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

The effects of a warmer world are visible in animals’ bodies

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 54 posts

Re: The effects of a warmer world are visible in animals’ bodies

#41

Post by Kenji »

spodek wrote: post #40

The opening sentence shows a deep misunderstanding of climate change. > FOR HUMANS, adapting to climate change will mostly be a matter of technology. More air conditioning, better-designed houses and bigger flood defences may help ameliorate the effects of a warmer world. When millions of Bangladeshis are flooded from their homes, a/c and sandbags won't help, nor when malaria-bearing mosquitos reach Europe, etc.

All of the things you mentioned can be solved with technology. The cited line remains accurate.

Re: The effects of a warmer world are visible in animals’ bodies

#42

Post by ceejayoz »

hellbannedguy wrote: post #38
ceejayoz wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And given that the planet has so far only warmed an average of 1.1 degrees celcius due to climate change, isn't it a bit overzealous to blame animals' adaptation on climate change? The worldwide average doesn't really tell the full story, because there can be significant local extremes that are far greater. See, for example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lytton,_British_Columbia , a town that broke the all-time tem…

1.1 C = around 39 F The world temp has gone up 39 degrees? That is much higher than I thought. That couldn't be right? I'm tired today.

That's not how it works.

A rise of 1.1 degrees C corresponds to a rise of 1.98 degrees F.

Re: The effects of a warmer world are visible in animals’ bodies

#43

Post by grapist420 »

Cats_In_Love wrote: post #34
dryd wrote: post #18

Unfortunately the title makes a small logical leap. From the article: "Her team combined data from different species in different places. Since they have little in common apart from living on a warming planet, she says, climate change is the most plausible explanation." While climate change may indeed be the most plausible explanation, this headline seems to transform from "most plausible" into a causal link.

Probability is fundamentally all we have in science. The only distinction is in the level of confidence use in inference of the data. 95% is fairly typical though particle physics requires and impressive level >99.9999%

even if one accepts this, which I don’t (what is the probability of mathematics being a quantum ultrafinitist glandular endomorphism of classical electromagnetism? What is the probability that the sun rises tomorrow? What’s the probability the standard model is true? It’s nonsense.) you could totally interpret what he said as “original paper claimed 20-80% confidence, economist article assumed 95%” and that would be a reasonable probabilistic reading

Re: The effects of a warmer world are visible in animals’ bodies

#44

Post by mrow84 »

grapist420 wrote: post #43
Cats_In_Love wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probability is fundamentally all we have in science. The only distinction is in the level of confidence use in inference of the data. 95% is fairly typical though particle physics requires and impressive level >99.9999%

even if one accepts this, which I don’t (what is the probability of mathematics being a quantum ultrafinitist glandular endomorphism of classical electromagnetism? What is the probability that the sun rises tomorrow? What’s the probability the standard model is true? It’s nonsense.) you could totally interpret what he said as “original paper claimed 20-80% confidence, economist article assumed 95%” and that would be…

One way of considering the things you describe in terms of probability is to frame them as bets, and then set the probabilities based on what bets you might make (e.g. what odds would you want in a bet on whether the sun would rise tomorrow). Personally I find that makes some of the more difficult statements a little more palatable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_epistemology

Re: The effects of a warmer world are visible in animals’ bodies

#45

Post by grapist420 »

mrow84 wrote: post #44
grapist420 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

even if one accepts this, which I don’t (what is the probability of mathematics being a quantum ultrafinitist glandular endomorphism of classical electromagnetism? What is the probability that the sun rises tomorrow? What’s the probability the standard model is true? It’s nonsense.) you could totally interpret what he said as “original paper claimed 20-80% confidence, economist article assumed 95%” and that would be…

One way of considering the things you describe in terms of probability is to frame them as bets, and then set the probabilities based on what bets you might make (e.g. what odds would you want in a bet on whether the sun would rise tomorrow). Personally I find that makes some of the more difficult statements a little more palatable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_epistemology

the point being that IMO the way you understand and come up with and reason about something like “classical mechanics” or “timeless decision theory” or “quantum enlightenment time cube satanic world order simulation” or “risc v architecture” is not about probability, and saying science is about probability totally elides the actual complex information and reasons that go into creating and using those in favor of just saying “they have a probability and we can change them”.

