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

Climate models are running red hot, and scientists don’t know why

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 332 posts

Re: Climate models are running red hot, and scientists don’t know why

#71

Post by dls2016 »

justadudeama wrote: post #23

I am not a climate change denier by a long shot, but stories like these give a ding to the credibility of climate scientists. > "So we can't throw them out yet." This might be an elementary view of science, but I think there is a danger here that while everyone is making their models, if anyone is an outlier they go and tweak their model to match the patterns of others: 'Klaus Wyser’s group "switched off" some of the…

This part of climate "science" always makes me put on my Popper hat. The social aspect of being the outlier (grants dry up, career goes away) makes me skeptical of the IPCC reports, just not in the usual direction. I fear reality could be much worse.

I can't ding the climate scientists too much, though... I'm not sure there's a better way to study this stuff.

Re: Climate models are running red hot, and scientists don’t know why

#72

Post by bdamm »

Frost1x wrote: post #53
adrianN wrote: post #3

Well, politicians aren't doing anything anyway, whether the models predict catastrophe or CATASTROPHE. Already according to the 3° sensitivity predictions we would need an effort that rivals WW2 to stay below 1.5°. Yet major countries are led by climate denialists.

We humans have developed one fairly good approach to problem solving by focusing on localized concerns and self-interest. For many problems, this seems to work fairly well with a few negative yet manageable side-effects. In my opinion, these approaches completely fail at solving large issues that require large orchestrated efforts that require things at state, nation, and even world scale and longer timescales than a…

Yes, I think it is pretty clear that this social structure is the cause and at this point the only solution. Why the only solution? Generally I view the prevention of a strong global government to be a conservative issue and for better or for worse that isn't likely to happen (peacefully). The construction of such a government would speed up solving this issue but then we'd be left with another power hungry government to reign in.

Re: Climate models are running red hot, and scientists don’t know why

#73

Post by chrisco255 »

A model isn't reality. A lot of climate research is based entirely on experimenting with these climate models. Of course, the climate is a non-linear dynamic system, so even if you had a perfect model (we don't), if your input parameters were off by the slightest bit, reality would veer off wildly from your prediction within a short time. This is why weather forecasts don't work beyond 10 days.

Re: Climate models are running red hot, and scientists don’t know why

#74

Post by 0xffff2 »

chrisco255 wrote: post #59
0xffff2 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a problem and you can't do anything about it. We are way past the point where individual action is going to cut it. You have to vote. No other action is going to have a meaningful impact and you shouldn't pretend otherwise because it makes you feel better about yourself.

You going to vote out Xi Jinping?

Not being a Chinese citizen, there's very little I can do there (AFAIK there's not very much I could do if I was either). I certainly will vote for any politician that promises to put pressure on China to change their policies.

Re: Climate models are running red hot, and scientists don’t know why

#75

Post by hyperpallium »

justadudeama wrote: post #23

I am not a climate change denier by a long shot, but stories like these give a ding to the credibility of climate scientists. > "So we can't throw them out yet." This might be an elementary view of science, but I think there is a danger here that while everyone is making their models, if anyone is an outlier they go and tweak their model to match the patterns of others: 'Klaus Wyser’s group "switched off" some of the…

> Why didn’t they discover that the new number was higher right away?

http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/2/CargoCult.htm

Re: Climate models are running red hot, and scientists don’t know why

#76

Post by djsumdog »

lbsnake7 wrote: post #30

I’m a climate change skeptic almost entirely because I don’t trust models. I believe there are too many dynamic things happening in the world for anyone to be able to predict accurately say the next 100 years (solar, earthquakes, volcanoes etc). One way to make me a believer though is an experiment: if I were to give you a 100 year stretch of history and you were able to accurately predict with the models what exactl…

I question a lot the models as well. I think pollution is a big problem in general, but CO2 is totally the wrong focus; like focusing on the sniffles and ignoring the flu. The real issue is consumerism and consumption. We cannot buy our way out of environmental disaster, but the CO2 camp is trying to offer that option: buy green, electric cars, etc.

