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

Do climate models predict extreme weather?

backreaction.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 223 posts

Re: Do climate models predict extreme weather?

#141

Post by _y5hn »

labster wrote: post #135
throwawaylinux wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Most of the world is not HN, where nuanced discussions work. Most of the world does not give a shit about climate change unless they will personally suffer in some way. So I lie. So that even if this storm or that hurricane didn’t hurt them, they will have empathy for those who did suffer from a climate-enhanced storm. Because if we wait for everyone to feel the impact in earnest, it will be far too late. This is f…

I’m just a software dev now. It’s mostly just people I meet, though I’ve done some lobbying too. Lobbying is a fascinating thing, because all the staff really wants to know is if this issue could help/hurt them in a campaign. I remember once when Zoe Lofgren told me that while she agreed with my issue, there was zero chance Congress would take it up without handling a bunch of barely related issues. The lie mainly ha…

We are well and truly fucked! There's just no way people are going to accept exponential and non-linear worsening conditions, before after step 99 of 100.

Re: Do climate models predict extreme weather?

#142

Post by _y5hn »

dmingod666 wrote: post #129
contravariant wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, either way you provide a good example of the exact problem, I suppose.

Are you saying there were no white lies involved? I recollect a series of events that involved people happily spewing Nobel lies especially at the start of the pandemic.

In my country they said medical masks should be prioritized for hospitals. Experts doubted they would work well for untrained people, but later research changed that bias. Very few died of Covid as a result of how leadership acted fast, but they admitted it could've been wrong.

Re: Do climate models predict extreme weather?

#143

Post by viraptor »

fubarr wrote: post #117
viraptor wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This can be easily shown to be false. I can't tell you if it's going to rain next week in most cases, but I can easily tell you about how many days in a year it's going to rain over a large area. Same applies to how many floods we're going to have and bushfires. We've been doing that for a very long time now.

Telling me about averages deduced from past behavior? Great, you've read the statistic that's built into a model. Telling me what way that statistic will behave in future? Especially at extremes? Not a chance.

We're commenting on an article pretty much saying we have models which estimate in the right directing, but don't go far enough. Now we can learn from the changes and improve the models.

If you're discounting a whole field of research, can you provide more reasoning for why it can't be improved from the current results?

Re: Do climate models predict extreme weather?

#144

Post by YZF »

timmg wrote: post #5

One of the things about "extreme weather attribution" that makes me uncomfortable is the asymmetry of it. To be clear: I'm in no way an expert (or even educated) in the area. To give an example. Let's say there's a 1% chance every year that there will be a catastrophic wildfire in some particular area. Now let's say climate change increases a chance of drought in that area. Then we get a wildfire one year and the att…

I think you're mostly correct. And this is a problem with the idea of trying to model for this given all the variables and outcomes. Climate change should be as simple as: 1) we have pretty decent models and data that show that man is having a considerable impact on weather/climate. 2) we live in a fragile system and are fragile creatures, between us and mother nature we lose every single time, and we lose big, 3) do you really want to find out where this ends?

I think most people just look around and see that things are changing. The attribution studies are sort of a moot point. It's the actual change that is going to make us act.

Already is, a little.

Nobody is going to understand all the weaseling around this could have occurred by chance but we think it's more likely to occur because we modeled it but our models can't predict those low frequency really severe events so we've modeled less severe events and are guessing. If we do start seeing more and more serious weather events (like we seem to be) there's going to be some drastic action (too late?) and if we won't then I guess we're ok by some luck.

Re: Do climate models predict extreme weather?

#145

Post by vorpalhex »

labster wrote: post #138
generalizations wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> to those that need to hear it, it says what it needs to say to get them to understand what needs to be done This only works if truth is used. The labster seems to be assuming they have credibility; but if they're lying, or if they're associated with liars, they'll lose it (if they haven't already).

That’s not really true. Anyone who has ever taught a freshman physics class is a bald-faced liar. We are absolutely certain Newtonian mechanics does not represent our universe. Yet for some reason we do not assume physicists lack credibility, even though we know for a fact that thousands upon thousands of physicists are teaching an entire semester of lies. The lies are useful for making good decisions, though. I offe…

"Newtonian physics is an accurate model of atomic scale physics, and that is what we will be teaching in this class" is not a lie, well within the understanding of a freshman, and very accurate. It might be worth discussing briefly when you need non-newtonian physics!

Re: Do climate models predict extreme weather?

#146

Post by neuro_image2 »

labster wrote: post #135
throwawaylinux wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Most of the world is not HN, where nuanced discussions work. Most of the world does not give a shit about climate change unless they will personally suffer in some way. So I lie. So that even if this storm or that hurricane didn’t hurt them, they will have empathy for those who did suffer from a climate-enhanced storm. Because if we wait for everyone to feel the impact in earnest, it will be far too late. This is f…

I’m just a software dev now. It’s mostly just people I meet, though I’ve done some lobbying too. Lobbying is a fascinating thing, because all the staff really wants to know is if this issue could help/hurt them in a campaign. I remember once when Zoe Lofgren told me that while she agreed with my issue, there was zero chance Congress would take it up without handling a bunch of barely related issues. The lie mainly ha…

You've articulated a very real problem that exists across all public policy and communication.

