Browser-based climate change simulation

Burned fossil fuels has well understood isotope signatures and can also be measured via satellite. We've got a LOT of data that human emissions of CO2 via burning fossil fuels accounts for the bulk of CO2 increase we measure in the atmosphere.

> I also know for a fact that other countries are much worse offenders when it comes to Carbon emissions and pollution in general, compared to the US or any other Western nation.

The problem is that this is a tragedy of the commons situation. For every individual actor, taking action is detrimental because the cost is paid by the individual but the benefit is broadly distributed over all actors. Tragedy of the commons type situations can be overcome by some sort of binding legal framework. This is why no one is proposing for any single country to solve the problem alone, but rather to coordinate internationally.

As a side point, morally speaking western nations have a particular responsibility because they are the ones who caused most of the increase in CO2 levels since industrialization. True, China is the biggest emitter now, but that is a fairly recent development.

But it's presented as such. Is this, and similar examples, a "big deal"?

Another way of asking that is: is trust a big deal? And the answer is: we do not know - but guessing at such things doesn't seem like a terribly prudent strategy when the stakes are this high.

> and I understand how it could be taken the wrong way

Can, and is, regularly....and as a representation of the degree of ignorance of those who "don't buy into" (or so it is perceived) climate change. "97% percent of scientists agree, but these denier idiots think they're smarter than 97% of scientists!!! lolololllll".

The problem is, that 97% meme isn't factual. I'm not sure how many "deniers" actually know it isn't, but I know it isn't, and the complete lack of concern for actual facts (as opposed to factoids) by the pro camp in this debate kind of disgusts me, and leaves me with an illogical urge for non-cooperative-behavior. I wonder if I'm the only one that feels this way. I also wonder if I'm the only one that thinks about the significance of how people's feelings affects their behavior, because it sure seems that way.

> I think a lack of patience with the dishonest discussion tactics used by poorly informed people arguing against the scientific state of the art is totally understandable.

I wonder though, how often "dishonest discussion tactics used by poorly informed people..." is actually a less-than-entirely accurate characterization of what's really going on. I've been accused of all sorts of horrible beliefs and intentions, all without a shred of supporting evidence in my actual words. People are arguing with their imagination of me, not the actual me. I point this out, and no one cares. Their interest evaporates. Never underestimate the power of the imagination within the human mind, or the unwillingness of it to allow self-inspection.

> Yet as soon as you dig, the "scientific arguments" evaporate.

Agreed, sometimes if not usually, this is indeed the case. However, this phenomenon sometimes works in the other direction as well, you being a pleasant exception obviously.

The opposing side has just the same experience with the arguments and papers from your side - there are many articles and papers questioning and criticizing papers from the doomsday side. You are just cherry picking and practicing confirmation bias (see, another paper refuted, so my side must be right). In fact the "95% of scientists agree" is just such an example - if you look into it, the number becomes very questionable. And once people see one of your arguments is shoddy, why should they give your other arguments the benefit of the doubt?

And your answer, as well as the comment you were replying to: it might as well all just be gibberish, for someone who isn't a climate scientist.

And in the end your refutation boils down to "we know that CO2 traps heat and warms the earth" - which is presumably true, but people don't seem to agree on the extent of it. And other factors seem to affect it, too.

Why do you even believe the "CO2 traps heat" thing? I tend to believe it, too. But that is because I was taught it does back in high school, 35 years ago. Maybe it actually was bullshit already back then, but as a teenager, I didn't know that what teachers said could be questioned.

I don't think any of us has done an actual experiment trapping heat with CO2...

Not that I'm surprised, but....really?

How about this: "My point is, I think a perfectly plausible, evidence-based case can be made that what is primarily preventing us from moving forward on this problem is not a misunderstanding of the science (which there definitely is, on both sides), but a misunderstanding of the importance of human psychology."

Are you willing to state an opinion on that (taking into consideration the supporting ideas in my comment)?

> I can say, quite certainly, that this is not the case, but that it is slowly happening, based on other responses I'm seeing.

Here I'm not sure what you're saying exactly.

"that this is not the case" - ok, well if that's the case, could you please answer the question I posed: "From where did the ideas come from, that:"

"but that it is slowly happening, based on other responses I'm seeing" - I'm not sure what this refers to. Could you clarify?

>>> 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?

