Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

carbonbrief.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 67 posts

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

#31

Post by [deleted] »

briantakita wrote: post #29
dwaltrip wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

[deleted]

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

#32

Post by btakita2 »

tasty_freeze wrote: post #27
mikekij wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Dr. Valentina Zharkova & Dr. Henrik Svensmark refute this fallacy.

Dr. Svensmark lost his institutional funding when he found & published experimental evidence & a model that cosmic radiation seeds clouds. This highlights the monetary & career incentive to hold a certain position. Any deviation from that position will result in a loss of funding.

Dr. Svensmark is now independently funded. Here is one of his presentations.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rg3MqdBX0_k

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

#33

Post by pmayrgundter »

lenticular wrote: post #15
GorgeRonde wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was almost certainly caused by one or multiple comet fragment impacts. Sources: https://scholar.google.fr/scholar?as_ylo=2018&q=hiawatha+cra...

No, speaking as a former glaciologist, that's not likely to be true. The parent poster is correct. Younger Dryas featured multiple advances and retreats, which is inconsistent with an impact. Multiple impact over many centuries just isn't that statistically likely, and we would see better evidence of it. Instead, the most probably cause is freshwater pulses coming out of the melting Laurentide ice sheet changing circ…

A report was published in Nature in spring of this year showing multiple lines of evidence for impact-related effects in the YDB layer in southern Chile:

"In the most extensive investigation south of the equator, we report on a ~12,800-year-old sequence at Pilauco, Chile (~40°S), that exhibits peak YD boundary concentrations of platinum, gold, high-temperature iron- and chromium-rich spherules, and native iron particles rarely found in nature. A major peak in charcoal abundance marks an intense biomass-burning episode, synchronous with dramatic changes in vegetation, including a high-disturbance regime, seasonality in precipitation, and warmer conditions. This is anti-phased with northern-hemispheric cooling at the YD onset, whose rapidity suggests atmospheric linkage. The sudden disappearance of megafaunal remains and dung fungi in the YDB layer at Pilauco correlates with megafaunal extinctions across the Americas. The Pilauco record appears consistent with YDB impact evidence found at sites on four continents."

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-38089-y

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

#34

Post by huslage »

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.

The general public care about conclusions of the science, not making up their own minds about what the science says. The overall article does a very good job of summarizing the paper. I'm not sure that what you're looking at as "wrong information" actually qualifies as such.

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

#35

Post by instantwhat »

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.

If, tomorrow, NASA, NOAA, and the UN IPCC held a joint press conference to announce surprising new evidence which indicated that anthropogenic effects on the climate were minimal, that we could not noticeably affect the climate, regardless of our emissions, and that the climate was essentially out of our control, what would your reaction be? Would that be good news or bad news? Why?

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

#36

Post by lostmymind66 »

tasty_freeze wrote: post #27
mikekij wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think my problem with the whole thing is how politicized AGW has become. There are supporters saying 'temperature is not climate when it comes to disproving climate change, yet try to use the same argument when proving that it exists.

Many supported laws for trying to reduce emissions are nothing more than wealth transfer schemes used by one group to take power from another.

I also would like to know how so many experts in their field missed the fact that they were using incorrect data sets for so many years. Google 'climate gate'. Nobody talks about it anymore, but it was a serious enough problem that hundreds of universities had to come out with retractions/explanations.

If you are a scientist that doesn't support the current narrative about climate change, you will have a difficult time getting funding and your career will most likely be over the second you submit anything for review. I've noticed that scientists that do have contrary theories are either retired or plain on retiring..for this very reason.

If scientists are going to be the authority now, what about things like the definition of sex/gender? Is it only an authority when it suits our political needs?

I don't deny that climate change is happening. There is just too much noise to really know the actual truth about the extent of the damage and what we can do to prevent it.

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

#37

Post by breakyerself »

instantwhat wrote: post #35
breakyerself wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If, tomorrow, NASA, NOAA, and the UN IPCC held a joint press conference to announce surprising new evidence which indicated that anthropogenic effects on the climate were minimal, that we could not noticeably affect the climate, regardless of our emissions, and that the climate was essentially out of our control, what would your reaction be? Would that be good news or bad news? Why?

I suppose it would be nice to know we can worry less about how we impact things, but I don't see what the point is in wishful thinking.

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

#38

Post by breakyerself »

briantakita wrote: post #28
breakyerself wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>"Except the records being broken are low temperature records. "

The last 5 years are the warmest 5 years in recorded history. Possibly the warmest in 110,000 years. It's also exactly how warm scientists predicted it would be with the emissions scenario that played out. I don't know what stupid blog you get your info from, but you should stop.

>"The magnetosphere protects Earth from space weather, which includes Cosmic radiation, Coronal holes, Coronal mass ejections, etc."

There is no evidence that cosmic or solar rays have any effect on climate. We have a good geologic record of the behavior of the magnetosphere. It doesn't correlate at all with climate data. This is from the psuedoscience blogosphere. Not actual science.

The sun affects climate, but it's variability isn't as strong as the forcing from co2 and none of the warming from the last 30 years can be from the sun since the sun has been in a cooling phase.

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

#39

Post by peterashford »

lostmymind66 wrote: post #36
tasty_freeze wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think my problem with the whole thing is how politicized AGW has become. There are supporters saying 'temperature is not climate when it comes to disproving climate change, yet try to use the same argument when proving that it exists. Many supported laws for trying to reduce emissions are nothing more than wealth transfer schemes used by one group to take power from another. I also would like to know how so many ex…

Dunning Kruger

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

#40

Post by User23 »

ocschwar wrote: post #4
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…

There are other cycles, most of which are right now in a cooling phase, and yet we are warming. So those cycles (i.e. Milankovich cycles) can be written off already

Plate tectonics are another huge factor. When Pangea existed there was just one ocean to distribute heat and no polar continent for glaciers to form on and increase the Earth’s albedo. That meant a much warmer planet.

The Quaternary glaciation is still ongoing because of those tectonic factors.

Another fun fact is that the warmest period in human existence was the Holocene maximum about 8000 years ago[1].

Geology is a fascinating field and thankfully lets us look at climate through a lens that isn’t intensely politicized.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_climatic_optimum#/m...

Post reply on HN