Slashdot Log In
Arctic Ice Extent Understated Because of "Sensor Drift"
Posted by
samzenpus
on Thu Feb 19, 2009 07:57 AM
from the give-it-a-few-taps dept.
from the give-it-a-few-taps dept.
dtjohnson writes "The National Snow and Ice Data
Center (NSIDC) has been at the forefront of predicting doom in the arctic as ice melts due to global warming. In May, 2008 they went so far as to predict that the North Pole would be ice-free during
the 2008 'melt season,' leading to a lively Slashdot discussion. Today, however, they say that they have been the victims of 'sensor drift' that led
to an underestimation of Arctic ice extent by as much as 500,000 square
kilometers. The problem was discovered after they received
emails from puzzled readers, asking why obviously sea-ice-covered
regions were showing up as ice-free, open ocean. It turns
out that the NSIDC relies on an older, less-reliable method of tracking
sea ice extent called SSM/I that does not agree with a newer method called AMSR-E. So why doesn't NSIDC use the newer AMSR-E data? 'We do not use AMSR-E data in our analysis because it
is not consistent with our historical data.' Turns out that the AMSR-E data only goes back to 2002, which is probably not long enough for the NSIDC to make sweeping conclusions about melting. The AMSR-E data is updated daily and is available to the public. Thus far, sea ice
extent in 2009 is tracking ahead of 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008, so
the predictions of an ice-free north pole might be premature."
Related Stories
[+]
North Pole Ice On Track To Melt By September? 978 comments
phobos13013 writes "Recently released evidence is showing the North Pole ice is melting at the highest rate ever recorded. As a result, the Pole may be completely ice-free at the surface and composed of nothing but open water by September. As reported in September of last year, the Northwest Passage was ice-free for the first time known to man. The implications of this, as well as the causes, are still being debated. Are global warming experts just short-sighted alarmists? Are we heading for a global ice age? Or is the increase in global mean temperature having an effect on our planet?"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Not consistent? (Score:5, Insightful)
What's the point of being consistent with a flawed methodology? I would have thought the thing to do would be to collect the new data, base newer model off that and then perform a statistically weighted correction to the older dater. Both data sets can be maintained if required.
Am not sure I see a point in consistency for consistency's sake, when you in the light of newer information you now know the original measurements are flawed.
Cheers,
Ian
the "drift" was only for Jan/Feb 2009 (Score:5, Informative)
You might want to read TFA. The sensor drift only started in Jan 2009, and it was spotted within a few weeks.
Parent
Re:Not consistent? (Score:5, Insightful)
It really is frustrating how intensely climate science is doubted and denied. Economics - a far softer science with a (so far) vastly greater impact on human society - gets a staggering amount of leeway by comparison. And when it's practitioners (who outnumber climate scientists 100 to 1) get things catastrophically wrong, as in the case of the recent Wall Street collapse, there is surprisingly little criticism of the theoretical underpinnings, nevermind little details like bad data.
The science of climate change, by contrast, is on very solid theoretical footing; but sometimes every science has to deal with bad data, as in this case. The notion that this somehow discredits the theoretical basis of radiative forcing and the greenhouse effect is sheer lunacy. Simple stock-and-flow box models are enough to understand that anthropogenic climate change is inevitable. If you can understand how a bathtub overfills when you leave the faucet running, you should be able to understand that climate change is real and unavoidable.
The reactions of laymen and the ignorant masses who follow Limbaugh et al can only be explained as propaganda-induced hysteria, to which only the profoundly ignorant and/or fearful are vulnerable. The reactions are similar to those of the North Atlantic fishermen who vehemently asserted that since they'd been fishing the Georges Bank for 250 years it was 'obvious' it could never be depleted. Changes in fish populations, if there were any, were 'natural'. They ignored scientists and continued to produce record catches - right up until the entire fishery collapsed a few years ago.
Any one who is genuinely interested in learning about how and why complex systems change catastrophically should read "Limits to Growth" - the classic by the MIT team headed by Donella Meadows.
Parent
Re:Not consistent? (Score:5, Insightful)
"they just don't believe the hysterical rantings of scientists who can't predict the weather or a hurricane season with any certainty"
It's far easier to predict average temperatures will decline through summer, fall, and winter (in the northern hemisphere) than it would be to predict whether the temperature will go up or down on a given day or week.
