Ken Mampel, an unemployed, 56-year-old Floridian, is in large part the creator of the massive Hurricane Sandy Wikipedia page. He's also the reason that, for nearly a week, the page had no mention of climate change.
Posted 11.02.2012 at 3:30 pm
91 Comments
Ken Mampel
Courtesy Ken Mampel
"All I am is a contributor. I have no title, I'm just a Joe Blow," says Ken Mampel, a currently unemployed 56-year-old living in Ormond Beach, Florida. He's also largely responsible for the Wikipedia article about Hurricane Sandy. If it isn't already, that article will eventually become the single most-viewed document about the hurricane. On the entire internet.
In an unpaid but frenzied fit of news consumption, editing, correction, aggregation, and citation, Mampel has established himself as by far the most active contributor to the Wikipedia page on Hurricane Sandy, with more than twice the number of edits as the next-most-active contributor at the time this article was written.
And Mampel made sure that the Hurricane Sandy article, for four days after the hurricane made landfall in New Jersey, had no mention of "global warming" or "climate change" whatsoever.
Late in the evening of November 1st, a new section appeared at the bottom of the Wikipedia page, titled "Connection to global warming." It was the first mention of climate change the article had had, and laid out the response from climate scientists, mostly stating that climate scientists don't really know if the hurricane was caused in part or whole by climate change. I emailed Ken, who goes by the name Kennvido on Wikipedia, to get a response, and he wrote back: "thanks deleted again and told them to go discuss Sandy on the global warming page." I reloaded the page and confirmed: Ken had eliminated any discussion of climate change. A few minutes later, I reloaded and the section was back, only with a big block warning, telling me that "The neutrality of this article is disputed." By 10:23, that warning read: "An editor has expressed a concern that this Section lends undue weight to certain ideas, incidents, controversies or matters relative to the article subject as a whole. Please help to create a more balanced presentation."
By the morning of November 2nd, the section was gone again. The revision history shows an argument: "the existence of other views is solved by referencing them in RS, not deleting views one disagrees with," says one contributor. Mampel continues to fight, and he's not the only one: another user chimed in that the Hurricane Sandy page is "Not the place to push global warming when no evidence exists that this was a cause." But by early afternoon, the article had a small paragraph in the "Meteorological history" section linking to a few articles that suggest a connection to global warming. Ken had been overruled.
"I question Kennvido's own political motives in forcing this discussion out of the article," said one contributor on the article's "Talk" page, the (publicly viewable) page where contributors discuss the article's content. Another said "There is still no mention whatsoever of climate change in this article, even though there is no doubt that it's a systemic cause of hurricane Sandy. It's hard to take [Wikipedia] seriously sometimes." But mostly the argument is about "weight," one of Wikipedia's key guidelines. Here's what Wikipedia says: "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views." But how do you judge what's a minority view?
Ken Mampel does not believe in climate change. (He referred to himself as a libertarian, by my count, six separate times during one phone call. I never asked about his political leanings.) Without my prompting, Ken mentioned that New York City's Mayor Mike Bloomberg had endorsed Obama for president based on his handling of the hurricane. This is true, and Mampel planned to add this to the Wikipedia entry. "But I don't believe that climate change bullcrap," he said. Bloomberg had specifically mentioned climate change in his endorsement speech, but Mampel wouldn't add that to the Wikipedia entry. That's despite dozens of articles pointing out the connection--not a causation, necessarily, but certainly a connection worth exploring. I myself spoke to a hurricane expert about three hours before I spoke to Mampel who told me that the roughly two-degree increase in the water temperature in the Atlantic could have had a major effect on Hurricane Sandy's strength in the northeast. Mampel doesn't care. He wasn't going to mention climate change.
Wikipedia: Hurricane Sandy's Climate Section: Screenshot taken at 9:56 p.m., November 1st, 2012. Wikipedia
"Someone did put it in," he told me via email on the night of November 1st. "I took it out stating not proven. They put it in again. This time someone else took it out before I even saw it...warned the person...and it never was put in again." When I mentioned that many reputable scientists and publications have pointed out the connection, he said, "It's still in debate in the world community Dan... even if EnviroGore thinks there is no need for debate."
The Wikipedia entry for Sandy was created by the user Anonymouse321 late on October 23rd. At that time, Sandy was a tropical storm over the Caribbean; NASA's Terra satellite had captured it, and the government of Jamaica had issued a hurricane warning, but nobody was really paying attention. The page was originally called "Tropical Storm Sandy." By October 25th, the storm was gaining speed and looking more dangerous, and Ken had taken notice. Ken lives on the central Florida coast, on the Atlantic side north of Daytona Beach, but he's originally from Hempstead, a town on Long Island just a bit east of Queens. The storm looked as if it would move through the Caribbean and up the east coast--past where Ken lives now, and up to his hometown. Ken took an interest.
When I talked to him, I believe he had slept for maybe 15 hours in the past five days. He spoke quickly and passionately but without any focus whatsoever, and even the simplest question could lead into a tangent from which I had significant trouble pulling him away. "Did you create the Wikipedia article originally?" I'd ask. Two sentences later, he was telling me about his son, who is about my age, who does something at George Washington University and is a veteran and received some impressive military medal and did I know that global warming is definitely not man-made?
At one point I told him I lived in Brooklyn. He paused, and then yelled "JOEY BAG-A-DONUTS!" at me in some kind of 1970s Brooklyn accent. I didn't bother mentioning that my part of Brooklyn was mostly concerned with being able to get fresh-pressed kale juice the morning after the hurricane. (We could, too.) He kept confusing Popular Science with Popular Mechanics, which, to be fair, also happens to people who haven't been sleeplessly editing Wikipedia articles. "I stayed up for 24 hours at one point, I don't remember when," he told me, "and then slept for five hours and then got up and got right back to it. I'm very much into this."
Wikipedia: Hurricane Sandy: Screenshot taken at 9:45 p.m., November 1st, 2012. Wikipedia
Ken is, he says, between jobs, "because of this lousy economy and I hope we get a new president." But Ken has actually worked in news- and media-related jobs for most of his career. He says he started writing radio copy when he was 13 years old, which would seem to violate some sort of labor law, but that's what he says. He stayed in radio, writing copy for advertisements and doing some production work, until around 1985. Then for the next 17 years or so, he worked as a stringer for TV news stations from Jacksonville to Orlando. A stringer is a freelancer, usually for photography and video coverage, with a loose relationship to a local news station. You get paid per item, not per hour, and you have no institutional benefits. It's a tough job. Ken took the night shift, sitting in his car in a rough part of central Florida with three police scanners on the seat next to him. Whenever something would happen--natural disasters like hurricanes or tornadoes, or just general crime, he'd rush off and document it, and TV news would pay him for each find.
That's just about exactly what he did when he began editing Sandy's Wikipedia page on the afternoon of October 25th, except without the pay, and without the original reporting. Ken now follows, he says, 66 different news organizations on Twitter, and spent that day constantly adding and narrowing until he had just the balance he wanted. That included both national and local news sources, both old-school and new--the New York Times, a local New Jersey station called NJ1, the Daily Beast. He took news from all kinds of sources, and plopped them into the Wikipedia page, in proper Wikipedia style. He edited the writing of other contributors. He created new categories and new pages--the storm's effect on Vermont, for example (pretty much none).
One of the key differences between the Wikipedia page and any other news source is that Ken, and indeed all Wikipedia contributors, are specifically forbidden from doing any of their own reporting. "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research," says Wikipedia, firmly. "'No original research' (NOR) is one of three core content policies that, along with Neutral point of view and Verifiability, determines the type and quality of material acceptable in articles." Mampel knows people in the New York area, but unless those people are reporters who have published their own accounts, he's forbidden from making any reference to what he's learned from them. Wikipedia is aggressively second-hand. The other key difference is that Wikipedia has, by design, a peculiar and de-centralized editorial structure. Wikipedia pages are constructed piecemeal, by lots of contributors who theoretically have equal footing. "Wikipedia is a meritocracy," says Jay Walsh, head of communications for the Wikimedia Foundation, which runs Wikipedia, among other wiki-properties. "What's beautiful is that it's a broad, instant collaboration."
But that's not how news is typically recorded and released. "You can't look at a breaking news story in the way you look at, say, a bio of a living person," says Walsh. That rule about no original reporting? That can be bent in the interest of having a complete and up-to-date view of a news story when verification is hard to come by. "There's an understanding that in breaking news stories, information may be rough or raw," says Walsh. Instead of just deleting an un-cited fact, editors may attempt to verify it, or just leave it where it is for the time being.
