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

141–150 of 223 posts

Re: What's Really Warming the World?

#141

Post by noobermin »

jjoonathan wrote: post #101
bunderbunder wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're criticizing what you consider to be an oversimplification, and your criticism is itself based on an oversimplification. It seems you're implying that the argument being presented is basically just, "The world is getting warmer, aaaa!!!" There's much more to it than that. In fact, even the article you're criticizing provides a more nuanced justification than that, which opens you up to criticism for constructin…

You'll see someone like this in every global warming discussion that happens with an educated audience. They'll put on all the plumage of reasonable dissent: "I don't think that the argument for AGW takes into account ." In an audience of non-experts, they will go unanswered, and appear to have a point, until you spend an hour or two digging through the relevant IPCC reports and discover that not only has been invest…

This has been the "go to" method of people like this who argue positions that rail against established science or history, from evolution to trickle-down to holocaust denialism. They cannot win on the basis of honest and sincere debate, so they play underhanded confidence games along with gaslighting in order to convince you to their side.

Honestly, if you are engaging in this, consider whether your side really is the right side to be on in the first place.

Re: What's Really Warming the World?

#142

Post by euyyn »

christkv wrote: post #134

Here is something I've always wondered about. Coal, oil and gas is originally organic matter. By the creation of coal, oil and over millions of years the overall level of free carbon was reduced and probably lower temperatures. However by starting to burn oil, coal and gas we are increasing the freed carbon again back to some earlier historic level. I seems we would just be setting us up to a return to a even lusher…

I mean, not even the Oxygen Holocaust was world-ending. Not sure that's the bar we want to measure our actions against :)

Re: What's Really Warming the World?

#143

Post by mememachine »

euyyn wrote: post #136
mememachine wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Rather because if the probability weren't so, global warming, as an unprecedented thing, wouldn't be discussed outside of scientific circles yet. Heres where we disagree.

And that's fine, given that I nor that commenter have the data. But if you believe your critique against the science of the matter is something the whole set of climate scientists happen to have overlooked for decades, the burden is on you to read the actual papers and find out if you're right or not. If you're right and all of them have overlooked it, you'll have material for a hell of a paper yourself: There's noth…

Of course I don't think all climate scientists would've over looked it, I think probably the friction is between climate scientists and people who report on (and thus people who end up talking about) climate scientists. I think its perfectly possible that the results arent as dramatic or causally linked as theyre portrayed to be, and I have yet to see a genuine consensus to prove me wrong.

And lets not pretend one or two papers that make bold claims hold much water.

I've been misled by popular media many times, so color me unsurprised that they might be selling some bullshit about this as well. (Not that they certainly are.)

Re: What's Really Warming the World?

#144

Post by cderwin »

makmanalp wrote: post #70
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…

I don't find this type of argument very useful because usually instead of making specific, falsifiable criticisms of the literature, this argument starts with "wow, scientists can be wrong or prone to human biases sometimes" which turns into a general "I have a touchy-feely sense that maybe some stuff is wrong with climate science", which quickly turns into "I guess most of the literature out there is completely wron…

You're right that non-scientific pressures existing isn't sufficient to support the position that scientific research is inaccurate. However, it certainly is solid ground for exercising a bit of skepticism about scientific research -- particularly when it is well documented that the political distribution of scientists does not reflect that of the greater population and the scientific issue at hand has become political.

Moreover, there seems to be a knee-jerk reaction among non-experts to discredit this skepticism as being "anti-science" or being the work of climate-change "deniers." For example, see here[0]. The commenter laments that non-experts might suggest a criticism of peer-reviewed work without being an expert themselves on that criticism. He or she even accuses them of arguing in bad faith ("They'll put on all the plumage of reasonable dissent") and suggests that anyone who has not undergone the rigor of peer review is not qualified to have an opinion ("peer review or STFU"). I fear that if there were valid criticism to be heard, it would at best only fall on deaf ears.

[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13739382

Re: What's Really Warming the World?

#145

Post by [deleted] »

RyanZAG wrote: post #131
yongjik wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If global warming went away tomorrow -- as in, it were to be completely proven to not exist -- every single climate change scientist would be out of a job. 1. That's a bit like saying if powered aviation goes away tomorrow (as in, it is to be completely proven to be impossible), every single engineer at Boeing would be out of a job. 2. The incentive structure doesn't work that way. If you could show that global war…

> 1. That's a bit like saying if powered aviation goes away tomorrow (as in, it is to be completely proven to be impossible), every single engineer at Boeing would be out of a job. Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. If you were doing a study on whether powered aviation is going away tomorrow, 99% (well probably 100%) of Boeing engineers would tell you that it isn't. Obviously. But you cannot use that as a proof tha…

[deleted]

Re: What's Really Warming the World?

