Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Browser-based climate change simulation

en-roads.climateinteractive.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 276 posts

Re: Browser-based climate change simulation

#21

Post by rwc »

staltz wrote: post #13

Interesting tool. It basically says you can: - Tax coal, oil, natural gas, bioenergy - Subsidize renewables, nuclear, new technology - Increase efficiency and electrification of transports, buildings, and industry - Reduce population growth - Reduce economic growth - Reduce deforestation - Increase afforestation For an effect that puts us at +2.1C by 2100 https://en-roads.climateinteractive.org/scenario.html?p1=120..…

There comes a point where the model no longer accepts any progress beyond a +1.0C increase. No matter how many additional actions taken, the floor is +1.0C. It seems the immediate extinction of the human race would still result in an increase in temperature. Is there research that backs this up?

Re: Browser-based climate change simulation

#22

Post by rimliu »

Waterluvian wrote: post #20

These are too abstract for most humans. Someone needs to do a layer on top of this that instead has options like: - fake meat becomes widely adopted and we stop farming cattle - electric cars see 50% market share adoption Tangible things anyone can wrap their head around.

Also having very little effect.

Re: Browser-based climate change simulation

#23

Post by dluan »

rwc wrote: post #21
staltz wrote: post #13

Interesting tool. It basically says you can: - Tax coal, oil, natural gas, bioenergy - Subsidize renewables, nuclear, new technology - Increase efficiency and electrification of transports, buildings, and industry - Reduce population growth - Reduce economic growth - Reduce deforestation - Increase afforestation For an effect that puts us at +2.1C by 2100 https://en-roads.climateinteractive.org/scenario.html?p1=120..…

There comes a point where the model no longer accepts any progress beyond a +1.0C increase. No matter how many additional actions taken, the floor is +1.0C. It seems the immediate extinction of the human race would still result in an increase in temperature. Is there research that backs this up?

We're already well into the anthropocene: https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/...

Re: Browser-based climate change simulation

#25

Post by lucb1e »

Thermolabile wrote: post #9

We observe the power of a carbon tax

I'm also surprised how much of a difference nuclear can make.

I mean, I know that nuclear is great as a stopgap until we build solar panels that we can actually recycle and install all the wind farms, etc. But the trouble is that a nuclear plant takes 30 years to build and for the public's opinion we might as well be proposing to move their backyards to a high tsunami risk zone or repeating all the actions that led up to the Chernobyl disaster. I've given up on this happening.

Can it still make such a big difference, even if we only start building today? It makes me wonder if I shouldn't be giving up on the option of nuclear.

Re: Browser-based climate change simulation

#26

Post by nabla9 »

lazyjones wrote: post #24

0,5 degrees difference only for a population change of 5 billion people? Not very plausible (low vs. high growth). These simplistic models are counter-productive IMHO.

It's very plausible after you realize how much warming comes from processes that are already in effect and that the change in population is gradual.

Re: Browser-based climate change simulation

#27

Post by zamadatix »

rwc wrote: post #21
staltz wrote: post #13

Interesting tool. It basically says you can: - Tax coal, oil, natural gas, bioenergy - Subsidize renewables, nuclear, new technology - Increase efficiency and electrification of transports, buildings, and industry - Reduce population growth - Reduce economic growth - Reduce deforestation - Increase afforestation For an effect that puts us at +2.1C by 2100 https://en-roads.climateinteractive.org/scenario.html?p1=120..…

There comes a point where the model no longer accepts any progress beyond a +1.0C increase. No matter how many additional actions taken, the floor is +1.0C. It seems the immediate extinction of the human race would still result in an increase in temperature. Is there research that backs this up?

Remember this is relative to temperature at the start of the graph (2000) not 2020.

But yes, there is a delay between "stop producing emissions" and "temperature starts going down". CO2 is already high, simply stopping additional output doesn't make the current amount go away overnight and there is still plenty of ice to melt over the seasons in the meantime.

Re: Browser-based climate change simulation

#28

Post by lucb1e »

mapleoin wrote: post #7
wiz21c wrote: post #6

Reducing all energy sources to the mminium doesn't change much... That's sounds strange because if we reduce energy, then, well, we emit less CO2. Am I missing something ?

CO2 is still in the atmosphere.

For those who would like to fix that, https://climeworks.com

They seem to currently be the only reliable way of taking CO2 out of the air that is available to consumers. (I've got a subscription with them but am not vested in them in any other way. Well, other than for the survival of our current ecosystem.)

You can also plant trees with a thousand and one different organisations, much cheaper than Climeworks per kilogram of CO2, but I haven't yet found one that (1) explains where this land comes from that somehow has no trees yet and yet can support them indefinitely and (2) claims the full-grown trees remain there indefinitely or are somehow prevented from releasing their CO2 again. I guess it's not that cheap anymore if you have to protect the forest for many decades from turning back into whatever it was before (maybe farmland?) and also have a liability after the main growth is over to care that it doesn't release it all back by dying or being burned.

Re: Browser-based climate change simulation

#29

Post by ForHackernews »

rwc wrote: post #21
staltz wrote: post #13

Interesting tool. It basically says you can: - Tax coal, oil, natural gas, bioenergy - Subsidize renewables, nuclear, new technology - Increase efficiency and electrification of transports, buildings, and industry - Reduce population growth - Reduce economic growth - Reduce deforestation - Increase afforestation For an effect that puts us at +2.1C by 2100 https://en-roads.climateinteractive.org/scenario.html?p1=120..…

There comes a point where the model no longer accepts any progress beyond a +1.0C increase. No matter how many additional actions taken, the floor is +1.0C. It seems the immediate extinction of the human race would still result in an increase in temperature. Is there research that backs this up?

There's a lot of CO2 already released into the atmosphere. Barring the invention and immediate global-scale deployment of as-yet nonexistent carbon capture technologies, there's a certain amount of temperature rise that we've already baked in.

Re: Browser-based climate change simulation

#30

Post by [deleted] »

rwc wrote: post #21
staltz wrote: post #13

Interesting tool. It basically says you can: - Tax coal, oil, natural gas, bioenergy - Subsidize renewables, nuclear, new technology - Increase efficiency and electrification of transports, buildings, and industry - Reduce population growth - Reduce economic growth - Reduce deforestation - Increase afforestation For an effect that puts us at +2.1C by 2100 https://en-roads.climateinteractive.org/scenario.html?p1=120..…

There comes a point where the model no longer accepts any progress beyond a +1.0C increase. No matter how many additional actions taken, the floor is +1.0C. It seems the immediate extinction of the human race would still result in an increase in temperature. Is there research that backs this up?

[deleted]
Post reply on HN