Gains in Antarctic ice might offset losses • Hacker News Board

Re: Gains in Antarctic ice might offset losses

#31

Post by splawn » Tue, Oct 06, 2015, 9:01 PM UTC

talmand wrote: post #21

Daishiman wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So the entirety of climate science is a "trend". I guess we can just take the whole of astronomy as a trend that the Earth is round too.

Hmmm, I reread what I wrote. I don't see where I made that claim.

Would you also say that gravity, evolution, and germ theory believers also point to just trends that support their position? Of course the thing these all have in common with climate change is scientific consensus..they just lack all the political "opposition". Actually it just hit me that people still debate evolution too.. lol.

Re: Gains in Antarctic ice might offset losses

#32

Post by yarrel » Tue, Oct 06, 2015, 9:02 PM UTC

talmand wrote: post #22

llamataboot wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anthropogenic global warming is a scientific theory with a preponderance of evidence. Like all scientific theories it is open to being revised if/when contrary data emerges. At the moment, the vast majority of data supports it as a theory.

I don't say otherwise in my statement. I am simply pointing out that both sides of the argument can cherry pick, and often do. Much like any other debate, especially on the internet.

You're creating a false equivalence between a theory that has the weight of evidence on its side and critics of that theory who tend to lie about the evidence.

So no.

Re: Gains in Antarctic ice might offset losses

#33

Post by hugh4 » Tue, Oct 06, 2015, 9:56 PM UTC

llamataboot wrote: post #16

talmand wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not much different than global warming believers that point to just trends that support their position.

Anthropogenic global warming is a scientific theory with a preponderance of evidence. Like all scientific theories it is open to being revised if/when contrary data emerges. At the moment, the vast majority of data supports it as a theory.

This is true, and if only global warming people would start phrasing it in that way instead of the rather less scientific "It's an undeniable fact! You can't deny it! Expressing skepticism makes you a bad person!" then I could quit arguing with them.

I don't know how we ever got into the situation where the big argument is between "this is undeniable fact!" and "this is probably true". The dumb part is that the actions you should take in response to a reasonable probability of deleterious consequences are not all that different to the actions you should take if the probability is one hundred point zero percent.

Re: Gains in Antarctic ice might offset losses

#34

Post by rimantas » Tue, Oct 06, 2015, 9:58 PM UTC

Daishiman wrote: post #18

talmand wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not much different than global warming believers that point to just trends that support their position.

So the entirety of climate science is a "trend". I guess we can just take the whole of astronomy as a trend that the Earth is round too.

Actually it would help if there was more focus on evidence and less on "consensus". I don't get why this consensus thing is pushed so much, in my eyes it just cheapens and weakens the argument.

Re: Gains in Antarctic ice might offset losses

#35

Post by rimantas » Tue, Oct 06, 2015, 10:01 PM UTC

splawn wrote: post #31

talmand wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmmm, I reread what I wrote. I don't see where I made that claim.

Would you also say that gravity, evolution, and germ theory believers also point to just trends that support their position? Of course the thing these all have in common with climate change is scientific consensus..they just lack all the political "opposition". Actually it just hit me that people still debate evolution too.. lol.

Climate science is complicated by the fact that there are gazillions of variables and we hardly understand them and their interaction. Gravity is predictable enough for us to fly some apparatus millions of kilometres and land it on the comet. We are far far away from this kind of precision in regard of climate.

Re: Gains in Antarctic ice might offset losses

#36

Post by splawn » Tue, Oct 06, 2015, 10:03 PM UTC

rimantas wrote: post #35

splawn wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you also say that gravity, evolution, and germ theory believers also point to just trends that support their position? Of course the thing these all have in common with climate change is scientific consensus..they just lack all the political "opposition". Actually it just hit me that people still debate evolution too.. lol.

Climate science is complicated by the fact that there are gazillions of variables and we hardly understand them and their interaction. Gravity is predictable enough for us to fly some apparatus millions of kilometres and land it on the comet. We are far far away from this kind of precision in regard of climate.

Are you claiming there isn't scientific consensus on climate change?

Edit: and by "climate change" I mean the notion of "humans are causing the planet to warm up with CO2"

Re: Gains in Antarctic ice might offset losses

#37

Post by lutorm » Tue, Oct 06, 2015, 10:16 PM UTC

rimantas wrote: post #34

Daishiman wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So the entirety of climate science is a "trend". I guess we can just take the whole of astronomy as a trend that the Earth is round too.

Actually it would help if there was more focus on evidence and less on "consensus". I don't get why this consensus thing is pushed so much, in my eyes it just cheapens and weakens the argument.

I'm not sure what you mean. Evidence, by its very nature, can only be gathered for events that have occurred. There is plenty of discussions about evidence.

The real consequences, however, are in the future, and for those there can be nothing more than predictions. In that context, "consensus" means "within a very wide range of models and predictions, this is what will happen". It doesn't mean that it will happen, but it does mean that a bunch of people, using different methods and different data, agree on the conclusions. How does that weaken the argument?

Re: Gains in Antarctic ice might offset losses

#38

Post by lutorm » Tue, Oct 06, 2015, 10:20 PM UTC

mamon wrote: post #23

Dumb question: if all the ice melts, especially in Arctics shouldn't the see level fall down as volume of water is smaller than volume of ice? And with increased temperature there is also increased vaporization and world's average humidity - another reason for sea levels to fall down.

The other people have already answered this, but I just wanted to clarify that this is why people talk about the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets in this context, because those rest on land.

The Arctic ice is important for albedo reasons, it reflects a lot of sunlight that would otherwise go into warming the water, but as you correctly point out, the melting of that particular ice won't contribute to sea level rise directly.

Re: Gains in Antarctic ice might offset losses

#39

Post by Daishiman » Tue, Oct 06, 2015, 10:46 PM UTC

rimantas wrote: post #34

Daishiman wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So the entirety of climate science is a "trend". I guess we can just take the whole of astronomy as a trend that the Earth is round too.

Actually it would help if there was more focus on evidence and less on "consensus". I don't get why this consensus thing is pushed so much, in my eyes it just cheapens and weakens the argument.

You can check any of the climate science journals, the IPCC reports which summarize the loads of different, independent lines of evidence, the explanations of the physical models that describe the process of warming and how that maps out to different geographic areas of the world, along with all the predictions that leads to in timeframes that span over a century for now.

But no, I guess complaining to people who actually bother to at least get the fundamental explanations is a much more productive use of denialists' time rather than becoming informed.

Re: Gains in Antarctic ice might offset losses

#40

Post by Daishiman » Tue, Oct 06, 2015, 10:47 PM UTC

rimantas wrote: post #35

splawn wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you also say that gravity, evolution, and germ theory believers also point to just trends that support their position? Of course the thing these all have in common with climate change is scientific consensus..they just lack all the political "opposition". Actually it just hit me that people still debate evolution too.. lol.

Climate science is complicated by the fact that there are gazillions of variables and we hardly understand them and their interaction. Gravity is predictable enough for us to fly some apparatus millions of kilometres and land it on the comet. We are far far away from this kind of precision in regard of climate.

Umm, we do understand them. We've been making effective climate predictions since the 80s. Just because our understand is not complete and that you don't even bother to read the corresponding literature doesn't mean anything about the science itself.