9 ms·

The problem is that nobody really "knows" what is going on. Climate science is still very much a work in progress. This is the sad truth of the matter. Trying

The problem is that nobody really "knows" what is going on. Climate science is still very much a work in progress. This is the sad truth of the matter. Trying to figure out whether or not humans are a direct cause of climate change is like trying to figure out if exposure to a certain household product gives you cancer. People get cancer all the time from various sources, and while certain folk can point directly to said chemical being a carcinogen, even if that agreement exists it starts to open up a whole new debate about whether or not there is enough of a link to matter. From what I can tell, ignoring the single idiots on either side, we've got: 1. A general consensus that the world is warming; 2. A slightly less strong consensus that humans are contributing to this warming; 3. A majority (but not a consensus, IMO) extending that to humans being the most direct and primary cause of warming; 4. A strong consensus that we should reduce our overall carbon emissions (for obvious reasons), regardless; 5. A small but significant scientific group arguing that we are not the primary cause of warming, even though we may be a contributing factor; 6. A large contingent of non-science laymen that feel that because 5 may be a valid opinion, the entire study of climate science is bunk; That's basically the best I've found. There are zealots in every camp above. There are also those that feel that each individual point being right means we should either ignore everything else, be it science or consequence. Given how complex the earth's climate is, and how little we know about things like the sun, earth's climate history, and the long term effects of particular chemical compositions in our atmosphere, I feel we won't progress much past our current stage in enough time to make much a difference overall. IMHO, if we believe that climate change is real, we should be focusing all efforts on dealing with it as best we can.