As other people have stated, its not as simple as lie/don't lie.

Many people simply don't want to acknowledge certain realities:

There is an overwhelming majority of people who lack the capacity/ability/attention span to look clearly and rationally at a complex topic and evaluate the available evidence in anything remotely close to a nuanced, well educated fashion.

You then have to add to this that these same people are being mass manipulated by bad actors with nefarious agendas and large budgets and resources. And then there's the fact that the internet has allowed people to live with the illusion that their understanding parallels that of people with infinitely greater education and experience.

Any public communication has to take this in to account. Believing that the rubes will somehow find their way to a reliable conclusion if you simply tell them 'the truth', is a recipe for playing into the hands of the nefarious (who are more skilled at portraying their self-serving bullshit).

Re: Do climate models predict extreme weather?

#147

Post by tshaddox »

whiddershins wrote: post #86
labster wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a climatologist by education and a dabbler in politics, I think you are radically misjudging the ability of most people to have rational discussions about unwelcome statistics. If you say severe weather will increase by 20% due to climate change, people will hear that there’s an 80% chance weather will stay the same. And they say I’m just being alarmist. When I say that this storm may have been enhanced by climate…

In my view, the problem with the noble lie, which you are engaging in, is that it has been an unmitigated disaster with regards to Covid messaging. As it became obvious some officials were willing to lie, this opened the door to many people having no idea who to trust. I believe public trust in leaders and institutions is at an incredible low, and I’m not sure how it can be repaired. Regardless of whether you think p…

> As it became obvious some officials were willing to lie, this opened the door to many people having no idea who to trust.

> I believe public trust in leaders and institutions is at an incredible low, and I’m not sure how it can be repaired.

I’m not sure you can conclude that the ability or willingness of people to trust anyone is the thing that has weakened when so many people who boastfully distrust traditional mainstream experts also do trust some extremely specific set of claims from some random YouTuber or talk show.

Re: Do climate models predict extreme weather?

#148

Post by soperj »

d--b wrote: post #91

The point is that warning about extreme weather events is the only narrative that got people to consider global warming a problem at all. A 2 degree change in average temperature doesn’t change how people live. A heat wave does. Now I don’t know if it’s actually true or not but it feels like the frequency of extreme weather event has increased. It’s difficult to say because that’s something our grandparents already s…

> It only benefits people running polluting industries.

That's not true. It benefits anyone who can blame anything on climate change. For instance, decimation of fish stocks in the Pacific Northwest. Mostly due to dams and fish farming in the mouths of important rivers, and over fishing, but wild attributed to climate change. Massive forest fires in BC. Mostly due to forestry management practices where forests aren't allowed to burn, and any forests that do are quickly sprayed with Glyphosate so that Aspen don't grow (a natural firebreak species, but the lumber industry doesn't want it) and replanted with GMO pine. Monoculture forests have exacerbated Pine Beetle issues as well. Also largely attributed to climate change.

You take a locally solvable problem, and make it so that you can do nothing about it and the money continues to flow right in.

Re: Do climate models predict extreme weather?

#149

Post by Mikeb85 »

enkid wrote: post #89
whiddershins wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my view, the problem with the noble lie, which you are engaging in, is that it has been an unmitigated disaster with regards to Covid messaging. As it became obvious some officials were willing to lie, this opened the door to many people having no idea who to trust. I believe public trust in leaders and institutions is at an incredible low, and I’m not sure how it can be repaired. Regardless of whether you think p…

Can you give a specific example of what you are talking about? What noble lies were being told about COVID? I heard a lot of "we don't knows, but here is the best bet" which were not lies, but all of the lies I heard absolutely were not noble in that they were not for the public's best interest, but rather for the best interest of the individual saying them.

In Canada they said masks don't work and even make things worse, despite every Asian country using them at the time.

Re: Do climate models predict extreme weather?

#150

Post by mythrwy »

CWuestefeld wrote: post #120
enkid wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you give a specific example of what you are talking about? What noble lies were being told about COVID? I heard a lot of "we don't knows, but here is the best bet" which were not lies, but all of the lies I heard absolutely were not noble in that they were not for the public's best interest, but rather for the best interest of the individual saying them.

Fauci has admitted it: “When polls said only about half of all Americans would take a vaccine, I was saying herd immunity would take 70 to 75 percent,” Dr. Fauci said. “Then, when newer surveys said 60 percent or more would take it, I thought, ‘I can nudge this up a bit,’ so I went to 80, 85.” “We need to have some humility here,” he added. “We really don’t know what the real number is. I think the real range is some…

And now we know the truth. 100% won't achieve herd immunity.
Post reply on HN