Live data from Hacker News

What's Really Warming the World?

bloomberg.com

341–350 of 549 posts

Re: What's Really Warming the World?

#341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does everyone ignore the UAH and RSS troposphere data? It's the best data (by far the most accurate) we have on atmospheric temperature, and it shows no warming since 1996. http://images.remss.com/msu/msu_time_series.html I have a simple R script to find the trend if you want to see it yourself.

Can I ask you two questions? What does your R script attempt to show? What is your null hypothesis? Thanks!

My R script merely finds the first time the temperature trend turns positive since last data point. My null hypothesis is when does the trend turn positive since the last data point. I'm not trying to be a smart ass, I'm just wanting to make clear I'm not making any grand claims, except that the most rigorous data, with the tightest confidence intervals (measured in fractions of K instead of multiple K's), says that nearly every model previous of the IPCC's 5th assessment was wrong. None of the models predicted a 2 decade lapse in warming. We don't know as much as we thought we knew.

[EDIT] I don't mean that the models were completely wrong, merely that they were missing some key variable to explain 19 years and 6 months of flat global temperature trends.

Re: What's Really Warming the World?

#342
This graphic really just plays into the hands of climate change deniers. No labelled axis, a timeline of only 100 years (you could also argue the dinosaurs caused global warming), and the quite proud declaration at the end the argument is really "no contest" under the assumption that correlation == causation. I could also make a graph that shows the increase in global temperature correlating with the rise in the Latino population, could I then declare it a "no contest"?

Re: What's Really Warming the World?

#343

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…

Probably unintuitive UX. I kept scrolling wanting to read something. But it kept changing graph and then suddenly text appeared.

Re: What's Really Warming the World?

#344

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…

In a moment of accidental honesty, the collective thugs on HN admit that they'd like to point a gun at the head of a man who disagrees. And that it's to be done in order to change his nature - because the mind is irrelevant. What a waste.

Re: What's Really Warming the World?

#345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What good is a model if it does not make solid predictions?

Oh, those models do make predictions. Just not the ones the deniers use for straw man arguments.

Re: What's Really Warming the World?

#346
Helpful when reading this thread to keep in mind Michael Mann's six stages of climate change denial:

1. CO2 is not actually increasing.

2. Even if it is, the increase has no impact on the climate since there is no convincing evidence of warming.

3. Even if there is warming, it is due to natural causes.

4. Even if the warming cannot be explained by natural causes, the human impact is small, and the impact of continued greenhouse gas emissions will be minor.

5. Even if the current and future projected human effects on Earth's climate are not negligible, the changes are generally going to be good for us.

6. Whether or not the changes are going to be good for us, humans are very adept at adapting to changes; besides, it’s too late to do anything about it, and/or a technological fix is bound to come along when we really need it.

Re: What's Really Warming the World?

#347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

2013 had no hurricanes, and 2014 was a very mild season. 2012 was a 'very active' season, but most of the hurricanes stayed out in the atlantic ocean.

Deniers get mocked for bringing up cold winters ("weather is not climate, you MORON!"), but warmists have no problem blaming every hurricane and tornado on global warming.

"Warm" = "more energetic", in every sense of the word. In my own mind, I think of global climate change in a more simplistic way: global energy change. We humans are releasing, in short order, energies that took natural processes millions of years to convert to the form that we're liberating. I can't think of any other philosophy or activity done by humankind that wantonly, aggressively and cavalierly "blows the wad" without experiencing a terrible consequence as a result of upsetting the balance.

Matter can be subject to a chemical or physical process that liberates the energies that keep it together. Temperature is one form of energy that is liberated. It's how power is generated -- we used that heat energy to, usually, make another fluid move faster, and convert that to mechanical energy by way of a turbine, and convert that mechanical energy to electricity, by way of rotating magnets inducing electrical current in a conductor. That matter that we burn/react/oxidize doesn't convert wholly to energy, though. Some of the physical waste products go into the atmosphere, changing how the air itself itself reacts to various energetic inputs, such as sunlight or radiative heat from urban centers. We literally convert matter that took millions of years to make into energies and waste matter that were not there in those quantities for those same millions of years, and the simple, basic physics of it is that the result of that conversion is waste matter and energies that serve to either directly increase heat energy (a small part of human-induced climate change) or change the energy storage properties of the largest, by mass, energy batteries around: the atmosphere and the oceans.

So, yes, when there are stronger hurricanes and more destructive tornadoes outlasting their historical durations and exceeding their historical energies, there is little else but temperature that causes that to happen. And, yes, it goes the same way for winter.

This same climate change can have a chilling effect on winters, due to the changes in the propagation of that energy-as-temperature affecting the jet stream or deep ocean currents. The atmosphere and the ocean are huge, dynamic, swirling masses of differing energies, and the weather we experience is a result of how those masses of air and water move, said motion being a product of their energies (again, temperature). Wind itself, hurricanes, storms, blizzards, tornadoes, etc. are all caused by the interaction of large masses of air at differing densities (itself one effect of temperature). The energy imparted to those air masses comes, in no small part, from the ocean.

I think if more people equated "temperature" with "energy", the layman's summaries of climate change may reach a few more skeptics. At least, the ones who want to learn.

Re: What's Really Warming the World?

#348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I want solid proof ... or , uh "almost proof". Proofs don't exist in sciences concerned with the physical world. For proofs to work in the real world, you'd need certainty that you have recognised and correctly measured every variable that could affect the outcome of an observation/experiment. The last philosophy of science that allowed proofs was positivism. For the natural sciences, it has been replaced by critic…

I'm curious. Gravity has not been proven to attract two masses, for instance?

Is there any evidence that two masses don't attract ?

Re: What's Really Warming the World?

#349
post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Wasn't that Regret? I think the canon answer was 'belief', or more accurately, "Whatever you believe can change the nature of a man, can." Ravel actually accepted any answer.

Belief?! If that's true, the past 15 years of my life have been a lie! I honestly remembered regret as the correct answer.

Well, technically, if you 'believe' that 'regret' is the answer then it's correct!

Re: What's Really Warming the World?

#350

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…

Tut, tut. You are right of course, but you are still out of line here. Let me remind you in no uncertain terms that the correct meme is now 'climate change'. To say 'global warming' confirms that the models predict warming. Of course, the models still DO continue to predict warming, however recent climate data suggests we are in a cooling phase. We must be vigilant to maintain our thought controls in order to remain…

You're out of step and, yourself, out of line.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=326

The name change agenda is most often liked to a Republican strategist based on focus groups saying CC was LESS scary than GW.

Post reply on HN