moultano 14y ago
Your post is unsupported by evidence, and seems to be just lazily taking the middle road in an attempted to appear enlightened. The two sides of the "debate" are not equal. There is not substantial disagreement that the climate is changing and that humans are directly responsible. See the consensus report here for the net effects of different factors on the climate. The net effect from human activity is the largest component. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-human-and.html http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-...
- eitland 14y ago
  Not saying we aren't affecting the climate but it might be less obvious than some people are trying to present it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland#Norse_settlement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland#Norse_settlement (Contents behind link: The amount of ice on Greenland have seen significant variations over the last few hundred years, even before we started using fossil fuels.) (Personally I'm all for reducing the use of fossil fuels but my _biggest_ reason is because they are a very finite resource and seem to be running out during our lifetime at the current rate of consumption.)
  - anon1385 14y ago
    >The amount of ice on Greenland have seen significant variations over the last few hundred years Yes, because of well known past climatic variations (some of which were probably localised). There are other drivers of climate than carbon emissions, and these drivers have caused climate to change in the past. That doesn't mean carbon emissions can't drive climate today. We can measure many of these other drivers, and we can see that changing solar output for example can't be driving the current warming.
  - summerdown2 14y ago
    If I read your argument correctly, it seems you think this argument weakens the case for climate change. I think there's a danger in this method of trying to second guess science. I see a lot of the same form of argument from evolution deniers, too, and I always find it hard to understand. The point seems to be: here is a surprising fact that suddenly makes science less sure than you might have been led to think. The problem with it is that scientists see the exact same evidence as you do, and of course have already taken it into account. The whole point of science is to rake in as much evidence as possible and include it in the calculations. Those figures mentioned upthread, for scientist consensus on climate change? That's including facts like this, not ignoring them.
    - eitland 14y ago
      Thanks, enlightened reply. On the other hand I'm feeling that way too many take this debate to a level where they actively deny any evidence that points towards a different solution. Try to find where this was considered. I haven't heard a good explanation yet.
snowwrestler 14y ago
It's incredibly depressing to me that this vague and uninformative comment is now rated higher than actual links to actual scientific resources on the topic.
- run4yourlives 14y ago
  To be honest, what I find depressing is that you figure my neutral assessment of the overall state of climate science should somehow also include a rebuke of that minority in the way a religious person talks about how other religions are "misguided". Scientific opinion should always - always be encouraged. This is part of what is supposed to separate science from religion. No major leap forward in our understanding has every been provided by the consensus.
  - snowwrestler 14y ago
    The top-level post asked specifically for books, and more generally for reliable scientific information. It did not ask for random people to share their own opinions on the subject. > Scientific opinion should always - always be encouraged. Scientific research should always be encouraged. Anyone can hold an opinion.
    - run4yourlives 14y ago
      And such books don't exist, specifically for the reasons I mentioned. That's the reason I said it. Seems to me the only people getting upset about my comment are people that want the matter closed. That's bad science. This isn't a fox news program where loonies are "valid opinions". A "Scientific Opinion" is an opinion based on research. You are suggesting that research that leads to alternate conclusions should be stifled, which is precisely the problem with your line of thinking.
jshen 14y ago
" 5. A small but significant scientific group arguing that we are not the primary cause of warming, even though we may be a contributing factor;" please link to some source to backup this claim
- illuminate 14y ago
  They're "significant" because of their contrarian-ness, of course, not because they have compelling evidence.
- run4yourlives 14y ago
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming#Scientists_questioning_the_accuracy_of_IPCC_climate_projections http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the...
  - jshen 14y ago
    Please see [this](http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5167904 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5167904) and [this](http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5167868 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5167868) for my response.
- anigbrowl 14y ago
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the... I personally believe both in anthropic global warming and that we should do something about it, but have no problem with the grandparent post's observation about the existence of some scientific opposition to this point of view. You'll note that the contrarian scientists listed at the link above tend to be relatively qualified to have an opinion by virtue of their academic specialty (as opposed to the opinions of scientists with no particular insight into such matters like, say, metallurgists or linguists). I find such counter-arguments interesting and worthy of consideration even when I don't agree with the conclusions drawn.
  - 14y ago
MaysonL 14y ago
You left out 7 (which encompasses a large part of 5 as well): a well-paid contingent of flacks for the fossil fuel industries. Also, the fact that so far, climate change has been more extreme than most projections.
- run4yourlives 14y ago
  Also, the fact that so far, climate change has been more extreme than most projections. Actually, warming has not occurred at all in the last 15 years or so. So how "extreme" we've been is a matter of vantage point. While I'm not in the camp to suggest the last 15 years are anything but a variation in the overall trend, be careful what you use to support dire predictions.
  - gus_massa 14y ago
    I found some graphics that support your point: http://digitaldiatribes.wordpress.com/2012/05/14/overall-hadcrut-trends-as-of-march-month-end-2012/ http://digitaldiatribes.wordpress.com/2012/05/14/overall-had... In the 1850-2012 graph the temperature is mostly increasing, but not straightly increasing. The interesting part is the flat part at the end. It is expanded in the 1997-2012 graphic. In this period the temperature anomaly is ~.5C, it is even very slightly decreasing, but it's too noisy to take the decrees seriously. The graphs are based in the HadCrut data: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2012/hadcrut-updates http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2012/hadcr... compiled by the UK Met Office. I didn't download the data and redraw them, but in that page they have a table of yearly global average temperature of the last ~15 years. The temperature anomaly is ~.5C and the variation of the numbers look similar to the values in the graph.
  - MaysonL 14y ago
    Ask yourself this question: if there has been no warming, what ratio would you expect between the number of record high temperatures and the number of record low temperatures, and if substantial warming had occurred, what would the ratio be, and what has actually happened. Then consider animal and plant species, their ranges, and migration patterns and dates. And examine what has happedened in those regards. Have you looked at any of these, or are you merely parroting somebody's propaganda?
JPKab 14y ago
Fact: CO2 traps heat. Fact: CO2, which was pulled in by plants and processed into hydrocarbons and was buried in the earth for millions of years, is now being reinjected by use of said hydrocarbons for energy back into the atmosphere after a millions years long abscence. Fact: This is causing a measurable increase in PPM concentrations of CO2. I think its pretty fucking logical that this would cause or contribute to warming. Obviously figuring out the magnitude is difficult.
- olalonde 14y ago
  I'm on neither side of the debate but I can tell you that saying stuff like "I think its pretty fucking logical" automatically puts you in the zealots category. I would advise you not to use such emotionally charged language if you want to get your point across, especially not on HN.
  - JPKab 14y ago
    Zealots? I wouldn't say that, considering that I don't even think that reduction of CO2 emissions on a global scale is a realistic solution. The zealots tend to stick with that one though. I'm actually wishing for a debate on the best way to deal with rapid increases of CO2 concentrations, either through reduction or geo-engineering solutions. BTW, calling it a "debate" pretty much automatically puts you in a category also. The only reason it's even put into the public's mind as a debate is because of the huge business interests which are threatened by the science. You might as well say that you aren't on either side of the "cigarettes cause lung cancer" debate. Do you think Exxon is going to do anything different than R.J. Reynolds and Phillip Morris did when they spent decades challenging the science of tobacco induced cancers? I am all for questioning and challenging the science WITH SCIENCE, as opposed to economic arguments and ad hominem attacks.
    - vixen99 14y ago
      Your use of the emotive word 'fucking' in this context is suggestive of a zealot but you confirm with your second paragraph above. Crystal clear that you simply have not read any of the recent peer-reviewed literature relating to climate. If you want to comment on this subject in public, get informed first. Once you have done so your comments will be a good deal more nuanced.
justsee 14y ago
> 3. A majority (but not a consensus, IMO) extending that to humans being the most direct and primary cause of warming; That's just flat out wrong. There is a scientific consensus that humans are responsible for global warming. To elaborate: "That humans are causing global warming is the position of the Academies of Science from 19 countries plus many scientific organizations that study climate science. More specifically, around 95% of active climate researchers actively publishing climate papers endorse the consensus position." [0] This is based on models that have been refined over decades, and data and analysis from multiple separate scientific disciplines that agree with each other. Your resignation that we don't 'know' (which alludes to an unscientific requirement for 100% certainty), and that climate science is 'still very much a work in progress' betrays a lack of knowledge about scientific models in general. It is worth reading this section on climate models to understand their purpose, value, and reliability [1]. [0] http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-co... [1] http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models-intermediate.htm http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models-intermediate....
- run4yourlives 14y ago
  http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a7/Climate_science_opinion2.png http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a7/Climate_scienc... Sorry, but there is a significant minority that in my mind prevents a consensus from existing. Majority is 84%, consensus is in the high 90s for me. Take away vocal proponents, and you can clearly see that there is still room for debate here.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - ghshephard 14y ago
    There is also a bit of echo chamber, the high numbers are for "Most Published" authors - and, in theory, it's a lot easier to publish something supporting Global Warming right now. I'd agree- significant majority, but not a consensus right now.
  - 14y ago
yakiv 14y ago
However much or little humans may be contributing to climate change, if it affects us we might want to look into doing something about it.
noiv 14y ago
> The problem is that nobody really "knows" what is going on. Climate science is still very much a work in progress. This is the sad truth of the matter. That's completely irrelevant. If you've read the IPCC bricks, you'd know there is a very sharp line between what's known and what's not and speculating on hidden variables makes no sense at all. But doing nothing or business as usual is not an option, except you pretend to live alone on this planet.

