The real holes in climate science (2010) | Hacker News Reader

The real holes in climate science (2010)

nature.com

18 pointsedward14 comments

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.

>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.

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...

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...

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)

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

https://nsidc.org/sites/nsidc.org/files/images//arc_antarc_1...

Or here: 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.

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... http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/201...

>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.

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.

I didn't say anything about the Arctic mate. I said the Earth. We have a southern hemisphere too.

We also may have dramatically underestimated the risk of asteroid impacts. There are many things out there that might be. We should focus on fact based science to address these issues.

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...) 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.

"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.

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.

> 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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com