7 ms·

Time to spend some karma. Literature like this makes me happy, because it is further evidence that the alarmists have very little material left. Mercifully we

by guscost 11y ago

Time to spend some karma. Literature like this makes me happy, because it is further evidence that the alarmists have very little material left. Mercifully we may have hit the high-water mark of this generation of misanthropic environmentalist nonsense and can now enjoy several decades of joking about it. The "Recursive Fury" paper[0] was probably the actual high-water mark, and this looks like pretty much the same tactic. The fact remains that current proxy studies are thoroughly insufficient as p̶r̶o̶o̶f̶ evidence of any long-term trend we can expect to continue in a non-linear system as complex as the global climate. I guess these folks think I must be unhappy about the "necessary solution" (oh hey, it turns out to be reorganizing society according to their political beliefs!) but that amounts to an elaborate and silly ad hominem, nothing more. I think I'll write more about the "psychology journal ad-hominem" because it has become annoyingly common in recent years. The science of climate is not settled, and will not be settled in your lifetime. Get used to it. [0]http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00073/full http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00...

AC__ 11y ago
You should share your beliefs with the geoengineers running seeding programs creating algal blooms in the Pacific before they kill the whole fucking thing...
- guscost 11y ago
  Well, that is what bothers me the most about this whole train wreck. If and when there are environmental issues more deserving of our attention than the CO2 thing, many anti-intellectuals are going end up dismissing them as politically motivated propaganda without even bothering to learn about them. Congratulations.
  - AC__ 11y ago
    Be sure not to confuse condescension with intellectualism.
a3n 11y ago
Very few really big problems are ever settled in our lifetime, and yet we have to act (which can include deciding to not act) on imperfect information. We do our best. Get used to it.
- guscost 11y ago
  Very good, please continue doing that. Arguing about and working on the issues you believe to be important can be a constructive thing no matter your perspective. Likewise I will continue to argue my perspective and work on those issues I believe to be important. Dismantling pernicious groupthink is one of them.
pekk 11y ago
You missed the point of the paper, which isn't about climate change.
jfoutz 11y ago
Have the models really changed that much in 35 years though? This one has all the highlights, radiation balance, 1D and 3D modeling, climate sensitivity, the main feedbacks (water vapor, lapse rate, clouds, ice- and vegetation albedo); solar and volcanic forcing; and ocean heat uptake. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/213/4511/957 http://www.sciencemag.org/content/213/4511/957 They predict about half a degree C, and that seems to be holding up. More interesting though, what would be convincing? Computers are fast. To paraphrase the red queen, we accurately predict 6 complex nonlinear systems before breakfast. Do you think there are other hidden effects that humans haven't observed? In what sense is it not settled?
- guscost 11y ago
  This may come down to our individual philosophies, but I'm far more interested in what would convince you that a model is wrong. It's a Popperian sentiment, which may be considered quaint these days, but I rarely hear any kind of answer. Anyway, I don't think we are talking about even close to the same meaning of "complex", but one possible situation that would help convince me is if we had a "control" planet, and an "experimental" planet, with nearly identical climates and biodiversity and so on, and then we raised the CO2 level of the experimental planet, keeping in mind that all kinds of other inputs to the non-linear system should remain the same, like land use, fishing, other industrial activities, etc. If the experimental planet diverged significantly from the control planet, it wouldn't be solid 100% irrefutable proof but it would be far better evidence than anything we have today.
  - drewrv 11y ago
    >one possible situation that would help convince me is if we had a "control" planet So on this one issue it's impossible for you to be convinced.
    - guscost 11y ago
      Not at all, there could be plenty of other evidence, I just can't imagine what it would be. Other than some kind of control planet, or maybe a complete overturning of nonlinear dynamics and/or chaos theory maybe. Of course, if the ocean was engulfing whole communities faster than people could run uphill, or people were choking on CO2, I'd probably be a whole lot less rational about it and say "let's throw things at the wall to see what sticks." But so far, and after reading what I figure are among the strongest arguments out there, it still looks like your typical doomsday story dressed up as science.
erikpukinskis 11y ago
> The fact remains that current proxy studies are thoroughly insufficient as proof of any long-term trend The notion of "proving" a future trend doesn't make sense. That's not how science works. You test a model against past data, and then people use the model to help them make decisions until we find a better model. Things are only ever proved after the fact. > Literature like this makes me happy, because it is further evidence that the alarmists have very little material left. That doesn't really follow. The promotion of a psychological study could be the result of alarmists running out of material as you describe, or it could just be one story in a queue of many others. > Mercifully we may have hit the high-water mark of this generation of misanthropic environmentalist nonsense Making generic insults at unnamed people and ideas doesn't really add anything to the conversation. Could you describe some actual nonsense that has someone's name attached to it so we could talk about it?
- guscost 11y ago