In other words, not being able to reliably predict the daily weather or hurricane season with great precision says nothing about the reliability of predicting longer-term climate change.
Yes, there's nothing wrong with skepticism, but at least try to compare equivalent problems.
There is no ambiguity about which way arctic sea ice has been headed for the last few decades, and little difficulty predicting the continuation of that trend unless something truly fundamental changes about the climate system. Ask anyone who lives in the arctic or who travels there by sea -- it has changed a lot. Icebreakers in the region have a very different experience now versus 20 years ago. Changes in instrument interpretation/calibration doesn't change the existence of that trend. It's freaking obvious when you do some "ground truthing". Predicting what sea ice will do in a given year or exactly when the trend might reach its ultimate end (total melting) is much harder to predict, but the trend is obvious and the implications of its ultimate conclusion are pretty reliable. Could the multi-decadal trend reverse and the sea ice grow more extensive year after year to attain its past summer extent again? I doubt it. It's going to be ice-free in summer eventually. The debate is about when it will finally happen first, but there's no point in getting hung up on whether it's going to be 2008, 2009, or 2012, because the exact date doesn't matter.
End of the world? No. But it's going to be a pretty radical change nonetheless. Yes, we know that climate change happens (it has changed throughout Earth history). The question is whether this kind of change and this rapid is a good thing for human interests. It doesn't help the debate when climate change deniers make a big deal about an instrument calibration change and start implying we know nothing or that the trend isn't real. There's problems on both sides of this debate, but it is normal to have problems with scientific data. They are worth finding and fixing. But the basic interpretation hasn't been compromised because it affects only a small part of the data.
Parent
Re:Not consistent? (Score:5, Insightful)
When are the smart-arses who reckon they've spotted some humoungous flaw in the actual science going to actually publish? Oh, right, it's all a crock of shite by delusional Daily Mail readers, and journals of record don't print papers that arrive for review written in green crayon.
If you're so smart and the world's climatologists are so dumb, for the love of god stop yammering about it on Slashdot, publish, and collect your Nobel Prize.
Parent
Re:Not consistent? (Score:5, Insightful)
It scares me when nitwits like you post garbage like the following:
Without measurements, I can say with certainty that our climate is changing.
Because as we all well know, human memory is fallible. [nih.gov]. Not just that, extremely fallible [stanford.edu]. Not to mention extremely vulnerable [neuroscien...keting.com] to self-delusion, unconsciously-induced Selection Bias [wikipedia.org] and Confirmation Bias [wikipedia.org], and to false memory planting [medpagetoday.com].
You may not agree with the scope and severity of the climate change. Fine. But to deny that it is happening shows a complete inability to observe the world around you over the course of decades.
"To deny that it is happening" - I didn't see that. I did see an argument over whether it is man-made, and the entire ARTICLE is about the supposed "scientists" who are engaging in poor science because they are engaging in Selection Bias and Confirmation Bias quite deliberately, invalidating all of their supposed "research."
Parent
Multiple Data Sources (Score:5, Insightful)
OK, I can see their point, but using the EOS sensor may have given pause to researchers doing a comparison to current conditions using the traditional sensor, i.e. cross-reference current conditions to be more confident that your data is correct. Nothing like screaming "the sky is falling" due to bad data. Any science experiment, especially one that can produce sensationalist news, should not just rely on one piece of data.
Re:Multiple Data Sources (Score:5, Insightful)
<i>"Sensor drift is a perfect but unfortunate example of the problems encountered in near-real-time analysis. We stress, however, that this error in no way changes the scientific conclusions about the long-term decline of Arctic sea ice, which is based on the the consistent, quality-controlled data archive discussed above."</i>
If the media outlets and attention seekers sensationalise the real-time output, then unreasonable conclusions might well be drawn. What's the alternative though? To not make this real-time data available? Scientific hypotheses will be tested against the corrected data, so this sensor drift doesn't affect them. These are preliminary measurements only, not full-blown experiments with scientific conclusions. The polar bears are still going to have to become better swimmers.
It's a little ironic that this data will have been used by one group with an agenda to sensationalise climate change, and now will be used by the (perhaps overly) sceptical amongst us to poo poo it. Some have an agenda to sensationalise both. All serve to cloud the real message.
