Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Monday July 17, @05:17AM   Printer-friendly
from the one-big-ice-cube dept.

(CNN)This week, a trillion-ton hunk of ice broke off Antarctica.

You probably know that. It was all over the Internet.

Among the details that have been repeated ad nauseam: The iceberg is nearly the size of Delaware, which prompted some fun musing on Twitter about where exactly Delaware is and how anyone is supposed to approximate the square footage of that US state. The ice, which has been named A68, represents more than 12% of the Larsen C ice shelf, a sliver on the Antarctic Peninsula. And most important: None of this has anything to do with man-made climate change.

The problem: That last detail -- the climate one -- is misleading at best.

At worst, it's wrong.

Some scientists think this has a lot to do with global warming.

I spent most of Thursday on the phone with scientists, talking to them about the huge iceberg off Antarctica and what it means. Here are my five takeaways.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/14/world/sutter-iceberg-antarctica-climate-change/index.html

[Warning: CNN autoplay video - Ed]


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough

Mark All as Read

Mark All as Unread

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 17, @05:28AM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 17, @05:28AM (#540191)

    It's the jumbo shrimp of iceberg.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 17, @02:19PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 17, @02:19PM (#540312)

      As everybody knows, an acre is the area of 1 chain by 1 furlong.

      1 football-field = 1.322 acres

      1 delaware = 1,205,000 football-fields

      1 wales = 4 delawares

  • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 17, @05:37AM (3 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 17, @05:37AM (#540192)

    The MIDAS team is the one actually studying the iceberg/iceshelf. I don't see why these other researchers have no problem contradicting them:

    "They're looking at it through a microscope" rather than seeing macro trends, including the fact that oceans around Antarctica are warming, helping thin the ice, said Kevin Trenberth, a distinguished senior scientist at the US National Center for Atmospheric Research.

    "To me, it's an unequivocal signature of the impact of climate change on Larsen C," said Eric Rignot, a glaciologist at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory and the University of California, Irvine. "This is not a natural cycle. This is the response of the system to a warmer climate from the top and from the bottom. Nothing else can cause this."

    Rignot said colleagues who say otherwise are burying their heads "in the ice."

    It sounds like Rignot provided no further evidence or reasoning and Trenberth is basing his claim on a wrong assumption (that the ice is thinning):

    And while climate change is accepted to have played a role in the wholesale disintegration of the Larsen A and Larsen B ice shelves, Luckman emphasised that there is no evidence that the calving of the giant iceberg is linked to such processes.

    Twila Moon, a glacier expert at the US National Ice and Snow Data Center agrees but, she said, climate change could have made the situation more likely.

    “Certainly the changes that we see on ice shelves, such as thinning because of warmer ocean waters, are the sort [of changes] that are going to make it easier for these events to happen,” she said.

    Luckman is not convinced. “It is a possibility, but recent data from the Scripps Institute of Oceanography actually show most of the shelf thickening,” he said.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jul/12/giant-antarctic-iceberg-breaks-free-of-larsen-c-ice-shelf [theguardian.com]

    • (Score: 4, Informative) by WalksOnDirt on Monday July 17, @07:03AM (2 children)

      by WalksOnDirt (5854) on Monday July 17, @07:03AM (#540208) Journal

      Global warming probably isn't suppressing calving from Larsen C. In fact, it's probably increasing the calving rate at least somewhat. The question is whether it is by a trivial amount or a large amount, and scientists have different opinions. That's a normal difference of opinion for scientists to have, and most of us can't add anything meaningful to it.

      I'll just enjoy the show.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 17, @02:42PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 17, @02:42PM (#540325)

        You still believe it. Are you an expert in this ice shelf who has been watching it since the 1980s? Why do you trust yourself more than someone who has been doing that who is telling you otherwise? It's insane how people just have this confidence that this is due to global warming. PS warming is supposed to thicken the ice since warm air holds more moisture, which means more precipitation.

        • (Score: 2) by WalksOnDirt on Wednesday July 19, @03:04AM

          by WalksOnDirt (5854) on Wednesday July 19, @03:04AM (#541293) Journal

          What a strange comment. I explicitly stated that scientists disagree and that I had no expertise in saying who is right.

