Antarctic Climate Research Expedition Trapped In Sea Ice 209
First time accepted submitter Stinky Cheese Man writes "An Antarctic climate research expedition, led by climate researcher Chris Turney of the University of New South Wales, has become trapped in heavy ice near the coast of Antarctica. The captain has issued a distress call and three nearby icebreaker ships are on their way to the rescue. According to Turney's web site, the purpose of the expedition is 'to discover and communicate the environmental changes taking place in the south.'"
Mission accomplished (Score:5, Funny)
> the purpose of the expedition is 'to discover and communicate the environmental changes taking place in the south.
Looks like they found some.
Their most significant finding, though... (Score:2)
Their most significant finding, though will be that "ice breaker ships are tearing up all the sea ice!".
Re: (Score:2)
Their most significant finding, though will be that "ice breaker ships are tearing up all the sea ice!".
Thanks, that was funny. Everyone seems to have lost their sense of humor around here.
Re:Mission accomplished (Score:4, Insightful)
I had not intended to imply that. Only that, if there were an unusual amount of sea ice in what amounts to the peak of summer in the south, that would be interesting data.
My point was more like "you can find interesting data even in failure". They did not get to their destination, but the reason why may yield data important to their project. Just sayin'.
Re: (Score:3)
It may be just past the summer solstice in the southern hemisphere but like the northern hemisphere the sea ice minimum occurs closer to the autumnal equinox which will be in March. A ship getting trapped in sea ice like this is more a matter of luck and bad timing than any unusual amounts of sea ice. The wind shifts unexpectedly and moves the existing sea ice into a position that blocks the ship. It doesn't take all that much ice to block a ship.
One interesting fact about Antarctica is that the sea ice
Re:Mission accomplished (Score:5, Informative)
One interesting fact about Antarctica is that the sea ice essentially melts out completely every year so there is no carry over from one year to the next like there is in the Arctic.
I have to admit I was a bit wrong on this. I've been saying that for a while and decided to check on it. I downloaded the monthly mean sea ice extent and area from the NSIDC*. [colorado.edu] The data covered from November 1978 to November 2013. The Antarctic sea ice minimum monthly extent always occurs in February and is around 3 million miles^2 varying mostly from about 2.5-3.5. The Antarctic sea ice maximum always occurs in September and is around 19 M mi^2 varying mostly from about 18.5-19.25 except it was a record 19.77 last September.
So I was wrong that it melts out completely but it drops around 85% every year. In my defense that may be valid for some values of "essentially melts out completely". ) The remaining sea ice is mainly in the Weddell Sea (about half of it according to the Mk. 1 eyeball) which is protected from the prevailing currents and winds by the Antarctic Peninsula and along the Western Antarctic coast which is further south than most of the continent. One other interesting thing I discovered was that the sea ice extent drops precipitously from November to January every year from around 16.5 M mi^2 to around 5 M mi^2.
I could do the area too but I've already spent too long on this research so I'll leave it there but it was fun.
* Data cite: Fetterer, F., K. Knowles, W. Meier, and M. Savoie. 2002, updated 2009. Sea Ice Index. [indicate subset used]. Boulder, Colorado USA: National Snow and Ice Data Center. http://dx.doi.org/10.7265/N5QJ7F7W [doi.org].
Re: (Score:3)
LOL. I've done it before when I was even more wrong than in this case. If you have a scientific bent like I do it's more important to me to get the science right than to be personally right all the time.
And while I'm at it another correction, I should have said the Western Antarctic coast is further south than most of the Antarctic coast, not the continent itself.
Re: (Score:2)
Even more of an interesting fact is that sea ice is only part of the antarctic ice sheet and is often ignored when talking of the later.
Seriously, he limited his comment to the ice in the sea and as we know, ice is equal to the amount of water it displaces so there will be no rise in sea level when "sea ice"melts.
Re:Mission accomplished (Score:4, Informative)
You should learn the difference between Sea Ice [wikipedia.org] an Ice Shelf [wikipedia.org] and an Ice Sheet [wikipedia.org] before spouting off showing your ignorance. I stand by my statement that Antarctic sea ice melts nearly completely every year. Regarding the Antarctic Ice Sheet which you cited it's a big chunk of ice and would take several thousand years to completely melt under any imaginable circumstances.
