Live data from Hacker News

NASA releases detailed global climate change projections

climate.nasa.gov

121–130 of 143 posts

Re: NASA releases detailed global climate change projections

#121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>average 15 points of IQ lower than the general population? Growing up in poverty, which many minorities do in this country, has been linked with lower IQ. Criminal populations are 8 IQ points below the mean. Whether there's a connection here is beyond me, but I really hate how people play up the hysterical political correctness card to censor these types of discussions. In many countries, raising people out of pover…

I'm doing the opposite of censoring them: I'm bringing them up for discussion, and making sure we DO discuss race issues. Eric Raymond is on the record as having said a hell of a lot of other racist stuff. Remember his full throated defense (employing the dog-whistle term "thug") of Russ Nelson's infamous "Blacks are Lazy" essay that was such an embarrassment to the open source software community? https://en.wikipedi…

OK, I just went and actually read Nelson's essay. It's not nearly as bad as I expected based on your writings. He's basically saying (badly) that because of racism blacks have to work harder than whites for any given level of reward and this changes where the optimum level of work is when you take into account work/life balance.

I don't know if he's right or not, but the idea is conceivably plausible. Suppose a white person can work 40 hours a week and make enough to live in a tier 1 neighborhood with a tier 1 lifestyle when it comes to physical goods, and suppose because blacks get lower pay for the same work, a black person would need 60 hours a week for that lifestyle.

If the black person only does 40 hours, like the white person, the black person can only afford a tier 2 neighborhood. Now what if the black person figures out that if he lived in a tier 3 neighborhood, he'd only need 30 hours a week?

If the gap between the quality of the neighborhood and goods affordable in tier 3 and tier 2 is relatively small, especially compared to the gap between tier 2 and tier 1, then going for tier 3 and trading away a small bit of housing and goods quality for an extra 10 hours to spend with family and friends or personal interests might easily be worth it to many.

For the white person, dropping from 40 to 30 hours would kick them from tier 1 to tier 2, which is a much bigger drop, and might not be worth gaining 10 hours of family and friend time.

So you end up in a situation where whites have a single peak in their work vs happiness curve at 40 hours. Blacks have two peaks: 30 hours for tier 3, or 60 hours for tier 1.

Using the term "lazy" for those who opt for tier 3 was a mistake. He doesn't seem to be trying to use it as a pejorative. I think he was thinking more along the lines of The Dude or Cosmo Kramer style laziness.

Re: NASA releases detailed global climate change projections

#122

Let's see if these fare any better than the projections used by the IPCC ... http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=5297 "The most recent climate model simulations used in the AR5 indicate that the warming stagnation since 1998 is no longer consistent with model projections even at the 2% confidence level." Kudos to them for publishing these, though. If they are rotten, it ought to be easy to tell.

Here is the link to the study that shows the warming stagnation is less than was previously assumed: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2015/06/05/science.a... (by NOAA)

Quote: 'These results do not support the notion of a “slowdown” in the increase of global surface temperature.'

Re: NASA releases detailed global climate change projections

#123

If the earth is 509 million square kilometers and the granularity of the data is 25sq km this means we have about 20.3m data points. It implies then on average each point is 540mb. The dataset seems to be broken down by year rather than location though, a UX issue I'd say...

How can each data point consume 540mb? 20.3 million X 150 years X (say) 1,000 bytes for a bunch of float values is still only 3GB. What am I missing?

You're missing that it's daily data, not yearly.

Re: NASA releases detailed global climate change projections

#124
post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ESR is a climate scientist too?! Is there anything he isn't an expert on? swoon

Apparently he is expert on conspiracy theories: > Most of the environmental movement is composed of innocent Gaianists, but not all of it. There’s a hard core that’s sort of a zombie remnant of Soviet psyops.

I don't know about Australia, but that's certainly true of New Zealand. A large number of Communists and their hangers-on decamped for the Green movement with the fall of the Soviet Union.

Re: NASA releases detailed global climate change projections

#125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How can each data point consume 540mb? 20.3 million X 150 years X (say) 1,000 bytes for a bunch of float values is still only 3GB. What am I missing?

You're missing that it's daily data, not yearly .

How can they possibly predict daily temperatures! Presumably it accounts for day and night as well and the Sun's energy output?