Any contributor can remove, add, or change elements of the article based on any of Wikipedia's many rules, or just because they want to, like Ken and the climate-change stuff. There's healthy back-and-forth amongst the contributors in the "Talk" pages, documented on the "revision history" page. Each Wikipedia article has both: a "Talk" page is where contributors discuss what should and should not be in the article, and "revision history" gives a timeline of edits to the page. Ken may have made the most edits to the Hurricane Sandy page, but he's not a "lead editor" in the sense that he's the point person for the article, able to decide single-handedly what goes into the piece. There's nobody, really, who does that, though there are a staff of just under 1,500 "administrators" on Wikipedia--also unpaid volunteers, selected by, essentially, a survey of other Wikipedia volunteers--who have a bit more power. One of those admins put the Hurricane Sandy page under, says Jay, a semi-lock: only registered Wikipedia editors who have participated in the community before, not anonymous new folks, can edit it now. But Ken did contribute much more than any other editor--he was the most active editor, though that didn't give him any added authority. It also doesn't necessarily mean he wrote most of the article, though he certainly wrote much of it. An edit is an edit, whether it's removing a comma splice or writing 2,000 words.
Ongoing news stories on Wikipedia are created in the same way as any other page there, but with a slightly different approach. On a less-breaking page--I used the page for "cornbread" as an example--the only impulse is to create the best encyclopedia-style reference page. There are arguments, of course, over the preference of yellow cornmeal verses white, or whether hushpuppies (which are fried) belong in an article about cornbread (which is baked), but the idea is to get all of the appropriate information into the article. Not so much with Hurricane Sandy, which the contributors know will evolve over time and take on a different shape in a week than it has now. Regarding the global warming issue, one contributor wrote: "With the article being edited heavily with updates at the moment, many of whom are in the storm, my view is that it can wait for a day or two." Another said, "it sounds more like, 'We'll keep all mention of global warming out of the discussion until after nobody's interested in this storm any more.'"
This isn't so much "waiting for new information to come in." This is "waiting for majority rule to overcome the will of the few." The few are what kept global warming off that page for so long.
When I told Jay Walsh about the back-and-forth regarding climate change, he said, "It doesn't surprise me to hear that. Climate change is a bastard--it's one of those really complicated topics within Wikipedia, because the [editors] are so science-focused." But he wasn't upset that one point of view had been steamrollered on a Wikipedia page that received more than half a million hits in three days--he was intrigued about how the process went, and about how it was eventually ironed out, in a way. "The article doesn't not do its work because of that," he said. Walsh talked about a "good faith" versus "bad faith" edit: Ken Mampel really thinks he is improving that page by eliminating an unclear passage about climate change, so that's a "good faith" edit. Which, for Wikipedians, means the system is working. But what about for those 500,000 readers who didn't get the full story?
Ken, not surprisingly, has gotten into scraps with some other editors. Despite the communal ethos, there is a distinct pecking order among Wikipedia editors, based sometimes on seniority and sometimes on sheer dickishness. Ken was chided for using "Monday" and "Tuesday" rather than "October 29th" and "October 30th." A user going by the name United States Man threatened to block him for "changing formats, changing info, and putting stuff in the wrong place." In an email to me, Ken called United States Man "one of those ahole members" and says this is "water off his back," but he apologized effusively to U.S.M. in public.
United States Man is one of several hurricane-fanatic Wikipedia contributors who contributed to the Hurricane Sandy page. Another is Cyclonebiskit, who has contributed to just about every inclement-weather-related page on Wikipedia. These guys are advanced hobbyists; they are certainly knowledgeable, if not professionally trained. Ken is neither. He was just captivated by the news story, like the rest of us, spouting off about storm surges and baroclinic pressure like we had any idea what those terms meant two weeks before. And Ken was the one taking the lead on the Wikipedia page. Not because he demanded it, but just because he wanted to do it. He was obsessed. "People just have their...interests," he said.
Hurricane Sandy: NOAA
"Interests" are what made Ken spend five sleepless days racing to aggregate hurricane news, despite having no unusual amount of knowledge on the subject. They're what made him race against mainstream sports sites to post the results of each inning of the ALCS games on Wikipedia first. Ken has a lot of time on his hands, and a drive to join or beat the press at their own game. "I'm in between jobs, it's a lousy economy," he says. "How do you think I can be on here as much as I am?" But when I asked how he thought his speed and work compared to the professionals who were doing essentially the same thing, he glowed. "That's exactly it!" he said. "Bam! Bam! Bam! That's what I strive for, to be as fast as major media. I wanted to be there, and I wanted to be accurate." And Ken talks a lot about accuracy, about crafting a page that reflects the facts. But accuracy only goes so far on Wikipedia.
If one of the weaknesses of Wikipedia is that anyone can edit it, the solution to that problem is that, well, anyone can edit it. Mampel can't be vigilant against climate change's mention in the Hurricane Sandy article forever. In fact, he couldn't keep climate change off the page for an entire week--somebody else will keep adding that section until Mampel gives up. Mampel doesn't want to risk being banned; he's very concerned about being a good guy in the contributor community. Whenever anyone commented with any issue about his work, he immediately apologized and offered to fix it. "If you're nice, you'll get nice back," he said about the community. He wants to edit in "good faith." For posterity, this particular problem will be ironed out. But for days, the internet's most authoritative article on a major tropical storm system in 2012 was written by a man with no meteorological training who thinks climate change is unproven and fought to remove any mention of it.
91 Comments
To comment, please Login.
Popular Tags
Technology
|
|
|
|
|
|
July 2013: The Future Of Flight
The incredible innovations, like drone swarms and perpetual flight, bringing aviation into the world of tomorrow. Plus: today's greatest sci-fi writers predict the future, the science behind the summer's biggest blockbusters, a Doctor Who-themed DIY 'bot, the organs you can do without, and much more.
.jpg)
Popular on Popsci
Most Commented
Technology
- Green Light For Plan To Build World's Tallest Building At Record Speed
- Why The U.S. Won't Dare Kill Edward Snowden With A Drone Strike
- U.S. Government Uses Early Knowledge Of Microsoft Bugs For Spying
- Congress Was Not Really Briefed On PRISM
- A Concise History Of The NSA's Online Spying Program PRISM
- Who's More Powerful, China Or The United States? [Infographic]
- Why Government Phone Spying Is Really About Big Data
- Watch This Insane Helicopter-Bike Fly Around
- Designers Spruce Up The Government's Crappy PowerPoint
- Laser Time Cloak Hides The Fact That An Event Ever Happened
Most Emailed
Technology
- Nursing Home Tracks Residents' Every Move
- Researchers Can Now "Hear" The Exact Shape Of A Room
- Designers Make City Noise Actually Sound Good
- All Of America's Waterways On One Map [Infographic]
- The 6 Most Important Things We Learned From Edward Snowden's Guardian Q&A
- Stanford's Artificial Neural Network Is The Biggest Ever
- New DNA Fog Covers Crime-Scene Suspects With Evidence
- Meet NASA's Astronaut Class Of 2013
- Meet NASA's Astronaut Class of 2013
- Google Reveals Massive Iranian Phishing Scheme
Most Viewed
Technology
- Nursing Home Tracks Residents' Every Move
- Researchers Can Now "Hear" The Exact Shape Of A Room
- Designers Make City Noise Actually Sound Good
- All Of America's Waterways On One Map [Infographic]
- The 6 Most Important Things We Learned From Edward Snowden's Guardian Q&A
- Stanford's Artificial Neural Network Is The Biggest Ever
- New DNA Fog Covers Crime-Scene Suspects With Evidence
- Meet NASA's Astronaut Class of 2013
- Meet NASA's Astronaut Class Of 2013
- Google Reveals Massive Iranian Phishing Scheme
Online Content Director: Suzanne LaBarre | Email
Senior Editor: Paul Adams | Email
Associate Editor: Dan Nosowitz | Email
Assistant Editor: Colin Lecher | Email
Assistant Editor: Rose Pastore | Email
Contributing Writers:
Kelsey D. Atherton | Email
Francie Diep | Email
Shaunacy Ferro | Email
Today on PopSci.com
.JPG)
Copyright © 2012 Popular Science
A Bonnier Corporation Company. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.
Find me one IPCC warning that isn't peppered with "maybes".
Science only says it “could” happen, never have they said it “WILL” happen. READ their reports!
All evidence points to exaggeration and real planet lovers are happy a crisis wasn’t real after all so get ahead of the curve:
*In all of the debates Obama hadn’t planned to mention climate change once.
*Obama has not mentioned the crisis in the last two State of the Unions addresses.
