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

161–170 of 276 posts

Re: Browser-based climate change simulation

#161

Post by WA »

surewhynat wrote: post #114
solarwind wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not about climate it's about political control. It's a political boogeyman. Left wing politicians have successfully brainwashed a generation to believe they’re gonna die in 12 years unless socialists and communists control our planet and the lives of everyone on it. I was a huge believer in Climate Change as a youth. I wanted to save the environment. Then I caught one lie. Then two. Then three. Then I read the c…

So your big point is that it's all a big "maybe." Aren't you missing a rather larger point that we're also currently polluting the planet in the process, smog, water tables, rivers, ocean trash, deforestation, excess meat consumption linked to chronic disease?

Exactly this. It doesn't matter if climate models are all wrong. Polluting the environment we require to live in is a dumb idea generally speaking. It's as if your house wouldn't have a toilet and you, your family and all guests just take a dump in the living room. It's just a matter of time until smell and diseases spread around your house and make you sick.

Re: Browser-based climate change simulation

#162

Post by monknomo »

jazzyjackson wrote: post #112
phaemon wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?!

When a thousand hedge funds hire mathematicians and economists to create models of the global economy so that they can predict whether individual stocks will move up or down over different timescales, their task is similar to predicting the weather. Some will beat the market, many won't. Are they guessing? Maybe that's a bad analogy, but my point is that climate is a chaotic system, and detailed models might be right…

I think an individual stock in this analogy would be "Will it rain in Duluth". Climate predictions, to use your economic model, would be more along the lines of "Will stocks continue to rise on the whole over the next 100 years?"

Re: Browser-based climate change simulation

#163

Post by abathur »

svara wrote: post #155
asdf21 wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Case in point, I believe in climate change... that it's man-made (so to speak), that it results from higher than normal levels of carbon, that it will cause sea level rise, etc. But I disagree on some core orthodoxies. I think the root cause is deforestation / removal of carbon sinks, and a even lower-level root cause is simple human overpopulation. The amount of missing biomass from trees over the last few hundred y…

I won't comment on your other points, which need citations to be discussed properly, but ... > I also know for a fact that other countries are much worse offenders when it comes to Carbon emissions and pollution in general, compared to the US or any other Western nation. The problem is that this is a tragedy of the commons situation. For every individual actor, taking action is detrimental because the cost is paid by…

Also, the US still has fairly high emissions per capita--something like 2x China, 6.7x Brazil, and 8.5x India (though I think these numbers also leave something to be desired in terms of how they consider other factors the GP notes like deforestation, as well as what emission fractions are going to activities like producing and shipping exports elsewhere).

Re: Browser-based climate change simulation

#164

Post by EdSharkey »

breakyerself wrote: post #137
EdSharkey wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> > 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 par…

The sun varys from year to year, but its variability is a lot smaller than you imply and solar irradience has been directly measured to be decreasing for the last 40 or so years while global average temps have climbed to levels not seen in 130,000 years. Along with direct observation of decreasing solar output solar has been ruled out because the stratosphere is cooling while the troposphere is warming. This is consi…

I'm not hypothesizing anything, solar energy is the primary input to the system by nature of the fact that removing the sun would leave Earth a lifeless rock.

I do find all of the catastrophising of nature very fascinating. The switcheroo from "global warming" to "climate change" was pretty slick. The attempt to step the message up to "climate crisis" is going to be barrels of fun.

And, yes, I do feel for those people who are frustrated or living in fear by climate alarmists. "It's already too late ..." is full-on revolutionary agitprop. I can only hope people burn out on this whole thing, exhausted by it all, rather than have a psychotic break.

Re: Browser-based climate change simulation

#165

Post by adventskalender »

mattnewton wrote: post #89
adventskalender wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think you are being mistaken for saying the climate data they are using is made up, but your point is more subtle- they don’t show their work to tell you what the biofuel subsidies, for example, will do to CO2 levels.

