6 ms·

It's not a matter of belief, it's science. Unless you have performed all of the science yourself, all the way "down to the turtles," belief--faith--is involved

It's not a matter of belief, it's science. Unless you have performed all of the science yourself, all the way "down to the turtles," belief--faith--is involved. You have faith that the chain of science is complete, that each person along the chain has done their part correctly, and that nothing significant has been omitted. It's especially a matter of belief if you are relying on computer models--nay, the claims about computer models. You trust that these models were written by people with integrity, who would not adjust them to achieve a desired outcome, and who are competent enough to do it correctly. Or do you have access to the source code, and a huge cluster to run it on? If you take these claims at face value, that's faith--by definition.

TillE 10y ago
1) We're releasing huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. 2) This CO2 does not magically disappear. We can measure it. 3) We know how CO2 interacts with infrared radiation. You can test it yourself with an FTIR machine. This is all extremely simple. The computer models are just about getting some precision about the broad cause and effect which is utterly obvious to anyone who knows a little physics.
- alphapapa 10y ago
  Regarding 1, how much CO2 does humanity emit compared with how much CO2 the oceans emit?
  - bluesign 10y ago
    why does this matter? We are breaking the equilibrium.
    - alphapapa 10y ago
      why does this matter? Because anthropogenic CO2 is a tiny fraction of oceanogenic CO2. It's like sneezing into the wind: it does not change the direction of the wind. We are breaking the equilibrium. What equilibrium? Equilibrium would imply a stable climate, but the climate has been changing for millions of years, long before humans arrived. Are you saying that the climate wouldn't change without humans?
      - yongjik 10y ago
        > Because anthropogenic CO2 is a tiny fraction of oceanogenic CO2. Really? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_sink https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_sink > Oceans are at present CO2 sinks, and represent the largest active carbon sink on Earth, absorbing more than a quarter of the carbon dioxide that humans put into the air. Next time you want to equivocate, at least try something that can't be falsified by ten seconds of Googling.
        alphapapa 10y ago
        Global Natural and Anthropogenic Sources and Absorption of Greenhouse Gases in the 1990s | | | Sources | | | Gas (million metric tons of gas) | Natural | Human-Made | Total | |----------------------------------+---------+------------+---------| | Carbon Dioxide | 770,000 | 23,100 | 793,100 | Source: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2001), p. 39.
        yongjik 10y ago
        FYI: When you quote source A, which quotes source B for raw data, it is customary to reference A instead of B. So I found your table in Table 3 of here: http://www2.bren.ucsb.edu/~keller/courses/esm202/DOE_US_GHG2005.pdf http://www2.bren.ucsb.edu/~keller/courses/esm202/DOE_US_GHG2... And you seemed to have cut off two more columns: Absorption | Annual Increase in Gas in the Atmosphere ----------------------------------------------------- 781,400 | 11,700 I.e., nature is absorbing about half of anthropogenic CO2. I stand by my previous remark.
        alphapapa 10y ago
        FYI: When someone posts factual data, it is poor etiquette to downvote them. Notice that I have not downvoted you even though I disagree with your conclusions. I am not afraid to debate the matter, so I feel no need to try to censor opponents. I cut them off because they are irrelevant. My point remains: anthropogenic CO2 emissions are approximately 3% of natural emissions. Natural variation in natural emissions utterly dwarfs human emissions. Were the climate so sensitive to +/- 3%, we would not even exist today, because the climate would have gone to an extreme and stayed there millions of years ago. This is a very simple matter of scale and historical data that grossly exceeds human timescales. To think that human CO2 emissions are breaking the planet is ludicrous.
- rhino369 10y ago
  It's extremely simple to measure the greenhouse effect, sure. But climate models are incredibly complex due to complex feedback loops. If it were simple there would be one model. There are dozens upon dozens. There is a consensus that some global warming is happening, there really isn't a consensus on how much other than fairly large ranges calculated by the IPCC.
debaserab2 10y ago
There's two kinds of faith. One is ideological and almost by definition cannot be observed. The other one involves things that can be observed where our faith is our trust of the well credentialed individuals who observe them. You can choose not to have faith in the second one, but that doesn't make it not real. What you're saying if you're denying global warming is that you don't trust the thousands upon thousands of trained scientists observing it. That doesn't make it not true whether you believe in it or not.
- alphapapa 10y ago
  One person observes the universe, believes in God, and orders his life accordingly. Another person observes the universe, believes in science, and orders his life accordingly. (And a third person believes in both, but since we're dichotomizing...) Both persons have faith in things which they have not directly observed nor cannot directly prove, based on what they have heard and seen others claim, many of whom have specialized knowledge that requires years to obtain. What's the difference? well credentialed individuals who observe them...You can choose not to have faith in the second one, but that doesn't make it not real...thousands upon thousands of trained scientists... So, we could quibble over numbers, but there are two problems: 1. You're relying on argument from authority. How is this any different from an ancient person trusting the word of a priest? How is a scientist walking in and saying, "My computer model shows x, therefore it is so" different from an ancient priest walking in and saying, "The gods told me x, therefore it is so"? From the perspective of a non-scientist or non-priest, there is no difference; you cannot verify their claims. If you believe them, you operate on faith. 2. As the history of science testifies, science makes many missteps. For all your talk of credentials, one would think you'd give credence to some of the most credentialed scientists in history, who pointed out that science is not a matter of consensus, that only one correct dissent is required to disprove any hypothesis. Given that, how many dissenting scientists do you require to conclude that the matter is not settled beyond debate? There are many highly credentialed scientists who do dissent on this matter. denying global warming Finally, this is muddled thinking. The phrase "denying global warming" is both vague and loaded. Besides, isn't the correct term "climate change"?
  - 10y ago
tambourine_man 10y ago
I have a device in my pocket with 1 billion transistors switching on and off a billion times a second. I couldn't possibly check every single one of them, or all the steps that went on its production. I can, however, check the results it gives me and have a degree of confidence based on its accuracy and consistency. We do just that with climate data and models. People choose to challenge some aspects of science when it clashes with their interests or system of beliefs while completely relying on others when it's convenient. Even though the process by which scientific knowledge is produced is the very same. That's not only illogical, that's hypocrisy.
- alphapapa 10y ago
  It's actually bizarre to see someone on HN conflate software and hardware. Your argument appears to be, "Hardware can be observed to operate properly, therefore software necessarily gives correct results." There are a variety of arguments to make here, from the flaws in individual models, to the secrecy of source code, manipulation of data, politics, historical examples of incorrect scientific conclusions, and the general fallibility of humans (who perform the science). But bother with any of those when you are claiming that, if software exists which ostensibly intends to perform a task, it must necessarily do so correctly. And then you accuse others of illogic and selective acceptance of science. That's just...bizarre. In the context of discussing belief vs. knowledge, that smacks of what one might call a "true believer."
  - tambourine_man 10y ago
    The argument is that software can be used to check hardware, and, more broadly, that one does not need to execute every step of a process in order to have confidence in its results.
    - alphapapa 10y ago
      > software can be used to check hardware Sorry, but how is this point relevant to the discussion? > more broadly, that one does not need to execute every step of a process in order to have confidence in its results. That is broad, indeed. I should hope that, before reaching conclusions and making claims and calls to action that would result in the poverty of billions, one would take pains to verify every step of the process used to reach those conclusions. Of course, what constitutes "verification" is a matter of opinion. To some, the models are sufficient. To others, they are grossly insufficient and have not proven accurate looking forward nor backward. It is a mystery why they continue to be asserted as proof.