moultano 14y ago

Your post is unsupported by evidence, and seems to be just lazily taking the middle road in an attempted to appear enlightened. The two sides of the "debate" are not equal. There is not substantial disagreement that the climate is changing and that humans are directly responsible. See the consensus report here for the net effects of different factors on the climate. The net effect from human activity is the largest component. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-human-and.html http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-...

eitland 14y ago
Not saying we aren't affecting the climate but it might be less obvious than some people are trying to present it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland#Norse_settlement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland#Norse_settlement (Contents behind link: The amount of ice on Greenland have seen significant variations over the last few hundred years, even before we started using fossil fuels.) (Personally I'm all for reducing the use of fossil fuels but my _biggest_ reason is because they are a very finite resource and seem to be running out during our lifetime at the current rate of consumption.)
- anon1385 14y ago
  >The amount of ice on Greenland have seen significant variations over the last few hundred years Yes, because of well known past climatic variations (some of which were probably localised). There are other drivers of climate than carbon emissions, and these drivers have caused climate to change in the past. That doesn't mean carbon emissions can't drive climate today. We can measure many of these other drivers, and we can see that changing solar output for example can't be driving the current warming.
- summerdown2 14y ago
  If I read your argument correctly, it seems you think this argument weakens the case for climate change. I think there's a danger in this method of trying to second guess science. I see a lot of the same form of argument from evolution deniers, too, and I always find it hard to understand. The point seems to be: here is a surprising fact that suddenly makes science less sure than you might have been led to think. The problem with it is that scientists see the exact same evidence as you do, and of course have already taken it into account. The whole point of science is to rake in as much evidence as possible and include it in the calculations. Those figures mentioned upthread, for scientist consensus on climate change? That's including facts like this, not ignoring them.
  - eitland 14y ago
    Thanks, enlightened reply. On the other hand I'm feeling that way too many take this debate to a level where they actively deny any evidence that points towards a different solution. Try to find where this was considered. I haven't heard a good explanation yet.

