18 ms·

I'm an environmentalist who believes that we should stop carbon polution and that we should dramatically reduce other forms of pollution as quickly as possible.

I'm an environmentalist who believes that we should stop carbon polution and that we should dramatically reduce other forms of pollution as quickly as possible. But... I have yet to read a research report that is convincing that climate change is abnormal due to humans. The report most often cited is a meta report, but I'd rather have something with hard numbers that I can show people. Meta analysis is fine, but not convincing. I'm curious what convinced people here that climate change is likely caused by humans rather than just earths cyclical temp changes that have happened for a long time. I say this as someone who wants to understand it.

lopmotr 8y ago
I'd love to have an answer to this too! Unfortunately, it seems to be a field that's too difficult for non-specialists to make any conclusions in at all. I'd say almost everyone who believes it was caused by humans does so because of peer/political pressure or trust in authority directly telling them that fact. All explanations I've ever heard don't have the conclusion logically following from the information we know. For example "CO2 contributes to the greenhouse effect so our CO2 actually caused the observed global warming." or "The increase in CO2 is dramatic so that must cause dramatic warming.". I don't understand how even scientists can be so sure of the causality because in a complex system, proving that a one-off event caused another one-off event is supposed to be impossible, isn't it? You can't replicate it. You can't do a controlled experiment. It seems you can only model it and notice that your model shows causation. What if the model is wrong? It's too complicated for laymen to understand. It seems to be even harder than nuclear physics which even school kids can use to make predictions about nuclear reactions.
- telchar 8y ago
  It's ok to want an answer. You may have to accept though (and it seems you're on your way to this) that the answer isn't simple, can't be broken down to a simple paragraph and can't be digested in a sitting. If you're not content taking the short explanation (e.g. "CO2 contributes to the greenhouse effect so our CO2 actually caused the observed global warming.") then you need to accept that you will have to study the models in depth and try to understand what assumptions/approximations were made, why the scientists consider those valid, what data are used and what biases or errors exist and needed to be corrected for and why those are valid, etc. And that's all ok. As long as a person doesn't reject the science outright because they can't understand the work or don't want to put in the effort. But those who reject the science or insist that nothing be done about it until they personally understand it need to either put in the effort to understand it or lend faith to the scientific consensus which has been developed through great effort.
  - lopmotr 8y ago
    Yes, if you don't understand it and won't study it, then the best bet is to side with the scientists. The trouble is, that's almost everyone. It just seems to be one of those areas that's impenetrable to laymen.
    - bonesss 8y ago
      > It just seems to be one of those areas that's impenetrable to laymen. Bull-hooey. If you're genuinely interested you only have to understand the difference between climate and weather, the time scales involved (decades, not years), the limitations of models vis-a-vis spot-predictions, and wrap your head around the nuance between "change" and "rate of change" (ie speed vs acceleration). That is not hard, but 99% of "skeptics" can't be bothered... If you're mentally flexible enough to get that the problem isn't that pendulums swing, but that a fast swinging pendulum could be Very Bad for our civilization, climate change rests on three straightforward principles and observations: 1) The absorption spectrum of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses: test-able with an aquarium and a UV light 2) That aggregate 24/7 human industrial activity (ie all: cars, boats, planes, construction, smelting, BTC mining, etc), is somehow increasing greenhouse gasses: this is tested by checking the air, if seeing smog clouds or logic isn't proof enough 3) That Venus exists, our telescopes are not lying, and we don't want to take vacations there Of the 8 planets in this solar system, 1 of them has had its climate go into overdrive and now resembles biblical Hell. Human activity will never push things that far, but we'd talking about the end of mankind well before that point... Climate change is not impenetrable to laymen. Climate change has been on the end of a 50 year FUD campaign meant to confuse the issue so that laymen only hear the arguing. Totally coincidental: oil company marketing triangulation has pointed out for years that they don't have to convince anyone on climate change, they just have to extend the debate past the point of action. It worked.
      - southern_cross 8y ago
