> The results end up overhyped, overblown, and for soundbites like press releases and Nature papers. This just misinforms people.
I understand the scientist's desire for rigour, but ...
Most people won't bother reading the article at all. If it's up-voted or liked enough, the title is the truth. We all do it. We all accept a sentence as truth if we trust the source enough, without checking the facts.
It's impossible to check all the facts all the time.
But the WaPo article isn't about the truth. It's about beliefs. The party line.
The belief that 'I, through my sinful actions am causing the ocean to slow down'.
Ridiculous, but that is what most people will get from reading that headline.
And maybe it's not that bad.
It doesn't matter what the truth is, it matters what you believe the truth to be.
According to the National Climatic Data Center, the world just saw its warmest winter ever…except for in one spot in the north Atlantic ocean (the deepest blue color above), which set a record for cold. Which is not good. (NCDC)
These new NOAA data got me quite worried because they indicate that this partial recovery that we describe in the paper was only temporary, and the circulation is on the way down again
Honest question: is such a small data point (a couple of months) for something relatively slow (climate change) really something to worry about? Suppose I call it an outlier (which I can't because I cannot look into the future), wouldn't that be equally wrong?
If am assuming Mr. Rahmstorf is qualified enough to understand the data. And with this part "So far, the study finds, we’re looking at a circulation that’s about 15 to 20 percent weaker. That may not sound like much, but the paper suggests a weakening this strong has not happened at any time since the year 900. Moreover, this is already more weakening than scientifically expected — and could be the beginning of a further slowdown that could have great consequences" I believe there is certainly a need to worry about.
What's interesting is that beyond that "record coldest" spot in the Northern Atlantic, there are still "record warmest" places in the Arctic Ocean, north of Europe. If the temperature in those places was supposed to be dependent on the warm current from Caribbean, how come they were warmer than usual after the current slowed down?
I've never been fully convinced of anthropomorphic climate change. There's just too much politics involved for me to be convinced of such relatively recent studies.
That said, I'll convert all of my energy sources to PV cells tomorrow if someone gives me a way to do it without mortgaging the next ten years of my life.
Rather than looking at the politics perhaps you could look at the science?
What would it take to convince you? Seriously - if nothing can then we have departed from rational debate, but if there is evidence that would sway you then it would be great to identify it.
When tobacco was under attack the companies paid for scientists and doctors to spread misleading information; they paid for FUD.
Those same scientists are now employed by oil and energy companies and they are using the same tactics.
The only reason there's "politics" involved is because one side is deliberately spreading lies about the entirety of the science, even the bits that we are sure about.
A colleague of mine in Sacramento has installed solar power and expects to recover the investment in 6 years. If you're serious about using solar it seems like something that's achievable without mortgaging your life.
I like to think of these and other effects from global warming as the planet's system of healing. The warmer the climate gets, the more ways it tries to heals, and the more damage happens as a result.
If I were to apply that theory here, how is this "slow-down" part of that process?
The planet isn't an organism with an immune system reacting to infections. It's a ball of rock that "couldn't care less" if there are beings living on it. The systems that exist on the surface of the planet are just physical processes reacting to other physical processes. Nothing more. Ocean currents aren't changing as part of a process of "healing" they are changing because they are governed by the laws of physics.
[+] [-] dm3|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] codeshaman|11 years ago|reply
I understand the scientist's desire for rigour, but ...
Most people won't bother reading the article at all. If it's up-voted or liked enough, the title is the truth. We all do it. We all accept a sentence as truth if we trust the source enough, without checking the facts. It's impossible to check all the facts all the time.
But the WaPo article isn't about the truth. It's about beliefs. The party line.
The belief that 'I, through my sinful actions am causing the ocean to slow down'. Ridiculous, but that is what most people will get from reading that headline. And maybe it's not that bad.
It doesn't matter what the truth is, it matters what you believe the truth to be.
[+] [-] Patient0|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] stinos|11 years ago|reply
These new NOAA data got me quite worried because they indicate that this partial recovery that we describe in the paper was only temporary, and the circulation is on the way down again
Honest question: is such a small data point (a couple of months) for something relatively slow (climate change) really something to worry about? Suppose I call it an outlier (which I can't because I cannot look into the future), wouldn't that be equally wrong?
[+] [-] srameshc|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] restalis|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zzkt|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] padobson|11 years ago|reply
That said, I'll convert all of my energy sources to PV cells tomorrow if someone gives me a way to do it without mortgaging the next ten years of my life.
[+] [-] sgt101|11 years ago|reply
What would it take to convince you? Seriously - if nothing can then we have departed from rational debate, but if there is evidence that would sway you then it would be great to identify it.
[+] [-] DanBC|11 years ago|reply
When tobacco was under attack the companies paid for scientists and doctors to spread misleading information; they paid for FUD.
Those same scientists are now employed by oil and energy companies and they are using the same tactics.
The only reason there's "politics" involved is because one side is deliberately spreading lies about the entirety of the science, even the bits that we are sure about.
[+] [-] KevinEldon|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nashashmi|11 years ago|reply
If I were to apply that theory here, how is this "slow-down" part of that process?
[+] [-] pyre|11 years ago|reply