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

Nasa.gov: Evidence of Climate Change

climate.nasa.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 94 posts

Re: Nasa.gov: Evidence of Climate Change

#71

Post by tsiki »

nice1 wrote: post #34
todayiamme wrote: post #32

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.

Pretending sound scientific research is alarming has much, much worse record (see the past 'debates' over whether CFC's contribute to ozone depletion or whether cigarettes are bad for human health).

The first IPCC assesment report was published 20 years ago. It would take copious amounts of confirmation bias to pretend they're being alarmist.

Re: Nasa.gov: Evidence of Climate Change

#72

Post by jacoblyles »

todayiamme wrote: post #35
nice1 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alarmism has a really bad track record.

It's not alarmism, what I'm saying is that this civilization is unsustainable by any metric you care to throw at it. We've over run our phosphorous reserves. We're depleting energy, land and the ability to feed our civilization. We're systematically amputating ourselves while worrying about the blood spilling on the floor. It just strikes me how far away from reality this debate has taken us. Yes, none of this will k…

>It's not alarmism, what I'm saying is that this civilization is unsustainable by any metric you care to throw at it

That sounds like alarmism to me.

You can find examples of writers worrying about running out of the specific resources industry used at the time running back to the 19th century. The modern environmentalist movement has predicted apocalypse like clockwork every ten years dating back to 1960.

The current environmentalist movement is much more well-funded and professional. I guess time will tell if that means they are more accurate.

I'm not familiar with Diamond's book, but it's worth pointing out that the civilizations he examines are at a much earlier phase of technology. Individual differences often confound authors who try to paint historical trends with a broad pen.

Re: Nasa.gov: Evidence of Climate Change

#73

Post by jacoblyles »

sliverstorm wrote: post #6

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).

I'm a little slow to update my belief weightings compared to your average right-thinking liberal, mainly because I read "The Skeptical Environmentalist" and its striking history of past disasters predicted by the environmentalist movement that failed to come true. But I do update my belief weightings eventually and I find myself becoming more convinced that CAGW is a problem over time.

However, I haven't heard of any new good cost/benefit analysis that makes the case for drastic action. Most economic studies I have heard of recommend only modest action, certainly nothing like what is proposed at UN climate conferences. The Kyoto Protocol, for example, easily fails any cost/benefit analysis.

Studying Economics in University again ruined my chances of being a "good person". I can never get on board the "Act Now!" train, I can only think "is the cost of acting worth the benefit it provides?", and that manner of thinking is doomed to make you unpopular at cocktail parties.

Re: Nasa.gov: Evidence of Climate Change

#74

Post by sesqu »

lutorm wrote: post #40
raquo wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because when zero is not marked it is impossible to judge the relative magnitude of all graph fluctuations without looking at the y axis scale. On this graph a lot of people (incl. me) would be tricked into thinking that in the last 100 years the amount of CO2 increased by an order of magnitude. Now, I know that's impossible, and I checked the scale at the left to find the usual suspect. But many normal people would…

The magnitude of the fluctuations should really be judged against the error bars, not against zero. That's what tells you whether the change is significant.

But that doesn't tell you whether it's important. Statistical significance is a measure of trustworthiness, given assumptions about the generating process. It tells you nothing about whether the data is in any way meaningful, after assuming relibility.

What does tell you about that type significance of (rational) data is the delta, which requires the 0 in order for you to see the scale. Now, in many interesting cases this could be represented as error bars under H0, but that's usually not done in publications, because they only have room for one plot type.

The range of the plot is not arbitrary. To suggest otherwise is deceptive.

Re: Nasa.gov: Evidence of Climate Change

#75

Post by todayiamme »

jacoblyles wrote: post #72
todayiamme wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not alarmism, what I'm saying is that this civilization is unsustainable by any metric you care to throw at it. We've over run our phosphorous reserves. We're depleting energy, land and the ability to feed our civilization. We're systematically amputating ourselves while worrying about the blood spilling on the floor. It just strikes me how far away from reality this debate has taken us. Yes, none of this will k…

>It's not alarmism, what I'm saying is that this civilization is unsustainable by any metric you care to throw at it That sounds like alarmism to me. You can find examples of writers worrying about running out of the specific resources industry used at the time running back to the 19th century. The modern environmentalist movement has predicted apocalypse like clockwork every ten years dating back to 1960. The curren…

Actually, he backs up his claims with pretty hard data. He draws conclusion from a wide variety of metrics and evidence like core samples, records, tool use, geological standing, possible trade relations, genetic sampling etc.

You really need to read him. Check his wikipedia page out ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jared_Diamond )

>>>are at a much earlier phase of technologyIronically, our ancestors said analogous things. Are we truly that different?

Re: Nasa.gov: Evidence of Climate Change

#76

Post by pvxc »

electromagnetic wrote: post #64
mmphosis wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Look closely at the right edge of the picture. The text below the picture is revealing... Human deforestation and burning of fossil fuel has raised atmospheric CO2 to over 380 ppm in the last century, well above pre-industrialized levels, and "off the scale" of this graph top.