  Science isn't about demanding legislation either. And the entire OP is a thinly-veiled insult aimed at the authors' political opponents. That's the point I'm trying to make, although perhaps it could be made more politely.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - giaour 11y ago
    The study (and the article) took pains to point out that what they observed is a universal phenomenon, as evidenced by liberals dismissing concerns about rising crime if the solution meant more guns and conservatives dismissing climate science if it meant more taxes.
    - guscost 11y ago
      A few discrepancies (maybe the actual paper clears these up if anyone has a copy): - The global warming part is discussed in much more detail (i.e. actual percentages, the statement that Democrats didn't show different behavior). - Measuring the total number of violent break-ins is way easier than measuring humanity's impact on global temperatures, the available data regarding the former is a lot simpler to logically connect to "a problem" than the available data regarding the latter, etc. - I'm not aware of any politically significant faction on the left claiming that violent crimes are not increasing, if that is in fact what researchers are claiming. In short, it seems like the other half was thrown in there to suggest a balanced perspective (again, the actual paper may be different so this could only affect the press release).
rorykoehler 11y ago
I just want to live in a clean, healthy, diverse and vibrant environment regardless of any climate science. It's unfortunate that your standards are so low when it comes to pollution, the mass extinction human activity creates and the general destruction of the planets ancient ecosystems but seeing as you don't really care it would be wise to get out of the way of the people who do.
- guscost 11y ago
  I also consider a healthy environment to be a valuable resource, and our disagreement is entirely about the best way to ensure it remains that way.
  - rorykoehler 11y ago
    Enlighten me please.
    - guscost 11y ago
      Some of the most important I can think of: - Watch the documentary called "Pandora's Promise" - Don't throw away aluminum or other metals if you can help it, and don't litter - Support organizations and companies that are good members of society, at least as best as you can tell - Encourage and persuade other people to care. Coercion is not going to work better in the long run because any scheme will eventually fall apart and at that time we will all be a lot better off if people have some kind of internal understanding of these values.
      - rorykoehler 11y ago
        I can't fault anything you have said. I do feel there is an industrial level of operation that lives by and therefore needs different rules than the rest of us. The complexity of the situation and the systems, both man made and natural, that dictate the realities we all face with regard to environmental phenomena is very hard to hold in ones mind all at one time. I can imagine it's also a great challenge for scientists working in the field. From what I can tell there has been no climate conspiracy. One thing that always helps me visualize what we are doing with our atmosphere is astronaut Gerry Carr's observation that if the earth were the size of an apple then the atmosphere would be as thick as the skin of the apple. We have a terribly fragile environment and everything should be done to conserve it. If we go 100% renewable there will still be untold amounts of damage caused to our eco-systems due to mining etc however it will be much easier to contain than the burning of fossil fuels which just spew out and spread around our minuscule atmosphere unchecked. Nuclear mining will also cause damage and while I am not against nuclear as an option it does bother me that we build nuclear stations in earthquake hotspots. This doesn't instill a great deal of confidence in me that we will make good decisions with something as potentially dangerous as nuclear in the future.
asgard1024 11y ago
> I remain astonished that supposedly educated people could ever believe otherwise Let me take a stab at this: > thoroughly insufficient as proof of any long-term trend we can expect to continue in a non-linear system as complex as the global climate Sometimes, non-linearity doesn't really matter. Human body is complex system, we don't fully understand it, but you wouldn't stand in front of a car that runs 100kph. Because then we just know what is going to happen, from perfectly linear Newton's law. In the 1950s, Plass did some equilibrium calculations of climate sensitivity to CO2. I think he came with a value around 2 degrees. Modern consensus is 3. This all happened despite decades of research, involving all sorts of additional non-linearities. What does that tell you? He was right in the ballpark, and he actually had a decent model! Just as we cannot say what injuries you end up with in the first example, we cannot easily say what will happen to the Earth. But we are very certain it will heat up (and roughly how much). Unless of course humans on the Earth react non-linearly and decide not to emit more CO2, just like person in front of a car can somewhat non-linearly jump to the side.
- guscost 11y ago
  Whoa, you're citing the consensus as an experimental result? What is this, economics? ;) And Plass definitely missed at least one non-linearity. Out of curiosity do you have a list?
  - asgard1024 11y ago
    There are many different empirical results that lead to current consensus of climate sensitivity. The consensus is the consequence of these. A good summary is at http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity-advanced.htm http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity-advanced... in figure 4. > And Plass definitely missed at least one non-linearity. AFAIK he only included CO2 and water vapor (as a feedback) in his calculations. There are many more both positive and negative feedbacks, such as methane or aerosols. But they pretty much cancel out in the end, as more complex models indicate. And Plass was completely ignorant of climate history, which is also one of the important sources of climate sensitivity estimates.
