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

91–100 of 276 posts

Re: Browser-based climate change simulation

#91

Post by plutonorm »

dmix wrote: post #85
metalgearsolid wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is propaganda. Climate change is the victim. Even staples of modern life, like vaccines, can be sullied by the private interests of the ultra wealthy/politically affluent.

I don’t even think that’s the primary problem. I think the average person doesn’t give a shit about stuff like this, at least not to the point where they have to make personal sacrifices. It’s very very easy to live your daily life and not see any real world consequences outside of some sometimes shrill activists who aren’t the most persuasive people to the average lowest common denominator people. For one thing thes…

They don't give a shit because the news they read, the entertainment they watch all tell them not to. The narrative has been set by private interests for decades - perhaps hundreds of years. So now these opinions look like they are coming from the grass roots.

Re: Browser-based climate change simulation

#92

Post by pmontra »

The single most effective parameter in this simulation is Carbon price. Sliding it all the way to the right lowers the temperature increase from 4.1 to 3.0. Most of the other parameters do little or nothing.

Of course setting a high price for carbon is different from actually making people/companies pay for it.

Re: Browser-based climate change simulation

#93

Post by EdSharkey »

ocschwar wrote: post #73
linuxftw wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm firmly in the camp that CO2 has little to nothing to do with the temperature of the planet. Fact 1: The earth has been warming since the last ice age. Fact 2: Solar output has increased recently Fact 3: Water vapor accounts for almost all of the greenhouse effect. A planet that was already warming is going to continue to warm unless the energy input is changed. Speculative: Some people believe the data has been m…

> Fact 1: The earth has been warming since the last ice age. The Milankovitch cycles have crested since that warming. Without the CO2 we would be cooling. > Fact 2: Solar output has increased recently Citation needed. Furthermore, if you can explain how an increase in the solar output woudl warm the arctic more than the tropics, there's a Nobel waiting for you. > Fact 3: Water vapor accounts for almost all of the gre…

> > Fact 2: Solar output has increased recently

> Citation needed.

Maybe they meant 'recently' as in geologic time and not "since 2000"?

I think it's interesting that solar energy and magnetic fields and cosmic energy fluctuates from year to year. I think these primary inputs to the system not staying constant would make it impossible to model climate such that the model could be an accurate predictive tool.

This particular tool seems rigged to show a certain outcome, and I feel bad for folks here who are frustrated by its +1C floor on temperature rise by the end of the simulation. That (crude) part of the design was probably meant to frustrate and/or panic people into taking action.

I'm happy to see such obvious rigging of the game on display here and that folks are thinking about that.

Re: Browser-based climate change simulation

#94

Post by Retric »

bogwog wrote: post #79
hanniabu wrote: post #66

This is great and all, but what can we do about the people that don't believe this data? That's where the real issue is. I have a bunch of coworkers that think scientists are making up this data and skewing results because their jobs depend on it and they want to continue to get funding. "Follow the money" is a common thing they say in regards to this, but also conveniently disregarded and deny that big oil/coal have…

I'm inclined to believe this data because I trust MIT and believe that climate change is a very serious problem. But this app alone doesn't do a good job of convincing anyone of anything. For starters, it's just a bunch of graphs. I doubt most people who deny climate change are going to understand what they're looking at. But most importantly, there's no straightforward way for anyone to verify this data on their own…

It’s interesting how you described that as exactly 0.1F.

I have a very different way of looking at data. When I see a single significant digit I assume minimal precision. So, 0.1 is something like 95% chance of 0.1 +\- 0.05 would be optimistic, and 0.01 to 1 is pessimistic.

I suspect this is a common issue with both scientific and technological reporting for a general audience.

Re: Browser-based climate change simulation

#95

Post by 345218435 »

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?

guess what. all other climate changes in earth‘s history happened w/o humans. plants need at least 150ppm co2. they flourish with more. we‘re pumping co2 into green houses to make shit grow. we are at around 400ppm and had 1200ppm in the past, no problem. now these folks run around headless wanting to lower it further. complete mindlessness.

global average temperature is a joke. the earth‘s climate consists of many, many little subclimates making it so that everywhere you need a different weather forecast that often doesn‘t even hold up. it‘s a system nobody can actually simulate.

the other question is how do you deal with measurement errors today — and back in the day when they used quicksilver? quicksilver deviates by at least 1 degree. have the scales been correct? was the person reading the temperature looking at the thermometer correctly?