        > That is not hard, but 99% of "skeptics" can't be bothered... Actually, most of the "skeptics" that I've seen online are right on top of this kind of stuff! It's the other side that just wants to hand-wave away far too many things. > 1) The absorption spectrum of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses: test-able with an aquarium and a UV light If you want to have some "fun", go track down a full spectrum chart of sunlight and how carbon dioxide and water vapor and such absorb that sunlight. Pay particular attention to the infrared band, which is very large. What do you see? As to your aquarium example, some years back a "skeptic" once very publicly tried to replicate a similar experiment - one that was claimed to have been done many times and which clearly showed the greenhouse effect of CO2. Only it didn't replicate as described, as I recall, implying that the example itself may very well be bogus. Also, IIRC, another group ran a similar experiment sometime later and claimed a positive result. Except that even a layman like myself could clearly see that their experiment was very poorly controlled, and not nearly as cleanly run as the first one. So while they happily claimed a successful replication, in fact they never actually proved nor disproved anything, as far as I could tell. > 2) That aggregate 24/7 human industrial activity (ie all: cars, boats, planes, construction, smelting, BTC mining, etc), is somehow increasing greenhouse gasses: this is tested by checking the air, if seeing smog clouds or logic isn't proof enough This includes water vapor, perhaps the most powerful and important of all the greenhouse gases on Earth. Yet for some reason this is almost completely ignored by the anti-CO2 crowd. > 3) That Venus exists, our telescopes are not lying, and we don't want to take vacations there If you want to have some more "fun", go look at the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere of Venus, which is very hot. And while you're at it, go look at the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere of Mars, which is quite cold - cold enough that the CO2 actually freezes out of the air there on a regular basis. Tell me what you find. > Climate change has been on the end of a 50 year FUD campaign meant to confuse the issue so that laymen only hear the arguing. So it's 50 years now, is it? Seems a little long to me but whatever. What's important here is that this is another claim of "FUD", no doubt directed at the fossil-fuel industry. But IMO claims that this are often made less to point out "the truth of the matter" (in their opinion) and are instead usually more of a cheap-shot attempt to convince folks not to listen to the points being made by the other side (or to try and justify their own refusal to listen), which often call out glaring weaknesses in the overall argument.
dpark 8y ago
Why do you believe we should stop carbon pollution if you don’t think it’s relevant to global warming? If it’s unrelated to climate change then carbon dioxide release is pretty benign. It actually helps trees and other plants. > I'm curious what convinced people here that climate change is likely caused by humans rather than just earths cyclical temp changes that have happened for a long time. What part do you have trouble believing? We’ve raised the carbon dioxide level by something like 40% since the industrial revolution. Unless carbon dioxide levels are somehow divorced from the amount of heat the atmosphere captures, we have clearly caused at least a portion of the increase. Scroll down to the long term historical chart to see what we’ve done relative to historical concentrations. https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/ https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/
- wtvanhest 8y ago
  I've seen that before on NASA's site, but the thing that bothers me (maybe not rightfully) is that the visualizations depend on the scale used. The didnt even note why they picked the scale for the colors or the graphs. In other fields (business) that would be a HUGE red flag. The other issue is that they appear to be changing measurement methods of carbon. First using ice cores and later using real air or at least much younger ice cores. They dont say how or their methodology or assumptions they had to make. (Im sure there are good ones, but why not definitely state them so the reader can decide) etc. I just dont know why there isnt a single source that aggregates the approaches, explains the assumptions and lets the reader decide. Instead, every bit of work on this topic is sensationalized and it makes me not want to believe it. I want to see a well reason argument that lays out the assumptions and I don't think that is too much to want before being convinced
  - dpark 8y ago
    > the thing that bothers me (maybe not rightfully) is that the visualizations depend on the scale used. The didnt even note why they picked the scale for the colors or the graphs. > In other fields (business) that would be a HUGE red flag. I don't know why you think this would be a huge red flag in other fields. You're given multiple visualizations. One is a graph of recent direct carbon dioxide measurements. The second is a graph covering 400,000 years of indirect measurements. The last is a time series of recent data showing carbon dioxide concentration in a map view. The only thing iffy about these is that the graphs don't start the Y axis at 0. This is either a dirty trick to inflate the visible change or a helpful visualization choice to highlight the meaningful difference, depending mostly on how you feel about the data. But regardless it doesn't change the numbers. > The other issue is that they appear to be changing measurement methods of carbon. First using ice cores and later using real air or at least much younger ice cores. They give you different data sources