Browser-based climate change simulation • Hacker News Board

Re: Browser-based climate change simulation

#121

Post by hwillis » Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 6:27 PM UTC

KJKingJ wrote: post #105

hwillis wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Nuclear energy and trains are possible, even if they require electrifying the railroads. Note: this is not a great idea; trains release less than a third as much co2 as a truck and electrifying cross country rail would be very expensive. You need extremely high voltage for long distance transmission, which is incompatible with pantographs (the metal things that power trains/buses from overhead). You'd essentially n…

> Note: this is not a great idea; trains release less than a third as much co2 as a truck and electrifying cross country rail would be very expensive. You need extremely high voltage for long distance transmission, which is incompatible with pantographs (the metal things that power trains/buses from overhead). > You'd essentially need to build dedicated HVDC lines alongside all trunk routes, with regular substations…

I was talking specifically about using nuclear to electrify transcontinental lines in the US. Those routes have sections hundreds of kilometers long that are basically desolate.

Re: Browser-based climate change simulation

#122

Post by ohgreatwtf » Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 6:29 PM UTC

The single biggest line item in this program is agricultural methane emissions. The second single item is drastic reduction of energy usage in industrial applications. Even now the farmers in the hague are protesting the former. The latter is simply impossible.

This programme for climate control is an unrealistic plan thought up by a bunch of nerds. You should all elect me dictator for life and do what I, the cyber-fuhrer, command you.

Step one: we must recognize this is OUR planet and OUR environment, so we can do whatever the hell we want with it.

Step two: Reshape carbon level perspectives. carbon levels above 500 PPM are unhealthy and we are on track to reach that in a few years. Canned air is a thing now. We must curb our carbon emissions and reduce carbon levels in order to be more healthy, not control global warming. Everyone, even the critics, recognize Co2 above 1000 is bad for your health and everyone has experienced high CO/CO2 levels.

Step three: The climate can go fuck itself. We'll glass over a portion of arid desert or mountain land the size of texas, divided into plots of land 100 square miles each in remote areas around the globe, and cover them in mylar reflective sheeting. The increased albedo will more than counteract the temperature trends estimated from greenhouse gas based warming. I have done the math.

Step four: We must observe that it is not merely renewable energy but renewable infrastructure that must exist to fix this problem. Batteries and solar panels and devices that wear out too quickly exhaust our resources, and infrastructure costs make up a large portion of the factors limiting adoption. A Renewable Society becomes our focus as a total propaganda and government mandate worldwide.

Step five: we create a global research funding scheme and open patent pool that internationally maximizes research effort into renewable infrastructure. We establish trade agreements that create international laws which incentivize renewable energy adoption through guaranteeing adoption payoff by establishing long-lived warranties and government subsidized repair and renewal programs, ensuring that your investment into the future is a safe bet.

Step six: we hang anyone who disagreed with this post.

Re: Browser-based climate change simulation

#123

Post by mistermann » Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 6:32 PM UTC

multiplegeorges wrote: post #113

mistermann wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some thoughts for your consideration, delivered with collaborative intent: > I have a bunch of coworkers that think scientists are making up this data and skewing results because their jobs depend on it and they want to continue to get funding. FWIW, I also happen to harbor this suspicion. How might one actually know whether there is an element of truth to it? > "Follow the money" is a common thing they say in regard…

It seems you misunderstand what scientists are saying and forming an incorrect opinion from that. > I will confess, referring to climate models that are literally estimated projections of future temperatures as "facts", very much rubs me the wrong way. The projections are statistical models. They have a range of values and probabilities associated with them. Without major change, the probabilities of catastrophic cli…

> It seems you misunderstand what scientists are saying and forming an incorrect opinion from that.

I feel highly confident that I don't actually misunderstand what scientists are saying, but rather you have misunderstood (misinterpreted due to heuristic modification during interpretation) what I have said.

Would you be willing to quote particular statements I've made that you consider to be mistaken?

> The projections are statistical models. They have a range of values and probabilities associated with them. Without major change, the probabilities of catastrophic climate change are very, very high.

I agree.

