What is happening in the Arctic is now beyond words, so here are the pictures • Hacker News Board

Re: What is happening in the Arctic is now beyond words, so here are the pictures

#221

Post by yters » Mon, Feb 26, 2018, 10:12 PM UTC

bigbugbag wrote: post #202

yters wrote: post #89

So if the earth heats up, and more water evaporates, and more clouds form to block the sun, will this lead to a global cooling effect? My understanding is this was the old worry, that all our pollutants were going to block out the sun and lead to a new ice age, or at least the Matrix.

There is a positive feedback loop, more water vapor in the athmosphere double the CO2 greenhouse effect, and factoring in other feedback loops we get over 3 times more greenhouse effect, which warms the earth and increase water vapor in the athmosphere, etc. This process could lead to oceans boiling out (though not on Earth, but it may be the case for Venus).

If it could go either way, why are we so sure it is an unstable loop in one particular direction?

Our world used to be much warmer than it is now, yet somehow it cooled down a whole lot. There are just not enough lines connecting all the dots here.

Re: What is happening in the Arctic is now beyond words, so here are the pictures

#222

Post by bigbugbag » Mon, Feb 26, 2018, 10:15 PM UTC

gremlinsinc wrote: post #74

krautt wrote: post #53

So it's going to get warmer, sea levels will rise. coastlines will move inland as sea levels rise. Typically colder areas will become more tropical. Other than displacing a large number of people who live on coastlines, what's the big deal? Insult me for my niavety if it makes you feel better, but I honestly don't know the answer.

You ever see interstellar? Bad news -- drought/blight/warmth could destroy crops...perhaps even be an extinction level event. Good news -- there is none.. likelihood of aliens or future humans saving us is next to nil. I think we have maybe 50 years till we're close to any near ELE but my kid might see it.

The anthropocene mass extinction event has been happening for a while now.

IIRC we were warned about it in 1992: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Scientists'_Warning_to_H...

Re: What is happening in the Arctic is now beyond words, so here are the pictures

#223

Post by bigbugbag » Mon, Feb 26, 2018, 10:16 PM UTC

Symbiote wrote: post #99

onion2k wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would melting sea ice lead to a rise in sea level? The ice is floating, so it's displacing the approximately same mass of water as it contains. If it melts the overall water level shouldn't change.

The ice on Antarctica is on land.

The ice on Antarctica is not exactly melting at an alarming rate.

Re: What is happening in the Arctic is now beyond words, so here are the pictures

#224

Post by oldandtired » Mon, Feb 26, 2018, 11:38 PM UTC

KayEss wrote: post #130

oldandtired wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the whole point of the study of energy storage over fifty years. The interesting point is that the amount of ice calving off from the Greenland glaciers is minute compared to the amount of ice on Greenland. It doesn't matter how spectacular these calves are and they are spectacular and from our point of view they are huge, you can think of them as flaking skin off an elephant. The problem I see here is that th…

Once they fall into the sea the displacement occurs. It doesn't matter after that how long they take to melt, all that matters is that they fall off land and into the ocean. So melting is an issue only for ice that melts on land and then flows into the oceans because that represents new water volume.

It's not that simple. You must take into consideration the amount of ice that is deposited onto the ice mass from snow and condensation of water vapour.

If the rate of deposit is greater than the rate of calving then there is a nett addition to the ice mass. If the rates are equal, then you have steady state. If the rate of calving is greater then you have a nett loss.

This has to be looked at over a longer period of time to see what the variation is in the data.

Re: What is happening in the Arctic is now beyond words, so here are the pictures

#225

Post by oldandtired » Mon, Feb 26, 2018, 11:53 PM UTC

b1daly wrote: post #168

oldandtired wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which scientific consensus? The IPCC climate scientists with their models or the physicists, engineers, climate scientists and others who are raising the questions and the information that disputes these conclusions? There are many who don't dispute that climate change occurs, what they say is that anthropogenic effects are, at this time, unknown and that any anthropogenic causes are minor compared to the various oth…

I agree with your point that we should consider the evidence, and conclusions, presented to us as the work product of scientists. Especially as much of the information is shaped by innumerable cognitive biases. However, I’m fascinated that someone could realistically doubt the “theory of evolution.” For one thing, it is very much an active area of research, with new discoveries all the time. (Reading about the epigen…

My view was cultivated by the evidence of the experiments. The experiments exhibited certain outcomes. The conclusions by those scientists did not match the results they obtained. For me, that was the start of questioning the model in the first place.

In relation to consigning both views to the realm of religious discussion, I have found that proponents of both sides tend to dogma. I especially find that evolutionists tend to the ad hominem mode very quickly. When this occurs, I tend to the position that that person is incapable of holding a sensible discussion about the subject and is relying solely on "authority".

When the proponents of a particular theory or model will not get involved in reasoning discussions and simply wave away the question raise then yes they are in some sort of cartoon theory of reality. This applies across the board to all discussions.

I don't have a problem with natural selection nor do I have a problem with transfer of traits. What I have a problem with is the model of evolution (or its variants). Those who are proponents of the theory and model do a lot of hand-waving that does not match the evidence at hand.

In terms of active research, if you look at anyone who demonstrates odd data or finding that oppose the general evolutionary theory, they are treated as pariahs and infidels. This is a characteristic of religious thinking and does not bode well for any science.

