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 more to lose.
It's very difficult to fight ignorance, especially when they don't believe facts. This is the main issue with climate change deniers, not the inability to visualize the data.
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, and it seems like this app is kind of bullshitting the numbers. For example, how could they possibly know that "highly subsidized" bioenergy will result in exactly 0.1F increase in global temperatures 80 years from now?
> I have a bunch of coworkers that think scientists are making up this data and skewing results
Can't you see their reasoning after using this app?
I'm not saying this app is useless or full of lies. Not at all. But I think it can only really work as part of an education session or presentation, where someone can actually explain the reasoning behind that graph, where the data comes from, how they arrived at the conclusions, etc, instead of just throwing it on the internet and hoping it reaches republican farmers on Facebook.
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 regards to this, but also conveniently disregarded and deny that big oil/coal have more to lose.
Whether big oil/coal have more to lose seems orthogonal to the question of whether bias is involved in climate science. If so, this sort of approach to debate seems counter-productive to me.
> It's very difficult to fight ignorance, especially when they don't believe facts.
I will confess, referring to climate models that are literally estimated projections of future temperatures as "facts", very much rubs me the wrong way. It doesn't put me in a very cooperative mood. To me, whether this reaction is "illogical" or not seems irrelevant, whereas the reaction itself seems extremely relevant, and completely overlooked in the analysis of the situation. I wonder, am I the only one that has this sort of reaction? Have we seen similar behavior in similar scenarios?
> This is the main issue with climate change deniers, not the inability to visualize the data.
I proclaim that you are speculating about what "the main issue" is with climate change deniers. You think you know (your perception of this appears clear as day), and you may even be right (by chance), but you do not know. I have a feeling that guessing wrong on such things might be far more impactful than we realize.
I don't think climate change denialists are the target audience for this, though.
I think this chart is extremely useful as a way to show people which approaches are more effective at mitigating temperature increase. For example, in my experience in this types of discussions, some people like to claim that "population control" should be a top priority. However, this page shows that the effect of it would actually be rather small compared to other approaches like carbon pricing or reducing methane emissions.
It's not about climate it's about political control. It's a political boogeyman. Left wing politicians have successfully brainwashed a generation to believe they’re gonna die in 12 years unless socialists and communists control our planet and the lives of everyone on it. I was a huge believer in Climate Change as a youth. I wanted to save the environment. Then I caught one lie. Then two. Then three. Then I read the current data. Then I realized they’ve been exaggerating & fear-mongering headlines for decades. No climate apocalyptic predictions with due dates as of today have come true to date.
Whenever there is an extreme weather event, such as a flood or drought, people ask whether that event was caused by global warming. Unfortunately, there is no straightforward answer to this question. Weather is highly variable and extreme weather events have always happened.
I’ve worked with global temperature data, and know that you can produce any shaped global temperature graph you want by picking the right set of stations. There are grossly inadequate amounts of both historical and current data to produce a meaningful long term temperature graph for the earth. Much of the data is fake – by their own admission. https://realclimatescience.com/overwhelming-evidence-of-coll...
Climate scientists openly discussed getting rid of the 1940s warmth in the temperature data without understanding the anomaly. An email unveiled by a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request said: “It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with why the blip”. http://di2.nu/foia/1254108338.txt
One can download the original and altered data directly from the NOAA. ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2.5 You can see and construct the graphs yourself, first hand, with the data pre-plotted in a Google sheet https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mWanx8ojmOkcazzRhDao... on the “Graphs” tab.
Patrick Moore, Greenpeace co-founder has said: “I can adjust the data to show any trend I like.”
According to the Toronto Sun, Canada’s Department of the Environment just purged 100 years of data on climate change. Patrick Moore said: “I don’t care why they scrapped the data, that is simply wrong. They could make note of why they don’t trust it but to destroy it is a crime against science and history.” https://twitter.com/EcoSenseNow/status/1174909654297538560 This seems suspicious as no data set should ever be purged, for posterity. This dataset could have simply been deprecated.