          I suspect that more precipitation would lead to more calving. This is not the same as saying the ice shelf would be shrinking, which depends on, at least, the calving rate, the flow of ice onto the shelf and how fast it melts from exposure to sea water.

  • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by jmorris on Monday July 17, @06:04AM (34 children)

    by jmorris (4844) Subscriber Badge <jmorrisNO@SPAMbeau.org> on Monday July 17, @06:04AM (#540197)

    So we are supposed to believe #FakeNews #CNN when they say to ignore the actual scientists who might know something in favor of some more global warming scaremongering from a columnist who focuses on "climate change and social justice." Satire is dead because reality is now too insane to poke fun at. It really is a religion for some people. And at least as dangerous as any of the old ones.

    • (Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 17, @06:16AM (9 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 17, @06:16AM (#540199)

      When I am agreeing with jmorris that this particular event is dramatized misinformation.

      CNN's caliber of news hasn't been good for 10-15 years though, just like plenty of other news sources biased to either the right or left.

      If people weren't pandering for this, maybe more journalists could work on improving their journalistic integrity to 'mostly impartial' with documented biases left, right, or pro/con (pick an issue), and help the populace get back to figuring out what issues are actually important to them.

      Based on that though, it is Keeping up with the Kardashians, bashing on backwards pro-white conservatives, or calling out those sjw libtards.

      American is so fucked.

      • (Score: 4, Funny) by Some call me Tim on Monday July 17, @06:54AM (7 children)

        by Some call me Tim (5819) on Monday July 17, @06:54AM (#540204)

        CNN employees have admitted that all of their Russia garbage is about profit and nothing else. Next thing you know, they'll be the ones looking for Bat Boy! Come to think of it, that would be a better use of their talents.

        • (Score: 2) by inertnet on Monday July 17, @08:57AM (6 children)

          by inertnet (4071) on Monday July 17, @08:57AM (#540228)

          Climate change news sells too.

          • (Score: 2) by VLM on Monday July 17, @12:08PM (5 children)

            by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Monday July 17, @12:08PM (#540263)

            Really? I googled up some graphs showing the Weather Channel has lost 1/3 of its audience since the "old days" when it showed the weather instead of documentaries and reality TV. Admittedly their non-weather content wasn't exclusively global warming focused so you can't blame all the decline on global warming coverage. Also in a smartphone and computer era with bookmarks to weather.gov there's no point in sitting thru five minutes of commercials to see tomorrows weather, anymore, so I'm surprised the number isn't zero.

            Aside from relative decline, we're at the stage where less than 200K people watch the weather channel per the graphs I've seen, and by watch they mean its on in the background to generate noise while the kids get ready for school or senior citizens unconscious at nursing homes "watching" 18 hours per day (watching with their eyes closed, etc). "Sells" means something like 120 million combined printings of the six or so Twilight novels, not 200K TVs are tuned in but no one is watching. Twilight is a thousand times better seller than global warming. Its so close to zero its barely a rounding error.

            • (Score: 2) by inertnet on Monday July 17, @01:05PM (4 children)

              by inertnet (4071) on Monday July 17, @01:05PM (#540283)

              Time for a new scare then. In my lifetime we've already had the Russians, a new ice age, acid rain, peak oil, global warming, climate change, isis, Trump, the Russians again and I probably forgot a few. I wonder what's next but I'm sure it will sell well.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 17, @02:47PM (1 child)

                by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 17, @02:47PM (#540328)

                the Russians, a new ice age, acid rain, peak oil, global warming, climate change, isis, Trump, the Russians again

                I would just assume they do sequels like is usual for movies these days. If your order was accurate, get ready for ice age scare 2 to come up next.

                • (Score: 1) by toddestan on Monday July 17, @11:57PM

                  by toddestan (4982) on Monday July 17, @11:57PM (#540644)

                  It's more popular to do reboots now. You might have noticed they just rebooted Russia. Maybe next will be acid rain?

              • (Score: 1, Disagree) by redbear762 on Monday July 17, @11:39PM (1 child)

                by redbear762 (5576) on Monday July 17, @11:39PM (#540639)

                For me, I had to add Sagan screaming about how we'd all be cannibals hunting each other through the giant snowdrifts by the time I'd graduate high school. Geez, will these folks just stop already? We're heading towards a major solar minimum and these fucks will be back to blaming people for the cold.