Re: What is happening in the Arctic is now beyond words, so here are the pictures

#226

Post by oldandtired » Tue, Feb 27, 2018, 12:00 AM UTC

yters wrote: post #196

b1daly wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with your point that we should consider the evidence, and conclusions, presented to us as the work product of scientists. Especially as much of the information is shaped by innumerable cognitive biases. However, I’m fascinated that someone could realistically doubt the “theory of evolution.” For one thing, it is very much an active area of research, with new discoveries all the time. (Reading about the epigen…

Most intelligent design proponents merely think undirected evolution cannot work, due to a variety of mathematical and scientific reasons. This does mean things like common descent, natural selection and heredity are false.

Most evolutionists merely think undirected evolution will work. Yet when asked for the specific chemical pathways in a general environment cannot provide these nor are they willing to accept the current challenge to discuss this.

As an aside, I used to believe in all of the fanciful notions like "black holes" and "neutron stars". But after some specific questions and subsequent investigation into what was being proposed, I doubt the existence of these entities. I have very specific reasons for doubting these entities and after attempting to discuss these reasons with those more "knowledgeable" in the subject, I am left with the same impression that this is also a matter of dogma.

But hey, each to his own.

Re: What is happening in the Arctic is now beyond words, so here are the pictures

#227

Post by ThomPete » Tue, Feb 27, 2018, 12:02 AM UTC

bigbugbag wrote: post #200

rmetzler wrote: post #152

I regularly have discussion about climate change with my dad. He doesn't deny that human interference does influence weather and climate, but he says there isn't enough evidence that this is the only reason why the climate is changing. The Greenhouse effect once was something natural and positive - we couldn't live on a planet without the Greenhouse effect. But now the meaning changed and it includes that human race…

Your dad would benefit from a crash course in critical thinking. Climate is changing humans or not is one thing, but that current climate change is a consequence of human activity is another which as factual as the first. We even named the mass extinction accompanying the anthropocene mass extinction event to point out that it's man made.[1] The greenhouse effect is still the greenhouse effect and its meaning has not…

Everyone in this debate could use a crash course in critical thinking, not the least people who claim to be certain about things not even the scientist who debate it actually are.

Pointing to a bunch of links prove nothing which any debate between respected scientist will show you.

Here is an excellent debate from 2007 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-28qNd6ass addressing all your points.

Re: What is happening in the Arctic is now beyond words, so here are the pictures

#228

Post by oldandtired » Tue, Feb 27, 2018, 12:05 AM UTC

adrianN wrote: post #146

oldandtired wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe, you can look at the evidence presented and determine for yourself what conclusions you come to. It may be that you will determine that the evidence is for anthropogenic climate change. But then again, you might determine that the evidence is for natural processes and that anthropogenic climate change is extremely minor. It's up to you to decide how and what you will believe. [Afterthought edit]. Many years ago…

Maybe you don't have time to study a subject for 5+ years fulltime to become sufficiently qualified to read scientific papers and assess their results.

The whole point is that you don't need to study a subject for 5+ years fulltime to become sufficiently qualified to read scientific papers and assess their results.

You just have to have enough interest to look at the data and see if it matches the conclusions reached based on the fundamentals of the theories involved.

If you reading and interest is extensive enough, you can pick up a lot of information that will help you do this.

I am not an organic chemist, but I have enough knowledge of the subject to understand if there is hand waving or actual evidence for the conclusions. This really only involves what I initially learned at school and university and what I have picked up in the intervening decades.

Re: What is happening in the Arctic is now beyond words, so here are the pictures

#229

Post by ThomPete » Tue, Feb 27, 2018, 12:10 AM UTC

WhitneyLand wrote: post #192

rmetzler wrote: post #152

I regularly have discussion about climate change with my dad. He doesn't deny that human interference does influence weather and climate, but he says there isn't enough evidence that this is the only reason why the climate is changing. The Greenhouse effect once was something natural and positive - we couldn't live on a planet without the Greenhouse effect. But now the meaning changed and it includes that human race…

I’ve upvoted your comment. It’s flawed logic, but I see it as highly counterproductive to downvote people who seem to be reasoning about a problem or discussing their perceptions in good faith. So many revered scientists have made comments that today would sound jackass silly. I doubt anyone here doesn’t have such comments under their belt. Thinking or asking alone can never be wrong. As long as it’s well intentioned…

I upvoted your comment because we need more people like you who are able to disagree without turning the other person into a villain or idiot just because they disagree.

Personally, I have become more skeptical of not climate change or even whether humans have an effect but of whether it's catastrophic and I have shifted my thinking quite a lot to accept that humans will not only have an effect on earths climate, we will conquer it and control it.

That and not stopping the world, is the moral thing to do.

Re: What is happening in the Arctic is now beyond words, so here are the pictures

#230

Post by oldandtired » Tue, Feb 27, 2018, 12:16 AM UTC

yters wrote: post #162

adrianN wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe you don't have time to study a subject for 5+ years fulltime to become sufficiently qualified to read scientific papers and assess their results.

What if scientists regularly engage in falsifying and otherwise manipulating their results to fit their agenda? What if the very statistical methodology they follow is open to abuse? If we are to give wholesale acceptance to anyone who is an 'official scientist,' yet they could well be corrupt, how is that epistemically responsible? Furthermore, why must we blindly accept the status quo when there are legitimate diss…

We have enough evidence of cooking the books in lots of different fields. Retraction Watch is a good site to see this.

The problem today is that there is no encouragement to investigate ideas that are different to the accepted models. Nor are this encouragement to do full scale duplications of reported results. Anomalies are only investigated if they don't appear to dispute the current consensus.

I had a recent discussion with a nuclear physicist that I admire about this and his response was to the effect that he would discourage such experiments. There was a lot more in the discussion which is not relevant here.

What we must be careful of is blindly assuming that our theories and models are correct. We have to realise that our interpretations of the results are many times based on deeply held beliefs that are not provable but are assumed to be true.