Skip to main content

View Diary: The climate itself is migrating (165 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Stuff form the nineties before the science was (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cliss

    compromised.

    "Til you're so fucking crazy you can't follow their rules" John Lennon - Working Class Hero

    by Horace Boothroyd III on Tue Mar 12, 2013 at 09:56:43 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Not true (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      emelyn, duhban, Fury

      The studies from then were actually more conservative than the ones being done now.

      •  I'm thinking discover magazine as my source (0+ / 0-)

        of the images I'm thinking of FWIW.

        And the science was conservative then because it was more thorough. As in it used more and more accurate data.

        What ever happened to the effort to predict the weather with computers?

        "Til you're so fucking crazy you can't follow their rules" John Lennon - Working Class Hero

        by Horace Boothroyd III on Tue Mar 12, 2013 at 11:02:59 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Furthermore, let not attack scientists, ok? (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Nada Lemming, jobobo, Oh Mary Oh

        This does a grace disservice to scientists to start spreading the false meme that the science is "compromised".  It is still being refined and research hasn't seemed to softpedal anything.  Quite the opposite

        Hay hombres que luchan un dia, y son buenos Hay otros que luchan un año, y son mejores Hay quienes luchan muchos años, y son muy buenos. Pero hay los que luchan toda la vida. Esos son los imprescendibles.

        by Mindful Nature on Tue Mar 12, 2013 at 11:43:57 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The problem in this respect is that (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ColoTim

          there is a lot of science out there that is compromised, and people don't know how to differentiate between good and bad science. Add to that the fact that science reporting is just shy of complete crap most of the time and you end up in a situation where a lot of people distrust science. And it's really hard to blame them too much. Science has been used to justify some pretty horrible stuff over the years, and now we've got the evo-psych crowd pushing bullshit sexist stuff.

          •  Unfortunately, that IS true to a point. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            AoT

            And this includes with climate science, too, and it's not just with the deniers: we've got plenty of doomers trying to justify their own bullshit, too, especially some of the most extreme examples like David Wasdell(who isn't even a climatologist to begin with!) , who claimed a climate sensitivity of 7.8*C per doubling(ridiculous!):

            http://www.apollo-gaia.org/...

            And sadly, you're also correct in that there's a lot of people out there who really don't know the difference between good science and not-so-good science, even on our side of the issue.....(it's why Andrew Revkin was mocked by so many people in his February piece on climate sensivitity and also why a fair number of people believe that "Venus Syndrome" is a possibility, etc.).

          •  I'm sorry (0+ / 0-)

            but do you have any evidence for this?  Other than the obvious climate denial stuff, which isn't science but science press and PR (in that they rarely do any actual research), most climate science worldwide is publicly funded and pretty much above board as it always has been.  I'd like to see the basis for this characterization that a lot is compromised.  I know the denialist industry is trying to push that meme.  Maybe they've succeeded?

            Not to defend the evo-psych stuff too much, but it is a legitimate approach to generating hypotheses, even if neither psychologists nor the press seem to be able to tell the difference between a hypothesis and an evidentiarily supported conclusion. You may not like it, but it isn't "compromised" in that sense.  It's just very difficult to do convincingly.

            Hay hombres que luchan un dia, y son buenos Hay otros que luchan un año, y son mejores Hay quienes luchan muchos años, y son muy buenos. Pero hay los que luchan toda la vida. Esos son los imprescendibles.

            by Mindful Nature on Wed Mar 13, 2013 at 07:47:09 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  In fact, we might actually have been a little..... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          AoT, Fury

          too pessimistic in some regards, particularly with possible temperature rises. Just a decade ago, we were talking about possible rises of as high as 6-7*C by 2100. Now, it's around 4.5*C or so.