Parent
Historical error (Score:4, Interesting)
Am I to understand that they will continue to measure (and predict) ice conditions based on less accurate sensors simply because these measurements tally better with older measurements, which themselves are less accurate?
Or have I missed something?
Re:Historical error (Score:5, Insightful)
Compare it to a game benchmark or whatever. You keep a standard, even if it's flawed, because that's the only way you get comparable results. You can't take a raw number for MIPS or millions of polygons/second or transactions per second or whatever the metric of choice is in your field (here, one is obviously ice sheath coverage) and use numbers from wildly different methods to even try to devise a historical trend. The value observed might not correlate exactly (or even very well) with old ones, but unless the flaws in the method cause great variability within that framework, the historical trends will still be accurate, or at least more accurate compared to what would happen if you changed your methodology each year and still tried to extract longer trends.
It might not be a good choice, and suggestions to run double series over the (short) timespan where overlapping data is indeed available would of course be better, but you can't just switch to the latest and greatest if you want some kind of consistency in your data.
Parent
Tosh. (Score:5, Insightful)
"n May, 2008 they went so far as to predict that the North Pole would be ice-free during the 2008 'melt season,' "
No they didn't.
They said it was a remote possibility.
This was taken up by the anti global climate change, altered, and then used to "prove" that global warming wasn't happening when it didn't happen.
The fact it is presented that way by the story submitter shows which way they think, and thus how reliable the overall story is.
Typical spin job (Score:5, Informative)
In May, 2008 they went so far as to predict that the North Pole would be ice-free during the 2008 'melt season,'
Er, no, they said it was possible and later quote "a 59% chance of a new record minimum this year". How the media chose to report this is another matter... Oh yes, note the date: May 2008.
Today, however, they say that they have been the victims of 'sensor drift' that led to an underestimation of Arctic ice extent by as much as 500,000 square kilometers.
And if you read TFA, the sensor drift started in January 2009, was spotted within a few weeks and only affected their daily images which are effectively "live" and hence haven't gone through QA.
So how exactly does an error which occurred in Jan/Feb 09, was almost immediately spotted and declared affect a (misreported) prediction made last May?
<irony>Meanwhile, I'm sure the little fairies are hard at work ensuring that the geological era's worth of sequestered CO2 we're in the process of releasing back into the atmosphere magically changes its physical properties. After all, it is made from special carbon that God put there in 4004BC for us to burn, unlike that nasty communist CO2 that exhibits the greenhouse effect in godless laboratories.</irony>
Re:alternative solutions (Score:5, Informative)
Both the AMSR_E and SSM/I data are satellite derived products.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/satellite/ssmi/ssmiproducts.html
http://www.aqua.nasa.gov/about/instrument_amsr.php
Parent
Re:How can people expect... (Score:4, Insightful)
The biggest problem is that you NEVER know whether any study published is done this way or not.
I am an advocate of scientific methods, and yet I am someone who is in doubt about this whole "The earth is warming up because of us" spiel.
Now why is that? Even though I'm going to get modded troll or flamebait again, I'm going to repeat myself: Without checking procedures and facts that went into a study, you can never be sure about the results.
Face it, people, the time when scientists did their thing to broaden humankind's knowledge is over (or probably has never happened in the first place). Too many 'scientists' have been given deadlines by their institutes (or the fact that they cannot survive on air and sunshine) and must produce results that people will acknowledge one way or another.
I am not saying the earth isn't warming up. I am also not saying that we are innocent if it does. All I'm saying is that most of the 'studies' I've seen floating around the press smell fishy to me. And unless that changes, I'm rather inclined to label this stuff as simple FUD.
I'd rather we follow simple common sense and watch out for our planet because it's the frickin' right thing to do instead of running around like headless chicken being afraid of our children being cooked alive by the sun. Mindless impulsive actionism never helped anybody.
Oh yeah: Modding me down because you don't like my opinion doesn't make your opinion anymore right just as it doesn't make mine any more wrong, okay?
Parent
Re:How can people expect... (Score:5, Insightful)
While I respect your skepticism of the scientific press, I think this reasoning suffers from two flaws. First
All I'm saying is that most of the 'studies' I've seen floating around the press smell fishy to me.