PavlovsCat 11y ago
> misanthropic environmentalist nonsense You're confusing hating cancer cells with hating all cells. Not everybody takes and exploits and degrades everything as a matter of course. A bunch of people do, and a whole lot don't stand up to them. If we don't destroy our environment it's not because we cared or payed attention, but just because we're lucky, once again. This doesn't do for me. That's all. What other people of "my generation" think is not my concern either.
paulsutter 11y ago
So Guscost, when you net it all out, what do you think is the probability that continuing use of carbon fuels will cause a significant climate problem? 10%? 30%? 0.01%? 0? I don't understand these arguments that global warming is "true" (100% likely) or "false" (0% likely). Because those probabilities are nonsensical. Reasonable people might assign anywhere from 10% to 90% to that. Even if a person thinks it's 30% likely, that person might still find it prudent to take steps to avoid it. Or maybe not. But at least they have some thought process behind their viewpoint.
- guscost 11y ago
  Everything depends on your definition of "significant" so I certainly can't just guess at a number. More significant than any other problem humanity is facing, perhaps? If that is what you mean, my completely unscientific guess would be a decimal, then a whole lot of zeros, then a one. And I would not find it prudent to do anything to avoid that possibility that takes longer than five seconds. The steps usually recommended are much bigger than that.
brrt 11y ago
No, you are wrong. You are clearly posting out of ignorance. The earth climate system is not impossibly complex. The global temperature is at it's core determined by an energy balance. Visible light from the sun enters, infrared radiation leaves. Some of that infrared radiation is blocked, then temperature has to rise before the balance is restored. Simple as that, and completely uncontroversial, because proven by spectrum analysis of our neighboring planets (and the moon). Now I know that doesn't give you hard answers to questions policymakers want, like 'will New Orleans flood from increased tropical storms? Will the Middle East and India dry out?' We don't know that, and yes, that sucks. But we do know the effect of increased amounts of greenhouse gases. (And, for what it's worth, we do also know that carbon dioxide taxes work much better than an emission trading system does, as proven by e.g. Norway vs. European Union, and as proven by the fact that industry and fossil fuel companies actually prefer it). And the fact that the top comment on HN is about climate change denial rather than the actual article is excellent proof of the study's truth.
- guscost 11y ago
  Of the many factors you are not considering, albedo affects how much solar radiation (not all of it visible) is reflected back into space.
  - brrt 11y ago
    You are absolutely right, I oversimplified, but that has the advantage of giving us plenty of other experimental bodies to compare with (i.e. the solar system). For what it's worth, this oversimplification gives a pretty good average temperature of 15 deg celcius on earth. Albedo is an important factor, but there is actually very much uncertainty about human influence on earths albedo, and at any rate the effect seems to be pretty small. Humans' effect on CO2 on the other hand is extremely well-established and much greater, which is why it's logical to focus on it.
- emp_zealoth 11y ago
  Norway is hardly comparable to EU energy wise, mainly because they biggest energy production is hydro, which in turn comes from unique geography. Germany little experiment with solar is already causing massive issues, ecology wise too. Factories are already saying fuck it, building their own local generators, with worse exhaust and lower efficiency. Keep adding more nonsense costs to industry in EU. And you know what? China would pick up the slack, and they hardly give a shit about anything. Right now,overdoing this locally actually increases net pollution. I guess we get to feel good.
CarVac 11y ago
Why do you regard this as "evidence that the alarmists have very little material left"? Are you suggesting that this was a "last resort" after "running out" of research in favor of the anthropogenic climate change hypothesis? Do you think that the Duke Fuqua School of Business is so tightly knit with the climate science community? I think you may be biased by your hope that no further evidence surfaces; otherwise, how could you continue believing what you believe? Take this not as criticism of your beliefs, but as criticism of how you cling to your beliefs. I try to be happy to be proven wrong, no matter the consequences. Can you say the same?
- guscost 11y ago
  Are you saying I have been proven wrong? The assertion is not really backed up by anything, so I guess I could be totally wrong about the amount of remaining alarmist material. Paraphrasing Popper, it is easy to find confirmations for any theory if you are looking for confirmations. So we will see plenty more global warming anecdotes in the coming years. But the last proxy study to get big attention was Marcott 2013, no? And I'm sure you didn't read about it on CNN, but the meaning of the abstract had to be "clarified" on that one.
  - CarVac 11y ago
    First of all, when you call it alarmist that's inherently reinforcing your bias that the concern for the climate is exaggerated. I find it difficult to believe that you could be evaluating them objectively with that sort of mindset. Regarding Marcott 2013: are you saying that your scepticism is mainly for proxy studies, and there haven't been many recently? What about that paper don't you trust? Have you read it yourself? (I'm reading it right now) Do you think it's intentionally underestimating the temperatures in the past to confirm that global warming is occurring?
    - guscost 11y ago
