Schwarzenegger: I don’t give a damn if we agree about climate change • Hacker News Board

Re: Schwarzenegger: I don’t give a damn if we agree about climate change

#211

Post by unprepare » Tue, Dec 08, 2015, 2:38 PM UTC

EdSharkey wrote: post #189

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have no idea where you get the idea that the planet is cooling, but you're 100% wrong about this. http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate-guide/science/temp-recor... This is not "bad science." And it leads to predictable effects. The North West of England is partly underwater this week because of yet another "once a century" storm - the kind that have been rolling around every few years since 2000 or so. Increased rain…

Your second link states right at the start, "There is, however, a dawning realization among researchers that even these apparently tiny variations can have a significant effect on terrestrial climate." And there's uncertainty and debate between scientists mentioned throughout. The sun inputs many orders of magnitude more energy as humans into the atmosphere. Even 0.01% variability in solar output should create fluctu…

Do you have any studies supporting this variability in the Sun's output?

Re: Schwarzenegger: I don’t give a damn if we agree about climate change

#212

Post by steven2012 » Tue, Dec 08, 2015, 3:08 PM UTC

quanticle wrote: post #201

steven2012 wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For decades, scientists, doctors and dietitians said that eating fat caused heart disease, and you should decrease your fat in your diet. Only in the last couple of years has this "fact" been deemed wrong. I don't think you would have found a single scientist, doctor or dietitian since the 70s that would have disagreed with the above. It was taken as fact and anyone who thought differently would have been a laughing…

>If you read this thread, it's humorous to read all of the people who think that there is data going back millions of years that links CO2 to climate change. Except... that data does exist. Sediment cores do contain evidence of past levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide to a fairly high degree of accuracy, and we have sediment cores going back up to about million years ago, or so. >Global warming caused by CO2 has nev…

Except correlation doesn't prove causation. How many times does this have to be stated for people to understand this? The number of pirates is perfectly inversely correlational to the atmospheric CO2. Is it pretty clear that one causes the other?

Sediment cores and being able to extrapolate data going back thousands or millions of years is a theory only. No one can state CO2 levels going back thousands of years with any level of certainty, certainly not in the Ppm accuracy.

Re: Schwarzenegger: I don’t give a damn if we agree about climate change

#213

Post by EdSharkey » Tue, Dec 08, 2015, 3:27 PM UTC

unprepare wrote: post #211

EdSharkey wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your second link states right at the start, "There is, however, a dawning realization among researchers that even these apparently tiny variations can have a significant effect on terrestrial climate." And there's uncertainty and debate between scientists mentioned throughout. The sun inputs many orders of magnitude more energy as humans into the atmosphere. Even 0.01% variability in solar output should create fluctu…

Do you have any studies supporting this variability in the Sun's output?

Do you want to know about solar cycles? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle

There's a solar irradiance section that explains:

> Solar irradiance varies systematically over the cycle, both in total irradiance and in its relative components (UV vs visible and other frequencies). The solar luminosity is an estimated 0.07 percent brighter during the mid-cycle solar maximum than the terminal solar minimum. Photospheric magnetism appears to be the primary cause (96%) of 1996-2013 TSI variation. The ratio of ultraviolet to visible light varies.

Re: Schwarzenegger: I don’t give a damn if we agree about climate change

#214

Post by unprepare » Tue, Dec 08, 2015, 3:43 PM UTC

EdSharkey wrote: post #213

unprepare wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have any studies supporting this variability in the Sun's output?

Do you want to know about solar cycles? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle There's a solar irradiance section that explains: > Solar irradiance varies systematically over the cycle, both in total irradiance and in its relative components (UV vs visible and other frequencies). The solar luminosity is an estimated 0.07 percent brighter during the mid-cycle solar maximum than the terminal solar minimum. Photosp…

I'd like to see how solar output over time correlates with global average temperatures over time. Specifically on a timescale longer than one solar cycle.

Re: Schwarzenegger: I don’t give a damn if we agree about climate change

#215

Post by smalldataguy » Tue, Dec 08, 2015, 6:15 PM UTC

mikeash wrote: post #132

smalldataguy wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair, opposing interests (the "green" movement) have also influenced people based on economics. Let's not look at who is on what side of the fight when making these decisions. Both sides currently have entrenched economic interests, both sides are turning it from a practical issue to one that is moral and identity politics, ruining the conversation.

What entrenched economic interests are on the "global warming is real" side? There are a bunch of upstarts, of course, but nothing entrenched that I can think of. Given that the whole movement only took off in the last few decades I don't even see how it would be possible. Further, I frequently see companies on that side making choices that are against their own economic interests, by spending more on electricity to…

According to [0], private sector investment in clean energy in the US alone was over $100 billion in the US. In 2012.

[0] http://www.acore.org/files/pdfs/ACORE_Outlook_for_RE_2014.pd...

