4 ms·

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 r

by 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
  - wtvanhest 8y ago
    I'll spend somed time going through the wiki and the sources quoted. That is a good idea.
  - bena 8y ago
    He claims his field is "business". Just "business". Going to go to the office and do a business. That right there should be a red flag of what you're dealing with.
    - southern_cross 8y ago
      And where exactly does he say that? Or are you just putting words into his mouth? BTW, I know exactly where he's coming from. As a computer nerd I've done my fair share of accounting-type work over the years. And when I once downloaded a massive climate data set and looked at it and did some basic analysis on it (it was being used at the time to make some questionable claims about the climate), the first thing that popped into my head was "OMG, they're really cooking the books! Call in the auditors! Call in the law!" As far as I could tell I was looking at either a massive fraud or a major computer screwup; I could go either way here.
      - kaybe 8y ago
        Well then write an email to the authors and ask them about it (maybe not with that tone though). I'm pretty sure you'll get an answer. Edit: Seriously, if you think we made a mistake we want to know about it in detail. Just consider that a lot of people independently analyzed the data for the publications, including idealistic students without agenda, who then all made the same mistake. It's not very probable, but.. it's not like is has never happened either.
        southern_cross 8y ago
        I didn't need to do that (contact the authors) because as it turned out other people had already done so; basically they just got stonewalled, though. And as I recall one of them was actually a young PhD (or at least a PhD-wannabe), and the response they got back was essentially "If you value your future career in science then you shouldn't go around rocking the boat by asking questions like this!" > Just consider that a lot of people independently analyzed the data for the publications, including idealistic students without agenda, who then all made the same mistake. Yeah, you make it sound like peer-review and such actually works the way that it's usually claimed to work, which is often just not the case. I've seen enough peer-reviewed junk floating around out there over the years to know that.
lopmotr 8y ago
That's the kind of argument that sounds OK only if you already accept the conclusion. Here's another one - The amount of radioactive material in the atmosphere is higher since nuclear testing than ever before in human history. Radioactive material causes cancer so we've clearly caused at least a portion of higher rates of cancer. Call to action - We must all do our part to help clean the radioactive material from the air so we don't die of cancer!
- pjc50 8y ago
  During the post-Chernobyl period we had almost exactly this - vast amounts of European food production had to be discarded because it had absorbed excessive radioactive material from the "plume" from the fire which blew west over Europe.
- dpark 8y ago
  > Radioactive material causes cancer so we've clearly caused at least a portion of higher rates of cancer. I don't think anyone argues that radioactive testing has significantly (or even measurably) increased the background radiation level on Earth. Contrast with carbon dioxide, where we have increased by ~40%. If we had evidence that nuclear testing had significantly increased background radiation levels, then the assertions that it's increased cancer rates and that we should try to clean it up would both be true.
  - smueller1234 8y ago
    Err, wait a minute. Atmospheric nuclear weapons tests HAVE measurably increased background radiation. Source: See for example both the table and the C14 graph at https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_radiation https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_radiation Source 2: Grad degree in physics. Worked at nuclear physics lab.
    - dpark 8y ago
      Well then. I was not aware that we had done that much with our nuclear testing. Obviously then we did probably cause an increase in cancer. On the bright side it looks like we’re almost back to baseline.

by dpark 8y ago

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
- wtvanhest 8y ago
  I'll spend somed time going through the wiki and the sources quoted. That is a good idea.
- bena 8y ago
  He claims his field is "business". Just "business". Going to go to the office and do a business. That right there should be a red flag of what you're dealing with.
  - southern_cross 8y ago
    And where exactly does he say that? Or are you just putting words into his mouth? BTW, I know exactly where he's coming from. As a computer nerd I've done my fair share of accounting-type work over the years. And when I once downloaded a massive climate data set and looked at it and did some basic analysis on it (it was being used at the time to make some questionable claims about the climate), the first thing that popped into my head was "OMG, they're really cooking the books! Call in the auditors! Call in the law!" As far as I could tell I was looking at either a massive fraud or a major computer screwup; I could go either way here.
    - kaybe 8y ago
      Well then write an email to the authors and ask them about it (maybe not with that tone though). I'm pretty sure you'll get an answer. Edit: Seriously, if you think we made a mistake we want to know about it in detail. Just consider that a lot of people independently analyzed the data for the publications, including idealistic students without agenda, who then all made the same mistake. It's not very probable, but.. it's not like is has never happened either.
      - southern_cross 8y ago
        I didn't need to do that (contact the authors) because as it turned out other people had already done so; basically they just got stonewalled, though. And as I recall one of them was actually a young PhD (or at least a PhD-wannabe), and the response they got back was essentially "If you value your future career in science then you shouldn't go around rocking the boat by asking questions like this!" > Just consider that a lot of people independently analyzed the data for the publications, including idealistic students without agenda, who then all made the same mistake. Yeah, you make it sound like peer-review and such actually works the way that it's usually claimed to work, which is often just not the case. I've seen enough peer-reviewed junk floating around out there over the years to know that.

lopmotr 8y ago

That's the kind of argument that sounds OK only if you already accept the conclusion. Here's another one - The amount of radioactive material in the atmosphere is higher since nuclear testing than ever before in human history. Radioactive material causes cancer so we've clearly caused at least a portion of higher rates of cancer. Call to action - We must all do our part to help clean the radioactive material from the air so we don't die of cancer!

pjc50 8y ago
During the post-Chernobyl period we had almost exactly this - vast amounts of European food production had to be discarded because it had absorbed excessive radioactive material from the "plume" from the fire which blew west over Europe.
dpark 8y ago
> Radioactive material causes cancer so we've clearly caused at least a portion of higher rates of cancer. I don't think anyone argues that radioactive testing has significantly (or even measurably) increased the background radiation level on Earth. Contrast with carbon dioxide, where we have increased by ~40%. If we had evidence that nuclear testing had significantly increased background radiation levels, then the assertions that it's increased cancer rates and that we should try to clean it up would both be true.
- smueller1234 8y ago
  Err, wait a minute. Atmospheric nuclear weapons tests HAVE measurably increased background radiation. Source: See for example both the table and the C14 graph at https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_radiation https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_radiation Source 2: Grad degree in physics. Worked at nuclear physics lab.
  - dpark 8y ago
    Well then. I was not aware that we had done that much with our nuclear testing. Obviously then we did probably cause an increase in cancer. On the bright side it looks like we’re almost back to baseline.