3 ms·

He didn't say no one can refute a religious belief, he said that no one ever wins religious arguments, which is pretty much on the mark. I have a suspicion that

by jgranby 18y ago

He didn't say no one can refute a religious belief, he said that no one ever wins religious arguments, which is pretty much on the mark. I have a suspicion that you won't leave this discussion with a changed opinion about global warming, and I doubt that anything anyone's going to say here will make you change your mind. Personally, I agree with you that mankind could do something that would have a permanent effect on global temperature. I am simply of the opinion that there's nowhere near enough cogent evidence that this is what is happening. A paltry 150 years' worth of possibly inaccurate data, containing two decade-long periods of cooling? If you take away all the media hype and bias, there's not a lot there to convince me.

Retric 18y ago
There are plenty of things that would change my stance on global worming. But, like most long studied subject's there is a lot of evidence to back up global worming. Everything from samples of arctic ice from thousands of years ago, to plant samples, weather models, and satellite data. But, the two basic factors that would change my mind are: #1) A well defined mechanism that limits the impact green house gasses on temperature and weather. #2) An accurate, global, and long term temperature measurement that strongly links global temperature to some other factor and shows little correlation with CO2. Which is more accurate than all the other data we have collected to this point. I studied the physics behind global climate models and there are other factors that impact temperature, but most of them are short term factors and CO2 has a stable long term impact. At the basic level CO2 changes how much energy leaks to space though the atmospheric absorption gaps in EM spectrum. At temperature rise that changes some but 280 kelvin vs. 282 kelvin is minor etc. Local areas can experience dramatic shifts in weather but as a global system energy in must equal energy out +/= extremely tiny fractions which are stored / released energy. etc. PS: I am willing to change my stance with new information which is why this is not a religious stance. But, without such information there is little reason to change my stance. Edit: The reason I called his statement as a religious argument is it equated the process where I gathered data to a religious viewpoint. However, if your staying that you feel global worming does not exist as a religious stance, I will stop talking, because there is little reason to present information to someone who does not care about it.
- deleted 18y ago
  [deleted]
  - Retric 18y ago
    That is a local weather effect most likely caused by a shift in prevailing wind and ocean currents. Anyway, it says next to nothing about global temperatures. Oddly enough several models demonstrate a possible cooling of northern Europe as a result of global worming. But, I think it's a stretch to suggest we can predict regional weather patterns with that level of accuracy over the long term. PS: Magnitude of change is much harder to predict than direction of change and you need an accurate prediction of magnitude before you can understand the interactions of local weather patterns. Local weather is an extremely complex problem involving everything from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coriolis_effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coriolis_effect, ocean currents, to the shape of the local, regional and global land masses etc.
    - 1gor 18y ago
      Sorry, I've deleted my previous comment because I've just found out this thread has been 'deaded', so readers don't see it on HN front page. Apparently only people who have commented already can still see it. The discussion was interesting thanks for your thoughts. But I'm disgusted to take part in a forum where an editor can shut you up if you touch his religious beliefs. So much for hacker/scientist spirit. What a joke.

by jgranby 18y ago

Retric 18y ago

There are plenty of things that would change my stance on global worming. But, like most long studied subject's there is a lot of evidence to back up global worming. Everything from samples of arctic ice from thousands of years ago, to plant samples, weather models, and satellite data. But, the two basic factors that would change my mind are: #1) A well defined mechanism that limits the impact green house gasses on temperature and weather. #2) An accurate, global, and long term temperature measurement that strongly links global temperature to some other factor and shows little correlation with CO2. Which is more accurate than all the other data we have collected to this point. I studied the physics behind global climate models and there are other factors that impact temperature, but most of them are short term factors and CO2 has a stable long term impact. At the basic level CO2 changes how much energy leaks to space though the atmospheric absorption gaps in EM spectrum. At temperature rise that changes some but 280 kelvin vs. 282 kelvin is minor etc. Local areas can experience dramatic shifts in weather but as a global system energy in must equal energy out +/= extremely tiny fractions which are stored / released energy. etc. PS: I am willing to change my stance with new information which is why this is not a religious stance. But, without such information there is little reason to change my stance. Edit: The reason I called his statement as a religious argument is it equated the process where I gathered data to a religious viewpoint. However, if your staying that you feel global worming does not exist as a religious stance, I will stop talking, because there is little reason to present information to someone who does not care about it.

deleted 18y ago
[deleted]
- Retric 18y ago
  That is a local weather effect most likely caused by a shift in prevailing wind and ocean currents. Anyway, it says next to nothing about global temperatures. Oddly enough several models demonstrate a possible cooling of northern Europe as a result of global worming. But, I think it's a stretch to suggest we can predict regional weather patterns with that level of accuracy over the long term. PS: Magnitude of change is much harder to predict than direction of change and you need an accurate prediction of magnitude before you can understand the interactions of local weather patterns. Local weather is an extremely complex problem involving everything from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coriolis_effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coriolis_effect, ocean currents, to the shape of the local, regional and global land masses etc.
  - 1gor 18y ago
    Sorry, I've deleted my previous comment because I've just found out this thread has been 'deaded', so readers don't see it on HN front page. Apparently only people who have commented already can still see it. The discussion was interesting thanks for your thoughts. But I'm disgusted to take part in a forum where an editor can shut you up if you touch his religious beliefs. So much for hacker/scientist spirit. What a joke.