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

101–110 of 549 posts

Re: What's Really Warming the World?

#101

Post by hackuser »

at-fates-hands wrote: post #85
crimsonalucard wrote: post #36

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…

You also have to understand, with everything there is a spectrum. There are people no matter what you tell them, won't believe climate change exists, other simply say it's a cycle, just like we've had cooling and heating cycles since the dawn of time. Also, it's hard for a lot of people to take climate change arguments seriously when you basically tell them, "Well, based on this model. . " So how do you take into eff…

If you are seriously interested in learning the answers to your questions, I strongly recommend spending an hour reading the IPCC's 'Summaries for Policymakers'. Read the Synthesis Report, which covers everything, or one of the three working group reports for more detail ("Physical Science Basis", "Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability", and "Mitigation of Climate Change").

http://www.ipcc.ch/

The IPCC meticulously prepares these reports -- and I mean hundreds of scientists preparing reports reviewed by thousands worldwide, with extreme attention paid to wording about probabilities -- and then writes summary reports for non-scientific policymakers. If politicians have the ability and attention span to understand them, you can too. :)

The hour spent reading will save you a hundred hours reading the nonsense that is 99% of what is written elsewhere. Also much of what you say is addressed.

Re: What's Really Warming the World?

#103

Post by wnewman »

ThisIBereave wrote: post #46
natermer wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

None of the models have performed very well. You probably won't find a scorecard because it's embarrassing.

Citation needed.

I think http://judithcurry.com/2013/10/30/implications-for-climate-m... is a reasonably representative informed article on this.

Re: What's Really Warming the World?

#104

Post by twohlix_ »

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?

They don't for aerosols/ozone past the 50s I dont think.

But carbon/methane/NO/etc... they get from ice samples that have trapped air bubbles from quite a long time ago. They also take a ton of samples from ice cores and the data is reproducible both in the north and south poles. I believe temperature is also learned from the ice samples.

Re: What's Really Warming the World?

#105

Post by curiousgeorgio »

Not trying to argue against manmade climate change here, but the conclusion is inconsistent with the stated point/headline.

The main question is whether or not humans are the primary driving factor in the changes observed. Graphs show lack of correlation with various manmade causes and some natural causes, but then the conclusion is reached with the graph of "the influence of greenhouse gas emissions." In other words, the "nail in the coffin" evidence is simply showing the effects of the problem graphed against the problem itself; it doesn't prove one way or another whether the cause of the rise in greenhouse gasses is manmade.

Downvote as you will, but that doesn't seem like science to me; it feels like proving a point by simply restating the point.

Re: What's Really Warming the World?

#106

Post by adaml_623 »

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?

Ice cores. Google it.

Re: What's Really Warming the World?

#107

Post by vlasev »

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…

So, where would you think the greenhouse gases came from?

Re: What's Really Warming the World?

#108

Post by pakled_engineer »

themartorana wrote: post #93
jimhefferon wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FWIW, my parents were rabid climate deniers, after they got cable and foolishly started watching Fox, porn for the ancient (but I digress..). Then Super Storm Sandy. Now when it is being discussed they sit silently. Personally, it doesn't seem to me that one storm is all that persuasive, from a statistical standpoint. But we are not talking about reason here.

This reminds me of Dick Cheney's stance on homosexuality. People will deny for myriad reasons, and are able to disassociate harm caused when that harm is borne by others. But the second it effects them? The tune changes quickly. We have deniers in our families. The reasons seem to be "I want to be salty" more than anything real. Edit: that said, I imagine most people behind Fox News and other right-wing news sources…

Exactly, it's all just political games to scheme money. They shill the side that brings in the most lobbyist advert cash, fame and book deals. Most of the "journalists" on cable TV newstainment are ivy school educated and know they are peddling nonsense, unlikely any of them outside the studio believe their own climate science denial.

Re: What's Really Warming the World?

#109

Post by ageofwant »

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?

Its either directly measured or inferred. Ice cores, lake bottom cores, old wood cores. The error bars are wider for some, I'm sure, but that's accounted for in the models, to degrees of course.

Re: What's Really Warming the World?

#110

Post by secstate »

CurtHagenlocher wrote: post #78
crimsonalucard wrote: post #36

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…

People of all stripes have the tendency to weight the believability of the evidence based on how well it matches their beliefs instead of weighing their beliefs based on how well they match the evidence.

I believe it's called confirmation bias, and no one is immune to it.

As long as I'm commenting, I'll note that I'm a climate change skeptic, but only because the reasonable scientist among us is ALWAYS an informed skeptic. The human condition revolves around balancing our beliefs with our observations of reality.

I am not skeptical of the impact of CO2 on the environment. I know there are better understood and more imminent ecological disasters that accompany burning coal and oil (tailing ponds, mountaintop removal, air pollution and associated chronic illness). I refuse to be badgered and guilted into choosing a side on guessing what impact CO2 and warming will have on our Spaceship Earth over the next few decades or centuries.

Reduce waste for concrete, observable reasons. Individually wrapped dounts in plastic are shitty because it's a waste of energy and resources, not because abstractly plastic is made from oil and oil production is warming our earth.

Reduce your usage of electricity so you can invest in novel, more efficient industrial practices, not because Sandy flooded lower Manhattan and you feel guilty about it.

If you understand anything about human nature, you must appreciate that it's a fool's errand to try to get everyone to agree, acknowledge, or even understand a single truth, regardless of how "right" that truth is. And it's even worse when your inconvenient truth impacts billions of people who didn't have the luxury of destroying their ecology in ignorance for a few centuries with no one to call them out in the process (Europe/US vs. China/South America).

In the meantime, we can make meaningful change NOW by working to clean up the ecological messes that today, this week, or this month will cause someone to develop a chronic illness or destroy their ability to earn a living wage.

Post reply on HN