Relying on the press to get your scientific information is going to be incomplete. The press reports particularly sensationalistic doom & gloom stuff, whereas most science goes out of its way to take a neutral tone. It is too much to ask a non-scientist to pay attention to the leading journals (I'm thinking of Science and Nature here), but we are also at a point in our history where science needs to inform our politics. This is obviously troublesome for democracy, and why I sympathize with your skepticism of science.
Second,
I'd rather we follow simple common sense and watch out for our planet because it's the frickin' right thing to do instead of running around like headless chicken being afraid of our children being cooked alive by the sun
This reasoning is suspect because, aside from global warming effects, green house gas emissions aren't very harmful. It is relatively easy to see the pollutant effects of particulate emissions: they make things dirty and also hard to breathe. GHG emissions, on the other hand, are fairly clean and only have a mediated effect on human health (through climate change). Your strategy would have us fix only the easy to see problems even if there are more important environmental matters that require advanced scientific techniques to understand.
Parent
Re:How can people expect... (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:How can people expect... (Score:5, Insightful)
'Climate Change' is a politically hot topic, and plenty of governments give grants into this kind of research.
"The overwhelming majority* of the world's climate scientists" know what side their bread is buttered on. It's on the side of giving governments more excuses to tax and define their citizens activities ever more closely.
Follow the money. Isn't that what you'd say about the report of any climate scientist who is a global warming 'denier'?
(*I don't know how many climate scientists there are, but hundreds have signed on to papers with adverse positions.)
Parent
Re:How can people expect... (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm a climate scientist--a modeler, in fact. I know C, C++, Fortran, Python, Java, bits of Perl and PHP. I figure I could get a job at Amazon on Google or Microsoft or some other big software shop and be making over $100k. I could certainly do better than what my salary has been: $25k for 2000-2006 (grad school), and for 2007-8 it was $40k (postdoc). Let's say I got a job for $50k/yr--that would be an extra $170k I would have made over the last 8 years.
Let me tell you buddy, I'm not in this for the money.
And if someone could find compelling evidence that indicated global warming wasn't happening, that would be welcomed by the climate science community. New evidence that overturns an old understanding is the holy grail of science.
Parent
Okay, let's say you're right. (Score:5, Insightful)
And if someone could find compelling evidence that indicated global warming wasn't happening, that would be welcomed by the climate science community. New evidence that overturns an old understanding is the holy grail of science.
I'll grant you for a moment that the climate is warming.
If so, considering that the climate has been both significantly warmer and colder in recorded human history than it is now, why panic? Why the apocolyptic talk?
Past that, what are the upsides of global warming? A longer growing season would certainly be an asset. Rising ocean levels- if they occur- can be managed (ref: Netherlands).
What the true believers of AGW suffer from is a lack of faith in human invention, and an unbridled fear of change. I have seen proposals for trillion dollar projects to 'turn back the clock', when several billion in dikes and relocations would manage the problem.
Now, back to my point...
Even if you are as pure as the driven snow, AGW has been forever tainted by demands for control and taxation by those who think themselves our betters.
I will consider treating it as a crisis when AGWs biggest proponents treat it as a crisis. As long as UN AGW conferences are plagued by a shortage of private jet parking and Al Gore buys carbon credit indulgences from his own companies in order to 'justify' his rich lifestyle*, I'm pretty sure I'm being bullshitted somewhere down the line.
Your science and research, pure as the driven snow as it might be, is represented by these sorts of clowns. It is a stench you will never escape.
*I have no problem with his lifestyle, per se. It's the whole preaching-doom-and-gloom-to-us while-excusing-himself thing I have a problem with.
Parent
Re:How can people expect... (Score:5, Insightful)
You mean besides the overwhelming majority of the world's climate scientists?
You mean the people whose livelihood and considerable private and government grants depend on making waves about the climate and increasing their self-importance?
Not to mention the fact that a lot of them got into climatology because of past climate fear-mongering and "environmental awareness" advocates who beat on the drum that the Earth is doomed. A lot of the current crop of climatologists are the product of the 60's and of the environmental movement spawned back then, a movement which isn't exactly known for its calm, collected analysis and immersion in reality.
This doesn't mean that all climatologists are delusional or that there is no warming occurring. All I'm saying is that there are a whole lot of people, including professionals, that have an overly-emotional connection to the issues. This results in a lot of bad science and bad policy decisions.
Parent
Re:How can people expect... (Score:5, Interesting)
Despite what this article says, Arctic ice has decreased significantly in recent years. Satellite imagery from as recent as 1979 shows enormously more ice than we see today.
