Climate models are running red hot, and scientists don’t know why • Hacker News Board

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

#201

Post by admax88q » Mon, Feb 03, 2020, 4:58 PM UTC

shusson wrote: post #188

cagenut wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

this is textbook middlebrow contrarianism. using some quote from some recognizable name to dismiss the incredible work of dozens of top of their field professionals doing their life's work. its a perfect example of the way hacker news "types" do climate change denial. via endless "well-actuallys" until you're lost and stuck in a level of analysis-paralysis that borders on an anxiety disorder. the problem with solving…

I don't think the OP was suggesting we do nothing, but rather we should ground our fundamentals in the scientific method. We do not have another planet Earth to test climate change on. That doesn't mean we should do nothing, but we should also understand our limits in predicting a system like our planet Earth.

OP is arguing that the models are likely to overestimate warming/damage. The logical conclusion from there is that the damage isnt as bad as predicted and therefore less action needs to be taken.

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

#202

Post by claudeganon » Mon, Feb 03, 2020, 5:01 PM UTC

gmueckl wrote: post #175

viklove wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It turns out that governments are bad at running economies. Extrapolating a general theory from just two examples seems like a mistake.

Well, what other experimental data is there? If these incidents are the only data points, then that's the natural extrapolation, even though it is only weakly supported.

As someone else pointed out, the New Deal, which gave us massive infrastructure projects that we still rely on and helped set the stage for postwar prosperity.

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

#203

Post by pepijndevos » Mon, Feb 03, 2020, 5:01 PM UTC

leifdenby wrote: post #47

There is a big observational campaign happening right now that is trying to get to the heart of this called EUREC4A (main website: http://eurec4a.eu and information sheet: http://eurec4a.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/eurec4a/2019/Press/E... ). The key uncertainty between different climate models is whether shallow clouds in the tropics (which in general cool the Earth through radiation) will disappear or not and make our…

How do these models address overfitting? I'm sure this is taken good care of, but from just reading the article it almost sounds like some details were added to make it fit recent changes better.

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

#204

Post by mistrial9 » Mon, Feb 03, 2020, 5:04 PM UTC

cryptica wrote: post #142

Accujack wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or that there are multiple inaccuracies in the model which interact, so finding and correcting each one makes progress but still doesn't improve the model overall.

Having built some models to simulate very basic things myself, I've seen first-hand how the slightest deviation of the model from reality can completely invalidate the entire output of the model. For this reason, I'm skeptical of models that try to simulate very complex systems with a lot of variables and feedback loops. Models that have a large number of variables are particularly difficult to get right because diff…

you are not wrong, but you neglect to include converging aspects from disparate inputs and processes

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

#205

Post by trekrich » Mon, Feb 03, 2020, 5:05 PM UTC

If they are based on models, then you can get any result you want!

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

#206

Post by Proven » Mon, Feb 03, 2020, 5:05 PM UTC

That title pretty much sums up the climatist circus since the 90's

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

#207

Post by luckylion » Mon, Feb 03, 2020, 5:07 PM UTC

jokoon wrote: post #90

I live in a small, old apartment in the EU, without proper AC. I'm pretty worried about the next summer. I can crash at a friend where the temperature never went above 26C last summer, despite a heatwave. I always hope that if heatwaves keep coming summer after summer, governments/the UN will take tough decisions. If nothing is done and summers are too hot, I clearly see people protesting/striking/blocking roads/etc…

> because they will see this as unfair rich-vs-poor restrictions

Which, in all fairness, it is. It's not like e.g. miles travelled is similar for everyone in any society. You have the upper class with multiple international vacations (usually via airplane, cruise ship etc), you have the middle class with maybe one trip per year to a foreign country, and you have the lower classes with maybe one trip every five or ten years. "Everybody just has to cut one trip a year" really is different for the rich vs the poor, isn't it?

The same is true for many related issues. It's not the poor families that own two or three cars (because you sometimes need a small car, can't take your SUV everywhere).

What's true is that the masses will have a large impact simply because they exist in large numbers. What's not true (by a long shot) is that they consume anywhere close to what the rich consume.

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

#208

Post by jbattle » Mon, Feb 03, 2020, 5:09 PM UTC

pjkundert wrote: post #158

> Those now attempting to figure out the mystery of the hot climate models think one factor might have caused the recent unusual results: clouds. It turns out simulated clouds often cause headaches for climate modelers. The impact of cloud cover in these models has been incorrect, and has such a large impact. Doesn't this strike anyone as a major problem? We're burning about 100 billion gallons of aviation fuel per y…

How did you get from

> It turns out simulated clouds often cause headaches for climate modelers.

to

> Which, evidence would seem to suggest, has not been modeled properly (at all?) by these climate models?

Embarrassment may be premature

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

#209

Post by qubex » Mon, Feb 03, 2020, 5:10 PM UTC

bumby wrote: post #185

qubex wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you want to a horde of “non-professional[s] with a pair of eyes and a smartphone” to contribute if literally hundreds of professionals with high-end equipment, meteorological observation satellites, and oodles of computational firepower are already on the task? The main problem has never been a lack of science, the problem has always been (and alas, continues to be) a lack of political wherewithal to actually…

I think what precedes the problem you mention (and one of the main points in the article) is the problem of generating reduced uncertainty in the model. Maybe there’s a chance for more granular data to enhance that?

I don’t know why you are being down-voted but IMHO you certainly don’t deserve to be.

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

#210

Post by SiempreViernes » Mon, Feb 03, 2020, 5:12 PM UTC

LMYahooTFY wrote: post #179

cagenut wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

this is textbook middlebrow contrarianism. using some quote from some recognizable name to dismiss the incredible work of dozens of top of their field professionals doing their life's work. its a perfect example of the way hacker news "types" do climate change denial. via endless "well-actuallys" until you're lost and stuck in a level of analysis-paralysis that borders on an anxiety disorder. the problem with solving…

This reads as remarkably dismissive of a well thought out comment about the difficulty of dialing in metrics and manifesting social pressures. Your comment in no way addressed these topics, and instead moved the line, beyond which lie "outright-deniers" (i.e. deluded people), further up to include anyone who expresses skepticism, or apparently who doesn't accept the coordinated work of thousands of scientists whole-s…

No, it's a pretty fair assessment of the more sophisticated arguments climate change deniers are forced into after extreme weather events we've been getting illustrate the steady increase of average temperature.

For that matter, I don't think you are making a honest argument here, as you paint experts coming together to check each others work as something bad. People don't generally object to the linux kernel simply because it is "the coordinated work of thousands".

Nor is it normal to pretend that there isn't dissent within the linux project, as you try with climate change by saying "anyone who expresses skepticism[sic]" isn't welcome. And you do this in a comment thread of an article that is explicitly about dissent (about details) within the climate community.