Live data from Hacker News

Climate Change in a Nutshell: The Gathering Storm [pdf]

columbia.edu

121–130 of 149 posts

Re: Climate Change in a Nutshell: The Gathering Storm [pdf]

#121
post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree, but I think you know the answer to the question you asked. It's a little sad to me for "the side of science" to fall into such religious belief. Especially when the "side of science" has become so extremely tied to the idea that the only real solution is taxes that one political side has come up with and of course voting for them. And if you question the tax side of things, you're a filthy denier.

Invariably, climate science deniers talk about politics and economics.

Thanks for proving my point that to some people who say they are “interested in science” actually just see black and white / filthy-deniers and true-believers.

The article itself mentions Trump twice. Tell me all about how it’s not political.

Re: Climate Change in a Nutshell: The Gathering Storm [pdf]

#122
post #42
post #34

Some constructive criticism: I think this document is written backwards and does not contain what CEO's are interested in. The disastrous effects should come first and preceding that should be forecasts of the effect on the bottom line (profits). The business implications of climate change are what might capture their attention. Market disruptions for example, trends in adoption of EV cars, growth in solar and wind,…

My experience is that CEO's don't need persuading on this issue, they are convinced but their fiduciary duties limit the scope of their actions. What they would like is sharp, clear regulation that provided a level playing field. The people who need persuading are voters.

Hansen does say in the document "My target is the level of a Chief Justice or a fossil fuel industry CEO", so I was thinking of fossil fuel industry CEO's (who probably have never experienced a level playing field). Voters need someone already persuaded to vote for; I think polls show the voters themselves weigh on the convinced side. Fiduciary duties are only part of what a CEO should be concerned about, but certainly major changes in what other industries are doing should be part of fiduciary duty. Like VW saying they are going to drop internal combustion engines in the near future, forest blight affecting logging, Apple and Google going solar, real estate trends in coastal areas, cities creating climate change plans, and more.

Re: Climate Change in a Nutshell: The Gathering Storm [pdf]

#123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just watch the video. They talk about all of this. I don't understand why I am getting so many nasty comments especially when those points are addressed in this video. Both guys are serious scientists and respect each other while feeling completely embarrassed by the zealots. You talk about the russian roulette with climate, but the issue is far more complicated. There are bunch of other russian roulettes to consider…

Ok, I finally watched the video and I don't think it was worth my time at all. It was nice that they were polite to each other but really we have understood the basics of how increased C02 causes global warming for about a century. Current detailed climate models are kind of crap, Nate Silver went into why in some detail in his book on modeling, The Signal and the Noise , which I recommend but that doesn't change the…

I think you need to watch it again, because your summary sounds just wrong. Both scientists agreed completely that humans caused CO2 raise and it caused warming. All the actual arguments are way way past those basic facts that are agreed upon.

Did you listen when they agreed that proposed measures will not stop ocean water levels from rising? Did you listen to the cost-benefit analysis and socio-economic impact? Why are you ignoring this point? You don't think it's important?

If climate models are as likely to undershoot then how do you explain that ALL the best models in consideration overshot the last 30 years and not a single model undershot? If it was just as likely shouldn't we be seeing some models undershooting?

Re: Climate Change in a Nutshell: The Gathering Storm [pdf]

#124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, I finally watched the video and I don't think it was worth my time at all. It was nice that they were polite to each other but really we have understood the basics of how increased C02 causes global warming for about a century. Current detailed climate models are kind of crap, Nate Silver went into why in some detail in his book on modeling, The Signal and the Noise , which I recommend but that doesn't change the…

I think you need to watch it again, because your summary sounds just wrong. Both scientists agreed completely that humans caused CO2 raise and it caused warming. All the actual arguments are way way past those basic facts that are agreed upon. Did you listen when they agreed that proposed measures will not stop ocean water levels from rising? Did you listen to the cost-benefit analysis and socio-economic impact? Why…

No, obviously ocean waters can't be stopped from rising. The question is all about how much they're going to rise. It really annoys me when people treat global warming as an all or nothing quantitative affair.

Yes, every climate model overshot air warming leading up to 2014. But they also all undershot ocean warming. That's because, for some reason nobody understands, from 1998 to 2014 all the extra thermal energy caused by CO2 forcing went into the ocean. But since 2014 air temperatures have shot up very rapily and now we're back on the trend-line predicted by models.[1] But really, you could just as easily have argued that models were undershooting because they all predicted cooler oceans than we got. And Ocean warming is the important part for determining sea levels. Christy was dishonestly cherry picking stats to make it look like errors only go in one direction when really they go in both.

If all you know about the global warming debate is what was in that video I can see how you found it convincing but it's actually a very shallow treatment of the whole topic. It's really hard to get into depth in a video, that why so many of us are reluctant to watch them when someone links to one.

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_temperature_record#/med...

EDIT: And in the future, can you try summarizing things from a video like this you found persuasive rather than just telling people to watch the video? If you had mentioned the "Overshot for the last 30 years" thing it should have been immediately obvious to people who follow climate science what was happening and how you'd been mislead. Then I wouldn't have had to wade through an hour long video trying to figure out what you found persuasive in it. I'm generally reluctant to watch videos linked off of Hacker News because they usually aren't worth it and after this I think people are going to find it even harder to persuade me to do so without better evidence.