Parent
Re:How can people expect... (Score:5, Insightful)
You make it sound like people are getting rich by doing science that reinforces climate change. I'm pretty sure any of these scientists could make a few bucks more if they tweaked their numbers to show climate change isn't a big deal.
The fact is, scientists get grants to research a certain area. They don't get grants for the results of that research. In fact, science is based on trying really really hard to disprove their findings. If the researcher can't disprove his own findings, he opens it up to the rest of the scientific community in hopes that they can find something wrong with it.
Science is open... which on one hand is awesome because it forces scientists to do things right but on the other hand sucks because every idiot can weigh in with their "expert" opinions.
Parent
Re:How can people expect... (Score:5, Insightful)
And quite reasonably; it's almost exclusively utter bullshit. And not taking *real medicine* when you have a serious condition is a very fucking bad thing. Moreover, some of this 'medicine' is itself harmful.
These two 'analogies' are just plain wrong. The relationship between "climate" and "climate scientists" is "thing" and "experts on thing", and same with "medicine" and "doctors". For these two, however, the relationship is "thing" and "people affected by thing". Less nonsensical analogies would instead use "copyright experts" and "economists". Unfortunately, this, while more correct, doesn't induce nearly as much rage (and thus indirectly support for your position) in the average Slashdotter, so I suppose it's reasonable you didn't use them instead. Not that it would've mattered anyway; you don't really have any sort of solid argument, just blatant anti-intellectualism.
Parent
Re:Rocket science? (Score:5, Insightful)
Science isn't an exact science, people are involved and people make mistakes. Scientist need to remember that they are human too and they will make mistakes. Data can be off or altered, I remember a local weather channel use to use a point for the local temperature until they built a Dunin Donuts next to it, and heat escaping the building or cars or something (it was a long time ago) raised the temperature 5 or 6 degrees warmer then the actual weather.
Climate Scientists are trying to make very accurate predictions where they don't have the data to do so. We can probably say global warming is real, however that is a very broad statement. But to say The Polar caps will be gone in 2008 or by 2012 NYC will be flooded, is grossly misunderstanding the complexity of the earths environment.
Granted that most of the fear mongering worst case scenarios stuff isn't from the people doing the real science but from activists groups who pick and choose data to make people afraid so they do what they want. But still the Scientists don't like saying to people Hey I could be wrong, but thats OK because with the scientific process being wrong takes us the next step closer to the real answer. They want to in general portrait themselves like the Sci-Fi scientist who know what is going on and is always right.
Parent
Re:Rocket science? (Score:5, Insightful)
There is no question that data analysis and prediction is subject to errors, sometimes quite large ones. The real question is whether these errors are due to researcher bias. Unfortunately climate data and predictions are apparently more motivated by political beliefs and biases than hard facts.
Many people have strong feelings that disaster is about to occur. Perhaps this comes from childhood recollections of maternal warnings about running with scissors or touching hot stoves. These fears can be reinforced by religious beliefs that portend the end of the world. Because this psychological factor is so prevalent we need to be especially skeptical of predictions of future disasters.
Parent
Re:Rocket science? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think it goes back to the showing the DDT is a harmful chemical (other then the old commercial "DDT its good for you and good for me!") it was widely used and was considered safe and effective a marvel in scientific advancement. Then it was shown to have effect on the eagle population and perhaps humans as well. So we had to stop using the chemical, but that opened peoples minds to think other things will have such problems, and to question every advancement and study the effects of it. In general it is a positive thing but it has lead to fear mongering and a belief that we should stop advancements as every advancement has some cost to it (however in my opinion they usually forget to factor in the benefits). Such as the immunization and the possible link to autism, lets say it creates a 1% increase in autism how ever it saves 25% from death, the benefits out weigh the risks and the parents who avoid this are poor judges on risk assessment.
Parent
Re:Rocket science? (Score:5, Informative)
Such as the immunization and the possible link to autism, lets say it creates a 1% increase in autism how ever it saves 25% from death, the benefits out weigh the risks and the parents who avoid this are poor judges on risk assessment.
Arrgh!
Speaking of fear mongering, it has been repeatedly shown [sciencedaily.com] that there is absolutely no link between autism and vaccines.
Please, can't this FUD just die already? It's already caused deaths in the UK from a loss of herd immunity!
