4 ms·

Vice is doing some great comprehensive reporting on climate change. Their recent episode on HBO about the Arctic ice melting was fascinating. -https://www.yout

Vice is doing some great comprehensive reporting on climate change. Their recent episode on HBO about the Arctic ice melting was fascinating. -https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_h92Ath_2XA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_h92Ath_2XA

IanDrake 12y ago
I couldn't watch past the first ten minutes. The absurdity of the reporting was too much. Climate change is real, if you're skeptical, you're a denier and you must be funded by big oil. Seems like all this guy has to offer is scenes of summer ice melt and ad-hominem attacks. If their science was right, that Greenland is 60yrs ahead of ice melt predictions, then where is the sea level rise that was predicted?
- rickdale 12y ago
  Well, where I stand is that I happy to see reporting on the other side of the spectrum, even if its really far from it. Also I would continue to watch if I were you. I thought the worst part of the program was when they confronted the deniers. The rest is about science and scientists, its good. I think you will find your answer on the sea level rise as well. Check out Bangladesh.
- kaybe 12y ago
  The basics are very basic physics that have been known for a long time, so we know what green-house gases do with a planet. Where it gets harder are the details - climate is complex and we find new influences every day. Here is another carbon sink, oh, and here is a source, and apparently heating this spot in the stratosphere causes a change in circulation which influences the biosphere, and there is a volcanic eruption shielding some solar input, oh, and looks like it is also destroying ozone, oh, and that albedo change there has a slightly bigger influence than thought, and can I get more computing power for better grid resolution? So, details are hard. What do we know? - We do measure an increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases. - These gases are absorbing light of long thermal wavelength, and are clear to short solar wavelengths --> thus a first order feedback would a higher ground temperature. - And yes, the amount is big enough to make a difference. What do we have to find out is how all the higher order feedback mechanisms work, such as atmospheric water content, circulation, uptake in sinks and emission from sources, albedo, .... but you can be sure there will be change since the system is not in a stable position. How that change will look like is hard to say, but we're working on it. Don't be too harsh, it's a hard problem.
  - IanDrake 12y ago
    >Don't be too harsh, it's a hard problem. That's my point. It's a hard problem. Hard problems don't get solved by pretending we know the solution.
    - kaybe 12y ago
      Well, we know part of the truth. We have to work on the details, but are hopefully getting gradually more correct. At the same time, if the predictions are right, acting is good. If the predictions are not right, acting is at least not bad, and many of the proposed ideas are still good. If you're sceptical, bring your arguments and help us refine our knowledge. (Google first, most points have been adressed extensively by many people.) (e.g. 'Don't burn oil but save it for better uses' is good in a world with finite oil reserves. 'Don't treat the land badly and keep forests' is good for water management and erosion.) There is a more fitting blog post, but I cannot find it right now. This also works: http://lesswrong.com/lw/gq/the_proper_use_of_humility/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/gq/the_proper_use_of_humility/ Seriously, if we for some reason find there is no cause to worry there will be a huge party!

IanDrake 12y ago

I couldn't watch past the first ten minutes. The absurdity of the reporting was too much. Climate change is real, if you're skeptical, you're a denier and you must be funded by big oil. Seems like all this guy has to offer is scenes of summer ice melt and ad-hominem attacks. If their science was right, that Greenland is 60yrs ahead of ice melt predictions, then where is the sea level rise that was predicted?

rickdale 12y ago
Well, where I stand is that I happy to see reporting on the other side of the spectrum, even if its really far from it. Also I would continue to watch if I were you. I thought the worst part of the program was when they confronted the deniers. The rest is about science and scientists, its good. I think you will find your answer on the sea level rise as well. Check out Bangladesh.
kaybe 12y ago
The basics are very basic physics that have been known for a long time, so we know what green-house gases do with a planet. Where it gets harder are the details - climate is complex and we find new influences every day. Here is another carbon sink, oh, and here is a source, and apparently heating this spot in the stratosphere causes a change in circulation which influences the biosphere, and there is a volcanic eruption shielding some solar input, oh, and looks like it is also destroying ozone, oh, and that albedo change there has a slightly bigger influence than thought, and can I get more computing power for better grid resolution? So, details are hard. What do we know? - We do measure an increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases. - These gases are absorbing light of long thermal wavelength, and are clear to short solar wavelengths --> thus a first order feedback would a higher ground temperature. - And yes, the amount is big enough to make a difference. What do we have to find out is how all the higher order feedback mechanisms work, such as atmospheric water content, circulation, uptake in sinks and emission from sources, albedo, .... but you can be sure there will be change since the system is not in a stable position. How that change will look like is hard to say, but we're working on it. Don't be too harsh, it's a hard problem.
- IanDrake 12y ago
  >Don't be too harsh, it's a hard problem. That's my point. It's a hard problem. Hard problems don't get solved by pretending we know the solution.
  - kaybe 12y ago
    Well, we know part of the truth. We have to work on the details, but are hopefully getting gradually more correct. At the same time, if the predictions are right, acting is good. If the predictions are not right, acting is at least not bad, and many of the proposed ideas are still good. If you're sceptical, bring your arguments and help us refine our knowledge. (Google first, most points have been adressed extensively by many people.) (e.g. 'Don't burn oil but save it for better uses' is good in a world with finite oil reserves. 'Don't treat the land badly and keep forests' is good for water management and erosion.) There is a more fitting blog post, but I cannot find it right now. This also works: http://lesswrong.com/lw/gq/the_proper_use_of_humility/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/gq/the_proper_use_of_humility/ Seriously, if we for some reason find there is no cause to worry there will be a huge party!