Since the NOAA sensors have been unreliable the US has been building a new network higher-quality sensors called the US Climate Reference Network (USCRN) starting in year 2004. The vision of the USCRN program is to maintain a high-quality climate observation network.
It is an error to mis-attribute warming to increased CO2 when many other known causal factors exist. Those other factors are the reason the USCRN was developed, funded, and put in place. The non-CO2 causal factors include increased population density in cities, increased energy use per capita, reduced atmospheric pollution, increased local humidity from human activities (lawn watering, industrial cooling towers), changed site conditions from rural to urban, long-term drought, and wind shadows from buildings in cities. https://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2017/03/us-air-temperatu...
The USCRN data is rarely mentioned in NOAA’s monthly and annual “State of the Climate” reports to the U.S. public, instead buried in the depths of the NCDC website, one can get access to the data and have it plotted.
The United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) doesn’t do original research but reports on others’ research, which they call Assessment Reports. There have been 5 thus far.
A scientist working with the IPCC said the IPCC is above Freedom of Information Acts: “One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 [Assessment Report 5] would be to delete all emails at the end of the process. … Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden.”
Scientists with NOAA view global warming as a political cause rather than a balanced scientific inquiry and much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data. https://observer.com/2017/02/noaa-fake-global-warming-data-p...
The IPCC report relies upon six long-term surface temperature datasets to come up with the 0.2°C per decade rate of increase. The report does not cite the two global temperature datasets derived from satellites: the University of Alabama in Huntsville reports that global average temperatures are rising at a rate of 0.13°C per decade, and Remote Sensing Systems reports the rate of increase at 0.18°C per decade. At the UAH rate of warming, the 1.5°C threshold would not be exceeded until around 2070. https://reason.com/2018/10/11/how-big-of-a-deal-is-half-of-a...
The myth of an almost-unanimous climate-change consensus is pervasive. It’s often said that 97% of scientists agree with the anthropogenic climate-change thesis. However, a 2012 poll of American Meteorological Society members also reported a diversity of opinion. 11% attributed the phenomenon to human activity and natural causes in about equal measure, while 23% said enough is not yet known to make any determination.
The UN has been making the same claim that we only have twelve years to save the planet from global warming, for the past 30 years.
The 12-year deadline is a talking point for politicians. However the IPCC said there is not some “magic global mean temperature or total emissions that separate 'fine' from 'catastrophic’”
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 too think that people that refuse to believe are a problem, but honestly, they are nowhere near the primary problem. The primary problem is that people will greedily hold onto a broken status quo if fixing it means they might be held accountable. There is always someone else that is the problem, never yourself.
In Seattle, almost everybody agrees with the scientific consensus on global warming. But if you ask them how to fix it, they'll tell you to go after the oil companies. Or corporations in general. Or China. Or India. But a carbon tax? One that raises my gas bill? No way! Everybody else is the problem, never me.
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 manipulated intentionally to show a larger increase in temperature than what is actually taking place. This was 'climate gate'.
Finally, CO2 is the least of our worries. The real problem is toxic chemical pollution. Industrialized society is polluting our water and our food with toxic chemicals, slowly killing us all.
The authors don't include some extremely nasty feedback loops the appear to currently be happening. For example, methane release from permafrost melt.
As a result, the simulation appears to be misleadingly optimistic.
- This tool is based on climate interactive's previous one, C-Road.
- in the C-Road simulation when you click on parameters -> assumptions to add parameters about methane release through permafrost melting and human activities. By default, it's set to zero, but even their maximum values don't seem as impactful as I would expect.
- in EN-Road simulation (this one) the methane release parameters are removed! So, no possibility to add any positive feedback loops. It feels like the relation between CO2 and temperature is a simple linear equation, or close to it.
There is a lot to do with engine size and vehicle size and weight, especially in the US.
Nuclear energy and trains are possible, even if they require electrifying the railroads.
Drastically reduce beef consumption is also a thing to do.
Not sure about those "carbon removal" techs. A lot of the CO2 tends to go in the atmosphere.