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 18, @06:25PM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 18, @06:25PM (#541083)

                  That's not what a solar minimum does.

      • (Score: 5, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 17, @07:37AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 17, @07:37AM (#540217)

        When I am agreeing with jmorris

        When, and if, god forbid, this happens to you, there are several commonsense steps to take.

        1. Are you in fact jmorris? If this is true, it is very sad, but at least you know there really is nothing you can do about it.
        2. Are you agreeing with jmorris because you have lost your mind, hate Hillary, or have become a right-wing nutjob? Again, not much to be done.
        3. Is jmorris right? Unlikely, yes. Impossible? Almost. But still logically possible, on the "broken clock" principle. If so, you have nothing to worry about since you are not agreeing with jmorris, you are just confirming what is actually factually correct and logically consistent.
        4. Are you agreeing with jmorris because of Pres. Trump, Twitter, or Donald, Jr.? Agreeing with jmorris is the least of your problems.
        5. You are agreeing with jmorris because CNN sucks. This seems a bit of an over-reaction, somewhat premature, maybe you should stop short of actually agreeing with jmorris, because of the Brain Slime Eels.

        If, after running through this short checklist, you still feel inclined to agree with jmorris but are bothered by this feeling, please contact the Special Social Justice Warrior Response Squad, jmorris Division, at ssjwrs-jmorris@socialjusticewarriors.org. Your tendencies will be noted.

    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Lagg on Monday July 17, @06:57AM (17 children)

      by Lagg (105) Subscriber Badge on Monday July 17, @06:57AM (#540206) Homepage Journal

      I guess satire is dead indeed because I legitimately can't tell if you use fakenews with any self-awareness or not. Given your retarded statements in the past it's 50/50.

      One thing is for sure, it's not exactly easy to make me lose patience with any kind of article so long as the fundamental reasoning is legit. But this shit is just... I can't justify reading anything fully that uses this kind of reasoning because it always sets the tone:

      1. This doesn't NOT look like climate change.

      That's so fucking annoying on so many levels I don't even know where to start. Actually addressing climate change is a lost cause with these people politicizing it so it can poison weak cattle-like minds. Like Trump's.

      Regardless of dumb authors or not though, pretty sure actual scientists say it's an issue that should be addressed. And 3 terms going, I still don't understand why this is a controversial matter.

      --
      http://lagg.me [lagg.me] 🗿
      8DF5 7CC6 9572 2282 4BD7 CC2C 1316 E8D2 AB04 0CBD
      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday July 17, @09:20AM (16 children)

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday July 17, @09:20AM (#540234) Journal
        The universe is grossly unfair. You will on occasion find yourself agreeing with jmorris and other frightening people. Deal with it.

        As to the story, one merely needed to read the title to see where this was going. Freaking out doesn't accomplish much beyond increasing popcorn consumption.

        Regardless of dumb authors or not though, pretty sure actual scientists say it's an issue that should be addressed. And 3 terms going, I still don't understand why this is a controversial matter.

        Depends what "addressed" means. After all, global warming has been addressed for decades. We studied it and we found it wasn't bad enough at the time to justify diverting resources from all our other bad problems. I understand why that is controversial, but I wouldn't have it any different. We did a lot of good then by not freaking out.

        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Lagg on Monday July 17, @11:18AM (12 children)

          by Lagg (105) Subscriber Badge on Monday July 17, @11:18AM (#540256) Homepage Journal

          No see that's my advantage over people like jmorris. I'm not frightened by people and phantoms, and though I don't consider him nearly so disagreeable as it being a broken clock situation. The point still stands that saying enough retarded shit is eventually going to produce something partially agreeable to someone. Nor do I have to agree with someone's personality or views to agree with a point.

          Addressed: Stop driving, tell housing developers and auto industry to knock it the fuck off with the suburban advertising and not having sidewalks, use public transportation, bikes, carpooling. Don't defund watchdogs like EPA, let them continue being annoying cunts until technology routes around their guidelines and interesting fun new agencies must be founded as tech marches on. There is not much else to do but improve processes or eliminate them as redundancies. All better than what the current trend is. Industry doesn't help and especially transport but reality must continue.

