4 ms·

Whenever anything related to the weather happens now it’s climate change. Dry winter? Climate change. Wet winter? Climate change. Cold summer? Climate change.

by _3u10 5y ago

Whenever anything related to the weather happens now it’s climate change. Dry winter? Climate change. Wet winter? Climate change. Cold summer? Climate change. Heat wave? Climate change. Hurricane? Climate change. Doldrums? Climate change. Every religion has a global flood myth, climate change is just the one of the scientifically religious and its zealots get just as upset if you don’t believe it as if you think Noah’s ark didn’t happen. Similarly there is no way to disprove it. You can see the ridiculousness of the situation when it comes to how they prove it, consensus. Science has never involved consensus, it works on hypothesis and evidence. Similarly no one can agree on which model predicts the future so they run 80,000 models with different parameters and then 20 years later pick whichever one happened to randomly generate the outcome and ignore the 79,999 models which were wrong. I’m not a denier, I’m open to a single hypothesis, and a length of time in which we can analyze the results. In summary climate change is a global flood myth and the solution is Pascal’s wager. And predictably no one points to any evidence they just downvote because they have nothing to say.

BobbyJo 5y ago
There are very clear correlations. The scientists aren't pulling the association out of thin air, it's observed. We have satellites that watch the atmospheric currents and temperature fluctuations, how those drag different temperatures of air to different areas, and back engineer why things are moving the way they are. The primary example is the weakening of the Arctic air currents causing the cold air to escape. The Arctic then warms faster, and causes short-lived, dramatic drops in temperature in the north Midwest. We do similar back-engineering with the dry spells on the west coast. The largest computers in the world are routinely used to simulate the weather and predict changes climate change will cause, and we are getting more and more accurate every year.
- _3u10 5y ago
  Thank you, I appreciate the discussion rather than downvoting. Do you think that a weakening current with more water in the atmosphere (atmospheric rivers) will lead to more or less snowfall? Not being sarcastic, it’s just that if both things are true it would indicate that the prediction in this article is wrong. Unrelated, what are your thoughts on the carboniferous period with 800ppm CO2 and 0 degrees difference in average temp. (This is according to Wikipedia, I can appreciate if the answer is Wikipedia is not reliable on this matter)
  - BobbyJo 5y ago
    > Do you think that a weakening current with more water in the atmosphere (atmospheric rivers) will lead to more or less snowfall? Not being sarcastic, it’s just that if both things are true it would indicate that the prediction in this article is wrong. Depends on where you are. The center of Africa is all desert. If they start getting a lot of rain, and the PNW gets less, the overall amount of rain falling can increase while the west coast of the US falls apart. Weather isn't uniform, and the climate in various locations is going to change. Some places will likely change for the better while others change for the worse. The issue there is that the places that are great now, but will be worse have a lot more people living in them than the places that are bad now and will get better. > Unrelated, what are your thoughts on the carboniferous period with 800ppm CO2 and 0 degrees difference in average temp. I don't know much about it. A good way to frame climate stuff in general: Normally things sit at some equilibrium and experiences a slow change to some new equilibrium due to some natural process. Like the most recent ice age ending. The reason man made climate change specifically is dangerous is we can change one aspect of the current equilibrium faster than all the factors can move to match it. That's why you'll hear people say "We could go carbon neutral today and the Earth will continue warming for decades." It's because we are changing one variable of the equation faster than the others can adjust, which has only happened historically during massive die-offs and extinction events. If we want from 200ppm to 600ppm over 200k years, the consequences would likely be pretty much unnoticed for most animal species. Doing it in 100, not so much.
- thjkgfgrrioppo 5y ago
  How long have those satellites been watching? It can't be all that long? It seems to me scientists still find unexpected things. I think when people first tried to model the three body problem, the planets would just fall apart. But in reality they don't, so they knew they had to try harder. I wonder if many doomsday models are like the three body models that fell apart. And newspapers go "scientists show that earth could float off into space soon".
