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

What's Really Warming the World?

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 549 posts

Re: What's Really Warming the World?

#11

Post by mikeash »

moubarak wrote: post #4

i read an article a while back on the economist which suggested that if you look at a longer span (much longer than 1880) you will find that this is a natural cycle that the Earth/Sun go through. We just happen to be at that point in the cycle. i really doubt we humans can affect climate changes in any way. An interactive colourful plot doesn't convince me.

There is no known natural cycle in which the rate of change in global temperature matches what's been happening in the past few decades. Current and even projected temperatures are well within the range of what happens naturally, but it's happening much faster than it ever has before. This has worrying implications for the ability of ecosystems to adapt, and more importantly for us humans, for the ability of civilization to adapt. Civilizations have collapsed due to slower, smaller changes than this.

You say "I really doubt we humans can affect climate changes in any way." This is a common sentiment. I see a lot of people saying things like this. "The Earth is just too big." "Humans are insignificant." And so forth. What causes you to say this? Have you actually run the numbers? I've not found anyone expressing that sentiment who actually has anything like a quantitative basis for it.

Re: What's Really Warming the World?

#14

Post by jcarreiro »

beshrkayali wrote: post #7

Real question: how did they observe land-ocean temperature in 1880? Edit: and how does it compare to how it's observed now?

"The period for which reasonably reliable instrumental records of near-surface temperature exist with quasi-global coverage is generally considered to begin around 1850. Earlier records exist, but with sparser coverage and less standardized instrumentation.

The temperature data for the record come from measurements from land stations and ships. On land, temperature sensors are kept in a Stevenson screen or a maximum minimum temperature system (MMTS). The sea record consists of surface ships taking sea temperature measurements from engine inlets or buckets. The land and marine records can be compared.[13] Land and sea measurement and instrument calibration is the responsibility of national meteorological services. Standardization of methods is organized through the World Meteorological Organization and its predecessor, the International Meteorological Organization.[14]"

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_recor...

Re: What's Really Warming the World?

#15

Post by ChuckMcM »

moubarak wrote: post #4

i read an article a while back on the economist which suggested that if you look at a longer span (much longer than 1880) you will find that this is a natural cycle that the Earth/Sun go through. We just happen to be at that point in the cycle. i really doubt we humans can affect climate changes in any way. An interactive colourful plot doesn't convince me.

Well there is historical evidence of glacial periods (ice ages) which the planet moves through cyclically. And of course if you took 1880 to the present (135 years) and plotted the climate changes variation compared to the geologic record, it would not be discernible, so that is either really scary or reassuring depending on your interpretation.

Re: What's Really Warming the World?

#16

Post by moubarak »

rimunroe wrote: post #9
moubarak wrote: post #4

i read an article a while back on the economist which suggested that if you look at a longer span (much longer than 1880) you will find that this is a natural cycle that the Earth/Sun go through. We just happen to be at that point in the cycle. i really doubt we humans can affect climate changes in any way. An interactive colourful plot doesn't convince me.

Fortunately, it turns out that climate scientists have actually thought about the history the system they study. They've probably even collectively thought about it more than a person writing an article for the Economist!

Scientists make mistakes as often as Economist writers do. I don't revere scientists i'm sorry.

Re: What's Really Warming the World?

#17

Post by elorant »

kevindication wrote: post #10
elorant wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same here. I can't seem to get it to scroll and show headers at the same time. I tried scrolling really slowly and it still stops showing headers after third graph. For a venue as big as Bloomberg you'd expect them to test it thoroughly before publishing.

Does it work better if you click the black arrow at the bottom of each slide?

Sure, that works.

Re: What's Really Warming the World?

#18

Post by batou »

moubarak wrote: post #4

i read an article a while back on the economist which suggested that if you look at a longer span (much longer than 1880) you will find that this is a natural cycle that the Earth/Sun go through. We just happen to be at that point in the cycle. i really doubt we humans can affect climate changes in any way. An interactive colourful plot doesn't convince me.

Indeed.

Didn't Feynman say that the real measure of science is experiment?

Show me the experiments otherwise we have merely observations and conjecture.

They might be right, but at the moment we've established hypothesis and nothing more.

Re: What's Really Warming the World?

#19

Post by tosseraccount »

jasonkester wrote: post #3

Cool visualization. It's worth keeping in mind that the modeled data lines up with reality because it's supposed to. That's how you calibrate your model, by making sure it fits reality. The real trick is to see how well your model extrapolates from the data you have out into the future. As in, if you feed it data up to, say, 1990, will it correctly spit out 2015 temperatures that fit the reality of 2015, or will it s…

Is there a scorecard for which models have performed well?

Re: What's Really Warming the World?

#20

Post by Shivetya »

CO2 is not strictly human emissions and to imply so is so dishonest is ridiculous. of course any gross simplification of the environment as done in this presentation is explicitly to deliver a message decided before the numbers were assembled.

the primary co2 process is ocean to atmosphere exchange, the earth to atmosphere, and then to mammals respiratory activity. So then you get down to how much CO2 is man pumping into the atmosphere beyond that point and which sources are direct versus indirect.

finally since their numbers only are observable to 1880, how accurate can we assume them to be? If were are extrapolating we could do it further back than 1880 to periods where man was present in significant numbers and thew world was warmer

There is climate change, never has been a period of time where it hasn't, but junk presentations are just that. Take numbers out of context, put in easily to dismiss arguments along side, and it appears to make your point beyond reproach (its like say, the sky is blue and you agree, don't you? the going off to explain why something indirectly related is bad or good)

Post reply on HN