          Speaking of reality, the concept of small savings over iterative improvements extending the planet's lifetime isn't optimistic and shiny as a headline. And even though my limping ass manages to get around walking I acknowledge people are still too attached to their gas suckers to get out and like... Not have a heart attack earlier from cheese burgers. So of course we'll not optimize our pipelines (sometimes literally, sometimes not) and instead continue bickering about how minute it is because who gives a fuck it'll only matter in a few hundred years right?

          --
          http://lagg.me [lagg.me] 🗿
          8DF5 7CC6 9572 2282 4BD7 CC2C 1316 E8D2 AB04 0CBD
          • (Score: 2, Interesting) by khallow on Monday July 17, @12:15PM (4 children)

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday July 17, @12:15PM (#540267) Journal

            Speaking of reality, the concept of small savings over iterative improvements extending the planet's lifetime isn't optimistic and shiny as a headline.

            Nor is it being discussed here. Afraid there's not much point to bringing it up without massive space infrastructure to make actual extension of the planet's lifetime possible.

            So of course we'll not optimize our pipelines (sometimes literally, sometimes not) and instead continue bickering about how minute it is because who gives a fuck it'll only matter in a few hundred years right?

            I think a huge part of the problem is that so many people don't understand what we're doing now. Continuing "bickering about how minute it is" means that we'll continue to elevate the entirety of humanity out of poverty with the synergistic side effect of reducing population growth rate to a long term negative rate. Sorry, but that is worth quite a bit of climate change and quite a bit of obstruction of the do-gooders who'd rather shave very little off global warming than make seven billion peoples' lives better.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 17, @05:31PM (3 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 17, @05:31PM (#540418)

              If it were just debating how big a deal the issue is, I would be OK with it. However, the people denying climate change are neither "bickering about how minute it is" nor are their motivations to pull people out of poverty. It seems to me that they are outright denying that there is a problem, and doing so to pull regulations that will fatten corporate coffers

              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday July 18, @01:57AM (2 children)

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday July 18, @01:57AM (#540693) Journal

                It seems to me that they are outright denying that there is a problem, and doing so to pull regulations that will fatten corporate coffers

                Even if that were true, and I don't believe it is, you should have a better argument against such "denying" than "Their motives seem impure." Maybe we should similarly ignore researchers because they're getting paid to come up with this research (or rather they wouldn't be paid so much and be so employable, if they weren't coming up with alarming predictions of climate change)? At some point, you have to realize all messengers have ulterior motives and other biases which influence their messages, but don't necessarily negate the message.

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 18, @05:39PM (1 child)

                  by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 18, @05:39PM (#541047)

                  You attribute pure motives, "pulling people out of poverty", while I attribute the motives to something less positive like greed.

                  I guess that is partly how this turns into bickering. We get off the track of the real issue and debate something else . . .

                  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday July 18, @11:43PM

                    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday July 18, @11:43PM (#541231) Journal

                    You attribute pure motives, "pulling people out of poverty", while I attribute the motives to something less positive like greed.

                    No, that's consequences which are very different [wikipedia.org] from motives.

          • (Score: 2) by VLM on Monday July 17, @12:19PM (1 child)

            by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Monday July 17, @12:19PM (#540270)

            If I'm ascetic enough of a monk, the world won't go to Hell. If I just flail myself harder the world will be saved. Well actually what I do is so much of a rounding error that it won't affect anyone or anything else, and I'm not going to do it anyway, just talk about it, but I do get to be holier than thou in public by talking about it. The left likes to make fun of right wing religion and pretend they're atheists, but the left has a very medieval religious world outlook. Twitter is basically left wing televangelism, faith healing, and prayer networks. Global warming is basically the lefts version of the Catholics getting all worked up about transubstantiation or the trinity, that's very interesting in an intellectual sense but people not in faithful to the religion couldn't care less about the argument or expressions of faith. "I believe more and better in the trinity than you so I'm better" means nothing to a Hindu, for example, and its like that when the left impacts reality with global warming.

            • (Score: 2) by Whoever on Monday July 17, @03:13PM

              by Whoever (4524) on Monday July 17, @03:13PM (#540338)

              You probably don't vote, either, because your vote doesn't make enough of a difference.