The biggest problem is a political one: You can't fight unemployment and inequality and try to reduce emissions. I can see ideology being a big problem when dealing with climate change. Although fighting climate change can also be an opportunity to steer away from an ideology of competition and go back to cooperation, because politically it WILL BE a nightmare. Things can also derail into complete anarchy where it becomes everyone for himself, where poor people will have to bear high temperatures.
These are both big projects not well suited to startups.
Taxation needs to be agreed upon at the international level.
CO2 has an atmospheric half-lifetime on the order of decades. If we would just switch to zero emission energy, like nuclear power, we could get through the next century and survive.
If you drag all of the bars to their ideal position (lowest on the bad things, highest on the good things) the temperature still goes up by more than a degree.
I'm fairly sure it's representing the fact that if we all died tomorrow, we're still in for a 1 degree increase due to all the CO2 we've already dumped into the atmosphere.
There is warming that we are committed to at this point even if we could magically turn off the tap and stop emitting greenhouse gasses all of the sudden.
This is a fantastic use of science communication using design principles - particularly when you use the minigraphs and you can see the small multiples the impact and outcomes.
I've always felt like more stuff like this would help bring home the imperceptible nuances of this complex web. It'd be cool to see some of this stuff for personal daily things. Just now I figured out that each time I charge my macbook pro, it's about equivalent to burning a quarter of a charcoal briquette in raw energy. It would be cool to see something like this for things like riding the bus, buying a new car, flying, eating meat, etc.
The single most effective parameter in this simulation is Carbon price. Sliding it all the way to the right lowers the temperature increase from 4.1 to 3.0. Most of the other parameters do little or nothing.
Of course setting a high price for carbon is different from actually making people/companies pay for it.
It's surprising how rarely intentional geoengineering (because we're doing it anyway, just unintentionally) is mentioned when discussing climate change. Stratospheric aerosol injection seems like a plausible way of slowing down the warming of earth yet it's too taboo to be even discussed as a viable option.
This model is sort of absurd. It doesn't take into account the most important factor... people.
If you made a model of the world today back in 1920, it would be comical.
Imagine you went back to say 1920 and told people that in 2020 they would be surrounded by talking televisions, phones, that we'd be sending people and ships to the moon, mars, etc. and that they could instantly talk to any person on the planet (including loved ones on the other side of the world), they would not believe you.
In the last 100 years (heck even the last 20-30) we've invented a staggering amount of new and interesting things.
In the last 100 years people created interstate highway systems, nuclear power, the internet, radio data networks, self guided weapons, self guided vehicles, robots, rudimentary AI, etc...
What if in 100 years we make fusion work (probably for space travel/war?) and then we replace the existing infrastructure with that. And what if we can do enough carbon removal or storage to solve this?
Any model that doesn't model the history altering inventiveness of humans is not an accurate model at all. It's just really fancy navel gazing.
even at the lowest setting the world gdp still shows an exponential growth. doesn't seem sustainable to me, at some point efficiency in industrialized country has to flatten out, even if just because there are so many customers to sell products to so there's an equilibrium somewhere to be reached, especially since increase efficiency suppresses wages reducing demand.
No sane setting gets us down to 2°C. I don't feel taken seriously. Can I get a slider for the frequency of volcanic eruptions?
On a slightly more serious note, can we tame volcanoes by somehow - ideally - producing energy and ... prevent eruptions, somewhat comparable to the way earth wires actively do so with lightning strikes?
About 5 or 6 years ago towards the end of my undergrad my professor picked up on this and we held some mock UN Climate assemblies using this tool.[1] The class divided up into first world, developing, and poorer nations and each had to bring their needs to the table while trying to compromise. I got to actually lead a session at MIT for some incoming freshman which was fun.
The dashboard is super handy to drive home the numbers on our energy production/use and its effect on the climate but the workshop really drives home the political implications and how hard it will be to actually implement these changes.
> The class divided up into first world, developing, and poorer nations and each had to bring their needs to the table while trying to compromise.
