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

Oceans 'soaking up more heat than estimated'

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 225 posts

Re: Oceans 'soaking up more heat than estimated'

#141

Post by jasonlotito »

monochromatic wrote: post #132

If they got this number wrong by 60% for all these years and just noticed, why should I trust anything else about all of their different, conflicting climate models?

They didn't get it wrong. They did the best they could with the data they had, which they knew was sparse.

"However, these estimates all use the same imperfect ocean dataset and share additional uncertainties resulting from sparse coverage, especially before 2007"

You'll note here the methodology isn't the issue, but rather the dataset. They've improved the dataset.

> why should I trust anything else

Well, technically, you shouldn't. You can look at the data and review it yourself. The problem is, you aren't probably an expert in the field. Which means at some level, you've already put your trust in the experts at some level.

Furthermore, to double down on the "they didn't get it wrong" comment:

"Our result - which relies on high-precision O2 measurements dating back to 1991 - suggests that ocean warming is at the high end of previous estimates."

You'll note here that this they concluded the actual warming was still within the previous estimates. And considering estimates are just that, this further backs up their claim.

Re: Oceans 'soaking up more heat than estimated'

#142

Post by jahaja »

sunir wrote: post #133
jahaja wrote: post #125

This is also a crisis of critical thought. There's an utter lack and/or willingness to imagine any other reality than the current market economy. This goes even to the length of advocating some sort of scorched earth policies to decrease the earth's population since in their mind, the only human is the market-human and is as such inherently a terrible polluter. This is fundamentalism.

There are plenty of attempts to think about other systems, implement them, and advocate for change. They all lack something important: success. Also ironically it is a market of competing ideas to markets.

If success would be a prerequisite of evolution it would grind to a halt.

Re: Oceans 'soaking up more heat than estimated'

#143

Post by agumonkey »

Nasrudith wrote: post #135
agumonkey wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even that is too large IMO. At least in my view of things, I'm cool with states working on this. I wanted something like communities. I'll see.

I'm curious why the small community emphasis?

half subjective reasons:

- I'm bored by the system and jobless, and this would be an interesting thing to try as an activity for me

- larger efforts are slow

- I have this vision that bootstrapping small group efforts my heat up the system to help larger efforts.

I may add that large changes are bouncing back and forth between 'people are responsible' and 'industries are responsible' without going much anywhere. And I'm fairly convinced that most of people's behavior is mostly pleasurable habits (and mostly individual at that) and that people can't really change because alone and inexperienced in a change makes anything harder; while in a group, with a few that have skills (nutrition, mechanics, etc) can turn this into a pleasant new habit.

Re: Oceans 'soaking up more heat than estimated'

#144

Post by ehnto »

Normal_gaussian wrote: post #9
ehnto wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We can do our part locally, but individuals have no control over industry. We need to force the hand of government to paint the big strokes that we can't. I feel like social change is going to be the slowest, a government may tend to lag but they can do the most in the quickest amount of time with industry regulation.

That 'but' is an excuse. Government opinion will always lag the peoples opinion - its a reactive organisation. Making a change yourself and normalising it is a huge signal to those you come into contact with that they should do the same. Governments change when politicians realise they are growing out of touch with the people they are trying to coerce.

It's not the government that needs to change though, it's industry and agriculture, and government needs to act to make them change because voting with our wallets is wishful thinking and only applies to people who care. That's not enough people unfortunately. To that end, we need to force the government's to act instead.

Industry will not do what is best for you and I, let alone the planet, if it means an extra dollar. You think you can vote with your wallet but frankly, the rest of the world doesn't care like you and I do. They don't and won't change soon enough. Not only that, but marketing is really good at tricking people into thinking they are doing good. Sugar free, fat free, organic foods, marketing finds ways to pedal the same food and processes with different labels and the same negative effects. It takes regulation to change it. False advertising isn't prevelant in Australia because our government regulates the crap out of food labels for one example.

Another example is green energy. People are swapping to green energy only now rather than years ago because the government has subsidised it so hard that the dollars make sense. People didn't care until it saved them money, and electricity companies who were in the best position to make changes didn't care until they were forced to. If it were up to them they will pedal coal until we all die, and if it were up to the consumer we would just use more dirty electricity to run our aircons.

Thank you for your comment by the way, I am appreciating the discourse.

