5 Pacific Islands Gone Due To The Media Misinterpreting Science

Submitted by: richanddead 10 months ago Science
pacific-islands-exaggerated

No editorial from the submitter (richanddead), but I'm assuming this article is in response to this post submitted by LaLaPancakes.

The Guardian article Lala submitted contradicts the Guardian article richanddead submits here.

From this article...

"Many media outlets, including the Guardian, jumped to the conclusion that the islands were lost to climate change. But this largely misinterprets the science, according to the study’s author, Dr Simon Albert.

All these headlines are certainly pushing things a bit towards the ‘climate change has made islands vanish’ angle. I would prefer slightly more moderate titles that focus on sea-level rise being the driver rather than simply ‘climate change’,” Albert told the Guardian."

There are 29 comments:
Male 1,128
perhaps all the people on those islands just ran to one side, and the island tipped over? Better known as the "rep. Hank Johnson" effect.....
0
Reply
Male 37,047
lolz! I remember that one Spanz, I posted it on IAB! :-) But it turns out he was actually joking: he has a real "deadpan" sense of humour. I'm glad of that actually! There's so many idiot, Black Democrats in office it's already a disgrace...
0
Reply
Male 5,641
Once again the argument falls between 2 groups of fanatics: the AGW fanatics who believe all climate change is due to human endeavors, and the AGW fanatic deniers who believe that, because climate change is natural (and because the GOP says so), it can't be affected by human activity at all. Both of these arguments are insanely stupid. Yes, climate change is a natural occurrence. Almost certainly humans make it worse. Is it enough to cause a significant increase in the damage that natural climate change can cause? If so, is there anything we can do to mitigate that effect? These are the questions that need to be investigated, understood, and, quite possibly, addressed. Fanatics need to be ignored since they really add nothing valuable to the argument.
0
Reply
Male 5,620
@broizfam Thank you. That was beautifully worded.
0
Reply
Male 37,047
broizfam: The GOP? Really? You're going to strangle that chicken again? The GOP tells us it was warmer in the past? Bullshit. How about tens of thousands of scientists and their peer-reviewed papers tell us that, ok? How about ALL the data and ALL the climate measurements ever tell us that. Except the ones "altered" by AGW fanatics, who deny it has ever been warmer, or has ever gotten warm "this fast" with 18+ years of almost NO warming now... >>> Climate could be affected a little bit by humans, maybe? But AGW says it is 100% human caused, and that is just more bullshit. It is the backbone of their theory, without 100% Human-Caused they have nothing. Their draconian "CO2 reduction" measures do almost nothing as it is, if humans "only" cause half the GW predicted? Then it would cost TWICE as many TRILLIONS to lower it... absolutely impossible. And how many of their predictions have come to pass? ZERO! 126+ Months with NO major hurricanes hitting the USA... a record calm spell. :-/
0
Reply
Male 7,502
We don't deny climate change. We just seem to be the only ones to realize the climate has been changing since before Al Gore gave a slide show, to the tune of millions of years. What is the 'ideal' climate? When tropical temperatures extend to the poles as they have in the past? When only the poles are frozen as they are now? Or when the planet's entire surface is frozen as it has in the past? What we don't believe in is Snake Oil Salesmen who preach the Earth can only be saved through redistribution of misery. Conserve? Yes! Clean Energy? Bring it on! Take care of the planet? Absolutely. But Leo preaching to us about 'saving the Earth', then taking a private jet from Cannes to New York to accept an environmental award then flying back to Cannes rings rather hollow. (And please note, the report states that these islands were not lost due to rising sea levels from Global Warming. It was cause by something totally different, but media wants to use as an 'example' of what's in store.)
0
Reply
Male 2,362
"We just seem to be the only ones to realize the climate has been changing since before.." -> Do you believe that since Dr. Pepper has been around longer, Pepsi hardly sells any cola?
0
Reply
Male 6,188
Scientist have been trying to tell people that the planet was much warmer in the past. No doubt about that. however with that said All rapid changes in climate lead to mass extinctions. We are in a period of rapid changing. That's the cause of concern. Are there those that would abuse and use this for their own agenda? Absolutely. We can no longer deny that rapid changes are happening. (rapid in terms of evolution not being able to keep up). Why do we even risk the chance of royally fucking everything up and inadvertently wiping ourselves out? I know there are some self righteous/arrogant people that think we should just off ourselves as a species but I don't think that's a good idea. Who knows how rare life and sentient life really is. Maybe we aren't perfect and we aren't all good but fuck it's worth trying to save. I agree with the absurdity of people flying thousands of miles in private jets but that doesn't refute the science. Why bother listening to the people that are doing that type of stuff, I'm not listening to those people, I'm trying to stay closest to scientist studies. Why aren't you?