TillE 10y ago

1) We're releasing huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. 2) This CO2 does not magically disappear. We can measure it. 3) We know how CO2 interacts with infrared radiation. You can test it yourself with an FTIR machine. This is all extremely simple. The computer models are just about getting some precision about the broad cause and effect which is utterly obvious to anyone who knows a little physics.

alphapapa 10y ago
Regarding 1, how much CO2 does humanity emit compared with how much CO2 the oceans emit?
- bluesign 10y ago
  why does this matter? We are breaking the equilibrium.
  - alphapapa 10y ago
    why does this matter? Because anthropogenic CO2 is a tiny fraction of oceanogenic CO2. It's like sneezing into the wind: it does not change the direction of the wind. We are breaking the equilibrium. What equilibrium? Equilibrium would imply a stable climate, but the climate has been changing for millions of years, long before humans arrived. Are you saying that the climate wouldn't change without humans?
    - yongjik 10y ago
      > Because anthropogenic CO2 is a tiny fraction of oceanogenic CO2. Really? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_sink https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_sink > Oceans are at present CO2 sinks, and represent the largest active carbon sink on Earth, absorbing more than a quarter of the carbon dioxide that humans put into the air. Next time you want to equivocate, at least try something that can't be falsified by ten seconds of Googling.
      - alphapapa 10y ago
        Global Natural and Anthropogenic Sources and Absorption of Greenhouse Gases in the 1990s | | | Sources | | | Gas (million metric tons of gas) | Natural | Human-Made | Total | |----------------------------------+---------+------------+---------| | Carbon Dioxide | 770,000 | 23,100 | 793,100 | Source: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2001), p. 39.
        yongjik 10y ago
        FYI: When you quote source A, which quotes source B for raw data, it is customary to reference A instead of B. So I found your table in Table 3 of here: http://www2.bren.ucsb.edu/~keller/courses/esm202/DOE_US_GHG2005.pdf http://www2.bren.ucsb.edu/~keller/courses/esm202/DOE_US_GHG2... And you seemed to have cut off two more columns: Absorption | Annual Increase in Gas in the Atmosphere ----------------------------------------------------- 781,400 | 11,700 I.e., nature is absorbing about half of anthropogenic CO2. I stand by my previous remark.
        alphapapa 10y ago
        FYI: When someone posts factual data, it is poor etiquette to downvote them. Notice that I have not downvoted you even though I disagree with your conclusions. I am not afraid to debate the matter, so I feel no need to try to censor opponents. I cut them off because they are irrelevant. My point remains: anthropogenic CO2 emissions are approximately 3% of natural emissions. Natural variation in natural emissions utterly dwarfs human emissions. Were the climate so sensitive to +/- 3%, we would not even exist today, because the climate would have gone to an extreme and stayed there millions of years ago. This is a very simple matter of scale and historical data that grossly exceeds human timescales. To think that human CO2 emissions are breaking the planet is ludicrous.
rhino369 10y ago
It's extremely simple to measure the greenhouse effect, sure. But climate models are incredibly complex due to complex feedback loops. If it were simple there would be one model. There are dozens upon dozens. There is a consensus that some global warming is happening, there really isn't a consensus on how much other than fairly large ranges calculated by the IPCC.

