4 ms·

Climate change models are based on data. Old data, but real data. The concept wouldn't have even occurred to us had real, physical phenomena not suggested it.

by beloch 13y ago

Climate change models are based on data. Old data, but real data. The concept wouldn't have even occurred to us had real, physical phenomena not suggested it. The deviation of recent data from predictive models does not indicate that nothing is going on an everything is tickety-boo. It merely indicates we don't fully understand what's going on and our models still don't have much predictive power. So, if we don't fully understand what's going on, what do we do? Nothing? That's idiotic. It's utter paralysis. Would you invest in a tech company that refuses to do anything unless it fully understands the outcome? Sadly, human existence is lived in a perpetual state of trial and error. What we can do is weigh the consequences our actions could have based on our current, best understanding of the situation and then make the best choice we can. Climate change might not fit our models, but our limited understanding of what's going on indicates there could be dire consequences if we do nothing. Action always has a cost, however. If indeed efforts against climate change have caused poor people to starve (evidence please!), how do we weigh this against massive famines that may occur in the future because of climate change? Dr. Spencer is jumping to conclusions far more spurious and unsupported than any of the climate scientists he derides. We would do well do ignore him. As such, I am flagging this article. If this is an abuse of the flag feature, please let me know and I will unflag it.

ramblerman 13y ago
You can flag what you want, but I'm unconvinced by your arguments. You concede that he makes a point and we have no predicitive power when it comes to the climate. After that you don't really win me back.
- shadowmint 13y ago
  http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Please don't submit comments complaining that a submission is inappropriate for the site. If you think something is spam or offtopic, flag it by going to its page and clicking on the "flag" link. (Not all users will see this; there is a karma threshold.) If you flag something, please don't also comment that you did.
waps 13y ago
The problem is exacerbated by the fact that we have no idea what effect the policies have. They could be good, BUT they can also have bad results. I mean bad beyond just the economic implications. Since the climate system has been working a certain way for ~10000 years, I'd say the default position should be that nothing is going to change. What's missing from your reply is an answer to the data he's showing. A long time criticism of the IPCC is that, well, they're wrong. In the sense that if you compare their numbers with reality, their predictions turn out to be a pile of crap. In a truly absolute sense of the word. The IPCC's 95% certainty bands it gave for 5 years out have been violated EVERY single time (5 times) they made a prediction (for the 6th prediction, the jury is still out until the end of next year. However, it's not looking good). If they really were 95% sure, that means they had a once in 16 MILLION years streak of bad luck (1/0.05^5 * 5 years) (and unless that 6th prediction works out, and global temperature rises by at least 1.2 degrees in about a year and a half, that will be a once in 320 million years streak of bad luck). That is significantly less believable, in my humble opinion, than the theory that they're just pulling numbers out of their ass (not necessarily intentionally), no matter how unflattering that claim may be to the many smart people working that field. So in short : yes, I think doing nothing is the correct answer. You can't hope to do a better job doing something versus not doing something in this case, so the best course of action (least cost/maximum benefit) can only be to not do anything. So yes, nothing. Either that, or switch to climate engineering (ie. change the question : no longer about how to restore "natural" climate, whatever that is. The question becomes : how do we fully bend the climate to our will. That and related questions, like what do we actually want the climate to be (I doubt the answer will be as simple as people think)). So I don't agree with your flagging this, no. Yes, the article's author is probably not the right person to believe this claim from. But he's right (well, the first few paragraphs). And science is all about what is right, not who.
- x0054 13y ago
  Climate engineering scares the shit out of me. I think this article is right, we do not fully understand global warming. We know something is happening, we do NOT know exactly what OR why. But we have the fucking hubris to assume that we can make it better (through climate engineering)!? Without even fully understanding the problem. That said, we can still work on improving the world and cutting down CO2 emissions AND pollution. Global warming or not, no one can argue with the fact that air quality in large cities in US, India, and China is atrocious. Global warming may or may not kill us, but pollution is killing people, now, today. And that pollution is 100% man made, no argument about that. I personally think we should work on innovation of power production, not conservation of said power. Better battery technology and better solar photovoltaic technology is the future, in my personal opinion. UPDATE: updated for clarity.
x0054 13y ago
Well, for one the rules directly state: "If you flag something, please don't also comment that you did." Further, the rules also state that one should flag things which are "spam or offtopic." The list of flag worthy offenses isn't extensive, and I am sure there are other reasons, but something tells me that flagging something simply because you disagree with it is NOT ok.
- DanBC 13y ago
  We shouldn't upvote crap links. Unfortunately many people will upvote crap. The only way to keep garbage off the front page is for some people to flag it.
  - theg2 13y ago
    Otherwise known as the Reddit hivemind syndrome. Don't agree with someone's opinion? Flag or bury it? How about instead you rebut it in the comments and help inform those "crap voters".
    - DanBC 13y ago
      Because with things like climate change denialism there is very little point in having that conversation. People either listen to the vast majority of scientists (global change is happening; global change is almost certainly driven by human activity) or they can listen to scientists who do not work in climate and who have been paid by industry to create FUD - some of these scientists are the same people who ised to work for the tobacco industry.
      - brucefancher 13y ago
        Quite right, we wouldn't want to let any facts get in the way of belief. That's how science works, isn't it?
Tycho 13y ago
Well I'm willing to bet that this graph will reappear all over the internet. People in this thread spent a lot of time debating the evidence and logic surrounding it, and posting links to rebuttals. Since you've flagged this topic and it's disappeared from the front pages, it just makes it more likely that this graph will spread round the internet unchallenged.

