7 ms·

This repeats some buried comments but I think it's worthwhile: I'm not a climate scientist, but in my experience the absolute most reliable, most time-efficient

This repeats some buried comments but I think it's worthwhile: I'm not a climate scientist, but in my experience the absolute most reliable, most time-efficient way to learn about climate change is the IPCC reports. I wonder if there is anything written in any other field that compares: http://www.ipcc.ch/ http://www.ipcc.ch/ Specifically, if you are short on time, read the 'Summaries for Policymakers', written at the level and attention spans of non-technical politicians. They are quite readable and as I wrote in another post, if they can understand it, so can you. :) (The longer reports are fascinating, if you have an interest in science and want to get lost in something.) As I understand it the reports are prepared by a global team of hundreds of scientists, and reviewed by thousands more.[1] (Seriously, has anything like that existed in any other field?) They are meant to cover the breath of climate science and the reports also are meticulous about the language of probabilities. Spend a little time reading them and it will save you the time of reading 99% of what's written elsewhere, and you'll be much better informed. --- EDIT: [1] Review process: http://www.ipcc.ch/activities/activities.shtml http://www.ipcc.ch/activities/activities.shtml (scroll down to "The AR5 Writing and Review Process") -- for example, one report had over 50,000 comments on two drafts from >600 experts. --- EDIT 2: Website interface help. Can you believe this needs to be written, and for HN readers? I had JavaScript off which makes the site usable (if not pretty). With JavaScript on, apparantly the UX concept is 'Easter eggs': There are 4 images arranged horizontally at the top; these are report covers (with text too small to read even if you knew they were clickable). If you click a report cover then the section beneath it changes to display a description of and links to that report. All that work making the reports accessible to the world, hamstrung by web design.