Parent
Re:Rocket science? (Score:5, Insightful)
Also keep in mind that there are those who cannot get vaccinated for various reasons. Besides obvious examples such as newborns, it is my understanding that certain types of childhood diseases such as some forms of cancer prevent those children from receiving normal vaccines. When people who are able to get the vaccines refuse them, it also puts at risk those who do not have the option to vaccinate themselves.
Parent
Re:Rocket science? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Rocket science? (Score:5, Informative)
To quote TFA:
Parent
Re:Rocket science? (Score:5, Interesting)
That's an empty assertion, apparently motivated by the conflict between the conclusions from overwhelming climate data and the writer's ideology.
Where is the sociological data to support it? All these claims about "political beliefs and biases" among climate scientists are working backwards from a desire to reject the conclusions of science to ad hominem attacks on the scientists themselves - attacks which make presumptions about the politics of scientists which are naive in the extreme. A great many - perhaps most - scientists are not political at all. They're too busy with their science to worry about politics outside of their own university departments, and anyway consider most politicians and commentators a bit too stupid to concern themselves with one way or the other.
So where's your data on "political beliefs and biases" among climate scientists? As most of them are funded by governments, can you show an example from any scientific community of a pronounced pattern of biting the hand that feeds it? Consider the scientists funded by drug companies. Do their results cut against their funders?
Parent
Re:Rocket science? (Score:5, Informative)
So, to be clear, this issue has arisen over the last 4-6 weeks. The records for the last decade, clearly showing a significant trend towards less sea-ice, are unaffected.
Parent
Re:Rocket science? (Score:5, Insightful)
OK, here you go [nasa.gov], have fun. All the data in modern climate science is freely available in massive quantities. (The GISS datasets are just one example.) It's certainly true that there's a lot of crap journalism around climate change; please don't confuse the finger pointing at the moon for the moon itself. Go read RealClimate, or Scientific American (hell, even New Scientist if you like comics) or (better yet) search out the specialist journals.
Parent
Denialist reasoning (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a prime example of the sort of rationalization that passes for denialist reasoning. When confronted with a huge mass of evidence supporting an unpalatable conclusion, they cherry-pick any error, no matter how small or irrelevant to the conclusion, and insist "if this is wrong, then maybe it is all wrong." Since in any human endeavor, there are always errors, it is always possible to rationalize away any conclusion that you prefer not to confront.
This is of course quite typical. The data in question is real-time, raw data. In most scientific enterprises, such data is kept private by the researchers until it can be cross-checked and validated. But in climate research there is a level of openness and public access that is almost unparalleled in science, with even preliminary data publicly available. Of course, the actual scientists know that such data is subject to revision and do not base important conclusions upon it. So the error has no impact on the conclusion that there is a long-term decrease in Arctic ice due to global warming. But that won't stop denialists from talking about it as though it invalidates everything.
Parent
Re:Rocket science? (Score:5, Insightful)
But to say The Polar caps will be gone in 2008 or by 2012 NYC will be flooded, is grossly misunderstanding the complexity of the earths environment.
Yeah, but climatologists don't suffer from that misunderstanding. They're the ones who have to actually slog through that complexity.
Granted that most of the fear mongering worst case scenarios stuff isn't from the people doing the real science but from activists groups who pick and choose data to make people afraid so they do what they want.
An astute point, and really it was both the activists and the -- well, whatever the opposite of an activist is, someone who wants to do nothing is called -- who with the help of the media took the scientists claims of a chance for a minimum and an ice free north pole (just the pole, btw, not all arctic ice gone entirely) and run with it as if the scientists are saying it's a sure thing. The activists to cry doom and gloom, and the inactivists to pounce on as proof the whole thing is bunk if the results come out on the "wrong" side of the scientist's claimed 60:40 odds.
But still the Scientists don't like saying to people Hey I could be wrong, but thats OK because with the scientific process being wrong takes us the next step closer to the real answer. They want to in general portrait themselves like the Sci-Fi scientist who know what is going on and is always right.
They didn't just say "Hey I could be wrong", they attempted to quantify the chances of them being wrong. Then they voluntarily report on censor errors that briefly screwed up their data, while I'm sure knowing that this would be blown way out of proportion and used to "prove" that they never know what they're talking about at all. In other words, the opposite of trying to appear like they can't be wrong. So I'm not buying it at all.
