- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Some head scratching journalism on climate change
Posted on 6/16/18 at 1:17 pm
Posted on 6/16/18 at 1:17 pm
So I'm looking in my google news feed and I see 2 articles about anatarctic ice melting. Let's just call them article A and Article B for the sake of simplicity.
So here is article A;
Rate at which antractic ice melting has tripled since 2007
Immediately below the headline in article A:
Further down in the article:
Half a meter is a lot more than 6 inches. So are we to presume that between 2000 and now sea levels have risen half a meter minus the 6 inches? Reasonable assumption but not clearly stated.
Let's get to article B:
Anarctic ice melt is accelerating faster than originally thought
*It might be worth pointing out right now that both of these articles are referencing the same study that was published in the journal Nature
Odd, according to the other article that referenced the exact same study the rates tripled since 2007. So which is it? 2007 or 2012? And how would either publication botch something so simple?
So I decide I'm going to look at the source article that both are referencing. It's very short so I'll just post the entire abstract below.
Perhaps I'm missing something but the abstract refers to date ranges of 1992 to 2017
Why were the dates of 2007 and 2012 interjected into this as the start of some tripling point?
Where does the half meter come from (or even the 6 inches for that matter)? The article refers to 7.4 mm over the 25 year time frame. Even if the rate has tripled we've got 82 years left or roughly 3.3 similar cycles. That won't get you to 6 inches let alone half a meter.
Maybe I'm missing something here but I'm giving both of these articles 0/10 until someone can explain where they came up with this nonsense.
So here is article A;
Rate at which antractic ice melting has tripled since 2007
Immediately below the headline in article A:
quote:
Antarctica is now melting so fast, scientists say, that it will contribute six inches to sea-level rise by year 2100
Further down in the article:
quote:
Scientists say those losses contributed to a 7.6 millimeter rise in mean sea level, and they estimate that by year 2070 sea levels could rise another half a meter from where they were in 2000.
Half a meter is a lot more than 6 inches. So are we to presume that between 2000 and now sea levels have risen half a meter minus the 6 inches? Reasonable assumption but not clearly stated.
Let's get to article B:
Anarctic ice melt is accelerating faster than originally thought
*It might be worth pointing out right now that both of these articles are referencing the same study that was published in the journal Nature
quote:
Ice melting rates in Antarctica tripled between 2012 and 2017, according to a study published in the journal Nature.
Odd, according to the other article that referenced the exact same study the rates tripled since 2007. So which is it? 2007 or 2012? And how would either publication botch something so simple?
So I decide I'm going to look at the source article that both are referencing. It's very short so I'll just post the entire abstract below.
quote:
The Antarctic Ice Sheet is an important indicator of climate change and driver of sea-level rise. Here we combine satellite observations of its changing volume, flow and gravitational attraction with modelling of its surface mass balance to show that it lost 2,720?±?1,390 billion tonnes of ice between 1992 and 2017, which corresponds to an increase in mean sea level of 7.6?±?3.9 millimetres (errors are one standard deviation). Over this period, ocean-driven melting has caused rates of ice loss from West Antarctica to increase from 53?±?29 billion to 159?±?26 billion tonnes per year; ice-shelf collapse has increased the rate of ice loss from the Antarctic Peninsula from 7?±?13 billion to 33?±?16 billion tonnes per year. We find large variations in and among model estimates of surface mass balance and glacial isostatic adjustment for East Antarctica, with its average rate of mass gain over the period 1992–2017 (5 ± 46 billion tonnes per year) being the least certain.
Perhaps I'm missing something but the abstract refers to date ranges of 1992 to 2017
Why were the dates of 2007 and 2012 interjected into this as the start of some tripling point?
Where does the half meter come from (or even the 6 inches for that matter)? The article refers to 7.4 mm over the 25 year time frame. Even if the rate has tripled we've got 82 years left or roughly 3.3 similar cycles. That won't get you to 6 inches let alone half a meter.
Maybe I'm missing something here but I'm giving both of these articles 0/10 until someone can explain where they came up with this nonsense.
16
Posted on 6/16/18 at 1:40 pm to Powerman
quote:
Maybe I'm missing something here but I'm giving both of these articles 0/10 until someone can explain where they came up with this nonsense.
It's nonsense. All of it. You have data gathered that's bullshite. You have data extrapolated with people taking liberties based on bullshite equipment. You have NOAA fricking with data.
I guess it comes down to whether or not one believes that humans aslre powerful enough to cause giant changes in the earth natural climate cycle....
Or is one humble enough to admit that man is but a pimple on the Earth's arse.
Posted on 6/16/18 at 1:49 pm to Powerman
But we have to give the world governments more money and power. You just don't understand. The climate is perfect now and we have to keep it right here.
Posted on 6/16/18 at 1:53 pm to Powerman
The ice thing is pretty stupid. It’s like coming to a conclusion that there’s a milk shortage because every time you pour a glass there’s less in the carton.
