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

411–420 of 549 posts

Re: What's Really Warming the World?

#411

Post by Pinatubo »

hackuser wrote: post #76
moubarak wrote: post #4

i read an article a while back on the economist which suggested that if you look at a longer span (much longer than 1880) you will find that this is a natural cycle that the Earth/Sun go through. We just happen to be at that point in the cycle. i really doubt we humans can affect climate changes in any way. An interactive colourful plot doesn't convince me.

The Economist, which I read, unfortunately pushes propaganda about climate change (as they do about some other issues too). For example, many years ago they published an article[1] saying that a recent conference led by John Bolton[2] came to the same climate-denying conclusion as an earlier conference led by Bjorn Lomborg.[3] The Economist claimed that Bolton's results were independent corroboration for Lomborg's, s…

Lomborg has openly stated multiple times that he believes in anthropogenic climate change. How is he a "climate denier"?

This post looks like a cut-and-paste from a political blog.

Re: What's Really Warming the World?

#412

Post by merpnderp »

ocschwar wrote: post #401
merpnderp wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We already know the full data set has a 1.2K/century trend (this is annual trend most commonly used to represent the data). Decadal moving averages aren't going to shed more light than that. We also know that if you just grab the last 19 years and 6 months, or any smaller subset of that, you'll see 0 to negative trends.

Which is why you should not follow along the denialist gambit and grab just those two data points.

But they're the best data we have. They have the widest coverage, the least uncertainty. At nighttime the SST satellites can have over 10C of error due to cloud cover. I've no doubt the earth is warming. My doubt is that measurements with wide confidence intervals should be used over those with low confidence intervals because they tell a more compelling story.

Re: What's Really Warming the World?

#413

Post by tosseraccount »

b_emery wrote: post #388
tosseraccount wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you can link to the raw data so that I can wget it I will take a look at it.

Here's a good place to start: ftp://ftp.cdc.noaa.gov/Datasets/20thC_ReanV2c/Monthlies/gaussian/monolevel/air.sfc.mon.mean.nc It's netcdf global monthly mean air temps. Pick some grid points and plot time series. Have fun.

Thanks, Ill take a look. I hate HDF format !!!!

Re: What's Really Warming the World?

#414

Post by moultano »

csentropy wrote: post #389

After reading these comments, it is clear that the ones who have their mind made up and are not open to debate are the warmists. The fact that merely asking questions incites such aggression suggests only one thing. They just don't know and are scared to admit it to themselves. This is the exact same behavior seen among religious cultists. They have not read all the evidence or most of it themselves, but follow the h…

Have you read the IPCC report? There's nothing I can write in an HN comment that would make a better argument than that.

Re: What's Really Warming the World?

#415

Post by reitanqild »

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…

While I fully understand paulhauggis being downvoted here a few of the statements are interesting and I haven't seen them refuted.

Anyone has an (link to) explanation to this one:

  > I've done research on many of the people that claim to be a 'Climate scientist' and most aren't even close.

Re: What's Really Warming the World?

#416

Post by akssri »

tosseraccount wrote: post #348
tosseraccount wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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

If your theory is just "two masses attract", then your theory would be far more accurately 'verified' than Newton's laws of gravity, but also far less useful.

Newton's laws are superceded by General relativity.

Re: What's Really Warming the World?

#417

Post by loganu »

CONTRARlAN wrote: post #308
loganu wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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? Wh…

Apparently on HN we can now be condescending, insulting, narrow-minded, and straw-man those with whom we disagree with, so long as we're aligned with conventional wisdom.

Apologies to anyone basing their beliefs on religious faith or personal experience. That's your choice, and unfair for me to judge.

As for straw man, I don't think that's technically correct, but it's a hard point to make without analogy.

Conventional wisdom is (I believe the majority of people are under the impression) that there's actually a scientific debate about this, and that the scientists and climatologists are all bickering about the causes. That's not the case, but we're largely ignoring that because the media and a few opposing scientists are casting doubt.

Re: What's Really Warming the World?

#418

Post by csentropy »

moultano wrote: post #414
csentropy wrote: post #389

After reading these comments, it is clear that the ones who have their mind made up and are not open to debate are the warmists. The fact that merely asking questions incites such aggression suggests only one thing. They just don't know and are scared to admit it to themselves. This is the exact same behavior seen among religious cultists. They have not read all the evidence or most of it themselves, but follow the h…

Have you read the IPCC report? There's nothing I can write in an HN comment that would make a better argument than that.

Which draft of which assessment? Be more specific.

Re: What's Really Warming the World?

#419

Post by tosseraccount »

bildung wrote: post #395
tosseraccount wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> Is there any evidence that two masses don't attract ? The answer to that question does not in any way proof the existence of gravity. I don't mean to offend, but if you honestly ask these types of questions, I doubt you are able to evaluate the quality of original papers dealing with climate research.

You're making an adhominem argument.

Have there been times when earth temperature change was not anthropogenic?

Re: What's Really Warming the World?

#420

Post by moultano »

csentropy wrote: post #418
moultano wrote: post #414

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you read the IPCC report? There's nothing I can write in an HN comment that would make a better argument than that.

Which draft of which assessment? Be more specific.

Any of them? I'm certainly not going to give you flak for being a year or two out of date. If you want an argument, that's the canonical one.
Post reply on HN