      The "alarmist" label is tongue-in-cheek, riffing off the corresponding "denier" rhetoric. Sorry for any confusion. Marcott 2013 was cited in a lot of newspaper claims that the 20th century was "the warmest of the past 10,000 years" or something to that effect. It turns out they only kept a few proxies all the way through the 20th century to generate the uptick, removing the ones that did not contribute, and eventually had to concede that their study was not a reliable basis for any conclusions about the past century: > Thus, the 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions.[0] The claim they opted to make instead is that the temperature estimates from their proxy study can be compared with thermometer readings and that the thermometers indicate higher values in recent years, a much weaker conclusion for a proxy study. Given the history of problems with every high-profile proxy study that comes along, and considering that they are the cornerstone of any logical reasoning connecting modern temperature data to measurable long-term climate-scale trends, I suggest that the conclusions about temperature anomalies (going back more than a few hundred years) are a lot less robust than many believe. [0]http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/03/response-by-marcott-et-al/ http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/03/respon...
krschultz 11y ago
I've noticed that a common tendency on HN to avoid downvoted is to start your comment by saying something like 'time to spend some karma'. It seems surprisingly effective, I think because many on HN want to think they're contrarian so expressing that your opinion is contrarian is a way to garner support.
- Dylan16807 11y ago
  Or is it just that most comments don't get downvoted, especially well-written ones?
- Guzba 11y ago
  This almost certainly isn't true, it's far more likely you've only noticed it when it worked. Every other time, when it didn't, the comments were buried at the bottom of the article.
- guscost 11y ago
  I'm pleasantly surprised (a lot depends on which people happen to click on the link), but was totally willing to spend 20 or so karma to say that.
elipsey 11y ago
We already tax economic externalites. A carbon tax is hardly "reorganizing society". If you want to stop doing that in general, then it's _you_ that wants to reorganize society according to your political beliefs. Frankly, I'm sure you feel like you're winning a Bravery Contest (http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/05/18/against-bravery-debates/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/05/18/against-bravery-debates...) by posting this here, and I hate pile on, but this was blantant hyperbole.
ocschwar 11y ago
"The science of climate is not settled, and will not be settled in your lifetime. Get used to it. " The science of the shape of the earth isn't settled either. Nothing is ever really settled. But to "un-settle" a matter of science, you need actual evidence. Which the deniers do not have.
jameshart 11y ago
That is a peculiar reaction to this research. I take it from your argument that 1) you reject the IPCC scientific concensus that climate change is largely caused by human activity and will lead to significant impacts in the next century and 2) you disagree with the introduction of regulatory frameworks to, for example, build the external costs of carbon emissions into the economy in the form of carbon taxation. I also assume that you think you believe 2) BECAUSE you believe 1). Faced with a research paper that suggests that often people adjust their opinion of research based on the palatability of proposed solutions, I find it interesting that you don't see this paper as evidence that you should go back and reconsider whether your rejection in 1) is, at least in part, driven by your distaste for the kind of solution proposed in 2). What I don't see is any reason why this research gives you further confirmation for your position with respect to 1), which would therefore reinforce your commitment to 2). Can you explain your logic a little more clearly?
- guscost 11y ago
  OK, I'll try. I'm calling out what I see as an example of the "psychology journal ad-hominem" mentioned above, and perhaps having a little fun with the folks who are nodding along. To clarify, the basic problem is that anyone talking about this story at face value will either a) presuppose that each problem is legitimate, or b) get accused of being affected by the psychology under discussion. The choice of global warming combined with the description of the effect as one of "aversion" and "denial" implies that people who don't agree with the mainstream argument are affected, while those who do agree are not. Notice how this release does not mention the equally valid conclusion that people who like a solution might be more inclined to believe that the problem it solves is real. Being an unconventional environmentalist myself, I've seen this tactic several times before and am simply pointing out what it is: a retreat from the actual issue under consideration, and an attempt to re-frame the debate as one of psychology and the mental shortcomings of members of the opposition. Don't get me wrong, I can totally agree that some version of this phenomenon is real. In fact I've wondered many times over the years how much I might be personally affected by it. The general case is called "confirmation bias" and I'm not typically that optimistic about my own immunity to it, although I have made and will continue to make efforts to recognize and counter it. Thank you for your reminder and for being tactful and polite about it, but the idea is not news to me. In summary, whether I may believe some version of 2) in part because I believe 1) or vice versa is an interesting question. However, immediately framing this particular research in this particular way amounts to (or will be used as) an elaborate and silly ad-hominem, nothing more. Anyone who uses it is grasping at very fine straws.
specialist 11y ago
People who believe in anthropocentric climate change are misanthropes?

