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".
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.
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.
>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?
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.
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.
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.
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].
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.
400+ ppm is unprecedented since 800 000 years, and the effects are recognizable now by year-by-year changes that consistently break out of historical limits for both temperature and CO2 concentrations:
That effects of CO2 concentrations are different now than hundred million years ago is covered in this link that was provided (please see how solar forcing have increased over millions of years, lowering greenhouse gas thresholds): https://skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past.htm
I see no reason to make false accusations and trying to bring the argument down to an emotional level. I suggest reading the links and debunking, and instead try to understand the scientific arguments first.
This post of yours reflect an arrogance that do not belong on HN (my response was to show you what you projected from yourself - this, since facts only enrage some people):
"May I suggest adopting a mental model where you care about accuracy more than outrage?"
Instead, may I suggest you provide real arguments, instead of unsubstantiated nay-saying, and avoid resorting to pure rhetorical tactics? I say this because you provided nothing of value to the discussion. Instead even your own link supports current model precisions, contradicting your own claims:
"There is good agreement between model simulations incorporating high CO2 concentrations and proxy evidence, providing strong support for the role of CO2 in maintaining the high temperatures of the Early Eocene."
Sorry for bringing out more of the same, but that was the emotional part of the argument. But shouldn't really be necessary to show, regardless wether we agree or disagree about data and models.
I present what experts in the field are saying (the references are more accurate, yes). Please see other posts in this parent thread for more nuances. Would love for real contradictory arguments to be presented!
Where are the credible peer-reviewed research that present contrary findings?
At this point, contrary views seems to boil down to: Putting the lid on a pressure-cooker will not lead to chaotic disturbances and rising energy imbalance inside the pot. While thousands of peer-reviewed papers all point in the same general direction. They credibly even raise concerns that above certain thresholds, hot house earth as shown by data from ancient times, may happen again and may happen faster/more robustly than expected.
I doubt facts are going to change minds, but it should be concerning that we're already witnessing all the signs after rising CO2 and warming since 1930's:
It is of course going to take a few more years for real devastation to occur, but the present condition is in-line with simpler models from 70's and 80's. It is just now that we're breaking out from historical envelope, so it is from this point onwards the effects turn more chaotic.
But of course, laymen and hobbyist working unrelated to climate fields know better.. Especially when fueled by money and special interests (billionaires). They somehow always manage to find any incredible argument for explaining away the effects of massive amounts of extra fossile mass having been released over the past hundred year.
Of course CO2 doesn't work alone, but triggers more greenhouse effects (H2O, methane, albedo, etc.) due to a new imbalance in the system compared to historical times of stable civilization and climate.
If we were hunter-gatherers, we would've not needed to be as concerned. But we're not, and not being hunter-gatherers we might just have a chance to avoid a possible "Great Filter" of our times.
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".
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.
"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.
Didn't they choose their jobs, and with that, their co-workers?
I'd like to see them argue "I don't want to come to the office because I don't like to be surrounded by people like you" as well. Is that a common argument?
I think people who are unhappy with their working conditions should just look for another job. It's fine to try to convince bosses that changes would be beneficial, but I don't have much sympathy for all the whining.
I see what you mean, but I think there is a bit of a hidden fallacy here. Work is work for many people and not a fun place to socialize, despite this common and widespread idea that for some reason we should be doing the latter. Also, most people do not even get to choose their co-workers anyway. So it's not that one absolutely dreads being around their co-workers, but rather, it just boils down to one question: where you want to be glued to a chair? In a shitty cube in an open space office where you are bombarded by distractions after a 45min commute of smoking exhaust gas and air pollution from traffic, or at home, where none of the just mentioned conditions exist?
I kind of concur with the original comment too. Single guys in their 20s might want to go back to socialize, perhaps driven by this idea of socializing at work. Guys in their 30s, low on kool-aid reserves, no kids but maybe partner, might prefer to stay at home. Once the kids show up, now you have an external force that might push you back into the office. Guy in his 50s with grown-up kids? He's having a hell of a blast retiring in a remote cabin while cashing in on the big bucks. Unless he is a VP or a micro-manager; then he might be miserable for his inability to crush people's lives remotely.