*Occupywallstreet does not even mention CO2 in its list of demands because of the bank-funded carbon trading stock markets run by corporations.
*Julian Assange is of course a climate change denier.
*Canada killed Y2Kyoto with a freely elected climate change denying prime minister and nobody cared, especially the millions of scientists warning us of unstoppable warming (a comet hit).
Dan Nosowitz, while I appreciate your concern for the sanctity of truth in media. I feel as though you come off as more of a bully than anything. It makes me sad that one of the longest articles published to PopSci is basicly an attack ad. In my opinion the way in which you composed your article came off like a highschool facebook fight. ie( putting his picture up, talking on your emails, posting his account info, and discrediting him for his socio-economic status) It almost seems as though you are begging your more extreme readers to harrass the man. while I myself do believe in global warming, I also feel that since all the data gathered during the storm has yet to be fully analyzed, one cannot definately prove that the storm was in fact caused by global warming. therefore in my scientific theory, both opinons (however unlikely) in this situation are valid, Which makes you (Dan Nosowitz)look bad when you state your opinions as fact. when situations like this occur and both parties feel justified, it's a sad day for science indeed. And finally instead of going through all the trouble to force the global warming link onto the hurricane sandy wiki page, you could have just created a paragraph about sandy on the global warming page. But I guess im the only one who thinks outside the sphere.
Next year when all the data is in, hyposthesized, tested, and theorised. and the link between Sandy and Global warming is proven scientifically, I will apologize to you, Dan Nosowitz, believer of global warming, twitter :@dannosowitz. first creator and proclaimer of the quote- "this hurricane reminds me what a repulsive tub of shit i was when i worked from home all the time". to you a true conquistadore' I will give my sincerest aoplogies. See what i just did there Danny Boy? we're not so different you and me, Dan Nosowitz :D
Maybe if he spent as much time looking for a job as he does online he wouldn't be unemployed...
@meme,
1 - Your first comment is simply stupid. Of course it has 'maybes' in it. Just like I say 'maybe' when people ask me if I'll wake up tomorrow. It's the future, we can't say for sure. Technical doccuments like UN doccuments cover their butts by using 'maybes' even though they mean 'will'. The ICPP doccuments from a couple years ago FAR underestimated the warming trends and sea ice loss. So they're not overstating anything, in fact, they understate it.
2 - Obama tries not to mention Climate Change because of the overwhelming number of Americans that think it's a sham. Those are the same ones who think the world is flat and 6000 years old.
3 - Carbon trading is going to be the only way will will stop the privitization of profits while socializing the costs. I think the OWS people are more concerned about that than anything.
4 - The problem with your last point is that people in Canada vote VERY differently than down in the USA. Half the people I talk to still think the Conservatives have the same views as back with Mulroney!
The climate has warmed over the last couple hundred years. That is undenieable (scientiffically). The causes can be debated, but the facts are that we're increasing CO2 in the atmosphere. CO2 traps heat. Therefore we're increasing heat in the atmosphere.
As for the article itself, I agree with Thyork. Picking a fight where none is needed.
Ken is an idiot. I hate to say it. He should not be allowed to take such knowledge off. It is people like him that are making it so hard to change our bad habits. I feel bad for my future generations with the world they will inherit. Things are already getting pretty serious.
"But for days, the internet's most authoritative article on a major tropical storm system in 2012 was written by a man with no meteorological training..."
Dan, it is ironic that you attack Ken's lack of "meteorological training". According your Pop Sci profile you hold an undergraduate degree in English literature. That makes you just as qualified to speak global warming as Ken Mampel.
Yet you are the assistant editor of a science magazine. By your own logic: why should anyone bother to read any of your contributions when you don't have the educational background to fully understand the subject you are writing about?
I'm not a global warming skeptic, nor am I an global warming alarmist (see I can play the label game too). And I agree there should be a reference to climate change on the Wiki article. I simply found your personal attack on a man volunteering his own time to support an important resource disgusting. Where would Wikipedia be without its contributors? But more than anything, I derive great pleasure in pointing out your hypocrisy.
tertertert:
> The climate has warmed over the last couple hundred years.
Thank goodness. The Little Ice Age was a bad time for humans and other terrestrial life forms. Warmer is better and we're just getting back up to optimum temps.
> That is undenieable (scientiffically).
Undeniable (scientifically) is kind of like "the science is unequivocal" isn't it? Neither have a place in a scientific discussion.
> The causes can be debated, but the facts are that we're increasing CO2 in the atmosphere. CO2 traps heat. Therefore we're increasing heat in the atmosphere.
That conclusion is simplistic and does not follow. Before you can honestly reach that conclusion you have to eliminate all of the other possible causes. No, simulations don't count. Only observations count.
The anti-science people here are the ones insisting that Sandy is a result of "Climate Change" (They actually mean: Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change) when most of your own pet scientists (the non-advocates anyway) are insisting that we don't have evidence for that conclusion.
I suspect Dan Nosowitz knows that associating specific WEATHER events is inaccurate, but when your home is threatened someone has to be to blame for it. Who better than the bad people who don't share your faith?
This is nothing by another troll article to stir up people into massive flame wars. And honestly PopSci, more science, less politics, please. You might as well call this PolSci (political science) instead.
Ah. Gotta love the lack of scientific integrity. Since when are skeptics "deniers" because they don't believe scare-models that do not account for negative feedbacks, and in fact produce the famous "hockey stick" chart when fed random data?
I'm really liking this new trend.
"Putting the 'O' in Popsci".
Anyone other than me thinking science should be free of this political stuff? Then why is every other article some Global-Warming, Democrat-endorsing farce of journalism?
It is really a fallacy to blame any single weather event on climate. Weather is a chaotic system and chaotic systems are highly sensitive to initial conditions. It is possible that global warming prevented an even worse storm than Sandy from occurring in some other place. Even slight changes to the initial weather conditions can yield dramatic results to future weather.
This video illustrates my point. It is a video about math, specifically chaos theory and the Lorenz Attractor. It's not propaganda. It was not made to refute or support global warming. It uses weather as a instrument to teach math.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EF5Wvi_Iiy4&feature=related
and in other news the earths climat has been changing constantly since it formed. How about some real science? Maybe an info-graphic that shows where it is legal to get drunk and shoot someone? That couldn't possibly be construed as political right? Pop-Sci has been infiltrated by moon beams....
Annual subscription to PopSci - $10.
Dan's first time editing a wiki - Priceless.
en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AKennvido&diff=520940158&oldid=520897253
So Dan, forgive me if I'm being a bit thick here, but if "climate scientists don't really know if the hurricane was caused in part or whole by climate change", how is it relevant to a Wikipedia article on Hurricane Sandy? It looks an awful lot to me like climate alarmists are trying to use Hurricane Sandy as yet another platform from which to broadcast their beliefs even though it's completely irrelevant, as you pointed out. It says a lot about the motivation and methods of climate alarmists.
Consider this. If climate scientists don't know if the hurricane is connected to climate change, then "the wrath of God" is as plausible an explanation as "global warming" and it's just as relevant because more than a few people actually believe it is a causal mechanism of natural disasters. Would you allow it to be included in the Wikipedia article? I didn't think so. Case closed.
So, Ken Mampel: good cop.
And, by the way, interesting hatchet job on Ken Mampel. You can't come up with a compelling argument for why he should allow global warming propaganda to be included in the Hurricane Sandy article so you attack his credentials, his expertise. It's Wikipedia. Are any other hurricane articles on Wikipedia written by meteorologists? No?
And PopSci isn't a high school paper, either. You're a professional writer now. Mampel, who is not getting paid, is doing what any good Wikipedia editor does, policing the article to keep it news-and-fact-based. You could learn a few things about writing and editing from Mampel.
If a fraction of the time it took to research and write this article was used to improve the quality of writing on PopSci, we would have a winner all round. Unfortunately Dan, you believe your indignation over what someone doesn't believe rises to the level of Science and that perpetuates the tripe you and your fellow editors continue to dish. You suck at what you do...
Whether it's true or not, it's not up to Wikipedia editors to decide what is fact and what is not. It makes no difference whether the editor in question has any expertise. Their job is to take information from notable sources and report it. Right now there are a lot of notable people blaming the storm on global warming. This guy by removing content that contradicts his beliefs and is backed up by notable sources is violating wikipedia's NPOV policy.
No one is denying climate change. But if you think that this hurricane is PROOF that man is causing it, then you have no business having any part of the word science in your URL.
The tactic of describing someone that disagrees with the conventional wisdom of AGW as being a "climate change denier" is cowardly.
Seriously, can any AGW proponent produce even a shred of evidence proving that anyone has ever claimed that the "climate is not changing"?