snowwrestler 14y ago

It's incredibly depressing to me that this vague and uninformative comment is now rated higher than actual links to actual scientific resources on the topic.

run4yourlives 14y ago
To be honest, what I find depressing is that you figure my neutral assessment of the overall state of climate science should somehow also include a rebuke of that minority in the way a religious person talks about how other religions are "misguided". Scientific opinion should always - always be encouraged. This is part of what is supposed to separate science from religion. No major leap forward in our understanding has every been provided by the consensus.
- snowwrestler 14y ago
  The top-level post asked specifically for books, and more generally for reliable scientific information. It did not ask for random people to share their own opinions on the subject. > Scientific opinion should always - always be encouraged. Scientific research should always be encouraged. Anyone can hold an opinion.
  - run4yourlives 14y ago
    And such books don't exist, specifically for the reasons I mentioned. That's the reason I said it. Seems to me the only people getting upset about my comment are people that want the matter closed. That's bad science. This isn't a fox news program where loonies are "valid opinions". A "Scientific Opinion" is an opinion based on research. You are suggesting that research that leads to alternate conclusions should be stifled, which is precisely the problem with your line of thinking.

jshen 14y ago

" 5. A small but significant scientific group arguing that we are not the primary cause of warming, even though we may be a contributing factor;" please link to some source to backup this claim

illuminate 14y ago
They're "significant" because of their contrarian-ness, of course, not because they have compelling evidence.
run4yourlives 14y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming#Scientists_questioning_the_accuracy_of_IPCC_climate_projections http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the...
- jshen 14y ago
  Please see [this](http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5167904 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5167904) and [this](http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5167868 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5167868) for my response.
anigbrowl 14y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the... I personally believe both in anthropic global warming and that we should do something about it, but have no problem with the grandparent post's observation about the existence of some scientific opposition to this point of view. You'll note that the contrarian scientists listed at the link above tend to be relatively qualified to have an opinion by virtue of their academic specialty (as opposed to the opinions of scientists with no particular insight into such matters like, say, metallurgists or linguists). I find such counter-arguments interesting and worthy of consideration even when I don't agree with the conclusions drawn.
- 14y ago

MaysonL 14y ago

You left out 7 (which encompasses a large part of 5 as well): a well-paid contingent of flacks for the fossil fuel industries. Also, the fact that so far, climate change has been more extreme than most projections.

run4yourlives 14y ago
Also, the fact that so far, climate change has been more extreme than most projections. Actually, warming has not occurred at all in the last 15 years or so. So how "extreme" we've been is a matter of vantage point. While I'm not in the camp to suggest the last 15 years are anything but a variation in the overall trend, be careful what you use to support dire predictions.
- gus_massa 14y ago
  I found some graphics that support your point: http://digitaldiatribes.wordpress.com/2012/05/14/overall-hadcrut-trends-as-of-march-month-end-2012/ http://digitaldiatribes.wordpress.com/2012/05/14/overall-had... In the 1850-2012 graph the temperature is mostly increasing, but not straightly increasing. The interesting part is the flat part at the end. It is expanded in the 1997-2012 graphic. In this period the temperature anomaly is ~.5C, it is even very slightly decreasing, but it's too noisy to take the decrees seriously. The graphs are based in the HadCrut data: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2012/hadcrut-updates http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2012/hadcr... compiled by the UK Met Office. I didn't download the data and redraw them, but in that page they have a table of yearly global average temperature of the last ~15 years. The temperature anomaly is ~.5C and the variation of the numbers look similar to the values in the graph.
- MaysonL 14y ago
  Ask yourself this question: if there has been no warming, what ratio would you expect between the number of record high temperatures and the number of record low temperatures, and if substantial warming had occurred, what would the ratio be, and what has actually happened. Then consider animal and plant species, their ranges, and migration patterns and dates. And examine what has happedened in those regards. Have you looked at any of these, or are you merely parroting somebody's propaganda?