#146

Post by euyyn »

firefoxd wrote: post #82

It's interesting that we still try to scare people with the effect of global warming by saying: Average World temperature has risen by 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit. This may scientifically be a huge concern. But for the average person? When I open my window the temperature drops by more than 5 degrees and i don't even feel it. However, the first day i went to cairo egypt, i immediately understood the problem of pollution.…

This is a very good point. Once the science is clear and solid, those who want to effect political change based on it still have to do the work of presenting it in a way that makes "common sense" by being relatable. Otherwise it'll never be persuasive enough.

Re: What's Really Warming the World?

#147

Post by RyanZAG »

linkregister wrote: post #130
RyanZAG wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From a cursory glance into the grants and money devoted to climate science research from the UN and others, nearly all of it directly relates to climate change. There is a market for general studies into planetary climate, but they're minuscule compared to the amount of funding provided by the fear of climate change. To deny the financial link here is purposeful blindness, in my opinion. If all of the studies showed…

What resources do you use to look into the funding sources and scope of climate science studies? I've seen quite a few articles here on HN based off of NOAA and NASA studies regarding other interesting climate topics, such as variation in jet streams and ocean currents, changes in rainfall (especially California), and the development of storms. That's just my haphazard exposure, certainly not a definitive answer. Are…

Unfortunately, the numbers we need here are all confidential. Here's the list of UN grants though: http://www.unccd.int/en/programmes/Capacity-building/CBW/mar...

Here's a decent article on the economic effects on climate science research: http://www.ucsusa.org/publications/got-science/2015/got-scie... - This is in the opposite direction, but it shows how easily money is a factor. The fact still remains that there are unknown and undisclosed links to research that is paid to give a specific result.

As for climate scientists, yes they are fairly specialized. A PHD is always going to be specialized. And even more so, nearly all work for climate scientists is in research or in explaining climate change: https://www.indeed.com/q-Climate-Scientist-jobs.html

> Wouldn't tenure follow from a groundbreaking study that disproved mainstream scientific belief, instead of boringly replicating existing findings?

Not if even trying to research it would get you immediately fired. Stating you don't believe climate change exists inside a climate science department will almost instantly guarantee you will be axed. You're definitely not going to get funding to study it.

> Of course there is an economic link to everything. You still haven't established the link in a meaningful fashion. "I'm just asking questions" isn't good enough to present a convincing argument.

That we agree that there is an economic link, and that an economic link will influence outcomes, is literally all I'm saying.

Re: What's Really Warming the World?

#148

Post by curtis »

bunderbunder wrote: post #118
curtis wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a substantial percentage of the electorate who are ideologically opposed to the very notion of climate change. They're ideologically opposed to conservation, they're ideologically opposed to large scale government interventions for any purpose, they are specifically opposed to any sort of tax so a carbon tax is right out, and they are even ideologically opposed not simply to environmentalism, but to (it seem…

Calling it ideological blinders is an easy dismissal, and also one that, IMO, isn't terribly useful. I think what you're really dealing with is cognitive dissonance: Accepting what the science says on climate probably means accepting that you yourself could be be contributing to a situation that could be a serious problem for your children and grandchildren. It probably also implies making some lifestyle modification…

> Calling it ideological blinders is an easy dismissal, and also one that, IMO, isn't terribly useful.

No it's not an easy dismissal. It's the exact opposite of an easy dismissal. It's a really hard problem.

Re: What's Really Warming the World?

#149

Post by euyyn »

sanderjd wrote: post #62
corradio wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Take the reference that is 5min ago, call it T0. You will still observe that temperatures (i.e the sequence of measured temperatures minus T0) are increasing. Changing the reference changes the y-scale of a graph, but does not change the derivative (the speed at which it changes, i.e. increases or decreases).

What? Just because it's daytime (in the US) right now? In a few hours when it's dark, the temperature will definitely be going down when compared with a baseline of 5 minutes in the past. I don't think you've thought this through...

These aren't "temperatures at a specific point in the planet at a specific instant". Rather temperature averaged globally, the mean temperature of the whole planet.

Re: What's Really Warming the World?

#150

Post by dwaltrip »

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…

How diligently have you applied your skepticism to such alternate theories and premises?

I would question the assumptions and first principles that underpin your worldview.

Post reply on HN