in different visualizations. You make it sound as if they are mixing them where convenient. Especially with your "at least much younger ice cores" statement, I'm having trouble suspending my disbelief about your claimed intent here. Near as I can tell there is no substance or meaning to this claim, and you're simply creating FUD. > They dont say how or their methodology or assumptions they had to make. (Im sure there are good ones, but why not definitely state them so the reader can decide) etc. So do some research. You say you've "yet to read a research report that is convincing that climate change is abnormal due to humans." But have you actually looked? You can go to NOAA and learn about their core and atmosphere sampling methodology. You can look up NASA's AIRS system for details on how it works. It's not possible to spoon feed the level of detail that you claim to want. The spoon feeding is the high level data that NASA gives you. If you want more than that, dig in and find it. > I just dont know why there isnt a single source that aggregates the approaches, explains the assumptions and lets the reader decide. Instead, every bit of work on this topic is sensationalized and it makes me not want to believe it. I want to see a well reason argument that lays out the assumptions and I don't think that is too much to want before being convinced You complain that NASA is mixing measurements above (which doesn't appear to be a valid claim, by the way), and now you want someone to create a high-level summary that actually does aggregate the measurements? You're not consistent in what you're asking for. You are also essentially asking why no one has managed to summarize literally centuries of human work into a blog post that explains this in an irrefutable way. You're asking for something unreasonable. You are asserting that everything is "sensationalized", but NASA's page is literally 3 visualizations and a short bit of text. Everything is only "sensationalized" if you're choosing to see it that way. There are lots and lots of resources online that provide details. Start at Wikipedia and go from there. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
DC-3 8y ago
To be frank, this strikes me as concern trolling, assuming this post was made in good faith, perhaps this will enlighten you: https://xkcd.com/1732/ https://xkcd.com/1732/
- mmt 8y ago
  > assuming this post was made in good faith That assumption is exhorted by the site guidelines. > https://xkcd.com/1732/ https://xkcd.com/1732/ The problem is that this is merely another "meta report" that the parent specifically found unconvincing. It neither provides hard numbers, nor methodology (which would demonstrate the "hardness", as it were, of those numbers).
  - peterashford 8y ago
    The trouble is - that historical data is the data so far as we know. I don't see anyone claiming the historical data is incorrect or fabricated and unless there's a really good reason to doubt it, we should accept it. If you're not convinced by the historical record, then it's more a matter of stubbornness than methodology at that point
    - mmt 8y ago
      > The trouble is - that historical data is the data so far as we know. The trouble is, that the XKCD cartoon is not the data. It is a picture representation of some data. It still falls under the category of "meta" report. This is, of course, as the GP pointed out, "fine", but it does not subsitute for the data itself, nor for the methodology (which is discussed elsewhere in the thread. > I don't see anyone claiming the historical data is incorrect or fabricated I don't personally know enough about the topic to know if that's true, but, given the history of (arguably manufactured) controversy around the topic, nothing would surprise me. Regardless, even as recently as 1,000 years ago, we would not have had reliable, direct temperature measurement across the globe. That means that all but a minute portion of the time period covered by the referenced picture uses synthesized temperature data. Despite being potentially synonymous, I recognize that's not the same as frabricated. However, it does make the methodology that much more important. The data (raw and synthesized) also have other characteristics significant to their eventual interpretation/analysis, besides correctness (or certainty), such as sample frequency. (The concept of overfitted models, for example, was recently discussed on HN). > unless there's a really good reason to doubt it, we should accept it. I posit this stance is incompatible with the scientific method and has contributed to the "reproducibility crisis" in modern science. Although I certainly agree that attempting to reproduce (i.e. gather) raw data should be left as a last resort, I don't feel even it deserves any special treatment. Sadly, the raw data is generally simply not publically available (for science in general, no ideal about climate, specifically). To me, that's the difference between science and religion, with the former, it's actually helpful to "doubt" (i.e. skeptically verify) even if you "believe" (in the conclusion and how it was reached).
Retra 8y ago
In what sense are you an environmentalist?
peterashford 8y ago
The rate of change we have now has never occurred before in recorded history.
wtvanhest 8y ago
I'm pretty disappointed in the downvotes for an honest question. I've been a longtime HN contributor and have never seen that. I guess this topic is too political for a real discussion.