- haberman 5y ago
  If the modeling is this good and this accurate, it would be helpful if consensus predictions were published in a prominent outlet that is easy for the public to consume and compare against empirical data as it comes in. I think this is particularly true if you can make reliable predictions about specific regions. This would help build credibility. Right now, it seems like many are quick to attribute any kind of unfortunate weather to climate change, even if it leads to ultimately contradictory claims. For example, a few months ago Scott Alexander posed the question of whether climate change could reduce the number of cold-related deaths. In the comments for that article (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28960588 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28960588), many countered by saying that climate change is actually predicted to make winters colder on average, and/or increase the number of extreme cold weather events. It was no help that you can find news articles from prominent outlets that appear to make contradictory claims on this point (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28963655 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28963655). It took a fair amount of digging into IPCC reports to determine that this appears to be incorrect; the consensus prediction is warming winters (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28963266 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28963266). But in the thread we couldn't come to agreement on whether the consensus view predicts more or fewer extreme cold events.
dahart 5y ago
> climate change is a global flood myth Here’s some light reading, with evidence, if you’re interested. https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes/basics-of-climate-change/ https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-chan... https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5_summary-for-policymakers.pdf https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climat... https://www.nytimes.com/article/climate-change-global-warming-faq.html https://www.nytimes.com/article/climate-change-global-warmin...
- _3u10 5y ago
  Thank you, I’m quite interested, I read as much as I can about it as obviously if it is real it’s quite serious. The first graph in the first link exemplifies the problems I have with CC evidence, the data presented goes back a long time but not far enough to when we know CO2 was higher. While it does not outright lie it tailors the data to create the impression that it hasn’t been higher. It’s like when graphs don’t have the axis at zero to exaggerate the differences. For such a serious topic I would expect less disengenous presentation of the data. Overall, not your links, but the totality of what I’ve read over the years, I get the feeling of being asked to make a decision based on reading advocacy pieces rather than a summary of the available information regardless of what conclusion it points to. edit: upon re checking the first link I see the graph is also not centered on zero, again to exaggerate the differences between pre-industrial Revolution and now.
  - dahart 5y ago
    Why do you need more that 1 million years? Why is that “disingenuous” to stop before 10 million years? I agree with your concern about the graph’s Y axis not being zeroed, it should be. Still, the jump in the last century is quite large, right? So why does it matter if CO2 levels were higher before humans existed? Isn’t it concerning you to that CO2 levels have jumped extremely suddenly and with very large magnitude to 30% higher (and growing) than the earth has seen in the last million years? Is your contention that CO2 doesn’t necessarily imply climate change? This page covers a larger time period: https://earth.org/data_visualization/a-brief-history-of-co2/ https://earth.org/data_visualization/a-brief-history-of-co2/ It shows a correlation between temperature and CO2 for 10+ million years ago, that would seem to justify concern with today’s skyrocketing CO2 levels, no? BTW, I think your comment above demonstrates a misunderstanding of what “scientific consensus” means. It doesn’t meant that scientists have gotten together to agree on what the collective will believe. It means that many independent studies and investigations have reached compatible conclusions, that multiple different kinds of hypotheses and evidence are all pointing at the same result. I will add & admit that using “consensus” is an argument by authority. Personally I think the consensus is worth noting, but that point may be having the opposite effect on you by making you feel pressured to accept it. You’re right that the links I posted are advocacy and lay-person summaries, not scientific sources. The answer to this is to follow the citations and read the actual sources.

