News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:World won't cool without geoengineering, warns report by mcv on Thursday September 26, 2013 @11:09AM (#6451267)
> my biggest problem with AGW is indeed the fact that its predictions have an ever-longer history of not coming true.

Are you saying that global temperatures aren't rising? Is the arctic icecap not rapidly getting smaller? I believe even the rising sea level is already measurable (though still small at this point).

The predictions are coming true in a quite alarming fashion.

Re:World won't cool without geoengineering, warns report by samiru on Thursday September 26, 2013 @12:02PM (#6451652)
> Are you saying that global temperatures aren't rising?

Yes, see http://www.latimes.com/science/la-sci-climate-change-uncerta...

> Is the arctic icecap not rapidly getting smaller?

Well, it's not. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415191/Global-cooli...

> I believe even the rising sea level is already measurable

Sure. Global Sea Level Rise Dampened by Australia Floods - http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/08/130819141610.ht...

Re:World won't cool without geoengineering, warns report by shawn-furyan on Thursday September 26, 2013 @01:17PM (#6452156)
Unlike ACQQ[1], I'm not going to assert that these are climate change denialists, they may well be, but it's irrelevant. You're using news/op-ed citations as evidence for basic questions of fact.

Science news almost universally overstates the effects of particular findings. These sources are more or less fine for announcing a new finding, but when you start to get into debating particular facts, they are utterly inappropriate sources.

In a forum such as Hacker News, you can expect most participants to be capable of reading the relevant portion of a peer reviewed study, and so that is the sort of citation that should be offered. News/op-ed articles bring nothing to the discussion.

And just to be clear, the ancestors our posts made unsubstantiated assertions based on their interpretation of the evidence, so in a sense, they are citing themselves, which in this sort of discussion, I think is fine. It's the appeal to low quality scientific authorities that is the issue.

[1]No offense intended by this at all, just giving a different perspective. ACQQ's comment was a catalyst for my own comment.

Re:World won't cool without geoengineering, warns report by acqq on Thursday September 26, 2013 @12:16PM (#6451743)
Giving the links to the articles which present the views of denialists as facts aren't proof of anything but that there are journalist and media that distort what the most scientist believe.

See: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6451344

Re:World won't cool without geoengineering, warns report by talmand on Thursday September 26, 2013 @05:31PM (#6453773)
Three of the Rules of Radicals:

#3: Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.

#5: Ridicule is man's most potent weapon.

#13: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.

All in one sentence at that. Excellent.

Re:World won't cool without geoengineering, warns report by sally888 on Thursday September 26, 2013 @06:29PM (#6454039)
Re:World won't cool without geoengineering, warns report by talmand on Thursday September 26, 2013 @06:34PM (#6454051)
But I wasn't attacking, I was congratulating.
Re:World won't cool without geoengineering, warns report by mcv on Friday September 27, 2013 @08:26AM (#6456585)
> Well, it's not. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415191/Global-cooli....

Really? The Daily Mail? And you think a one-year fluctuation contradicts a long term trend?

Had you actually looked into this subject, instead of clinging to some random image that seems to say what you wish to be true, you might have known that 2013 is still the sixth lowest year for arctic icecap size. And the other 5 are in the past 6 years.

You think a random image proves anything, but the only thing it proves is your own ignorance on the subject. The arctic icecap is rapidly getting smaller.

Re:World won't cool without geoengineering, warns report by gd1 on Thursday September 26, 2013 @11:54AM (#6451592)
>Are you saying that global temperatures aren't rising?

They haven't for the last 15 years, so that may be exactly what he is saying.

>Is the arctic icecap not rapidly getting smaller?

It is, but is the antarctic icecap not rapidly getting larger?

Re:World won't cool without geoengineering, warns report by mcv on Friday September 27, 2013 @08:18AM (#6456547)
> They haven't for the last 15 years, so that may be exactly what he is saying.

I hear people claim that, but I can't find anything that backs it up. From what I can tell, average global temperature in the mid-90s was lower than today. Since about 2000, the rapid rise from before seems to slowing or halting, but it seems a bit early to say that this is a persistent change in the long term trend. The steep climb from before is undeniable.

In other words, the last 15 years have still been a lot warmer than anything before.

Re:World won't cool without geoengineering, warns report by jellicle on Friday September 27, 2013 @08:43AM (#6456658)
Re:World won't cool without geoengineering, warns report by anon1385 on Thursday September 26, 2013 @12:14PM (#6451730)
> is the antarctic icecap not rapidly getting larger?

To the best of our knowledge the East Antarctic Ice Sheet is gaining mass[1] due to increased precipitation and the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is losing mass[2] due to acceleration of glaciers. I believe there is also an increase in Antarctic sea ice extent [3]. As far as I know these increases are not enough to offset the reduction in mass in the Arctic but I don't have a comparison to hand. Wait a few days and the IPCC report will probably have a decent summary.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Antarctic_Ice_Sheet#Ice_m... [2] http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/12/the-he... [3] http://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/03/16/antarctic-sea-ice-gai...

Re:World won't cool without geoengineering, warns report by mcv on Friday September 27, 2013 @08:11AM (#6456515)
I don't see how they could offset reduction of mass in the arctic; they're different systems. Note that loss in sea ice doesn't lead to rising sea levels; it's land ice that matters. If Antarctica indeed has a net gain in land ice, then it would be interesting if that offsets the projected loss in glaciers on Greenland. Also relevant is to what extent it's really long term gain in land ice.