> Are they certain? Not mathematically, no.

I agree. It is that they are commonly presented as if they are certain that I am complaining about. It is clearly incorrect/dishonest. It is claimed to be "science". Actual science does not say things it knows to not be true, but people that believe they are discussing matters purely on "the science" are regularly guilty of this.

But try and get people (who well know this is true) to acknowledge this simple fact, and observe the amazing complexity of human psychology in its natural form.

> Would I take that bet? Any day of the week and you should too.

I do. And I suggest you consider being more open minded about what might be preventing us from making progress on this issue. Specifically: resist the natural urge to classify a lack of total agreement as opposition to your cause. Perhaps what appears to be opposition is anything but, and is actually new ideas that you've never considered before.

Re: Browser-based climate change simulation

#124

Post by hmd_imputer » Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 6:32 PM UTC

So, in the best-case scenario, there will be a mere 1.0degree Celcius increase and in the worst-case scenario, the average increase will be 6.5degree Celcius. I don't know how it is possible to model technological breakthroughs. I mean if we have a working Nuclear Fusion technology by 2100, that could drastically change everything - (almost) free energy = unlimited desalinated water = full aforestation, even in the desert areas.

Re: Browser-based climate change simulation

#125

Post by mberning » Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 6:35 PM UTC

bogwog wrote: post #79

hanniabu wrote: post #66

This is great and all, but what can we do about the people that don't believe this data? That's where the real issue is. I have a bunch of coworkers that think scientists are making up this data and skewing results because their jobs depend on it and they want to continue to get funding. "Follow the money" is a common thing they say in regards to this, but also conveniently disregarded and deny that big oil/coal have…

I'm inclined to believe this data because I trust MIT and believe that climate change is a very serious problem. But this app alone doesn't do a good job of convincing anyone of anything. For starters, it's just a bunch of graphs. I doubt most people who deny climate change are going to understand what they're looking at. But most importantly, there's no straightforward way for anyone to verify this data on their own…

I think your attitude is a great example as to why many people remain unconvinced.

The idea that people who have doubts about climate science are generally too stupid to understand simple graph is ridiculous. It is possible and highly likely that they fully understand what the graphs are suggesting and still don’t agree with it.

Re: Browser-based climate change simulation

#126

Post by marcosdumay » Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 6:35 PM UTC

jokoon wrote: post #54

wiz21c wrote: post #5

it'd be nice to have a body count somewhere...

Well a good start would be to try to predict agriculture outputs with those temperature. Honestly I tried asking this question but got no answer. Cereals might be just fine, and growing food in places where it's not possible to grow food is also a solution. But I'm terribly curious about the impact on food. Heatwaves will probably cause a lot of deaths at first, but once it happens, there are easy things cities can d…

> Cereals might be just fine, and growing food in places where it's not possible to grow food is also a solution.

The further away from the tropics you go, the less productive is agriculture.

Re: Browser-based climate change simulation

#127

Post by efa » Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 6:44 PM UTC

ocschwar wrote: post #73

linuxftw wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm firmly in the camp that CO2 has little to nothing to do with the temperature of the planet. Fact 1: The earth has been warming since the last ice age. Fact 2: Solar output has increased recently Fact 3: Water vapor accounts for almost all of the greenhouse effect. A planet that was already warming is going to continue to warm unless the energy input is changed. Speculative: Some people believe the data has been m…

> Fact 1: The earth has been warming since the last ice age. The Milankovitch cycles have crested since that warming. Without the CO2 we would be cooling. > Fact 2: Solar output has increased recently Citation needed. Furthermore, if you can explain how an increase in the solar output woudl warm the arctic more than the tropics, there's a Nobel waiting for you. > Fact 3: Water vapor accounts for almost all of the gre…

> Water vapor has a habit of coming down as rain.

Not sure what you mean by this. Are you saying water vapor is not a significant greenhouse gas? https://climate.nasa.gov/causes lists it as the most abundant greenhouse gas.