On the other hand, anyone can easily show that the computer models AGW theory are based on are seriously flawed. These computer models cannot even come close to replicating the past global temperature history. So they obviously are not valid for future temperature predictions.
I have just created a starter page for Hurricane Sandy Controversies; will attach to the main page and see what our friend does next.
I believe global warming is largely responsible for Hurricane Sandy as well environmental changes in my own state, but seriously this is Popular Science for Christ's sake not your own personal blog. You don't get to write a hate piece on some poor guy, misinformed though he may be, simply because you disagree with his view point, and you certainly don't have the right to stick it in the most popular science publication in the nation and call it journalism.
Had you done as Wikipedia strives to do in the construction of all its articles and maintained neutrality then you could have had a thoughtful piece on the credibility of information on the internet. Instead you decided to ruthlessly trash a lonely unemployed hobbyist for wanting to contribute something to largest news story of the year.
This is a good example of why America continues to decline. We have someone who follows Tea Party science and is allowed to control what millions of people view (Wikipedia) as accurate information.....and then we have people who actually defend him.....simply amazing!
The article stated, "I myself spoke to a hurricane expert about three hours before I spoke to Mampel who told me that the roughly two-degree increase in the water temperature in the Atlantic could have had a major effect on Hurricane Sandy's strength in the northeast. Mampel doesn't care. He wasn't going to mention climate change."
Here's what Wikipedia says about the warming of the North Atlantic, in the article on the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, which indicates that the SSTs may decline after 2015 due to a downturn in the AMO (and implies that current warming is partly due to the AMO):
--------------
"The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) is a mode of variability occurring in the North Atlantic Ocean and which has its principal expression in the sea surface temperature (SST) field.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
"Relation to Atlantic hurricanes
"In viewing actual data on a short time horizon, sparse experience would suggest the frequency of major hurricanes is not strongly correlated with the AMO. During warm phases of the AMO, the number of minor hurricanes (category 1 and 2) saw a modest increase.[9] With full consideration of meteorological science, the number of tropical storms that can mature into severe hurricanes is much greater during warm phases of the AMO than during cool phases, at least twice as many; the AMO is reflected in the frequency of severe Atlantic hurricanes.[6] The hurricane activity index is found to be highly correlated with the Atlantic multidecadal oscillation.[9] If there is an increase in hurricane activity connected to global warming, it is currently obscured by the AMO quasi-periodic cycle.[9] The AMO alternately obscures and exaggerates the global increase in temperatures due to human-induced global warming.[6] Based on the typical duration of negative and positive phases of the AMO, the current warm regime is expected to persist at least until 2015 and possibly as late as 2035. Enfield et al. assume a peak around 2020.[10]"
What a nasty piece of work you are. An ad hominem smear job by a blogger with a political agenda. Is this what Popular Science has sunk to, not backing peer-reviewed science, but advocating internet Maoism?
My opinion on this is the Wikipedia article should, of course, be focused on the events and effects of the hurricane itself. However, it would be incomplete without a mention of the controversy over AGW and its potential link to the formation and strength of the storm.
As for the climate change discussion itself: the human race has seen a threefold increase in numbers over the last century. While CO2 emissions are most pointed to as the root cause, I prefer to think more of the deforestation caused by the proliferation of our kind. The more trees removed from the biosphere, the longer it takes to sequester any CO2 that is released regardless of the source.
Overall, it becomes our responsibility to ensure we do what we can do to preserve and conserve natural resources. Will any of that reverse the trend? It is too early to tell, but the wisdom of conservation has been explained in many, many stories.
This is disgusting. This article has nothing to do with science, and exists only to smear someone who Dan Nosowitz disagrees with. If PopSci has any respect for itself as a scientific journal it should fire the assistant editor. Bad form, Mr. Nosowitz.
I find it offensive how blatantly pro climate-change this is to openly ridicule a man (with his picture in the article). PopSci, many of your readers don't hold to your writer's politically tainted brand of "science". People do affect the climate. There I said it, so give it a rest. There are 7 billion people on earth, how could we not? But there were hurricanes before the last 100 years (as far as I know), and the climate will change with or without us. Besides, we can't calculate exactly how we affect the climate. Maybe instead of trying to focus on having no effect, we should work toward making a positive change and stop bullying people with different opinions.
There is a consensus in the scientific community regarding anthropogenic global warming. This is not up for debate.
Dan, this is possibly the most accurate representation of Wikipedia that I have ever read in the mainstream press. If someone like Mampel can keep mention of global warming out of a high-profile article like Hurricane Sandy, imagine what a group of dedicated and connected WP editors can do. There are all kinds of warring factions on WP - some pushing ideological or political agendas, some just trying to make a buck by keeping their clients' article free from bad press, and some where people of questionable mental health are just trying to control something in their lives (even if it is only a WP article). Great piece!
Lets put some facts down on the board here, FACT- you add CO2 to a Atmosphere in large enough amounts it will cause a green hose affect. Now with that being said, to understand our output and how it relates to this huge Super Complex Chaotic thing that we call our Atmospheric Condition, and make rules and alarmism is stupid. Also to ignore our Climate and how we affect it is equally stupid. I think that what we need to remember is that as man, we are just apart of nature as everything else, I.E. all of our actions are a direct result of Nature itself. So this CO2 we are releasing into the Air is natural. Mother Nature will correct herself, by our means or her means.
Less Money On War more Money on Science
The Evangelical Christian Right is working 24/7/365 to prepare the world for the Christian world they believe is coming. Wikipedia is monitored and constantly edited to suit the world-view of the Christian Right. If you upload anything to Wikipedia that is contrary to the views of the Christian Right, it will be removed or altered within days.
When did Popular Science decide to stop reporting science? Will there be a name change soon?
"All I am is a contributor. I have no title, I'm just a Joe Blow,"
and the result is "Joe Blow" science.
Does Joe Blow seek medical treatment from physicians who practice "Joe Blow" medicine? Say the answer is "no" he seeks medical treatment from physicians who practice "Science Medicine" which rests on the same principles of knowledge as those who are sorting out weather and climate. Does he go to a "Joe Blow" dentist? Does he get his car repaired by a "Joe Blow" mechanic? A "Joe Blow" plumber/painter is one thing. They can be competent and if they are incompetent the harm is limited to the fool that hired them. "Joe Blow" and "Jane Blow" has his/her role. but writing on science topics isn't one of them.
Petty and vindictive, hardly worth what used to be a good magazine.
Badly played dan.
The concept that we are the reason the earth is 1 degree warmer is a theory (a vague theory), not a fact. Anyone who says so, does not understand the difference.
In the past few hundred years (before we burned so much oil) numerous weather related disasters have occurred over and over and over again. Disasters such as, hurricanes, massive floods, decade long droughts, tornados, and blizzards.
No one at the time knew the facts why these things happened, but the “best” minds of the time did have a few theories (not facts.) The theories they had involved such things as witchcraft, the devil, an angry god, a bad omen, or just bad luck.
We may not be much better off than they were.
Where exactly is the "Science" in this article? The author (with no scientific standing), uses this platform (website/magazine) to somehow enhance a theory (proven or otherwise), by his degradation of another non-scientist.
I don't know either of you personally, but I am inclined to sit down and share a cup of coffee with the unemployed gentleman who at least is willing to admit his lack of scientific knowledge. Rather than the author of this article who takes the simplistic view that the "peons" of the world are beneath him, and he shall lead all of us to some promised land.
In other words, if we all don't get with the "RELIGION" of Climate Change (now that global warming can't be sold), we are lesser beings.
As for the SCIENCE, that is sadly lacking in this article, perhaps the author could look to the Wikipedia article for some insight as to Hurricane Sandy. Of course, you should do it before it becomes all about Climate Change, and not Hurricane Sandy (just saying).
Having read the rest of your articles in PS, they seemed reasonable and nuanced. In the future Mr. Nosowitz, please put your degree in English Literature to use as an Editor, not as an Evangelist. If you can't help yourself, it would be preferable that you post in a forum that is based on religion, vice science.
Congratulations Mr. Nosowitz, you did a very nice hatchet job on Mr. Hempel. Did you learn that in Eglish lit. or from other posts on climate change?
I have noticed that many pro AGW contributors refer to name calling, belittling and character assassination to proof their point.
Very rarely do they put up scientific arguments. Some openly state "I believe in man made global warming".
I believe in Father X Mas the Fairy Godmother, and the Easter Bunny. How about you Mr. Nosowitz?
Does Popular Science employ an editor, if so how, in the world did this 'article' get past his desk?