Just because news headlines omit the qualifiers does not mean they do not exist.
Parent
Re:Rocket science? (Score:5, Insightful)
to say The Polar caps will be gone in 2008 or by 2012 NYC will be flooded, is grossly misunderstanding the complexity of the earths environment.
We climate scientists try to give a sense of the certainty of our predictions, but our discussions of certainty are almost always deleted when the news is presented to the public. The two predictions you mention are vastly different -- we're pretty sure about ice, but flooding New York has a gigantic pile of "ifs" in front of it.
Scientists don't like saying to people Hey I could be wrong, but thats OK because with the scientific process being wrong takes us the next step closer to the real answer. They want to in general portrait themselves like the Sci-Fi scientist who know what is going on and is always right.
Real scientists *do* say "I could be wrong" all the time, and try to estimate the odds of being wrong. We're happy with greater certainty, but we know that 100% guarantees don't exist.
The confident, absolutely certain authoritarian scientists you see on TV are just talking heads: they may have PhDs, but they're not acting as true scientists.
Parent
Re:Rocket science? (Score:5, Insightful)
[citation needed]. Oh, wait, you just invented those doom mongers yourself, bravely defeating a horrible strawman.
Parent
Global Warming: The Modern Inquisition (Score:5, Funny)
The number of similarities between global warming and the older, more traditional religions have been documented numerous times and places: The high priesthood for whom the sins don't apply, the levied guilt, prophets of doom, attack on science by a faithful flock, the purchase of indulgences (carbon credits), concerted attempts to control the secular leadership as a means to bring the general population into line, etc., etc.
The only non-similarity -- and it's a shame, really -- is that the medieval inquisition had those really cool hooded robes. The modern Global Warming Cult has no fashion sense whatsoever, as best as I can make out.
Parent
Re:Oh gosh. (Score:4, Insightful)
This is one of those things that grabbed by the neck and whipped around like a dog shaking a dead squirrel by the "It ain't warming up" folks.
Maybe it's because we are tired of people (read: activists and politicians) trying to take away our rights based on bunk data.
Why is it that people who refuse to show ID to board a plane because it "violates their rights" are the same ones that are perfectly happy letting the state of California change the thermostat settings in their home?
Parent
There are ways... (Score:5, Insightful)
When a new sensor is thought to have greater accuracy or reliabilty than an old one, but produces data which are not entirely consistent with the older one, it does NOT prevent use of the new sensor or meaningful use of data from both sensors. One standard technique is to employ both sensors simultaneously for some time - in other words, the two data series would overlap for that time. If both series show a downward trend in ice cover, then the trend probably real, even if they always disagree about the level of ice cover or the rate of decline. Over a sufficiently long time, it should be possible to build a model to quantitatively explain the difference in readings.
Come on, guys. There must be a few PhD theses waiting to be written on how to reconcile these instruments...
Parent
Re:Oh gosh. (Score:5, Insightful)
However you feel about this issue, I think it is a bit weak to try and claim a change over 4 years constitutes a 'trend' when it comes to global climate data.
Parent
Re:Oh gosh. (Score:5, Insightful)
Looking at the new graph it's still pretty obvious that the trend is "downwards",
Err... no. What I see looking at the data is two very low years: 2007 and to a lesser extent 2008. Calling that a "pretty obvious trend" nicely reveals your bias, but not much else. I could as easily say it is a "pretty obvious oscillation", as 2008 is "clearly" recovering from the 2007 perturbation.
I can see why the guys doing this aren't using the new data, as there is no way that there is adequate statistical power here to make a judgement about trends. Unfortunately, now that the old data have been shown to be badly flawed, the dire predictions of an imminently ice-free Arctic no longer have any very robust empirical support.
THIS is the way science works: you look at the evidence, squeeze it hard and see if it breaks. There is no doubt that the evidence for a soon-to-be-ice-free Arctic is broken. Ergo, the plausibility of dramatic climate change effects in our near future has gone down, no matter what anyone's politics drives them to prefer.
The only robust signal for global climate change I'm aware of is global ocean heat content, which seems to be increasing. However, given the number of reversals of supposedly robust results in the field of climate science I want to take a much closer look at those data before being convinced by them.