Re: Browser-based climate change simulation

#128

Post by linuxftw » Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 6:45 PM UTC

marcosdumay wrote: post #119

ocschwar wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Fact 1: The earth has been warming since the last ice age. The Milankovitch cycles have crested since that warming. Without the CO2 we would be cooling. > Fact 2: Solar output has increased recently Citation needed. Furthermore, if you can explain how an increase in the solar output woudl warm the arctic more than the tropics, there's a Nobel waiting for you. > Fact 3: Water vapor accounts for almost all of the gre…

> > Fact 3: Water vapor accounts for almost all of the greenhouse effect. > Water vapor has a habit of coming down as rain. The GP is using a non-sequitur, taking a correct fact to support a falsehood. That water vapor comes down as rain does not make it any less important as a greenhouse gas. What the GP does not say is that the amount of water vapor on the atmosphere is roughly proportional to the temperature, so i…

> so it's only participation is in increasing the effects of the other gasses we emit directly

This is the falsehood perpetuated by the CO2-based warming position. The earth was already warming. The earth has continue to warm since the end of the last ice age. This created increased water vapor, the most impactful greenhouse gas. If there is a positive feedback cycle due to greenhouse gases, it's assuredly due to water vapor.

Re: Browser-based climate change simulation

#129

Post by moosey » Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 6:45 PM UTC

mistermann wrote: post #82

hanniabu wrote: post #66

This is great and all, but what can we do about the people that don't believe this data? That's where the real issue is. I have a bunch of coworkers that think scientists are making up this data and skewing results because their jobs depend on it and they want to continue to get funding. "Follow the money" is a common thing they say in regards to this, but also conveniently disregarded and deny that big oil/coal have…

Some thoughts for your consideration, delivered with collaborative intent: > I have a bunch of coworkers that think scientists are making up this data and skewing results because their jobs depend on it and they want to continue to get funding. FWIW, I also happen to harbor this suspicion. How might one actually know whether there is an element of truth to it? > "Follow the money" is a common thing they say in regard…

> FWIW, I also happen to harbor this suspicion. How might one actually know whether there is an element of truth to it?

I do not harbor this same suspicion, however, I'm determined to learn whatever is necessary to understand it. Not because I can argue a point to completion for someone who doesn't share epistemological solidarity with me, but because it might allow me to aid in whatever needs posterity has in solving the problems we are creating today. In that interest, I will eventually complete the following course:

https://www.coursera.org/learn/global-warming

Or something like it, especially some atmospheric chemistry courses. I feel as if you should do so as well, as it's the only way to understand the scientific position, if all you are going to do otherwise is attack them with conspiracy theory (which should be easily provable - there will be documented cases of people lying to get their data published... just look at Andrew Wakefield) or using ad-hominem ('they are just trying to make money').

> I will confess, referring to climate models that are literally estimated projections of future temperatures as "facts", very much rubs me the wrong way.

There are also classes that teach you how to climate model and the science behind them. In order to do most statistics classes, they recommend completing multivariable calculus. All of these courses are available for free.

Further, you want to disabuse others of speculation, but you haven't taken the work to do so yourself.

Now, you could go ahead and do all the work above for every scientific point of view that you want to challenge. I myself am currently taking several classes to understand this and the challenges in ML/AI at a deeper level.... OR you can note that 95%+ (and probably well higher than that) of climate scientists recognize that human cause climate science is fact, and appeal to expertise, which is distinct from appeal to authority.

Climate change is real, it's going to be awful, it's changing our ocean chemistry already, and there are more pollution related ecological events to come that will reduce the carrying capacity of our home drastically. If you disagree, do the science, but definitely realize that _you_ are the one speculating.

Re: Browser-based climate change simulation

#130

Post by breakyerself » Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 6:47 PM UTC

solarwind wrote: post #101

metalgearsolid wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is propaganda. Climate change is the victim. Even staples of modern life, like vaccines, can be sullied by the private interests of the ultra wealthy/politically affluent.

Goes both ways. The alarmists using "carbon" as a synonym for carbon dioxide is a form of propaganda. https://www.cfact.org/2019/04/25/carbon-is-not-a-synonym-for...

It's less than half as many syllables. That's just how people are.