Re: (Score:3)
Hm. It's comments like this that make me wonder if people like "war4peace" up there is really trying to push his (her? it?) argument or if he's deliberately serving as a straw man. My test is if the phrase "if this person didn't exist, it would be necessary to invent him" might seem to apply.
I suspect there are people like this on both sides of this issue. For instance, when someone says with a straight face that any unusual cold is weather but any unusual heat must be climate change, I wonder if they mi
Re: (Score:2)
You're probably right but I usually give people the benefit of doubt if I don't know better already. At least he didn't cite something like ClimateDepot.
Re: (Score:2)
I used to give people the benefit of the doubt as well but I stopped that quite a while ago. After dealing with years of creationists pulling crap like this and then seeing people start to do the same with climate change I decided it was just better to admit that they don't have any interest in changing their position on the issue so why even waste my time.
If others want to refute them that is fine with me, and maybe somewhat important so they don't "infect" people who see their unopposed statement and tak
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I reply as much for the sake of others reading the conversation as I do for the OP. It's just something I do.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, interestingly enough I just did go look at actual data as mentioned in the reply to myself just above your reply. Based on the data I downloaded (monthly mean sea ice extent from November 1978 to November 2013) I don't think it's accurate to say the Antarctic sea ice has been steadily increasing over the past 3 decades. Maybe there is a bit of a trend but the maximum monthly extend varied mostly between around 18.5 million mi^2 to around 19.25 M mi^2 over most of that time although it's been excep
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I assume that in Antartica you would expect to find ice, isn't it? Even in the summer.
But maybe the Anticlimate Priesthood results to be more Roman than the Pope and assume that there is no ice in Antartica, LOL.
Well, I wouldn't expect less from people who say that the earth is 6000 years old.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed!
here in Holland we call it "Winter",
BTW, would it too much asking to you send us a bit of snow our way?
It's friggin hot here with 12-15C, thanks a lot mates!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Mission accomplished (Score:5, Informative)
The story itself has nothing to do with global warming nor even the increase in Antarctic sea ice. It's about a ship that got caught by shifting winds closing existing ice around it and trapping it which is possible with nearly any amount of sea ice in the vicinity. But it was a sure thing that global warming would come into the conversation.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, they pretty much jump on any piece of data that appears to support their position usually ignoring the context of it. They don't have much else to hang their hats on.
Seems there's more ice than usual in the antarctic (Score:5, Interesting)
There's about 1.53 million more square km of ice than what is usual. [uiuc.edu]
Re:Seems there's more ice than usual in the antarc (Score:5, Insightful)
The GP posted a statement of fact, relevant to the story. Doesn't sound like a denialist to me.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure how it's really relevant to the story. The ship is trapped in sea ice at a time of year when there is normally some sea ice around in Antarctica. They just got caught by some shifting winds or something.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure how it's really relevant to the story. The ship is trapped in sea ice at a time of year when there is normally some sea ice around in Antarctica. They just got caught by some shifting winds or something.
Maybe the something is a growing Antarctic ice sheet [washingtonpost.com]?
Re: (Score:2)
Did you even read the article you cited?
First of all you need to get your terminology right. The article is talking about sea ice (ice that forms on the surface of the sea) not the Antarctic ice sheet (ice on land that's the result of over a million years of snowfall). The other term you should know is ice shelf (ice that's floated on to the ocean at the tongue of a glacier/ice sheet).
Second, the article explains that about 80% of the increase can be explained by the strengthening and converging winds aro
Re: (Score:3)
I don't see how Arctic air temperature is at all relevant to a story about a ship stuck in Antarctic ice.
But you also seem to be reading things that just aren't there. The post *did not* say "Ha!". It was a statement of a fact. That's all.
Re: (Score:2)
maybe you should read some more, then:
http://www.polarresearch.net/index.php/polar/article/view/6120 [polarresearch.net]
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013NatGe...6..376B [harvard.edu]
Re: (Score:2)
I will swear in a court of law that I did read things that were not there, and were no where in his linked graph. I read the reports it came from. Guilty as charged, you have found me out.
And the error (or is it intellectual dishonesty? I can't tell) comes when you attribute those things you read to someone who didn't say them.
Re: (Score:2)
Still not enough to merit an accusation of dishonesty. It's just an interesting fact, that people with working brains can take into account without hyperventilating.