debaserab2 10y ago

There's two kinds of faith. One is ideological and almost by definition cannot be observed. The other one involves things that can be observed where our faith is our trust of the well credentialed individuals who observe them. You can choose not to have faith in the second one, but that doesn't make it not real. What you're saying if you're denying global warming is that you don't trust the thousands upon thousands of trained scientists observing it. That doesn't make it not true whether you believe in it or not.

alphapapa 10y ago
One person observes the universe, believes in God, and orders his life accordingly. Another person observes the universe, believes in science, and orders his life accordingly. (And a third person believes in both, but since we're dichotomizing...) Both persons have faith in things which they have not directly observed nor cannot directly prove, based on what they have heard and seen others claim, many of whom have specialized knowledge that requires years to obtain. What's the difference? well credentialed individuals who observe them...You can choose not to have faith in the second one, but that doesn't make it not real...thousands upon thousands of trained scientists... So, we could quibble over numbers, but there are two problems: 1. You're relying on argument from authority. How is this any different from an ancient person trusting the word of a priest? How is a scientist walking in and saying, "My computer model shows x, therefore it is so" different from an ancient priest walking in and saying, "The gods told me x, therefore it is so"? From the perspective of a non-scientist or non-priest, there is no difference; you cannot verify their claims. If you believe them, you operate on faith. 2. As the history of science testifies, science makes many missteps. For all your talk of credentials, one would think you'd give credence to some of the most credentialed scientists in history, who pointed out that science is not a matter of consensus, that only one correct dissent is required to disprove any hypothesis. Given that, how many dissenting scientists do you require to conclude that the matter is not settled beyond debate? There are many highly credentialed scientists who do dissent on this matter. denying global warming Finally, this is muddled thinking. The phrase "denying global warming" is both vague and loaded. Besides, isn't the correct term "climate change"?
- 10y ago

tambourine_man 10y ago

I have a device in my pocket with 1 billion transistors switching on and off a billion times a second. I couldn't possibly check every single one of them, or all the steps that went on its production. I can, however, check the results it gives me and have a degree of confidence based on its accuracy and consistency. We do just that with climate data and models. People choose to challenge some aspects of science when it clashes with their interests or system of beliefs while completely relying on others when it's convenient. Even though the process by which scientific knowledge is produced is the very same. That's not only illogical, that's hypocrisy.

alphapapa 10y ago
It's actually bizarre to see someone on HN conflate software and hardware. Your argument appears to be, "Hardware can be observed to operate properly, therefore software necessarily gives correct results." There are a variety of arguments to make here, from the flaws in individual models, to the secrecy of source code, manipulation of data, politics, historical examples of incorrect scientific conclusions, and the general fallibility of humans (who perform the science). But bother with any of those when you are claiming that, if software exists which ostensibly intends to perform a task, it must necessarily do so correctly. And then you accuse others of illogic and selective acceptance of science. That's just...bizarre. In the context of discussing belief vs. knowledge, that smacks of what one might call a "true believer."
- tambourine_man 10y ago
  The argument is that software can be used to check hardware, and, more broadly, that one does not need to execute every step of a process in order to have confidence in its results.
  - alphapapa 10y ago
    > software can be used to check hardware Sorry, but how is this point relevant to the discussion? > more broadly, that one does not need to execute every step of a process in order to have confidence in its results. That is broad, indeed. I should hope that, before reaching conclusions and making claims and calls to action that would result in the poverty of billions, one would take pains to verify every step of the process used to reach those conclusions. Of course, what constitutes "verification" is a matter of opinion. To some, the models are sufficient. To others, they are grossly insufficient and have not proven accurate looking forward nor backward. It is a mystery why they continue to be asserted as proof.