"Off the scale" is a complete fucking BS term. The carboniferous period had a mean CO2 concentration of around 800ppm and was marked by glaciation and low sea levels - our current correlation between CO2 and "global warming" is off the bullshit scale. The mean global temperature in the carboniferous period, with CO2 concentrations over double of present day was an astounding, just wait for it... 14C, which is the inc…

Both CO2 concentrations and the global temperature varied significantly over that period of Earth's history (~400-250 millions of years ago). Around 300 Mya, CO2 was comparable to what it is today and temperatures were likewise comparable. Around 400 Mya, CO2 was in the 4000ppm's and the temperature was likewise higher (by ~ 8 C). No contradiction.

Also, when discussing matters scientific, please cite your scientific sources --- otherwise the discussion is of little value. Like so:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v449/n7159/abs/nature06...

2.0.CO;2" rel="nofollow">http://dx.doi.org/10.1130/1052-5173(2004)014

Re: Nasa.gov: Evidence of Climate Change

#77

Post by sesqu »

dools wrote: post #4
KaeseEs wrote: post #3

You'd think NASA would know well enough to start the y-axis at 0. Lousy graphs of this sort create the appearance of deceit, even in it absence, and wind up giving ammunition to skeptics.

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?

0 is not like any other number. It is of very special import, along with 1. In particular, when dealing with 2D graphics, people look at area. Area is defined by multiplication, and 0 and 1 are the two numbers y for multiplication such that f(x,y)=y and f(x,y)=x for all x.

0 is the only number that is not arbitrary in a scalable measurement such as a graph. That's what makes it important.

Re: Nasa.gov: Evidence of Climate Change

#78

Post by shadowfox »

16s wrote: post #69
jbooth wrote: 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?…

The scam is this... they all own stock in Toyota. The same people who cannot accurately predict whether or not it will rain tomorrow know with 100% certainty that the polar ice caps will melt if I don't buy a Prius.

> The same people who cannot accurately predict whether or not it will rain tomorrow know with 100% certainty that the polar ice caps will melt if I don't buy a Prius.

Citation?

Re: Nasa.gov: Evidence of Climate Change

#79

Post by M1573RMU74710N »

jasonkester wrote: post #57
ceejayoz wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Well here's the problem.

You're comparing apples to oranges.

The "overblown" ones you're talking about are overblown by the MEDIA.

There are basically no scientists in the relevant fields saying we need to freak out because we might get hit by an asteroid tomorrow.

It's a possibility, and we need to study it and prepare for it...but to say it's overestimated or overblown (by the people who matter) is just not true.

Global Warming on the other hand, has a huge majority of scientists in the field agreeing that we are contributing to it, and if we don't stop there are serious consequences.(note that the consequences are gradual and completely realistic).

Your comparison is flawed: you're comparing something like an asteroid strike which would be devastating and perhaps impossible to stop, but also extremely extremely unlikely, with Global Warming which is gradual and pretty well demonstrated to be occurring....it's also dishonest in claiming that those things were "overblown" (and/or the nature thereof).

Then there's the Maya thing which is just a complete joke, and the Killer Bee thing, which again was something that serious scientists brought up as a (valid) concern, but nobody was ringing huge alarm bells screaming it was the end of the world.

Re: Nasa.gov: Evidence of Climate Change

#80

Post by protomyth »

danparsonson wrote: post #13
sliverstorm wrote: post #6

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).

Really? You mean to say that if you believed something, no amount of new evidence to the contrary could persuade you to change your mind?

What evidence do you believe people will take seriously now?

Its strange. I believe in vaccines, following my doctors advice, and recycling. But, then I go to the gas station and see signs that my cellphone could cause an explosion. I remember the "going into an ice age talk" from the 1970's and the plans to heat the earth. I also remember the hate on for nuclear. Most people I know also see the "security theater" at the airport as not really addressing any real problems. Never mind the constant "you are a nut!" when people ask about the data collection, the e-mail investigation, and which politicians make money from wind as opposed to other new attempts. Also, all that "Hydrogen Economy" talk seems to have died pretty fast.

Solar and wind won't work. They are not constant as burning coal or oil, and we don't seem to have massive electrical storage technology to compensate. There aren't enough rivers to damn for power and those that are cause their own set of problems. Nuclear probably would have been ready along with a better electrical grid, but hollywood and certain environmental groups blew that.

Add to this, a whole new group of people (the "third world") that is just being able to take advantage of the products, energy creation, and manufacturing techniques that allowed the "first world" to get where they are. Now, we are telling them to not use those because they are harmful, while not providing an actual alternative.

The US is a road, liquid fuel, central electrical production country. No amount of yelling will get rid of roads. Liquid fuel might be replaceable, but it needs to be something as convenient, cheap, and easily taxed (in small chunk / not one big bill). The central grid needs to be improved and we need real, full-time replacements for coal and gas.

The worst part is whatever solution we come up with better be good enough for the third world to skip to.

Post reply on HN