[biasedbrain]

One group of scientists, who can't imagine that their self invented model could be wrong, can't imagine any other reasons than man made changes for the results of their model simulation.

How you get from that to "removes almost all doubt" is beyond me. Such hyperbole does more damage than good.

I don't know anything about those scientists, I don't know anything about their model and their assumptions, so I am sorry, but for me it doesn't remove "almost all doubt".

[jt2190]

It’s unfortunate when we glom onto the headline and start arguing from there, because (assuming that NBC follows the traditional newsroom workflow) the scientists didn’t write the headline, and the journalist didn’t write the headline, the news editor did, and the news editor wrote the most attention-grabbing (a.k.a. “clickbait”) thing they could.

Now maybe if we dig into the article and the paper we’ll see that the headline is really an honest reflection of the content, but I’ll bet it’s not.

Edit: The words “remove all doubt” do not occur in the article, just the headline.

[em500]

I don't disagree with you, but but at the same time I think that if the editor used "Anthropogenic forcing and response yield observed positive trend in Earth’s energy imbalance" as the headline, probably nobody would have clicked, let alone read it. Heck, it probably wouldn't have made HN either.

[biasedbrain]

And you think it is important that it should have been clicked and read? Why?

[alecst]

>I don't know anything about those scientists, I don't know anything about their model and their assumptions

So you didn't read the paper, you don't know who wrote it, and you're commenting on a paraphrase in the headline. What exactly are you contributing to the discussion?

[biasedbrain]

Announcing the paper with such hyperbole makes me less likely to want to read it. It just makes it very unlikely to live up to the hype.

I wonder if you have read the paper, btw?

[JoeAltmaier]

This is how deniers argue - latch onto trivial language in the title, and spew doubt. Instead of trying to understand, which would probably scare the pants off of them. So they put blinders on instead.

[biasedbrain]

No, headlines like that is how "believers" argue. Just cut out the hyperbole and present reasonable, verifiable arguments, not appeals to authority.

[torstenvl]

This is how extremists argue - spew the most outrageous ideas they can get away with, and when they cross the line into obvious lies, they attack the other side for "latching onto trivial language."

The editorialization is patently false. You are wasting political capital by defending it.

[_y5hn]

How difficult is it to accept that humans affect the planet globally with unprecedented emissions of greenhouse gases?

[torstenvl]

Well... extremely difficult, since all known climate evidence directly contradicts your proposition. 420ppm is not super great, but to call it "unprecedented" takes a mind-blowing quantum of scientific illiteracy.

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/global-warming/early-eocene-period

May I suggest adopting a mental model where you care about accuracy more than outrage?

[_y5hn]

No need to project your hysterical fears unto others. Your unfounded claims have been thoroughly debunked by skepticalscience.com [1] [2], together with all the other arguments [3].

[1] https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-conse...

[2] https://skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past.htm

[3] https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php

[torstenvl]

Literally nothing you posted supports your argument that 420ppm is unprecedented. Again, perhaps you should focus more on scientific accuracy and less on outrage and flamewar, or perhaps go to a different website.

[biasedbrain]

Unfortunately, [3] mentions the 97% consensus nonsense, making the rest of it less credible as well.

[biasedbrain]

There is a huge difference between "humans affect the climate" and "we are all going to die within a couple of years because of human's effects on the climate".

[_y5hn]

Covered here, consensus is more likely to be conservative:

https://skepticalscience.com/ipcc-scientific-consensus.htm

[biasedbrain]

Still, nothing life threatening has happened so far, all the doomsday things are projections of the future.

[goatlover]

Unprecedented? When the dinosaurs evolved, there was 5-6 times as much CO2 in the atmosphere as today, thanks to millions of years of volcanic activity.

[_y5hn]

Hundred million+ years ago the solar forcing was weaker and circumstances quite different:

https://skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past.htm

"Another important factor is the sun. During the Ordovician, it would have been several percent dimmer according to established nuclear models of main sequence stars. Surprisingly, this raises the CO2 threshold for glaciation to a staggering 3000 ppmv or so. This also explains (along with the logarithmic forcing effect of CO2) why a runaway greenhouse didn't occur: with a dimmer sun, high CO2 is necessary to stop the Earth freezing over."

Civilization is dependent on the observed equalization of planetary energy input-output present for the past 10 000 years, along with stable CO2 levels. Both temperature and CO2 concentrations are breaking out of that envelope since 1930's, thus challenging poweful one-way threshold effects that will further release yet more greenhouse gases. Just this time without human intervention. It's kind of like lighting the fuse of a gigantic environmental bomb.