SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Paper that claimed the Sun caused global warming gets retracted:
A paper published last June was catnip for those who are desperate to explain climate change with anything but human-caused greenhouse gas emissions. It was also apparently wrong enough to be retracted this week by the journal that published it, even though its authors objected.
The paper's headline conclusion was that it described a newly discovered cycle in the motion of the Sun, one that put us 300 years into what would be a thousand-year warming period for the Earth. Nevermind that we've been directly measuring the incoming radiation from the Sun and there has been no increase to explain the observed global warming—or that there is no evidence of a 2,000 year temperature cycle in the paleoclimate record.
Those obvious issues didn't stop some people from taking this study as proof that past warming was natural, and only mild and unavoidable warming lies in our future.
(Score: 4, Informative) by HiThere on Saturday March 07 2020, @05:49PM (16 children)
The scientific community has already been low-balling the severity of climate forecasts. They didn't want to look alarmist. And people ignored those low but still unpleasant estimates because they didn't say anything really bad would happen for 50 years. Or 100 years. Or in some cases they stretched it out to 1,000 years. And people ignored it. Then they started reporting "Whoops, things are happening a lot faster than we predicted." And then people started saying "That can't be right, because you predicted that it wouldn't happen this soon.", except for some that just stopped up their ears and went "la-la-la".
There's a problem because the predictions *do* have a lot of uncertainty. Sorry, but climate science is hard, and we don't have it mastered. So it made a certain amount of sense to not stick their neck out, but it also meant they weren't doing their proper job. (OTOH, if they had reported accurately, people would have misunderstood the uncertainty. Sometimes there's no way to win.) Look at what "The Day After Tomorrow" did with some rather accurate projections. (The great conveyor has been slowing, and there's evidence that Greenland's melting *MAY* shut it down. Which might cause Northern Europe to freeze and perhaps the Northern US. While at the same time the rest of the world gets a lot hotter. *MAYBE* That's not a high probability prediction. And "freeze" doesn't mean anything like what the movie showed. But it may mean, e.g., no more orange trees in California or Florida.)
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Saturday March 07 2020, @11:25PM (2 children)
Meanwhile, Hollywierd puts out a ton of movies showing instant overnight radical climate change... can't get the truth anywhere.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 08 2020, @06:29AM (1 child)
Can you name a single such film?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday March 08 2020, @03:29PM
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday March 08 2020, @03:06PM (12 children)
There are two important ways that is wrong. First, the models continue to run hot [rossmckitrick.com] - keep in mind that those predictions are based off of CO2 production not CO2 content. Second, the severity of a given level of climate impact (like a certain amount of sea level rise), is ridiculously exaggerated (for example, the Stern Review [wikipedia.org]).
Like what? I'll note, for example, that there's now predictions of long term warming that's around 4+ C per doubling of CO2 and not at all evident in today's measured warming. Sea level change might be a little higher than predicted, but not significantly so. Or perhaps you speak of the propensity of non-climate researchers to tied everything they can to the climate change bandwagon? Like climate changed induced brain-eating birds [soylentnews.org] (based on the allegation that climate change has caused two bird species to overlap in their nesting).
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Sunday March 08 2020, @03:58PM (11 children)
Like Greenland melting, Antarctica losing ice, glaciers retreating, permafrost melting, etc., etc., etc.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday March 08 2020, @04:05PM (10 children)
And those "happening faster than predicted" things aren't resulting in much sea level rise which indicates to me that these effects are exaggerated.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Monday March 09 2020, @12:47AM (9 children)
Go ask someone who lives in the Maldives, or the Marshall Islands, or Tuvalu if the sea level is rising.
Just because you don't hear about it doesn't mean it is not happening.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday March 09 2020, @01:42PM (8 children)
Because that's relevant how? Did someone claim that there's no sea level rise and that somehow a destimony from someone living on a beach is the only way to change their mind?
I guess we need to remember that there's about 600k people living in those areas. Meanwhile we have somewhere around 7.8 billion people living elsewhere in the world. Until climate change mitigation has positive value, it'll remain better to accept some sea level rise. People and farms can move. The systems that make those 7.8 billion people more prosperous aren't so flexible to mandate.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Monday March 09 2020, @08:22PM (7 children)
Yes, you did.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday March 10 2020, @01:09AM (6 children)
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Tuesday March 10 2020, @01:16AM (5 children)
Yeah, whatever.
"Not resulting in much" when someone's entire home is disappearing is just your interpretation of "not much".
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday March 10 2020, @03:06AM (4 children)
So now, you're admitting that your earlier accusation was false in the usual backhanded way.
I bet that there's seven billion other people who might find 3 mm per year [wikipedia.org] to be pretty damn small too.
Climate change mitigation has been a huge mess, often doing the opposite of what was intended. I'm certainly not going to support it merely to protect (or rather give the illusion of protection since most of the carbon emitting world won't slow down) a small number of peoples' lifestyles. If their homes flood permanently, then live somewhere else. The world is a big place. They'll figure it out.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday March 11 2020, @02:46AM (3 children)
I'm pointing out how some people's countries are going to disappear.
Of course, because it doesn't affect you it is of no real consequence.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday March 11 2020, @03:00AM (2 children)
Same goes for 7.8 billion other people. But the climate mitigation required to protect those few people in those itty bitty countries is going to be of a great harm, a very real consequences to those billions of people.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday March 11 2020, @06:54PM (1 child)
Like what?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday March 12 2020, @02:02PM