> This is, quite literally, creating a conspiracy from thin air without proof.

No, it is not. You're the one that added the notion of epistemology into the discussion (and kudos for that), but it seems now, you've forgotten that.

I'm not "creating a conspiracy" (I imagine this rhetorical technique has a name, but I know not what it might be), I am asking a question. You seem to believe you are above epistemic soundness. I challenge you to address this.

> Climate science is so unnecessarily controversial at this point, that if any evidence existed that scientists were lying to make more money, business leaders would be touting it at every turn.

Sure, and nothing I said directly contradicts this, I am merely pointing out that we do not have evidence either way that it is "wise career advice" to pursue climate change only from a particular angle, or that there might be a kind of "overton window" in play, to some degree. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Again, I am not saying this is the case, I am simply saying:

a) the conclusive, absolute truth on these matters is unknown

b) a behavior can be observed where climate change advocates seem extremely unwilling to simply acknowledge that some things are unknown

> However, there is plenty of evidence that scientists that deny climate change are in it for the money: https://www.climaterealityproject.org/blog/climate-denial-ma.... > As a Washington Post article explains, “in the 1990s, oil companies, fossil fuel industry trade groups and their respective PR firms began positioning contrarian scientists such as Willie Soon, William Happer and David Legates as experts whose opinions on climate change should be considered equal and opposite to that of climate scientists.” > The contrarian voice of these funded-skeptics hides the fact that basically the entire scientific community agrees the crisis is real and caused by humans, promoting the myth of disagreement.

> Do you hold the same opinion of scientists that deny climate change?

I do not subscribe to the beliefs of climate change denying scientists, and not a single thing I wrote suggested that I believe this in the slightest. And yet, here you are concentrating on this, while simultaneously ignoring most everything else I actually wrote.

I will remind you of something else I wrote:

> My point is, I think a perfectly plausible, evidence-based case can be made that what is primarily preventing us from moving forward on this problem is not a misunderstanding of the science (which there definitely is, on both sides), but a misunderstanding of the importance of human psychology. And, I will provocatively (but speculatively) assert that a recurring refusal to even acknowledge this as a valid possibility, is in fact evidence that supports the very theory. My suspicion on why this behavior exists, is that on ~identity-related issues, it is simply human nature to blame one's opponent while absolving oneself of all guilt [1].

> I am worried that once again, my effort at articulating this theory will be completely not understood, or completely ignored (again, behavior that I would assert is suggestive of the very theory), as if my comment didn't even exist. But hey, as I provocatively challenged you at the very start when you claimed you were "determined to understand": "Let's find out.". So, let's, shall we?

Taking those words into consideration, notice what the theme/theory of the actual content of my post was, and notice what the content of your reply was. You ignored most everything I said, and certainly ignored the main idea, even though I clearly pointed out that this is the very behavior I was pointing out. What happened to your "determination to understand"?

As I've already stated: to me, this is extremely interesting. I think something important is going on here.

> Offered evidence, will you change that opinion?

My opinions are always open to change. I am rare in that I will stand and defend my beliefs, and answer any question posed to me without changing the subject. Can you say the same?

> This article might not be definitive proof, but proof of these actions by the fossil fuel industry is widely available. With this information, my theory of epistemology can treat scientists who suggest that Climate Change is happening and human caused is fact, and that those that deny it are most likely disingenuous.

Are you suggesting that untruth on the part of climate-denying scientists is somehow epistemically sound proof that pro-climate-change scientist's science is fact? This seems illogical to me.

> If you don't agree, then it is likely that we cannot share epistimological solidarity.

I don't disagree on that, but I don't think we share epistimological solidarity, because I am extremely concerned with what is known to be true regardless of whose theories it supports, and your concerns seem to be biased.

> IOW, I responded primarily to a statement that is a widespread conspiracy theory, and therefore propaganda, by calling it what it was...

...and also suggesting that because it is "a conspiracy theory" then therefore it is false, with a demonstrated lack of concern for whether such a conclusion is actually known, or knowable.

> not by making assumptions about who you are, and how you think.

I challenge you again to address my question: "From where did the ideas come from, that:"

> I simply made a reply based on what you wrote.

You missed the part where you ignored the majority of my comment, despite me predicting that.

> I, on the other hand, can present a real conspiracy (not propaganda) by pointing out how various industries have disingenuously used media (and thus human emotion and failing human intuition) to argue against human caused climate change.