JPKab 14y ago

Fact: CO2 traps heat. Fact: CO2, which was pulled in by plants and processed into hydrocarbons and was buried in the earth for millions of years, is now being reinjected by use of said hydrocarbons for energy back into the atmosphere after a millions years long abscence. Fact: This is causing a measurable increase in PPM concentrations of CO2. I think its pretty fucking logical that this would cause or contribute to warming. Obviously figuring out the magnitude is difficult.

olalonde 14y ago
I'm on neither side of the debate but I can tell you that saying stuff like "I think its pretty fucking logical" automatically puts you in the zealots category. I would advise you not to use such emotionally charged language if you want to get your point across, especially not on HN.
- JPKab 14y ago
  Zealots? I wouldn't say that, considering that I don't even think that reduction of CO2 emissions on a global scale is a realistic solution. The zealots tend to stick with that one though. I'm actually wishing for a debate on the best way to deal with rapid increases of CO2 concentrations, either through reduction or geo-engineering solutions. BTW, calling it a "debate" pretty much automatically puts you in a category also. The only reason it's even put into the public's mind as a debate is because of the huge business interests which are threatened by the science. You might as well say that you aren't on either side of the "cigarettes cause lung cancer" debate. Do you think Exxon is going to do anything different than R.J. Reynolds and Phillip Morris did when they spent decades challenging the science of tobacco induced cancers? I am all for questioning and challenging the science WITH SCIENCE, as opposed to economic arguments and ad hominem attacks.
  - vixen99 14y ago
    Your use of the emotive word 'fucking' in this context is suggestive of a zealot but you confirm with your second paragraph above. Crystal clear that you simply have not read any of the recent peer-reviewed literature relating to climate. If you want to comment on this subject in public, get informed first. Once you have done so your comments will be a good deal more nuanced.

justsee 14y ago

> 3. A majority (but not a consensus, IMO) extending that to humans being the most direct and primary cause of warming; That's just flat out wrong. There is a scientific consensus that humans are responsible for global warming. To elaborate: "That humans are causing global warming is the position of the Academies of Science from 19 countries plus many scientific organizations that study climate science. More specifically, around 95% of active climate researchers actively publishing climate papers endorse the consensus position." [0] This is based on models that have been refined over decades, and data and analysis from multiple separate scientific disciplines that agree with each other. Your resignation that we don't 'know' (which alludes to an unscientific requirement for 100% certainty), and that climate science is 'still very much a work in progress' betrays a lack of knowledge about scientific models in general. It is worth reading this section on climate models to understand their purpose, value, and reliability [1]. [0] http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-co... [1] http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models-intermediate.htm http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models-intermediate....

run4yourlives 14y ago
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a7/Climate_science_opinion2.png http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a7/Climate_scienc... Sorry, but there is a significant minority that in my mind prevents a consensus from existing. Majority is 84%, consensus is in the high 90s for me. Take away vocal proponents, and you can clearly see that there is still room for debate here.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- ghshephard 14y ago
  There is also a bit of echo chamber, the high numbers are for "Most Published" authors - and, in theory, it's a lot easier to publish something supporting Global Warming right now. I'd agree- significant majority, but not a consensus right now.
- 14y ago

yakiv 14y ago

However much or little humans may be contributing to climate change, if it affects us we might want to look into doing something about it.

noiv 14y ago

> The problem is that nobody really "knows" what is going on. Climate science is still very much a work in progress. This is the sad truth of the matter. That's completely irrelevant. If you've read the IPCC bricks, you'd know there is a very sharp line between what's known and what's not and speculating on hidden variables makes no sense at all. But doing nothing or business as usual is not an option, except you pretend to live alone on this planet.