          • (Score: 2) by Sulla on Monday July 17, @02:48PM (4 children)

            by Sulla (5173) on Monday July 17, @02:48PM (#540329) Journal

            Or we could just convert the largest 15 tanker ships to nuclear - http://www.industrytap.com/worlds-15-biggest-ships-create-more-pollution-than-all-the-cars-in-the-world/8182. [industrytap.com]

            Maybe if your first answer wasn't "change your lifestyle you pig" the other side would be more willing to work with you. As it is almost everything that needs to be done to save the planet mostly effects the lifestyle of the side who doesn't want to do it that way. The correct way to do this is to provide them with economic reasons to change. Design a vehicle that has comparable performance to what they expect and make it economically competitive, show that the economic costs of beef production are higher than that of pork and chicken, etc. Find a way to provide profit to them instead of just telling them to suck it.

            Until then the left can go fuck itself. I have made changes to my daily life where I can to be more accommodating, but the answer is always an insult about not doing enough.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 17, @03:13PM (1 child)

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 17, @03:13PM (#540337)

              Maybe if your first answer wasn't "change your lifestyle you pig" the other side would be more willing to work with you.

              But maybe the other side is wrong, and changing your lifestyle really is what is needed? Have you heard the (asinine) expression "have your cake and eat it too"? The other side knows their gains are ill-gotten, they know how they do business is wrong and all they want to do is to continue raping and pillaging everything and everyone. And they find useful idiots who actually buy into the idea they present that you should let them do what they do because one day, you too could get some of those ill-gotten riches.
              If anything good comes from Global Climate Change, it will be that a large percentage of these useful idiots will be getting culled by the effects of it...

              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday July 18, @02:06AM

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday July 18, @02:06AM (#540700) Journal

                But maybe the other side is wrong, and changing your lifestyle really is what is needed?

                Then there would be evidence for the assertion rather than just sanctimonious judgments and status signaling.

            • (Score: 2) by Lagg on Monday July 17, @03:33PM

              by Lagg (105) Subscriber Badge on Monday July 17, @03:33PM (#540340) Homepage Journal

              Heh, you mistake the nature of my remark. I don't do this because of a lifestyle choice. It's a simple reality from medical problems. I'm apart entirely from greenpeace types and therefore could not possibly care less what someone does on an individual level for transport. But the fact has been made clear that next to not being such whores for beef (and therefore farting cows) reducing our reliance on gas and emissions resulting from it is a pretty solid next step that doesn't require any technology changes beyond continuously improving emissions standards. Which is something being worked against as hard as possible currently, so that's unfortunate. By all means drive a big ol' gas trucker around if you want to stick it to "the left". Biology doesn't care what your affiliation is. These are facts. And are as plain to me as saying the ocean is salty.

              Also in my personal experience not driving and therefore not having to deal with what goes along with it (insurance, maintenance, payments) has been an overall simplification. I have lived in the desert and a state capitol. This remains true. The rest of the world manages fine in a lot of cases and america itself managed fine before the industry wanted to capitalize on suburb migration. We could have been a leader in public transport had it not been for this.

              --
              http://lagg.me [lagg.me] 🗿
              8DF5 7CC6 9572 2282 4BD7 CC2C 1316 E8D2 AB04 0CBD
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 17, @05:06PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 17, @05:06PM (#540402)

              I understand the "don't change my lifestyle" up to a point, but there are things that should change. We need to move away from the disposable culture, we are generating too much trash. We don't need to stop personal transportation, we just need to transition to more sustainable methods such as mass transit and electric vehicles powered by renewable sources.

              Such lifestyle changes are not about pleasing some other political group, they are about saving the planet for the species! Your attitude sucks and reeks of entitlement.

        • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Monday July 17, @04:55PM (2 children)

          by aristarchus (2645) on Monday July 17, @04:55PM (#540392) Journal

          You will on occasion find yourself agreeing with jmorris and other frightening people. Deal with it.

          The first step in dealing with it is to consult the check-list!

          When I am agreeing with jmorriskhallow

          When, and if, god forbid, this happens to you, there are several commonsense steps to take.

