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

Your Warming World: Climate change where you live 1894 – 2013

warmingworld.newscientistapps.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 98 posts

Re: Your Warming World: Climate change where you live 1894 – 2013

#81

Post by [deleted] »

ridicter wrote: post #77
brc wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I appreciate that you're clearly a passionate activist, but your statements are alarmist and counterproductive. 'Whole countries wiped off the map'..'mass famine and suffering'...'yield rates going down'... These are unsupported by real world observations. I understand you wish to alarm people into joining your activist groups, and the more dramatic language, the better (I assume this has been A/B tested). But I thin…

The highest point in the Maldives is 2.4M, and by 2100, nearly all inhabitable land will be underwater [1]. Likewise the average elevation of Bangladesh is a few feet. In effect, these countries will be wiped off. With tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions of refugees due to climate change, mass famine and suffering will result. That's just logic. If calling that situation "mass famine and suffering" is "alar…

[deleted]

Re: Your Warming World: Climate change where you live 1894 – 2013

#82

Post by ridicter »

brc wrote: post #80
ridicter wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The highest point in the Maldives is 2.4M, and by 2100, nearly all inhabitable land will be underwater [1]. Likewise the average elevation of Bangladesh is a few feet. In effect, these countries will be wiped off. With tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions of refugees due to climate change, mass famine and suffering will result. That's just logic. If calling that situation "mass famine and suffering" is "alar…

2.4 M in 85 years? That is 28 mm a year increase - current observations are about 3mm per year. That is an exponential growth that is unlikely to occur.

2.4 M is the highest point. In other words, on a number line, the rest of the country falls to the left of it. Averages are an important concept to master.

Also, as positive feedback loops kick in (e.g., trapped methane will be released from the ice, and methane is a 50x stronger greenhouse than CO2), heating will occur much more rapidly.

Finally, ice sheets will melt pretty rapidly, as melting water acts as a lubricant, and encourages faster ice breakage and melting. There's a documentary on this I'll try to link.

Re: Your Warming World: Climate change where you live 1894 – 2013

#83

Post by brc »

redthrowaway wrote: post #79
brc wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand what you mean by intelligent design, I've read that theory, and it's that certain characteristics observed in nature are irreducible complexity, which supports the hypothesis of a supreme being. It's certainly a colorful theory, but isn't supported by real world observations and changes in the fossil record. Can you clarify what you mean by 'climate denial'. I don't know what that is supposed to describe…

Just as ID is a pseudoscientific attempt to cast doubt on evolution, motivated by ideology but dressed up as science, so too is denial of AGW an attempt to discredit climate science, motivated by ideology (or profit) and dressed up as science. Climate models are tough and it's very difficult for us to forecast what the results of global warming will be, especially at local scales. That doesn't change the fact, well s…

Perhaps my question wasn't clear, I'll rephrase.

ID is a specific theory which you either support or you don't.

When does a person specifically support 'climate denial'?

If I say that the observed sensitivity is less than the forecast sensitivity from models, am I in denial?

If I note that the warming period from around 1979-2000 has paused, am I in denial?

If I state that the regulatory frameworks suggested and implemented have failed, am I in denial?

If I make statements that project historical climate change shows large variations, am I in denial?

The reason I ask this is there seems to be a drive to lump people into a category called 'denier', and I'm uncertain was to what that boundary is, as defined by the people who use it.

Re: Your Warming World: Climate change where you live 1894 – 2013

#84

Post by brc »

anodari wrote: post #76
brc wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's still the same thing. You can state that the researchers say one thing... but that doesn't make that thing true . 10 years ago if I had a stomach ulcer, all the researchers and doctors would have told me I had stress and that is what caused it. They would have prescribed me treatments and told me to change my behaviours, which would have all been ineffective. Two researchers thought outside the box, went against…

Not the same thing, they was not an ordinary person who discovered it, was a scientist with many years of research. I prefer this metaphor: just as there are many healers around claiming to know the "true" cause of mental illness, I still prefer to believe the researchers. Do you're refuting climate scientists simply because you believe they are wrong?

I make no claims about anything - I merely read an interpret the published results.

The reason 'healers' are wrong about mental illness is because their hyphotheses are either untested, or proven to be wrong. Not because lots of researchers agree with the opposite.

The 'ordinariness' of a person is immaterial - Einstein was a patent clerk who had a book published refuting his views by 100 experts. He was still right.

The point I am making here is that you should never argue a point by consensus, or by authority, for that matter. You should argue a point based on the results of testing a hypothesis and finding it true or false.

