Live data from Hacker News

NASA releases detailed global climate change projections

climate.nasa.gov

111–120 of 143 posts

Re: NASA releases detailed global climate change projections

#111

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.

This "paper" (sorry, it's not a paper, ESR) is wrong- the climate models have actually done a fairly good job.

[0] http://www.skepticalscience.com/ipcc-global-warming-projecti...

[1] http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2015/06/noaa-t...

[2] www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/jul/21/realistic-climate-models-accurately-predicted-global-warming

[3] http://skepticalscience.com/curry-mcintyre-resist-ipcc-model...

[4] http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm

Re: NASA releases detailed global climate change projections

#112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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? ;)

Really? You actually believe the hysteria?

Define 'hysteria.'

I believe humanity will survive, but at a significant cost to lifestyle (at least from the point of view of this American). I'll miss the places that are beaches right now being beaches, and I'm not looking forward to the economic disruption as food sources change.

We're an advanced enough society that in a nightmare scenario, we could pretty much weather several generations in a cave under a tightly-controlled resource regiment. But not seven billion of us, and I don't look forward to the culling that would happen as a result of massive climate upheaval.

Re: NASA releases detailed global climate change projections

#113
post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I sure hope so because I am very very curious. Surely there are a lot of researchers that will love to jump into this data and manipulate it somehow. It's a good time to be studying climate change now... your dissertation is right here :D

Assuming the data is accurate and hasn't been 'adjusted' or 'corrected.' The whole climate business is a corrupt mess. Raw data over the years has been 'fixed' and policy is being made from 'models.' Yet what non partisan organization checks the models? The IPCC certainly doesn't. It's all a scam. We had global cooling fears in the 1970s. Then warming. Now "climate change." Yet industrial carbon output has risen expo…

This is an interesting post, because so much of what you say is contradicted by basic fact. I'm wondering how you can possibly defend yourself?.

>We had global cooling fears in the 1970s.

No, we didn't. Climate scientists in the 1970s were predicting warming trends (the media just wasn't paying attention).

[0] http://skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm

>Then warming. Now "climate change."

Nope, the two terms have been used in the scientific community for decades. Climate change has always been the more popular term in numerical analysis of the scientific literature.

[1] http://skepticalscience.com/climate-change-global-warming.ht...

>Yet industrial carbon output has risen exponentially and consistently since the industrial revolution yet temperatures haven't

This is factually inaccurate according to several datasets published by independent scientific organizations around the world. How many do you want? Let's start with NASA, Japan, and satellite data:

[2] http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

[3] http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/ann_wld.h...

[4] http://nsstc.uah.edu/climate/

How many more do you want? There's also ocean heat content:

[5] http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/

Re: NASA releases detailed global climate change projections

#114
post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd like to see upfront mention of things like environmental lead before I'm comfortable with that angle of analysis.

I'd like to see some mention of the fact that blacks are incarcerated at MUCH higher rates for committing the same crimes as whites, which he never addresses (and he ignores it when people bring it up), yet that totally undermines his statistical argument. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/keith-rushing/the-reasons-why-...

His point is based on the rates of crime commission, not the rates of incarceration. The source cited by the article you link to says that "Yes, African Americans and Latinos disproportionately commit certain crimes", and so actually provides some support for ESR's argument. They do say that for drug use crimes, the crime rates are about the same for blacks and whites, but ESR was specifically talking about violent crime.

Also, they say that the differences in crime rates by race can be explained by socioeconomic disadvantages. But among the effects of socioeconomic disadvantages are poor early childhood nutrition and more likely exposure to toxic environments (hello, old buildings with lead paint!). These things tend to hold back cognitive development, which tends to result in lower IQ scores. So to deny a link between lower IQ on average and higher crime rate on average is in effect denying a link between socioeconomic disadvantages and higher crime rates.

Whether or not someone is being racist when writing about the link between IQ and crime depends on what they think is the causality behind the link between IQ and socioeconomic disadvantages, and the factors behind whichever one of those they think is the cause of the other. ESR may indeed be a racist, but you've not shown it, and the source behind your link could be reasonably cited to support the ESR statement you quoted.

We need to find some way to get some statistical sense into people at an early age, so as they grow up it becomes routine and automatic to recognize when you should care about group averages and when you should not.

In almost every situation where you are dealing with individuals, the fact that one individual comes from a group whose bell curve for some characteristic of interest is slightly displaced from the bell curve of the group that some other individual comes from is meaningless trivia when it comes to deciding which individual to choose for something that depends on that characteristic.

