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

The melting of Antarctica

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 67 posts

Re: The melting of Antarctica

#51

Post by lotsofmangos »

jstalin wrote: post #50
ender7 wrote: post #49

The HN community was (and apparently still is) incredibly hostile to the idea that global warming is a grave threat to humanity. I would think that such a technology-oriented group would be swayed by the now-massive collection of solid data pointing towards this conclusion, but the opposite seems to have happened. Comments attempt to refute even the existence of global warming with irrelevant data of their own or str…

Since you aren't making personal attacks, like others on this message board, I'll explain my personal point of view. I don't deny that humans can influence earth's climate. But the tone of climate change media is beyond hysterics. For instance, the headline from this article is, in full, "The melting of Antarctica was already really bad. It just got worse." I posted below links to scientific studies showing that Anta…

On top of that, surveyors noticed reductions in Antarctic ice at least as far back as 1932, far far before "climate change."

We have been increasing atmospheric CO2 since long before 1932 and Svante Arrhenius predicted that the burning of fossil fuels was increasing the earth's temperature back in 1896.

Re: The melting of Antarctica

#52

Post by jstalin »

lotsofmangos wrote: post #51
jstalin wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since you aren't making personal attacks, like others on this message board, I'll explain my personal point of view. I don't deny that humans can influence earth's climate. But the tone of climate change media is beyond hysterics. For instance, the headline from this article is, in full, "The melting of Antarctica was already really bad. It just got worse." I posted below links to scientific studies showing that Anta…

On top of that, surveyors noticed reductions in Antarctic ice at least as far back as 1932, far far before "climate change." We have been increasing atmospheric CO2 since long before 1932 and Svante Arrhenius predicted that the burning of fossil fuels was increasing the earth's temperature back in 1896.

Even the IPCC doesn't claim human-induced climate change until the 1950s. The amounts of CO2 added to the atmosphere didn't seriously ramp up until after 1950.

Re: The melting of Antarctica

#53

Post by IIJamesII »

ender7 wrote: post #49

The HN community was (and apparently still is) incredibly hostile to the idea that global warming is a grave threat to humanity. I would think that such a technology-oriented group would be swayed by the now-massive collection of solid data pointing towards this conclusion, but the opposite seems to have happened. Comments attempt to refute even the existence of global warming with irrelevant data of their own or str…

Are you asking in good faith? You seem to assume right off the bat that anybody who is skeptical is irrational since there is a "massive collection of solid data pointing towards this conclusion". And yet I disagree. I think that the warming estimates were grossly overstated, and I don't think it's difficult to justify my position. I must be crazy, right?

For example, relating specifically to the article, I could simply point out that the REGIONAL Western Antarctic melting is most certainly due to volcanic activity and that Antarctic ice levels were at all time record highs for much of last year. The article doesn't even mention the recent record-breaking ice levels?! Doesn't that seem strange? It seems any information that doesn't confirm the prevailing view is neatly filtered out. It's bizarre to watch, but strangely fascinating.

I could show you that the lynch-pin of the CAGW argument is simply assumed in the climate models. It is highly uncertain, unproven, and is not born out by observation. It's easy to do and relies entirely on mainstream climate science.

And for all this I get called a "climate denier", a term that is meant to associate me with "holocaust deniers". From your article: "DH0. Name-calling. - This is the lowest form of disagreement, and probably also the most common."

Yes, it is the most common response I get from CAGW advocates. Ironic, isn't it?

Re: The melting of Antarctica

#54

Post by lotsofmangos »

jstalin wrote: post #52
lotsofmangos wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On top of that, surveyors noticed reductions in Antarctic ice at least as far back as 1932, far far before "climate change." We have been increasing atmospheric CO2 since long before 1932 and Svante Arrhenius predicted that the burning of fossil fuels was increasing the earth's temperature back in 1896.

Even the IPCC doesn't claim human-induced climate change until the 1950s. The amounts of CO2 added to the atmosphere didn't seriously ramp up until after 1950.

Really?