Modeling the debate on the dimension of national wealth seems like a good idea. I'm curious, was there any discussion about potential value in modeling on other dimensions, such as political affiliation?
First from top menu simulation -> assumptions.
Then from below > "Climate system sensitivities" you can alter Climate sensitivity, Ocean mixing index, CO2 fertilization index, Sea level rise from ice sheet melting and Carbon cycle land and ocean uptake
Reducing all energy sources to the mminium doesn't change much... That's sounds strange because if we reduce energy, then, well, we emit less CO2. Am I missing something ?
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.
The knock on effects from unlimited energy go a lot further.
We could use technology we have today for CO2 capture since it is heavily energy dependent and simply scale it massively. The bulk of industry processes that currently require coal, oil, or gas to provide cheap heat could be fully electrified. Prices of a lot of commodities would drop dramatically. Indoor farming would be a cinch. People and governments would abandon internal combustion for the cheaper alternative.
We could do absurd things that no one would even consider today like greening deserts as you mentioned or settling the arctic. You might be able to replace concrete with basalt if you could cleverly design a system for melting stone and casting the resulting lava in a form. Hell, you could banish winter by putting radiant heat in everything, walls, sidewalks, streets, and adding supplemental lighting like Moonlight Towers[0] except I suppose they would be Sunlight Towers in this case. The list goes on.
The world would change so much it would be like living through the first half of the 20th century again. From horses, coal, and brick buildings to jet aircraft, nuclear power, and glass skyscrapers.
Everyone get your thinking hats on. Based on this model, increasing building efficiency is the #1 way that we as entrepreneurs can have an impact. Passivhaus anyone?
[+] [-] staltz|6 years ago|reply
- 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...
OR you can do these three things:
- Set a high price on carbon
- Reduce emissions of methane and other gases
- Increase usage carbon removal technologies
for a similar effect of +2.1C by 2100 https://en-roads.climateinteractive.org/scenario.html?p39=25...
All optimistic actions combined puts us at +1.0C by 2100 https://en-roads.climateinteractive.org/scenario.html?p1=120...
[+] [-] hanniabu|6 years ago|reply
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 more to lose.
It's very difficult to fight ignorance, especially when they don't believe facts. This is the main issue with climate change deniers, not the inability to visualize the data.
[+] [-] bogwog|6 years ago|reply
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, and it seems like this app is kind of bullshitting the numbers. For example, how could they possibly know that "highly subsidized" bioenergy will result in exactly 0.1F increase in global temperatures 80 years from now?
> I have a bunch of coworkers that think scientists are making up this data and skewing results
Can't you see their reasoning after using this app?
I'm not saying this app is useless or full of lies. Not at all. But I think it can only really work as part of an education session or presentation, where someone can actually explain the reasoning behind that graph, where the data comes from, how they arrived at the conclusions, etc, instead of just throwing it on the internet and hoping it reaches republican farmers on Facebook.
[+] [-] mistermann|6 years ago|reply
> 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 regards to this, but also conveniently disregarded and deny that big oil/coal have more to lose.
Whether big oil/coal have more to lose seems orthogonal to the question of whether bias is involved in climate science. If so, this sort of approach to debate seems counter-productive to me.
> It's very difficult to fight ignorance, especially when they don't believe facts.
I will confess, referring to climate models that are literally estimated projections of future temperatures as "facts", very much rubs me the wrong way. It doesn't put me in a very cooperative mood. To me, whether this reaction is "illogical" or not seems irrelevant, whereas the reaction itself seems extremely relevant, and completely overlooked in the analysis of the situation. I wonder, am I the only one that has this sort of reaction? Have we seen similar behavior in similar scenarios?
> This is the main issue with climate change deniers, not the inability to visualize the data.
I proclaim that you are speculating about what "the main issue" is with climate change deniers. You think you know (your perception of this appears clear as day), and you may even be right (by chance), but you do not know. I have a feeling that guessing wrong on such things might be far more impactful than we realize.
