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

321–330 of 332 posts

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

#321

Post by lacker »

derg wrote: post #19
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.

Can you even imagine how a Total War economy/society based on transitioning to greener energies, cutting emissions and pollutants, and working on improvements to housing and urban planning would end up looking? Like ignoring the whole climate change thing for a moment (though we absolutely should not do that), just the quality of life improvements to our health and well being this kind of mobilization would bring wou…

That's not how I imagine a total war. The point of "Total War" is that you start making every decision necessary to achieve your goal, that you weren't willing to make under a democratic process.

If we go to total war to prevent climate change, that means things like:

* Shutting down power and fuel supplies to poor countries that can't afford current solar or wind power

* Military conquest of uncooperative countries

* Bombing coal mines to shut them down

* Bombing oil fields so nobody can get the oil

* Slaughtering foreign civilians to reduce their carbon emissions

When I think of a "total war" caused by an emergency response to global warming, those are the sort of consequences I imagine. Let's hope we don't get to "total war".

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

#322

Post by lacker »

0xffff2 wrote: post #52
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…

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 also shouldn't pretend that voting is going to solve the problem because it makes you feel better about yourself. I agree that recycling a single aluminum can isn't going to make a big difference. But it could very well make a bigger difference than a single vote.

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

#323

Post by triceratops »

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?

Vote in politicians that will tariff any country that doesn't have carbon pricing.

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

#324

Post by mistermann »

wbeckler wrote: post #302
mistermann wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Perhaps. I'm just pointing out that using ambiguous terms like "the models" is problematic, in that you and the original article both refer to "the models", but you are dealing with entirely separate sets of models.

Perhaps literally all historic climate models have been accurate, I've read extremely enthusiastically received articles suggesting as much.

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

#325

Post by mondoshawan »

qubex wrote: post #187
mondoshawan wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can we get the source for the models?

http://www.cesm.ucar.edu/models/ccsm4.0/ seems to offer what you are looking for (first Google hit for “NCAR climate model source code”) but without a cluster of supercomputing nodes, what are you planning to do with it?

Study it. Read the source. Maybe adapt it to a system that isnt a supercomputer. We'll see.

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

#326

Post by adrianN »

KevinEldon wrote: post #111
derg wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you even imagine how a Total War economy/society based on transitioning to greener energies, cutting emissions and pollutants, and working on improvements to housing and urban planning would end up looking? Like ignoring the whole climate change thing for a moment (though we absolutely should not do that), just the quality of life improvements to our health and well being this kind of mobilization would bring wou…

Germany had a Total War economy in WW2. North Korea has one today. The Russian Revolution might not be considered 'Total War', but was single-minded in its focus similar to what you're suggesting. None of these economies worked out well for their citizens. Even the US economy/society during WW2 was more than victory gardens and war bonds; personal freedoms were limited, there were interment camps, forced enlistment,…

My point is that Americans were willing to pay that price even though the actual threat of Nazi Germany was not even in the same ballpark as the threat posed by climate change. I'm also reasonably sure that the switch away from fossil fuels can be done without hundreds of thousands dead.

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

#327

Post by qubex »

colejohnson66 wrote: post #309
qubex wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I suppose that’s true, abstractly speaking. But does it make sense to assume that the world’s meteorological community would put satellites into geosynchronous orbit that are not suited for the purpose of observing the Earth’s atmosphere from geosynchronous orbit? I think we can safely discount that assumption.

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

#328

Post by majewsky »

qubex wrote: post #327
colejohnson66 wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I suppose that’s true, abstractly speaking. But does it make sense to assume that the world’s meteorological community would put satellites into geosynchronous orbit that are not suited for the purpose of observing the Earth’s atmosphere from geosynchronous orbit? I think we can safely discount that assumption.

You're assuming that "observing the Earth's atmosphere" is a yes/no question when it's actually a spectrum. I'm not familiar with the matter, but I can imagine a scenario like "We need to record a very particular part of the EM spectrum and all those existing satellites happen not to have suitable equipment for that."

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

#329

Post by jobigoud »

colejohnson66 wrote: post #309
qubex wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

And distance. A satellite in polar orbit at 850km above the surface will only see a small part of the globe at once, even with a wide lens.

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

#330

Post by jobigoud »

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.

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

They don't, because of perspective. Even satellites in Geosynchronous orbits don't see half the globe. They are above the equator but they can never see both poles at once. Satellites closer than that only see a small part of the globe. A satellite would have to be infinitely far away to see an entire hemisphere at once.

A GPS satellite at 20000 km of altitude only sees 38% of the Earth.

https://www.wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/2013/05/10/since-one-satell...

Post reply on HN