by guscost 11y ago

AC__ 11y ago

You should share your beliefs with the geoengineers running seeding programs creating algal blooms in the Pacific before they kill the whole fucking thing...

guscost 11y ago
Well, that is what bothers me the most about this whole train wreck. If and when there are environmental issues more deserving of our attention than the CO2 thing, many anti-intellectuals are going end up dismissing them as politically motivated propaganda without even bothering to learn about them. Congratulations.
- AC__ 11y ago
  Be sure not to confuse condescension with intellectualism.

a3n 11y ago

Very few really big problems are ever settled in our lifetime, and yet we have to act (which can include deciding to not act) on imperfect information. We do our best. Get used to it.

guscost 11y ago
Very good, please continue doing that. Arguing about and working on the issues you believe to be important can be a constructive thing no matter your perspective. Likewise I will continue to argue my perspective and work on those issues I believe to be important. Dismantling pernicious groupthink is one of them.

pekk 11y ago

You missed the point of the paper, which isn't about climate change.

jfoutz 11y ago

Have the models really changed that much in 35 years though? This one has all the highlights, radiation balance, 1D and 3D modeling, climate sensitivity, the main feedbacks (water vapor, lapse rate, clouds, ice- and vegetation albedo); solar and volcanic forcing; and ocean heat uptake. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/213/4511/957 http://www.sciencemag.org/content/213/4511/957 They predict about half a degree C, and that seems to be holding up. More interesting though, what would be convincing? Computers are fast. To paraphrase the red queen, we accurately predict 6 complex nonlinear systems before breakfast. Do you think there are other hidden effects that humans haven't observed? In what sense is it not settled?

guscost 11y ago
This may come down to our individual philosophies, but I'm far more interested in what would convince you that a model is wrong. It's a Popperian sentiment, which may be considered quaint these days, but I rarely hear any kind of answer. Anyway, I don't think we are talking about even close to the same meaning of "complex", but one possible situation that would help convince me is if we had a "control" planet, and an "experimental" planet, with nearly identical climates and biodiversity and so on, and then we raised the CO2 level of the experimental planet, keeping in mind that all kinds of other inputs to the non-linear system should remain the same, like land use, fishing, other industrial activities, etc. If the experimental planet diverged significantly from the control planet, it wouldn't be solid 100% irrefutable proof but it would be far better evidence than anything we have today.
- drewrv 11y ago
  >one possible situation that would help convince me is if we had a "control" planet So on this one issue it's impossible for you to be convinced.
  - guscost 11y ago
    Not at all, there could be plenty of other evidence, I just can't imagine what it would be. Other than some kind of control planet, or maybe a complete overturning of nonlinear dynamics and/or chaos theory maybe. Of course, if the ocean was engulfing whole communities faster than people could run uphill, or people were choking on CO2, I'd probably be a whole lot less rational about it and say "let's throw things at the wall to see what sticks." But so far, and after reading what I figure are among the strongest arguments out there, it still looks like your typical doomsday story dressed up as science.

erikpukinskis 11y ago

> The fact remains that current proxy studies are thoroughly insufficient as proof of any long-term trend The notion of "proving" a future trend doesn't make sense. That's not how science works. You test a model against past data, and then people use the model to help them make decisions until we find a better model. Things are only ever proved after the fact. > Literature like this makes me happy, because it is further evidence that the alarmists have very little material left. That doesn't really follow. The promotion of a psychological study could be the result of alarmists running out of material as you describe, or it could just be one story in a queue of many others. > Mercifully we may have hit the high-water mark of this generation of misanthropic environmentalist nonsense Making generic insults at unnamed people and ideas doesn't really add anything to the conversation. Could you describe some actual nonsense that has someone's name attached to it so we could talk about it?

