[http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/where-
even-...](http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/where-even-the-
earth-is-melting-20121127-2a5tp.html)

~~~
pyre

      > (irreversibly on human time-scales)
    

This comes across as ambiguous and I didn't understand what you meant until I
read the article.

"It's happening at a rate that is irreversible on human time-scales"

~~~
rdtsc
I don't know what the original poster meant but I understand it to be that if
it is cyclic phenomena and/or was/can be triggered by human activity, it has
already entered into a phase that make it unlikely to be reversed no matter
what humans do in say one to tens of humans lifetimes (say 100 to 1000 years).
The system might correct itself or cycle back but it would be on very large
time scales.

The main gist from the articles is that the perma frost echo system is an
amplifier for climate change. So it is like positive feedback. For maybe for
what seems like a small change contributed by human activity, the permafrost
echo system might respond and amplify that by some large factor.

Anyway I don't know enough about the issue but that is what I understood from
the article.

~~~
pyre
Maybe _I_ wasn't even as clear as I intended, but I read it as:

    
    
      Now that this change has happened, 'putting the genie back
      in the bottle' would take an enormous amount of time. Even
      if there was a dedicated, directed effort to do so, we
      would probably be talking time-scales of millennia rather
      than things that us humans would actually be able to
      look forward to (even a couple of generations forward).

------
genuine
What good does this do? Should I go into bankruptcy insulating my house with
aerogel to protect against severe climate change?

If the weather gets hot or there is a drought, environmentalist scientists
tell the media that problem is global warming caused by humans. If the weather
gets colder, environmentalist scientists tell the media that problem is
climate change caused by humans.

If it gets really damn cold outside, or really damn hot, then we need to make
good insulation cheaper. Whining about it doesn't do a damn bit of good.

~~~
nitrogen
_If the weather gets hot or there is a drought, environmentalist scientists
tell the media that problem is global warming caused by humans. If the weather
gets colder, environmentalist scientists tell the media that problem is
climate change caused by humans._

That's not what I've been hearing. I see people saying that no individual
weather event or localized change can be attributed to global climate change,
but that as more total energy is added to the earth system, more chaotic
weather events and localized changes can be expected in aggregate (edit: e.g.
<http://youtu.be/5EaLVOv8cIk?t=1m49s>).