[+] [-] marc_abonce|6 years ago|reply
I think this chart is extremely useful as a way to show people which approaches are more effective at mitigating temperature increase. For example, in my experience in this types of discussions, some people like to claim that "population control" should be a top priority. However, this page shows that the effect of it would actually be rather small compared to other approaches like carbon pricing or reducing methane emissions.
[+] [-] lopmotr|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] PavlovsCat|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] solarwind|6 years ago|reply
Nature retracted their very alarmist paper, 10 months after publishing https://retractionwatch.com/category/by-journal/nature-retra...
Whenever there is an extreme weather event, such as a flood or drought, people ask whether that event was caused by global warming. Unfortunately, there is no straightforward answer to this question. Weather is highly variable and extreme weather events have always happened.
I’ve worked with global temperature data, and know that you can produce any shaped global temperature graph you want by picking the right set of stations. There are grossly inadequate amounts of both historical and current data to produce a meaningful long term temperature graph for the earth. Much of the data is fake – by their own admission. https://realclimatescience.com/overwhelming-evidence-of-coll...
Climate scientists openly discussed getting rid of the 1940s warmth in the temperature data without understanding the anomaly. An email unveiled by a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request said: “It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with why the blip”. http://di2.nu/foia/1254108338.txt
One can download the original and altered data directly from the NOAA. ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2.5 You can see and construct the graphs yourself, first hand, with the data pre-plotted in a Google sheet https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mWanx8ojmOkcazzRhDao... on the “Graphs” tab.
Patrick Moore, Greenpeace co-founder has said: “I can adjust the data to show any trend I like.”
Moore left Greenpeace because he felt they were pushing fear-mongering instead of science and logic. More background on the spat between Mr. Moore and Greenpeace can be found at https://thelibertarianrepublic.com/greenpeace-co-founder-pat...
According to the Toronto Sun, Canada’s Department of the Environment just purged 100 years of data on climate change. Patrick Moore said: “I don’t care why they scrapped the data, that is simply wrong. They could make note of why they don’t trust it but to destroy it is a crime against science and history.” https://twitter.com/EcoSenseNow/status/1174909654297538560 This seems suspicious as no data set should ever be purged, for posterity. This dataset could have simply been deprecated.
Since the NOAA sensors have been unreliable the US has been building a new network higher-quality sensors called the US Climate Reference Network (USCRN) starting in year 2004. The vision of the USCRN program is to maintain a high-quality climate observation network.
It is an error to mis-attribute warming to increased CO2 when many other known causal factors exist. Those other factors are the reason the USCRN was developed, funded, and put in place. The non-CO2 causal factors include increased population density in cities, increased energy use per capita, reduced atmospheric pollution, increased local humidity from human activities (lawn watering, industrial cooling towers), changed site conditions from rural to urban, long-term drought, and wind shadows from buildings in cities. https://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2017/03/us-air-temperatu...
The new USCRN data has shown no significant warming trend in the USA in 12 years: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/11/08/the-uscrn-revisited/
The USCRN data is rarely mentioned in NOAA’s monthly and annual “State of the Climate” reports to the U.S. public, instead buried in the depths of the NCDC website, one can get access to the data and have it plotted.
The United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) doesn’t do original research but reports on others’ research, which they call Assessment Reports. There have been 5 thus far.
A scientist working with the IPCC said the IPCC is above Freedom of Information Acts: “One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 [Assessment Report 5] would be to delete all emails at the end of the process. … Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden.”
“I’ve discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.” https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/11/23/climateg...
Scientists with NOAA view global warming as a political cause rather than a balanced scientific inquiry and much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data. https://observer.com/2017/02/noaa-fake-global-warming-data-p...
The IPCC report relies upon six long-term surface temperature datasets to come up with the 0.2°C per decade rate of increase. The report does not cite the two global temperature datasets derived from satellites: the University of Alabama in Huntsville reports that global average temperatures are rising at a rate of 0.13°C per decade, and Remote Sensing Systems reports the rate of increase at 0.18°C per decade. At the UAH rate of warming, the 1.5°C threshold would not be exceeded until around 2070. https://reason.com/2018/10/11/how-big-of-a-deal-is-half-of-a...
