Live data from Hacker News

Nasa.gov: Evidence of Climate Change

climate.nasa.gov

51–60 of 94 posts

Re: Nasa.gov: Evidence of Climate Change

#51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think he's probably saying that most people are like that, and sadly, I have to agree.

Ah that's a good point - reminds me of this: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2010/10/1...

That, and I've also definitely been guilty of ignoring new articles on the matter. I am already convinced climate change is happening, so why should I bother reading the 26th article on whether it's happening or not?

I'm sure the same thing happens with people who are not convinced.

Re: Nasa.gov: Evidence of Climate Change

#52
post #34

You know whenever I read about this debate for some reason I recall George Carlin's prophetic words; "The planet is fine.... The people are fucked." http://www.google.co.in/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&#38... Whether we like to admit this or not; the earth and life will go on without us. It's our own survival we are fighting for over here; not a complex system in which life has taken hold by surviving through tough odds…

Alarmism has a really bad track record.

yeah I know, nukes aren't really dangerous are they?

Just to be clear, the parent argument is that people have been saying that our activities are dangerous for a while, but nothing really bad has happened yet. That's like saying no one has detonated a nuke yet so we shouldn't worry about nuclear proliferation.

Re: Nasa.gov: Evidence of Climate Change

#53
post #50
post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"figure out who hopes to make money from a scam, and things get a lot clearer." So let's get this straight. Your theory is that a 95% scientific consensus exists because they're all trying to make money off a scam? What's the scam, you get a PhD, postdoc, do 4 years of research at poverty-level wages and you get a 40k grant? Wow, that's effective. Wouldn't they just work in finance or technology if they wanted money?…

Scientists may not care much about money... But they care a great deal about peer recognition, status, buying expensive hardware to do simulations, having a lot of grad students, etc. All of those would disappear if convincing evidence against climate change were found. I once heard a top scientist in solar science complain that his field had been corrupted that way. I agree that Science is our best hope for understa…

Yeah, so in that field, if you're one of the 5% guys and you're actually right, and can make a convincing case? Total meal ticket. Everyone loves the David beats Goliath story when David wins.

The problem isn't incentives, it's evidence. The overwhelming majority of evidence points towards an existing warming trend that's exacerbated by CO2.

Re: Nasa.gov: Evidence of Climate Change

#54
post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does the y-axis of a graph need to begin at 0? 0 is a number like any other number. If the result set you're attempting to display doesn't have any values at 0 then why would you display 0? The graph in question also doesn't show any data points at y=-257,687 ... does that concern you?

Edward Tufte agrees with you: Baselines In general, in a time-series, use a baseline that shows the data not the zero point. If the zero point reasonably occurs in plotting the data, fine. But don't spend a lot of empty vertical space trying to reach down to the zero point at the cost of hiding what is going on in the data line itself. (The book, How to Lie With Statistics, is wrong on this point.) For examples, all…

> The book, How to Lie With Statistics, is wrong on this point.

Ugh, the more I read of Tufte the less I like him. He loves to make blanket statements (like calling a point "wrong") in an authoritative way, and he's amassed enough adoring followers that people repeat his words like gospel instead of calling him on it.

It's valid to say that a non-zero-based scale shows the data better. But it's also completely valid to note that non-zero-based scales can be used in alarmist ways to make data extremely misleading.

I thought "The Visual Display of Quantitative Information" was terrible, and I went in really wanting to like it: http://www.amazon.com/review/R11NYC3OE3LBE

Re: Nasa.gov: Evidence of Climate Change

#55
post #42

For anyone who still thinks Anthropogenic Global Warming is real, some reading material: http://everist.org/archives/links/!_AGW_links.txt http://everist.org/archives/links/!_CRU_emails_links.txt Oh and yes, the graph was limited to 400K years,because otherwise it would show CO2 levels in the past FAR higher than today. And it doesn't show CO2 vs temp over geological timescales, because that graph clearly shows that…

You mean I should believe a huge stream-of-consciousness ascii file over scientific papers? Sorry, that's not going to fly with me. And your money argument doesn't work. Are you seriously saying those who argue AGW is NOT real don't have a financial interest in that?

> Are you seriously saying those who argue AGW is NOT real don't have a financial interest in that?

Are you seriously saying that every single person who has ever questioned the establishment line on AGW has a financial interest in some kind of carbon emitting industry? Bollocks. I am not a "believer" or a "denier" but rather a skeptic, of both sides, whom I find to be very agenda-driven.

Now you might think I'm an idiot, and fair enough, but my argumentativeness is in no way whatsoever driven by financial interests. I don't think I am alone in that. Please factor that into your thinking.