Scientists of any discipline do not become automatically right because they don a white cloak and publish in a journal - not when one does it, not when an entire industry does it. It is a fundamental mistake to believe in an argument from authority or an argument from consensus. Quite frequently, authorities do get it right (precisely because they have studied it for a long time), and most of the time, they all agree with each other (forming a consensus). But these things flow from the fact that something is right (and observable, and reproduceable) - not the other way around.

I say this to try and elevate the level of debate quite apart from climate science, or GMO, or any of the other fashionable arguments.

Re: Your Warming World: Climate change where you live 1894 – 2013

#85

Post by glenra »

ridicter wrote: post #82
brc wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

2.4 M in 85 years? That is 28 mm a year increase - current observations are about 3mm per year. That is an exponential growth that is unlikely to occur.

2.4 M is the highest point. In other words, on a number line, the rest of the country falls to the left of it. Averages are an important concept to master. Also, as positive feedback loops kick in (e.g., trapped methane will be released from the ice, and methane is a 50x stronger greenhouse than CO2), heating will occur much more rapidly. Finally, ice sheets will melt pretty rapidly, as melting water acts as a lubric…

What makes you think new positive feedback loops will kick in faster than old ones run out of steam or new negative feedback loops kick in?

Re: Your Warming World: Climate change where you live 1894 – 2013

#86

Post by glenra »

ridicter wrote: post #77
brc wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I appreciate that you're clearly a passionate activist, but your statements are alarmist and counterproductive. 'Whole countries wiped off the map'..'mass famine and suffering'...'yield rates going down'... These are unsupported by real world observations. I understand you wish to alarm people into joining your activist groups, and the more dramatic language, the better (I assume this has been A/B tested). But I thin…

The highest point in the Maldives is 2.4M, and by 2100, nearly all inhabitable land will be underwater [1]. Likewise the average elevation of Bangladesh is a few feet. In effect, these countries will be wiped off. With tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions of refugees due to climate change, mass famine and suffering will result. That's just logic. If calling that situation "mass famine and suffering" is "alar…

Are you aware that Bangladesh has been on a trend of gaining land mass? It gained ~1000 square kilometers between 1973 and 2008. Given current trends it'll gain another thousand in the next 50 years. If it ever starts losing land mass, it should by then be in a decent economic position to deal with the problem. (Unless we tank the world economy in the meantime, I suppose...)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7532949.stm

Re: Your Warming World: Climate change where you live 1894 – 2013

#87

Post by redthrowaway »

brc wrote: post #83
redthrowaway wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just as ID is a pseudoscientific attempt to cast doubt on evolution, motivated by ideology but dressed up as science, so too is denial of AGW an attempt to discredit climate science, motivated by ideology (or profit) and dressed up as science. Climate models are tough and it's very difficult for us to forecast what the results of global warming will be, especially at local scales. That doesn't change the fact, well s…

Perhaps my question wasn't clear, I'll rephrase. ID is a specific theory which you either support or you don't. When does a person specifically support 'climate denial'? If I say that the observed sensitivity is less than the forecast sensitivity from models, am I in denial? If I note that the warming period from around 1979-2000 has paused, am I in denial? If I state that the regulatory frameworks suggested and impl…

ID isn't a theory, it's an attempt to deny a theory. It was devised as a way to teach children that evolution is, if not false, at least not well accepted and not as ironclad as biologists claim.

Everything you just stated about AGW falls into the same category, and is cherry-picked "evidence" intended to dispute that AGW is a fact, which for all intents and purposes it is. Neither you nor I have the ability to judge to what degree this or that deviation from predictions affects the theory as a whole. You know who does? Climate scientists. You know what they've concluded? It's still a fact.

You seem to be very concerned that you not be labelled a science denier (as well you should be), while simultaneously being very concerned about denying the conclusions reached by scientists. Like IDers, you seem to want to pick this or that small part of the theory or this or that piece of evidence, cast doubt on it, then claim that disproves (or at least discredits) the theory as a whole.

"Denial" is the correct term, here. In both cases, there are well-supported and widely accepted theories that particular groups of people don't want to believe for ideological reasons. In both cases, the drive to defend ideology takes the form of an attempt to piece together enough seemingly rational pieces of disjointed evidence to discredit the theory that threatens that ideology. And, in both cases, the attempt to deny the theory is refuted and dismissed by those best equipped to judge it.

