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

151–160 of 549 posts

Re: What's Really Warming the World?

#151

Post by jfoutz »

tosseraccount wrote: post #19
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?

the grandfather from 1981 seems to hold up pretty well. simple linear models, very readable paper.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/04/evalua...

Re: What's Really Warming the World?

#152

Post by [deleted] »

hackuser wrote: post #122

This repeats some buried comments but I think it's worthwhile: I'm not a climate scientist, but in my experience the absolute most reliable, most time-efficient way to learn about climate change is the IPCC reports. I wonder if there is anything written in any other field that compares: http://www.ipcc.ch/ Specifically, if you are short on time, read the 'Summaries for Policymakers', written at the level and attentio…

[deleted]

Re: What's Really Warming the World?

#153

Post by ocschwar »

natermer wrote: post #40
tosseraccount wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there a scorecard for which models have performed well?

None of the models have performed very well. You probably won't find a scorecard because it's embarrassing.

They've not performed well based on criteria chosen by global warming denialists.

For example, you'd be hard pressed to find a climate scientist making any solid predictions about annual global temperature averages. You will, however, see predictions about decadal averages, and those have borne out.

Re: What's Really Warming the World?

#154

Post by omalleyt »

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…

This visualization is a multivariate linear regression with time trending variables...lol the entire thing is garbage, I could get a better R^2 than the 7 or so variables they used if instead I used variables to explain climate change like: number of gay marriages in the world, murders, abortions, etc...I don't recommend this, I'm just saying trended data can "say" anything

Re: What's Really Warming the World?

#155

Post by gtrubetskoy »

What's always been puzzling me is why the relationship between man-produced emissions and climate is considered important in the fossil fuel debate.

As if it's not enough that the air in major cities and vast parts of entire countries is literally toxic.

Re: What's Really Warming the World?

#156

Post by tosseraccount »

hackuser wrote: post #122

This repeats some buried comments but I think it's worthwhile: I'm not a climate scientist, but in my experience the absolute most reliable, most time-efficient way to learn about climate change is the IPCC reports. I wonder if there is anything written in any other field that compares: http://www.ipcc.ch/ Specifically, if you are short on time, read the 'Summaries for Policymakers', written at the level and attentio…

Many hacker news readers would prefer sources such as peer reviewed science journal articles where the authors claim proof one way or the other.

The best way to evaluate science is to look at the raw data and the scientist's original paper.

Re: What's Really Warming the World?

#157

Post by hackuser »

Retric wrote: post #137
natermer wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

None of the models have performed very well. You probably won't find a scorecard because it's embarrassing.

Depends, overall predictions from the mid 1980's where high and a lot of research has gone into why. A significant part of the difference disappears if you adjust for CO2 produced vs predicted. Granted, you can argue that the older models needed to account for both, but what we want to validate is predictions of impacts not predictions of fossil fuel use. It's extremely disingenuous to show a single line as the 'pred…

Great points. To add a little more detail, predicting the results of greenhouse gasses in the atmosephere is science. Predicting the amount of gasses in the atmosephere requires predicting human economic activity in detail (how much, in what form, etc.), which is impossible, especially on longer timescales (imagine how many investors would love to know how to do that!)

The predictions I've seen, at least in the IPCC reports,[1] show not lines but confidence intervals that widen over time.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9772353

Re: What's Really Warming the World?

#158

Post by fixermark »

fredkbloggs wrote: post #99
crimsonalucard wrote: post #36

This article only serves to stroke the ego of people who already believe that CO2 emissions cause global warming. It does nothing for people who already deny it. Evidence, no matter how strong doesn't serve to change the nature of a man. People would rather bend the logic and the evidence to fit their convenient perception of reality. Which brings me to the question: "What can change a nature of a man?" Imminent dang…

It can't. The process is sufficiently slow that an individual, especially an older individual of the sort who make up legislatures and other influential institutions, can reasonably expect to die before it does him significant personal harm. Therefore it is fairly easy for such an individual, if given the proper incentives, to dismiss or deny it. As long as there are fossil fuels in the ground that can be extracted p…

Extinction is unlikely, given the vast amount of energy we have at our disposal (even if that energy's consumption is making it hard to be a biological construct on this earth).

No, the likely scenario is in some ways even sadder: the 1% will survive in carefully-cultivated bunkers by the thousands or tens of thousands, and the vast majority (along with an awful lot of the other life on the planet) will die.

Extinction by this effect is a possibility, but a remote one; humans react faster than the climate, and we're very good at problem solving over time when faced with existential threats. We're just bad at predicting them and solving them when they're on the horizon and a gentle nudge could have desired cumulative effect.

Re: What's Really Warming the World?

#159

Post by coldpie »

carsongross wrote: post #33

And, since we are allowed to use graphs rhetorically rather than discuss complicated topics like adults... what's really causing the murder rate to decline? http://gizmodo.com/5977989/internet-explorer-vs-murder-rate-...

Are you really going to suggest that data suggesting causation that has been contributed by hundreds and reviewed by literally thousands of scientists shares equal validity as an obviously facetious graph created to make a point about not suggesting causal relationships lightly?

Re: What's Really Warming the World?

#160

Post by hackuser »

paulhauggis wrote: post #113
macinjosh wrote: post #83

Please don't take this as a denial of climate change, it is an honest question. How do scientists learn the levels of ozone, aerosols, green house gases, and the other data points going so far back at a global scale? Is the data from before the latter half of the 20th century spotty? If so, why is it considered good enough to use in a context of scientific research where quality and correctness of data is paramount?

I also question how we know the difference between nature/cycles and man-made pollution. Here is a good example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age "Several causes have been proposed: cyclical lows in solar radiation, heightened volcanic activity, changes in the ocean circulation, an inherent variability in global climate, or decreases in the human population." It seems we don't even know how the little ice…

> I also question how we know the difference between nature/cycles and man-made pollution.

It's a great question, one which has occupied many scientists. It has been addressed in detail in the scientific research. See:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9772353

> The problem is that it's too political now.

Remember that's a well-documented, established technique often used by people who want to obstruct things; create so much noise (as in signal-to-noise) and FUD (Fear, uncertainty, and doubt) as to confuse the public about the facts. In every field, you always can find someone to say anything on TV; heck, you can find tax attorneys who will say you don't have to pay income tax (good luck with that!).

> When claimed scientists are coming out and saying the science is "settled", I know we have a problem. Science is never really settled.

'Settled science' is jargon; it distinguishes theories that are still up in the air (string theory) from theories that have proven themselves as very reliable (gravity). Nothing in the world is ever "settled", but the evidence is pretty certain about climate change:

IIRC, 97% of climate scientists believe it's happening and caused by humans; the US National Academies of Science agree, as does the Royal Society in the UK; the US defense and intelligence communities are planning on it, as is the insurance and other industries. Sure, they all could be wrong, but so could the deniers. Who seems like a better bet, the 3%, or the 97%?

Post reply on HN