Hacker News Reader

Comment by monochromatic | Hacker News Reader

If they got this number wrong by 60% for all these years and just noticed, why should I trust anything else about all of their different, conflicting climate models?

View on HN

They didn't get it wrong. They did the best they could with the data they had, which they knew was sparse.

"However, these estimates all use the same imperfect ocean dataset and share additional uncertainties resulting from sparse coverage, especially before 2007"

You'll note here the methodology isn't the issue, but rather the dataset. They've improved the dataset.

> why should I trust anything else

Well, technically, you shouldn't. You can look at the data and review it yourself. The problem is, you aren't probably an expert in the field. Which means at some level, you've already put your trust in the experts at some level.

Furthermore, to double down on the "they didn't get it wrong" comment:

"Our result - which relies on high-precision O2 measurements dating back to 1991 - suggests that ocean warming is at the high end of previous estimates."

You'll note here that this they concluded the actual warming was still within the previous estimates. And considering estimates are just that, this further backs up their claim.

Ok, let’s even stipulate that it’s a failure of data rather than methodology. The computerized climate models have very sensitive dependence on this kind of poorly measured data. Why should I trust them if that data is subject to wild swings as measurements get refined?

> Why should I trust them if that data is subject to wild swings as measurements get refined?

You are begging the question here.

Simply put, "that data is subject to wild swings as measurements get refined", isn't reflected in the article. It's something you are making up. Again, the data was within the estimation previously made. They've refined that data.

A wild swing would in fact go from showing one thing to showing another thing entirely. That's how a swing works. What really happened is the predication was correct. We are now getting to see more precisely how correct.

Regardless, I honestly don't believe you are being honest here, since you are asking the same question and not putting any effort into this. You are trolling. If you aren't, put forth some effort. You think you are being "smart," but the truth is, you aren't.

True, why trust anything. It is not as if there is some systematic way to over time iteratively improve a rational model that is testable and verifiable through a competitive process.

How would you propose testing or verifying a non-falsifiable model? Each sample of future data we have tends to show our models to be simply broken except in the most broad sense of a longterm gradual increase in temperatures. For instance from 2001 and 2010 the warming slowed to 0.11C per decade. [1] For the 17 years before then was 0.17C. There was not a single model that predicted this and, in spite of a number of after the fact hypotheses for that apparent decline, there is still no decisive answer. Does this not kind of bother you?

We might argue that well since they're getting the overall picture right, that they must be fundamentally correct, even if they don't perform so well on the micro scale. But I'm not sure this is a reasonable argument. In particular, the past 400k years of Earth [2] show a very regular waxing and waning of temperatures, with the scale increasing upwards of 10C from the frequently extremely rapid transition from the mins to the maxes. Not only is about now when you would expect to be entering a warming era, but we've yet to even hit the highs of temperatures the planet reached in relatively recent geologic history, though before humans even existed. This is no way suggesting that humans are not contributing to the current phase of climate change, yet at the same time is it really particularly insightful to propose that temperatures will continue to do as they've done for hundreds of thousands of years?

As usual I'm sure people will just downvote this, but I genuinely have no clue why. It's as if its taboo to ask, what I think, are completely reasonable questions. At the same time it's completely kosher to freak out and suggest climate change could imminently end the very species of humankind, which is not a remotely realistic outcome even in the most catastrophic and near 0 probability level outcomes.

[1] - https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/did-global-warmin...

[2] - https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/Ice_Age_...

Whether or not the world has been warmer in the past is entirely and completely irrelevant. The only thing that matters is that we are provably massively accelerating the current warming, causing changes to weather, water and food systems we rely on for our survival. If we don't make equally massive sacrifices to fix this, we will lose our food, water, and land. This isn't the time for middlebrow devils-advocate games, it is the time for action.

Why do you think we'll lose our food, water, and land? Let's start with a couple of important maps. This [1] is a map of where US farmland is. This [2] is where US water resources are. So of course we need to consider these things in terms of climate change. I quite like the simulator the NOAA has set up here [3]. It lets you increase or decrease water levels and dynamically see the effect. Perhaps the most surprising thing though is this [4]. That's an article that illustrates what the world would look like if somehow literally all ice in the world melted, some 216 feet of sea level rise. And indeed the world would be quite reshaped, but the surprising thing is by how little. Suffice to say you wouldn't need to start building an ark. And as an relevant aside, sea levels have already risen more than 400 feet since the the most recent interglacial warming period started some ~20,000 years ago. [5] Somehow, life went on.

To be clear I 100% agree with you on changes, but not losses. And I am in no way playing devil's advocate. I think the things I've asked, and said, are reasonable. They're completely authentic in any case, and I am 100% open to changing my view. If anything I've said is inaccurate in any way, or any question technically unreasonable - please do share. Apologies on the excessive amounts of links here, but I find this is a topic where disinformation is excessive and so I think it's important to cite most facts.

---

[1] - https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_MEDIA/nrcs143_010966....

[2] - https://water.usgs.gov/ogw/gwrp/activities/images/StudyLocat...

[3] - https://coast.noaa.gov/slr/

[4] - https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2013/09/rising-s...

[5] - https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/gornitz_09/

It’s a reasonable question. The work is learning how to get a reasonable answer.

You don't have to. Scientists could be wrong, they can always be wrong.

But even if there's just a 1% chance of human existence being threatened for something, I'd err to the side of caution.

Is it 1%? Where did that figure come from?

What if it’s only 0.00000001%? Is it still worth erring on the side of caution when there are real costs to doing so?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com