Dan Nosowitz sounds like a 13 year old juvenile throwing a tantrum as he snipes at Dan Mampel with childish insinuations & imputations.
This is an embarrassment on a scale that leads me to question the reliability and objectiveness of anything I read in the future from Popular Science.
Oh and by the way Dan N , Dan M is 100% correct there is nothing to substantiate a connection between 'global warming'(Or should I be saying 'climate change'?) and Sandy.
And none of your thinly veiled digs regarding his employment status will make this rag of an 'science article' any less idiotic.
There's no credible research or analysis to tie climate change, either man made or the natural kind, to this particular weather event. To wander off on a rant about somebody that took the time to edit a Wikipedia entry, but failed to spout whatever nonsense "Mr. Nosowitz" thought needed spouting is beyond ridiculous.
I think as much as anything he's irritated that the Wikipedia page had more page views than anything he's ever written.
I used to enjoy picking up the occasional copy of Popsci from the news stand, or dropping by the web site.
If this is a representative example of what the editors think their readership is after, essentially politically correct navel gazing about a freakin Wikipedia entry, well, it's going to be a long time before I waste my time here again.
Obama: “If you have no record to run on, then paint the other guy as someone to run from”.
since this is a political forum now I figured I'd throw that in there.
Today's magic is tomorrow's technology.
I used to love The Economist, and National Geographic. I’ve dropped those because of the “green tails” added to any random article. Two years ago the boy next door asked me to subscribe to a magazine for a school fundraiser, and I chose Popular Science. I will not be renewing.
I am a strong believer in human caused global warming due to the overwhelming evidence provided by the worlds scientists. However, this article is simply immature. This article is the cherry on top of a trend of increasingly unscientific or immature articles. For this reason, I am no going to visit this site. Its too bad to see it go downhill like this. On a somewhat related note, the magazine is much better, however I am at a stage of knowledge now that surpasses the level of the magazine so I am no longer subscribed.
@Ebrainer1: "There is a consensus in the scientific community regarding anthropogenic global warming. This is not up for debate."
Wrong and Wrong. If PopSci and others reported on the science instead of the popular propaganda more people would know this.
Wow, usually Popsci isn't half as eager to publish attack pieces.
There hasn't been any such consensus, ever. The scientific community remains conflicted on the subject.
Except for those with rabid political agendas, there really is no reason to inject the man-caused global warming debate into an information piece about Sandy anyway.
PopSci is just advocating another sky-is-falling hit-piece because it stirs up a fuss and builds readership. There's nothing scientific about it...
Oh oh looks like all the climate denier trolls came out to play for this article. For those of you too thick to understand why this is a science article...exhibit A:"But for days, the internet's most authoritative article on a major tropical storm system in 2012 was written by a man with no meteorological training who thinks climate change is unproven and fought to remove any mention of it." And Democedes, the author is indeed qualified to report on mr. Ken because he is reporting on his research and not on scientific data. As a rule of thumb, if you can study a scientific subject at a University, it is considered science. Good job mr Nosowitz, most people seem not to understand the purpose of this article. All they see is their own preconceptions
I am shocked to hear that Wikipedia is being edited by ignorant biased trolls. Shocked I tell you.
But seriously, as someone who occasionally corrects rather shocking factual errors on Wikipedia, it's important to understand that while there's lots of great stuff on Wikipedia, it needs to be taken with a grain of salt and treated with caution. I think this article also makes an important (if obvious) observation about how easy it is for a lone idiot to leverage the power of the Internet to broadcast and promote ignorance.
Oh look, science deniers on the popular science blog, what a novel surprise this is.
The oceans are warming. Warmer oceans equal bigger hurricanes, as the kinetic energy of a hurricane is derived from heat energy in the ocean. These facts are not up for debate. They are facts. Feel free to look them up in a BOOK and not on wikipedia. Put your righteous indignation back in your pocket and stop pretending like this is a political issue.
Wikipedia,
One of the most view blogs and what most people tend to forget, its not a true Encylopidia. Still, with Free Speech in mind, I am glad it exist.
Mampel is right to refuse to place anything on the Wiki about global warming. there is no evidence to prove it was because of global warming AT ALL. the storm was so severe because a blizzard ran into the hurricane, and made it move slow and drop lots of water. It was not even a powerful hurricane, just really wet and slow. What all the people screaming global warming refuse to tell you is that this is called a 100 year storm for a reason, although 50 year might be more accurate. a comparable storm occurred in the same area in 1888, and again in about 1912, LONG before so-called man made global warming began. This is a historical fact, and the 1888 storm is the reason that power and communication lines in New York city are required to be buried whenever possible. the other two storms were not called "super storms" and were clearly not caused by global warming, so why claim that Sandy was on insufficient evidence?
WHY ARE WE EVEN DEBATING THIS WHEN PEOPLE ARE STARVING AND FREEZING TO DEATH!!!!!!
Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind. Albert Einstein
BTW, why is this considered a scientific article, or even science news? we all know that Wikipedia is a joke, Right? I used to read Pop Sci to learn, not hear the latest gossip. wake up editors, you are destroying you magazine. I wouldn't read it at all if I had to actually pay for it instead of reading online. You are starting to sound a lot like CNN and all those nut jobs in the media.
Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind. Albert Einstein
1) Global warming, while not 100% proven, is accepted as the current hypothesis of planetary change by the VAST MAJORITY of scientists worldwide.
2) To say that it is "wrong" or "untrue," you should have FACTS to dispute it. When I use the word "facts," that means data, unbiased data, to refute it. It is, after all, just a well-accepted hypothesis (based on FACTS).
3) To not mention global warming in a wikipedia article is, well, a gross omission. Did it cause Sandy? Much more research should be done, but to MENTION it? It's responsible to mention it.
4) Should PopSci have articles like this? Yes. They should. Why? Because while some of you argue that global warming is a "political issue," it is, in reality, a SCIENTIFIC one. And, as many of you know, scientists don't make great politicians, so it's incumbent upon those "popular" people to discuss gross omissions of fact in largely read documents claiming to relay facts.
5) Science is not for liberals or conservatives. It's for the continuation of the species.
P.S. To back up MY comments with fact, please view the following:
www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&sqi=2&ved=0CD4QFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fcontent.usatoday.com%2Fcommunities%2Fsciencefair%2Fpost%2F2010%2F06%2Fscientists-overwhelmingly-believe-in-man-made-climate-change%2F1&ei=4C-XUIXrIaz4igLAOw&usg=AFQjCNFL6HogdnSLq_c0eFialK9HinUoNA&cad=rja
Everything on the internet is a click away. It seems to me if someone thinks PopSci is more credible than Wikipedia they might just lift their mighty finger and click away. This article is shameful and shows why no one would consider PopSci any more credible than Wikipedia which seems to have a substantially more rigorous editorial process prior to publishing.
Sandy was the largest hurricane in recorded history. The five largest hurricanes in recorded history all occurred within the last 16 years. This is not a coincidence. They are getting larger because the oceans are warming. Heat energy from the ocean is what fuels hurricanes. If you don't believe that the oceans are getting warmer, then I suggest you go and look at the polar ice caps, and then promptly slap yourself in the face.
We should appreciate that this website is called "Popular Science", and not "Legitimate Science" or "Principled Science". Mr. Mampel certainly has the right to express his personal opinions, and the author certainly has every right to publish an article expressing those opinions. But neither Mr. Mampel, or the author, or any posters, should reduce the level of discussion by referring to those that disagree with them by using the pejorative "climate deniers". Seriously, no one "denies" that "climate" exists.
In fact, a real scientist would have no problem with someone questioning or cordially disagreeing with their hypothesis.
Lastly, we should look at just how "popular" some science has been received throughout history. Galileo's theories were not so popular, nor were Newton's.
Pure and simple... Climate change should not be linked to this one event.
Climate is long term, built up of day to day or storm to storm weather events. I am not saying or not saying that our climate is or is not changing.
But it is not the definitive cause of a singular event. And until more research, ie 100 more years of data is gathered we won't have an answer on climate change.
Just food for thought... 10k years ago we came out of the last ice age( give or take a few years) can you say global warming? Without anthropogenic sources.... It's not just us humanoids boys and girls.
Dan, wow did this guy Ken piss in your cornflakes or what? I actually read the whole article, and my first thought upon completion was (and remains): uh...cool story bro?
You are not helping the noble cause of reasoned climate science here.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
As you can see...
"When greenhouse contributions are listed by source, the relative overwhelming component of the natural greenhouse effect, is readily apparent.
From Table 4a, both natural and man-made greenhouse contributions are illustrated in this chart, in gray and green, respectively. For clarity only the man-made (anthropogenic) contributions are labeled on the chart."