Re: The effects of a warmer world are visible in animals’ bodies

#46

Post by saagarjha »

kortilla wrote: post #25
ceejayoz wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And given that the planet has so far only warmed an average of 1.1 degrees celcius due to climate change, isn't it a bit overzealous to blame animals' adaptation on climate change? The worldwide average doesn't really tell the full story, because there can be significant local extremes that are far greater. See, for example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lytton,_British_Columbia , a town that broke the all-time tem…

It burned to the ground due to a wildfire caused by sparks from a train, not from the heat. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lytton_wildfire Wildfires don’t spread much better in 90F vs 121F. The big thing that causes uncontrollable spreads is lots of fast wind.

Literally in the first paragraph of what you shared:

> The fire, one of the 2021 British Columbia wildfires throughout the province, was facilitated by the 2021 Western North America heat wave.

Re: The effects of a warmer world are visible in animals’ bodies

#47

Post by [deleted] »

andi999 wrote: post #22
Zababa wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> evolution doesn't happen on time scales of 100 years Evolution may not, but selection may happen on that time scale, especially for animals that live short lives.

What is the difference between selection and evolution?

[deleted]

Re: The effects of a warmer world are visible in animals’ bodies

#48

Post by ogma »

spodek wrote: post #40

The opening sentence shows a deep misunderstanding of climate change. > FOR HUMANS, adapting to climate change will mostly be a matter of technology. More air conditioning, better-designed houses and bigger flood defences may help ameliorate the effects of a warmer world. When millions of Bangladeshis are flooded from their homes, a/c and sandbags won't help, nor when malaria-bearing mosquitos reach Europe, etc.

What else would anyone expect from the literal morons at economist.com?

Are people ever going to realize that these self-appointed corporate media experts are the biggest parasites in the history of the earth?

Re: The effects of a warmer world are visible in animals’ bodies

#49

Post by tomjakubowski »

mrow84 wrote: post #44
grapist420 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

even if one accepts this, which I don’t (what is the probability of mathematics being a quantum ultrafinitist glandular endomorphism of classical electromagnetism? What is the probability that the sun rises tomorrow? What’s the probability the standard model is true? It’s nonsense.) you could totally interpret what he said as “original paper claimed 20-80% confidence, economist article assumed 95%” and that would be…

One way of considering the things you describe in terms of probability is to frame them as bets, and then set the probabilities based on what bets you might make (e.g. what odds would you want in a bet on whether the sun would rise tomorrow). Personally I find that makes some of the more difficult statements a little more palatable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_epistemology

> what odds would you want in a bet on whether the sun would rise tomorrow

How would you denominate such a bet? I don't think money would have much value in a world where the sun failed to come up one day.

Re: The effects of a warmer world are visible in animals’ bodies

#50

Post by nlitened »

Cats_In_Love wrote: post #34
dryd wrote: post #18

Unfortunately the title makes a small logical leap. From the article: "Her team combined data from different species in different places. Since they have little in common apart from living on a warming planet, she says, climate change is the most plausible explanation." While climate change may indeed be the most plausible explanation, this headline seems to transform from "most plausible" into a causal link.

Probability is fundamentally all we have in science. The only distinction is in the level of confidence use in inference of the data. 95% is fairly typical though particle physics requires and impressive level >99.9999%

I understand what you’re saying, but I have to highlight a mistake.

In science, what you’re talking about is not a “probability of being right”, but a probability of not getting the same experimental results completely randomly, without any underlying cause. You still might have 0% probability of being right. With “95% confidence” there still could be no measured effect whatsoever, you just made the same experiment multiple times and randomly finally got big enough random numbers to get you 95% confidence.

It’s not a nitpick, it is a serious mistake that 95% social scientists make.

Post reply on HN