"It is very unlikely that climate changes of at least the seven centuries prior to 1950 were due to variability generated within the climate system alone. A significant fraction of the reconstructed Northern Hemisphere inter-decadal temperature variability over those centuries is very likely attributable to volcanic eruptions and changes in solar irradiance, and it is likely that anthropogenic forcing contributed to the early 20th-century warming evident in these records." - http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-...

Re: The melting of Antarctica

#55

Post by rosser »

jstalin wrote: post #50
ender7 wrote: post #49

The HN community was (and apparently still is) incredibly hostile to the idea that global warming is a grave threat to humanity. I would think that such a technology-oriented group would be swayed by the now-massive collection of solid data pointing towards this conclusion, but the opposite seems to have happened. Comments attempt to refute even the existence of global warming with irrelevant data of their own or str…

Since you aren't making personal attacks, like others on this message board, I'll explain my personal point of view. I don't deny that humans can influence earth's climate. But the tone of climate change media is beyond hysterics. For instance, the headline from this article is, in full, "The melting of Antarctica was already really bad. It just got worse." I posted below links to scientific studies showing that Anta…

Could you use the words "hysterics" or "hysterical" a few more times? You didn't quite hit the once/paragraph ratio I was really hoping to see...

EDIT: In seriousness, so much of the "climate skepticism" I see around here is so overloaded with this kind of hyperbolic dismissal of positions that assume or support it, that it's hard to engage with them, rather than just downvote for destructive (or at least non-contributory) tone. You might try being easier to engage with, and see if that changes how your points are received...

Re: The melting of Antarctica

#56

Post by ender7 »

IIJamesII wrote: post #53
ender7 wrote: post #49

The HN community was (and apparently still is) incredibly hostile to the idea that global warming is a grave threat to humanity. I would think that such a technology-oriented group would be swayed by the now-massive collection of solid data pointing towards this conclusion, but the opposite seems to have happened. Comments attempt to refute even the existence of global warming with irrelevant data of their own or str…

Are you asking in good faith? You seem to assume right off the bat that anybody who is skeptical is irrational since there is a "massive collection of solid data pointing towards this conclusion". And yet I disagree. I think that the warming estimates were grossly overstated, and I don't think it's difficult to justify my position. I must be crazy, right? For example, relating specifically to the article, I could sim…

Please provide sources for your claims, I would be interested in reading them.

Re: The melting of Antarctica

#57

Post by graeme »

IIJamesII wrote: post #53
ender7 wrote: post #49

The HN community was (and apparently still is) incredibly hostile to the idea that global warming is a grave threat to humanity. I would think that such a technology-oriented group would be swayed by the now-massive collection of solid data pointing towards this conclusion, but the opposite seems to have happened. Comments attempt to refute even the existence of global warming with irrelevant data of their own or str…

Are you asking in good faith? You seem to assume right off the bat that anybody who is skeptical is irrational since there is a "massive collection of solid data pointing towards this conclusion". And yet I disagree. I think that the warming estimates were grossly overstated, and I don't think it's difficult to justify my position. I must be crazy, right? For example, relating specifically to the article, I could sim…

Did you make a new account just for this comment?

That's not against the rules per se, but there have been lots of sock puppets used on global warming topics.

Re: The melting of Antarctica

#58

Post by tomp »

IIJamesII wrote: post #53
ender7 wrote: post #49

The HN community was (and apparently still is) incredibly hostile to the idea that global warming is a grave threat to humanity. I would think that such a technology-oriented group would be swayed by the now-massive collection of solid data pointing towards this conclusion, but the opposite seems to have happened. Comments attempt to refute even the existence of global warming with irrelevant data of their own or str…

Are you asking in good faith? You seem to assume right off the bat that anybody who is skeptical is irrational since there is a "massive collection of solid data pointing towards this conclusion". And yet I disagree. I think that the warming estimates were grossly overstated, and I don't think it's difficult to justify my position. I must be crazy, right? For example, relating specifically to the article, I could sim…

> ice levels were at all time record highs

That's what I though as well, but after I went investigating, I found out that actually, Antarctic sea ice levels were at record highs, which basically means that glaciers were melting more than usual (and shedding huge pieces of ice into the sea) - apparently because of winds bringing more hot air from northern (hotter) regions.

