What's Really Warming the World? • Hacker News Board

Re: What's Really Warming the World?

#231

Post by tosseraccount » Wed, Jun 24, 2015, 4:50 PM UTC

hackuser wrote: post #198

tosseraccount wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not afraid of looking at the source. Many times the "summaries" get distorted. Statements like "provide some evidence for" gets translated into "this proves". Popular press often does this. The actual raw data and original article and independent confirmation is the gold standard for science. I've chased down many stories reporting "proof" in many fields and , after examining the actual article, found that it act…

> Statements like "provide some evidence" for gets translated into "this proves". For what it's worth, the IPCC reports are very, very careful about this. They have a chart (though it can be hard to find) of exactly what confidence/probability is meant by each phrasing. EDIT: for example, from the Sythesis Summary for Policymakers report: The following terms have been used to indicate the assessed likelihood of an ou…

OK. I'm curious.

What prestige science journal article says "virtually certain" that man is primary cause of global warming? What phrasing in the results section makes you feel that it is "near proof" ?

I'm not asking for "it is likely or probable". I'll buy that. I want solid proof ... or , uh "almost proof".

[edit: nobody up to it ? ]

Re: What's Really Warming the World?

#232

Post by buckbova » Wed, Jun 24, 2015, 4:50 PM UTC

darkstar999 wrote: post #181

At this point, any rational person understands the problem. Ok. We get it. So how do we fix it? It seems like everyone is focusing on proving that it is caused by humans, but where is the solution?

With taxes of course.

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

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

Re: What's Really Warming the World?

#233

Post by JoeAltmaier » Wed, Jun 24, 2015, 4:51 PM UTC

thadd wrote: post #223

My only problem is that the planet is over 4 billion years old and as this shows, we've been collecting climate data for a little over 100 years. The natural skeptic in me isn't ok with establishing a trend based on 1/40,000,000 of the available data, the sample size is simply too small. Am I completely off-base with this?

Its actually irrelevant whether this has happened before. Its happening now, impacting us, and maybe we can do something about it. The Pollyanna approach "Its natural" doesn't help us when cities are going underwater.

Re: What's Really Warming the World?

#234

Post by hisabness » Wed, Jun 24, 2015, 4:51 PM UTC

jgrowl wrote: post #148

What exactly are they measuring for the sun's data? Observed temperature? Is the frequency/intensity of CME's included?

my question too. a small change in the measure for solar could be more impactful than a large change in greenhouse gases.

Re: What's Really Warming the World?

#235

Post by dnautics » Wed, Jun 24, 2015, 4:51 PM UTC

chris_va wrote: post #202

dnautics wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not only that, all greenhouse models require a 'water feedback loop'. Of course there are plenty of anthropogenic water emissions to go about. When you irrigate, you are effectively throwing water into the air - by increasing the surface area of water evaporation through plant transpiration networks. I have never seen anyone talk about this alternative hypothesis. A disclaimer - I am all for reducing CO2 emissions st…

It's a reasonable question. While I am not a climatologist... Anthropogenic evaporation is probably minuscule next to deviations in natural evaporation due to small changes in temperature. A single hurricane, for example, dumps more power (as heat) than all human power generation. Also, unlike CO2, I would also guess that atmospheric water probably reaches equilibrium much faster (half life ~1 year instead of ~30 yea…

There is basically no equilibrium condition here. If you mean that there is a more 'inelastic' equilibrium constant, then keep in mind that the concentration level governed by such a constant is dependent on rate in versus rate out, and there are certainly ongoing inputs of ag water. We've completely drained several seas and underground aquifers as a result of human activity in the last 50 years.

Re: What's Really Warming the World?

#236

Post by talideon » Wed, Jun 24, 2015, 4:53 PM UTC

fasteo wrote: post #188

I am not negating the global warming issue here, but what I see is just a correlation of two time series, much like the correlation between "US Spending on science, space and technology" and "Suicides by hanging, strangulation or suffocation" [1] [1] http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations

Except unlike those, we actually know the effect that the likes of methane and carbon dioxide have on the atmosphere, and thus demonstrates more than just a spurious correlation.

Re: What's Really Warming the World?

