[Newsbot]

Title: Study says Antarctica is seeing global warming
Category: Environmental
Posted By: Hyack
Date: 2009-01-21 23:56:41

[roger-roger]

Glad im moving to Alberta

[ziggy]

Another fine example of fear mongering.Do people actually think the earth should stay one constant temperature and the climate stay the same? Soon the real enviro problems will be ignored because people are getting bored with all these studys on something thats been happening for millions of years.

$1:

The study does not point to man-made climate change as the cause of the Antarctic warming -- doing so is a highly intricate scientific process -- but a different and smaller study out late last year did make that connection.

[Chumley]

I always thought Antarctica was seeing Uncle Fester.
That two timing slut.

[Tricks]

Chumley Chumley:

I always thought Antarctica was seeing Uncle Fester.
That two timing slut.

[Brenda]

Soooo... A small part of the world is seeing GLOBAL warming...


It's a curve, it has been for millions of years... Another fund wasted on things we already knew

[ziggy]

You have to scare the people,thats who funds these studys.
Some people make their living studying the climate so they have to keep the populace frightened.

All anyone has to do if he wants to know what the climate was like 500 million years ago is ask a geologist.

[faile]

Antarctica is seeing global warming. When will journalists learn to speak English?

Edit: And when will I have the reading comprehension skills to understand Brenda beat me to that comment.

[sandorski]

people are fail

[Brenda]

faile faile:

Antarctica is seeing global warming. When will journalists learn to speak English?

Edit: And when will I have the reading comprehension skills to understand Brenda beat me to that comment.

Probably when you had enough coffee to actually be awake

[ziggy]

Global warming seems to be the new buzzword for any change in the environment no matter how small.

Starts to lose it's significance after awhile.
Because of this the envirofoilers cause more damage to the environment then anything.

[Zipperfish]

I imagine this will have Steve McIntyre's panties in a knot over at climate audit.

[N_Fiddledog]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

I imagine this will have Steve McIntyre's panties in a knot over at climate audit.

You called it man. He's already opened a thread just for comments. No article yet, but that's because he'll look the paper over, and play with the math first, I imagine.

That's the thing about studies like this from the Michael Mann school of creative altering of the data (in fact Mann and others from his social network are listed as co-authors). It's about getting the headline. The flaws which will inevitably turn up in the science, don't really matter. By the time experts have had a chance to look this study over, and chew the bad science to bits, the media will have forgotten the story. The average guy will be left with the idea Antarctica is warming, and the science is in. It won't matter that the actual data sans math magic actually says something different, nor will they wonder why the ice around Antarctica is growing when the area is supposed to be getting warmer. They'll read that headline, and that's what they'll remember.

This kind of stuff always reminds me of The Wizard of Oz for some reason. The cooling Antarctic used to be like that part where Toto pulls back the curtain to reveal Professor Marvelo, or whatever his name is pulling switches to create the giant floaty head illusion (which would equate to the Arctic ice melt). The Wizard illusion (which would be contradicted by the Antarctic cooling, or the Professor Marvelo metaphor if you prefer) shouts out "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain (Antarctic cooling)".

The cooling was an embarrassment to warmers. Much like the Medieval Warm Period, they needed it to go away. It therefore doesn't surprise that Mann, and his crew of data manipulators were called in.

This new attempt to make the Antarctic cooling disappear reminds me of that part in TWoO where they all go into OZ for a makeover, except the lyrics to the song would go more like...

Snip, snip here,
Tweak, tweak there,
Some fortran, then some gaus
that's how we make it warm today
in the merry old land of OZ.

It isn't just McIntyre whose ears perked up after seeing the headlines on this study btw.

Watts is in there scratching his head too.

It's got the attention of Pielke, and the rest of the skeptic side of the climate blogosphere as well.

[Zipperfish]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

I imagine this will have Steve McIntyre's panties in a knot over at climate audit.

You called it man. He's already opened a thread just for comments. No article yet, but that's because he'll look the paper over, and play with the math first, I imagine.

That's the thing about studies like this from the Michael Mann school of creative altering of the data (in fact Mann and others from his social network are listed as co-authors). It's about getting the headline. The flaws which will inevitably turn up in the science, don't really matter. By the time experts have had a chance to look this study over, and chew the bad science to bits, the media will have forgotten the story. The average guy will be left with the idea Antarctica is warming, and the science is in. It won't matter that the actual data sans math magic actually says something different, nor will they wonder why the ice around Antarctica is growing when the area is supposed to be getting warmer. They'll read that headline, and that's what they'll remember.