Re: The melting of Antarctica

#59

Post by dredmorbius »

tomjen3 wrote: post #27
Karunamon wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This, right here, is representative of a problem. Given what the global scientific consensus is (AGW is real, ice is melting, humans are to blame), it is my first impression that your graph and stance is probably crap, but I don't know enough about climate science to make a reasonable argument one way or another (or even interpret the data for that matter). What's a layperson to do? You can learn basic Python in an a…

I haven't the first clue about climatology. It seems like magic to me that you can see the climate twenty years from now, but not e.g. whether it is going to rain next week. Still other things like e.g anesthesia is also magic to me, but I know for a fact that it works. What bugs me about GW research is lack of focus on mitigating GW, other than by cutting greenhouse gasses (ain't gonna happen) and especially things…

"What bugs me about GW research is lack of focus on mitigating GW, other than by cutting greenhouse gasses (ain't gonna happen)"

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

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

Life (including human life ant its apurtenances) is transformative. It maximizes entropy generation and energy throughput. It's dramatically affected Earth's climate several times in the past, and many of the life-forms responsible for those dramatic effects didn't survive them.

https://ello.co/dredmorbius/post/5l_8MqtVwLLvX_DabPjY-g

Re: The melting of Antarctica

#60

Post by GlobalChange »

lotsofmangos wrote: post #51
jstalin wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since you aren't making personal attacks, like others on this message board, I'll explain my personal point of view. I don't deny that humans can influence earth's climate. But the tone of climate change media is beyond hysterics. For instance, the headline from this article is, in full, "The melting of Antarctica was already really bad. It just got worse." I posted below links to scientific studies showing that Anta…

On top of that, surveyors noticed reductions in Antarctic ice at least as far back as 1932, far far before "climate change." We have been increasing atmospheric CO2 since long before 1932 and Svante Arrhenius predicted that the burning of fossil fuels was increasing the earth's temperature back in 1896.

Well, I stopped dead reading the article right on the first paragraph. I really could not believe. Ice on water does not raise it a millimeter whatsoever. Once again it is just stupid media writing the next Apocalypse just to sell papers or whatever because really they have nothing better or more intelligent to do.

Sea level has not changed at all in the past 200 years, I would dare to say they probably have not changed at all since the formation of the Mediterranean Sea.

On sea level, it is very simple, the moment the Dutch start fleeing The Netherlands, then I will start worrying; but if they are not buying land on the Himalayan, I will really not to worry about it.

CO2 has nothing to do with temperature of planets, whatsoever! And by the way, "greenhouse effect", the is commonly described, with irradiation and CO2, etc., does not exist!!! And call some gases in the atmosphere "greenhouse gases" is a stupidity that makes no sense whatsoever.

Volcanoes alone on any ordinary year (and last year was nothing ordinary) put at least five times more CO2 on the atmosphere than humans activities today!!! Insects, at least seven times more!!

So, no, humans are not that powerful. CO2 does not control climate. Arrhenius prediction is as much bogus as Malthus. There is no proof whatsoever, nor there can be since the whole scheme is a Physical impossibility.

CO2 is also not a pollutant, never was, never will!

All that said, yes we must find better and renewable sources of energy, since something that is not renewable will end someday. Moreover, our energy system is very inefficient (of course is a Physical impossibility to have 100% efficiency, but we should try harder).

Notwithstanding, some of the apocalyptic scenarios proclaimed may indeed come to happen, because climate (noun) changes (verb). That is what it does. If it stops changing than we would have a problem because that would be not normal! It has been cold before, it has been hotter before. Places that today are land has been under water. Deserts had been green. The planet is in constant change. We do not understand much of the process and that is the reality, not a bogus, deceitful, and damn right ridiculous idea that goes against even the most basics concepts of Physics. Any high school kid should be able to point right at it, were it not so wrapped up in fallacies.

Post reply on HN