Water vapor, responsible for 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect, is 99.999% natural (some argue, 100%). Even if we wanted to we can do nothing to change this."
Anthropogenic (man-made) CO2 contributions cause only about 0.117% of Earth's greenhouse effect, (factoring in water vapor). This is insignificant!"
Adding up all anthropogenic greenhouse sources, the total human contribution to the greenhouse effect is around 0.28% (factoring in water vapor)."
On one hand, neither side really has the science to back up their claim. Both show compelling evidence, but nothing scientifically conclusive. Increasing carbon output vs. water vapor vs. sunspots vs. low sea ice, etc. Global climate science is still in its infancy, so it's going to be a good 10-20 years before we actually start to grasp the basics.
But on the other, I'm willing to believe a redneck from Florida about hurricanes before a bunch of fat cats in New Jersey.
GW, if caused by people, means that people create larger storms that kill more people. Thus, the GW is a natural self-correcting mechanism to be celebrated as it brings nature into ballance.
Particularly, since this storm hit areas high in population and resource consumption, but low in resource creation - it was extra effective (note how much less energy resources and carbon emmiting fuels have been consumed there lately).
GW gave me a long, wet growing season this year and is killing off the city leeches who suck life out of the planet and yet pretend they are green because they consume less than me (while producing nothing of environmental value to offset it).
I don't need to deny GW, I celebrate it and wish it many more successful years on my farm.
Ken Mampel is now my new working-class hero! As one who was raised on hard science and hard science fiction, it is only sad to me that Popular Science is now on the touchy-feely, political, anti-hard science side of the fence.
The side that is wrong in ANY scientific discussion is the side that asserts "there is no doubt"
Bobbyg, we've been over this, a non peer reviewed article from a virginia rock collecting website is not what we normals call "scientifc evidendence" so please pull your cranium out of your rectal cavity and stop posting it.
I am a person who recognizes the existence of climate change/global warming, but SANDY WAS NOT CAUSED BY GLOBAL WARMING. Perhaps with no global warming, it would have been slightly weaker, but we will never know.
Sandy, in fact, was caused by a combination of many meteorological phenomena, that occur quite often individually, but almost never at the same time. It was a combination of:
1) the huge ridge of the eastern U.S. when Sandy was forming in the Caribbean,
2) strong blocking over Greenland caused by the negative phase of the North Atlantic Oscillation,
3) lower wind shear influenced by the ENSO neutral phase, a weak subtropical jet, and the polar jet staying well north.
4) Slightly warmer than normal temperatures in the Caribbean and western Atlantic corresponding to the positive phase of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation.
5) A very potent cold front moving across the country with absolutely perfect timing - a little faster and Sandy would have been a strong Nor-easter, a little slower and it may not have been pulled back to the coast at all.
All of those factors came together in a very rare combination to make Sandy as devastating as it was. Climate Change may have certainly caused the Atlantic to be a little warmer, which may have made Sandy a little stronger, but we can't prove that it was climate change that "caused" Sandy. Sorry for the rant. And also please recognize that I 100% believe global warming as truth.
After reading the whole article and reading all of the comments that were posted.
I think the real scary point has been missed.
Revisionism
I took from the article the chilling realization that one person was deciding what knowledge was going to be made available and what knowledge is *NOT* going to be made available.
Reminds me of the revisionism present in "1984" by Goerge Orwell where the main protaginists job was to edit and reprint newspaper articles with the new facts and with reductions of language/worsd.
Here, a 55 year old regular schmuck decided for himself because he wanted to, limit the knowledge on a page so thqat no one else can learn or read or evaluate that knowledge for themselves. And he actively and persistently did that - not for logical reason, not even rational reasons..he just doesn't like one particular thoery. tehrefore, he has decided that he has the right, and the only person that has the right, to decide what information is to go on that wiki site that millions of people read and niavely believe to be factual and well balanced.
But that is my opinion, maybe the 55-year old schmuck will delete my post.....
The facts contained in the article are irrefutable and uncontested by anyone.
Human production of CO2 is 3.22% of total global output.
Mook.
so... global warming.... or climate change... or how man is changing the climate.... causes ocean temps to rise and warmer ocean temps cause bigger hurricanes thats why sandy was such a big hurricane. So the theory goes right? Only problem is that sandy wasnt even a hurricane when it made landfall... just a post-tropical cyclone.... better known as a tropical storm that tracked out of the tropics and slammed into the northeast. So what the heck does global warming have to do with that exactly? The only thing that made sandy so destructive is that it combined with other weather systems and ya know.... every dog has his day.... eventually your gonna get a conjunction of weather systems that are gonna cause a whollop somewhere. There have been less hurricanes lately not more. So why isnt warmer ocean temps causing a storm a day? Look... I am not saying that global warming isnt real... personally i dont know.... just like no one else "knows". And for anyone who is using Wikipedia as their sole source of knowledge is stupid to begin with. And for a scientific magazine to make such a fuss over it is even stupider.... is there such a word as stupider??? i better go check wiki for the definitive answer.
Today's magic is tomorrow's technology.
Mr Nosowitz,
You have soiled what I consider an enjoyable publication with your transparent hack job on Mr Mampel, who I do not know, and may in fact be someone I agree with very little on.
But you have introduced your opinion where there is no proof to slander someone in a publication that I once felt presented reasonable articles of scientific interest, (albeit some have glaring issues, but I can spot those for myself.)
I implore the editors of Popsci to never let you write for them again, you do not deserve, in fact have proven yourself wholly irresponsible to be a contributor to any publication that has the name "Science" in it, unless it is followed by another word, specifically "Fiction"
Ken may be misguided, but I think he did a good job.
I have to admire the effort he put into it, also the peaceful manner in which he expressed his views.
Ken used his skills to make a contribution to the best of his ability, and brought awareness to his cause without resorting to more uncivilized behavior.
Good job Ken, I hope this exposure helps you find a job.
Mr. Nosowitz is doing a great job differentiating PopSci from PopMech. PopMech's science articles are better written. Seriously, where are the editors!
An amazing piece of work. Why he is unemployed makes no difference to the work he did or to its contribution. The guy is becoming a folk hero, not because everything he believes in is correct, but because of what he has accomplished.
The fact that some people continue to use "global warming" an unproven theory, interchangeably with "climate change", an obvious phenomenon, puzzles many of us, however. The climate on the planet is changing. That's nothing new -- it's been changing continuously since the dawn of time. "Global warming" may or may not be happening and it may or may not have a serious human component. Listen to the hysterical cries of the Suzuki/Gore camp and you may agree with them that the sky is indeed falling. Listen to the deniers, like Mr Marpel, and you may agree with them that there is nothing going on and we should all go back to sleep. What President Obama has right now is a tremendous opportunity to leave a true and lasting legacy: he can call all the skeptics in the world of science and climatology together, the folks who are not convinced either way as there has not been a true skeptical study of the issue, and turn them lose to do just that. Study it from a skeptical point of view. Skepticism is where true science must begin. Believe nothing, either way, take nothing for granted or on faith, and set out to prove everything, one way or the other. Then, and only then, will we know the truth.
Poor excuse for journalism.
That's the opinion of a journalist and lawyer.
I can kinda see both sides on this. I accept that global warming is real and partially anthropogenic (and I'm a libertarian convert to this viewpoint as of only 5 or 6 years ago). But I do think tying global climate change to an isolated local event on Wikipedia, especially in the first few days after the event, is probably not the most objective thing to do, so I think the way things worked out was probably for the best.
Ironic how the alarmist react when you offer a differing opinion. I signed up just to tell this Dan Nosowitz what a depraved piece of shit loser he is. . What the hell Pop Sci?
It's been fairly well established by any objective study of mean global climate temperature measurements compiled over the past 1-1/2 decades that the earth's climate has been relatively stable, neither warming nor cooling. That's why the climate alarmists have changed the basis of their argument from "anthropogenic global warming" to "human-influenced climate change".
I general terms, I have no problem with PopSci choosing to publish whatever they want. It's a free country. But since they allow me to also post my comments, I will do so.
Frankly, I find it a bit hypocritical for Mr. Nosowitz to write an extensive article on PopSci, where he denounces the efforts of Mr. Mampel to express his changing position on the subject of "climate change". If Mr. Nosowitz does not like what Mr. Mampel publishes on Wikipedia, he is free to ignore it. Just as PopSci readers are free to ignore what he publishes on the PopSci website.
Sadly, all Mr. Nosowitz achieves by writing this long article, composed mostly of personal attacks on Mr. Mampel, is to demonstrate that he is just as intolerant of opposing scientific viewpoints as those he harshly criticizes. If he has a disagreement with Mr. Mampel or his Wikipedia edits, it would have sufficed to simply say so.
