Why natural cycles only play small role in rate of global warming • Hacker News Board

Re: Why natural cycles only play small role in rate of global warming

#21

Post by craigzucchini » Tue, May 28, 2019, 4:11 PM UTC

jolfdb wrote: post #19

jphenningsen wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just from a first look, the caption of the figure references Figure 5 in Haustein et al 2019 [1]. You can see that this figure is way more detailed and includes a confidence interval. This article is clearly not a scientific publication but aimed at a broader audience. As for your other questions about the details of the methods used to gather and analyse this dataset, I am sure you can find plenty of information in…

"it's for a popular audience" is a bad justification for publishing misleading or wrong information that teaches people a wrong headed view of what a science is. It's not just poor quality, it's a actively harmful to culture and social progress. It's a supernormal stimulus, the journalism equivalent of replacing real foods by sugar and oil mixes -- it pushes people toward preferring wrong things over right things.

Probably get over yourself tho

Re: Why natural cycles only play small role in rate of global warming

#22

Post by briantakita » Tue, May 28, 2019, 4:13 PM UTC

briantakita wrote: post #18

This article's claims fail the smell test. Ultimately we don't know what we don't know & simplistic overarching models are probably missing key components, many of which are non-linear. 200 years is a tiny window when it comes to cosmological time. The methodology of measurement & extrapolation of data also needs public scrutiny. Interpretations of geological events are ridden with conjecture to fit an overarching na…

The climate is changing. The climate is being driven by the sun. Always has & always will. The climate is changing on other planets in the Solar system, being driven by the sun, just like Earth.

This whole "anthropocentric carbon climate change" scheme is a scam to funnel money away from real science & useful tech to special centralization interests that take away freedom of most people in the world. The people behind this scheme are a blight on humanity & should be arrested for fraud. The scale of their operations are orders of magnitude larger & more dangerous than Bernie Madoff.

Re: Why natural cycles only play small role in rate of global warming

#23

Post by dwaltrip » Tue, May 28, 2019, 4:23 PM UTC

briantakita wrote: post #18

This article's claims fail the smell test. Ultimately we don't know what we don't know & simplistic overarching models are probably missing key components, many of which are non-linear. 200 years is a tiny window when it comes to cosmological time. The methodology of measurement & extrapolation of data also needs public scrutiny. Interpretations of geological events are ridden with conjecture to fit an overarching na…

It's not the sun: https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/14/is-the-sun-causing-global-wa...

Re: Why natural cycles only play small role in rate of global warming

#24

Post by llamataboot » Tue, May 28, 2019, 4:27 PM UTC

mikekij wrote: post #17

apo wrote: post #12

The first graph ("External factors explain nearly all global temperature change") shows what appears to be temperature precisions of less than 0.1 degree C, yet reports no error bars. How is it that a graph like this is even acceptable, given the importance of the conclusions? How does this study account for the inevitably poorer precision and accuracy of measurements made over 100 years ago? How are systematic error…

I'm so glad to see you bring this up. In my graduate physics training, I was taught to be extremely cautious about statistical significance, error propagation, and error bars. I remain skeptical of our conclusions about AGW, not because I have a political view on the subject, but because I'm skeptical that our temperature measurements from 120 years ago have a precision of less than 1 degree C. But I (sincerely) assu…

nah, pretty sure you're the first person to think of that one!

Re: Why natural cycles only play small role in rate of global warming

#25

Post by breakyerself » Tue, May 28, 2019, 4:29 PM UTC

briantakita wrote: post #18

This article's claims fail the smell test. Ultimately we don't know what we don't know & simplistic overarching models are probably missing key components, many of which are non-linear. 200 years is a tiny window when it comes to cosmological time. The methodology of measurement & extrapolation of data also needs public scrutiny. Interpretations of geological events are ridden with conjecture to fit an overarching na…

The planets been breaking temperature records like hotcakes while solar irradiance has been declining for decades. There is zero evidence for magnetosphere driven climate change. What you've written is just some sciencey sounding BS that rationalizes an irrational position.

Re: Why natural cycles only play small role in rate of global warming

#26

Post by yeahitslikethat » Tue, May 28, 2019, 4:45 PM UTC

Why do we continue to debate climate change focusing on centuries old data when the carbon cycle takes hundreds of millions of years? Any data we've collected amounts to less than a rounding error.