It actually *is* a quite interesting fact, because it shows how the relationship of antarctic ice to global temperatures is quite complicated, as are weather conditions in any one region of the Earth at any particular time. It's something to keep in mind, next time you look out your window and see a little unseasonable snow, or unseasonable su
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Anonymous cowards are nobodies. I'd expect you to be saying it!
Re: (Score:2)
That sword cuts both ways buddy (Score:5, Insightful)
what it does prove is the complete intellecutual bankruptcy of the deniers
You AGW cultists are a real trip. When you say there will be less sea ice before you say there will be more [forbes.com], it means that the scientists arguing against your beliefs are the ones in intellectual bankruptcy?
Have the stones to admit you don't actually understand what you thought you did. But then, a real cultist will die before undergoing change to deeply held beliefs...
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Have the stones to admit you don't actually understand what you thought you did.
I would love it if the deniers took that to heart. It appears to me that most of them aren't willing to wade deeply enough into the real science necessary for understanding.
As far as the increase in Antarctic sea ice goes the scientific explanation (as always subject to revision with new information) is that it's partially due to the ozone hole over Antarctic which cools down the atmosphere and increases the strength of the circumpolar winds which push the ice around opening up polynyas which subsequently
As Always (Score:3)
(as always subject to revision with new information)
Shouldn't that be "As Never"? Because you never, ever change your CONCLUSION. You just change measured data until it fits the CONCLUSION you know is true.
That's not science man. Even a guy who builds Vacuums understands this far better than you.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I do change my conclusion because I just read something that indicates the ozone hole may not have as much to do with it as I thought. Now I'm sitting on the fence on that pending further information. As for the main conclusion that global warming is happening and increases in CO2 levels in the atmosphere primarily caused by human emissions are the main cause, there's so much evidence for it and so little against it that it would take something revolutionary to change my mind. But if someone comes
Re: (Score:2)
Since the strongest part of my argument is based in how real science works, and you couldn't even cough up that much - well I think I have no need of further information.
You are the one injecting all sorts of other political concepts, to distract from the utter failure of your cult.
Re:Seems there's more ice than usual in the antarc (Score:5, Insightful)
Your post is unbelievable.
The GP poster posted a subject of:
Seems there's more ice than usual in the antarctic
And then they posted a LINK to a graph that proved their subject.
THIS IS ALL THEY POSTED!! No follow on sentences about global warming. No links to any other sites about global warming or to sites denying global warming for that matter.
The post stated only facts, and made no arguments. Facts that seem to be backed up by the research vessel being stuck in the ice.
YOU brought global warming into the discussion, YOU called the GP poster a denier (note: I am speaking only to evidence in the GP post, if mc6809e is a raging denier elsewhere I don't know it).
This isn't really cherry picking of data, it is only presentation of data.
If there is an increase in antarctic summer ice at the same time there is a decrease in arctic summer ice, we should study what is happening.
There really wasn't a global warming argument being made in the GP. You just saw one there. Check your glasses.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
:-) welcome to climate "discussion". It is like talking to religious fanatic -- logic just doesn't work. I gave up trying to argue with them long ago and probably this is exactly what they want -- to control mass media (in this case chats/reddit/etc).
Re: (Score:2)
Logic is derived from observation of this world. It doesn't hold outside of it. Let's return to Plato's cave for a moment. I show a cylinder, it gets rendered as a rectangle first, then i rotate and it's rendered as a circle. If your universe is limited to the projection, and can't conceive 3d, you will say that whatever it was, it has morphed. I will say it hasn't. You will say that the law of non-contradiction states that a thing is either a square or a non square, either a circle or a non circle. Guess w
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It cannot even prove that. All science can do is prove a supernatural power like God is not needed for something to have happened. Providing an alternative path does not mean it was taken or any other way didn't happen.
Re: (Score:2)
When that alternative path from science is more plausible than the theory that a supernatural being discovered by ancient desert goat herders who no one has seen for 2,000 years did it, it may not prove that the being didn't do it, but it sure makes a hell of a lot more sense.
Re: (Score:2)
There is nothing more plausible about any of it. It is either possible or not. The rest is only your belief or disbelief in that supernatural being and the amount of faith you keep in the possabilities you choose to believe in.