Really didn't think Pop Sci gave him a hard time, just a clear picture of how it played out. But I can see Ken Mampel belongs to a group of old angry friends online who can't read it straight but all came to shout. They should just go upstairs to their moms kitchen and make a big sandwich and they'll feel much better.
The Ice caps can melt the weather get so weird the crops wont grow and the fish become scarce in the seas and this group will not believe the facts because changing their mind, is just impossible. They love to wallow in their stubborn attitudes and science and facts and math is just too big for them.
Perhaps the proper way for Mampel to have handled the edit of Wiki Sandy, in regards to possible AGW effects enhancing the storm, would have been to add statements from verified sources that confirm the fact that there is no hard evidence for AGW influence. That way he could have countered what he saw as an unfactual addition to Wiki Sandy with a factual response. Readers would then be allowed to consider the alternatives and perhaps search for other avenues of knowledge on the subject. I like this article. The author gives a great insight into the mechanics of being active in Wiki. I have found Wiki to be a great tool as a 'first place to go' read on any given subject. Once there, many other channels are available to enhance one,s understanding. In this case, I have a particular interest, as after reading this article I realized that I have something that could be of interest for the page. I live on the west coast and like to watch incoming weather patterns using the GOES/POES sat services. It has been educational in expanding my understanding of global weather. Using the water vapor filter yields some great screenshots of the skyrivers that flow around the world. It just so happened that on the 19th of Oct, my attention shifted towards the east coast weather movements. The next day, in the early evening, I clicked on the North Atlantic water vapor view and off of the coast of Spain I saw a large side view of a face. The face was looking southwest across the Atlantic and has an outstretched left arm and hand. The hand points right at the Virgin Islands/Haiti region. I was struck by this apparition and gave it the name 'Water Spirit'. What I didn't realize until several days later, was that I had justed snapped a shot of the concepcion of Sandy. You can see the very beginning of the counter rotation. Actually, I have a whole series of snapshots regarding water vapor movement that leads up to Sandy and of course afterwards. This gave me a unique view of the air mass movements that created Sandy. I thought that a few of them, mainly the 'Water Spirit', might be appropriete for the Wiki page, and perhaps some elaboration on what is happening in the picture at that particular moment in time.
Political Science shd be embarrassed by this 4th rate bias.
Ditto democedes.
Hypocrisy runs rampant now.
Look - this guy is a jack ass. Just look at him! Red neck written all over him. Hairy ass frickin ape. Of course he is going to be a science skeptic. Of course he is not going to trust data. Look at the Carl Rove and his roving band of idiots if you need any more clarification. Facts are suspect. Belief is what counts!
Score on the hypocrisy, democedes.
Most honorable mentions to laurenra7, HockeyTruth, and goodnerlaw. It is entirely possible that Mr. Mampel may consider legal action for defamation of character.
Down here in Texas in 1900, we had such a big storm that it killed roughly 8,000 people in Galveston. It was so big it made it up to New York City, per Wikipedia. Curiously, this page makes no mention of "climate change" either- could Mr. Mampel be responsible for that?
And for those who have not yet done so, consider sending a few bucks to Wikipedia.
This same page, of course, contradicts salt's claim that "The five largest hurricanes in recorded history all occurred within the last 16 years."
Doubtless the work of Mr. Mampel and other "deniers". Goodness me, they ARE an industrious lot!
Ponder that, my friends...
One last thing, there were NO problems with the half dozen or so nuclear power plants in the area affected by the storm beyond temporary shutdowns. They resumed carbon free operation after a few days when power was sorely needed. Had they been wind, solar, or tidal power stations of equal capacity would this have been the case?
Hardly.
A look at how supposedly scientific articles on Wiki can be tampered with by anti-science and anti-reason.. Had our writer looked a little deeper in the beliefs of this libertarian he might have found a psychopathic mistrust of government, a person who for biblical reasons feels a need to control women's bodies. Perhaps climate change is not the only science he takes issue with and thinks like some of the posters here that the world was created 4000 years ago and dinosaurs were put here by god to test us. Perhaps he believes in nuclear power to solve our problems without creating many others. Perhaps it is just because he is unemployed and felt the need to control something in his very impoverished and conservative life. For whatever reason he was not posting in good faith but discriminating on the basis of his beliefs. He was not acting in the interests of Wiki readers.
This article, while containing criticism of wiki was not an indictment of the organization but rather a testament to its strengths in overcoming bigotry and ignorance... eventually. Zen911
Zen911, consider that there is a SCRIPTURAL reason from your silly religion justifying doubt in this case:
www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-9-1.html
Religion? Maybe that is a little inaccurate. But it is more convenient than saying "A widespread association of believers in a doctrine put out by an authority with oracular powers(the IPCC), whose members are often fanatical in their devotion and brook no dissent, since said authority forecasts apocalypse unless we all repent immediately."
Zen911,the rest of your suppositions regarding the views of Mr. Mampel are irrelevant to the topic and will not be addressed here by yours truly. Why not do something authentically useful for the benefit of Wikipedia readers and kick in a few bucks to demonstrate that your heart is in the right place even if your head is in your gluteal cleft?
This comment is addressed to all of you out there who have decided that carbon dioxide is not a problem:
Think back to the days of high school chemistry. One of the basic things I learned was that whenever you increase the concentration of a gas over a body of water, you increase the dissolved concentration of that gas within that body of water (assuming, of course, that the gas is soluble).
For example, if I were to take a sealed half-full plastic water bottle, and exchange the air in the bottle for an atmosphere of pure oxygen, the concentration of dissolved oxygen in the water would rise. Likewise, if I were to exchange pure air for pure carbon dioxide, I would raise the carbon dioxide concentration in the water itself.
If any of you have ever visited a soda factory, you know that this pumping of CO2 into a sealed bottle is exactly how most soda manufacturers carbonate their beverages. This history of carbonated beverages tells us that dissolved carbon dioxide reacts with water to form carbonic acid, which accounts for the sharp taste of carbonated "tonic water," and explains why we used to add either sodium to make "soda water," or else copious amounts of sugar; we had to eliminate that unpleasant acidic tang.
Couple these two very standard, very basic facts about science, and you come up with a startling conclusion; raising the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere raises the concentration of carbon dioxide in the ocean.
This is one of your much-touted "negative feedback loops." Guess what? You're right; it's real!
So now that we know that it's real, let's look at the real effects of this negative feedback; if large amounts of carbon dioxide are going to enter the worlds oceans, we must realize that such also involves a drastic spike in the acidity of those same oceans, just as one would expect from a carbonated beverage; just as one would expect from basic chemistry.
Of course, something else I learned in high school is that whenever a solution becomes more acidic, other things dissolve more easily in it. When stomach acid begins burning away the lining of your esophagus, we call that acid reflux disease. When the worlds oceans begin ever so slightly burning (not a lot, but more than usual) the calcium shells of the calciferous plankton that make up the base of the food chain, we can logically expect a reduced growth rate in those same plankton. Simple and definitive tests show that plankton grow best in a very narrow range of pH, and any deviation towards extra acidity will negatively impact plankton growth.
And this is where the "positive" feedback loops come into play.
You see, a decrease in plankton productivity in the world's oceans is bound to reduce the amount of atmospheric and oceanic carbon dioxide that gets used up by the growth of those plankton. So if the increased levels of carbon dioxide cause acidity that reduces carbon uptake, what we really find is a new positive feedback loop to counteract, at least in part, the negative feedback proposed to "solve" our CO2 conundrum.
But why stop at plankton? The same acidity in the entire ecosystem will affect the entire ecosystem. Tests, simple and definitive tests, have shown that corals breed far less effectively at higher temperatures; but even more definitive tests have shown that corals cannot breed outside of a certain range of acidity. Availability of calcium, the basic mineral component both of plankton exoskeletons and coral exoskeletons, is vitally dependent upon neutral acidity for its formation; because unlike in soda water, carbonic acid in the ocean needs to find its own ion to bind with, and the critical ion is calcium.
I would typically not expect to need to mention that if coral reefs start to decline (they don't have to go extinct, only decline slightly) that the decline would already start to cut into the maximum fish outputs of our world's fisheries. The problem with our acutely efficient fishing system is that we require maximum productivity every year in order to meet demand. I don't know of any system that can realistically expect 100% optimization of productivity 100% of the time.
Just a 5% drop, a mere 5%, in yearly coral productivity will work its way up through the food chain onto our boats, cutting catches by a little everywhere; a little everywhere that will add up to a big thing as far as human productivity is concerned.