I have nothing against work just being work, but I think there are different types of companies for a reason. If you want work to just be work, you can choose a company that treats work just as work and doesn't expect you to become one big family.
Like if you give the example of young people and old people - fair enough, then maybe young people are better of looking for jobs where they work together with other young people, and people in their 50ies are better off in jobs with other old people.
Ultimately companies are not created for the benefit of employees, but to create stuff. They try to be good to employees to be able to attract and keep talented staff.
> Didn't they choose their jobs, and with that, their co-workers?
What do you mean? Did they tell you about guy with questionable hygiene and that other guy with chronic allergy that makes him cough all day long during your interview?
I agree that some of radical pro-WFH people might seem entitled, but I think in reality they just too fed up with open-spaces and commute and see pandemic as their last chance to normalize WFH across the industry. Also, I honestly don't see why it is such a big deal to let every team decide how they want to work.
Or they can continue to argue for work from home. Lots of people are not "people" extrovert types and prefer working solo with only a bit of contact with other people. It doesn't matter who the other people are.
Still, it is mostly a cosmetic problem, while we are supposed to believe that global warming will kill us all in a short amount of time. So the priorities should be clear.
Where can you get 9% yield on housing? Where I live, you can only buy houses at prices that are above what you can get back in rents. You are very lucky if you can get to 1% yields, which is below inflation and not technically a good investment. The only way it still makes "sense" is by speculating on rising prices for real estate. Which is not risk free at all.
If you buy housing all cash the appreciation and rent (net of expenses) could easily hit 9% per year. If you mortgage it you do pay interest which lowers the yield, but also need to factor in the increase in principal, and that the appreciation is net of your down payment + interest, not the entire sticker price (eg a 10% down purchase of a $1m home financed at 3% that appreciates 6% is actually a 30% yield).
No it doesn't. The interest on the mortgage can be as low as 0.5%, so even if you pay in cash, you would only be at 1,5% yields (with my generous example of achieving 1% yields via the rent).
The "appreciation" is not a given and not risk free at all. Certainly not 9% per year - for how many years do you think that would continue?
"then there's this overall trend of stagnating wages for everyone except owners of capital."
So people should better buy some capital!
Also the lament about stagnating wages glosses over the amount of people that have been added to the workforce. The average wage per person may have stagnated, but the sum of wages that are being paid out has increased a lot.
I think it is not a small achievement to provide jobs for so many more people.
It's depressing to watch as the unaccountable ruling class wastes all of our money on pipe-dreams and vanity projects. Meanwhile, the world is on fire.
And what do I mean by "our money"? This is what I mean:
'Included in the many people that Bezos thanked Tuesday was “every Amazon employee and every Amazon customer. Because you guys paid for all this.” Bezos has said he finances the rocket company by selling $1 billion in Amazon stock each year.'
The fact that Blue Origin exists in the first place is evidence of the insane levels of wealth inequality that now exist in our society. At this point, everything that Bezos does is an affront to our sensibilities. The King is riding on roller coasters while his serfs are peeing in bottles.
I suppose the article doesn't mention the real reason: that it is the privilege of mothers to spend time with their children, because they invested and risked more to have them (or simply because having the womb gives them the better negotiation position).
While a small percentage of mothers can not relate well to their kids and prefer to get back to work asap, the reality is that most mothers prefer to spend time with their kids.
Who should get to spend time with the kids? The person who spent 10 seconds injecting their semen into the womb, or the person who toiled for 9 months letting the child grow in their womb, often risking their life to do so? In many cases, the discussion does not even make sense. It is even more ridiculous when feminist men pride themselves for taking "the burden" off their wives. All they did is take away their natural privilege.
This also becomes even less surprising if one looks outside of the academic box and realizes that most people don't have exiting creative jobs where they change the world, but mostly mundane stuff like being supermarket cashiers, or, at best, nurses - which is a nice job, but should women really leave their kids so that the can change the diapers of strangers instead?