Once again, which I've never disputed. Why you seem focused on something I've literally not mentioned, while ignoring that which I did mention, is the very behavior I noted in my comment that I find unusual.

> Further, you reference the book "Thinking Fast and Slow", while defending a statement of intuition:

> I also happen to harbor this suspicion

> In response, I gave you the ultimate 'slow thinking' path that I follow myself: education. Until I have that education, then I must fall back on the expertise of others.

Your education didn't contain any proof of my conclusion, but at least you seem to realize that your proof is an appeal to authority.

> Further, I'm extremely aware of the fact that we need the public to buy in, and that we need political will to deal with Climate Change. Extremely, frustratingly, aware.

Are you frustrated enough to actually consider the content of what I wrote in my comment? Because from what you've written here, it seems almost as if you didn't even read it.

a) Please forgive my annoying point-by-point communication style. My belief is that it adds clarity and precision, but I realize it's also annoying.

b) Everything I should should be read in the spirit of "in my opinion"...I see this as an exploratory conversation about unqualified armchair theories, not a statement of facts.

> I started responding to your GP comment, but I moved it here (and lightly edited/expanded it) to let you know that I see you

Sincere thanks.

> (though your pivot from "suspicion" and "bias" to "psychology" and "identity" makes me leery).

Suspicion, bias, identity, and a whole schwack of other things, all fall under the domain of psychology. But I don't ask that you accept anything I say at face value, I will address any questions you have, and consider all criticism.

> Without specific cited examples I'm not sure if you're talking primarily about

It's like 90% armchair psychology, based on non-acedemic education, and a fairly long period of close observation of human interactions. I claim no authority on the subject, I only ask that people think, and be honest (or at least try). That said, the possibility remains that I may not be entirely incorrect, even out of sheer chance.

> Our primary tool for communicating, human language, didn't develop to meet complex communication needs (be they scientific, technical, philosophical, etc). Some concepts are hard or impossible or tedious to communicate in language. Worse, these can get folded into nuanced domain-specific terminology or unstated shared context among practitioners.

Exactly. And this isn't news to anyone, but what I think might be somewhat of a novel/underinvestigated idea, is how these things manifest in day to day interactions, and in turn affect subsequent behavior, such as the influencing of peers, voting patterns, etc. Has there been any academic study into this? Should there be (are the stakes high enough that out of the box thinking might be warranted, or are staus quo ideas getting the job done to an acceptable degree)?

> I won't impute, but if you see this in climate science and not everywhere--do investigate why.

It appears on any culture war topic, which is why culture war topics are often banned from being discussed in multiple communities. But again, what I find interesting, is the unwillingness for people to discuss the specifics of why they are banned.

> Not that I would know where the Overton window is, here--but I get the impression from how you frame this that you think you are further outside of it than I think you are.

This is an ever-present risk, and it's undoubtedly a motivating factor in my choice of when to wade into discussions, but I think(!) I've managed to become fairly disciplined in actually discussing things in an honest, mostly emotionally detached manner.

My framing of it is certainly not a comprehensive overview of the subject, and I have tried to go to great lengths to acknowledge that. My intent is to not discredit or derail the climate change initiative, but rather to introduce the idea, for consideration, that perhaps our perceptions of the nature of "resistance" or "disagreement" may not be accurate, and in turn our solutions/response to that may be suboptimal. Maybe I've done a less than perfect job of communicating this idea, but I see little evidence that others are making any effort to understand. Rather, it seems that my lack of complete agreement is immediately considered to be disagreement, and therefore dealt with accordingly. Any pushback seems to invoke an authoritarian, tribal response.

> I wonder if you're seeing (something like?) Dunning-Kruger here--many (but not all) of the people left arguing on the internet about facts and gigatons and global cooling and ivory tower conspiracies may just be identifying at each other.

Of course. But again, this isn't so much what I am pointing out, which is the amazingly widespread inability and unwillingness among intelligent people to step out of this mode of thinking, or acknowledge clear signs of it.

> In any case, I'm unsure what practical application this realization has (beyond the obvious--lobbing fact-grenades into the other trench doesn't accomplish much). Do you see applicable lessons, here?