You tell me what growth will come of that. You tell me what a 5% drop per year would do to the economy of a modest fishery.
---
Call me an alarmist if you will; I am alarmed by the idea that one could deny basic chemistry, especially chemistry as well-understood and well-used as that of carbonation. What I have attempted to do is show you that this problem of carbon emission has its roots in solid science.
In fact, if you feel that your opinion is a more accurate expression of the laws of physics, you could do the CO2 test at home yourself.
Take two 2-liter soda bottles; fill them both to the top with water, and put them upside down in a water-filled metal pot, such like you might use to cook pasta. Tape them down tight, you'll be filling them with gas.
Take a rubber hose and attach one end to a compressed CO2 pump; stick the other end into the water and let the air in the hose bubble out for just a bit. Then when pure CO2 from the pump is coming out of the hose, (it's colorless, you'll just have to guess when, though it won't take long,) fill one of the bottles with CO2. Make sure the bottle doesn't float up and get contaminated with air.
Do the same procedure to the other bottle, with compressed air rather than compressed CO2. Stick one thermometer in each gas bottle and cap them both. You now have two test atmospheres, one of CO2 and one of normal air.
Dry off the gas bottles and place them in a dark or shaded (indoor) area and read the temperature on the thermometers. They should be about the same. One might be warmer than the other. Place them both on clean white sheets of paper and put them in the sun to test which is warmer.
The thermometer in the container of CO2 will become warmer than the one with normal air.
Because CO2 warms the atmosphere.
---
We can't trust negative feedback loops to bail us out, because positive feedback loops are likely to occur, and because we know that we have no guarantee that there will be more of the carbon-negative loops than of the carbon-positive.
Moreover, we know that the basic science is true; that CO2 does absorb more light energy than regular air, and that an increase in CO2 concentration will in fact acidify the oceans.
So what evidence is there that any of this is actually happening, and is not just theoretical?
Well, you could go with the dozen glaciers found in glacier national park; specifically because there used to be over a hundred distinct glaciers there.
You could ask certain Tibetans about their disappearing holy glacier, which used to be a ten-minute walk and is now an hour away from the village.
You could ask the Mandarin Chinese about the dried-up Yangtze, the Kenyans about the receding ice on Mount Kilimanjaro, or (of course) the Greenlanders about their wonderfully green summers, and about their hope of perhaps mining lithium in the newly exposed land surface.
You could do seawater tests of marine acidity, and compare those to old manuscripts that list the acidity of seawater; and you could do studies of plankton productivity across the oceans and monitor the relative growth and decline of plankton productivity.
You could do like the Audubon Society and track the ranges of hundreds of migratory birds, and watch them as their ranges shift northwards, or you could go to Minneapolis, Minnesota, where true katydids were found living well beyond their usual range a full twenty years ago now.
Maybe you could try reading a historical manuscript, one that talks about how the Northwest Passage is only a fable; or you could read one that talks about how the Northeast Passage was Russian-made; the Russians barely need to chop the ice anymore.
You could measure the thickness of the Greenland ice sheet (instead of involving the locals) and watch it decline over time, or you could measure the spread of disease, and watch while tropical illnesses creep northward into areas that always used to be far too chilly.
Of course, you could also do the direct thing, and take measurements of direct surface land temperature and compare those to old-time farmers' almanacs and other agricultural publications. Or else you could take measurements of water temperatures, such as they did in lake Tanganyika in Africa.
Or instead of temperature, you could measure humidity; or perhaps, you could measure troposphere temperature, which in fact, our satellites have been doing for the past 50 years.
---
Finally, I find ridiculous the idea that observed warming of this scale is okay on the basis of the warming being a so-called "natural process."
People use that "all-natural" argument to justify marijuana.
Is global warming skepticism just another drug?
I sure hope not.
Regardless, I hope that one of you is able to look through the climate data and find a time in earth's prehistory when climate changed this much, this rapidly. If we really had enough data to write this off as a "natural process," we would have enough evidence to prove that this specific combination of high total change and high rate of change has happened at least once before.
The trouble, of course, is that this sort of thing is unprecedented. The trouble is that the only thing different between now and all those times in the past when climate change didn't happen... the only thing different is our existence.
Does Heaven help those who refuse to help themselves?
Gee dustbunny why don't you explain to all of us red neck hicks why every single weather event is so absolutely proves catastrophic anthropogenic global warming is happening that geniuses like yourself had to resort to using the term climate change.
The fact is Dick that mouth breathing knuckle dragging idiots like yourself couldn't sell catastrophic anthropogenic global warming because the actual data did not back up the models. Rather than go back and look at the model the religious zealots you worship started whining and magically catastrophic anthropogenic global warming became climate change. Rather than support your position with facts idiots like you resort to name calling. I don't play the "I'm better than that game" scumbag. You dish it out you get it back in spades Dick.
AnoNymous9 Stick to bagging groceries. Your "scientific" explanation is beyond lame and overly simplistic.
The fact is spunk monkey hurricanes are weather events and sac licking turds like you do not get to decide what is or is not climate change.
Before you spew ignorant nonsense and call others idiots I suggest you drag your knuckles down to the local library and ask somebody to read you the definition of climate.
If you think for one nanosecond your some sort of tough guy because you can call people names from behind a keyboard I'll be more than happy to erase that myth from your pathetic little pea sized brain.
That goes for everyone of ignorant scumbags who thinks that you're somehow tough and/or right because you can call names. You either prove your point with facts or STFU. Heres a little hint, just because you say so does not make it a fact. Grow up just because you can make an ignorant statement in a comments section of a website does not make you special or an expert. You're just another jerk nobody gives 2 turds about.
Dan, you're going to need more than one once in 200 years hurricane to back up your absurdly childish claim. Sadly that is what passes for journalism these days. When these types of hurricanes start happening 2-3 times a year every year and you can prove that humans have any control over climate and weather then we'll start talking about climate change. Until that time STFU.
AnoNymous9, you neglect to mention in your discourse on carbon dioxide solubility that the gas is much more soluble at low temperatures than at higher temperatures- this too can be verified, much more easily in any kitchen with a couple of glasses of soda, a refrigerator, and a clock.
This is why atmospheric concentration of CO2 LAGS temperature increases as found in ice core data. It would also tend to account for the expected result of temperature increase, whether attributed to CO2 or not, moderating oceanic decline in pH, but you alarmist, cultist, hand-wringing types always want to have your cake and eat it too, no matter how illogical this reveals you to be.
Instead of babbling about plankton and glaciers and such at great length, shall we return to the topic?
http://hurricane.atmos.colostate.edu/Includes/Documents/Publications/grayklotzbach2012.pdf
Of course, your assertion that "...this sort of thing is unprecedented", is absolutely false, as is your curious notion that there was EVER a time when climate was unchanging. In conclusion, if you view your personal "existence" as a problem, feel free to terminate it- I will not stand in your way, I promise you.
Oh yes, the nearly pure CO2 atmosphere you describe? It can be readily found on Mars- doubtless that is the reason that this planet too is warming. Perhaps you should consult jdkchem about writing up this for publication, you seem to work well together. "Fair and balanced", just like the Fox News Channel.
As Hurricane Sandy prepared to strike the Northeast, climate scientists from alarmist and skeptical camps alike reported the storm had little if anything to do with global warming.
Martin Hoerling, who chairs the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA’s) climate variability research program, and who oversees NOAA’s Climate Scene Investigators, observed, “neither the frequency of tropical or extratropical cyclones over the North Atlantic are projected to appreciably change due to climate change, nor have there been indications of a change in their statistical behavior over this region in recent decades.”
Got that? Global warming models project no appreciable change in North Atlantic storm behavior, yet global warming alarmists now say global warming caused Hurricane Sandy.
Hoerling further explained, “In this case, the immediate cause is most likely little more that the coincidental alignment of a tropical storm with an extratropical storm. Both frequent the west Atlantic in October…nothing unusual with that. On rare occasions their timing is such as to result in an interaction which can lead to an extreme event along the eastern seaboard.”
So global warming models say global warming has little or no impact on North Atlantic storms and meteorologists report a convergence of natural factors that made Sandy especially powerful. To objective scientists not trying to sell global warming snake oil, this is yet another example of the very strong storms that always have – and always will – occur on our planet.
Scientists, moreover, report a striking decline in hurricane activity during recent years. National Hurricane Center data show a dramatic decline in major hurricanes striking the United States during the past half century (see my recent column on this here). As the earth gradually recovers from the Little Ice Age (which lasted from approximately 1300 to 1900 A.D.), the frequency of major hurricane strikes is declining rather than increasing.