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

171–180 of 223 posts

Re: What's Really Warming the World?

#171

Post by [deleted] »

tgb wrote: post #93
zakk wrote: post #22

I can accept that in an infographic meant for a wide audience very strong correlation may imply causation. The aim of the infographic is, indeed, praiseworthy. However the missing y axis for the second factor really upsets me! What's the normalization? How has data been rescaled? That can affect __a lot__ how visually correlated two datasets appear.

The problem you're thinking of is when you display two different kinds of data on the same axis and so there's two degrees of freedom in how you choose their relative scaling and offset. This makes it very easy to show "obvious" relationships. But the data here all has a very natural sense in which they share the same axis: they're all temperatures of the world, or simulated values thereof. So the choice in scaling a…

[deleted]

Re: What's Really Warming the World?

#172

Post by jjoonathan »

thesagan wrote: post #119
jjoonathan wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

A trap most of us will fall in to is to assume intents of the anonymous strangers with which we talk on these message boards. In serious academic-ish discussion, I think we should stick as closely to the topic at-hand and avoid pointing out patterns of argumentation where we're easily led into the abyss of us-vs-them and accusations of manipulation. (Manipulation might be rampant, but hard to objectively define anony…

> In serious academic-ish discussion, I think we should stick as closely to the topic at-hand and avoid...

So does that mean you're willing to do the legwork to dig up the IPCC reports, chase down the studies they reference, and put together an academic-quality rebuttal? Or are you just asking for someone else to do it?

In either case I offer my sincere gratitude to anyone willing to fight the weighted odds. It ain't gonna be me, though. Been there, done that. I've got a few hours of weekend left, and I aim to enjoy them.

Re: What's Really Warming the World?

#173

Post by 37 »

scatters wrote: post #89
37 wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The graph shows predicted global temperature from climate models, with 90% confidence intervals, varying only that factor and keeping other factors unchanged. So the scale is exactly the same unit - Kelvin.

Thank you for explaining this. I should also admit that, at first I didn't notice the "Methodology" notes at the bottom.

Re: What's Really Warming the World?

#174

Post by stillsut »

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…

The Anabaena Event is something you'd be interested in.

Also, the decrease in atmospheric CO2 below 200ppm would be catastrophic to almost all photosynthesizing crop-type plants. For reference the natural cycle has had us oscillating between 220 and 280 ppm for the past 4M years.

Re: What's Really Warming the World?

#175

Post by chris1993 »

command_codes wrote: post #106

Regrettably at the moment cannot parse through this entire thread but surely proponents are aware that global temperature seems to have fluctuated within historical record, and not just the Little Ice Age Extending further, we know that paleoclimates could be radically different and have oscillated. I knew this even in elementary school Is Earth's climate changing? Of course; and that is because of course it will. Sh…

The global climate is changing faster than at any time in recent history and this will impact on society and is already affecting people in marginal regions. We have tools (taxation, among others) which can slow and perhaps stop the rate of change, so perhaps we should be using them instead of ignoring the issue and assuming/hoping that business-as-usual will work.

Re: What's Really Warming the World?

#176

Post by [deleted] »

jjoonathan wrote: post #172
thesagan wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A trap most of us will fall in to is to assume intents of the anonymous strangers with which we talk on these message boards. In serious academic-ish discussion, I think we should stick as closely to the topic at-hand and avoid pointing out patterns of argumentation where we're easily led into the abyss of us-vs-them and accusations of manipulation. (Manipulation might be rampant, but hard to objectively define anony…

> In serious academic-ish discussion, I think we should stick as closely to the topic at-hand and avoid... So does that mean you're willing to do the legwork to dig up the IPCC reports, chase down the studies they reference, and put together an academic-quality rebuttal? Or are you just asking for someone else to do it? In either case I offer my sincere gratitude to anyone willing to fight the weighted odds. It ain't…

[deleted]

Re: What's Really Warming the World?

#177

Post by [deleted] »

jjoonathan wrote: post #172
thesagan wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A trap most of us will fall in to is to assume intents of the anonymous strangers with which we talk on these message boards. In serious academic-ish discussion, I think we should stick as closely to the topic at-hand and avoid pointing out patterns of argumentation where we're easily led into the abyss of us-vs-them and accusations of manipulation. (Manipulation might be rampant, but hard to objectively define anony…

> In serious academic-ish discussion, I think we should stick as closely to the topic at-hand and avoid... So does that mean you're willing to do the legwork to dig up the IPCC reports, chase down the studies they reference, and put together an academic-quality rebuttal? Or are you just asking for someone else to do it? In either case I offer my sincere gratitude to anyone willing to fight the weighted odds. It ain't…

[deleted]

Re: What's Really Warming the World?

#178

Post by woodandsteel »

What the global climate change skeptics won't acknowledge is that, in practical, political, and economic terms, they have already lost the argument.

What the skeptics want, or at least most of them, is for the human race to stay on fossil fuels forever. Perhaps 20 years ago they might have persuaded the world that this is the right path. But instead the world went down the path of developing renewable energy, and it is now getting so cheap that it is going to replace fossil fuels over the coming decades. And there is nothing the skeptics can do to stop this from happening.

Re: What's Really Warming the World?

#179

Post by jjoonathan »

RyanZAG wrote: post #124
jjoonathan wrote: post #120

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. Your mental model of how grants get distributed to scientists is incorrect.

As someone who has received a number of grants, I don't think I'm entirely incorrect here. Although I was exaggerating, the field would shrink dramatically, departments would be shut down or merged, journals would stop carrying articles on a wide range of subjects which would force the researchers to publish into new fields they have no prior experience in. That puts them in a position of competing with researchers a…

> As someone who has received a number of grants, I don't think I'm entirely incorrect here. Although I was exaggerating

Yeah, and I replied in kind. Apologies. FWIW, I played the grant game too, with a small amount of success before I jumped ship.

While you're right that climate change being proven wrong would cause a contraction in the field, I don't think this fact translates cleanly into incentives that could keep a collective lie afloat. Three reasons, if you'll pardon my bullets.

1. Whoever successfully spearheaded the change would be set for life in terms of reputation (and, more than likely, position + funding), so there's a prisoner's dilemma in favor of the truth coming out.

2. Individual studies often happen at a granularity where it's not clear whether or not they support "The Narrative" until long after they are complete. E.g. if a study's "deliverable" is to measure the blackbody radiation from Earth, the number only has relevance to the climate change argument once differenced against solar influx, inflow/outflow from heat reservoirs, nuclear heating from the core, etc.

3. The whole kerfuffle over heat storage in the deep ocean played out as one would expect if the process works, and didn't play out as one would expect if everyone were part of a coverup, intentional or otherwise. A ton of models broke, the literature generally admitted this was the case, and the cause was tracked down until its source and implications were understood.

Re: What's Really Warming the World?

#180

Post by ikeyany »

emodendroket wrote: post #33
joatmon-snoo wrote: post #28

Maybe it's just me, but I don't think the argument we need is that global warming is happening - yes, there are deniers - I think we need better proof that we're actually fucked if temperatures keep going this way. That's what I see people pushing back against now, not so much the reality that climate change is now happening.

It's like playing whack-a-mole. You'll never convince them.

Who is "them"? There are many smart people who acknowledge that climate change is happening, but also acknowledge that there's no proof that there's a clear urgent action we need to do.
Post reply on HN