#237

Post by comboy » Wed, Jun 24, 2015, 4:53 PM UTC

posnet wrote: post #216

Does it bother anyone else that only the Global temperate has its axis labelled? What is the orbital wobble measuring? What is the volcano line measuring? Is that decreased forests or decreased land use? Should be be using more aerosols? Is that meant to be suns temperature or sun activity, or sun colour? I realise that the actual data is from reliable carefully measured models but it makes this illustration so point…

Yes!

"The colored temperature lines are the modeled estimates that each climate factor contributes to the overall temperature."

This is so bad that it makes me angry. They are showing these lines to convince you what influences climate change. And those lines represent how much they think different factors influence climate change. Sigh.

Re: What's Really Warming the World?

#238

Post by asgard1024 » Wed, Jun 24, 2015, 4:53 PM UTC

phkahler wrote: post #163

Deforestation? They reject this because we replace forest with light reflecting materials which they claim causes slight cooling. Last time I checked, it's way cooler in a forest than standing in a parking lot. Nature uses the energy from sunlight to create biomass. Anything else either reflects it or turns it to heat.

> Last time I checked, it's way cooler in a forest than standing in a parking lot.

Perhaps you forgot to account for the shade and humidity? (As an aside, I believe forests generate heat, just like any biological system. The best it can be seen during spring, the snow patches around plants will melt sooner.)

Re: What's Really Warming the World?

#239

Post by Roodgorf » Wed, Jun 24, 2015, 4:53 PM UTC

hackuser wrote: post #185

tosseraccount wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is a summary of research in those peer-reviewed journals, the summary being far better reviewed (by hundreds and thousands, as described) than the individual articles. I don't know about other HN readers, but I don't have time or expertise to keep up on individual articles. I doubt many climate scientists have the expertise in all those different fields.

This post about Wikipedia's policy regarding secondary sources seems to articulate this idea pretty well. http://weskaggs.net/?p=5053

Re: What's Really Warming the World?

#240

Post by paulhauggis » Wed, Jun 24, 2015, 4:56 PM UTC

hackuser wrote: post #160

paulhauggis wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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; cre…

"IIRC, 97% of climate scientists believe it's happening and caused by humans"

Okay, show me a study that has the details on which parts are human made and which parts are caused by nature (with numbers). I have never seen this anywhere and You would think if they actually knew, we would have seen it by now. This isn't that difficult and it doesn't really make any sense that humans are causing 100%. Especially with things like the little ice age before we were around to pollute the earth.

"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%?"

Well, if we are going to use this argument, we could very well think the solar system revolves around the earth rather than the sun.

What about our treatment of women and minorities? Everyone did it, so it MUST be the correct behavior..right?

How about smoking? Even Doctors promoted it at the time (they are experts, right?).

Being homosexual and transgender was seen as a mental illness for decades. But all the experts agreed, so it must again be correct, right?

I guess it is a mental illness!! The experts all agreed..I can't go against them..

Even more recently, "Hands up don't shoot". Forensic evidence came out and said that it never happened, yet we have mainstream media and seemingly intelligent people continuing on with the stretching of the truth to fit a narrative.

"but the evidence is pretty certain about climate change"

Yes, the climate is changing (a fact). But we still don't know if it's completely due to man-made changes or nature.

You also left out government funding and the politics around academia, which is very important when it comes to studies. It's pretty well known in the academic world that if you don't support the current narrative, you will not get funding.

I worked for many years in Academia and it's 99% politics if you want to actually get funding. If someone in a higher position doesn't like you for any reason, you can kiss it goodbye.

Climate change (also known as Global warming and Global cooling depending on what the new narrative is for the day) has been talked about since the 1970s. None of the predictions by scientists at that time came even close to true and it was a majority..just like today.

Science shouldn't be about trying to fit the evidence to a narrative. It should be trying to figure out the truth.

If you can't even debate me on these simple questions, how can I ever believe what you are saying is true?

Even the behavior here on HN is pretty telling. I ask a few questions and I am met with: hostility, anger, and people using words like "fucking". If it is this bad here, I can't imagine the climate scientists with contrary evidence. It's just like during the middle ages. Except they won't be burned at the stake, they will lose their careers.