by beloch 13y ago

ramblerman 13y ago

You can flag what you want, but I'm unconvinced by your arguments. You concede that he makes a point and we have no predicitive power when it comes to the climate. After that you don't really win me back.

shadowmint 13y ago
http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Please don't submit comments complaining that a submission is inappropriate for the site. If you think something is spam or offtopic, flag it by going to its page and clicking on the "flag" link. (Not all users will see this; there is a karma threshold.) If you flag something, please don't also comment that you did.

waps 13y ago

The problem is exacerbated by the fact that we have no idea what effect the policies have. They could be good, BUT they can also have bad results. I mean bad beyond just the economic implications. Since the climate system has been working a certain way for ~10000 years, I'd say the default position should be that nothing is going to change. What's missing from your reply is an answer to the data he's showing. A long time criticism of the IPCC is that, well, they're wrong. In the sense that if you compare their numbers with reality, their predictions turn out to be a pile of crap. In a truly absolute sense of the word. The IPCC's 95% certainty bands it gave for 5 years out have been violated EVERY single time (5 times) they made a prediction (for the 6th prediction, the jury is still out until the end of next year. However, it's not looking good). If they really were 95% sure, that means they had a once in 16 MILLION years streak of bad luck (1/0.05^5 * 5 years) (and unless that 6th prediction works out, and global temperature rises by at least 1.2 degrees in about a year and a half, that will be a once in 320 million years streak of bad luck). That is significantly less believable, in my humble opinion, than the theory that they're just pulling numbers out of their ass (not necessarily intentionally), no matter how unflattering that claim may be to the many smart people working that field. So in short : yes, I think doing nothing is the correct answer. You can't hope to do a better job doing something versus not doing something in this case, so the best course of action (least cost/maximum benefit) can only be to not do anything. So yes, nothing. Either that, or switch to climate engineering (ie. change the question : no longer about how to restore "natural" climate, whatever that is. The question becomes : how do we fully bend the climate to our will. That and related questions, like what do we actually want the climate to be (I doubt the answer will be as simple as people think)). So I don't agree with your flagging this, no. Yes, the article's author is probably not the right person to believe this claim from. But he's right (well, the first few paragraphs). And science is all about what is right, not who.

x0054 13y ago
Climate engineering scares the shit out of me. I think this article is right, we do not fully understand global warming. We know something is happening, we do NOT know exactly what OR why. But we have the fucking hubris to assume that we can make it better (through climate engineering)!? Without even fully understanding the problem. That said, we can still work on improving the world and cutting down CO2 emissions AND pollution. Global warming or not, no one can argue with the fact that air quality in large cities in US, India, and China is atrocious. Global warming may or may not kill us, but pollution is killing people, now, today. And that pollution is 100% man made, no argument about that. I personally think we should work on innovation of power production, not conservation of said power. Better battery technology and better solar photovoltaic technology is the future, in my personal opinion. UPDATE: updated for clarity.

x0054 13y ago

Well, for one the rules directly state: "If you flag something, please don't also comment that you did." Further, the rules also state that one should flag things which are "spam or offtopic." The list of flag worthy offenses isn't extensive, and I am sure there are other reasons, but something tells me that flagging something simply because you disagree with it is NOT ok.

DanBC 13y ago
We shouldn't upvote crap links. Unfortunately many people will upvote crap. The only way to keep garbage off the front page is for some people to flag it.
- theg2 13y ago
  Otherwise known as the Reddit hivemind syndrome. Don't agree with someone's opinion? Flag or bury it? How about instead you rebut it in the comments and help inform those "crap voters".
  - DanBC 13y ago
    Because with things like climate change denialism there is very little point in having that conversation. People either listen to the vast majority of scientists (global change is happening; global change is almost certainly driven by human activity) or they can listen to scientists who do not work in climate and who have been paid by industry to create FUD - some of these scientists are the same people who ised to work for the tobacco industry.
    - brucefancher 13y ago
      Quite right, we wouldn't want to let any facts get in the way of belief. That's how science works, isn't it?

Tycho 13y ago

Well I'm willing to bet that this graph will reappear all over the internet. People in this thread spent a lot of time debating the evidence and logic surrounding it, and posting links to rebuttals. Since you've flagged this topic and it's disappeared from the front pages, it just makes it more likely that this graph will spread round the internet unchallenged.