4 ms·

We all agree that climate changes. What we are trying to find out is how much humans impact that. You have to show that humans are impacting the trend and causi

We all agree that climate changes. What we are trying to find out is how much humans impact that. You have to show that humans are impacting the trend and causing it to deviate from its baseline for a long enough duration. We are in one of the coolest periods in the last 65m years. [1] The curve-fitting is misleading because too many scientists are attempting to make projections using truncated data. The earth had ice caps about half the time over the last 500m years. Melting and re-glaciation are normal processes. [2] Let's talk about sea level. Since emerging from the last glacial period, sea levels have been rising for the past 8k-10k years, steadily. There has been no deviation during human industrialization from this trend. When we're shown graphs going back 50-100 years, the fact that this is within trend is conveniently omitted. [3] The data showing that the climate is behaving abnormally or out of trend is sparse at best. At worst, we don't really have it. What we're working off of is the hypothesis that co2 affects the climate in a meaningful and measureable way--this is what climate models are trying to show. However, thus far the models have struggled to make accurate predictions. [4] We can go back to ice core samples. We see that current co2 levels are measuring much higher than previously in the ice cores. It seems like this would be a major clue but the methods of measurement are different. The data obtained is not fully reliable. However, let's assume they're reliable. Then it does not explain why temperates are failing to deviate from historical trends in a way related to these samples with regard to the measurements made today. [5] In the last 65m years, solar luminence increases brought about by the constant increases of heavier elements in the sun notwithstanding, we find ourselves in one of the coldest periods. Current temps are measuring lower than in previous 100k year cycles which means we will either warm further or that this is an extra-cold period out-of-trend. Most importantly, as mentioned before, the models built off of co2 levels are doing a poor job with their predictive power. For a final thing to think about, consider some of the best data we have about historical temperates (bucketed logarithmic scale) and realize that we are nowhere near out of trend [6] and that the two rightmost data points are not actual, yet rather predictions made by models we've already established to be incomplete. I work in the field. The fact that I have to make a throwaway account and toe the line in my profession should say enough about how hard it is to have this conversation without regurgitating dogma. [1] https://i.imgur.com/wwaOQz0.png https://i.imgur.com/wwaOQz0.png [2] https://i.imgur.com/KYw9DCK.png https://i.imgur.com/KYw9DCK.png [3] https://i.imgur.com/UTaqhXl.png https://i.imgur.com/UTaqhXl.png [4] https://i.imgur.com/nizfzQS.png https://i.imgur.com/nizfzQS.png [5] https://i.imgur.com/7nZ50Gb.png https://i.imgur.com/7nZ50Gb.png [6] https://i.imgur.com/b9DBMr1.png https://i.imgur.com/b9DBMr1.png

fouc 7y ago
Does it even matter if humans are causing it? Let's figure out solutions to fix the problem.
- in_a_society 7y ago
  Those of us less inclined toward politics and more toward research are concerned that the solution is being discussed and pursued by society at large may not necessarily yield the desired results after a significant amount of investment. This is why we are struggling to improve our models rapidly because many suspect the picture is incomplete.
flukus 7y ago
> You have to show that humans are impacting the trend and causing it to deviate from its baseline for a long enough duration. We are in one of the coolest periods in the last 65m years. [1] The curve-fitting is misleading because too many scientists are attempting to make projections using truncated data. The earth has warmed ~1 degree in a matter of decades. Since you accept this and it's only the human/CO2e influence you doubt then the onus is on you to explain where this tremendous amount of energy has come from. So where is this energy coming from? Which branch of science are you about to shake the foundation of to claim your nobel prize?
- in_a_society 7y ago
  I doubt I’ll be getting a Nobel prize anytime soon, but I appreciate the sear, even if not meant entirely in jest. We are trying to explain it and refining our models rapidly. My concern is that much of public discourse has come down to arguing about “how much money to give to government entities to fix the weather.” A large part of this is because the science isn’t “settled” as it is so often claimed. Really, we’re trying our best but science is messy.
  - flukus 7y ago
    You don't have to refine your models, you have to have even a hypothesis for where the extra energy is coming from if it's not the greenhouse effect. If you had something remotely credible then there's a lot of vested interests happy to shower you with money and show the world. All you have to do is show where the extra energy is coming from. Climate scientists have observed a massive amount of extra energy, come up with an explanation and tested it. All you've done is say it's not that.

fouc 7y ago

Does it even matter if humans are causing it? Let's figure out solutions to fix the problem.

in_a_society 7y ago
Those of us less inclined toward politics and more toward research are concerned that the solution is being discussed and pursued by society at large may not necessarily yield the desired results after a significant amount of investment. This is why we are struggling to improve our models rapidly because many suspect the picture is incomplete.

flukus 7y ago

> You have to show that humans are impacting the trend and causing it to deviate from its baseline for a long enough duration. We are in one of the coolest periods in the last 65m years. [1] The curve-fitting is misleading because too many scientists are attempting to make projections using truncated data. The earth has warmed ~1 degree in a matter of decades. Since you accept this and it's only the human/CO2e influence you doubt then the onus is on you to explain where this tremendous amount of energy has come from. So where is this energy coming from? Which branch of science are you about to shake the foundation of to claim your nobel prize?

in_a_society 7y ago
I doubt I’ll be getting a Nobel prize anytime soon, but I appreciate the sear, even if not meant entirely in jest. We are trying to explain it and refining our models rapidly. My concern is that much of public discourse has come down to arguing about “how much money to give to government entities to fix the weather.” A large part of this is because the science isn’t “settled” as it is so often claimed. Really, we’re trying our best but science is messy.
- flukus 7y ago
  You don't have to refine your models, you have to have even a hypothesis for where the extra energy is coming from if it's not the greenhouse effect. If you had something remotely credible then there's a lot of vested interests happy to shower you with money and show the world. All you have to do is show where the extra energy is coming from. Climate scientists have observed a massive amount of extra energy, come up with an explanation and tested it. All you've done is say it's not that.