          1. Are you in fact khallow? If this is true, it is very sad, but at least you are not jmorris.
          2. Are you agreeing with khallow because you are frightened, scared of Hillary, or have become a right-wing nutjob? See a doctor and ask for Spice, because fear is the mind-killer.
          3. Is khallow right? Unlikely, yes. Impossible? Almost. But still logically possible, on the "tarbaby" principle. See if you can get paid for doubting AGW on the internets.
          4. Are you agreeing with khallow because of Ayn Rand, von Mises, or Nozick? Agreeing with jmorris is the least of your problems.
          5. You are agreeing with jmorris because no one give you an argument, but just throws off one-liners and obvious rebuttals? Perhaps you are confusing ideological petrification with intellectual and scientific intercourse. Perhaps you should start disagreeing with khallow, just to be contrarian and "cool". There is hope for you!

          If, after running through this short checklist, you still feel inclined to agree with khallow, but are bothered by this feeling, please contact the Special Social Justice Warrior Response Squad, khallow Division, at ssjwrs-khallow@socialjusticewarriors.org. Your tendencies will be noted.

          Modified mutandis mutandum.

          --
          guess who was the worst moderator on site, handing out more than twice the downmods of the next closest registered user
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 17, @06:47PM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 17, @06:47PM (#540474)

            You think it is normal to turn off your brain in the face of anything you find unusual and turn to a "checklist" to tell you what to do?

            • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Monday July 17, @07:27PM

              by aristarchus (2645) on Monday July 17, @07:27PM (#540503) Journal

              Wait a sec, . . . OK, checked the list: I agree with both jmorris and khallow on this one. Highly unusual.

              --
              guess who was the worst moderator on site, handing out more than twice the downmods of the next closest registered user
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 17, @07:57AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 17, @07:57AM (#540219)

      So we are supposed to believe #FakeNews #CNN when they say

      Well, if my only two choises are CNN and jmorris (4844) I'm going to have to go with CNN. Fortunately I have more choices because I can think for myself.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 17, @08:04AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 17, @08:04AM (#540221)

      While I would never trust CNN, I would also never trust someone who uses hashtags when they don't make sense (i.e. most of the time).

    • (Score: 1, Offtopic) by unauthorized on Monday July 17, @08:06AM

      by unauthorized (3776) on Monday July 17, @08:06AM (#540222)

      No Jmorris, you are supposed to believe the scientists who write for WePublishAnyoneWhoPaysUs.org and get lots of money from oil companies. #BreakTheConditioning

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 17, @09:13AM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 17, @09:13AM (#540233)

      Cabal (Fake)News Network - unbelievable, they are towing the line with the current pseudoscience fashion? Surely not.

      This part of the Larsen C shelf has been cracking apart since the early 1960s. The crack only got to complete it's long journey now.
      Global (BS) Warming... biggest snowstorm in decades hits NZ, snow on Table Mountain in Cape Town, South Africa. Warming?
      My 2c on this is that the extra weight of fresh snow on Larsen C has sped up the crack - due to weight, not Bubba in his Hummer roaring across the USA (that only creates drag on the nation's IQ).

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 17, @05:41PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 17, @05:41PM (#540424)

        You are lacking in science education, it appears you have an 8th grade level of understanding.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 18, @04:08AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 18, @04:08AM (#540768)

          Show me your PhD thesis in climatology.

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by maxwell demon on Monday July 17, @06:52AM (14 children)

    by maxwell demon (1608) Subscriber Badge on Monday July 17, @06:52AM (#540203) Journal

    Maybe they should start with a clear definition of what it means to "have anything to do with man-made climate change". Because it's absolutely not clear what this is supposed to mean.

    Consider a biased coin that has slightly higher odds to give heads. I toss it and it gives heads. Does this result have anything to do with the coin being biased? On one hand, yes, the coin being biased means it more likely did give heads, so getting heads on that toss was certainly influenced by the coin's bias. On the other hand, no, I could also have gotten heads with an unbiased coin, and I need many tosses to see the difference between the unbiased and the biased coin.

    --
    The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    • (Score: 2) by moondrake on Monday July 17, @08:34AM (5 children)

      by moondrake (2658) on Monday July 17, @08:34AM (#540224)

      I came here to post such an example, but could not have formulate it so eloquently as you did.

      This is exactly what is going on here, and is why it can be both interpreted as evidence and as coincidence. It is a single data point.