narrator 11y ago
A couple years back I read the IPCC reports trying to find out if global warming was real or not. I noticed the Vostok ice core data in the earlier reports showed the temperature rose first and then the CO2 rose. Likewise, the temperature fell first and then the CO2 fell later on. They fixed this little inconvenient data problem in the later reports.
- hackuser 11y ago
  I'm sure the IPCC has flaws, like every other human institution (but what else do we have to work with?), but the original reports came out in 1990. Also, every data set ever produced has inconsitencies. I don't feel that one inconsistency from 25 years ago, which might have a valid explanation or might be validly considered inconsequential, undermines the IPCC reports' credibility.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
- scarmig 11y ago
  The sad thing is, some people who aren't particularly familiar with scientific practice will read this as damning, while in reality it's anything but.
- danbruc 11y ago
  This is not an inconvenient data problem. That the ends of past ice ages were not caused by a rising atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration but instead caused it with some lag does not at all proof that a rising atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration can not cause rising atmospheric temperatures. For example - completely made up - a change in the orbit of the earth could cause rising temperatures and therefore the end of an ice age. This could then free carbon dioxide trapped in or under the now melting snow and ice and in turn this change in the composition of the atmosphere could additionally contribute to the rising temperatures.
- yummyfajitas 11y ago
  This is hardly unexpected. As water warms, the solubility of various gases decreases. I.e., if you exogenously warm up the ocean, it will release CO2 and other trace gases into the atmosphere. I'm pretty sure you could get the same pattern for Argon and other (non-greenouse) trace gases.
- npsimons 11y ago
  So, that's an interesting phenomenom, albeit one with possible explanations (that others have provided), but I'd like to volley a question back to you: have you performed the same experiments that Arrhenious[1] performed in 1896, that has been reproduced thousands of times before, and come up with a different result? (ie, that CO2 doesn't create a greenhouse effect). [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius#Greenhouse_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius#Greenhouse_ef...
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
- cholantesh 11y ago
  The gist of this argument is that the IPCC's members, the schools that employ them, the governments of their constituent nations, the FAO, the UN, the mainstream news media, and all administrative and custodial staff of all of these organizations are perpetrating a conspiracy to push carbon taxes on the world. Presuming the absurd scale implied herein doesn't beggar belief, the fact that the combined power of all these people has proved insufficient in bringing 'the plan' to reality ought to.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
  - hackuser 11y ago
    There's always a conflict of interest in everything; this one is dubious.
  - rflrob 11y ago
    In the absence of any other context, saying "X has a conflict of interest because Y" implies "and therefore X is unlikely to be believed." Yes, presumably the UN does have a conflict of interest here. However, as Cholantesh points out, the size of the IPCC makes it unlikely that conflict is a major factor in affecting the interpretation of data (I am agnostic as to how likely the CoI is to affect the actual policy recommendations). Just pointing out the conflict, without any additional interpretation, is dodgy enough that it's reasonable to assume it's motivated by a conspiracy theory.
- tocf 11y ago
  You're basically saying anything funded by government that might impact economics, and thus revenues, is biased. Right.. You do realize that you can be against taxing say, income and profits, but be for taxing carbon? I think quite a few economists would agree that you tax things that you want less of. A simplified carbon tax could be a boon to business.
tosseraccount 11y ago
Many hacker news readers would prefer sources such as peer reviewed science journal articles where the authors claim proof one way or the other. The best way to evaluate science is to look at the raw data and the scientist's original paper.
- hackuser 11y ago
  This is a summary of research in those peer-reviewed journals, the summary being far better reviewed (by hundreds and thousands, as described) than the individual articles. I don't know about other HN readers, but I don't have time or expertise to keep up on individual articles. I doubt many climate scientists have the expertise in all those different fields.
  - tosseraccount 11y ago
    I'm not afraid of looking at the source. Many times the "summaries" get distorted. Statements like "provide some evidence for" gets translated into "this proves". Popular press often does this. The actual raw data and original article and independent confirmation is the gold standard for science. I've chased down many stories reporting "proof" in many fields and , after examining the actual article, found that it actually said "well, this might be some evidence for possibly maybe supporting something". This is a hazard in MANY fields. Many people know this. We Hacker News readers ran in to this a couple of days ago. Somebody said "Fasting helps in cancer therapy" and listed some science papers. It was voted up. The actual papers DID NOT SAY THAT. They said "this small sample might provide some evidence but more study needs to be done". These are separate things and careful readers can discern this. Appeal to Authority or to a Mob or to Fashion is NOT science. We need proof or it's not settled science.
    - hackuser 11y ago
      > Statements like "provide some evidence" for gets translated into "this proves". For what it's worth, the IPCC reports are very, very careful about this. They have a chart (though it can be hard to find) of exactly what confidence/probability is meant by each phrasing. EDIT: for example, from the Sythesis Summary for Policymakers report: The following terms have been used to indicate the assessed likelihood of an outcome or a result: virtually certain 99–100% probability, very likely 90–100%, likely 66–100%, about as likely as not 33–66%, unlikely 0–33%, very unlikely 0–10%, exceptionally unlikely 0–1%. Additional terms (extremely likely 95–100%, more likely than not >50–100%, more unlikely than likely 0–<50%, extremely unlikely 0–5%) may also be used when appropriate.

narrator 11y ago

A couple years back I read the IPCC reports trying to find out if global warming was real or not. I noticed the Vostok ice core data in the earlier reports showed the temperature rose first and then the CO2 rose. Likewise, the temperature fell first and then the CO2 fell later on. They fixed this little inconvenient data problem in the later reports.

hackuser 11y ago
I'm sure the IPCC has flaws, like every other human institution (but what else do we have to work with?), but the original reports came out in 1990. Also, every data set ever produced has inconsitencies. I don't feel that one inconsistency from 25 years ago, which might have a valid explanation or might be validly considered inconsequential, undermines the IPCC reports' credibility.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
scarmig 11y ago
The sad thing is, some people who aren't particularly familiar with scientific practice will read this as damning, while in reality it's anything but.
danbruc 11y ago
This is not an inconvenient data problem. That the ends of past ice ages were not caused by a rising atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration but instead caused it with some lag does not at all proof that a rising atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration can not cause rising atmospheric temperatures. For example - completely made up - a change in the orbit of the earth could cause rising temperatures and therefore the end of an ice age. This could then free carbon dioxide trapped in or under the now melting snow and ice and in turn this change in the composition of the atmosphere could additionally contribute to the rising temperatures.
yummyfajitas 11y ago
This is hardly unexpected. As water warms, the solubility of various gases decreases. I.e., if you exogenously warm up the ocean, it will release CO2 and other trace gases into the atmosphere. I'm pretty sure you could get the same pattern for Argon and other (non-greenouse) trace gases.
npsimons 11y ago
So, that's an interesting phenomenom, albeit one with possible explanations (that others have provided), but I'd like to volley a question back to you: have you performed the same experiments that Arrhenious[1] performed in 1896, that has been reproduced thousands of times before, and come up with a different result? (ie, that CO2 doesn't create a greenhouse effect). [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius#Greenhouse_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius#Greenhouse_ef...

