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

A troubling idea about climate change found new evidence in its favor

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 117 posts

Re: A troubling idea about climate change found new evidence in its favor

#81

Post by robotiamsowhat »

woodandsteel wrote: post #74
robotiamsowhat wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps a honest discussion would do? First things first - I would not call me a denier, but I would call me understander. An outcome from what I have read somewhere was that, if Sun increased its output by 1% (and kept it so for some years) it would cause equivalent warming to the one observed now. As far as I can say, Sun's activity was never constant. There may be other factors as well. On few occassions I showed…

So in terms of my question, are you saying that if you were presented with persuasive evidence that it is not the case that the global warming we observe is being caused by increasing solar radiation, would you then be persuaded it is instead being caused at least to a considerable degree by human activity?

Solar radiation, changes in Earth's orbit (it has been proved to be chaotic, longterm, AFAIK), microvawe from space hitting steam in atmosphere, volcanic production. There are few things that come to my head and might be connected to the problem. Some of this may sound as fringe. Nevertheless I would like to see credible debunking, using data and logic. May include calculus. If I see worth, I will relearn calculus. Heck, it may include whatever that will make me want to think about it - models, tables, photos.

Given the gravity of the problem and weight on future if there is miscalculation, I claim this should be taken out of politicians' hands. Wikipedia style.

The hockeystick scandal did not help, either.

And last but not least: what made the last glaciation melt and what caused it in first place? Model, please. Something I can compile on my computer. Twenty five years ago, maybe twenty, it would have easily placed itself among first ten fastest supercomputers (if I am correct). I am sure this machine can handle some computation. Even if not, give me a source code and let me worry how to run it.

EDIT: Ok, I would prefer a bunch of equation, differential too, rather than source code.

EDIT2: As of "being caused at least to a considerable degree by human activity", I am already rather certain that humans did their best to be part of the problem. The question I am trying to answer is "to what degree", not "if".

Re: A troubling idea about climate change found new evidence in its favor

#82

Post by woodandsteel »

wtvanhest wrote: post #76
woodandsteel wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I am not a "denier", but I do struggle with the evidence I have read as most of it has too much subjectivity or is based on meta studies where all underlying papers are highly subjective. So you would be persuaded if you thought the evidence was objective, not subjective. What are some criteria you use for determining if evidence is subjective or objective?

I am open to evidence that clearly shows that climate change is in part or completely caused by humans. Subjectivity would be one measure that I would apply.

I think we are using the term "subjective" differently. In your original comment, I thought you were using the term to indicate biased thinking. Now you seem to be meaning people's direct experience of the temperature. Or am I misunderstanding you?

Re: A troubling idea about climate change found new evidence in its favor

#83

Post by [deleted] »

woodandsteel wrote: post #57
wtvanhest wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not a "denier", but I do struggle with the evidence I have read as most of it has too much subjectivity or is based on meta studies where all underlying papers are highly subjective. What is missing from the debate is 2-3 papers that are agreed on to be the clearest evidence that temperatures are changing due to human inputs. Calling people 'deniers' is an ad hominen attack that doesn't prove anything, and most…

>I am not a "denier", but I do struggle with the evidence I have read as most of it has too much subjectivity or is based on meta studies where all underlying papers are highly subjective. So you would be persuaded if you thought the evidence was objective, not subjective. What are some criteria you use for determining if evidence is subjective or objective?

[deleted]

Re: A troubling idea about climate change found new evidence in its favor

#84

Post by [deleted] »

eric_h wrote: post #56
sathackr wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For a long time I was in the "we don't have enough information to make a conclusion" camp, and dismissed anyone "jumping" to conclusions as alarmist. This xkcd changed my mind: https://xkcd.com/1732/

Much as I like Randall Munroe and xkcd, I don't see any sources cited in that comic. I don't know that we know, precisely, how fucked we are yet, but I do think it's clear that humans are having an effect, and we know very convincing reasons for why we're having an effect, so we should work to reduce that effect regardless of whether we're fucked in 100 years if we continue this way, or if it will take 1000.

[deleted]

Re: A troubling idea about climate change found new evidence in its favor

#85

Post by [deleted] »

goodcanadian wrote: post #55
sathackr wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For a long time I was in the "we don't have enough information to make a conclusion" camp, and dismissed anyone "jumping" to conclusions as alarmist. This xkcd changed my mind: https://xkcd.com/1732/

The graph that convinced me (many years ago) was this one: http://www.jeremyrhammond.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/mau... It is simple physics as to how CO2 works as a greenhouse gas. Seeing the clear trend of increasing CO2 in the atmosphere makes warming sort of obvious (at least to me). All of the complex second order effects (how much warming, how climate and weather patterns will react, and so on) are much more…

[deleted]

Re: A troubling idea about climate change found new evidence in its favor

#86

Post by wtvanhest »

woodandsteel wrote: post #82
wtvanhest wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am open to evidence that clearly shows that climate change is in part or completely caused by humans. Subjectivity would be one measure that I would apply.