      Now the gradual thinning in ice in the area over decades correlated to warmer temperatures (I have no idea if this is true) might be stronger evidence of a link (but is still only a correlation).

      In the end, it does not matter. Ice melting is no evidence for climate change, it is simply a consequence of it.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 17, @09:04AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 17, @09:04AM (#540231)

        Another issue is that human contribution is accelerating and magnifying the effect of global warming. Global warming itself is not unexpected and is part of a regular equilibrium our planet had fallen into the past ~million or so years. Granted, we should have long since (in terms of temperature/CO2, not necessarily time) begun to stabilize and enter into the next ice age, but the degree, length, and scale of warming are all very relevant here. Ultimately this just looks like more Clickbait News Network.

      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday July 17, @09:23AM (3 children)

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday July 17, @09:23AM (#540235) Journal

        In the end, it does not matter. Ice melting is no evidence for climate change, it is simply a consequence of it.

        Consequence and evidence is not mutually exclusive. A car wrapped around a tree can be both evidence and consequence of poor driving.

        • (Score: 2) by moondrake on Monday July 17, @01:57PM

          by moondrake (2658) on Monday July 17, @01:57PM (#540301)

          that was sort of exactly my point though. Which is why different people explain this iceberg differently.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 17, @02:06PM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 17, @02:06PM (#540305)

          Isn't that evidence of insufficient logging?

          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday July 18, @01:51AM

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday July 18, @01:51AM (#540689) Journal
            Well, evidence that someone let their tree roam loose.
    • (Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Monday July 17, @09:49AM

      by PiMuNu (3823) on Monday July 17, @09:49AM (#540241)

      Good metaphor

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 17, @02:56PM (6 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 17, @02:56PM (#540330)

      I actually never like these examples. They seem to say that flipping a coin is the only way to determine if it is biased. I'd say it is clearly one of the worst ways to try going about that. Instead you should measure the physical properties of the coin, balance it on its edge in a vibration/wind free environment, etc.

      Flipping it is what social/medical researchers would do. The latter is what physicists/engineers would do.

      • (Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Monday July 17, @06:49PM (5 children)

        by maxwell demon (1608) Subscriber Badge on Monday July 17, @06:49PM (#540475) Journal

        Not instead. In addition. If you measure the physical properties of the coin, you can say that it is not entirely symmetric, but you will not convince those who deny that the asymmetry actually leads to a bias in heads vs. tails. After all, coin tossing is a complex process, and lots of things like air currents in the room influence it, how can you say what this asymmetry really does for the probabilities? Sure, you can make simulations, but then, what about the effects you neglected because your computer is only so powerful?

        --
        The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 17, @08:00PM (4 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 17, @08:00PM (#540524)

          Yes, measure the physical properties of the coin and use these to predict the coin should come up heads x% of the time. Then when you test the coin by flipping it should be close to this value you have predicted (rather than the NHST approach of checking "50% heads").

          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday July 18, @02:04AM (3 children)

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday July 18, @02:04AM (#540697) Journal

            Yes, measure the physical properties of the coin and use these to predict the coin should come up heads x% of the time. Then when you test the coin by flipping it should be close to this value you have predicted (rather than the NHST approach of checking "50% heads").

            We ignore here that the NHST does work here without the need for model building of the coin which may be costly and still miss biases of the coin (particularly, if those biases are designed to hide from your measurements of the physical properties of the coin). And what does "test the coin by flipping it should be close to this value you have predicted" mean? NHST in disguised form.

            NHST has its place. Here, low cost testing of numerous supposedly unbiased, identical, independent observations is one of its more useful roles.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 18, @03:32AM (2 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 18, @03:32AM (#540745)

              And what does "test the coin by flipping it should be close to this value you have predicted" mean? NHST in disguised form.

              No, it is not the same at all. In my suggested case we are building a physical model of the coin and saying "coin is biased by this much", if the model then predicts the correct amount of biasedness (with "enough" precision and accuracy) we can trust the model that the coin is actually biased.

              In the NHST case we assume "coin has exactly zero bias" and test this by just checking the results of flipping the coin. As pointed out by maxwell demon there are many schemes and environmental effects that can result in a bias while the coin is just fine.

