Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What's Really Warming the World?

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 223 posts

Re: What's Really Warming the World?

#71

Post by nom »

cjensen wrote: post #54

That was a terrible use of graphs. The biggest error in this presentation is that author-chose a scale to ensure that the carbon scale was amplified just right to appear to be the same as the temperature scale. In all other cases, he chose small amplifications so that the other factors would appear to be unchanged. The second error in this presentation is that the graphs plainly show that aerosols do have a negative…

No it wasn't. All values share the same Y axis and are calculated by simulating climate models. As I understand it, the graphs show how temperature would have evolved if there was only one of the influencing factors present.

They also tell you right in the the graph title that some aerosols have the adverse effect and can cool the atmosphere.

Re: What's Really Warming the World?

#72

Post by euyyn »

mememachine wrote: post #49
corradio wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We'd be incredibly unlucky to have missed a temperature change as fast as the one we're measuring now, if it indeed would have been caused by a small sample size of past measurements.

How unlucky we would have to be sounds like something you can calculate rather than just claim off hand.

That's what's called a "p-value", and as you guessed it is indeed calculated. It's a basic tool of science, to the point that even better probabilistic tools have been advocated for years, and it's one of the first things you check when you're reviewing a paper.

Re: What's Really Warming the World?

#73

Post by mirimir »

lend000 wrote: post #7

Can someone explain why aerosols are decreasing in their graph? A definition of what they consider an aerosol would be a good start, which I didn't see on there. Apparently the term can cover a large number of natural and unnatural compositions of matter: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerosol

Aerosols are not decreasing, but rather increasing. They reduce insolation, both directly and by increasing cloudiness. So they counteract greenhouse forcing.

The main anthropogenic aerosols are sulfur oxides and particulates from fuel combustion. And potentially, crap from nuclear explosions ("nuclear winter"). Main natural sources are deserts, sea salt and volcanoes.

So anyway, if China manages to reduce its aerosol emissions faster than its CO2 emissions, mean global temperature will likely increase even faster.

Re: What's Really Warming the World?

#74

Post by 37 »

cjensen wrote: post #54

That was a terrible use of graphs. The biggest error in this presentation is that author-chose a scale to ensure that the carbon scale was amplified just right to appear to be the same as the temperature scale. In all other cases, he chose small amplifications so that the other factors would appear to be unchanged. The second error in this presentation is that the graphs plainly show that aerosols do have a negative…

What even is the scale for these comparisons? I don't know how one can measure orbital changes, land use, or solar or volcanic activity in degrees Fahrenheit.

Re: What's Really Warming the World?

#75

Post by zzzeek »

vivekd wrote: post #4

What makes me mad about these kinds of data based climate change arguments is that they don't engage with the data in an honest way. The huge problem is 1880 was one of the coldest years in history. That cold period was caused by volcanism, several volcanos erupted causing a cold period that lasted from the 1600s to the late 1800s. This period is known as the little ice age. The worst of this period was in 1816 which…

There are many other indicators of global temperature which have been used to make assertions going back anywhere from 500-100000 years depending on what methodology you use: http://grist.org/climate-energy/one-hundred-years-is-not-eno...

Re: What's Really Warming the World?

#76

Post by [deleted] »

stale2002 wrote: post #63
bsbechtel wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's ridiculous, of course you need a baseline for any sort of evaluation. Your comment implies any sort of warming, regardless of absolute levels, is bad.

Ok, then, how about this. The baseline is 0 degrees, because that is the lowest that temperature can be. Would that be a fair baseline?

[deleted]

Re: What's Really Warming the World?

#77

Post by mcbits »

conistonwater wrote: post #57
lrenaud wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That gives me even less faith in the quality of findings. Having seen the pathetic state of literature review in the various engineering fields, I cannot expect it to be better in meteorological fields. No doubt there is a certain subset of effective and critical reviewers, but I expect dogma, exciting findings, and name recognition still rule the day. The most the volume of politics in engineering where our work is…

Your own experience in your own field might not be representative of other fields. Surely you have to consider that possibility?

The claim was that peer review in climate science is comparable to any other science. Ignoring the semantics of "engineering" vs "science", if your experience with peer review in another field is not positive, then it's fair to say the claim doesn't inspire much confidence.

Re: What's Really Warming the World?

#78

Post by uberrr »

vivekd wrote: post #4

What makes me mad about these kinds of data based climate change arguments is that they don't engage with the data in an honest way. The huge problem is 1880 was one of the coldest years in history. That cold period was caused by volcanism, several volcanos erupted causing a cold period that lasted from the 1600s to the late 1800s. This period is known as the little ice age. The worst of this period was in 1816 which…

I find it interesting that a self professed lawyer would create an account on a technology news website during an election year and regularly post against government regulation. How do you have so much time to argue against climate change and other "liberal" topics?

Re: What's Really Warming the World?

#79

Post by pcmaffey »

briandear wrote: post #24
vivekd wrote: post #4

What makes me mad about these kinds of data based climate change arguments is that they don't engage with the data in an honest way. The huge problem is 1880 was one of the coldest years in history. That cold period was caused by volcanism, several volcanos erupted causing a cold period that lasted from the 1600s to the late 1800s. This period is known as the little ice age. The worst of this period was in 1816 which…

It's because global warming politics has nothing to do with temperature. The incentive isn't to cool the planet, but alter the world economic model. Whether or not that's a worthy goal is irrelevant -- using the climate to advance that apparent agenda is fraudulent. Here's more on that theory -- with appropriate links to source material from the UN. https://www.reddit.com/r/climateskeptics/comments/441rl6/un_... This…

> The incentive isn't to cool the planet, but alter the world economic model.

This reads so clearly as a projection from climate deniers, heavily invested in protecting their stake in the current world economic model.

Re: What's Really Warming the World?

#80

Post by scatters »

vivekd wrote: post #4

What makes me mad about these kinds of data based climate change arguments is that they don't engage with the data in an honest way. The huge problem is 1880 was one of the coldest years in history. That cold period was caused by volcanism, several volcanos erupted causing a cold period that lasted from the 1600s to the late 1800s. This period is known as the little ice age. The worst of this period was in 1816 which…

You say that 1880 was one of the coldest years in history. The data series used in the article indicate that the entire decade 1903-1913 was significantly colder.

If you then look at the contribution to climate from volcanic activity (CO2 and sulphates, in both directions), the fourth graph in the article ("Is It Volcanoes?"), the data show that 1880 did not have a significant negative temperature contribution from volcanic activity, and although 1884-5 did, so too did 1964-66, 1983, and 1992.

There is no consensus on the cause of the Little Ice Age; although volcanism is one possible cause, there are other possible causes both external (solar activity, orbital cycles) and anthrogenic (reafforestation following pandemic-induced population collapse in Europe and the Americas). If that last cause is indeed a contributing factor, it supports the anthrogenic climate change theory. Even if it is excluded, the removal or reversal of external factors is totally insufficient to explain observed warming in the last century.

Post reply on HN