In realize, we need fewer cars, more trains, better transport options, cell phones that last 8 years and that are repairable rather than 1.5 year planned obsolescence Internet of Trash devices.

The debate over climate/CO2 is a religious ideology at this point, and a very unhelpful one at that.

Re: Climate models are running red hot, and scientists don’t know why

#77

Post by rayiner »

adrianN wrote: post #3

Well, politicians aren't doing anything anyway, whether the models predict catastrophe or CATASTROPHE. Already according to the 3° sensitivity predictions we would need an effort that rivals WW2 to stay below 1.5°. Yet major countries are led by climate denialists.

Even a 5C (9F) warming is not "CATASTROPHE." See: https://www.forbes.com/sites/ucenergy/2018/12/05/will-global...

> While it is true that we estimated damages as high as 10% of GDP annually at the end of the century for warming of 15°F above pre-industrial levels, the odds of a temperature change that would drive damages of this magnitude are slim. In fact, they are less than 1-in-100 by our original calculation. Under a scenario of continued growth in global emissions, 9-out-of-10 global change temperature projections fall approximately in the range of 4°F to 11°F by 2100. The median change is closer to 6°F. We deliberately incorporate tail risks in our research, not just “most likely” outcomes, because consideration of tail risks is crucial to sound risk management.

Re: Climate models are running red hot, and scientists don’t know why

#78

Post by turbinerneiter »

justadudeama wrote: post #51
orev wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tweaking the inputs would help one to identify what factor is causing the difference, which allows you to focus on that. It doesn’t mean you permanently leave it out. And it does not make a credibility issue. This is how science works — it is a process that strives to be as accurate as possible, not come up with a static answer and stick to it (that’s what religion does). The ability for science to change and adapt i…

These are valid points, and it is important to figure out what changes in the model is causing such a dramatic change and scrutinize it more. > The ability for science to change and adapt is what makes it so strong To me this article is them _resisting_ change, looking for a reason NOT to accept it, because it goes against what they previously said. Maybe this is all to early, and in a year or so we will be seeing 4…

If your model suddenly changes its predictions, you need to make 100% sure you know why and that is valid.

Just imagine they would go public with this "Scientists found climate change is worse than previously thought with updated model" and then weeks later find an error in the changes made to the model "Scientists made mistakes, climate change less severe than previously thought".

What do you think would hurt their credibility more?

Re: Climate models are running red hot, and scientists don’t know why

#79

Post by TimTheTinker »

JackFr wrote: post #64
madaxe_again wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cloud modelling is only part of it - advances in computing have allowed the reduction of cell size, allowing more detailed and therefore hopefully more accurate physical simulations.

> advances in computing have allowed the reduction of cell size, allowing more detailed and therefore hopefully more accurate physical simulations. 'Hopefully' is doing a lot of work there. In modeling a highly dimensional dynamic system it's not obvious that a smaller cell size will lead to more accurate predictions.

... beyond a certain (perhaps trivial or intuitive) threshold.

Re: Climate models are running red hot, and scientists don’t know why

#80

Post by take_a_breath »

protanopia wrote: post #69
orev wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tweaking the inputs would help one to identify what factor is causing the difference, which allows you to focus on that. It doesn’t mean you permanently leave it out. And it does not make a credibility issue. This is how science works — it is a process that strives to be as accurate as possible, not come up with a static answer and stick to it (that’s what religion does). The ability for science to change and adapt i…

It certainly does hurt the credibility of people saying we need drastic changes now based upon the models. If the answer might change next year, then making a drastic change based upon the current projections seems foolhardy.

The answer is going to change every year, with new inputs from the prior year. That is how prediction models work. Using your logic would lead to never making any changes, which I don't think will really help.
Post reply on HN