guscost 11y ago
Science isn't about demanding legislation either. And the entire OP is a thinly-veiled insult aimed at the authors' political opponents. That's the point I'm trying to make, although perhaps it could be made more politely.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- giaour 11y ago
  The study (and the article) took pains to point out that what they observed is a universal phenomenon, as evidenced by liberals dismissing concerns about rising crime if the solution meant more guns and conservatives dismissing climate science if it meant more taxes.
  - guscost 11y ago
    A few discrepancies (maybe the actual paper clears these up if anyone has a copy): - The global warming part is discussed in much more detail (i.e. actual percentages, the statement that Democrats didn't show different behavior). - Measuring the total number of violent break-ins is way easier than measuring humanity's impact on global temperatures, the available data regarding the former is a lot simpler to logically connect to "a problem" than the available data regarding the latter, etc. - I'm not aware of any politically significant faction on the left claiming that violent crimes are not increasing, if that is in fact what researchers are claiming. In short, it seems like the other half was thrown in there to suggest a balanced perspective (again, the actual paper may be different so this could only affect the press release).

rorykoehler 11y ago

I just want to live in a clean, healthy, diverse and vibrant environment regardless of any climate science. It's unfortunate that your standards are so low when it comes to pollution, the mass extinction human activity creates and the general destruction of the planets ancient ecosystems but seeing as you don't really care it would be wise to get out of the way of the people who do.

guscost 11y ago
I also consider a healthy environment to be a valuable resource, and our disagreement is entirely about the best way to ensure it remains that way.
- rorykoehler 11y ago
  Enlighten me please.
  - guscost 11y ago
    Some of the most important I can think of: - Watch the documentary called "Pandora's Promise" - Don't throw away aluminum or other metals if you can help it, and don't litter - Support organizations and companies that are good members of society, at least as best as you can tell - Encourage and persuade other people to care. Coercion is not going to work better in the long run because any scheme will eventually fall apart and at that time we will all be a lot better off if people have some kind of internal understanding of these values.
    - rorykoehler 11y ago
      I can't fault anything you have said. I do feel there is an industrial level of operation that lives by and therefore needs different rules than the rest of us. The complexity of the situation and the systems, both man made and natural, that dictate the realities we all face with regard to environmental phenomena is very hard to hold in ones mind all at one time. I can imagine it's also a great challenge for scientists working in the field. From what I can tell there has been no climate conspiracy. One thing that always helps me visualize what we are doing with our atmosphere is astronaut Gerry Carr's observation that if the earth were the size of an apple then the atmosphere would be as thick as the skin of the apple. We have a terribly fragile environment and everything should be done to conserve it. If we go 100% renewable there will still be untold amounts of damage caused to our eco-systems due to mining etc however it will be much easier to contain than the burning of fossil fuels which just spew out and spread around our minuscule atmosphere unchecked. Nuclear mining will also cause damage and while I am not against nuclear as an option it does bother me that we build nuclear stations in earthquake hotspots. This doesn't instill a great deal of confidence in me that we will make good decisions with something as potentially dangerous as nuclear in the future.

asgard1024 11y ago

> I remain astonished that supposedly educated people could ever believe otherwise Let me take a stab at this: > thoroughly insufficient as proof of any long-term trend we can expect to continue in a non-linear system as complex as the global climate Sometimes, non-linearity doesn't really matter. Human body is complex system, we don't fully understand it, but you wouldn't stand in front of a car that runs 100kph. Because then we just know what is going to happen, from perfectly linear Newton's law. In the 1950s, Plass did some equilibrium calculations of climate sensitivity to CO2. I think he came with a value around 2 degrees. Modern consensus is 3. This all happened despite decades of research, involving all sorts of additional non-linearities. What does that tell you? He was right in the ballpark, and he actually had a decent model! Just as we cannot say what injuries you end up with in the first example, we cannot easily say what will happen to the Earth. But we are very certain it will heat up (and roughly how much). Unless of course humans on the Earth react non-linearly and decide not to emit more CO2, just like person in front of a car can somewhat non-linearly jump to the side.

guscost 11y ago
Whoa, you're citing the consensus as an experimental result? What is this, economics? ;) And Plass definitely missed at least one non-linearity. Out of curiosity do you have a list?
- asgard1024 11y ago
  There are many different empirical results that lead to current consensus of climate sensitivity. The consensus is the consequence of these. A good summary is at http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity-advanced.htm http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity-advanced... in figure 4. > And Plass definitely missed at least one non-linearity. AFAIK he only included CO2 and water vapor (as a feedback) in his calculations. There are many more both positive and negative feedbacks, such as methane or aerosols. But they pretty much cancel out in the end, as more complex models indicate. And Plass was completely ignorant of climate history, which is also one of the important sources of climate sensitivity estimates.