it‘s all bullcrap based on error prone data, nicely „normalized“ and „corrected“ every year because their whishful predictions don‘t work out.

climate „scientists“ are gonna tell you they cannot explain the entire climate system, yet they give you nice animations scaring the heck out of you. and that‘s all there is: scare. you‘ll happily pay ridiculous prices for ridiculous co2 certificates and that revenue goes into private pockets.

i whish everybody would scale back and throw themselves into the topic. but everybody i talk to just shuts down and elects to follow their church.

water and co2 are the most important ingredients for life. nobody is going to die because of it. don‘t let yourselves be fooled.

disclaimer: yeah, i‘m receiving millions from the oil and coal industries. BILLIONS even!

Re: Browser-based climate change simulation

#96

Post by mordymoop »

darksaints wrote: post #88
hanniabu wrote: post #66

This is great and all, but what can we do about the people that don't believe this data? That's where the real issue is. I have a bunch of coworkers that think scientists are making up this data and skewing results because their jobs depend on it and they want to continue to get funding. "Follow the money" is a common thing they say in regards to this, but also conveniently disregarded and deny that big oil/coal have…

I too think that people that refuse to believe are a problem, but honestly, they are nowhere near the primary problem. The primary problem is that people will greedily hold onto a broken status quo if fixing it means they might be held accountable. There is always someone else that is the problem, never yourself. In Seattle, almost everybody agrees with the scientific consensus on global warming. But if you ask them…

Playing with the linked web app shows pretty clearly that a carbon tax, or taxes on oil and natural gas, will in fact do very little. The conclusion I'm forced to draw after playing with all the dials is that it's literally impossible to "austerity" our way out of this. We're going to have to invent and develop our way out of it. Don't trust me; play with the sliders yourself.

Re: Browser-based climate change simulation

#97

Post by phaemon »

mistermann wrote: post #84
phaemon wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps the Sawyer paper from 1973? https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-m...

Surely there was one model that happened to come up with the right prediction, I would assume there were multiple. But my questions is whether there was one model with consensus support (which seems to be the claim), which would be necessary to rule out survivorship bias.

> Surely there was one model that happened to come up with the right prediction

What does that mean? This "model" is someone sitting down and, using what we know of physics, calculating how something will warm up when you add some extra energy (in this case, the earth). You surely don't think that physics works by people randomly guessing answers and then one of them "happened" to be correct?

You don't, do you?!

Re: Browser-based climate change simulation

#98

Post by lucb1e »

DennisP wrote: post #42
lucb1e wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 u…

> a nuclear plant takes 30 years to build Only if your country isn't serious about it. South Korea builds modern nuclear plants in about five years: https://www.scmp.com/news/asia/article/2027347/south-korea-s...

Oh, wow, okay. That changes the perspective quite a bit. Thanks!

Re: Browser-based climate change simulation

#99

Post by Brakenshire »

adventskalender wrote: post #68
hanniabu wrote: post #66

This is great and all, but what can we do about the people that don't believe this data? That's where the real issue is. I have a bunch of coworkers that think scientists are making up this data and skewing results because their jobs depend on it and they want to continue to get funding. "Follow the money" is a common thing they say in regards to this, but also conveniently disregarded and deny that big oil/coal have…

It is clearly made up data, as for example they predict the outcome of policies like carbon costs. Afaik even economists don't agree on the results of such policies. They are just making an assumption and the whole app is merely advertising for their preferred type of policy.

You’re right, the climate data is likely to be solid but the economic modelling dubious.

Re: Browser-based climate change simulation

#100

Post by darksaints »

mordymoop wrote: post #96
darksaints wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I too think that people that refuse to believe are a problem, but honestly, they are nowhere near the primary problem. The primary problem is that people will greedily hold onto a broken status quo if fixing it means they might be held accountable. There is always someone else that is the problem, never yourself. In Seattle, almost everybody agrees with the scientific consensus on global warming. But if you ask them…

Playing with the linked web app shows pretty clearly that a carbon tax, or taxes on oil and natural gas, will in fact do very little. The conclusion I'm forced to draw after playing with all the dials is that it's literally impossible to "austerity" our way out of this. We're going to have to invent and develop our way out of it. Don't trust me; play with the sliders yourself.

A carbon tax is significant. By itself it shows 1C reduction potential. Sure that's not enough, but there are no silver bullets...not even new technology can do it on its own.
Post reply on HN