Even if we could control the earth’s temperature, who decides where it sits? If it gets too cold we’ll have all kinds of sea life and rainforests die and people will be making the opposite argument.
Even if we could control the earth’s temperature, who decides where it sits? If it gets too cold we’ll have all kinds of sea life and rainforests die and people will be making the opposite argument.
Posted on 6/16/18 at 1:55 pm to Powerman
I'm afraid a lot of science goes like this:
a. We have reached a conclusion.
b. Now, let's do research to prove that our conclusion is true.
a. We have reached a conclusion.
b. Now, let's do research to prove that our conclusion is true.
Posted on 6/16/18 at 1:56 pm to Powerman
We all know that Antarctica is where the Nazi’s went to have hybrid offspring with the hollow earth aleins. There ice doesn’t melt.
Posted on 6/16/18 at 1:57 pm to Zach
There doesn't appear to be an issue with the science here so much as how it is being reported
Which is pretty carelessly. The 2 articles should be worded differently but have identical claims. Or at least claims that can be backed up by the data that they're citing.
Unless I'm completely missing something here neither article does such a thing.
Which is pretty carelessly. The 2 articles should be worded differently but have identical claims. Or at least claims that can be backed up by the data that they're citing.
Unless I'm completely missing something here neither article does such a thing.
Posted on 6/16/18 at 2:05 pm to Powerman
quote:
There doesn't appear to be an issue with the science here
Other than sea level rise means more water to share the same amount of energy, which would cause ocean temps to fall and ice to build back up? Or are you talking about the 50% error?
Posted on 6/16/18 at 2:07 pm to Powerman
This is why i ask people why they are so confident that journalists are such good intermediaries of fact that one need not look at the material themselves
Journalists aren't any more skilled at understanding scientific, economic or abt other data than a regular old person with a bit of smarts
Journalists aren't any more skilled at understanding scientific, economic or abt other data than a regular old person with a bit of smarts
Posted on 6/16/18 at 2:08 pm to Engineer
quote:
Other than sea level rise means more water to share the same amount of energy, which would cause ocean temps to fall and ice to build back up? Or are you talking about the 50% error?
I'm talking about the fact that neither article really seems to represent what was in the journal.
Posted on 6/16/18 at 2:11 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
This is why i ask people why they are so confident that journalists are such good intermediaries of fact that one need not look at the material themselves
Journalists aren't any more skilled at understanding scientific, economic or abt other data than a regular old person with a bit of smarts
And what's disturbing here is that it would otherwise be considered reasonable to NOT check the source material under the assumption that simple numerical data could be accurately relayed.
The main reason I checked it out of curiosity is that there were pretty glaring differences between the 2 articles. Had that not been the case, I may have ignorantly went about my business being none the wiser and would have unintentionally been ill informed.
It's just pathetic journalism on both accounts
Posted on 6/16/18 at 2:11 pm to Powerman
It's all fricking bullshite.
Posted on 6/16/18 at 2:13 pm to TexasTiger80
I have no problem with taking what is in the journal at face value. It's just raw data that comes with a margin of error and tells us something about what's happening.
The reporting on those findings inflates and distorts the actual data, apparently to no consequence.
The reporting on those findings inflates and distorts the actual data, apparently to no consequence.
Posted on 6/16/18 at 2:16 pm to Powerman
This is from American Archeology - a mainstream scientific publication. Sea levels have been rising for 10,000 years.
We have nothing to do with it.
We have nothing to do with it.
This post was edited on 6/16/18 at 2:18 pm
Posted on 6/16/18 at 2:33 pm to Powerman
Stop questioning climate change. The science is settled.
Posted on 6/16/18 at 2:35 pm to Powerman
Only He can save us!
Posted on 6/16/18 at 2:50 pm to upgrayedd
Again there is nothing wrong with the science here
It's the reporting of the science that is deeply flawed
It's the reporting of the science that is deeply flawed
Posted on 6/16/18 at 3:00 pm to Powerman
quote:Both are sketchy.
There doesn't appear to be an issue with the science here so much as how it is being reported
Antarctica is subfreezing over nearly 100% of its landmass, for nearly 100% of the year. Massive meltoff under subfreezing conditions is an obviously problematic proposition. i.e., practically speaking, precipitation should, under subfreezing circumstances, be the major driver for ice sheet mass. Yet focus on precipitation is scant.
Additionally, and in the same vein, the EAIS is a far far more significant ice mass than the WAIS. Yet estimates of EAIS mass vary broadly, and receive much less attention than do WAIS measurements.
Where I empathize with critiques of journalists' article errors and/or typos, I am much less tolerant of the fudged or smudged science being submitted to those journalists.
Posted on 6/16/18 at 3:01 pm to Powerman
Hahaha
You put journalism and climate change in the same sentence.
Had no idea you were funny
You put journalism and climate change in the same sentence.
Had no idea you were funny
Posted on 6/16/18 at 3:12 pm to Powerman
quote:
It's the reporting of the science that is deeply flawed
You shouldn't even question the reporting
Page 1 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News