What's Really Warming the World? • Hacker News Board

Re: What's Really Warming the World?

#361

Post by EdSharkey » Wed, Jun 24, 2015, 6:38 PM UTC

pistle wrote: post #350

EdSharkey wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tut, tut. You are right of course, but you are still out of line here. Let me remind you in no uncertain terms that the correct meme is now 'climate change'. To say 'global warming' confirms that the models predict warming. Of course, the models still DO continue to predict warming, however recent climate data suggests we are in a cooling phase. We must be vigilant to maintain our thought controls in order to remain…

You're out of step and, yourself, out of line. https://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=326 The name change agenda is most often liked to a Republican strategist based on focus groups saying CC was LESS scary than GW.

I was pointing out how the parent sounded like a creep with his groupthink shaming routine. What a bore.

You can spin what I said with some "republicans are evil" noise, but my original point stands.

As for you, don't be so religious. Your "out of step" crack makes you sound like a creep too.

Re: What's Really Warming the World?

#362

Post by Steuard » Wed, Jun 24, 2015, 6:39 PM UTC

possibilistic wrote: post #176

wnewman wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The real trick is to see how well your model extrapolates from the data you have out into the future." That is the most common way to show the modeller is not shamelessly overfitting.:-| Another way, though, is less common but not vanishingly uncommon: the model may be so much simpler than the data it fits that overfitting is not a plausible explanation. (Roughly there are too many bits of entropy in the match to th…

Do you happen to have this one to five pages of QM equations somewhere as reference? I would be very interested in reading that.

This sounds like a fantastic exercise to assign to physics majors in some sort of capstone class. What a neat idea. I may have to try this.

Re: What's Really Warming the World?

#363

Post by jwp729 » Wed, Jun 24, 2015, 6:39 PM UTC

sgt101 wrote: post #351

wnewman wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The real trick is to see how well your model extrapolates from the data you have out into the future." That is the most common way to show the modeller is not shamelessly overfitting.:-| Another way, though, is less common but not vanishingly uncommon: the model may be so much simpler than the data it fits that overfitting is not a plausible explanation. (Roughly there are too many bits of entropy in the match to th…

Well - that's true apart from co-incidence. You can have a very simple theory which says "x is directly caused by y" and there is a lot of good data, and a great fit. But it's kist a co-incidence and breaks down immediately. Occam's razor is a rule of thumb and an aesthetic boon, but nothing more. The real test is that you have a theory that is meaningful and has explanatory power. If it grants insight on the mechani…

I think the information theoretic approach to modeling concerns actually implies such "simpler is better" approaches as Occam's Razor. At least that's my take on [http://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/9601030], which derives a quantitative form of it.

Re: What's Really Warming the World?

#364

Post by nosuchthing » Wed, Jun 24, 2015, 6:40 PM UTC

themgt wrote: post #346

Helpful when reading this thread to keep in mind Michael Mann's six stages of climate change denial: 1. CO2 is not actually increasing. 2. Even if it is, the increase has no impact on the climate since there is no convincing evidence of warming. 3. Even if there is warming, it is due to natural causes. 4. Even if the warming cannot be explained by natural causes, the human impact is small, and the impact of continued…

Interesting note from the l0phet article the other day regarding how fire codes and regulation in cities didn't come about even after great disaster swept the city.

  Wysopal offered this grim precedent: Cities were once 
  vulnerable to disastrous fires, which raged through dense 
  clusters of mostly wooden buildings. It took a giant fire 
  in Chicago to spur government officials into serious 
  reforms, including limits on new wooden structures, a 
  more robust water supply for suppressing blazes and an 
  overhaul to the city’s fire department.


  “The market didn’t solve the problem of cities burning 
  down,” Wysopal said, predicting that Internet security 
  may require a historic disaster to force change. “It 
  seems to me that the market isn’t really going to solve 
  this one on its own.”

  But here’s a frightening fact: The push to create tough 
  new fire-safety standards did not start after the Great 
  Chicago Fire in 1871, which killed hundreds of people and 
  left 100,000 homeless. It took a second fire, nearly 
  three years later in 1874, to get officials in Chicago to 
  finally make real changes.

Re: What's Really Warming the World?