At this point, I think there is some potential value in investigating how true some of these theories are. Is the fact that climate change is (has become) a culture war topic interfering with people's ability to discuss or think clearly about the matter, or does group identity trump everything (System-1 overpowers System-2, ~without exception, even among the intelligent). I believe some clear patterns can be observed. If so, what to do with this knowledge?

> One lesson can be that the message should come from someone with a lot of identity overlap.

Yes indeed! If the requirement is mass persuasion (and it very much is), and the topic is identity-related (causing the human brain to malfunction, resorting to tribal, System-1 thinking), then adopting an approach where the message is delivered via influential figures in various sub-communities seems like a very logical approach.

Which raises the question: do we see any of this happening?

> I think it's useful, but it takes a while to scale well (for example, you need people willing to risk ostracism and exclusion from groups that are core parts of their identity; people most knowledgable about the science don't have a lot of identity overlap).

Agreed. Assuming this theory is sound, scaling is a big problem. Perhaps some people who are smarter than me in the HN community have some related expertise in the field, or just some good old-fashioned smart ideas to consider. But how one might persuade them to think about the problem from this perspective seems like a difficult nut to crack. I will continue doing my best (as you can see I am not deterred by ostracism and exclusion, and @dang seems content to let me go about my business), but if you have any good ideas, I'd love to hear them.

Even if we could get everyone's sentiments pointed in the right direction, there are a lot of other seemingly unrelated issues that may need to be taken into consideration, but if a higher frame of enlightenment (willingness to cooperate, MAYBE) could be established, perhaps we could fix several problems at once. Dare to dream, eh?

> Katharine Hayhoe is a decent case study, here. She stays busy, but I don't have a good sense of how readily she can move the needle with skeptics. Either way, her identity doesn't seem to defuse the regular conspiratorial comments on posts/videos about her.

To me, sending a climate scientist to deal with skeptics is like bringing a knife to a gun fight, or trying to put out a grease fire with a bucket of water. You need a lunatic to deal with lunatics, because you need to understand how they think. Authorities and rationalists have high-resolution perceptions of how deniers and conspiracy theorists think, but they are only perceptions, almost completely manufactured by their minds. No wonder no one can make any progress with them.

> I find the discussion of memes in The Selfish Gene useful here. It's worth a read if you haven't. Considering the "fitness" of individual memes, fellow travellers, and memeplexes as a whole (i.e., their virality, whether they fit in well with or oppose other common memes, how resistant they are to displacement, etc.) is a good place to start with evaluating how climate change denial slots into people's broader belief systems.

150% agree, the propagation of "knowledge" via memes is fundamental to this problem, but it is key to realize that it is not only "deniers" who are thinking in memes (as opposed to reasoned logic) - this is how everyone is thinking, if to varying degrees. This is well known in the fields of psychology and neuroscience, and few here would dispute it within a thread on that specific topic. But try raising the notion in an unrelated topic, particularly a culture war topic, and watch people's logic exit the room instantaneously (yourself being an obvious exception).

Many thanks for the conversation, any criticism of anything I've said is appreciated.

"While heavily hedging everything", I suspect, is my unusual writing style, where I explicitly qualify that which is speculative, as being speculative, as opposed to the more common practice of presenting estimates and speculation as cold hard facts. It's a bit concerning that the precise use of language seems to be (here I am speculating, and open to correction) considered somehow inappropriate in a discussion where people are complaining about the discussion not being based on facts.

I would counter that having a meaningful discussion is difficult when people claim to be arguing in good faith, and accuse others of not doing so, but then proceed to completely ignore the core arguments the supposedly poor-faith person makes. (To be clear, you are not one of those people.)

>> Agreed, but this does not logically preclude my concerns that it is possible that [...]

> I mean, if you're talking philosophy here, I obviously agree that this is a logical possibility, but how does that move the conversation forward?

Well, I would say it moves the conversation forward in that:

a) I seem to have been successful in clearing up your speculation that my beliefs are grounded not in conspiracy theory, but in sound logic and epistemology: reality as it actually is, which includes things that are unknown, as opposed to how people like to pretend it is, where there are no unknowns

b) Perhaps now you may be open to consider that "deniers" are not all conspiracy theorists, but may rather be reacting with suspicion to an incredibly complex situation, which then might facilitate you opening up to my larger core idea, that it may be possible that the current gridlock in forming consensus that we are experiencing may be caused not entirely by people misunderstanding or not believing "the science", but due to complex, unseen psychological behaviors (tribalism, revenge, etc) that we all know exist, but seem amazingly reluctant to admit to acknowledging within the context of this and similar discussions

c) I may have been successful for the first time in getting someone to acknowledge that what I say is not false

> What we need to see is evidence one way or the other.

