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

61–67 of 67 posts

Re: The melting of Antarctica

#61

Post by GlobalChange »

Karunamon wrote: post #8
[deleted] wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[deleted]

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…

Science is not a democracy. There no such thing as science consensus, that is absolutely ridiculous and one more added to the fallacies around the issue. If all living things and the non-living things as well decide there is no gravity, we won't start floating just because 200% of the scientists or whatever got to a consensus that there is no such thing as gravity!

It only take one counter argument to debunk a theory. The defenders of the AGW cannot prove their argument (burden of the proof) and so use of fallacies (ad hominem arguments and others) to keep their farce. I don't know their reasons; but their "scientific" arguments has no ground!

Re: The melting of Antarctica

#62

Post by GlobalChange »

forrestthewoods wrote: post #7

Why is Antarctica melting more now than when the ozone hole was a major issue in 90s? That was centered on Antarctica and has been largely fixed I think. Why is this happening now and not then? Or is now because of then? Can anyone provide a clear answer? (edit: wtf? why would anyone downvote this? it's a legit and perfectly fair question.)

The ozone anomaly is still there. CFC gases has never really harmed it because those gases are heavier than the air, so it is a bit hard (not impossible, though) for them to get up there. The "hole" has always been over the poles because, obviously, there's no much sun rays there, which are required for the formation and un-formation of the ozone in the first place.

As to the relation of the subjects, I have seem many of the AGW defenders to claim that CFC, HFC and all the other gazes they claim is harmful to the "ozone" also are "greenhouse gases", which as I said before is a complete stupidity.

Re: The melting of Antarctica

#63

Post by IIJamesII »

ender7 wrote: post #56
IIJamesII wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sure. The big example is "climate sensitivity". Basically the models assume the earth's climate will amplify any CO2 heating by an extra 3 - 4 times. Without that extra heat there is no catastrophe.

Re: The melting of Antarctica

#64

Post by IIJamesII »

graeme wrote: post #57
IIJamesII wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Haha, no. I'm genuinely new and my account is 18 days old. But I can see why many people wouldn't want to be identified as 'deniers' if that's what you mean?

Re: The melting of Antarctica

#65

Post by Karunamon »

GlobalChange wrote: post #61
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…

Science is not a democracy. There no such thing as science consensus, that is absolutely ridiculous and one more added to the fallacies around the issue. If all living things and the non-living things as well decide there is no gravity, we won't start floating just because 200% of the scientists or whatever got to a consensus that there is no such thing as gravity! It only take one counter argument to debunk a theory…

You are misinformed at best and lying at worst.

Re: The melting of Antarctica

#66

Post by GlobalChange »

Karunamon wrote: post #65
GlobalChange wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Science is not a democracy. There no such thing as science consensus, that is absolutely ridiculous and one more added to the fallacies around the issue. If all living things and the non-living things as well decide there is no gravity, we won't start floating just because 200% of the scientists or whatever got to a consensus that there is no such thing as gravity! It only take one counter argument to debunk a theory…

You are misinformed at best and lying at worst.

Well, them prove your claims, because 100 billion dollars spent in research in the past 20 years has proved nothing. The defenders of the AGW are the ones misinformed and lying. But as I said, it is very simple. All that is required is for them or you to present the arguments. This is science, not mythological interpretation.

Re: The melting of Antarctica

#67

Post by IIJamesII »

ender7 wrote: post #56
IIJamesII wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The very notion that the climate will amplify CO2 heating by as much as 4.5 times should raise red flags. Without all that extra heat amplification there is no global catastrophe and therefore no drama. There are lots of papers on climate sensitivity and the estimates are all over the map. This should indicate less certainty, not a "the science is settled" attitude.

Rather than acknowledge the uncertainty, climate scientists like Michael Mann appear to be trying to create the illusion that their climate models are more accurate than they really are. For example here is a slide from a 2012 presentation he gave: https://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/hansen1988-...

Notice that he simply lops off the temperatures after 2005 because they don't neatly fit the curve! It's bizarre to see. It's this sort of behaviour from climate scientists that initially piqued my skepticism.

When I first started looking into the CAGW debate with any scrutiny I honestly believed I would find skeptics using fake data pumped out by right-wing think tanks. Instead I found what appears to be fake data pumped out by government agencies. Go figure.

Don't get me wrong - I don't think these individuals are pumping out fake data on purpose. For example, they may believe in global warming so strongly that when the data doesn't show the expected warming they a) wonder why the data isn't showing more warming, b) come up with a plausible sounding reason as to why the data isn't showing more warming, then they c) 'fix' the data via a series of 'adjustments'. Also known as confirmation bias and group-think.

It turns out that a significant portion of the recorded warming is due to these data adjustments. We're talking as much as 20% or more, depending on the data-set. That should also raise some red flags.

Been meaning to get to a better reply. As to sources, in the case of temperature adjustments, it's all there in the mainstream data-sets. I could point you to some skeptical sites that are picking the data apart if you like. There are some newspaper articles on this, all right wing outlets of course. It seems both sides only print the stuff that caters to their audience.

Post reply on HN