Print 83 comment(s) - last by jbartabas.. on Feb 18 at 12:44 PM

Warmer ocean currents are driving Greenland's glacial melt.








Comments     Threshold


RE: Wha-wha-what?
By bhieb on 2/17/2010 9:29:58 AM , Rating: 2


And finally a smart research team. Other's tend to jump to a conclusion/side. Why once a decision is made we don't need to fund you any more? Well played here keep your findings factual and don't take sides, that way both sides can continue funding you (as it should be).

RE: Wha-wha-what?
By BBeltrami on 2/17/2010 10:54:54 AM , Rating: 3
Just speaking for myself, I appreciate a climate research team utilizing Scientific Method. Most tend to advocate their desired outcome to guarantee funding or lend support to a political position. They seem to keep their findings objective, that way neither "side" can impact, alter, manipulate or otherwise compromise the research, regardless of funding source.

I'm not an AGW advocate. But I'm not unreasonable. Compared to Jason Mick's posts, this was truly refreshing. Jason's alarmism, advocacy and bias are so flagrant that, for me, he personally has done much more to damage the "cause" of AGW than help it. The more he talks, the less I hear being said... But believe me, I'm listening.

RE: Wha-wha-what?
By Grabo on 2/17/2010 1:04:08 PM , Rating: 2
Scientific Method eh?

Anyways, the same team from Sep 23 last year:
Scientists say it's a natural process — in one period the cold waters will have the upper hand, and in the next it's the other way round. But the rapidly increasing temperatures of the subtropical oceans suggest that the balance could be tilted beyond natural variability, Curry says.

"We've actually measured the waters at their source and have seen their temperature going up, up, up in a way that can't be explained without taking into account human influences," she says

The research underscores the complex interaction between the world's oceans and a warming atmosphere.


In the end, it's probably hard to find completely unbiased human beings, but this reasearch seems necessary.

RE: Wha-wha-what?
By porkpie on 2/17/2010 1:43:27 PM , Rating: 5
So they did some more research, and found out it could be explained by natural variability. Not surprising they'd then change their minds, eh?

In any case, I would take any quotes on MSNBC with a grain of salt. They're well known for hanging up on any climate scientist who doesn't give them a scary enough quote.

RE: Wha-wha-what?
By Grabo on 2/17/2010 1:58:32 PM , Rating: 2
Your first two sentences are ambiguous. They seem to say the researchers first thought something, then more research made them think natural variability, and then they changed their minds (again)?

Anyway, I suppose you mean that they first inclined towards man-affected, then natural variability?

Your statement is flawed because 1. In this news release (released Feb 2010) they say this area hasn't been studied much and needs to be studied further, they don't lay the root cause anywhere specifically.

2. This news release concerns studies conducted in 2008, ( ) , the MSNBC article is from Sept 2009 and refers to "..zigzagged between majestic icebergs in the Sermilik fjord last month".

3. Everyone has a reputation. Show some sort of substantial reference that MSNBC only listens to certain angles.

RE: Wha-wha-what?
By porkpie on 2/17/2010 2:10:35 PM , Rating: 2
1. The "need to be studied further" mantra is doublespeak for "give us more research funding". You won't ever find a scientist in ANY field who EVER says their field of interest doesn't need more study.

2. This news release is from data COLLECTED in 2008. The actual analysis and conclusions were just completed. This article lists actual scientific conclusions. Your MSNBC article is just an off-the-cuff comment from a minor project member who is also a well-known AGW activist:

Interestingly enough, the research LEADER in the MSNBC article said nothing whatsoever about human-induced change.

RE: Wha-wha-what?
By Grabo on 2/17/2010 2:55:15 PM , Rating: 2
1. Who would be a scientist that didn't want to pursue their subject? You are using caps, this does not reinforce your point. And science needs money, yes?

2. Where does it say she is "a minor project member"? Where does it say that others do not agree with her (why would they have her on the team, on the trip, if she saw things completely differently?)
"Well-known AGW activist"? Lol, isn't the whole institute suspect then? You are certainly a well-known caps-activist now.

The LEADER said nothing of 'result of natural variances' either, he said 'more research required'.

RE: Wha-wha-what?
By porkpie on 2/17/2010 3:10:46 PM , Rating: 2
You can shuck and jive all you want, but you can't hide the facts. This article highlights recent research findings. You cannot compare off-the-cuff quotes made without any scientific backing to actual study results.

RE: Wha-wha-what?
By Grabo on 2/17/10, Rating: 0
RE: Wha-wha-what?
By porkpie on 2/17/2010 4:02:20 PM , Rating: 3
Grabo, please try to think clearly. The statement "man is affecting climate" is a positive, not a negative. It requires support. That support can ONLY come by understanding a system well enough to eliminate natural variability.

Now (and here comes the part that requires more than a room temperature IQ, so follow closely) if a scientist says "we don't understand the system well enough to explain it", they ARE saying it could be natural variablity. It's the same thing.

They are NOT saying "it has to be anthropogenic". The'yre not even saying the obverse, which is "it has to be natural". They're saying "we don't understand, so it could be either".

Did you follow that this time, or should I rephrase it in smaller words?

RE: Wha-wha-what?
By jbartabas on 2/17/2010 4:15:05 PM , Rating: 2
Did you read the paper?

RE: Wha-wha-what?
By Grabo on 2/18/2010 5:34:56 AM , Rating: 1
They do, in fact, not seem to mention the word 'natural variability', or 'man-made' for that matter, in the news release.

They're saying "we don't understand, so it could be either

Almost. They're saying, "we don't entirely understand this, more research is required".

The only thing hinting either way is Curry's comment, for whatever it is worth (something we don't know as we haven't heard the outrage or agreeing murmur of any other team-member).

You seem seem stuck on "the changes could be due to natural variances" = "the changes are probably due to natural variances".
You don't write that outright, but phrases such as "well-known AGW activist" and "and then found out it could be due to natural variances" "not surprising they'd change their minds eh" and everything else you've written to this blog post suggests as much.

You still haven't backed up your claim that the MSNBC are biased.

I guess most readers predicted arguments such as ours :p

RE: Wha-wha-what?
By Smilin on 2/17/2010 5:37:21 PM , Rating: 2
Actually researchers know that they don't know (that's why they are researching). When they have findings it's all well and good but they keep going.

It's the MEDIA that says "look they found such and such that means that so and so". When later findings contradict everyone bashes the researchers as biased. If you ask them they'll be like "meh...still researching".


Related Articles
