461–470 of 549 posts
I also wonder if all the coal we material we burned for heat (coal and such) didn't have a cooling effect - particularly in the cities where a lot of the accurate temperature measures were taken. Again, not a scientist - truly curiously.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Is there any evidence that two masses don't attract ? The answer to that question does not in any way proof the existence of gravity. I don't mean to offend, but if you honestly ask these types of questions, I doubt you are able to evaluate the quality of original papers dealing with climate research.
You're making an adhominem argument. Have there been times when earth temperature change was not anthropogenic?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Some advice: there is definitely an acceptable way to challenge the mainstream here, but I don't think you've succeeded at it. Since all of your points have appeared here before, my suggestion is not to make them all at once (which encourages people who disagree with you not to bother responding and just to downvote) but rather to pick one or two of the most relevant points and back them up with extreme detail, meani…
"And unfortunately, no community can completely avoid politics and groupthink at all times. So if you see a large number of people who seem like they will violently disagree with any but the most tactful of arguments then you can always just let them have their echo chamber and move on." This was my entire point of posting everything, and the HN community made it quite nicely: real science can't be accomplished becau…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The science around climate change is well established--it's happening, it's man-made, and it will continue--but it's a bit more complicated than that. The physics suggests a relatively small increase in temperature (<1C); it's the positive feedbacks, particularly water vapor vapor feedbacks, that make climate change so potentially costly.
It doesn't help that estimates of the climate sensitivity seem to be all over the place.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
With taxes of course. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emissions_trading
Ok, so they collect a massive amount of taxes. Then what?
Collecting money is just a bonus.
For the past 100 years, I see little credible evidence of any significant warming, and what there is may just be that we are still pulling out of The Little Ice Age, e.g., slowly warming the oceans from the cooling they got in The Little Ice Age.
The best data I found is in
Committee on Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years, National Research Council, Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years, ISBN 0-309-66264-8, 196 pages, National Academies Press, 2006,
available at
http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11676.html
There as I read the graphs, as of 2006, the temperature was essentially the same as in the year 1000, and the increase in temperature over the past 100 years was much like that from year 900 to year 1000.
For the climate model predictions, all the data I've seen have the predictions very significantly different and all significantly higher than the actual temperatures.
For the title here "What's Really Warming the World?", from all I can tell from credible sources, so far, to any significant extent, nothing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I bring up some simple questions and I am immediately silenced. I guess I didn't realize HN was anti-science and anti-intellectual.
Paul, I disagree with your points on climate science, but I do agree there's a bit of overreaction to what could be honest questions. However maybe this explains the response: * Your questions do seem a little like assertions with question marks at the end, because they repeat some climate denial propaganda. In fairness, maybe that's all you've read (Suggestion: Don't get your climate science from mainstream media th…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You just crossed the Poe's Law boundary for me. In case you are actually in earnest, I'll make this easy for you. https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_FI...
How do you think the IPCC gets funded? Do you honestly think they would publish a report that bites the hand that feeds them? We need more independent studies. If this were a big corporation funding a study on Climate change and it didn't fit the narrative, this is exactly what you would be saying. When Money and Politics gets involved, the facts get muddied and hidden.
What interest do these organizations have in inaccurate science? How could they possibly be more neutral?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A layperson named Steve McIntyre did just that, after reading the IPCC's 3rd Assessment Report and seeing the prominently featured "Hockey Stick" based on a paper by Mann et al., and wondering, hmm... perhaps this study is reproducible? The rabbit hole that McIntyre and his colleagues have found themselves in over the last 10 years has, in my view, demonstrated the value of hacker-types taking an interest in climate…
IIRC, despite the criticsim, the 'hockey stick' study and its author were proven right. Lots of criticism doesn't make it wrong, especially in politicized debates.
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?
- We're out of touch with nature.
- Even for those in touch with nature, the human scale is too short to personally see and feel any change.
- The individual's responsibility is extremely diluted with the rest of humanity.
It will sound cheesy, but I care because of the beauty of nature. An extinction event is something that destroys biodiversity, and biodiversity is the source of this beauty as I feel it. Maybe the diversity of life will return in another form a few million years later (and maybe not), but simply understanding the act of destruction that is underway does impact me emotionally, and makes me want to stop it.