PavlovsCat 11y ago

> misanthropic environmentalist nonsense You're confusing hating cancer cells with hating all cells. Not everybody takes and exploits and degrades everything as a matter of course. A bunch of people do, and a whole lot don't stand up to them. If we don't destroy our environment it's not because we cared or payed attention, but just because we're lucky, once again. This doesn't do for me. That's all. What other people of "my generation" think is not my concern either.

paulsutter 11y ago

So Guscost, when you net it all out, what do you think is the probability that continuing use of carbon fuels will cause a significant climate problem? 10%? 30%? 0.01%? 0? I don't understand these arguments that global warming is "true" (100% likely) or "false" (0% likely). Because those probabilities are nonsensical. Reasonable people might assign anywhere from 10% to 90% to that. Even if a person thinks it's 30% likely, that person might still find it prudent to take steps to avoid it. Or maybe not. But at least they have some thought process behind their viewpoint.

guscost 11y ago
Everything depends on your definition of "significant" so I certainly can't just guess at a number. More significant than any other problem humanity is facing, perhaps? If that is what you mean, my completely unscientific guess would be a decimal, then a whole lot of zeros, then a one. And I would not find it prudent to do anything to avoid that possibility that takes longer than five seconds. The steps usually recommended are much bigger than that.

brrt 11y ago

No, you are wrong. You are clearly posting out of ignorance. The earth climate system is not impossibly complex. The global temperature is at it's core determined by an energy balance. Visible light from the sun enters, infrared radiation leaves. Some of that infrared radiation is blocked, then temperature has to rise before the balance is restored. Simple as that, and completely uncontroversial, because proven by spectrum analysis of our neighboring planets (and the moon). Now I know that doesn't give you hard answers to questions policymakers want, like 'will New Orleans flood from increased tropical storms? Will the Middle East and India dry out?' We don't know that, and yes, that sucks. But we do know the effect of increased amounts of greenhouse gases. (And, for what it's worth, we do also know that carbon dioxide taxes work much better than an emission trading system does, as proven by e.g. Norway vs. European Union, and as proven by the fact that industry and fossil fuel companies actually prefer it). And the fact that the top comment on HN is about climate change denial rather than the actual article is excellent proof of the study's truth.

guscost 11y ago
Of the many factors you are not considering, albedo affects how much solar radiation (not all of it visible) is reflected back into space.
- brrt 11y ago
  You are absolutely right, I oversimplified, but that has the advantage of giving us plenty of other experimental bodies to compare with (i.e. the solar system). For what it's worth, this oversimplification gives a pretty good average temperature of 15 deg celcius on earth. Albedo is an important factor, but there is actually very much uncertainty about human influence on earths albedo, and at any rate the effect seems to be pretty small. Humans' effect on CO2 on the other hand is extremely well-established and much greater, which is why it's logical to focus on it.
emp_zealoth 11y ago
Norway is hardly comparable to EU energy wise, mainly because they biggest energy production is hydro, which in turn comes from unique geography. Germany little experiment with solar is already causing massive issues, ecology wise too. Factories are already saying fuck it, building their own local generators, with worse exhaust and lower efficiency. Keep adding more nonsense costs to industry in EU. And you know what? China would pick up the slack, and they hardly give a shit about anything. Right now,overdoing this locally actually increases net pollution. I guess we get to feel good.

CarVac 11y ago

Why do you regard this as "evidence that the alarmists have very little material left"? Are you suggesting that this was a "last resort" after "running out" of research in favor of the anthropogenic climate change hypothesis? Do you think that the Duke Fuqua School of Business is so tightly knit with the climate science community? I think you may be biased by your hope that no further evidence surfaces; otherwise, how could you continue believing what you believe? Take this not as criticism of your beliefs, but as criticism of how you cling to your beliefs. I try to be happy to be proven wrong, no matter the consequences. Can you say the same?