I don't know about their climate data, I just think their claims of the impact of carbon costs are pure speculation. If they had a calculator for determining temperature increase depending on carbon output, it would be more credible.

They are piping two complex system into each other - economic and climate. At least economics are not understood well enough to really make such predictions. And if the output of the economic model is unreliable, so is the result of the climate model.

Re: Browser-based climate change simulation

#166

Post by linuxftw »

svara wrote: post #151
linuxftw wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's also evidence that CO2 lags temperature increase historically, meaning CO2 was not the causative agent for temperature increase, rising CO2 might be an artifact of increase temperatures.

At that point you're questioning pretty basic physics. What part of the influence of CO2 concentration on the infrared transmittance of the atmosphere are you questioning [0]? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect#Mechanism

It's not me questioning physics. CO2 levels lagged historic temperature increases. It's up to the CO2-causes-warming people to explain it.

Re: Browser-based climate change simulation

#167

Post by breakyerself »

EdSharkey wrote: post #164
breakyerself wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The sun varys from year to year, but its variability is a lot smaller than you imply and solar irradience has been directly measured to be decreasing for the last 40 or so years while global average temps have climbed to levels not seen in 130,000 years. Along with direct observation of decreasing solar output solar has been ruled out because the stratosphere is cooling while the troposphere is warming. This is consi…

I'm not hypothesizing anything, solar energy is the primary input to the system by nature of the fact that removing the sun would leave Earth a lifeless rock. I do find all of the catastrophising of nature very fascinating. The switcheroo from "global warming" to "climate change" was pretty slick. The attempt to step the message up to "climate crisis" is going to be barrels of fun. And, yes, I do feel for those peopl…

Solar energy is the primary input to the system, but it isn't driving warming. There is no evidence that it is. Literally everything else you said here is just politics.

Re: Browser-based climate change simulation

#168

Post by EdSharkey »

Matumio wrote: post #104
EdSharkey wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> > 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 par…

Solar activity may be rising (but I think it's falling actually?), and yes has had an impact in the past, and yes we don't know how large exactly. Does this mean we cannot make any valid predictions until we know it to the last digit? This of course depends on how large the uncertainty of its effect is, compared to other effects. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_activity_and_climate

You cite a lot of uncertainty about Solar activity!

Sure, you can use models to make predictions for a date in the future. Then, you wait to see if you reach that date and the predictions come true. Then you can make qualitative assertions about the accuracy of the model, its shortcomings, and whatnot. Do we have evidence of past climate models making accurate future predictions? (I really don’t know, now you have me curious.)

Re: Browser-based climate change simulation

#169

Post by lopmotr »

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…

Are there really that many people who think climate change isn't happening or isn't caused by those factors? That sounds like a strawman.

Re: Browser-based climate change simulation

#170

Post by alwaysanagenda »

programminggeek wrote: post #78

This model is sort of absurd. It doesn't take into account the most important factor... people. If you made a model of the world today back in 1920, it would be comical. Imagine you went back to say 1920 and told people that in 2020 they would be surrounded by talking televisions, phones, that we'd be sending people and ships to the moon, mars, etc. and that they could instantly talk to any person on the planet (incl…

OUTSTANDING observation.

The paucity of variables and the lack of imagination in problem solving lead to this 'sky is falling' alarmism that does little to incentivize new ideas.

The future is nuclear energy. Without question.

The current oil companies are complicit in supporting 'green' initiatives because solar and wind will never be powerful enough to actually move humanity forward. They get to look good by investing in 'green' energy and continue to make a profit off oil, coal, gas, etc... when all that new tech fails to produce enough energy.

Nuclear energy is the true unlocking of all potentials, and its suppression due to fear, especially in the public, plays right into people who promote solar, wind and electric. In reality it's a cash grab for half-baked technology that comes with glowing PR recognition and convenient tax write-offs.

Post reply on HN