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

241–250 of 549 posts

Re: What's Really Warming the World?

#241

Post by paulhauggis »

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 bring up some simple questions and I am immediately silenced. I guess I didn't realize HN was anti-science and anti-intellectual.

Re: What's Really Warming the World?

#242

Post by darkstar999 »

buckbova wrote: post #232
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

Ok, so they collect a massive amount of taxes. Then what?

Re: What's Really Warming the World?

#243

Post by paulhauggis »

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 bring up some simple questions and I am immediately silenced. I guess I didn't realize HN was anti-science and anti-intellectual.

Re: What's Really Warming the World?

#244

Post by bhauer »

tocf wrote: post #177
[deleted] wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[deleted]

You're basically saying anything funded by government that might impact economics, and thus revenues, is biased. Right.. You do realize that you can be against taxing say, income and profits, but be for taxing carbon? I think quite a few economists would agree that you tax things that you want less of. A simplified carbon tax could be a boon to business.

> You're basically saying anything funded by government that might impact economics, and thus revenues, is biased. Right.

While I don't see the now-deleted comment you're replying to, I do feel there is validity to the viewpoint that studies funded by the government can be biased in much the same way as studies funded by private companies. Government is not magically above tainting research with predisposition and prejudice.

Re: What's Really Warming the World?

#245

Post by loganu »

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…

It's become a politicized issue, and as such, the media has created a narrative of 2 sides and a "debate." Take the 97% and put it into a different context and it makes the situation seem absolutely ludicrous.

If you had a sore stomach, and asked 2 groups of people to help you figure out why, would you trust the diagnosis from a group with 100 world-class doctors, surgeons, dieticians, etc... or 100 random people? When the random people say "Ya, but the doctor's don't know anything"... why would you believe them?

We've got global consensus from the leading experts in a dozen or so related fields, all pointing to the same thing. I trust the people that landed on the moon and can launch satellites to space to give me better information about the Earth's macro trends than the guy next door that uses his bible and the cold weather last week as his evidence of a trend.

Re: What's Really Warming the World?

#246

Post by marcus_holmes »

cholantesh wrote: post #133
jasonkester wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's a good one: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/04/global-warming-slowdown-... 44 Climate Models all fighting to out-panic one another, not a single one guessing low enough to predict the actual values for 2012 (when it seems the dataset in question ended) ... and a seemingly more reputable one showing roughly the same thing: http://phys.org/news/2015-01-peer-reviewed-pocket-calculator...

I wouldn't call a paper whose lead author is a well-established denier with no scientific training ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Monckton,_3rd_Visc... ), and which is co-authored by a known practitioner of large-scale scientific fraud for pay ( http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Willie_Soon ) particularly reputable.

ad-hominem. Who cares who wrote it, what does it say?

Re: What's Really Warming the World?

#247

Post by narrator »

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…

A couple years back I read the IPCC reports trying to find out if global warming was real or not. I noticed the Vostok ice core data in the earlier reports showed the temperature rose first and then the CO2 rose. Likewise, the temperature fell first and then the CO2 fell later on. They fixed this little inconvenient data problem in the later reports.

Re: What's Really Warming the World?

#248

Post by mangeletti »

munificent wrote: post #186
mangeletti wrote: post #112

The chart at http://d1vn86fw4xmcz1.cloudfront.net/content/royptb/363/1501... (put together by The Royal Society) shows that most deforestation in Eastern Canada occurred over 400 years ago. This one http://mongabay-images.s3.amazonaws.com/12/1203all-time-defo... shows a shift starting about 300 years ago from temperate forest removal to tropical forest removal. Together, they start to paint a picture of massive defor…

> It doesn't even bring up the possibility of albedo playing a role in climate change? Isn't that exactly what the "So If It's Not Nature, Is It Deforestation?" slide is about?

No. The topic of deforestation covers a host of issues, but albedo can be changed without regard for forests. For instance, covering all the empty land black-top roads and parking lots, and putting black shingles on the roofs of hundreds of millions of houses adds a lot of dark surface area to the planet.

Re: What's Really Warming the World?

#249

Post by dnautics »

ska wrote: post #222
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…

does 2.5.6 from http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-cha... address this adequately? (I was curious from your comment, but only spent a minute looking)

Read the section yourself and ask if it does. They say right there that they don't do the calculations because it's too uncertain.

Re: What's Really Warming the World?

#250

Post by triangleman »

gtrubetskoy wrote: post #155

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.

Because it's not a debate about science, it's a debate about policy.

Imagine you are a Los Angeles politician looking to promote one of two policies:

1) Clean up the air in Los Angeles at a measurable cost of X, most of which will be paid by Los Angeles taxpayers (including said politician).

2) Reduce CO2 emissions worldwide at an unmeasurable cost of Y, most of which will be paid via the inflation of consumer prices. The air in Los Angeles will probably remain just as dirty, but the politician gets to say that he "did something".

Which of these policies would the hypothetical politician be more likely to support?

Post reply on HN