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

321–330 of 549 posts

Re: What's Really Warming the World?

#321

Post by tunesmith »

moubarak wrote: post #27
mikeash wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 civiliza…

I'm a non-secular person that's why. I certainly don't have the numbers, i read them here and there. But i base it on knowledge coming from scriptures. Scientists are hardworking people, but i don't take their numbers as faith.

There's a difference between religion and willful ignorance. If you want to believe or disbelieve something unprovable, fine - that can be defined as religion, or conjecture in science-speak. But to believe or disbelieve something in the face of observation, clear evidence, and fact - that is not religion.

Re: What's Really Warming the World?

#322

Post by moultano »

paulhauggis wrote: post #318
moultano wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Again, "Do the fucking research" is not a debate. Why do you want to debate instead of learn? Why not go read the IPCC report in which your questions are likely to be answered? Don't count on the lay interest of HN commentators, go read what the experts have to say directly. That's what that report is for. >It's interesting that we had a major climate change before the industrial revolution and we still don't undere…

"Why do you want to debate instead of learn?" I do learn. I learn by looking at all evidence and facts rather than just the ones that tell me what I want to hear. Even when it's been shown that evidence has been doctored (like during Climate gate and more recently with the temperature readings), it's just explained away to further write the narrative that man has caused Climate change and anybody that questions it is…

You just crossed the Poe's Law boundary for me. In case you are actually in earnest, I'll make this easy for you. https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_FI...

Re: What's Really Warming the World?

#323

Post by stephengillie »

300bps wrote: post #147
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…

Cool visualization. I agree, but I have to say their imagination on what other things might be causing warming is not very robust. For just one example, there are at least two major effects of burning: 1. Release of chemicals into the atmosphere (ex: carbon dioxide) 2. Directly heating the atmosphere There are literally billions of air conditioners, heaters, cars, factories, etc that all generate heat. The effect of…

What about the heating caused by ~7.5 billion humans? Collectively, we consume ~13 trillion calories, or (IIRC) enough heat to vaporize a 4-cubic mile block of ice, every day.

Re: What's Really Warming the World?

#324

Post by narrator »

yongjik wrote: post #312
narrator wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The following is literally the first Google result for "why does CO2 concentration lag behind temperature". http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm > ... This statement does not tell the whole story. The initial changes in temperature during this period are explained by changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun, which affects the amount of seasonal sunlight reaching the Earth’s surface. In the case…

In the Vostok data the temperature falls first and then the CO2 falls. If the CO2 released amplified the increased warming trend then why would the temperature suddenly reverse absent a CO2 drop?

BTW, I am really really disappointed in the quality of all the replies. It's mostly ad hominem and hand-waving. This is the one reply that's not but it doesn't explain the behavior of the drop in temperature.

Thus to sum it up:

Increased temperature causes gas to become less soluble in the ocean, thus leading to increased CO2. Decreased temperature causes CO2 to become more soluble in the ocean thus leading to decreased CO2. This data shows then that CO2 increases are not enough to cause warming all by themselves or to prevent cooling all by themselves.

Obviously a very large amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will lead to warming (e.g Venus's atmosphere is 96% CO2) but we're many orders of magnitude off from that (0.04% CO2).

So we are left with what I like to call a Listerine argument: Listerine has been selling more over the past century, Listerine prevents tooth decay, thus Listerine is the cause of the improvement in dental health over the past century. Thus we should put Listerine in the water and implement a global tax so everyone can have Listerine.

Re: What's Really Warming the World?

#327

Post by istvan__ »

skylan_q wrote: post #192
istvan__ wrote: post #94

Well correlation is not causation. is it y=f(x) or y=x(f)? aka is is warmer because of the higher greenhouse gases or is there more greenhouse gases because of the warmer climate (that could have been caused by things like leaving an ice age and approaching a warm period in Earth's life) Just to clarify, i support green technology and I think this is definitely the way to go but I don't like the unjustified crusade u…

There's also confounding variables to take into account. One of those might not be driving the other. Many commenters above are speaking about how hard it is to eject someone out of a bias, but I don't know why they're doing this. They're lamenting the inefficacy of logic to convince people while not applying it in this very case. The graph just shows a correlation. http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations

Very true! Thanks for pointing this out too.

Re: What's Really Warming the World?

#328

Post by nlake44 »

How can mankind, overnight stop exponential (that famous hockey stick everyone likes to see) oxygen growth? Very suspicious. There are some pretty bad sources of information out there about oxygen over time. Here is one I trust: http://dk6qunh1hkthr.cloudfront.net/content/nips/25/5/272/F1...

Re: What's Really Warming the World?

#329

Post by jandrese »

guelo wrote: post #178
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…

Don't know what you're referring to about crazy predictions, the 1990 models actually did pretty well, http://www.skepticalscience.com/lessons-from-past-climate-pr...

They seemed crazy at the time because most people didn't expect the level of warming that we are now seeing.

Re: What's Really Warming the World?

#330

Post by Zuider »

tosseraccount wrote: post #255
dnautics wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He does also maintain one of the satellite records, which does show global warming over the period 1960-2000 (not so much the last 10 years because of the global warming hiatus).

Did any models predict the "global warming hiatus" ?

Hans von Storch, professor at the Meteorological Institute of the University of Hamburg discussed this issue in a recent interview with Der Spiegel. He remarked that less than 2% of model runs reproduced the 'pause'.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/interview-hans-von...

SPIEGEL: Just since the turn of the millennium, humanity has emitted another 400 billion metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, yet temperatures haven't risen in nearly 15 years. What can explain this?

Storch: So far, no one has been able to provide a compelling answer to why climate change seems to be taking a break. We're facing a puzzle. Recent CO2 emissions have actually risen even more steeply than we feared. As a result, according to most climate models, we should have seen temperatures rise by around 0.25 degrees Celsius (0.45 degrees Fahrenheit) over the past 10 years. That hasn't happened. In fact, the increase over the last 15 years was just 0.06 degrees Celsius (0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) -- a value very close to zero. This is a serious scientific problem that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will have to confront when it presents its next Assessment Report late next year.

SPIEGEL: Do the computer models with which physicists simulate the future climate ever show the sort of long standstill in temperature change that we're observing right now?

Storch: Yes, but only extremely rarely. At my institute, we analyzed how often such a 15-year stagnation in global warming occurred in the simulations. The answer was: in under 2 percent of all the times we ran the simulation. In other words, over 98 percent of forecasts show CO2 emissions as high as we have had in recent years leading to more of a temperature increase.

Post reply on HN