Re: Oceans 'soaking up more heat than estimated'

#145

Post by sunir »

jahaja wrote: post #142
sunir wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are plenty of attempts to think about other systems, implement them, and advocate for change. They all lack something important: success. Also ironically it is a market of competing ideas to markets.

If success would be a prerequisite of evolution it would grind to a halt.

That may have sounded profound but it comes off poorly because it gets the theory of evolution completely wrong.

Success is the differentiator that allows for the selection part of natural selection. Also evolution cannot “grind to a halt” because it is an outcome of thermodynamics.

Evolution isn’t a metaphor. It is still the underlying physical process even in selection of political systems.

Re: Oceans 'soaking up more heat than estimated'

#146

Post by spuz »

misja111 wrote: post #89
spuz wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For the majority, perhaps. Try telling that to the Uighurs of Xinjiang.

There is nothing in a democracy either that prevents minorities from being oppressed. Examples of democratic countries with oppressed minorities are plenty.

I agree.

Re: Oceans 'soaking up more heat than estimated'

#147

Post by olau »

sunir wrote: post #133
jahaja wrote: post #125

This is also a crisis of critical thought. There's an utter lack and/or willingness to imagine any other reality than the current market economy. This goes even to the length of advocating some sort of scorched earth policies to decrease the earth's population since in their mind, the only human is the market-human and is as such inherently a terrible polluter. This is fundamentalism.

There are plenty of attempts to think about other systems, implement them, and advocate for change. They all lack something important: success. Also ironically it is a market of competing ideas to markets.

> They all lack something important: success.

Are you sure? The increasing automation will perhaps give us a future where most people don't have to work and we'll still have plenty of food, shelter, social interaction and entertainment - the latter is almost free in this digital world.

Maybe it is just me, but it's as if one can start to see the contours of it forming, slowly, though, as many of the remaining automation tasks are really, really hard. Like building a house, or making something that can do the house chores that we don't have machines for yet.

Re: Oceans 'soaking up more heat than estimated'

#148

Post by monochromatic »

jasonlotito wrote: post #141
monochromatic wrote: post #132

If they got this number wrong by 60% for all these years and just noticed, why should I trust anything else about all of their different, conflicting climate models?

They didn't get it wrong. They did the best they could with the data they had, which they knew was sparse. "However, these estimates all use the same imperfect ocean dataset and share additional uncertainties resulting from sparse coverage, especially before 2007" You'll note here the methodology isn't the issue, but rather the dataset. They've improved the dataset. > why should I trust anything else Well, technicall…

Ok, let’s even stipulate that it’s a failure of data rather than methodology. The computerized climate models have very sensitive dependence on this kind of poorly measured data. Why should I trust them if that data is subject to wild swings as measurements get refined?

Re: Oceans 'soaking up more heat than estimated'

#149

Post by dmm »

candiodari wrote: post #118
DennisP wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do that stuff but it's not going to save the world. To save the world we need: a substantial price on carbon, a faster path to developing advanced nuclear power (in addition to continuing renewables deployment), a major rollout of lab-grown meat as soon as it's affordable with decent quality, negative emissions methods both technological (direct air capture) and biological (kelp, reforesting), and maybe some kind o…

> To save the world we need: a substantial price on carbon, No we don't. Global warming is a self-reinforcing effect. So there's no point to slowing down emissions. No point at all. Even if you get it to zero, the resulting concentrations will still accelerate into the right. Even if you get it negative at the same rate we're producing it today (which would eliminate all human co2 contributions EVER in ~60 years) wou…

If we ceased all carbon emissions today the earth would continue to warm for centuries, sure. But if we did that then it wouldn't the total temperature rise be lower, requiring less geoengineering? How is that pointless?

Re: Oceans 'soaking up more heat than estimated'

#150

Post by jahaja »

sunir wrote: post #145
jahaja wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If success would be a prerequisite of evolution it would grind to a halt.

That may have sounded profound but it comes off poorly because it gets the theory of evolution completely wrong. Success is the differentiator that allows for the selection part of natural selection. Also evolution cannot “grind to a halt” because it is an outcome of thermodynamics. Evolution isn’t a metaphor. It is still the underlying physical process even in selection of political systems.

Did I though? Success is the differentiator post-mutation. If mutation itself ceases due to the prerequisite, evolution does too. But why do you feel the need to read and dissect an analogy so literally in the first place? It's not the point.
Post reply on HN