
The real holes in climate science (2010) - edward
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100120/full/463284a.html
======
themgt
The hole this article doesn't point out, and which has perhaps become more
salient to the scientific community over the last few years, with incredible
new sea ice lows, methane release, the newly understood vulnerability of
antarctic and greenland land ice, dramatic weakening of the jet stream and
major ocean currents, tar sands/fracking/arctic drilling ... is the prospect
that we've dramatically underestimated the sort of feedback loops we may be
creating, and the possibility of a rapid runaway climate shift.

It is highly likely that the anthropocene has altered the earth's atmosphere
and ecosystems more rapidly than at any point perhaps since the comet that
took out the dinosaurs. The longer we continue to pump CO2 into the
atmosphere, the higher the risk we push the earth over the edge of an abrupt
climatic discontinuity.

~~~
gd1
>with incredible new sea ice lows

See, this is why no one can take you people seriously. We have incredible new
sea ice _highs_. That is the truth, that is a fact. This is the most sea ice
we've seen on Earth since we kept records of it. To lie, spin and cherry-pick
is not science.

~~~
deciplex
Can you back this up? As far as I can tell, while there are seasonal
variations on sea ice _extent_ that can rebound briefly to "normal" levels,
overall sea ice coverage as well as sea ice volume are both in decline. I
can't find anything to back up the claim "This is the most sea ice we've seen
on Earth since we kept records of it."

[https://www.skepticalscience.com/Has-Arctic-sea-ice-
recovere...](https://www.skepticalscience.com/Has-Arctic-sea-ice-recovered-
intermediate.htm)

~~~
iak8god
I'm guessing gd1 is just slightly confused by recent reports that _Antarctic_
sea ice extend has reached new highs. I easily imagine how this has been spun
in certain circles to give the impression that

> We have incredible new sea ice highs. That is the truth, that is a fact.

Of course, that's not the case: "Sea ice as a whole is decreasing as expected,
but just like with global warming, not every location with sea ice will have a
downward trend in ice extent..."[1]

[1] "Antarctic Sea Ice Reaches New Record Maximum"
[http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-
reache...](http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-
record-maximum)

~~~
gd1
No, I'm not confused.

>Sea ice as a whole is decreasing as expected

And no, it isn't.

While it is hard to obtain the number from NSIDC, since they've stopped
reporting it since it doesn't fit the narrative:

"Why don’t you publish a global sea ice extent number?

The combined number, while easy to derive from our online posted data, is not
useful as an analysis tool or indicator of climate trends."
([http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/faq/#combined](http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/faq/#combined))

...you can still dig up some charts. Here's a few:

[https://nsidc.org/sites/nsidc.org/files/images//arc_antarc_1...](https://nsidc.org/sites/nsidc.org/files/images//arc_antarc_1979_2012.png)

Or here: [http://www.cato.org/blog/spinning-global-sea-
ice](http://www.cato.org/blog/spinning-global-sea-ice)

As it turns out, I have been a bit hyperbolic I'll admit (I was going on
memory). But the fact is combined sea ice isn't "decreasing as expected" as
you say. It's above average. And the original post I was responding to that
claimed "we have incredible sea ice lows" is also nonsense. We don't, we have
some loss in the northern hemisphere and gains on a similar scale in the
south.

> I easily imagine how this has been spun in certain circles

If you want to talk about "spinning in certain circles", you might want to ask
why we hear endlessly about the decline in arctic ice, how it is seen as
confirmation of the global warming hypothesis because it happens to fit the
predictions, and yet at the other end of the globe we see large sea ice
increases being ignored, dissembled and explained away with theories about
ocean currents or wind patterns. That's not science, that's confirmation bias.

~~~
themgt
Yes, and there is quite a lot of science explaining why we are seeing a
temporary rise in Antarctic sea ice even as Arctic sea ice and
Greenland/Antarctic land ice melt. It's not that complicated - the amount you
know about the topic, one of a small list still used by deniers, makes it
fairly clear you're manipulating facts to push a false narrative.

[https://www.skepticalscience.com/increasing-Antarctic-
Southe...](https://www.skepticalscience.com/increasing-Antarctic-Southern-sea-
ice-intermediate.htm) [http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-
environment/wp/201...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-
environment/wp/2015/03/18/stop-using-antarctic-sea-ice-to-claim-nothings-
wrong-at-the-south-pole/)