I planted a tree in my front yard. Of course naturally some how the seed could have been burried in the front yard when the conditions were just right to sprout and i mowed around it until a sizable tree waz there. Which is more plausible. Which makes more sense? Either could be true,
Re: (Score:2)
The theory that came into being through science is most always much more plausible than any religiously derived one. Using your tree analogy with more apt examples: a human or animal planted the seed, or an invisible unicorn from one of the moons Pluto begat the tree magically one day. This is what scientific versus religious scenarios tend to resemble. To say that the religious one is just as plausible is nuts.
Re: (Score:2)
Linguistics can show that authors of books were charlatans. Examples: The new testament's foundation on a known translation error between Hebrew and Greek: born to a virgin. The Book of Mormon's inclusion of translation errors present in Joseph Smith's King James Bible. The Koran's inclusion of known period Abrahamic myths based on translation errors between Hebrew and Arabic.
Knowing that the author of Mathew, Joseph Smith and Mohammed were scammers is not the same as disproving god.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Seems there's more ice than usual in the antarctic
You really should distinguish between the different kinds of ice (sea, shelf & sheet ice) when you talk about Antarctica because they are very different things. The sea ice, that is ice that forms on the ocean from freezing of the water, has increased it's maximum somewhat recently. However the sheet ice, that is ice that is grounded on land that has built up over thousands and millions of years from snowfall is still decreasing. I'm too lazy to look it up right now but I'd bet that more Antarctic sh
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
You cherry pick the data, and only choose what seems to allow you to take the Ancient Aliens approach of "Oooh, an anomaly - Ancient Aliens."
There is plenty of cherry picking of data by all sides of this argument, and far more money to be had for those who support the anthropological global warming hypothesis (especially for "reputable research groups").
Science should not be as completely contaminated by politics as this particular issue has become, as it really is now a political issue and not a scientific issue as well. That scientists are being active in politics (to keep that money flowing if for no other reason) is one of many reasons why
Re: (Score:2)
Climate denial is a litmus test. Deny that CO2 causes global warming as a scientist and you will lose EVERYTHING, no matter what your field is.
CO2 will warm up a cold planet that doesn't have an earthlike atmosphere. But CO2's heat capacity is on average about the same as the remainder of the atmosphere, barring water vapor, and a good bit less when it is included. Assuming a constant atmospheric
Re: (Score:3)
Deny that CO2 causes global warming as a scientist and you will lose EVERYTHING, no matter what your field is.
To deny that an increase in CO2 will cause warming goes against fundamental physics and the radiative absorption properties of CO2. Even such noted contrarians as Roy Spencer and Richard Lindzen will tell you the increase in CO2 will cause warming due to the physics. They just think there are other factors that cancel that warming.
The heat capacity of CO2 and the atmosphere in general has very little to do with global warming. It's the radiative properties that cause the effect. Over 90% of global warmi
Re: (Score:2)
Now, if you could tell me that climate scientists are actually concerned with the THICKENING of the atmosphere, rather than the increase of the average heat capacity, then I would be happy to listen. But from what
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think "displaces" is the right word to use here since the added CO2 is in addition to the already existing gases. It doesn't directly force anything out of the atmosphere. As for water vapor some places are very humid and some places are very dry. Since the absorption bands of CO2 and water vapor overlap somewhat the less humidity in the air the more significant the CO2 becomes as a greenhouse gas.
Yes, I recall having gone into it with you before. I still don't think the specific heat of CO2 has
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The level of water vapor in the atmosphere is strictly regulated by the atmosphere itself. It is a function of temperature and the availability of water to evaporate into it. Because of that water vapor can never force climate change but is strictly a feedback. If there is 1% more water vapor (really it's more like 4%) it's because the atmosphere is warmer.
Re: (Score:2)
Huh, I must have been working with the wrong scientists. You must mean the ones who are making 7-8 figures, and bringing in billions of dollars every day for their pro AGW research. Then they have the marked ability to make sure that there is almost no disagreement.
I am not suggesting that an individual scientist is necessarily getting a pile of money, but trillions of dollars are indeed at stake in terms of shifting the economic situation of the world based upon the political arguments that come from both skeptics and apologists for the research.... particularly the apologists. If you are insisting that there are no research budgets from government funds being used to support climate research with the specific goal of trying to identify causes of global warming, and
Re: (Score:2)
Which should make you question why we are continuing to argue Global Warming versus Climate damage by human causes which we can prove and know exists.