Re: Schwarzenegger: I don’t give a damn if we agree about climate change

#216

Post by EdSharkey » Tue, Dec 08, 2015, 6:25 PM UTC

unprepare wrote: post #214

EdSharkey wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you want to know about solar cycles? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle There's a solar irradiance section that explains: > Solar irradiance varies systematically over the cycle, both in total irradiance and in its relative components (UV vs visible and other frequencies). The solar luminosity is an estimated 0.07 percent brighter during the mid-cycle solar maximum than the terminal solar minimum. Photosp…

I'd like to see how solar output over time correlates with global average temperatures over time. Specifically on a timescale longer than one solar cycle.

I think that irradience is difficult to pin to surface temps. From the same article:

> The current scientific consensus is that solar variations do not play a major role in driving global warming, since the measured magnitude of recent solar variation is much smaller than the forcing due to greenhouse gases. Also, solar activity in the 2010s was not higher than in the 1950s (see above), whereas global warming had risen markedly. Otherwise, the level of understanding of solar impacts on weather is low.

The last sentence and the section on hypothesized cycles basically state "we're not sure" about what the sun is doing in the long term and what it's effects on earth are.

That's okay, I'm fine with not having answers on that while science and tech catches up with nature.

What I'm not fine with is drawing extraordinary conclusions from incomplete computer simulations about man's role in climate given the primary sun and cosmic ray inputs into the system are not well understood.

Re: Schwarzenegger: I don’t give a damn if we agree about climate change

#217

Post by mikeash » Tue, Dec 08, 2015, 6:45 PM UTC

smalldataguy wrote: post #215

mikeash wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What entrenched economic interests are on the "global warming is real" side? There are a bunch of upstarts, of course, but nothing entrenched that I can think of. Given that the whole movement only took off in the last few decades I don't even see how it would be possible. Further, I frequently see companies on that side making choices that are against their own economic interests, by spending more on electricity to…

According to [0], private sector investment in clean energy in the US alone was over $100 billion in the US. In 2012. [0] http://www.acore.org/files/pdfs/ACORE_Outlook_for_RE_2014.pd...

How much of that is from "entrenched economic interests," and what's the number for fossil energy?

Re: Schwarzenegger: I don’t give a damn if we agree about climate change

#218

Post by unprepare » Tue, Dec 08, 2015, 6:45 PM UTC

EdSharkey wrote: post #216

unprepare wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd like to see how solar output over time correlates with global average temperatures over time. Specifically on a timescale longer than one solar cycle.

I think that irradience is difficult to pin to surface temps. From the same article: > The current scientific consensus is that solar variations do not play a major role in driving global warming, since the measured magnitude of recent solar variation is much smaller than the forcing due to greenhouse gases. Also, solar activity in the 2010s was not higher than in the 1950s (see above), whereas global warming had ris…

I definitely see what you're getting at, that there could be yet-unknown/unmeasured variability in the sun's output that could be affecting the average global temperature.

I fail to see, however, how this fact in any way discredits the research done by other scientists.

You have a hypothesis that is untested, that is not necessarily mutually exclusive from the already tested hypothesis.

Until that hypothesis is tested and confirmed, I will live my life by the already tested and confirmed hypotheses.

What really confuses me about this whole issue is, what exactly are people afraid of us doing if we operate under the assumption that climate change is man made? Why such vitriol (not from you, but others) against the idea that humans can/have contribute(d) to a changing climate? I'm honestly asking.

Re: Schwarzenegger: I don’t give a damn if we agree about climate change

#219

Post by ksenzee » Tue, Dec 08, 2015, 6:59 PM UTC

lmm wrote: post #98

ksenzee wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are the roads like where you live? Because in my part of the world a ten-hour drive is a pleasant way to spend a vacation day. I look forward to road trips.

A new road you haven't seen before, sure. But the same one frequently?

Depends on the value of "frequently." Every weekend would be not much fun. Every month or two I'd be fine with. Riding in a comfortable vehicle is good family togetherness time, which is in short supply in a lot of families.

Re: Schwarzenegger: I don’t give a damn if we agree about climate change

#220

Post by MaysonL » Tue, Dec 08, 2015, 7:47 PM UTC

vonmoltke wrote: post #122

rybosome wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hear, hear. The fossil-fuel industry fought long and hard to sow doubt that ambient lead levels in the atmosphere were increasing due to the burning of leaded gasoline. Losing on that point, they then attempted to prove that low levels of lead are not harmful to humans; this has since been shown to be wildly inaccurate. It blows my fucking mind that people accuse scientists of being untrustworthy due to having a fina…

> The fossil-fuel industry fought long and hard to sow doubt that ambient lead levels in the atmosphere were increasing due to the burning of leaded gasoline. Losing on that point, they then attempted to prove that low levels of lead are not harmful to humans; this has since been shown to be wildly inaccurate. The oil industry didn't give a shit about whether or not TEL was put in gasoline. It was the auto companies…

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

They lied about lead: why in hell should we ever believe them again?