Re: Nasa.gov: Evidence of Climate Change

#56
post #34

You know whenever I read about this debate for some reason I recall George Carlin's prophetic words; "The planet is fine.... The people are fucked." http://www.google.co.in/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&#38... Whether we like to admit this or not; the earth and life will go on without us. It's our own survival we are fighting for over here; not a complex system in which life has taken hold by surviving through tough odds…

Alarmism has a really bad track record.

Underestimating problems has a bad track record, too.

Re: Nasa.gov: Evidence of Climate Change

#57
post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alarmism has a really bad track record.

Underestimating problems has a bad track record, too.

Ah, but it's only the overestimated ones you hear about.

Africanized Killer Bees, Asteroid Impact, Global Warming, Mayan Calendars, etc. Another new one comes down the pike every 5 years, and it's always going to end the world in the next 20 years. Fortunately, they're almost always blowing the downside way out of proportion.

Re: Nasa.gov: Evidence of Climate Change

#58
post #22

I think at this point, everyone has made up their minds which side to believe, and more evidence isn't going to help the matter, unless it is the sort of rock-hard evidence no one can possibly ignore (like repeated snowless winters in Detroit).

Unfortunately, I think you're right. A friend of mine (who works in energy) was telling me about how the case for renewable energy is being made (to some extent) successfully in Kansas. They push three points: - reduce expenditure - US should reduce reliance on foreign oil - have a duty to protect the earth god gave us I wonder if the broader case could be made more successfully along these lines (with variations for…

> - have a duty to protect the earth god gave us

One thing that has always baffled me about American Christians is how apathetic they are towards the environment.

At its core, I guess, the issue is that many are suckered by the right wingers and propaganda from large corporations to vote in their camp, by always bringing up other, more "pressing", moral issues.

I think as long as there are only 2 main viable parties to vote for, many of those folks will still vote along the traditional party lines.

So I agree with you, but it is an uphill battle.

Re: Nasa.gov: Evidence of Climate Change

#59
post #53
post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Scientists may not care much about money... But they care a great deal about peer recognition, status, buying expensive hardware to do simulations, having a lot of grad students, etc. All of those would disappear if convincing evidence against climate change were found. I once heard a top scientist in solar science complain that his field had been corrupted that way. I agree that Science is our best hope for understa…

Yeah, so in that field, if you're one of the 5% guys and you're actually right, and can make a convincing case? Total meal ticket. Everyone loves the David beats Goliath story when David wins. The problem isn't incentives, it's evidence. The overwhelming majority of evidence points towards an existing warming trend that's exacerbated by CO2.

In solar science, the reason we get so much money is that satellite-launching agencies would like us to produce a "solar weather forecast", because solar eruptions can severely damage equipment in orbit. The top scientist I mentioned earlier had a paper that basically said:

"Solar weather forecasting is much more complicated than anticipated. The medium-term prospects are grim."

He bitterly complained that his paper was ignored. All the other scientists were busy making (possibly hopeless) predictions and applying for more grants. See also: the AI winter.

Yeah, so in that field, if you're one of the 5% guys and you're actually right, and can make a convincing case?

The issue here is that in a complex field, with such incredible uncertainty, when do we ever have a truly "convincing case"? Who's to be the judge on that? Hacker News readers? The government? So that leaves us with the other scientists. If they are any good, they'll graciously acknowledge the challenger's criticism. But if they are heavily invested in the status quo, they might find it easier to just ignore you.

I love science. But I'm uneasy its politicization. We've discussed a prominent scientist's resignation from the American Physical Society before: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1775143 The top comment was great.

Re: Nasa.gov: Evidence of Climate Change

#60
Despite the conservative naysayers, the federal government is heavily invested in climate research. Take the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Lab (GFDL) in Princeton, NJ. This is a NOAA facility involved with sophisticated climate models. Raytheon, a major defense contractor, was involved in day-to-day operations and public relations.

A defense contractor is involved with public relations for this facility, not Indymedia.

Typically, climate models require the resources of high-performance computing facilities with thousands of processors. These facilities cost tens of millions of dollars to implement, and millions to maintain.

Why is climate research a matter of national security, involving the oversight of defense contractors and personnel with security clearance? For at least two reasons. First, it is of strategic interest to the United States to know how the planet will be affected by global warming. If large parts of China or the Netherlands are going to end up submerged under 20 feet of water, and millions of people will have to be evacuated, this U.S. would not want to outsource the ability to forecast this to, let us say, non-allied countries.

Another reason is that with the increased likelihood of hurricanes in the Gulf (to mention one case of extreme weather) it is a matter of national security to have better models for predicting the likely trajectory of a hurricane as it approaches land. A wrong guess can cost billions.

Despite the global warming deniers among politicians who are loyal to the big energy lobby, you can rest assured that funding for the development of sophisticated climate models and the elaborate high-performance computing systems, scientists and operational support personnel needed to design, run and maintain them them is provisioned by the federal government as a matter national security.

Post reply on HN