guscost 11y ago
Are you saying I have been proven wrong? The assertion is not really backed up by anything, so I guess I could be totally wrong about the amount of remaining alarmist material. Paraphrasing Popper, it is easy to find confirmations for any theory if you are looking for confirmations. So we will see plenty more global warming anecdotes in the coming years. But the last proxy study to get big attention was Marcott 2013, no? And I'm sure you didn't read about it on CNN, but the meaning of the abstract had to be "clarified" on that one.
- CarVac 11y ago
  First of all, when you call it alarmist that's inherently reinforcing your bias that the concern for the climate is exaggerated. I find it difficult to believe that you could be evaluating them objectively with that sort of mindset. Regarding Marcott 2013: are you saying that your scepticism is mainly for proxy studies, and there haven't been many recently? What about that paper don't you trust? Have you read it yourself? (I'm reading it right now) Do you think it's intentionally underestimating the temperatures in the past to confirm that global warming is occurring?
  - guscost 11y ago
    The "alarmist" label is tongue-in-cheek, riffing off the corresponding "denier" rhetoric. Sorry for any confusion. Marcott 2013 was cited in a lot of newspaper claims that the 20th century was "the warmest of the past 10,000 years" or something to that effect. It turns out they only kept a few proxies all the way through the 20th century to generate the uptick, removing the ones that did not contribute, and eventually had to concede that their study was not a reliable basis for any conclusions about the past century: > Thus, the 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions.[0] The claim they opted to make instead is that the temperature estimates from their proxy study can be compared with thermometer readings and that the thermometers indicate higher values in recent years, a much weaker conclusion for a proxy study. Given the history of problems with every high-profile proxy study that comes along, and considering that they are the cornerstone of any logical reasoning connecting modern temperature data to measurable long-term climate-scale trends, I suggest that the conclusions about temperature anomalies (going back more than a few hundred years) are a lot less robust than many believe. [0]http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/03/response-by-marcott-et-al/ http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/03/respon...

krschultz 11y ago

I've noticed that a common tendency on HN to avoid downvoted is to start your comment by saying something like 'time to spend some karma'. It seems surprisingly effective, I think because many on HN want to think they're contrarian so expressing that your opinion is contrarian is a way to garner support.

Dylan16807 11y ago
Or is it just that most comments don't get downvoted, especially well-written ones?
Guzba 11y ago
This almost certainly isn't true, it's far more likely you've only noticed it when it worked. Every other time, when it didn't, the comments were buried at the bottom of the article.
guscost 11y ago
I'm pleasantly surprised (a lot depends on which people happen to click on the link), but was totally willing to spend 20 or so karma to say that.

elipsey 11y ago

We already tax economic externalites. A carbon tax is hardly "reorganizing society". If you want to stop doing that in general, then it's _you_ that wants to reorganize society according to your political beliefs. Frankly, I'm sure you feel like you're winning a Bravery Contest (http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/05/18/against-bravery-debates/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/05/18/against-bravery-debates...) by posting this here, and I hate pile on, but this was blantant hyperbole.

ocschwar 11y ago

"The science of climate is not settled, and will not be settled in your lifetime. Get used to it. " The science of the shape of the earth isn't settled either. Nothing is ever really settled. But to "un-settle" a matter of science, you need actual evidence. Which the deniers do not have.

jameshart 11y ago

That is a peculiar reaction to this research. I take it from your argument that 1) you reject the IPCC scientific concensus that climate change is largely caused by human activity and will lead to significant impacts in the next century and 2) you disagree with the introduction of regulatory frameworks to, for example, build the external costs of carbon emissions into the economy in the form of carbon taxation. I also assume that you think you believe 2) BECAUSE you believe 1). Faced with a research paper that suggests that often people adjust their opinion of research based on the palatability of proposed solutions, I find it interesting that you don't see this paper as evidence that you should go back and reconsider whether your rejection in 1) is, at least in part, driven by your distaste for the kind of solution proposed in 2). What I don't see is any reason why this research gives you further confirmation for your position with respect to 1), which would therefore reinforce your commitment to 2). Can you explain your logic a little more clearly?

guscost 11y ago
OK, I'll try. I'm calling out what I see as an example of the "psychology journal ad-hominem" mentioned above, and perhaps having a little fun with the folks who are nodding along. To clarify, the basic problem is that anyone talking about this story at face value will either a) presuppose that each problem is legitimate, or b) get accused of being affected by the psychology under discussion. The choice of global warming combined with the description of the effect as one of "aversion" and "denial" implies that people who don't agree with the mainstream argument are affected, while those who do agree are not. Notice how this release does not mention the equally valid conclusion that people who like a solution might be more inclined to believe that the problem it solves is real. Being an unconventional environmentalist myself, I've seen this tactic several times before and am simply pointing out what it is: a retreat from the actual issue under consideration, and an attempt to re-frame the debate as one of psychology and the mental shortcomings of members of the opposition. Don't get me wrong, I can totally agree that some version of this phenomenon is real. In fact I've wondered many times over the years how much I might be personally affected by it. The general case is called "confirmation bias" and I'm not typically that optimistic about my own immunity to it, although I have made and will continue to make efforts to recognize and counter it. Thank you for your reminder and for being tactful and polite about it, but the idea is not news to me. In summary, whether I may believe some version of 2) in part because I believe 1) or vice versa is an interesting question. However, immediately framing this particular research in this particular way amounts to (or will be used as) an elaborate and silly ad-hominem, nothing more. Anyone who uses it is grasping at very fine straws.

specialist 11y ago

People who believe in anthropocentric climate change are misanthropes?