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

Ice core scientists in East Greenland reach bedrock

news.ku.dk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

351–356 of 356 posts

Re: Ice core scientists in East Greenland reach bedrock

#351

Post by briantakita »

arp242 wrote: post #331
rsynnott wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, the ozone holes, acid rain, and things like Y2K. “This thing would have been very bad, but we (expensively, with great effort) fixed it, so it was okay” somehow becomes, in the public imagination, “this was not a real thing”.

Yup, loads of examples! I really like the population levels of threatened species because the charts for that are so incredible concrete and demonstrate the point very well in a very concise manner. Something like Y2K or acid rain is a lot less concrete.

The population levels of threatened species is a straightforward model with predictive value unlike the climate models. One issue with the climate models the algorithm frequently changes, not all inputs are accounted for, measurement problems & factors introduced (the 1930s thermometer measurements were higher than the equal thermometer measurements today but factored to be lower in the model), and the length of natural cycles (many are longer than modern instrumentation & some last > 1000 years).

The most outlandish sensationalist claims grab mainstream attention (no snow by 2020) and when the predictions turn out not to be true, the advocates retreat to "well it was never a mainstream model". Classic Motte & Bailey. So in this case, the models that predict doom & gloom in the mid-term future saturate the media (Bailey) and when the predictions turn out to be false, it was claimed to never be a mainstream model (Motte).

If it's not a mainstream model, why are news outlets scaring the population with these fringe models? Even the IPCC director is chiding the doomsayers to not be so extreme in their prognostications.

Weather reports now use scary red color schemes to represent highs when a few years ago, higher highs were represented with a sun & blue color scheme. News coverage of heat outweigh coverage of summer time record lows & record sized hail in the mid US & Europe.

Re: Ice core scientists in East Greenland reach bedrock

#352

Post by detourdog »

angiosperm wrote: post #350
detourdog wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read it but I didn't take it as proof. A team of people when faced with a mystery and the came up with an answer. They is not the same as proof in my book. I also did poorly in school. I'm not good at taking this as stated. I enjoy wallowing in the unknown rather than believe everything I'm told to me own detriment.

A wikipedia article does not pretend to be proof. It is a summary. For proof you would need to look at the, y'know, evidence . The decay rates of the isotopes involved are known exactly. It is hard to find anything more certain than timelines revealed by radioactive decay.

I see we disagree on this point.

Re: Ice core scientists in East Greenland reach bedrock

#354

Post by briantakita »

briantakita wrote: post #351
arp242 wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup, loads of examples! I really like the population levels of threatened species because the charts for that are so incredible concrete and demonstrate the point very well in a very concise manner. Something like Y2K or acid rain is a lot less concrete.

The population levels of threatened species is a straightforward model with predictive value unlike the climate models. One issue with the climate models the algorithm frequently changes, not all inputs are accounted for, measurement problems & factors introduced (the 1930s thermometer measurements were higher than the equal thermometer measurements today but factored to be lower in the model), and the length of natu…

At the risk of being downvoted in bad faith by the doomsday cult, I will lay out a rationale of not giving into the doom & gloom, but rather to promote a more effective system of adaptation opposed to blind faith in institutions.

> Also, the ozone holes, acid rain, and things like Y2K. “This thing would have been very bad, but we (expensively, with great effort) fixed it, so it was okay” somehow becomes, in the public imagination, “this was not a real thing”.

The decrease in large volcanic eruptions had a large impact on the restoration of the ozone layer, which coincided with the ban on CFCs in 1987.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_volcanic_eruptions_150...

Don't get me wrong, I'm in favor of reducing air pollution. However, there are other factors. A new ozone hole was recently discovered & the "Cosmic Ray Electron Reaction" model shows that non-human factors have a significant impact. So we have three factors, such as volcanic eruptions, CFCs, & Cosmic Rays which can deplete the ozone layer.

https://bgr.com/science/scientists-found-a-massive-new-hole-...

I think this drives at the heart of this discussion. Even if we ban CFCs, holes in the ozone layer will still occur. Even if we ban CO2, climate change will still occur. Due to change being inevitable, the best investment is in adaptation. An effective system of adaptation covers all of the possible cases. Banning CO2/CFCs does not stop climate change/ozone layer depletion, leaving us in the same position of needing to adapt.

Adaption is pro-people while bans are pro-institutions. I favor helping the people in tangible ways instead of funneling money to large capital interests & the elite cadre. Funneling money to the elites always enables corruption & waste. I would rather everyone be strengthened to adapt to the coming changes to the climate instead of forcing them to have faith in institutions led by the elites that will be unable to stop the climate changes, but have promoted fringe models to scare the people into complying with funneling money to the elites.

Re: Ice core scientists in East Greenland reach bedrock

#355

Post by _diyar »

Miraste wrote: post #281
slashdev wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the other hand if we only have 2-3 degrees of warming, if that’s enough to prevent the next ice age, didn’t we just dodge a massive icy bullet? Might we not one day thank ourselves for doing something reckless and stupid that actually worked out? Yeah a warmer climate brings all kinds of horrible changes. But food still grows in the northern hemisphere. A colder climate is arguably even worse for us. By the way, t…

There's no bullet to dodge. Minus human intervention, the next ice age would be in 50,000 years. Humanity will be either some unrecognizable scifi trope or, more likely, long gone by then. Planning for it is pointless. The time scales for anthropogenic climate change and the previous temperature cycles are so different as to not be comparable.

> Minus human intervention, the next ice age would be in 50,000 years. Humanity will be either some unrecognizable scifi trope or, more likely, long gone by then.

I think you are overestimating the probability that humanity would be "long gone by then". Even if a series of catastrophic events + climate change make life as we know it (modern civilization, globalized society/trade) untenable, humans are smart and many places on earth are reasonably forgiving to survival. Not saying it would be comfortable tho.

Re: Ice core scientists in East Greenland reach bedrock

#356

Post by samstave »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #259
samstave wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would seem to me, that the best way to do long-scale climate models of a body ; knowing its composition in layers over time is really important to be able to calculate the flow of the layers of composition as particles. Think of the experiment of light as wave/particle... Glacial/geological scales operate as thus ; as physical masses of particles, but move in more wave-like manners - so you'll have material suspen…

Perhaps? Not sure I'm following the methodology you're suggesting. Most (perhaps all?) of the climate models I've read about or played with are based on energy balance. (energy in vs energy out) Start with Solar insolation (energy in) then subtract all the ways that energy leaves the planet (reflection and radiatively from the atmosphere.) Then add that the planet is its own heat source (molten core and all that) and…

I came up with an hypothosis ; particles amd waves work orthoganly -

The particles will have the energy in direction A But a wave is the ability to PUSH

So if its a recipricating PULSE, it has the wave of PUSH - this velocity can be proximity - (RSSI) type...

so aside from lidar (which I have spoke on) - you reflect the UVs (i met an PHD on this and he revealed) --- so LOAA is scanning material types - and thus is in the position to TARGET material,,,

This is super secret

Post reply on HN