~~~
gd1
>Yes, and there is quite a lot of science explaining why we are seeing a
temporary rise in Antarctic

There sure is, and that was my point. Did you read what I wrote at the end
about confirmation bias? The mad scramble to provide a just-so explanation
when something doesn't fit the hypothesis, but when it does then no need for
questions. The reduction in Arctic sea ice could only be due to warming, there
is no other possible reason right? Let's look at your thought process for
example, because it is a classic:

>Yes, and there is quite a lot of science explaining why we are seeing a
_temporary_ rise in Antarctic

Why the fuck are you so certain that this is a _temporary_ rise in Antartic
sea ice? Stop and think about that for a moment. Why? You and all the models
didn't predict it, the article we're commenting on says they can't quite
explain it, but you're here to tell me it is _temporary_. Whereas anything
happening at the other pole, well that isn't temporary according to you. No
way, that is definitive evidence of the coming apocalypse.

~~~
themgt
In fact we are in so far the hottest year on record, following 2014 as the
hottest full year on record. All of the 10 hottest years on record have
occurred since 1998. The oceans and atmosphere are, as has long been predicted
by climate science, taking up an immense amount of heat due to the effect of
greenhouse gas emissions.

It appears to actually be you who is guilty of confirmation bias, ignoring the
forest in a vain search for the one tree that will prove that climate change
is a lie, a belief to which you are irrationally wedded.

------
drallison
What a difference five years has made; this article is from 2010. And the
impacts of global warming continue to get worse at an increasing rate. And
government seems incapable of identifying it as a crisis, much less
identifying it as an existential crisis.

Naomi Klein's _This Changes Everything_ ([http://www.amazon.com/This-Changes-
Everything-Capitalism-Cli...](http://www.amazon.com/This-Changes-Everything-
Capitalism-Climate/dp/1451697384)) is a must read. As Rob Nixon's Nov 2014 NY
Times review states, Ms. Klein "argues that the climate crisis cannot be
addressed in the current era of neoliberal market fundamentalism, which
encourages profligate consumption and has resulted in mega-mergers and trade
agreements hostile to the health of the environment." Amen.

~~~
jqm
"neoliberal market fundamentalism... profligate consumption... mega-
mergers.... trade agreements.... health of the environment"

Exactly the type of talk that encourages "it's a commie conspiracy!" lines of
thinking (when we likely are making real problems).

My recommendation? Stick to science. Leave "social justice" out of the
equation. Ms. Klein should put a sock in it. And not just on this issue.

~~~
deciplex
What she says isn't incompatible with science. If basic human social
psychology coupled with policies informed by neoliberal market fundamentalism
prevent us from addressing climate change, then we will either need to do
something about basic human psychology or we will need to do something about
neoliberalism. Both are tall orders but I don't think it's controversial to
suggest the latter is an easier sell.

So if one or the other is _required_ to address climate change, and if we
_must_ address climate change for human civilization to persevere and
flourish, then we will either address one of them or our species will wither
out. You can scream "but you'll alienate people!" all you like - it won't
remove CO2 from the atmosphere more than screaming anything else would.

------
dalke
> But other gaps in the science are less well known beyond the field's circle
> of specialists. Such holes do not undermine the fundamental conclusion that
> humans are warming the climate, which is based on the extreme rate of the
> twentieth-century temperature changes and the inability of climate models to
> simulate such warming without including the role of greenhouse-gas
> pollution. The uncertainties do, however, hamper efforts to plan for the
> future. And unlike the myths regularly trotted out by climate-change
> denialists (see 'Enduring climate myths'), some of the outstanding problems
> may mean that future changes could be worse than currently projected.

