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

271–280 of 549 posts

Re: What's Really Warming the World?

#271

Post by danbruc »

narrator wrote: post #247
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.

This is not an inconvenient data problem. That the ends of past ice ages were not caused by a rising atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration but instead caused it with some lag does not at all proof that a rising atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration can not cause rising atmospheric temperatures.

For example - completely made up - a change in the orbit of the earth could cause rising temperatures and therefore the end of an ice age. This could then free carbon dioxide trapped in or under the now melting snow and ice and in turn this change in the composition of the atmosphere could additionally contribute to the rising temperatures.

Re: What's Really Warming the World?

#272

Post by drjesusphd »

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

There exists a physical mechanism by which relatively small amounts of greenhouse gases warm the atmosphere. Do you question this?

Re: What's Really Warming the World?

#274

Post by Geee »

Note that these graphs explain the factors of the simulation model, and is not comparing data to data.

From the FAQ:

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

Re: What's Really Warming the World?

#275

Post by astrodust »

tosseraccount wrote: post #156
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.

Yeah, I'm sure you have the time, inclination and expertise to look over billions of data points and make your own conclusions.

Re: What's Really Warming the World?

#276

Post by Daishiman »

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

This is going to sound harsh, but what you are doing is exactly what climate denialists do.

You question on correlation of variables has not only been asked; it has been reformulated tens of thousands of times by climate scientists and experts in all sorts of related fields.

By asking a question like this you're directly undermining the quality of reasearch that has been extremely solid on the matter. Correlation of variables would be an issue if we were just looking at data to infer an explanation. Physicists have known the effects of radiative forcing of CO2 and methane because it has been observed in laboratory settings, and that knowledge has been extrapolated to models of the entire world.

The equation of "heat in, heat out" corresponds exactly as predicted. Of course, the Earth's atmosphere and ocean are so complex that this effect is not seen uniformly. The challenge is in accounting what heats up and how quickly. We know, for example, that the oceans hold far more heat than the atmosphere. We're in the process of understanding how ocean currents affect and are affected by that. But overall there is no possibility of debate as to how CO2 affects the atmosphere and oceans. The thing is that the nuances are so significant for having a useful understanding of climate that many details are still missing. What we do know has been extremely useful and clarifying of how these events are going to play out.

Re: What's Really Warming the World?

#277

Post by drjesusphd »

savanaly wrote: post #123

I don't deny man made climate change, but this argument seems to be weak. Just because two factors go up at the same time doesn't mean one caused the other. See http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations . It is necessary but not sufficient to show that greenhouse gases went up in concert with global temperatures. Not that one expects them to lay our a sweeping, thorough case for man made climate change in such…

The fact that trace amounts of greenhouse gases can heat the atmosphere is physics. With numbers and everything.

Re: What's Really Warming the World?

#278

Post by yummyfajitas »

narrator wrote: post #247
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.

This is hardly unexpected. As water warms, the solubility of various gases decreases. I.e., if you exogenously warm up the ocean, it will release CO2 and other trace gases into the atmosphere. I'm pretty sure you could get the same pattern for Argon and other (non-greenouse) trace gases.

Re: What's Really Warming the World?

#279

Post by drjesusphd »

cletus wrote: post #135

There are three things that bother me about climate science. 1. Certainly in years past, anyone who even dared question that global warming wasn't real or wasn't man made was lambasted. That's not science. That's religion. Even just asking questions gets you labelled a denier. These, to me, have been and are reasonable questions to ask: - On what basis are we saying the earth is warming? Datasets for the last 1-2 cen…

> On what basis are we saying the earth is warming?

Physics.

> Can we even do anything about it if it is? How expensive will it be? > - What, if any, are the good effects of climate change? It can't be all bad but it just bothers me when I see things talking about how it will hurt, say, North America. But will it makes other parts of the world, currently largely uninhabitable, more hospitable?

These are great questions, but they have nothing to do with the reality of what's happening. Unfortunately, we're distracted from this very important conversation if we do not agree on the basic facts.

Re: What's Really Warming the World?

#280

Post by Daishiman »

chris_va wrote: post #208
fixermark wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. Extincti…

That is not a likely scenario. The projected net impact from global warming is on the ~$2T/year range. That is about 3% of GWP. We aren't talking the end of the species, just really stupid expensive mistakes.

Unfortunately, in the past 5 years we have begun to understand the possibility that runaway greenhouse events from methane release are a not-insignificant detail which most models do not account for.

Researchers who have been working on that area have basically said that if the conditions for oceanic methane clathrate relase is met, everything could change in the span of two decades.

Post reply on HN