lopmotr 8y ago

I'd love to have an answer to this too! Unfortunately, it seems to be a field that's too difficult for non-specialists to make any conclusions in at all. I'd say almost everyone who believes it was caused by humans does so because of peer/political pressure or trust in authority directly telling them that fact. All explanations I've ever heard don't have the conclusion logically following from the information we know. For example "CO2 contributes to the greenhouse effect so our CO2 actually caused the observed global warming." or "The increase in CO2 is dramatic so that must cause dramatic warming.". I don't understand how even scientists can be so sure of the causality because in a complex system, proving that a one-off event caused another one-off event is supposed to be impossible, isn't it? You can't replicate it. You can't do a controlled experiment. It seems you can only model it and notice that your model shows causation. What if the model is wrong? It's too complicated for laymen to understand. It seems to be even harder than nuclear physics which even school kids can use to make predictions about nuclear reactions.

telchar 8y ago
It's ok to want an answer. You may have to accept though (and it seems you're on your way to this) that the answer isn't simple, can't be broken down to a simple paragraph and can't be digested in a sitting. If you're not content taking the short explanation (e.g. "CO2 contributes to the greenhouse effect so our CO2 actually caused the observed global warming.") then you need to accept that you will have to study the models in depth and try to understand what assumptions/approximations were made, why the scientists consider those valid, what data are used and what biases or errors exist and needed to be corrected for and why those are valid, etc. And that's all ok. As long as a person doesn't reject the science outright because they can't understand the work or don't want to put in the effort. But those who reject the science or insist that nothing be done about it until they personally understand it need to either put in the effort to understand it or lend faith to the scientific consensus which has been developed through great effort.
- lopmotr 8y ago
  Yes, if you don't understand it and won't study it, then the best bet is to side with the scientists. The trouble is, that's almost everyone. It just seems to be one of those areas that's impenetrable to laymen.
  - bonesss 8y ago
    > It just seems to be one of those areas that's impenetrable to laymen. Bull-hooey. If you're genuinely interested you only have to understand the difference between climate and weather, the time scales involved (decades, not years), the limitations of models vis-a-vis spot-predictions, and wrap your head around the nuance between "change" and "rate of change" (ie speed vs acceleration). That is not hard, but 99% of "skeptics" can't be bothered... If you're mentally flexible enough to get that the problem isn't that pendulums swing, but that a fast swinging pendulum could be Very Bad for our civilization, climate change rests on three straightforward principles and observations: 1) The absorption spectrum of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses: test-able with an aquarium and a UV light 2) That aggregate 24/7 human industrial activity (ie all: cars, boats, planes, construction, smelting, BTC mining, etc), is somehow increasing greenhouse gasses: this is tested by checking the air, if seeing smog clouds or logic isn't proof enough 3) That Venus exists, our telescopes are not lying, and we don't want to take vacations there Of the 8 planets in this solar system, 1 of them has had its climate go into overdrive and now resembles biblical Hell. Human activity will never push things that far, but we'd talking about the end of mankind well before that point... Climate change is not impenetrable to laymen. Climate change has been on the end of a 50 year FUD campaign meant to confuse the issue so that laymen only hear the arguing. Totally coincidental: oil company marketing triangulation has pointed out for years that they don't have to convince anyone on climate change, they just have to extend the debate past the point of action. It worked.
    - southern_cross 8y ago
      > That is not hard, but 99% of "skeptics" can't be bothered... Actually, most of the "skeptics" that I've seen online are right on top of this kind of stuff! It's the other side that just wants to hand-wave away far too many things. > 1) The absorption spectrum of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses: test-able with an aquarium and a UV light If you want to have some "fun", go track down a full spectrum chart of sunlight and how carbon dioxide and water vapor and such absorb that sunlight. Pay particular attention to the infrared band, which is very large. What do you see? As to your aquarium example, some years back a "skeptic" once very publicly tried to replicate a similar experiment - one that was claimed to have been done many times and which clearly showed the greenhouse effect of CO2. Only it didn't replicate as described, as I recall, implying that the example itself may very well be bogus. Also, IIRC, another group ran a similar experiment sometime later and claimed a positive result. Except that even a layman like myself could clearly see that their experiment was very poorly controlled, and not nearly as cleanly run as the first one. So while they happily claimed a successful replication, in fact they never actually proved nor disproved anything, as far as I could tell. > 2) That aggregate 24/7 human industrial activity (ie all: cars, boats, planes, construction, smelting, BTC mining, etc), is somehow increasing greenhouse gasses: this is tested by checking the air, if seeing smog clouds or logic isn't proof enough This includes water vapor, perhaps the most powerful and important of all the greenhouse gases on Earth. Yet for some reason this is almost completely ignored by the anti-CO2 crowd. > 3) That Venus exists, our telescopes are not lying, and we don't want to take vacations there If you want to have some more "fun", go look at the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere of Venus, which is very hot. And while you're at it, go look at the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere of Mars, which is quite cold - cold enough that the CO2 actually freezes out of the air there on a regular basis. Tell me what you find. > Climate change has been on the end of a 50 year FUD campaign meant to confuse the issue so that laymen only hear the arguing. So it's 50 years now, is it? Seems a little long to me but whatever. What's important here is that this is another claim of "FUD", no doubt directed at the fossil-fuel industry. But IMO claims that this are often made less to point out "the truth of the matter" (in their opinion) and are instead usually more of a cheap-shot attempt to convince folks not to listen to the points being made by the other side (or to try and justify their own refusal to listen), which often call out glaring weaknesses in the overall argument.