The myth of an almost-unanimous climate-change consensus is pervasive. It’s often said that 97% of scientists agree with the anthropogenic climate-change thesis. However, a 2012 poll of American Meteorological Society members also reported a diversity of opinion. 11% attributed the phenomenon to human activity and natural causes in about equal measure, while 23% said enough is not yet known to make any determination.
Source: https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/10/climate-change-no-its...
The UN has been making the same claim that we only have twelve years to save the planet from global warming, for the past 30 years.
The 12-year deadline is a talking point for politicians. However the IPCC said there is not some “magic global mean temperature or total emissions that separate 'fine' from 'catastrophic’”
Source: https://www.axios.com/climate-change-scientists-comment-ocas... , https://dailycaller.com/2019/03/15/children-strike-school-cl...
Someone at Reason read the UN/IPCC report, said there is no doomsday in it. https://reason.com/2018/10/11/how-big-of-a-deal-is-half-of-a...
No climate apocalyptic predictions have come true to date, despite 50 years of such predictions.
https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-failed-eco-pocalyp...
[+] [-] metalgearsolid|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] darksaints|6 years ago|reply
In Seattle, almost everybody agrees with the scientific consensus on global warming. But if you ask them how to fix it, they'll tell you to go after the oil companies. Or corporations in general. Or China. Or India. But a carbon tax? One that raises my gas bill? No way! Everybody else is the problem, never me.
[+] [-] adventskalender|6 years ago|reply
Afaik even economists don't agree on the results of such policies.
They are just making an assumption and the whole app is merely advertising for their preferred type of policy.
[+] [-] linuxftw|6 years ago|reply
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 manipulated intentionally to show a larger increase in temperature than what is actually taking place. This was 'climate gate'.
Finally, CO2 is the least of our worries. The real problem is toxic chemical pollution. Industrialized society is polluting our water and our food with toxic chemicals, slowly killing us all.
[+] [-] arctangos|6 years ago|reply
As a result, the simulation appears to be misleadingly optimistic.
- This tool is based on climate interactive's previous one, C-Road.
- in the C-Road simulation when you click on parameters -> assumptions to add parameters about methane release through permafrost melting and human activities. By default, it's set to zero, but even their maximum values don't seem as impactful as I would expect.
- in EN-Road simulation (this one) the methane release parameters are removed! So, no possibility to add any positive feedback loops. It feels like the relation between CO2 and temperature is a simple linear equation, or close to it.
[+] [-] musha68k|6 years ago|reply
Does anyone have a list of startups and established companies actively working on any of those crucial solutions?
Only found this through a quick Github search:
https://github.com/flamato/awesome-climate-change-ressources...
[+] [-] jokoon|6 years ago|reply
There is a lot to do with engine size and vehicle size and weight, especially in the US.
Nuclear energy and trains are possible, even if they require electrifying the railroads.
Drastically reduce beef consumption is also a thing to do.
Not sure about those "carbon removal" techs. A lot of the CO2 tends to go in the atmosphere.
The biggest problem is a political one: You can't fight unemployment and inequality and try to reduce emissions. I can see ideology being a big problem when dealing with climate change. Although fighting climate change can also be an opportunity to steer away from an ideology of competition and go back to cooperation, because politically it WILL BE a nightmare. Things can also derail into complete anarchy where it becomes everyone for himself, where poor people will have to bear high temperatures.
[+] [-] ben85ts|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] koheripbal|6 years ago|reply
Taxation needs to be agreed upon at the international level.
CO2 has an atmospheric half-lifetime on the order of decades. If we would just switch to zero emission energy, like nuclear power, we could get through the next century and survive.
[+] [-] mar77i|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] onion2k|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bluesign|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lopis|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nizmow|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] breakyerself|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dluan|6 years ago|reply
I've always felt like more stuff like this would help bring home the imperceptible nuances of this complex web. It'd be cool to see some of this stuff for personal daily things. Just now I figured out that each time I charge my macbook pro, it's about equivalent to burning a quarter of a charcoal briquette in raw energy. It would be cool to see something like this for things like riding the bus, buying a new car, flying, eating meat, etc.