          •  Where have you seen that? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Mindful Nature

            Physics is bulls**t. Don't let them fool you. Fire IS magic.
            (Facts brought to you by the Party of the Future - the GOP)

            by Pescadero Bill on Tue Mar 12, 2013 at 09:05:44 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  The IPCC AR5 draft, Bill. I assume..... (0+ / 0-)

              you've heard about the leak by now? It was unfortunate, but the good news is, it actually not only debunked some of the doomers' wild claims but it also backfired on the "skeptic" who was behind it.

          •  Is that 4.5 degrees now (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            marsanges

            or 4.5 degrees later?  If it's now, that's NOT an improvement.

            You may think that. I couldn't possibly comment.-- Francis Urqhart

            by Johnny Q on Wed Mar 13, 2013 at 12:47:34 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Review the IPCC reports (0+ / 0-)

            from the early 1990s compared to measured trends since.  We definitely underestimated the impacts.

            Hay hombres que luchan un dia, y son buenos Hay otros que luchan un año, y son mejores Hay quienes luchan muchos años, y son muy buenos. Pero hay los que luchan toda la vida. Esos son los imprescendibles.

            by Mindful Nature on Wed Mar 13, 2013 at 07:52:22 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  TAR was my source for the 6*C claim, btw. (0+ / 0-)

              (Third Assessment Report, 2001).

              And yes, it is indeed true that a few things were indeed truly underestimated(as in, beyond all standard predictions), primarily Arctic sea ice melt and some details related to that, but other than that, the IPCC has actually been remarkably accurate on most other fronts including, and perhaps especially, temperature:

              http://www.skepticalscience.com/...

              We need to be careful, my friend. Just as there's plenty of denier contrarians who erroneously claim that the IPCC is making stuff up outta thin air, there are also doomer contrarians who just as wrongly insist, for whatever reason, that the IPCC is somehow supposedly covering up the true extent of climate change, or that "everything's worse!" than what they've projected in various scenarios.....neither of which is really true.

              •  well "everything's worse" is closer than deniers (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Steve Canella

                there are indeed a handful of scientists who feel that the lower end of the estimated range is right, most of them modelers (as was I in the day).  However, as noted important aspects, especially melting and temperature are happening faster than espected initially.  Of course, each AR accounts for the errors previous.

                Then of course, there's the political risk, in that emissions are following the upper end of the range, so predictions should follow.

                Those who claim the IPCC is "covering up" do start with a kernel of truth that arises from the nature of the organization. Because it is a consensus based model of review, the conclusions are necessarily conservative, rather than out at the cutting edge of knowledge.  Now, if the cutting edge is consistent with better supported conclusions, that shouldn't create a bias.  However, what the IPCC underplays is the degree of certainty, rather than the magnitude of the predicted increases.  Long story short, I pay attention to the IPCC and ignore the journalists who report, since they typcally don't have the scientific training to know what they are talking about.

                Hay hombres que luchan un dia, y son buenos Hay otros que luchan un año, y son mejores Hay quienes luchan muchos años, y son muy buenos. Pero hay los que luchan toda la vida. Esos son los imprescendibles.

                by Mindful Nature on Wed Mar 13, 2013 at 09:40:46 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Not quite, M.N. (0+ / 0-)

                  "However, as noted important aspects, especially melting and temperature are happening faster than espected initially."

                  No, again, temperature actually isn't rising faster than certain predictions. Did you read the article?

                  "Then of course, there's the political risk, in that emissions are following the upper end of the range, so predictions should follow."

                  "Because it is a consensus based model of review, the conclusions are necessarily conservative, rather than out at the cutting edge of knowledge."

                  That may be true to an extent.

                  "However, what the IPCC underplays is the degree of certainty, rather than the magnitude of the predicted increases."

                  This, too, may indeed have some truth to it. However, though, I'd like to point out that there is likely a good reason for this; while there have indeed been some unfortunate rolls of the climate dice, especially in regards to Arctic ice melt, there are also some things which haven't happened as fast as we thought they would.

                  "I pay attention to the IPCC and ignore the journalists who report, since they typcally don't have the scientific training to know what they are talking about."

                  Sadly, that is often true. It's not just journalists, either, though.....

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site