Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by wk_end 58 days ago
In this very thread, two posts up, the direct parent of the comment you're replying to, I gave you a link to a visualization of the climate record and asked you to look at it, and pointed out that the sudden and unprecedented rapid rate of change since the Industrial Revolution is precisely what leads us to believe this isn't natural.

You responded by insisting (without evidence) that "the climate record over the looooong term simply is not that accurate". And now here you are telling someone else to "look at the climate record", the climate record that shows precisely what they're saying, the very same climate record you cast dispersions on moments ago, hoping to somehow trick them into not believing their own lying eyes. You're not operating in good faith.
2 comments
chiefalchemist 57 days ago
I’ve looked at it. I’ve seen it before. I saw it when it was initially published. It’s why I said: the planet has been warmer, and it’s been cooler. There is no normal.

So when I hear “climate scientists” make big brush statements about the last 100 yrs, 500 yr, or even 1000 yrs, I laugh. When they make a proclamation about “since records were kept” I laugh again.

I laugh because I’ve seen that graph and I know they evidently haven’t seen it, or are for some reason pretending otherwise. I presume they’re trying to be funny. They’re certainly not being scientific serious.

link
abletonlive 57 days ago
I'll help you understand.

- Climate models are demonstrably incorrect, but the current consensus is that it is changing faster than expected

   - if the climate models are demonstrably incorrect, how much weight should we really put into it for understanding our impact on the model?
   
   - if cherry blossoms blooming earlier are an input into the climate and this is a surprise that is not modeled, how much are we missing in our model? do you know how insane it is to try and model secondary/tertiary effects. Climate change is not an independent variable, it is in fact also recursive, therefore any input we are missing (and we are demonstrably missing many) fans out in our model and makes it inaccurate in either direction
    
   - take for example what was being discussed in 2023 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304380023001680
   
   - as a comparison to what we think we know now https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-026-02598-w
https://students.bowdoin.edu/bowdoin-science-journal/science...

   - if we can't even get this right, what do you think our chances of understanding the implications of the impact to everything indirectly dependent on phytoplankton?
- For the sake of discussion lets follow the premise that you align with: Climate change is human made, we should do what we can to prevent or slow down climate change.

   - to what end? everything we do affects the climate. we aren't just changing the climate, we *are* the climate. there have been many species that were so effective that they meaningfully changed the environment and climate and eliminated other species or themselves along the way. should we eliminate them too? do we actually understand what we are doing if we do that?

 the presumption that we are changing the climate in a way that makes it unsuitable for humans has not been demonstrated thoroughly. we can see that because population is still increasing, but therein lies the paradox.
if you're arguing humans should stop human made climate change then we should go further and just say that there needs to be fewer humans. if you're correct, human made climate change is the mechanism for getting to fewer humans.

if the model is demonstrably wrong and if it were trivial to correct and understand what was wrong about it then we'd have an accurate model by now, but we don't. after all your premise that ~100 years of observation is enough to say anything, how come we can't get the model right? If you follow this far out enough it also says we have no idea how to reverse the trend. if we did our model would not still be wrong in 2026.

the climate and life on earth is changing, will always change, there will be winners and losers, while we try to change it so that we are the winners, we have more evidence that it's an inherent property of the system and that life will continue on despite change than evidence that pre-industrial climate was the ideal climate that we should strive towards. If you want to argue that we should strive towards an environment where humans have the most success, well the evidence points to the fact that we are currently in that climate. population is increasing. just know that there are many losers in the climate you wish to promote. also know that ANY climate has a lot of losers. that much has been clear.

link