dpark 8y ago

Why do you believe we should stop carbon pollution if you don’t think it’s relevant to global warming? If it’s unrelated to climate change then carbon dioxide release is pretty benign. It actually helps trees and other plants. > I'm curious what convinced people here that climate change is likely caused by humans rather than just earths cyclical temp changes that have happened for a long time. What part do you have trouble believing? We’ve raised the carbon dioxide level by something like 40% since the industrial revolution. Unless carbon dioxide levels are somehow divorced from the amount of heat the atmosphere captures, we have clearly caused at least a portion of the increase. Scroll down to the long term historical chart to see what we’ve done relative to historical concentrations. https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/ https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/

wtvanhest 8y ago
I've seen that before on NASA's site, but the thing that bothers me (maybe not rightfully) is that the visualizations depend on the scale used. The didnt even note why they picked the scale for the colors or the graphs. In other fields (business) that would be a HUGE red flag. The other issue is that they appear to be changing measurement methods of carbon. First using ice cores and later using real air or at least much younger ice cores. They dont say how or their methodology or assumptions they had to make. (Im sure there are good ones, but why not definitely state them so the reader can decide) etc. I just dont know why there isnt a single source that aggregates the approaches, explains the assumptions and lets the reader decide. Instead, every bit of work on this topic is sensationalized and it makes me not want to believe it. I want to see a well reason argument that lays out the assumptions and I don't think that is too much to want before being convinced
- dpark 8y ago
  > the thing that bothers me (maybe not rightfully) is that the visualizations depend on the scale used. The didnt even note why they picked the scale for the colors or the graphs. > In other fields (business) that would be a HUGE red flag. I don't know why you think this would be a huge red flag in other fields. You're given multiple visualizations. One is a graph of recent direct carbon dioxide measurements. The second is a graph covering 400,000 years of indirect measurements. The last is a time series of recent data showing carbon dioxide concentration in a map view. The only thing iffy about these is that the graphs don't start the Y axis at 0. This is either a dirty trick to inflate the visible change or a helpful visualization choice to highlight the meaningful difference, depending mostly on how you feel about the data. But regardless it doesn't change the numbers. > The other issue is that they appear to be changing measurement methods of carbon. First using ice cores and later using real air or at least much younger ice cores. They give you different data sources in different visualizations. You make it sound as if they are mixing them where convenient. Especially with your "at least much younger ice cores" statement, I'm having trouble suspending my disbelief about your claimed intent here. Near as I can tell there is no substance or meaning to this claim, and you're simply creating FUD. > They dont say how or their methodology or assumptions they had to make. (Im sure there are good ones, but why not definitely state them so the reader can decide) etc. So do some research. You say you've "yet to read a research report that is convincing that climate change is abnormal due to humans." But have you actually looked? You can go to NOAA and learn about their core and atmosphere sampling methodology. You can look up NASA's AIRS system for details on how it works. It's not possible to spoon feed the level of detail that you claim to want. The spoon feeding is the high level data that NASA gives you. If you want more than that, dig in and find it. > I just dont know why there isnt a single source that aggregates the approaches, explains the assumptions and lets the reader decide. Instead, every bit of work on this topic is sensationalized and it makes me not want to believe it. I want to see a well reason argument that lays out the assumptions and I don't think that is too much to want before being convinced You complain that NASA is mixing measurements above (which doesn't appear to be a valid claim, by the way), and now you want someone to create a high-level summary that actually does aggregate the measurements? You're not consistent in what you're asking for. You are also essentially asking why no one has managed to summarize literally centuries of human work into a blog post that explains this in an irrefutable way. You're asking for something unreasonable. You are asserting that everything is "sensationalized", but NASA's page is literally 3 visualizations and a short bit of text. Everything is only "sensationalized" if you're choosing to see it that way. There are lots and lots of resources online that provide details. Start at Wikipedia and go from there. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