Feminism want us to believe that taking care of kids is a burden that men unfairly push to women while they go off to have fun at work. And huge parts of society have swallowed it.
Here in Europe, many governments think they have to force men to take paternity leave, to further equality. They think men don't want to spend time with their kids because of role models or whatsoever.
The reality is probably in most cases that the the issue is mostly financial. Even with paid paternity leave, there usually is less money on the table than with full time work, specially since women tend to choose less well paid careers (another privilege - they don't have to provide for the family, so they can afford to trade income for convenience and social status).
I think it is great if fathers can take paternity leave and recommend everybody to try to do it. but there are actual real world issues preventing it, not just memes ("societal expectations").
> Feminism want us to believe that taking care of kids is a burden that men unfairly push to women while they go off to have fun at work.
No, feminism (except perhaps some weird subcategory of bourgeois feminism) does not want you to believe work is fun. And most feminism places the blame here on institutional patriarchy (which binds both men and women with restrictive gender roles, harming both) not men pushing restrictive gender roles on women.
You do seem to describe a common right-wing caricature of feminism, though.
Really? Then why do governments feel they have to force men to take time off?
Men in the relationship are typically seen as the "arm" of the patriarchy.
It is true that in this case it would benefit men if they were granted more time with their children (at the expense of the mothers and the family finances). But that is more accidental.
Show me a "proper feminist" article arguing for the benefit of men, rather against the exploitation of women, with regard to that subject, if you believe you know feminism so much better.
> Then why do governments feel they have to force men to take time off?
Instead of arbitrarily deciding the reason is “feminism” and then trying to invent attributes of feminism that make that make sense, tou could probably do the minimal research it would take to find the actual reasons cited by any one of the governments in adopting the rule. I feel safe in the assumption that it is “men unfairly push to women while they go off to have fun at work” in precisely zero of them.
> Show me a "proper feminist" article arguing for the benefit of men, rather against the exploitation of women
Uh, okay: “Yet, the proportion of men who take more than a few days off work when their child is born is tiny.
Most cite fears of being discriminated against professionally, missing out on pay rises and promotions, being marginalised or even mocked as reasons for not taking time off. Academics consider these concerns to be the effect of deeply ingrained and highly damaging stereotypes around gender” [0]
"I feel safe in the assumption that it is “men unfairly push to women while they go off to have fun at work” in precisely zero of them."
But you don't actually know the reasons?
"yes, the article we’re already discussing in this thread."
Is that a feminist article? What makes it so?
"Academics consider these concerns to be the effect of deeply ingrained and highly damaging stereotypes around gender"
As expected, they don't dare to mention the real reasons (female privilege). It is not "just" societal constructs, it is the negotiation position of the wombs.
I know the reasons that have been cited for some policies aimed at encouraging men to take more maternity leave, including the workplace expectations/social pressure one cited in this article , which has been cited prominently around the Swedish policy with 90-days for each partner that is non-transferable plus a large pool that can be used by either partner. I haven't cataloged every argument cited for every policy of this type in every country. If you can find one that supports your characterization, you are welcome to present it.
> As expected, they don't dare to mention the real reasons (female privilege)
So now you are not only arguing that “feminist want us to believe X” without any evidence of feminists suggesting that, you also have added a hidden motive with similarly no evidence.
Your unsupported ideological fantasy is getting more elaborate, but not any more supported.
The ideology is that differences in behavior are merely the result of oppression (via social norms) by the mythical patriarchy (which apparently isn't perpetrated by men, according to you, so who is it?). Not that behavioral differences have a biological foundation.
However, there is no point in arguing. I don't know what kind of feminist literature you encounter. Maybe you just choose to read it with pink tinted glasses, or you only see the moderate ones. You get to choose your own view of the world, of course.
> Feminism want us to believe that taking care of kids is a burden that men unfairly push to women while they go off to have fun at work. And huge parts of society have swallowed it.