              The second difference is that once your model is tested repeatedly and shown to work, you no longer "need many tosses to see the difference between the unbiased and the biased coin." In the NHST case you will keep having to collect huge amounts of data each time. There is no cumulative knowledge being gained.

              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday July 18, @11:40AM (1 child)

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday July 18, @11:40AM (#540911) Journal

                if the model then predicts the correct amount of biasedness

                Once again I reiterate my claim that we have NHST here. You describe hypothesis testing, with an implicit comparison to the null hypothesis.

                In the NHST case we assume "coin has exactly zero bias" and test this by just checking the results of flipping the coin. As pointed out by maxwell demon there are many schemes and environmental effects that can result in a bias while the coin is just fine.

                Those schemes and environmental effects will be just as much a problem with your testing of your model's predictions.

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 18, @02:30PM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 18, @02:30PM (#540948)

                  NHST is not the same as hypothesis testing, which is not the same as significance testing. What I describe is closest to Fisher's significance testing, there is a huge literature about the mass confusion caused by the mash up of hypothesis testing and significance testing. If you were trained in the last 50 years to do applied stats there is 99% chance you were taught NHST (which is wrong).

                  The schemes and environmental effects would not be a "problem", they are further parameters to include in the model once discovered. There is no way to do this for the NHST case.

  • (Score: 2) by kazzie on Monday July 17, @08:54AM (1 child)

    by kazzie (5309) Subscriber Badge on Monday July 17, @08:54AM (#540227)

    Do they expect it to go all the way to Edinburgh [wikipedia.org]?

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 17, @11:15PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 17, @11:15PM (#540626)

      Apparently not. It becomes A7 in the Edinborough section. Not sure why, something to do with Global Warming and Scotland preparing to remain part of the EU, no doubt.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 17, @09:39AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 17, @09:39AM (#540238)

    You're citing CNN as an authoritative source?

  • (Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 17, @09:40AM (3 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 17, @09:40AM (#540239)

    Could the editors remove click bait titles, I don't expect this on this site and my in built spam/crap news site/"could it be" filters mean I'll never see otherwise informative threads.

    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday July 17, @09:48AM (2 children)

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday July 17, @09:48AM (#540240) Journal
      Informative? You didn't know that CNN had an unholy hunger for eyeballs?
      • (Score: 2) by mth on Monday July 17, @12:45PM (1 child)

        by mth (2848) on Monday July 17, @12:45PM (#540277) Homepage

        There is no "+1, Agree" mod, so I assume someone modded it informative because they agree with the message.

        By the way, I agree with it too. Just because the article has a clickbait title doesn't mean SN has to copy it as-is.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 17, @02:59PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 17, @02:59PM (#540332)

          I agree it is a clickbait title, but usually I just like to include the title of TFA rather than editorialize.

  • (Score: 2) by looorg on Monday July 17, @10:49AM

    by looorg (578) on Monday July 17, @10:49AM (#540250)

    Dubai firm wants to harvest icebergs, it's like a dream come thru. They won't even have to hack it off. It's almost as it nature wants it to happen ...

    https://phys.org/news/2017-05-dubai-firm-harvesting-icebergs.html [phys.org]

  • (Score: 5, Funny) by J_Darnley on Monday July 17, @11:17AM

    by J_Darnley (5679) on Monday July 17, @11:17AM (#540255)

    Why should it freak me out? It is unlikely to crash into my house. It will have to float all the way up the Atlantic then cross the two provinces of Belgium it is as large as and then half of another. Therefore I am not worried. If the worst does happen then at least it will crush Brussels first and I get to watch that happen.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 17, @12:18PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 17, @12:18PM (#540269)

    Who said that it has nothing to do with climate change?

    None of the news I follow claimed that. All they said was that there is nothing that shows a connection, not that it isn't there. You know, the whole absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

    Not claiming things you don't have evidence for is a good thing if you want climate science taken seriously. Even if it does offend the alarmists. Claiming that every event even possibly remotely related to the climate is a result of man-made climate change makes people ignore you, like the local weather service that go crazy about global warming every time we get a July that's warmer than February, but can't even predict what the weather is right now.

  • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 17, @01:36PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 17, @01:36PM (#540294)

    How much is going to last this giga ice cube ?

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 17, @03:36PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 17, @03:36PM (#540345)

    why won't you fuck off?

(1)