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

301–310 of 332 posts

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

#301

Post by anonuser123456 »

gus_massa wrote: post #189
anonuser123456 wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I’m a climate change skeptic almost entirely because I don’t trust models. You don't have to believe the models: https://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/climateletter.pdf

That is essentially the same argument than in the Pascal's wager https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_wager

Not really.

Pascal's wager has no information. You know nothing of the state of god's existence.

The precautionary principle uses current equalibrium as the default.

The current working equalibrium embeds information.

The precautionary principle does not state it will result in the best outcome. Only that it's more likely to not have the worst.

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

#302

Post by wbeckler »

mistermann wrote: post #227
wbeckler wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's a systematic comparison of climate model predictions vs reality, since the 1970s. It turns out that the models have done a great job of predicting reality. https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-m... I'd be curious where your impression comes from, in terms of what sources of information you're receiving.

Pardon the pedantry, but "-the- models have done a great job of predicting reality" seems like a bit of an overly strong statement. The link you give and the original article seem to be comparing a completely different set of models, and the main article even says there are "dozens still left to report....".

This article includes the IPCC predictions, which are a very thorough consensus based on a range of models.

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

#303

Post by imtringued »

allovernow wrote: post #226

>The scientists went on to try 300 configurations of rain, pollution, and heat flows—something they can do as gods of their own digital earth—before matching the model to history. Having worked with complex geologic (not climate) models in the past, this is the part that gives me pause. The scientists have set out as a first principle to find warming and then are working backwards and, ostensibly, everything is legit…

The scientists are actively trying to tone down their climate change models and your response is that they are overestimating?

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

#304

Post by imtringued »

Accujack wrote: post #81
giarc wrote: post #29

If you are like me, you hate reading articles like this. You know there is a problem but you feel like you can't do anything about it. You recycle, you turn off lights, you have a programmable thermostat but you know it's a drop in the ocean. I finally decided to do something about it last fall. I researched and have committed to purchasing green power. Every month I purchase 850 kWh for $22 from Bullfrog Power (a Ca…

Not to rain on your parade, but programs like this from big power companies are essentially meant to allow customers to feel good while simultaneously not going through the work and cost of switching completely to renewable power. That's because the power companies want to keep people from developing competition to them... if enough individuals install solar plants with battery storage, eventually they power company…

The idea is that a CO2 tax will never be implemented. Instead of doing nothing the best thing you could possibly do is to self impose a CO2 tax on yourself. If politicians finally decide to implement a CO2 tax you've already prepared yourself and won't see a significant increase.

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

#305

Post by protanopia »

polotics wrote: post #285
protanopia wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But more than the current amount will help crops grow better and prevent people from freezing to death in winter.

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

#306

Post by imtringued »

luckylion wrote: post #260
giarc wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry I should have said, "every month I purchase offsets equating to 850kWh for $22". This is in addition to my regular electricity bill (I pay about $0.07/kWh). Bullfrog Power isn't my supplier, they are a company investing in green energy projects.

Ah, that makes sense, thanks. $0.07/kWh still sounds great, we're blasting past 0.30€, subsidizing wind farms is pricy.

Subsidizing heavy industry is expensive. I assume you're German.

https://youtu.be/YkA65vpeA5g

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

#307

Post by [deleted] »

pjkundert wrote: post #246
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…

Remember, before you make the obvious mistake of "well, aktually, the atmosphere contains 5 orders of magnitude more water than that" -- we're not discussing a linear system. Almost none of that atmospheric water resides at FL300. That's the point. You wildly adjust atmospheric parameters in the real world, with (apparently) not accurately accounting for them, and then claim your model is predictive? This is why mode…

[deleted]

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

#308

Post by yaks_hairbrush »

pjkundert wrote: post #233
yaks_hairbrush wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, 500 million metric tons sounds like a lot, doesn't it? But there's the fact that it's getting dumped into an already big system: the atmosphere at large. Let's check it out it percentage terms. According to wikipedia, the mean mass of water vapor in the air is 1.27 * 10^16 kg. To get the units correct, that aviation contribution is 5 * 10^11 kg. Dividing the latter by the former, we find that the annual commercia…

FL300 is very cold and very dry, and bears almost none of the "atmospheric water". Your estimation of impact is not correct. This is not a linear system.

FL300 (30,000 feet) is usually within the troposphere. And that's highly relevant, because the troposphere is well-mixed. Water vapor emissions at 30,000 feet are going to come back down, for the most part.

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

#309

Post by colejohnson66 »

qubex wrote: post #241
allovernow wrote: post #212

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? Because the Earth is huge, data collection is expensive, and funds are limited. There is a lot of [literal] ground to cover and it's perfectly feasibl…

Satellites view half the globe at once. But you know that just as well as I do.

Not true. How much is seen depends on the focal length and lens

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

#310

Post by lopmotr »

monkeynotes wrote: post #177
Angostura wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suppose my immediate question is - is there any way for an non-professional with a pair of eyes and a smartphone to contribute in a crowd-sourcy way?

Seems like a recipe for bad data and undiscoverable flaws.

iNaturalist.org does this for finding plants and animals but to be honest, I don't know how they deal with bad data. They even have schoolkids submitting data during class. So, kind of adversarial data collectors!
Post reply on HN