>While this is “good news” on a temporary basis, this is bad news on the long term because it tells scientists that ocean temperature is a bigger player in glacier retreats and advances than previously thought, said NASA climate scientist Josh Willis, a study co-author. Over the decades the water has been and will be warming from man-made climate change, he said, noting that about 90 percent of the heat trapped by greenhouse gases goes into the oceans.
>“In the long run we’ll probably have to raise our predictions of sea level rise again,” Willis said.
Gah, this is not going to be good. An event scientists clearly believe is a bad sign, that will no doubt be interpreted by laymen as a good sign. This will not help the public policy discussion.
The problem is climate science has been handed out to people who never took the time or likely didn't have the research abilities to genuinely understand it. Instead it's become much of a "religion of science" Where people want to feel smart and so accept the science without undertanding it. The result is an incomplete model in their minds where they can agree with the science but they don't know why. In turn they flame people who are "too stupid" to understand even tho they themselves are daft. The result is people who don't believe or are on the fence are likely to be turned off from even considering climate change, because why would you try to understand someone who doesn't understand their own argument and instead just wants to flame you?
This isn't bad, it's good. Our society could use a moment for humble pie as a chance to better learn. Science can't be reduced to nothing and still have meaning. People need to actually understand what they believe in.
Experience has shown that additional flames won't make the Earth any cooler or more hospitable.
While I appreciate your frustration to a certain extent, the point's not offal dining nor is it waiting for enlightenment. The point's a revision of strategy: the scientists out in the field, observing and gathering measurements, reviewing the data revealed, and publishing papers with findings and—since without understanding themselves, they'd not have a standing to recommend—must already be in the light, because we turn to them for their recommendations today; so perhaps it'd rather be productive helping layfolk understand, in lieu of tearing them new arseholes every time they toot descant.
Exactly. Since the comment above you is flagged and removed, I assume he was flaming me? Case in point.
You're right - revision of strategy. If all these people beating their chests took half that energy to formulate a new plan of attack that actually worked with more people we could move forward. Instead they stamp their feet and say "no you come to me".
It's sad. So many people who could actually cause change just wanna be outraged...
See this is exactly the ignorance I'm talking about. You aren't even following the conversation. Instead you're just trying to lecture me like you're smarter than me for believing something you don't understand.
I know I'm not playing the faux-intellectualism game that is so popular here on HN. The science is clear, and frankly it doesn't matter whether you or I understand the details -- you're free to go get a PhD in climate science and then I'll take your opinion more seriously.
The fact is your children and grandchildren are going to suffer the consequences of climate change regardless of whether you maintain your obstinate agnosticism or not. To me, you sound like an anti-vaxxer who just doesn't think we have all the answers about these injections.
The fact is if you don't understand your own argument then you aren't in a position to make claims and demands. I'm not denying anything, you're just besting your chest. Which if you could read anyone else's words as much as you claim you've read about climate change, you'd realize is a central problem into getting people on board with science. Fix your toxic attitude if you actually care about the things you claim.
This is so true. You have to understand most people are not going to invest that much in getting up to speed with the science. A lot of climate science is counter intuitive. Like a global rise in temp can result in colder winters and more storms.
Telling people how dumb they are for ignoring something that doesn't make sense to them doesn't help. Not when you have people who are far kinder to them telling them something else is going on.
>“In the long run we’ll probably have to raise our predictions of sea level rise again,” Willis said.