Re: NASA releases detailed global climate change projections

#115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure how discussing statistics is racist, particularly when later in the article he says: "And that is actually a valuable hint about how to get beyond racism. A black man with an IQ of 85 and a white man with an IQ of 85 are about equally likely to have the character traits of poor impulse control and violent behavior associated with criminality — and both are far more likely to have them than a white or bla…

It's racist to only quote statistics that support one's racist point of view. And it is racist to be credulous of statistics that support one's racist point of view. Statistics come from actual data, so shortcomings in the data collection can produce shortcomings in the statistics. For example the testing that goes into IQ is not without controversy. And crime statistics are directly dependent on the policing and pro…

> And crime statistics are directly dependent on the policing and prosecution of crime--they don't reflect the objective reality of crime, they reflect the outcomes of an imperfect system that detects and punishes crime.

That's true for drug use crimes and to a lesser extend drug selling crimes, which make up way too many of the crimes prosecuted. Similarly for other crimes where police have a large amount of discretion to decide whether or not to arrest someone.

However there are also big differences in crime rates by race for murder. It's very hard to dismiss this as the result of how murder is policed. Police generally have much less discretion in how to deal with murder.

Re: NASA releases detailed global climate change projections

#116
post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

..by adding a correction to the more accurate buoy data, generating a combined dataset that does not match trends in the satellite data, gold-standard terrestrial data, balloon data, or oceanic temperature data. It also reduces the long-term temperature trend to the pre-1950 trend (i.e., pre-anthropogenic trend). This is a paper that requires a significant degree of corroboration rather than simple endorsement becaus…

Pre-1950 trend? I don't get it. What happened in 1950?

1950 is generally accepted by both AGW skeptics and proponents as a time before which human influence on climate was not discernable. That is, the warming trend before 1950 was natural, not human-caused.

AGW skeptics assert this places a burden of proof on AGW proponents to show that warming since 1950 is beyond what could naturally occur.

Re: NASA releases detailed global climate change projections

#117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trying to follow along here, but having a bit of trouble. 1. Visited https://www.unidata.ucar.edu/software/idv/webstart/IDV/ 2. Got Unidata IDV running locally 3. I was then able to add the data source via URL and saw two options in "Field Selector": "Image Collection" and "Omni Control". I've tried selecting either field and clicking "Create Display", but nothing ever appears in the "Displays" tab. Would welcome fur…

I found that downloading IDV at https://www.unidata.ucar.edu/downloads/idv/current/index.jsp and not using Webstart resolved the startup errors I reported above and now I see the Map View. However, I'm still not able to get any data to render on the map. Would love help still!

@bbuchalter Thanks for registering and downloading. We like it when our users register because we have to report usage metrics back to our NSF sponsors. Are you able to load the catalog (the .xml not .html suffix for the catalog URI) in the IDV dashboard, Data Choosers tab, and see the NCML files available at that resource?

Re: NASA releases detailed global climate change projections

#118

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…

Trying to follow along here, but having a bit of trouble. 1. Visited https://www.unidata.ucar.edu/software/idv/webstart/IDV/ 2. Got Unidata IDV running locally 3. I was then able to add the data source via URL and saw two options in "Field Selector": "Image Collection" and "Omni Control". I've tried selecting either field and clicking "Create Display", but nothing ever appears in the "Displays" tab. Would welcome fur…

@bbuchalter I know you eventually downloaded the Desktop rather than Webstart version of the IDV and got that to work (this is the preferable option anyway, Webstart can be flaky), but just for the record, I believe you have to update Java on your host by going to java.com.

Re: NASA releases detailed global climate change projections

#119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ahh, yes, the famous Judith Curry, known by climate scientists as a quack who seems to be rather incapable of understanding the most basic notions of physics necessary to build (or refute, for that matter) any sort of argument in climate sciences.

You mean the one who recently published this: Curry JA, 2014: Climate science: Uncertain temperature trends. Nature Geoscience, 7, 83-84. ( http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v7/n2/full/ngeo2078.html ) Weird how a "quack" manages to get her work into top-tier peer-reviewed journals, isn't it. When one side of an argument descends to ad hominem as their first move, it is a sure sign their side has lost the argument. U…

Yeah, that one, versus the other 97% of other climate scientists who complain that her work is BS and that she has purposely misinterpreted the findings and conclusions of the IPCC reports.

Your idea that this is an ad hominem is intellectually dishonest. Curry has been criticized by the vast, vast majority of climate scientists for her outrageous and ignorant interpolation of other climate data.

Finally, there is nothing "weird" about people who are quacks publishing things on Nature. Nature is not the end-all of scientific publications, and it's not by any means a specialty publication in the field of climate science.

Re: NASA releases detailed global climate change projections

#120
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…

One can be a critic of predictive climate models without being a Denialist. I am. I strongly support both technological (nuclear and solar/storage) and political (carbon tax/tariff) approaches to ACC, but as a computational physicist I can't deny that climate models being predictively accurate--especially at the scale of these predictions--would be close to miraculous. This is not a political position, it is an exper…

About 1 W/m2 is in the ballpark, what is the problem then?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing#/media/File:...

Post reply on HN