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

#281

Post by polotics » Mon, Feb 03, 2020, 6:36 PM UTC

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.

Sadly no, the hypotheses that are now being shown to have been too optimistic were the ones that implied drastic changes. The updated models are telling us something else, you'll figure it out, and/or it will figure you out.

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

#282

Post by xvilka » Mon, Feb 03, 2020, 6:38 PM UTC

derefr wrote: post #181

monkeynotes wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems like a recipe for bad data and undiscoverable flaws.

Not really; you'd probably take the Folding@Home approach† to work distribution: assign each small piece as a job to N non-trustworthy "workers" (humans, computers), and then trust the results if all N results concur. If they don't, fail the job back into the work queue to be tried again later with different workers. (And maybe give the workers a reputation score, kicking out the ones who participate in enough failed…

Yes, it's called BOINC[1] platform. And as another comment mentioned there is already a climate prediction project[2] based on that platform.

[1] https://boinc.berkeley.edu/

[2] https://www.cpdn.org

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

#283

Post by polotics » Mon, Feb 03, 2020, 6:39 PM UTC

Kaiyou wrote: post #173

lucisferre wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes it would be terribly foolhardy for us to stop polluting the atmosphere prematurely.

We might be steering into an ice age and Co2 induced global warming is the only way for humanity to survive.

That would be cool, please post links to your model's source code and data set.

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

#284

Post by bumby » Mon, Feb 03, 2020, 6:39 PM UTC

qubex wrote: post #209

bumby wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don’t know since they aren’t accompanied with comments but my hunch is they may be conflating scientific consensus with model uncertainty. I.e., if I bring up model uncertainty, then I’m casting doubt on the scientific consensus (which isn’t the case). It’s more about our confidence in the models which is the point of the article.

Nate Silver’s “The Signal and the Noise” gives a much better description than I could do

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

#285

Post by polotics » Mon, Feb 03, 2020, 6:41 PM UTC

protanopia wrote: post #138

lucisferre wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes it would be terribly foolhardy for us to stop polluting the atmosphere prematurely.

Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant.

Too much of it is, as water in your lungs, or air in your beer: having too much of it will make your greenhouse too hot, the one you live in and cannot leave.

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

#286

Post by jschwartzi » Mon, Feb 03, 2020, 6:41 PM UTC

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.

Try thinking from a basic Risk Analysis point of view. If climate scientists are wrong and we do something we will invest heavily in infrastructure and efficiency, reduce our environmental impact, and reduce air pollution for our children. If they are right and we do nothing then the 9 to 11 billion of us still living on Earth will be crammed up against the North and South poles while sea level rise claims many small nations. We will run low on arable land, many of our animal and plant species will die, and the planet our children inherit will be a dirty hellscape that’s too hot to live on.

Given that, how could you possibly advocate for doing nothing?

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

#287

Post by cultus » Mon, Feb 03, 2020, 6:45 PM UTC

texorcist wrote: post #257

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…

Maybe address the points instead of dismissing them with insult? That might work better at getting the middle to get on board.

People who are arguing in bad faith like this need to be called out. There is no scientific debate on this matter. If you think CO2 does not affect climate significantly, then you are anti-science and should probably find a different website. Should we not criticize anti-vaxxers as well?

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

#288

Post by Reedx » Mon, Feb 03, 2020, 6:45 PM UTC

SiempreViernes wrote: post #245

Reedx wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pointing out that climate models are predictions is not the problem. The models are in fact predictions and they accumulate errors the further out they project. That's just the reality. The problem is pretending otherwise. That muddies the waters and literally fuels and strengthens climate change deniers as it gives them a leg to stand on. Remove that leg. We need to make it harder to dismiss, which can be better acc…

Climate change deniers fuel themselves, and mostly on the wish to avoid any sacrifice on their own part. The post you are defending is doing more than simply pointing out that the models are models. It is also claiming, without any proof or even argument in support, that experts all over the world are only publishing high predictions.

You're just assuming their inner thoughts. Furthermore most who believe in climate change aren't exactly sacrificing, either. Still flying in airplanes (even private jets), using air conditioning, eating meat, using or pushing fast fashion, etc.

As for an argument, well, experts have been on the wrong side about things like climate predictions, stock predictions, economy, nutrition and so on many times. Even to terrible effect. We replaced fat with trans-fats and sugar, for example. So it's at least fair to be skeptical.

Personally, I'm on the side of science and climate change is a problem we need to solve. And I think we will because we tend to be good about solving slow moving disasters. Besides, optimism and hope about the future is a better strategy than seeding people with fear, doubt and anxiety.

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

#289

Post by pinkfoot » Mon, Feb 03, 2020, 6:48 PM UTC

texorcist wrote: post #257

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…

Maybe address the points instead of dismissing them with insult? That might work better at getting the middle to get on board.

The IPCCH has adressed every point you could imagine and then some.

See ipcch.ch

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

#290

Post by imtringued » Mon, Feb 03, 2020, 6:52 PM UTC

samatman wrote: post #129

I'm reminded of Feynman's famous anecdote about the Millikan oil drop experiment: Millikan underestimated the charge of the electron, and over the ensuing years, subsequent measurements slowly but surely converged on the correct value. Why? Because experimenters who got the correct value figured it must be too high, and ran the experiment again until they got a more-erroneous value, one that was nonetheless higher. E…

> I'm afraid that the incentives are to credit models that predict more warming just a bit more than those which predict less;

You've got it backwards. The models are known to be conservative because "alarmist" scientists have received a bad reputation when they are proven wrong. It is safer to pretend to be ignorant and underestimate the numbers.