In the early 1970s we all heard about how we were messing up the world with pollution. Ocean dead zones have grown by leaps and bounds since somehow the topic was diverted from "clean shit up" to "global warming". We could say the same for massive amounts of pollution on the land, water supplies, oceanic garbage pits, deforestation and destruction of terrain
Re: (Score:2)
Which should make you question why we are continuing to argue Global Warming versus Climate damage by human causes which we can prove and know exists.
I just get annoyed with idiots. You post something that would appear to be a no brainer, and suddenly you become a liberal marxist socialist tool of the evil Kenyan Overlords. And that the intellectual heavyweights in the opposition's corner are Creationist politicians and people who stand to make profit who use the same techniques they use to deny evolution as they do to deny the Greenhouse gas effects, and the energy being put into the atmosphere via that effect.
As for my real thoughts on AGW, I am of t
Re: (Score:2)
> I am of the firm belief that we are giong to ride that bus until we run off the cliff.
Pretty much my conclusion too. Regardless of what the science shows there is no real political ability to alter the trajectory. So we are going to have an experiment.
I'm old enough that I don't expect to be alive when the results are in.
I wish you all good luck!
Re: (Score:2)
So what do _you_ get by riding the proverbial bus off the cliff? Think about that long and hard, in parallel with what I mentioned about the real issue being derailed. It's not _you_ that benefits from the debate, and in fact society as a whole has no benefit. In reality a couple people with a whole lot of money benefit, and the rest of us end up suffering.
It doesn't take running off the cliff to make changes, it takes enough intellectual people to say "enough is enough" and convince the masses to revolt
Re: (Score:2)
Me too, I have to work on Christmas week. But look on the bright side, Slashdot is a good work substitute!
Re:Seems there's more ice than usual in the antarc (Score:5, Interesting)
mc6809e noted that in the SOUTHERN hemisphere, there is a +1.53 million square km ice anomaly.
However, in the follow-on post, it shows that in the NORTHERN hemisphere, there is a -0.63 million square km [uiuc.edu] ice anomaly.
So, +1.53 - 0.63 = +0.9 net global ice difference over the past 3 years. And this is relative to the mean from 1978-2008.
Personally, it does make sense to me that there is AGW, but these graphs indicate a net global sea ice increase over the past 3 years. Is it the last word in the discussion? No, but it is an interesting data point.
Re: (Score:3)
which in turn will allow England to cool to a temperature more in keeping with it's latitude ( North Dakota type latitude).
North Dakota runs from about 46 to 49 degrees north. England is 99.9% north of 50 degrees. It would be more accurate to say it's "James Bay type latitude".
You should be more careful when you're criticizing people for their ignorance.
Re: (Score:2)
I see you have never applied for a grant. Sorry, that's "science", not science.
Re: (Score:2)
If the shoe fits ...
Antarctica is Awesome... (Score:4, Insightful)
But I don't recommend getting stuck there. No. Definitely not.
Re: (Score:2)
Here in my town is a small sailing club. Not really a club but a school.
A few months ago we had a photo/film show about(by) a couple traveling through the arctica with a sailing ship.
One very funny part of one photo show or movie (don't remember, I guess the camara man involved wanted to make a movie and his GF photographed him and we saw the photos).
So the camara man is moving to a small snow hill with a dozen or so pinguins on top.
Plants his camara in front of them, like 5 yards away.
And while he watches
This Article is Denialist Propaganda (Score:4, Funny)
Anyone who would insinuate that there is any ice left anywhere on Earth after Global Warming must be an anti-science denialist and must be purged in the name of tolerance.
No real adventurers left (Score:2)
That's a bit harsh, but perhaps more manly. These sissies are missing their chance to freeze to death studying global warming; how awesome that would have been! Back in the days of real men like Scott and Amundsen, if you got stuck in the ice, you stayed stuck in the ice until summer. These days people are such wimps; a little ice on the hull and they call for an icebreaker, "oh please save our poor souls! We did not bring any food or warm clothes, but don't hold that against us - we're adventurers!"
Time to rename their expedition... (Score:4, Insightful)
Self-fulling prophecy? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just more proof that you can't measure a system without affecting that system.
Re: (Score:2)
They are in the artic
That's a pretty noobish mistake for an Antarctic research team to make.
now trapped in ice and have called in ice-breaking ships to rescue them, which in turn will reduce the formation of sea ice.