Re: Climate Change in a Nutshell: The Gathering Storm [pdf]

#125
post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are literally no 2 sides . There is a ~97% scientific consensus, then there are these people: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_who_disagre... . John Christy (the other side in your video) represents the ~3%. His research was shown to be wrong over and over again. Most recently in 2017: https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JTECH-D-16-0121... . https://www.theguardian.com/environment/clima…

Check out this wikipedia page that casts scientific consensus in a slightly different light: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded_scientific_theory

"John, when people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together"

https://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.ht...

Re: Climate Change in a Nutshell: The Gathering Storm [pdf]

#126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know why I linked it if you just end up making your very own conclusions. This paper is part of the CERN CLOUD project ( http://cloud.web.cern.ch/ ), an experiment trying to model our atmosphere to find out how much aerosols affect cloud formation and climate change. The conclusion so far is that cosmic rays can charge aerosol particles, and produce big enough particles to contribute to cloud forming. This re…

Even if we were to stipulate his 10% number, that's 4.3% of cloud formation based on cosmic rays. Not insignificant. Your repeated contention that pollution aerosols are of equal magnitude to cosmic rays contribution requires a large helping of evidence to back it up, given the huge quantity of cosmic rays that impact the troposphere.

"requires a large helping of evidence to back it up"

Those are available at http://cloud.web.cern.ch/content/publications. The experiments are started back in 2009.

See Wikipedia for a simplified description of the results so far. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CLOUD_experiment

Even if you think that cosmic rays are the bread and butter of cloud formation, the net effect would be global cooling. Clouds reflect more energy back into space than they do back to the ground.

I would also like to mention that this cosmic ray climate change denialism started with the media misreporting Henrik Svensmark's paper. The Daily Express itself said "Winter is coming: Exploding stars could lead to ICE AGE warn scientists" https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/894696/ice-age-weathe.... Most of the media attention was on the sensationalist claim that cosmic rays are causing climate change, from which the various Facebook people extrapolated cosmic rays = global warming. Just so you know, this is the original source of this claim. The paper itself is about aerosol microphysics, but that's not as exciting as "Giant EXPLODING stars FREEZING Earth".

Re: Climate Change in a Nutshell: The Gathering Storm [pdf]

#127
post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Check out this wikipedia page that casts scientific consensus in a slightly different light: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded_scientific_theory

It's a good thing that theories are superseeded, as they are supposed to be testable and falsifiable. Our understanding of climate change is being superseeded literally on a daily basis. That's what the ~97% represents. It's like Newtonian physics. The people who say that climate change is a hoax either don't follow the scientific method or make predictions that are being falsified over and over by the ~97%. It's not…

It'd be pretty interesting to see a comprehensive view of the falsifiable claims made and what the results are. In fact, a completely open data source and algorithm repository with full documentation on how all data is gathered and processed would certainly help persuade skeptics like myself.

A number of years ago when the engineer leaked the internal data dump from the climate researchers, it certainly did not change my view in a favorable direction seeing that material :P

Re: Climate Change in a Nutshell: The Gathering Storm [pdf]

#128
post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Check out this wikipedia page that casts scientific consensus in a slightly different light: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded_scientific_theory

"John, when people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together" https://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.ht...

A bit over half a century ago, the scientific consensus in Germany was that Jews were subhuman. They also believed in a mystical ice planet orbiting the earth that possessed all sorts of wonders, the knowledge of which was suppressed by the anti-Arian cabal. Consensus bears a funny sort of relationship with the truth.

Re: Climate Change in a Nutshell: The Gathering Storm [pdf]

#129
post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"John, when people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together" https://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.ht...

A bit over half a century ago, the scientific consensus in Germany was that Jews were subhuman. They also believed in a mystical ice planet orbiting the earth that possessed all sorts of wonders, the knowledge of which was suppressed by the anti-Arian cabal. Consensus bears a funny sort of relationship with the truth.

The scientific consensus in a single country is very different bar than a scientific consensus for the whole world.

I am pretty sure that if you looked at North Korea today, you could find some weird scientific national consensus, which obviously does not mean anything.

Re: Climate Change in a Nutshell: The Gathering Storm [pdf]

#130
post #129
post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A bit over half a century ago, the scientific consensus in Germany was that Jews were subhuman. They also believed in a mystical ice planet orbiting the earth that possessed all sorts of wonders, the knowledge of which was suppressed by the anti-Arian cabal. Consensus bears a funny sort of relationship with the truth.

The scientific consensus in a single country is very different bar than a scientific consensus for the whole world. I am pretty sure that if you looked at North Korea today, you could find some weird scientific national consensus, which obviously does not mean anything.

Is it true this is the consensus of the whole world?

It seems to be the consensus of a portion of the scientific establishment, which is certainly not representative of the whole world.

And, if, for sake of argument, we grant this scientific consensus represents the perspective of the world, it still does not follow this somehow precludes faulty reasoning and groupthink. "Science" is not a magic wand that automatically eliminates the normal sources of human bias, especially as recent news illustrates the rampant fraud and unreproducible results in the scientific establishment.

Post reply on HN