#365

Post by bjt » Wed, Jun 24, 2015, 6:40 PM UTC

themgt wrote: post #346

Helpful when reading this thread to keep in mind Michael Mann's six stages of climate change denial: 1. CO2 is not actually increasing. 2. Even if it is, the increase has no impact on the climate since there is no convincing evidence of warming. 3. Even if there is warming, it is due to natural causes. 4. Even if the warming cannot be explained by natural causes, the human impact is small, and the impact of continued…

Though I wouldn't accept #5 and #6 exactly as phrased, it does seem like positive effects ought to be balanced against the negative, and the uncertainty of future technological developments ought to inform our current decision of how much to spend addressing climate change.

Does that make me a climate change denier?

Re: What's Really Warming the World?

#366

Post by gnaritas » Wed, Jun 24, 2015, 6:40 PM UTC

tosseraccount wrote: post #314

spdustin wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Science once labeled gay as a mental disease. Science once said that neutrinos have no mass. Science once thought that the universe was the Milky Way only. "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.

> Science once labeled gay as a mental disease.

No it didn't.

> Science once said that neutrinos have no mass.

No it didn't.

> Science once thought that the universe was the Milky Way only.

No it didn't.

All of those are made up facts that bear no resemblance to reality. Science doesn't say or think things, it merely shows the current state of evidence for theories and when new evidence comes along, wrong theories are disproven. That's what science does, it disproves ideas.

A scientist likely once theorized that gay was a mental disease, the process of science disproved that theory; ditto for everything else you said. You're confusing some scientists bad theories for science itself, they are entirely different things.

Re: What's Really Warming the World?

#367

Post by npsimons » Wed, Jun 24, 2015, 6:41 PM UTC

IvyMike wrote: post #358

rza wrote: post #342

This graphic really just plays into the hands of climate change deniers. No labelled axis, a timeline of only 100 years (you could also argue the dinosaurs caused global warming), and the quite proud declaration at the end the argument is really "no contest" under the assumption that correlation == causation. I could also make a graph that shows the increase in global temperature correlating with the rise in the Lati…

> under the assumption that correlation == causation Except we do have a pretty good understanding of the chemisty/physics of the greenhouse effect, too. So there's a prediction ("increased CO2 will lead to warming") and a validation. What more do they want?

> What more do they want?

They won't tell you, because then they wouldn't be able to move the goalposts, by "just asking questions".

Re: What's Really Warming the World?

#368

Post by sergiosgc » Wed, Jun 24, 2015, 6:42 PM UTC

IvyMike wrote: post #358

rza wrote: post #342

This graphic really just plays into the hands of climate change deniers. No labelled axis, a timeline of only 100 years (you could also argue the dinosaurs caused global warming), and the quite proud declaration at the end the argument is really "no contest" under the assumption that correlation == causation. I could also make a graph that shows the increase in global temperature correlating with the rise in the Lati…

> under the assumption that correlation == causation Except we do have a pretty good understanding of the chemisty/physics of the greenhouse effect, too. So there's a prediction ("increased CO2 will lead to warming") and a validation. What more do they want?

Obviously, an explanation for the break in the causation link that was observed between '96 until '10. CO2 production rose faster than modeled while warming took a break.

Re: What's Really Warming the World?

#369

Post by spdustin » Wed, Jun 24, 2015, 6:42 PM UTC

IanDrake wrote: post #259

phkahler wrote: post #166

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…

I recall reading an article, but can't seem to find it, that studied changes in the atmosphere after the post-9/11 grounding of US flights. Granted, it was only free of condensation trails for a short period, but it was an unprecedented opportunity to test hypotheses related to their effect on the atmosphere.

The three or so days without US air traffic showed warmer days (because of lowered albedo, and thus less reflected sunlight) and cooler nights (because less of the earth's radiative heat energy was trapped). The thought, because of the efficiency differences of the albedo-vs-"heat blanket" effect that clouds bring, was that it was a net-warming effect that contrails cause. Scientists continued studied that, IIRC, and found that its contribution is indeed measurable, but accounts for an increase of something like 0.02° Fahrenheit.

The primary concern with commercial air traffic is their conversion of matter millions of years in the making to energy and waste products that have a more measurable effect on climate. The physical contribution of their condensation trails, via their reflective and absorptive properties, is a minor player. A player, certainly. I suspect air traffic won't decrease until we see other modes of transportation compete economically, which isn't happening any time soon.

Re: What's Really Warming the World?

#370

Post by gnaritas » Wed, Jun 24, 2015, 6:42 PM UTC

tosseraccount wrote: post #311

astrodust wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I'm sure you have the time, inclination and expertise to look over billions of data points and make your own conclusions.

If you can link to the raw data so that I can wget it I will take a look at it.

You aren't capable of interpreting it, as is no one individual which is rather the point you're missing.