No, the feminist position is that childcare is an activity that does not have to be done exclusively by the mother. And so there should be equal and generous time off available for both partners regardless of sex (or if a same-sex relationship, relation to child).
Of course there are biological considerations too. The mother having the opportunity to breastfeed, in particular. So the schedule of leave may be organized around optimizing for this as well.
So what is the feminist theory why men don't share equally? So feminists believe women should give away some of their privilege of time with their children, for the benefit of men?
Or do they believe going off to work and "have a career" (never mind the aforementioned supermarket cashiers) is the better part, that men unfairly claim for themselves?
I have never seen feminists to call on mothers to give fathers more time with children, to tbh.
It is not about men being able to take care of children. Nobody sane doubts that.
I am on parental leave right now together with my wife. Financially it's OK- we had some time to prepare.
The most basic issue is breastfeeding. A newborn wants to drink about every two hours. My wife just can't leave the house if she wants to breastfeed. Bottled up milk is an option when the child is about 4 months old.
At this stage the bond between them both is so thick, that they are basically inseparable. As man you basically spend a whole year to catch up.
So even with enough money and leeway from my employer to take parental leave there are still issues why childcare is mainly the part of the mothers.
I guess most of the feminists don't have children. Oh and try to have two children. Guess what: it does not scale well! And it takes more than two persons to even raise one child.
I would encourage you all to try it yourself. It is really rewarding to be a parent and also so exhausting - even with all the privileges in the world.
I'm not so sure that fathers need to "catch up", but I guess it depends on the child/family. I know I was always better at calming our child, mostly because it was bloody difficult to learn what he liked and how to help in all the various situations.
My wife never really learned that, she'd give him boobs and he'd feed/sleep. That worked perfectly for the first six-ten months, and then it didn't.
I'd never had those to fall back on, and was always the one who took over when he was being "difficult". Then again I was also the one that pushed him in his pram for a walk around the block at 2AM, in sub-zero temperatures, to help him fall back to sleep. They were hell on my sleeping patterns, but also some of the best early memories I have. Talking and singing as the snow fell .. magical.
Same here! This times where great and terrible - I took our boy for walks in his pram for hours for here to catch some sleep.
With two kids this obviously doesn't work anymore.
Sometimes when I returned my wife told me she couldn't sleep cause she missed him. I guess they just where very close. Sometimes I envied that - now that he is bigger we have a lot father- son activities, so that makes up for that.
Men and women are just different parents and I believe kids need both parts or even more. Grandparents and aunts and cousins, friends and teachers. The kids are always happier in a crowd that just with one parent or even both parents. Nowadays everyone threats parenting as a two person job but everyone will agree the saying that it takes a village to raise a child...
I didn't have the same experience. I took a lot of time off and think/hope I bonded just fine. I feel I was privileged to be ale to afford it, or rather, I just decided to afford it to dismay of my wife. That is another underrated factor: mothers actually WANT security, including financial security. Another factor is that it can get annoying if the other parent injects their opinions on rising children. It is not as if mothers in general are keen for the fathers to be around all the time. The feminist narrative (as usual) is absurdly wrong.
Breastfeeding is another example of why it is more "natural" for mothers to stay home than fathers, though.
I don't understand why you got downvoted. Much of the ideology does not translate on to the real world. Not everyone will fit in the narrative. Mothers and Fathers usually enjoy being with their children. In our society one has to work for a living. So one parent has to do it.
This has nothing to do with feminism. Why should men or women be defined by their jobs? Why is money defining the worth of a women or a man? Feminism is just a strawman for the underlying problem that we are fixated on money
Arguably, in your example showing the most prominent CEOs is the correct response. It is ideology to claim "women are only not CEOs because they have no role models, therefore we should make our AI lie about female CEOs to normalize the idea, so that more women will become CEOs".
Actually I think there are lots of articles about female CEOs, as female CEOs will be more likely to be written about than male CEOs ("the top female CEOs fo 2021" and so on, there are bound to be countless such articles).
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".