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

81–90 of 94 posts

Re: Nasa.gov: Evidence of Climate Change

#81

Post by jacoblyles »

todayiamme wrote: post #75
jacoblyles wrote: post #72

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 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 technology Ironically, our ancestors said analogous th…

>"Ironically, our ancestors said analogous things. Are we truly that different?"

The difference between human society before 1800 and today is huge.

Re: Nasa.gov: Evidence of Climate Change

#82

Post by M1573RMU74710N »

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.

Well first of all, this statement is complete BS.

"Alarmism" is a loaded term...of course it has a bad track record. If it turned out well, it wouldn't be called "alarmism" but foresight.

So, no duh. It's like saying "Murder has a really bad track record".

It's highly arguable that this is "alarm-ism"...that would imply it's a knee-jerk uninformed reaction, when in fact this is a scientific consensus coming from years of research.

So what matters is: this is science.

You can apply some loaded term to it...but it is science.

...and science has a pretty good track record overall. Also, science is constantly improving it's own ability and therefore track record.

Is it infallible? no...but if you want to start pulling out stuff about "track records" it's pretty silly to bet against the science.

Re: Nasa.gov: Evidence of Climate Change

#83

Post by M1573RMU74710N »

kia wrote: post #20

Why did they decided to cut the graphic at 400,000 years before today? Maybe that's because a couple of million years ago the concentration of CO2 was well above today's level? By the way here is another picture: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Atmospheric_CO2_with_glaci...

The fact that C02 levels have been higher is not necessarily in contradiction to the article, nor an important omission.

This issue as other's have pointed out is the CAUSE of the current levels and the implications thereof.

In the past the high levels of C02 were at least partially due to ice ages, which prevented the normal processes for the mitigation of C02, once the levels built up enough the greenhouse effect melted the ice and restored the levels.

Look around, there's no ice age.

So not only is there no discernible cause for the increase except out actions, we don't have a huge C02-eating army trapped in the ice waiting to be released.

Some natural mechanism will probably step in, but who knows what effects it will have.

We are monkeying with a system we know to have far reaching and potentially devastating effects.

Re: Nasa.gov: Evidence of Climate Change

#84

Post by prawn »

rdtsc wrote: post #58
prawn wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

On "more pressing issues", I often visit the Shared Words project started by another HNer that lists the most shared news articles from mainstream news sites. I am always astounded at how often the top news items on US sites are saturated with stories about gay this, homosexual that. There are so many more intriguing and pressing issues in our world than what people get up to privately and (hopefully) legally with their genitalia!

Re: Nasa.gov: Evidence of Climate Change

#85

Post by MaysonL »

jacoblyles wrote: post #73
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…

Lomborg seems to have beat you to it; see his upcomin book: http://www.amazon.com/Smart-Solutions-Climate-Change-Compari...

Re: Nasa.gov: Evidence of Climate Change

#86

Post by jonhendry »

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.

I'm sure someone said something like that at Pompeii around 79 AD.

Re: Nasa.gov: Evidence of Climate Change

#87

Post by jonhendry »

jacoblyles wrote: post #81
todayiamme wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 technology Ironically, our ancestors said analogous th…

>"Ironically, our ancestors said analogous things. Are we truly that different?" The difference between human society before 1800 and today is huge.

Nevertheless, we can't wish new, needed technology into existence. Sometimes it develops quickly, sometimes it doesn't.

Re: Nasa.gov: Evidence of Climate Change

#88

Post by natnat »

raquo wrote: post #30
dools wrote: 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?

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…

When you're looking at a line chart that starts at zero, it's very difficult to really understand what's going on unless there's a really huge amount of variability in the data. For example, charts of stock prices virtually never start at zero. Does that mean that, say, Google Finance is trying to deceive you into thinking that Apple's price went up ten times today? No, it means that they're assuming that you're not stupid and that you know how to read a chart. NASA very clearly labels the chart, and anyone who isn't astoundingly stupid or willfully trying to misunderstand the data can see very clearly that this chart starts at 160.

Re: Nasa.gov: Evidence of Climate Change

#89

Post by rdtsc »

prawn wrote: post #84
rdtsc wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> - 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…

On "more pressing issues", I often visit the Shared Words project started by another HNer that lists the most shared news articles from mainstream news sites. I am always astounded at how often the top news items on US sites are saturated with stories about gay this, homosexual that. There are so many more intriguing and pressing issues in our world than what people get up to privately and (hopefully) legally with th…

I think there is plenty of interest in keeping them thinking about genitalia instead of politics, economy, propaganda and the environment.
Post reply on HN