0
Reply
Male 3,992
@normalfreak2: There are many who believe the past has changed just as much as the present. There are climate anomalies like the 8.2 Kiloyear Event where temperature changed by as much as 1-6 celsius in less than 150 years and happened naturally but still did not lead to a mass extinction. As far as being too rapid for evolution to catch up a team of researchers just published a study that found that the temperature changes in the geological record happened just as quickly as they are happening today. Link. I do like how you adapted Pascal`s Wager to global warming. Yet, you could adapt that line of logic to anything. There are real forms of pollution that must be addressed but part of the reality of living in a world of limitations is how much and in what way we must react to each problem. We must also be careful to not conflate different issues or cause more problems based on well-intended policies.
0
Reply
Male 6,188
Fair point Richanddead. I'm not ruling out Natural Climate change I simply believe we affect our climate more than an insignificant amount.
0
Reply
Female 7,842
And the usual suspects would rather watch the world burn rather than admit to climate change- simply because they believe their right to endlessly consume shit they don't need trumps the right of others to eat. You should feel shame-
0
Reply
Male 1,255
Except the article from the Guardian is based on an actual study they referred to. The article is true to the study. So your beef isn't actually with the Guardian as sensationalized in your non-headline.
0
Reply
Male 3,992
@LaLaPancakes: I really don't have a beef, per se, I basically just used the same title as the author used on twitter. I didn't have too much time, that's why as @fancylad pointed out, I didn't fill the editorial from. I just posted my reply on the other post and then submitted the article, and figured it would work out. If I do have a beef it's that the media constantly loves to report on things without actually taking the time to understand exactly what it is that they are report on.
0
Reply
Male 37,047
Yes, Pancakes (If I may call you that?) the "beef" is with the sensationalist headlines which FALSELY lead people to believe that AGW has something to do with these tiny, low-lying reefs being eroded. It does not, ok? The article clearly says: "the ocean has been rising in the Solomon Islands at 7mm per year, more than double the global average." Ok? How can the Ocean rise FASTER at one point than another? It cannot, the answer is: the land there is sinking. That has absolutely zero to do with any form of "climate change" and is just part of Plate Tectonics ok? BUT there's a whole industry out there willing to eagerly claim verification FOR AGW at ANY opportunity. Even if it has nothing to do with it, as is the case here.
0
Reply
Male 2,362
You could read a little furthur -> "However, as Albert’s paper points out, the ocean has been rising in the Solomon Islands at 7mm per year, more than double the global average. Since the 1990s, trade winds in the Pacific have been particularly intense. This has been driven partly by global warming and partly by climatic cycles - in particular the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. “These trade winds have basically pushed water up into western Pacific and have driven these exceptionally high rates of [sea-level rise] in the Solomons,” said Albert. “The trade winds are partly a natural cycle but also the recent intensification is related to atmospheric warming.”
0
Reply
Male 37,047
Again it is partly correct, but FAR better than "Humans Are Causing The Oceans To Rise!" of AGW hysteria! >>>Yes, the oceans are rising, they have been accurately measured as doing so for 800+ years. NO it is not caused by Antarctic's Land-glaciers melting, those have GAINED mass (says NASA, it's posted on IAB) for much of the past 25 years. That has actually lowered the ocean... a tiny bit! >>> And what will "lowering our CO2 output to 1996 levels" DO EXACTLY? Nothing, not one goddamn thing. Even after a century we could barely measure how much "change" it would make, and this is assuming EVERY nation on Earth lowers their levels too! NEVER going to happen, it's a fairy tale with a Trillion dollar annual price tag...
0
Reply
Male 2,362
"..NO it is not caused by Antarctic's Land-glaciers melting, those have GAINED mass.." -> "The recent paper by Zwally et al. in the Journal of Glaciology has been widely reported as evidence that Antarctic is gaining mass, and hence lowering sea level. Is it? ..Zwally and his team measured the changing height of the ice covering Antarctica using two types of instruments - a radar altimeter and a laser altimeter - on two different satellites. The radar provided elevation changes for 1992-2003 and the laser from 2003-2008. ..Using measurements of elevation change to estimate changes in mass requires knowing the density of the snow. This is the difficult part and one of the key reasons that Zwally’s numbers are so different from previous estimates. ..Another problem with this type of measurement is that small biases in the laser and radar data can have a big effect when the signal is only on the order of 1 cm/year. ..In a previous study, published just three years earlier, Zwally and co-workers obtain a volume change from laser