by _3u10 5y ago

BobbyJo 5y ago

There are very clear correlations. The scientists aren't pulling the association out of thin air, it's observed. We have satellites that watch the atmospheric currents and temperature fluctuations, how those drag different temperatures of air to different areas, and back engineer why things are moving the way they are. The primary example is the weakening of the Arctic air currents causing the cold air to escape. The Arctic then warms faster, and causes short-lived, dramatic drops in temperature in the north Midwest. We do similar back-engineering with the dry spells on the west coast. The largest computers in the world are routinely used to simulate the weather and predict changes climate change will cause, and we are getting more and more accurate every year.

_3u10 5y ago
Thank you, I appreciate the discussion rather than downvoting. Do you think that a weakening current with more water in the atmosphere (atmospheric rivers) will lead to more or less snowfall? Not being sarcastic, it’s just that if both things are true it would indicate that the prediction in this article is wrong. Unrelated, what are your thoughts on the carboniferous period with 800ppm CO2 and 0 degrees difference in average temp. (This is according to Wikipedia, I can appreciate if the answer is Wikipedia is not reliable on this matter)
- BobbyJo 5y ago
  > Do you think that a weakening current with more water in the atmosphere (atmospheric rivers) will lead to more or less snowfall? Not being sarcastic, it’s just that if both things are true it would indicate that the prediction in this article is wrong. Depends on where you are. The center of Africa is all desert. If they start getting a lot of rain, and the PNW gets less, the overall amount of rain falling can increase while the west coast of the US falls apart. Weather isn't uniform, and the climate in various locations is going to change. Some places will likely change for the better while others change for the worse. The issue there is that the places that are great now, but will be worse have a lot more people living in them than the places that are bad now and will get better. > Unrelated, what are your thoughts on the carboniferous period with 800ppm CO2 and 0 degrees difference in average temp. I don't know much about it. A good way to frame climate stuff in general: Normally things sit at some equilibrium and experiences a slow change to some new equilibrium due to some natural process. Like the most recent ice age ending. The reason man made climate change specifically is dangerous is we can change one aspect of the current equilibrium faster than all the factors can move to match it. That's why you'll hear people say "We could go carbon neutral today and the Earth will continue warming for decades." It's because we are changing one variable of the equation faster than the others can adjust, which has only happened historically during massive die-offs and extinction events. If we want from 200ppm to 600ppm over 200k years, the consequences would likely be pretty much unnoticed for most animal species. Doing it in 100, not so much.
thjkgfgrrioppo 5y ago
How long have those satellites been watching? It can't be all that long? It seems to me scientists still find unexpected things. I think when people first tried to model the three body problem, the planets would just fall apart. But in reality they don't, so they knew they had to try harder. I wonder if many doomsday models are like the three body models that fell apart. And newspapers go "scientists show that earth could float off into space soon".
haberman 5y ago
If the modeling is this good and this accurate, it would be helpful if consensus predictions were published in a prominent outlet that is easy for the public to consume and compare against empirical data as it comes in. I think this is particularly true if you can make reliable predictions about specific regions. This would help build credibility. Right now, it seems like many are quick to attribute any kind of unfortunate weather to climate change, even if it leads to ultimately contradictory claims. For example, a few months ago Scott Alexander posed the question of whether climate change could reduce the number of cold-related deaths. In the comments for that article (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28960588 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28960588), many countered by saying that climate change is actually predicted to make winters colder on average, and/or increase the number of extreme cold weather events. It was no help that you can find news articles from prominent outlets that appear to make contradictory claims on this point (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28963655 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28963655). It took a fair amount of digging into IPCC reports to determine that this appears to be incorrect; the consensus prediction is warming winters (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28963266 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28963266). But in the thread we couldn't come to agreement on whether the consensus view predicts more or fewer extreme cold events.

dahart 5y ago

> climate change is a global flood myth Here’s some light reading, with evidence, if you’re interested. https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes/basics-of-climate-change/ https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-chan... https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5_summary-for-policymakers.pdf https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climat... https://www.nytimes.com/article/climate-change-global-warming-faq.html https://www.nytimes.com/article/climate-change-global-warmin...

_3u10 5y ago
Thank you, I’m quite interested, I read as much as I can about it as obviously if it is real it’s quite serious. The first graph in the first link exemplifies the problems I have with CC evidence, the data presented goes back a long time but not far enough to when we know CO2 was higher. While it does not outright lie it tailors the data to create the impression that it hasn’t been higher. It’s like when graphs don’t have the axis at zero to exaggerate the differences. For such a serious topic I would expect less disengenous presentation of the data. Overall, not your links, but the totality of what I’ve read over the years, I get the feeling of being asked to make a decision based on reading advocacy pieces rather than a summary of the available information regardless of what conclusion it points to. edit: upon re checking the first link I see the graph is also not centered on zero, again to exaggerate the differences between pre-industrial Revolution and now.
- dahart 5y ago
  Why do you need more that 1 million years? Why is that “disingenuous” to stop before 10 million years? I agree with your concern about the graph’s Y axis not being zeroed, it should be. Still, the jump in the last century is quite large, right? So why does it matter if CO2 levels were higher before humans existed? Isn’t it concerning you to that CO2 levels have jumped extremely suddenly and with very large magnitude to 30% higher (and growing) than the earth has seen in the last million years? Is your contention that CO2 doesn’t necessarily imply climate change? This page covers a larger time period: https://earth.org/data_visualization/a-brief-history-of-co2/ https://earth.org/data_visualization/a-brief-history-of-co2/ It shows a correlation between temperature and CO2 for 10+ million years ago, that would seem to justify concern with today’s skyrocketing CO2 levels, no? BTW, I think your comment above demonstrates a misunderstanding of what “scientific consensus” means. It doesn’t meant that scientists have gotten together to agree on what the collective will believe. It means that many independent studies and investigations have reached compatible conclusions, that multiple different kinds of hypotheses and evidence are all pointing at the same result. I will add & admit that using “consensus” is an argument by authority. Personally I think the consensus is worth noting, but that point may be having the opposite effect on you by making you feel pressured to accept it. You’re right that the links I posted are advocacy and lay-person summaries, not scientific sources. The answer to this is to follow the citations and read the actual sources.