I used to be very concerned about global climate change, and in open-minded arguing with "deniers" I took a hard, critical look at the data and the models, because I wanted to find a compelling, unproblematic argument to convince my opponents, whom I credit with being able to change their minds when faced with the evidence. What I found was that neither the data nor especially the models stood up to professional scrutiny. There is good science being done, but it is not the kind of stuff you'd want to base public policy on.
There are good arguments for environmental policy that do not depend on the risk of global climate change, and the environmental movement is doing itself no good by linking policy and science together they way they have, so that people think "if there is no risk of global climate change then driving my SUV must be ok."
Parent
Re:Oh gosh. (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:We only use data that support our hypothesis (Score:5, Insightful)
"We do not use AMSR-E data in our analysis because it is not consistent with our historical data."
And our historical data shows terrible calamity awaiting us at every turn, and even if reality doesn't bear this out, it makes sense that we should continue to sound the alarm because if we do decide to face reality people may not take us and our hysterical blatherings seriously.
We'd rather just keep on using outdated modes of measurement and forecasting that give incorrect results every year because the results fit our hypothesis better. And what better to support a hypothesis than data that will back it up?
Right! If the data doesn't back our conclusions, use different data!
Parent
Re:We only use data that support our hypothesis (Score:4, Informative)
Look who's talking. BadAnalogyGuy, the reason why scientists sometimes prefer inaccurate but precise and historically consistent data over data sources which are more accurate but have not been around for long is that they are interested in trends, not absolute values.
Parent
Re:We only use data that support our hypothesis (Score:4, Funny)
they are interested in trends, not absolute values
Climate scientists are the mental equivalent of teenagers and shallow women. Thanks for the clarification.
Parent
Re:We only use data that support our hypothesis (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re:We only use data that support our hypothesis (Score:5, Insightful)
It's always a very good idea to take single quotes from a summary out of context, and make sweeping statements about that. This is especially true for science. Science really isn't one of those topics that require some in-depth knowledge to understand what's going on.
Taking off the sarcasm tag for a moment, this is one of the worst "science" pieces I've seen on slashdot in perhaps the last year. Cobbling together some serious accusations of scientific incompetence from a series of links doesn't really show anything. How the hell do I know how to interpret these statements in context? The links are all taken OUT of context and put into an entirely new argument without any further analysis or explanation. I'm left with what amounts to some hand waving and ranting about "scientific bias". Without a real analysis by someone qualified to make it this "story" is best left ignored.
Parent
Re:The story is far over-hyped (Score:4, Insightful)
This error relates to Jan/Feb 2009 only. The problem has been identified quickly. It will be fixed quickly. No big deal.
Um, didn't they say that there would be NO ICE on the north pole in 2008? It's 2009 and there is still ice on the North Pole.
Now, I understand that scientists can be wrong. That's perfectly acceptable. We are all human, after all. However, based on the fact that scientists can be wrong, and in this case and many like it they are, I'm not willing to give up rights, like the ability to regulate the temperature in my own home or drive myself to work, based on data that can be, and in this case is, flawed.
There is a British "science writer" named Nigel Calder who claims that AGW is a huge fraud by the scientific establishment, and that counter-evidence is always suppressed. This little episode shows that Calder is speaking out of his anus, which means it may serve some useful purpose.
If this revelation were made in 2008, you'd have a point, but to make a prediction as dire as this one and then come out a year later and say "oops, the data was bad" a year after your prediction has been proved false proves Calder's point, not the other way around.
Parent
Re:Interests (Score:4, Insightful)
There is a lot of people interested in denying climate change whatever it takes.
I think the word is skepticism, not denial.
Taking a single error from a single study about climate change as proof of a non-existent climate problem is obtuse.
Hmm, that mentality always works fine for the Global Warming camp, why can't skeptics use it too ?
The global warming shows itself in so many ways that no one can tell it isn't happening at all.
Climate change does not equal Anthropomorphic Global Warming, see, we're skeptical
Do you mean climate change Of course we can sit to discuss how are we responsible for this change and how much of the change will occur as part of a natural process. But there is no such discussion.
Not from the Global Warming camp anyway, from where I sit, those who are skeptical keep insisting this is required, but the Global Warming camp insists it's not a question of 'If' any more.
Instead you see a bunch of corporations claiming "there is no such climate change, let us keep burning oil"
Can you name one of these corporations ?.
Parent