I think we are using the term "subjective" differently. In your original comment, I thought you were using the term to indicate biased thinking. Now you seem to be meaning people's direct experience of the temperature. Or am I misunderstanding you?

You are misunderstanding.

Basically, you are commenting in circles. I am looking for, no, pleading with you to present... is a clear and compelling case that global warming is at least partially caused by humans. When you or anyone else presents that evidence, I and others will apply various techniques to determine how credible that evidence is. One of those techniques I will apply is to examine subjectivity vs objectivity.

Re: A troubling idea about climate change found new evidence in its favor

#87

Post by rybosome »

bkirkby wrote: post #64
woodandsteel wrote: post #41

I have a question for the anthropogenic climate change doubters and deniers out there. You say either that it is certain that human activity is not having a significant influence on the climate, or it is not certain whether or not it is. My question is, it there any sort of scientific evidence that might be discovered in the future that would lead you to change your mind, and if so what would it be? Or is you view si…

the short answer is "science," specifically "observation." the long answer is that my skepticism comes from climate being a classic complexity issue where trying to isolate a single factor (carbon) as being the main forcing for climate change requires a lot of real evidence. i'd turn the question back around on you by asking "why do you believe in CAGW?" when i asked myself that question (because i was like most peop…

This is a thoughtfully written post, thank you for taking the time to put it together. As a software engineer, I'm not really qualified to have a complex, technical discussion on climate change. However, one point that you made, I can address...

> but, if this were really how it happened and co2 is the overwhelmingly main forcing for temperature increase, then why wasn't the planet already destroyed back when we had 10x+ the amount of carbon in the atmosphere than what we are doing today?

A sharp increase in CO2 is thought to be one of the precipitating factors in the Permian extinction, which wiped out >70% of land-dwelling vertebrates and >90% of all marine species. No credible person is saying the planet is threatened by climate change, they're saying humans are. This planet, and even life itself, will go on no matter what happens - cold comfort taken against the damage it could cause to our species.

Re: A troubling idea about climate change found new evidence in its favor

#88

Post by Cretin2 »

bkirkby wrote: post #79
Cretin2 wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

" i don't disagree that the planet is warming. i'm just skeptical that an increase in co2 is the main culprit." What if you were shown the science behind the lagging you speak of? Also, what do you propose is the main culprit then? https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature-interm... Feel free to engage with the author. They comment frequently at the bottom.

i don't propose a "main culprit" as i understand climate to be a classic complex system. i simply don't know what the main culprit is or even if there IS a main culprit. i'm not yet convinced that the temperature increase that we've seen in the past 150 - 200 years is abnormal from a geologic timeframe. esp. considering the warming pause of the past ~20 years. as far as the article you posted, i've read it before. it…

The climate pause never happened: https://skepticalscience.com/ipcc-global-warming-pause.htm

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/no-pause-in-ocean...

That's not really a theory (southern warming -> release co2 -> increase northern warming), that is well-established physical and biological processes.

Why should there be a similar 800-year lag today? The past CO2 increases were due to natural processes whereby as the temperature increased more biological activity was occurring and thus emitting more CO2. The historical lag makes complete sense from that perspective.

Currently, were artificially adding sequestered CO2 (which is known to trap heat) to the atmosphere and the temperature is increasing, with a fairly strong correlation, as a result.

here's some further reading for you: http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/

Re: A troubling idea about climate change found new evidence in its favor

#89

Post by Cretin2 »

underdown wrote: post #80
Cretin2 wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

" i don't disagree that the planet is warming. i'm just skeptical that an increase in co2 is the main culprit." What if you were shown the science behind the lagging you speak of? Also, what do you propose is the main culprit then? https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature-interm... Feel free to engage with the author. They comment frequently at the bottom.

Not believing in something does not require an alternate affirmative belief.

I'm not sure what you are trying to contribute here or what you took from my comment.

Re: A troubling idea about climate change found new evidence in its favor

#90

Post by Cretin2 »

wtvanhest wrote: post #54
eric_h wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Calling people 'deniers' is an ad hominen attack that doesn't prove anything, and most importantly doesn't help change people's minds. This is true, but the people who are, in fact, deniers likely won't change their minds anyway and likely will not be alive long enough to see any undeniable evidence that could. It's the same thing with discussing religion, I learned long ago to keep my mouth shut about it when talk…

There are major costs associated with cutting carbon emmissions before we have better technology. That is why people are questioning the 'science' of global warming. If we as a species are wrong about global warming in either direction, that is a big problem.

There are far greater costs to not cutting emissions now. 15-40% of CO2 remains in the atmosphere for upwards of 1000 years: https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-residence-time.htm
Post reply on HN