Re: NASA releases detailed global climate change projections

#126
post #84

Several comments in this thread mention visualization. These data can be easily visualized with the Unidata IDV [1] (same ppl that make THREDDS). For those interested, go to the IDV dashboard, "Data Choosers" tab and enter http://dataserver3.nccs.nasa.gov/thredds/catalog/bypass/NEX-... for the catalog. At that point you can browse the dataset, add the data as a data source, subset it (serverside), and visualize it. I…

I just want a single image that tells me the expected better/worse degree of change in suitability for agriculture and habitation. Maybe red would mean a lot worse than today, and green would mean a lot better. An absolute image (of today's climate) would help make sense of the deltas also.

http://climateinternational.org has a set of visualizations for daily maximum temperature created from this dataset. Hopefully more visualizations will be added soon.

Re: NASA releases detailed global climate change projections

#127
post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What would be very interesting is for ESR to publish his own predictions, as he feigns expertise. Or, hell, any global warming denialist to publish predictions at all, or build any model at all beyond their day jobs of quote mining and writing clever PR releases that prey on the public's scientific illiteracy and fossil fuel barons' desire to violate other people's lives and properties with untrammeled carbon polluti…

If one's argument is that we don't know enough about what really drives our climate to make these types of predictions, why would one then turn around and make a prediction? Also, using the phrase "global warming denialist" distracts from your point. When some scientists thought neutrinos traveled faster than light, they weren't called "light speed denialists". Have some respect for alternate scientific opinions. The…

As an ardent defender of science, I tend to agree. There's always been a nagging intuition I've had about climate change that to this day I haven't resolved.

It comes down to the evolutionary history of Earth throughout life's 4 billion year tenure on this planet. The climate has gone through EXTREME changes [1][2], including the Chicxulub impact, which radically impacted the atmosphere's composition and life on this planet. Yet, the biosphere has always adapted and life continued.

Assuming that mankind is destroying the biosphere at an unprecedented rate (we are), and burning hydrocarbons at an even faster rate (we are), are these two factors enough to turn the earth into a Mars-style wasteland, completely devoid of all life?

It just doesn't seem plausible to me on an intuitive level. We can use linear regression models of the atmosphere and show temperatures rising until life becomes impossible, but that is not how complex biospheres work.

In any case, climate science is definitely a worthy scientific discipline to study, but it is becoming akin to economics in the prediction department. As in, the principles are sound, but the predictions of the experts are laughably wrong on a regular basis.

Unfortunately, this is all due to Al Gore and his "moment of genius" which instantly politicized the scientific process, thereby destroying any potential for real scientific progress through the feedback loop of empirical testing and model formation. If you disagreed with Al Gore's version of climate change, Al Gore's version of climate models, and Al Gore's version of climate science, you suddenly became a heretic "climate change denier".

Alas, we humans really are terrible at science.

1. http://www.biocab.org/Geological_Timescale.jpg

2. http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/images/CO2History.h...

Re: NASA releases detailed global climate change projections

#128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NASA has it already. Do they not want to be in the business of interpreting climate data? Or is it too soon even for them?

These are projections and the results of simulations - not fact - so they're already interpreting and/or claiming validity of the models.

You are technically correct.

Re: NASA releases detailed global climate change projections

#129
post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If one's argument is that we don't know enough about what really drives our climate to make these types of predictions, why would one then turn around and make a prediction? Also, using the phrase "global warming denialist" distracts from your point. When some scientists thought neutrinos traveled faster than light, they weren't called "light speed denialists". Have some respect for alternate scientific opinions. The…

As an ardent defender of science, I tend to agree. There's always been a nagging intuition I've had about climate change that to this day I haven't resolved. It comes down to the evolutionary history of Earth throughout life's 4 billion year tenure on this planet. The climate has gone through EXTREME changes [1][2], including the Chicxulub impact, which radically impacted the atmosphere's composition and life on this…

It happened earlier than that, or at least according to a science journalist friend who interviewed MIT Professor Richard Lindzen in 1990 plus or minus a year. He quoted Lindzen saying that he had thought scientists were interested in the truth....

I'm old enough to remember when the Scientific Consensus was that we were causing global cooling. Amusingly enough, one of those guys became one of the most notorious global warming "scientist".

Re: NASA releases detailed global climate change projections

#130
post #24

The entire dataset is 12TB because it contains _daily_ global 25x25km maps for all years between 1950-2099 probably for a bunch of different variables. You don't need to download the entire thing to get the gist of it, although it probably would have helped if they also delivered a digest version with for example yearly or 5-yearly averages. Edit: There is also a THREDDS data catalog present which allows you to extra…

If you could boil it down for the busier among us: on a scale of "screwed" to "really screwed", how screwed does it say we are? ;)

Kingsman villain levels of screwed.
Post reply on HN