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

Browser-based climate change simulation

en-roads.climateinteractive.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 276 posts

Re: Browser-based climate change simulation

#211

Post by hanniabu »

metalgearsolid wrote: post #83
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…

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.

I agree, this is why a recent report has labelled Fox News as a national security risk [1] because when reporting on such topics they ignore facts and propagate sensationalist nonsense.

[1] https://www.wired.com/story/fox-news-is-now-a-threat-to-nati...

Re: Browser-based climate change simulation

#212

Post by imtringued »

linuxftw wrote: post #166
svara wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At that point you're questioning pretty basic physics. What part of the influence of CO2 concentration on the infrared transmittance of the atmosphere are you questioning [0]? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect#Mechanism

It's not me questioning physics. CO2 levels lagged historic temperature increases. It's up to the CO2-causes-warming people to explain it.

I don't get it. Climate change critics try to find one flaw in some straw man argument and then denounce the whole field as a lie. CO2 isn't the only thing that causes warming and no, scientists are not stupid enough to not account for these things. I mean this statement is trivial to disprove because methane and tons of other things also act as greenhouse gases or amplify heating. It doesn't change the threat caused by higher temperatures. 4°C are 4°C and we can bet on going way beyond that tiny puny number if no ones gives a damn.

Re: Browser-based climate change simulation

#213

Post by imtringued »

linuxftw wrote: post #72
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 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…

I don't really understand how these things are compatible with a 4°C+ change within 100 years. Previous temperature changes happened over tens of thousands of years. Where is that sudden temperature increase going to come from? Why does it coincide with massive population growth and the invention of modern technology. By the way the 4°C numbers are still conservative because they completely ignore unpredictable mechanisms such as feedback loops and only model the direct impact of human activity.

Re: Browser-based climate change simulation

#214

Post by imtringued »

EdSharkey wrote: post #93
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 2: Solar output has increased recently > Citation needed. Maybe they meant 'recently' as in geologic time and not "since 2000"? I think it's interesting that solar energy and magnetic fields and cosmic energy fluctuates from year to year. I think these primary inputs to the system not staying constant would make it impossible to model climate such that the model could be an accurate predictive tool. This par…

>This particular tool seems rigged to show a certain outcome, and I feel bad for folks here who are frustrated by its +1C floor on temperature rise by the end of the simulation. That (crude) part of the design was probably meant to frustrate and/or panic people into taking action.

What? No it makes you feel like the whole thing is pointless because people aren't even willing to take moderate action. If we drop everything and only focus on climate change we won't drop the temperature that much. 25% of the predicted warming has already been locked in. That's a massive loss and it won't be possible to do anything about it.

Re: Browser-based climate change simulation

#215

Post by breakyerself »

EdSharkey wrote: post #209
breakyerself wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't say that it can't correlate. It just doesn't right now and hasn't correlated with global temps for a long time. Solar irradience has been declining for 40+ years while temps have jumped to levels not seen in 130,000 years Beyond that the warming we have is characteristic of greenhouse gas driven warming and not solar forcing. Nighttime temps are going up faster than daytime temps. The opposite of what solar…

> 130,000 years This has got to be measurement error or lies, damn lies, and statistics. Temperatures have swung so drastically over the last 130000 years, I just can't believe that's true.

Well if your gut says so then I'll tell the scientists they can throw away their ice cores, tree rings, sediment samples, fossilized coral and pollen, etc. You literally give zero reason for disbelief. It just sounds unknowable to you therefore it is.

Re: Browser-based climate change simulation

#216

Post by tropo »

lopmotr wrote: post #169
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…

Are there really that many people who think climate change isn't happening or isn't caused by those factors? That sounds like a strawman.

I'm willing to pretend, if that it what it takes to stop the "fixes" from being applied. I'm not a fan of destroying the economy, especially if other countries get a less-restricted situation that lets them climb past us in the GDP-per-capita ranking. We will learn to deal with any climate changes that may happen.

Re: Browser-based climate change simulation

#217

Post by EdSharkey »

breakyerself wrote: post #215
EdSharkey wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 130,000 years This has got to be measurement error or lies, damn lies, and statistics. Temperatures have swung so drastically over the last 130000 years, I just can't believe that's true.

Well if your gut says so then I'll tell the scientists they can throw away their ice cores, tree rings, sediment samples, fossilized coral and pollen, etc. You literally give zero reason for disbelief. It just sounds unknowable to you therefore it is.

Not JUST my gut, friend! There was "7 °C (13 °F) of warming in just a few years" during the Younger Dryas (around 12,900 to 11,700 years BP). That is in your 130k year range.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas

If you've got tree rings from that time that say otherwise, then by all means share. I'll tell my scientists to standby and wait for your scientists' call.

Re: Browser-based climate change simulation

#218

Post by mturmon »

zackees wrote: post #173
staltz wrote: post #13

Interesting tool. It basically says you can: - Tax coal, oil, natural gas, bioenergy - Subsidize renewables, nuclear, new technology - Increase efficiency and electrification of transports, buildings, and industry - Reduce population growth - Reduce economic growth - Reduce deforestation - Increase afforestation For an effect that puts us at +2.1C by 2100 https://en-roads.climateinteractive.org/scenario.html?p1=120..…

We are at a very warm part of a very long cold trend. The idea that human increases in CO2 is a bad thing is completely divorced from historical observation. The earth has been much hotter than it is now and at the hot parts was peak life here on the Earth. Additionally, the climate models by the IPCC omit the effect of the Solar wind's effect on the thermosphere. If this was included, then many of the climate models…

All of my climate researcher friends have stopped reading "The Farmers Almanac" and have flocked to "The Old Farmers Almanac", which has a much more rigorous peer review process, and better impact factor. (/s)

Re: Browser-based climate change simulation

#219

Post by mturmon »

mistermann wrote: post #184
atotic wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Evaluating the performance of past climate model projections" https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2019... "We found that climate models – even those published back in the 1970s – did remarkably well, with 14 out of the 17 projections statistically indistinguishable from what actually occurred."

Yes, I read that report and participated in the subsequent discussion [0] where I raised a number of concerns with the study, but wasn't able to find anyone who would seriously and objectively address them. Frustrated by the unwillingness of anyone to engage in rigorous discussion in that thread, I also contacted the authors to see if they were willing to address some of the concerns. Unfortunately, I did not hear ba…

> I raised a number of concerns with the study, but wasn't able to find anyone who would seriously and objectively address them.

This is an inaccurate summary of that thread, in which you raised a simple accusation that the article cherry-picked the models, were swatted down with a citation from the article referenced in the OP, and then retreated into a maze of long, twisty replies that failed to raise any other specific points.

Your comments in this thread have had the same flavor. Consider brevity and specificity.

Re: Browser-based climate change simulation

#220

Post by lopmotr »

svara wrote: post #147
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…

> FWIW, I also happen to harbor this suspicion. How might one actually know whether there is an element of truth to it? It's probably good to have some baseline level of cynicism, since individual people do often act in egotistical ways. However, what you're proposing seems to imply that either (1) there is a vast conspiracy of climate scientists, who are engaging in that conspiracy for ultimately very little gain or…

An Australian scientist was fired for saying controversial things about the health of the Great Barrier Reef which he'd been studying for decades. There was also a case in psychology where a researcher admitted writing the wrong conclusion to his paper out of fear of negative reaction from his peers. Now imagine all the researchers who are clinging onto their jobs by their fingernails and what kinds of career-ending risks they're prepared to take. It's not going to be an organized conspiracy, but there certainly are pressures pushing scientists into conformity with any politically sensitive topics.
Post reply on HN