311–320 of 549 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Many hacker news readers would prefer sources such as peer reviewed science journal articles where the authors claim proof one way or the other. The best way to evaluate science is to look at the raw data and the scientist's original paper.
Yeah, I'm sure you have the time, inclination and expertise to look over billions of data points and make your own conclusions.
This repeats some buried comments but I think it's worthwhile: I'm not a climate scientist, but in my experience the absolute most reliable, most time-efficient way to learn about climate change is the IPCC reports. I wonder if there is anything written in any other field that compares: http://www.ipcc.ch/ Specifically, if you are short on time, read the 'Summaries for Policymakers', written at the level and attentio…
A couple years back I read the IPCC reports trying to find out if global warming was real or not. I noticed the Vostok ice core data in the earlier reports showed the temperature rose first and then the CO2 rose. Likewise, the temperature fell first and then the CO2 fell later on. They fixed this little inconvenient data problem in the later reports.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm
> ... This statement does not tell the whole story. The initial changes in temperature during this period are explained by changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun, which affects the amount of seasonal sunlight reaching the Earth’s surface. In the case of warming, the lag between temperature and CO2 is explained as follows: as ocean temperatures rise, oceans release CO2 into the atmosphere. In turn, this release amplifies the warming trend, leading to yet more CO2 being released. In other words, increasing CO2 levels become both the cause and effect of further warming. This positive feedback is necessary to trigger the shifts between glacials and interglacials as the effect of orbital changes is too weak to cause such variation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html
That essay is not, however, an invitation to the Galileo gambit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
OK. I'm curious. What prestige science journal article says "virtually certain" that man is primary cause of global warming? What phrasing in the results section makes you feel that it is "near proof" ? I'm not asking for "it is likely or probable". I'll buy that. I want solid proof ... or , uh "almost proof". [edit: nobody up to it ? ]
Am I to understand that you'll only "bet the climate" if it's a sure thing? I'm curious to know if all important decisions you make are backed only by "virtually certain" odds that the outcome of your decision will be as you predicted. Not trolling, honestly. I really want to better understand this mindset.
"Virtual certainty" may not always be "settled science".
I do think we should curtail pollution; regardless of the scientific certainty on man as primary cause of global warming.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Citation needed.
Here's a good one: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/04/global-warming-slowdown-... 44 Climate Models all fighting to out-panic one another, not a single one guessing low enough to predict the actual values for 2012 (when it seems the dataset in question ended) ... and a seemingly more reputable one showing roughly the same thing: http://phys.org/news/2015-01-peer-reviewed-pocket-calculator...
Notably absent is con-trails. The jury is still out, but there is strong evidence that they can have a significant effect. The rise of jet travel has also coincided with hydrocarbon use. Water vapor is also a much stronger greenhouse gas than CO2.
Con-trail data would match the CO2 and temperature line. It would show another correlation that might call into question the validity of the absolute undeniable fact that CO2's correlation is causation. There are people with simple minds that would then question CO2's role in Global Warming. We can't give those deniers anything else to hang their hat on. It's the same reason we need to use the "Land Use" data instead…
Why not? What if con-trails turned out to be THE major contributor after all? The implications would be that we should develop clean coal powered aircraft because they'd only emit CO2 instead of water vapor. It would kind of derail the entire "fossil fuels are bad" concept which looks like the real agenda to me.
I don't like the geopolitics of fossil fuels either, but I'd prefer if we don't create a fake crisis to change it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
OK. I'm curious. What prestige science journal article says "virtually certain" that man is primary cause of global warming? What phrasing in the results section makes you feel that it is "near proof" ? I'm not asking for "it is likely or probable". I'll buy that. I want solid proof ... or , uh "almost proof". [edit: nobody up to it ? ]
> 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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Honestly dude, do the fucking research. Read the IPCC. Hell even Wikipedia has the fundamentals extremely well explained. We know very, stupid well what's causing the climate to change. CO2 concentration is not just a correlation in the models, but has a directly observable physical effect that has been known about in labs and was later shown to be the primary reason for global warming." Again, "Do the fucking resea…
>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…
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 considered a kook. THIS ISN'T SCIENCE NO MATTER HOW MANY BLOGS AND WEBSITES SAY IT IS!!!!
The pope talked about it last week during his speech. He mentioned climate change, but he also mentioned that abortion is wrong (and hurting the environment) and that people that are transgender are against god.
Which part do you think the media picked up on?
The Left in the US has been demonizing religion for many years..especially the pope due to many anti-science beliefs. Now, because he happens to fit the narrative, he's talked about in those same communities like we should listen.
Since there isn't really any scientific basis for his opinion, it really makes me wonder about many of the other "studies" going around the Internet.
I've done research on many of the people that claim to be a 'Climate scientist' and most aren't even close.
"They in turn stopped burning the forests of the Eastern US. The forests recovered, and pulled a huge amount of carbon out of the air. This caused an ice age."
So there are other reasons why the climate changed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
None of the models have performed very well. You probably won't find a scorecard because it's embarrassing.
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.
Scroll-to-page for this vis is horribly broken on Firefox - there's a very narrow gap in the scrolling where the header paragraphs are visible.