Re: Why natural cycles only play small role in rate of global warming

#27

Post by tasty_freeze » Tue, May 28, 2019, 4:55 PM UTC

mikekij wrote: post #17

apo wrote: post #12

The first graph ("External factors explain nearly all global temperature change") shows what appears to be temperature precisions of less than 0.1 degree C, yet reports no error bars. How is it that a graph like this is even acceptable, given the importance of the conclusions? How does this study account for the inevitably poorer precision and accuracy of measurements made over 100 years ago? How are systematic error…

I'm so glad to see you bring this up. In my graduate physics training, I was taught to be extremely cautious about statistical significance, error propagation, and error bars. I remain skeptical of our conclusions about AGW, not because I have a political view on the subject, but because I'm skeptical that our temperature measurements from 120 years ago have a precision of less than 1 degree C. But I (sincerely) assu…

Hyperskepticism run wild. You, an outsider, doubt the science because you think that the people who have specialized in the field and have spent their careers collecting data are not as smart as you and have overlooked the quality of their data sets.

I'll go farther and say nobody better understands the limits of their data sets than the people who work with them.

Re: Why natural cycles only play small role in rate of global warming

#28

Post by briantakita » Tue, May 28, 2019, 5:02 PM UTC

breakyerself wrote: post #25

briantakita wrote: post #18

This article's claims fail the smell test. Ultimately we don't know what we don't know & simplistic overarching models are probably missing key components, many of which are non-linear. 200 years is a tiny window when it comes to cosmological time. The methodology of measurement & extrapolation of data also needs public scrutiny. Interpretations of geological events are ridden with conjecture to fit an overarching na…

The planets been breaking temperature records like hotcakes while solar irradiance has been declining for decades. There is zero evidence for magnetosphere driven climate change. What you've written is just some sciencey sounding BS that rationalizes an irrational position.

Except the records being broken are low temperature records. They aren't actually records in the geological sense, just measurement records in modern times. The "year without a summer" was colder for example.

The magnetosphere does not drive the climate. The magnetosphere protects Earth from space weather, which includes Cosmic radiation, Coronal holes, Coronal mass ejections, etc.

Are you seriously claiming that the sun has no effect on the climate? Are you claiming that the sun does not have cycles? And you call me irrational...

Re: Why natural cycles only play small role in rate of global warming

#29

Post by briantakita » Tue, May 28, 2019, 5:15 PM UTC

dwaltrip wrote: post #23

briantakita wrote: post #18

This article's claims fail the smell test. Ultimately we don't know what we don't know & simplistic overarching models are probably missing key components, many of which are non-linear. 200 years is a tiny window when it comes to cosmological time. The methodology of measurement & extrapolation of data also needs public scrutiny. Interpretations of geological events are ridden with conjecture to fit an overarching na…

It's not the sun: https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/14/is-the-sun-causing-global-wa...

Except that model does not have accurate predictive qualities nor does it account for the other planets in the solar system going through climate change. What about Earth before humans? Here is a model that accurately predicts that solar cycle 24 would be weaker than cycle 23. Only 2 of 150 submitted models got that right.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Valentina_Zharkova/publ...

Another thing to consider as that a weakening Heliosphere & weakening Magnetosphere means Earth is more exposed to cosmic radiation. Cosmic radiation seeds clouds, excites water, drives earthquakes & volcanic eruptions. We may have an initial period of warming due to water being excited by cosmic radiation (similar to a microwave oven), but once enough volcanoes erupt, albedo will increase to offset the warming & cause cooling, as demonstrated by the Mt. Tambora eruption in 1816.

Re: Why natural cycles only play small role in rate of global warming

#30

Post by joe_the_user » Tue, May 28, 2019, 5:20 PM UTC

Roark66 wrote: post #3

The headline of this post is bullshit. The author of the article doesn't prove "natural cycles" play small role. He claims that the data he analyses points to the conclusion one specific 60-70 year old cycle of oceanic origin has far less impact on climate than commonly accepted. He talks about one mechanism, there are plenty of other natural mechanisms that affect the climate in various ways. Quoting the article: >T…

Yes, the headline is rather self-defeating. I studied persuasion techniques before the Internet got big and one of the trendy manipulation approaches then was to write an article titled "Why XXX" when XXX is some assertion you make, perhaps even with evidence but for which you don't actually offer an explanation (the reader never discovers why XXX, they are only that XXX is true, and why XXX is generally something people would be curious about). This technique naturally has become an arrow in the quiver of click-baiters but with click-bait sooo big now, using such bullshit is more likely to hurt a serious article than help it.

The proper title would be "we show human-generated carbon is sufficient to explain climate for the X many years", a significant claim by itself.