By something on the order of 0.00001% - if at all, given the chaotic nature of climate interactions. For all I know ice breakers might increase the total amount of ice once they've been through.
Boy Am I tired of this.... (Score:3, Insightful)
As you contemplate the likelihood of sea level rise, consider that just 20,000 years ago—a snap of the fingers in geologic time and well within the span of human existence—the North Sea didn’t even exist. Global sea levels were as much as 400 feet lower than today, Britain was part of Continental Europe and terra firma stretched from Scotland to southern Norway.
Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/Never-Heard-of-Doggerland-Blame-Climate-Change-From-Millennia-Ago-208341111.html#ixzz2ocNb29cW
Give the gift of Smithsonian magazine for only $12!: http://bit.ly/1cGUiGv
Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter
Re: (Score:2)
The earth is a fascinating place, with all its changes over time.
In that 20,000 years civilization has risen from nearly nothing to what we have today, despite us being virtually unchanged. The likely footing for this advancement is stability of food supply, which rests upon the stability of climate.
Tiring, I am sure, but critical none the less.
The news was already in europe 2 days ago (Score:3)
Afaik, there are no ice breakers on the way to rescue but ordinary fright ships. But perhaps they are ice breaking and that fact never was told in germany. The likely closest one is: note, a chineese freighter that stopped unloading its freight and moved imediatly towards the hazardouse ship.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Does New Zealand have any?
Re: (Score:2)
Then you thought wrong. A few minutes in wikipedia reveals that Argentina does indeed have an ice breaker (and a second that is currently laid up for repairs). South Africa has two. Chile has three, and Australia has one.
Re: (Score:2)
Rescue ships (Score:2)
MV Xue Long [wikipedia.org]
French icebreaker Astrolabe [wikipedia.org]
Aurora Australis (icebreaker) [wikipedia.org]
Well here is the proof..... (Score:2)
....chemtrails do work.
Hm, maybe we shouldn't have rephrased it... (Score:2)
...because right now we're wishing it was in fact "warming" going on...
Can this ship withstand being ice bound? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Non-canonical. No karma for you!
Re: (Score:2)
No, not yet.
Climate science’s predictive powers are poor. Which is the nature of young science, using scant data and unable to run many experiments. The worst case dire predictions make headlines. The hashing out of the important but dull details does not.
This is a good example. The scientist correctly predicted that the artic would warm, but they have tended to underestimate the speed that it has warmed. Asked scientists 10 years ago if the artic would be free of ice in 50 years you would have gotte
Re: (Score:2)
No their predictive powers are not poor; they are better than psychics, TV pundits, most political advisers, many investors...
This is not weather forecasting, it's a long term science akin to geology. You can use geology to predict projections into the future too. It'll do about as well in the end but watching year by year to see how the century comes out is like complaining a rocket is off trajectory by meters... what matters is if it ends up within meters of the target and you are not going to know until
Re: (Score:2)
You can’t have it both ways. You can’t say that you have predictive power, that it is less than 100% (i.e. weather forecasting), but it is better than flipping a coin (i.e. psychics ). In short, you are not making any statement about its predictive powers. How about this – let’s say that the climate scientist with their models can get with 2 standard deviations – or be about right 5 to 10% of the time. Check out the top chart.
http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technolo [economist.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Don't care about the rest of your post. Don't drag physics down to the level of climate "science" and geology, you filthy dirt person.
Re: (Score:2)
No, not yet.
Climate science’s predictive powers are poor.
Quackery and divination and spiritualism also have pretty poor predictive powers. We should weight the quality of the predictions of an "realm of research" based upon the quality of past predictions, not the dire nature of future, unproven predictions.
Counter Point (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Some people would use this as an opportunity to take pot shots at climate change theory and Al Gore.
Others would take it as an opportunity to wonder why the previous climate models failed us and how can we improve them.
Only one of those two attitudes is of any use to the rest of us.
The Greater Good (Score:2)
Only one of those two attitudes is of any use to the rest of us.
Actually, they are both useful.
But far more useful is the person who points out that sometimes scientists are not really scientists, so that we ALL be be skeptical of scientific claims and not just believe it "because Science (bitch)".
Science is only a useful tool to humanity when it's facilitating a conversation as to what we want to do. When Science is holding a virtual gun to our heads and making unreasonable demands based on questionable d
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
By now? Exponentially? All the sea ice?
Citation needed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)