[+] [-] pmontra|6 years ago|reply
Of course setting a high price for carbon is different from actually making people/companies pay for it.
[+] [-] kgabis|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] programminggeek|6 years ago|reply
If you made a model of the world today back in 1920, it would be comical.
Imagine you went back to say 1920 and told people that in 2020 they would be surrounded by talking televisions, phones, that we'd be sending people and ships to the moon, mars, etc. and that they could instantly talk to any person on the planet (including loved ones on the other side of the world), they would not believe you.
In the last 100 years (heck even the last 20-30) we've invented a staggering amount of new and interesting things.
In the last 100 years people created interstate highway systems, nuclear power, the internet, radio data networks, self guided weapons, self guided vehicles, robots, rudimentary AI, etc...
What if in 100 years we make fusion work (probably for space travel/war?) and then we replace the existing infrastructure with that. And what if we can do enough carbon removal or storage to solve this?
Any model that doesn't model the history altering inventiveness of humans is not an accurate model at all. It's just really fancy navel gazing.
[+] [-] LoSboccacc|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wiz21c|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mar77i|6 years ago|reply
On a slightly more serious note, can we tame volcanoes by somehow - ideally - producing energy and ... prevent eruptions, somewhat comparable to the way earth wires actively do so with lightning strikes?
[+] [-] plytheman|6 years ago|reply
The dashboard is super handy to drive home the numbers on our energy production/use and its effect on the climate but the workshop really drives home the political implications and how hard it will be to actually implement these changes.
[1] https://www.climateinteractive.org/tools/climate-action-simu...
[+] [-] mistermann|6 years ago|reply
Modeling the debate on the dimension of national wealth seems like a good idea. I'm curious, was there any discussion about potential value in modeling on other dimensions, such as political affiliation?
[+] [-] Waterluvian|6 years ago|reply
- fake meat becomes widely adopted and we stop farming cattle
- electric cars see 50% market share adoption
Tangible things anyone can wrap their head around.
[+] [-] rimliu|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] marcosdumay|6 years ago|reply
You can simulate that by tuning deflorestation to a minimum and methane to a lower value. Spoiler: it makes approximately no difference.
[+] [-] sampo|6 years ago|reply
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity
Edit: Found it in sec. 9.2 in the manual. It's 3.
https://www.climateinteractive.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/1...
[+] [-] nabla9|6 years ago|reply
First from top menu simulation -> assumptions. Then from below > "Climate system sensitivities" you can alter Climate sensitivity, Ocean mixing index, CO2 fertilization index, Sea level rise from ice sheet melting and Carbon cycle land and ocean uptake
[+] [-] wiz21c|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hmd_imputer|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pharke|6 years ago|reply
We could use technology we have today for CO2 capture since it is heavily energy dependent and simply scale it massively. The bulk of industry processes that currently require coal, oil, or gas to provide cheap heat could be fully electrified. Prices of a lot of commodities would drop dramatically. Indoor farming would be a cinch. People and governments would abandon internal combustion for the cheaper alternative.
We could do absurd things that no one would even consider today like greening deserts as you mentioned or settling the arctic. You might be able to replace concrete with basalt if you could cleverly design a system for melting stone and casting the resulting lava in a form. Hell, you could banish winter by putting radiant heat in everything, walls, sidewalks, streets, and adding supplemental lighting like Moonlight Towers[0] except I suppose they would be Sunlight Towers in this case. The list goes on.
The world would change so much it would be like living through the first half of the 20th century again. From horses, coal, and brick buildings to jet aircraft, nuclear power, and glass skyscrapers.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moonlight_tower
[+] [-] EA|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] EdSharkey|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] track_star|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] IanCal|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] DennisP|6 years ago|reply
https://www.climatecolab.org/
(They're still running contests, but they've scaled down a lot.)