DC-3 8y ago

To be frank, this strikes me as concern trolling, assuming this post was made in good faith, perhaps this will enlighten you: https://xkcd.com/1732/ https://xkcd.com/1732/

mmt 8y ago
> assuming this post was made in good faith That assumption is exhorted by the site guidelines. > https://xkcd.com/1732/ https://xkcd.com/1732/ The problem is that this is merely another "meta report" that the parent specifically found unconvincing. It neither provides hard numbers, nor methodology (which would demonstrate the "hardness", as it were, of those numbers).
- peterashford 8y ago
  The trouble is - that historical data is the data so far as we know. I don't see anyone claiming the historical data is incorrect or fabricated and unless there's a really good reason to doubt it, we should accept it. If you're not convinced by the historical record, then it's more a matter of stubbornness than methodology at that point
  - mmt 8y ago
    > The trouble is - that historical data is the data so far as we know. The trouble is, that the XKCD cartoon is not the data. It is a picture representation of some data. It still falls under the category of "meta" report. This is, of course, as the GP pointed out, "fine", but it does not subsitute for the data itself, nor for the methodology (which is discussed elsewhere in the thread. > I don't see anyone claiming the historical data is incorrect or fabricated I don't personally know enough about the topic to know if that's true, but, given the history of (arguably manufactured) controversy around the topic, nothing would surprise me. Regardless, even as recently as 1,000 years ago, we would not have had reliable, direct temperature measurement across the globe. That means that all but a minute portion of the time period covered by the referenced picture uses synthesized temperature data. Despite being potentially synonymous, I recognize that's not the same as frabricated. However, it does make the methodology that much more important. The data (raw and synthesized) also have other characteristics significant to their eventual interpretation/analysis, besides correctness (or certainty), such as sample frequency. (The concept of overfitted models, for example, was recently discussed on HN). > unless there's a really good reason to doubt it, we should accept it. I posit this stance is incompatible with the scientific method and has contributed to the "reproducibility crisis" in modern science. Although I certainly agree that attempting to reproduce (i.e. gather) raw data should be left as a last resort, I don't feel even it deserves any special treatment. Sadly, the raw data is generally simply not publically available (for science in general, no ideal about climate, specifically). To me, that's the difference between science and religion, with the former, it's actually helpful to "doubt" (i.e. skeptically verify) even if you "believe" (in the conclusion and how it was reached).

Retra 8y ago

In what sense are you an environmentalist?

peterashford 8y ago

The rate of change we have now has never occurred before in recorded history.

wtvanhest 8y ago

I'm pretty disappointed in the downvotes for an honest question. I've been a longtime HN contributor and have never seen that. I guess this topic is too political for a real discussion.