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

cholantesh 11y ago
The gist of this argument is that the IPCC's members, the schools that employ them, the governments of their constituent nations, the FAO, the UN, the mainstream news media, and all administrative and custodial staff of all of these organizations are perpetrating a conspiracy to push carbon taxes on the world. Presuming the absurd scale implied herein doesn't beggar belief, the fact that the combined power of all these people has proved insufficient in bringing 'the plan' to reality ought to.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
- hackuser 11y ago
  There's always a conflict of interest in everything; this one is dubious.
- rflrob 11y ago
  In the absence of any other context, saying "X has a conflict of interest because Y" implies "and therefore X is unlikely to be believed." Yes, presumably the UN does have a conflict of interest here. However, as Cholantesh points out, the size of the IPCC makes it unlikely that conflict is a major factor in affecting the interpretation of data (I am agnostic as to how likely the CoI is to affect the actual policy recommendations). Just pointing out the conflict, without any additional interpretation, is dodgy enough that it's reasonable to assume it's motivated by a conspiracy theory.
tocf 11y ago
You're basically saying anything funded by government that might impact economics, and thus revenues, is biased. Right.. You do realize that you can be against taxing say, income and profits, but be for taxing carbon? I think quite a few economists would agree that you tax things that you want less of. A simplified carbon tax could be a boon to business.

tosseraccount 11y ago

Many hacker news readers would prefer sources such as peer reviewed science journal articles where the authors claim proof one way or the other. The best way to evaluate science is to look at the raw data and the scientist's original paper.

hackuser 11y ago
This is a summary of research in those peer-reviewed journals, the summary being far better reviewed (by hundreds and thousands, as described) than the individual articles. I don't know about other HN readers, but I don't have time or expertise to keep up on individual articles. I doubt many climate scientists have the expertise in all those different fields.
- tosseraccount 11y ago
  I'm not afraid of looking at the source. Many times the "summaries" get distorted. Statements like "provide some evidence for" gets translated into "this proves". Popular press often does this. The actual raw data and original article and independent confirmation is the gold standard for science. I've chased down many stories reporting "proof" in many fields and , after examining the actual article, found that it actually said "well, this might be some evidence for possibly maybe supporting something". This is a hazard in MANY fields. Many people know this. We Hacker News readers ran in to this a couple of days ago. Somebody said "Fasting helps in cancer therapy" and listed some science papers. It was voted up. The actual papers DID NOT SAY THAT. They said "this small sample might provide some evidence but more study needs to be done". These are separate things and careful readers can discern this. Appeal to Authority or to a Mob or to Fashion is NOT science. We need proof or it's not settled science.
  - hackuser 11y ago
    > Statements like "provide some evidence" for gets translated into "this proves". For what it's worth, the IPCC reports are very, very careful about this. They have a chart (though it can be hard to find) of exactly what confidence/probability is meant by each phrasing. EDIT: for example, from the Sythesis Summary for Policymakers report: The following terms have been used to indicate the assessed likelihood of an outcome or a result: virtually certain 99–100% probability, very likely 90–100%, likely 66–100%, about as likely as not 33–66%, unlikely 0–33%, very unlikely 0–10%, exceptionally unlikely 0–1%. Additional terms (extremely likely 95–100%, more likely than not >50–100%, more unlikely than likely 0–<50%, extremely unlikely 0–5%) may also be used when appropriate.