altimetry that is only about half the value they get in their latest study. ..Results from the newest satellite that can make this type of elevation measurements, CryoSat 2, which aren’t included in the Zwally et al. study, may yield a different picture yet again (Fig 2). Indeed, comparing results from CryoSat-2 height change for 2011-2014 (Fig 1) with those for 2003-2008 from Zwally and others is not very encouraging. Although inter-annual variability in snowfall is important, the estimate from CryoSat-2 is less than half that from the Zwally laser altimetry result. ..West Antarctica has been losing mass at an increasing rate since the 1990s and, irrespective of what is happening further East, that trend looks set to continue. Going to the other end of the Earth, the Greenland ice sheet has also been losing mass at an accelerating rate since around 1995. Greenland is now the single biggest source of mass to the oceans." - Jonathan Bamber, U. of Bristol (via realclimate .org)
0
Reply
Male 892
Scientists 'Convinced' of Climate Consensus More Prominent Than Opponents, Says Paper by Eli Kintisch, "Science Insider", Science (journal), 21 June 2010
0
Reply
Male 892
William R. L. Anderegg, James W. Prall, Jacob Harold, and Stephen H. Schneider (April 9, 2010). "Expert credibility in climate change" (PDF). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. Retrieved June 23, 2010.
0
Reply
Male 892
Yes because only 97-98% of published climate scientist believe that humans are the cause of climate change (I know I said 99% before -- sorry); sources to follow because I can't figure out how to add a paragraph. But lets just bury our heads in the sand. And @normalfreak2 is correct that media tend to overhype.
0
Reply
Male 37,047
That's a miserable fucking lie, you cannot be that stupid as to believe it, can you? 97%? What a joke. >>> Mann's group, after PURGING all non-believers from their ranks, did a survey of members OF their own group, and decided that 97% of them had published at least 1 paper that "supported human-caused warming". This was before Al Gore and the Hockey Stick ok? Even members of their OWN GROUP said no! That paper I wrote does not support "human-caused" global warming at all: a full 30% of them said that. But 67% doesn't sound very impressive, eh? So the Al Gore and the AGW Parade kept the '97% Support' lie going as long as they could. NOW they claim the SKEPTICS made that 97% up to discredit them! Unbelievable...
0
Reply
Male 2,362
"The consensus that humans are causing recent global warming is shared by 90%–100% of publishing climate scientists according to six independent studies by co-authors of this paper. Those results are consistent with the 97% consensus reported by Cook et al based on 11 944 abstracts of research papers, of which 4014 took a position on the cause of recent global warming. A survey of authors of those papers also supported a 97% consensus." Link
0
Reply
Male 892
Although preliminary estimates from published literature and expert surveys suggest striking agreement among climate scientists on the tenets of anthropogenic climate change (ACC), the American public expresses substantial doubt about both the anthropogenic cause and the level of scientific agreement underpinning ACC. A broad analysis of the climate scientist community itself, the distribution of credibility of dissenting researchers relative to agreeing researchers, and the level of agreement among top climate experts has not been conducted and would inform future ACC discussions. Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.
0
Reply
Male 892
@elkingo -- Should I provide more sources?
0
Reply
Male 5,620
@Rodin - not backing up 5Cats and his knee-jerk reactions at all here, but those numbers are very inaccurate. I have access to the literary databases through Ebsco, and have actually READ a very large portion of these papers (articles or studies if you will). A very large portion of them are not even talking about ACC. Some are Chinese studies on farmland, for example. They found that uncovered ground is warmer than vegetation covered ground. Well, duh. That doesn't mean that it supports ACC at all. However, they were cited as "in support of" in the survey you are quoting.
0
Reply
Male 892
@5cats I'm pretty sure you're too lazy to look at the sources I provided here's the abstract from the first source:
0
Reply
Male 892
Should I provide more sources for you @5cats ? You're throwing around a lot of numbers yourself -- are you going to provide sources to back your claims?
0
Reply
Male 6,188
@5cats A lot of media overhype everything. Once again look at the message not necessarily the messengers. Scientist are pretty uniform in agreement that Climate change is happening. Ignoring it doesn't make it not true.
0
Reply
Male 37,047
Yes, and the Skeptics ALSO say Global Climate Change is happening too, so? It has always changed due to natural causes, it always WILL change! And there's ample evidence that being warmer is BETTER for all life on Earth, as opposed to the devastation brought by Ice Ages, yes? How does any of that prove AGW is "real"? >>> No one is "ignoring" that the Earth is warming or the Oceans rising, they have been doing both for 500+ years now, LONG before AGW started, and that is a fact! If you called 9 inches of rise per century a "man made catastrophe" you really have some troubles with thinking and logic, I'd say.
0
Reply