You can claim to be a skeptic, just as the person who claims there are holes in evolution that can only be explained by an intelligent designer claims to be a skeptic, but you're not. A skeptic is not someone who disbelieves or discredits, but rather is someone who reserves judgement and attempts to find counterarguments until the preponderance of evidence suggests that a claim is valid. Both evolution and AGW are supported by the vast preponderance of evidence. Disbelieving either is no longer skepticism, but denial.

Re: Your Warming World: Climate change where you live 1894 – 2013

#88

Post by [deleted] »

anodari wrote: post #67
gavanwoolery wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doubt is very good. Doubt is the foundation of science (the consensus used to be that the earth was flat). Not doubting is when something becomes faith or religion. I don't care what side the coin lands on, I only care that the methods used to predict the coin toss are sound.

Excelent point, but unless I were a scientist studying the subject, I would not dare try to refute the opinion of most of the researchers in the field. Take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_c...

[deleted]

Re: Your Warming World: Climate change where you live 1894 – 2013

#89

Post by graycat »

jgamman wrote: post #53
graycat wrote: post #45

It's cold and snowing outside, and the 'climate change' alarmists are still going and going and going. I was assuming that the climate change scam would go away with today's headlines, but maybe it will be like the Loch Ness monster -- forever some people still think it might be real.

so if i point out that it's really #@#!@# hot all over Australia at the moment, you'll concede that it's true? FFS the weather responds to the energy balance, it's not a nice +2 deg added to everyone's location.

Good! Now we agree: Anecdotal evidence is junk! I mentioned the snow as a parody, giving back in kind to a lot of such evidence from the global warming alarmists, e.g., their pictures of polar bears, remarks on Arctic sea ice in the summers (blown around in unpredictable ways by winds and currents), snows on Mt. Kilimanjaro, video clips of glaciers calving, etc.

"Energy balance"? Sure, but that's close to just a tautology. The 'rub' is working effectively with the collection of all the fine details that determine energy balance.

For how to predict the weather 50 years from now, when we can't predict it five days from now, is a bit much to swallow.

Actually, the global warming alarmists are no closer to good science and have nothing better than the Lock Ness Monster devotees.

Maybe 50 years from now the temperature of the earth will be higher, lower, or just the same as now, and no one knows the answer, no matter what within the realm of reason we assume about CO2, methane, water vapor, sun spots, volcanoes, ocean currents, snow cover, deforestation, etc. E.g., the IPCC's Ramaswamy's 'radiative forcing' fills a much need gap in the literature and would be illuminating if ignited.

There has been a big crowd of global warming alarmists: Some see global warming as not a problem but a way to talk the public into other things that they like such as 'renewable' energy. Some are using global warming alarms as a way to raise money, get government funding, sell books, do venture capital deals, get attention, get a professorship, etc. Some people want to get some new taxes they can use for whatever. Some want to 'stick it' to the oil companies or whomever would get hurt by attempts to respond to global warming. Some people want subsidies for high speed trains, wind farms, solar panels, biofuels, high 'feed in tariffs', etc. The list of reasons some people find to go alone with the alarms is endless and with next to nothing actually to do with science. So, the whole thing is looking like, say, the people who stand to make money off the Lock Ness Monster. That was my main point -- global warming alarms will continue for much the same reason as the Lock Ness Monster.

Re: Your Warming World: Climate change where you live 1894 – 2013

#90

Post by ars »

aestra wrote: post #66
ars wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you recycle anything except metal you are making the problem worse not better. Solar panels are a poor choice, they help somewhat but they are far too expensive for what they provide. If you actually want to make a difference then agitate for more nuclear power. There is absolutely nothing else that will help.

I frigging hate this "nuclear power is the answer to everything" meme that gets repeated on HN. Nuclear power requires a huge amount of fossil fuels in its life cycle. From building the plant to mining the uranium then decommissioning it. All energy extensive. http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/04/nuclear-is-not-a-low-... http://mediamatters.org/mobile/research/2013/11/07/myths-and... Right now nuclear compares to o…

> Nuclear power requires a huge amount of fossil fuels in its life cycle. From building the plant to mining the uranium then decommissioning it. All energy extensive.

And renewables are MUCH worse. You don't need much uranium to make energy, but you need a TON of metal to capture wind or sun energy.

> however it is though if it is widely adopted, uranium will become more energy intensive to mine uranium and convert it to fuel.

And again, renewables are worse in that regard. They do well now only because they aren't used a lot.

But use them a lot and the price (due to rarity) will go up, meaning the resources needed will go up.

There is no perfect energy source. It's just a matter of relative harm.

Post reply on HN