U.S. has its wettest 12 months on record again • Hacker News Board

Re: U.S. has its wettest 12 months on record again

#131

Post by pqhwan » Wed, Jul 10, 2019, 5:34 AM UTC

godshatter wrote: post #90

noonespecial wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't predict the cards in my next hand of blackjack, but I'm sure if I play all night the house will win in the end.

That's a pretty good analogy, but the question is: will you lose your bankroll in 20 minutes, or an hour, or 12 hours, or a week? Climate models are doing the equivalent of trying to figure out when you're going to broke, which (although much easier than figuring what cards you will get) is still a tough question to answer.

It is yet another (and much easier) question whether we should be gambling with the habitability of the one and only planet available to us, especially when technological advances are beginning to offer a way out.

Re: U.S. has its wettest 12 months on record again

#132

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Jul 10, 2019, 6:04 AM UTC

mirimir wrote: post #130

ori_b wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Normally, charity in an interpretation means that there's a way that it could be taken where it makes sense. I don't think that's the case for this comment. The most charitable interpretation I have is that the original poster is a paid shill -- in other words, they're bright enough to realize what they're saying is idiotic, but they're just doing a job to put food on the table. It'd take some evidence to sway me to…

Seriously? I don't agree with their comment. But after looking at their comment history, I see no evidence for them being "a paid shill". Contrarian and outspoken, sure. But not a shill.

[deleted]

Re: U.S. has its wettest 12 months on record again

#133

Post by masonic » Wed, Jul 10, 2019, 6:19 AM UTC

ori_b wrote: post #110

chrisco255 wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You ever see the movie Waterworld? Some people actually believe that to be a possibility.

You ever see the Reptilian conspiracy theories? Some people actually believe that to be a possibility. Do you have any evidence that a significant portion of people working in the field in the 1980s thought that Waterworld was realistic, or are you just pointing at some cranks that existed, and treating it as evidence of anything other than the existence of cranks?

Most reptiles are land-based.

Evil dolphin overlords, perhaps?

Re: U.S. has its wettest 12 months on record again

#134

Post by masonic » Wed, Jul 10, 2019, 6:23 AM UTC

6d6b73 wrote: post #6

billions wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The most powerful supercomputers in the world are focused on weather analysis and they can only project a few days out. Yet, some people think they've got it figured out.

The most powerful supercomputers in the world are not even close in processing power of a 4 year old. Isn't it possible that some people can see patterns that the supercomputers can't?

  not even close in processing power of a 4 year old

Sure, but in most developed nations, you can't force 4 year olds to work even individually, let alone wire them into an array against their will.

Re: U.S. has its wettest 12 months on record again

#135

Post by hutzlibu » Wed, Jul 10, 2019, 7:12 AM UTC

ThomPete wrote: post #122

viraptor wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Statistics is a part of science. It's perfectly valid to use scientific methods to arrive at: this is the current trend, this increase started at year X, given all we know right now, there's a tiny chance that this increase is not caused by this specific change. From there we can extrapolate future changes with some likelihood brackets. Then feel free to discuss the brackets, the methodology, etc. but you can't reall…

Statistics is part of science but that doesent make it science just as little as math or a feather and a bowlingball does. Science is a process with some disciplines allowing us to be very precise and others not so much. Climate science is a very imprecise type of science with so much uncertainty that all we can do is offer ranges of output based on ranges of initial conditions, we dont even know which conditions are…

"But sure as usual just downvote all you want, that doesent make computer models or statistics any more science."

As usual. Ignorance, while feeling self righteous. But out of curiosity, have you actually studied some science, that you can make such bold claims, that computer models and statistics have nothing todo with science?

But maybe a different way: you really believe that all what humanity does, has no influence on the climate?

Or in other words, what part of the greenhouse effect, does not make sense to you?

Re: U.S. has its wettest 12 months on record again

#136

Post by hutzlibu » Wed, Jul 10, 2019, 7:16 AM UTC

ThomPete wrote: post #123

noelsusman wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since when does physics not use models?

It uses them all the time to explore not to conclude. If all the conditions were known then it would be one single equation. Modeling is sign of too many unknowns not of certainty.

Are you aware, that in the real world, there are never all the conditions exactly known?

Re: U.S. has its wettest 12 months on record again

#137

Post by flukus » Wed, Jul 10, 2019, 7:33 AM UTC

trentnix wrote: post #39

fwip wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We're not talking about vague shifting definitions of "normal." We're talking about "the wettest 12 months ever recorded," in the 125 years we have data for.

125 years is still a very small amount of time to assess climate, and the quality of the data 125 years ago isn’t very good. Considering all “solutions” to the “problem” of climate change involve a radical remaking of society, it’s not unreasonable or unserious to ask for more data.

> Considering all “solutions” to the “problem” of climate change involve a radical remaking of society, it’s not unreasonable or unserious to ask for more data.

We need to replace our energy sources with renewable and/or nuclear ones, we do not have to radically remake society.

Re: U.S. has its wettest 12 months on record again

#138

Post by ThomPete » Wed, Jul 10, 2019, 11:41 AM UTC

hutzlibu wrote: post #135

ThomPete wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Statistics is part of science but that doesent make it science just as little as math or a feather and a bowlingball does. Science is a process with some disciplines allowing us to be very precise and others not so much. Climate science is a very imprecise type of science with so much uncertainty that all we can do is offer ranges of output based on ranges of initial conditions, we dont even know which conditions are…

"But sure as usual just downvote all you want, that doesent make computer models or statistics any more science." As usual. Ignorance, while feeling self righteous. But out of curiosity, have you actually studied some science, that you can make such bold claims, that computer models and statistics have nothing todo with science? But maybe a different way: you really believe that all what humanity does, has no influen…

I have studied how the computer models work yes. And i know what the difference between what is speculated and what is demonstrated and what is demonstrated in a lab under controlled circumstances and then what can be demonstrated in a non linear chaotic system like the climate.

There is nothing about the greenhouse effect that doesent make sense to me, the problem i have is with claims about what computer modeling can be used for.

Re: U.S. has its wettest 12 months on record again

#139

Post by ThomPete » Wed, Jul 10, 2019, 11:44 AM UTC

hutzlibu wrote: post #136

ThomPete wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It uses them all the time to explore not to conclude. If all the conditions were known then it would be one single equation. Modeling is sign of too many unknowns not of certainty.

Are you aware, that in the real world, there are never all the conditions exactly known?

Yes i am which is why we normally dont walk around saying “science is settled” about things that we cant actually demonstrate scientifically.

Re: U.S. has its wettest 12 months on record again

#140

Post by mises » Wed, Jul 10, 2019, 12:21 PM UTC

hirsin wrote: post #81

mises wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, heating is usually more efficient than cooling, because energy is usually produced with some kind of heat output. All though agriculture is a serious concern; you might starve several million people in africa.

Surprisingly this is not true. A watt of energy can only produce a watt of heat, but can remove several watts of heat from a space. That said, we're much better setup to increase total entropy in the atmosphere than decrease it (via heat sinks eg)

From a purely scientific view, yes, you can move energy easier than you can cool it. However, people in hot climates usually prefer cold air blowing, which takes more energy to chill.