This kind of stuff always reminds me of The Wizard of Oz for some reason. The cooling Antarctic used to be like that part where Toto pulls back the curtain to reveal Professor Marvelo, or whatever his name is pulling switches to create the giant floaty head illusion (which would equate to the Arctic ice melt). The Wizard illusion (which would be contradicted by the Antarctic cooling, or the Professor Marvelo metaphor if you prefer) shouts out "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain".

The cooling was an embarrassment to warmers. Much like the Medieval Warm Period, they needed it to go away. It therefore doesn't surprise that Mann, and his crew of data manipulators were called in.

This new attempt to make the Antarctic cooling go away reminds me of that part in TWoO where they all go into OZ for a makeover, except the lyrics to the song go more like...

Snip, snip here,
Tweak, tweak there,
Some fortran, then some gaus
that's how we make it warm today
in the merry old land of OZ.

It isn't just McIntyre who's ears perked up after seeing the headlines on this study btw.

Watts is in there scratching his head tool.

It's got the attention of Pielke, and the rest of the skeptic side of the climate blogosphere as well.

I'll pay attention when they get a refutation in Nature or similar peer-reviewed magazine. Until then, they're bloggers. Good bloggers, mind you. I like climate audit. But I also understand that he has a certain point of view he's partial toward, and getting a paper in a peer-reviewed journal is a good way to remove a lot of PoV bias.


Here's an interesting one. This is the results of aCNN poll of 3146 scientists.

$1:

Two questions were key: Have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures?

About 90 percent of the scientists agreed with the first question and 82 percent the second.

The strongest consensus on the causes of global warming came from climatologists who are active in climate research, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role.

[N_Fiddledog]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

I'll pay attention when they get a refutation in Nature or similar peer-reviewed magazine. Until then, they're bloggers.

Nature isn't the scientific equivalent of the bible for the religious, in spite of what the Warmist faithful might believe. Much legitimate sounding critique of peer review in the mainstream Science journals has been turning up, concerning the climate arena in particular.

As to whether what bloggers say matters, McIntyre's record is pretty good on exposing bad science without benefit of peer review. His non-peer-reviewed study on Mann's hockey stick graph was able to spark two scientific reviews of the graph, and the general feeling at this time is the HSG has been thoroughly debunked. McIntyre was also able to reveal GISS measurements of US temperatures as faulty, and have the warmest year there changed from 1998 to 1934. Recently the skeptic bloggers exposed faulty data when October 2008 was claimed to be the warmest October in history (it wasn't). The record of what skeptic bloggers are able to do without being allowed into the old boys network of peer review is pretty good.

$1:

Here's an interesting one. This is the results of aCNN poll of 3146 scientists.

$1:

Two questions were key: Have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures?

About 90 percent of the scientists agreed with the first question and 82 percent the second.

The strongest consensus on the causes of global warming came from climatologists who are active in climate research, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role.

There are of course questions concerning that study from the other side.

Example 1

Example 2

Basically though it depends on how you frame the questions, and who you ask. Most skeptics agree there was a warming trend, and we are most likely still in it. They also believe human activity which would include stuff like land usage should have at least some influence on climate. There's nothing controversial there if you frame the questions right. You'll get even better results if you ask people, most of who are making a living trying to show the connection between humans and climate.

Other studies give different results.

$1:

Professor Dennis Bray of Germany who along with Hans von Storch polled climate scientists to rate the statement, “To what extent do you agree or disagree that climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes?” on a scale of one to seven, seven indicating strong disagreement. They received responses from 530 climate scientists in 27 countries, of whom 44 percent were either neutral or disagreed with the statement (29 percent said that warming is not mostly the result of anthropogenic causes). “These results, i.e. the mean of 3.62, seem to suggest that consensus is not all that strong and only 9.4% of the respondents strongly agree that climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes” (Science Magazine helpfully refused to publish the findings, by the way).

Here's a Canadian one

In fact it's interesting that the journal which published the study you mentioned refused a previous study on a similar subject which apparently got different results. The reason given for the refusal of the first paper was " EOS should not accept summaries of opinion polls. and that they wanted to focus on science instead (even in the “Forum” section)". What changed?