I hope you now see what I am saying: that perhaps this is not true. That a lack of scientific evidence is not what we need (we have overwhelming amounts already), but rather, we need to stop fighting.

> I would suggest to focus on specific points of contention and cite sources. This forces everyone in the discussion to actually go researching those sources in the first place, which should improve the level of dialog.

My point of contention is that people are unwilling to acknowledge the possibility that the core problem is not a misunderstanding of climate science, but a misunderstanding of human psychology, and how to get along. As evidence, I offer interactions in this and prior threads: repeated evidence of no one (prior to you) being willing to address what I actually say, usually via refusal to have a discussion, but when they do reply, addressing not what I say, but instead manufactured strawmen.

I'll post one of my favorite videos of all time:

Why Trump Will Win - Michael Moore Explains https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMm5HfxNXY4

Can you see any possible parallels between the seemingly illogical behavior displayed by people voting for Trump ("against their interests") and the seemingly illogical behavior displayed by people opposing climate change initiatives (also against their interests)? I have a strong feeling that there might be something important here we're missing, but I am not sure. You're welcome to your own opinion on the matter, but the key points I'd like to draw your attention toward are:

- Are you sure? How would you even know (particularly considering no one has studied the matter)?

- What if you're wrong?

Kouwenberg herself however doesn't believe the crazy 300-700 AD CO2 excursion to around 400 ppm and spends a lot of time looking at alternative explanations, finally concluding on p. 65:

"""

The extremely low number of stomata per mm needle length in the Tsuga heterophylla record at Jay Bath between 300 and 700 AD does not appear to result from extremely high atmospheric CO2 levels at the time, but coincides with the establishment of the species during a period of major disturbance at the site. The open, exposed setting after this disturbance probably provided highly stressed growth conditions for pioneering, early-successional T. heterophylla trees.

"""

Of that, there is of course no mention in the blog post you cited.

Importantly, of course, none of this is really that relevant to the discussion of anthropogenic global warming, since we know that we are putting CO2 into the atmosphere, and that CO2 in the atmosphere traps heat.

I'm really starting to see a pattern here, where facts that contain some grain of truth are used out of context to sow doubt, and everything just evaporates as soon as you look more closely (and then the next tangentially relevant fact is brought up)... It's probably quite effective - I mean, who is going to read that blog post you linked and then do what I just did and actually dig into the sources? I did that because I took the "advice" I got in this comment section to heart and wanted to give my "opponents" the benefit of the doubt.

[0] PDF available at https://dspace.library.uu.nl/bitstream/handle/1874/243/full....

Do you seriously think that we don't consider these things? Seriously?

And I'm not some snot nosed programmer looking in from outside. I'm a former geoscientist and I saw this pressure firsthand, even at a relatively conservative University.

I do find all of the catastrophising of nature very fascinating. The switcheroo from "global warming" to "climate change" was pretty slick. The attempt to step the message up to "climate crisis" is going to be barrels of fun.

And, yes, I do feel for those people who are frustrated or living in fear by climate alarmists. "It's already too late ..." is full-on revolutionary agitprop. I can only hope people burn out on this whole thing, exhausted by it all, rather than have a psychotic break.

Don't believe the hype! The +1C is a lie, propaganda. ;(

Sure, you can use models to make predictions for a date in the future. Then, you wait to see if you reach that date and the predictions come true. Then you can make qualitative assertions about the accuracy of the model, its shortcomings, and whatnot. Do we have evidence of past climate models making accurate future predictions? (I really don’t know, now you have me curious.)

Water vapor is undisputed as the the #1 greenhouse gas.

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 back.

I must confess, this strange combination of group declaration that "the science is in", combined with complete refusal to discuss "the science", leaves me feeling a bit suspicious about the degree to which anyone has actually read the science, or is thinking critically on this matter.

If you could address some of the concerns I raised in [0], I would be delighted.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21708936

I’m not talking about fighting “environmental issues” — I’m explicitly talking about a) global climate change, which has little to do with ~75% of the environmental impacts of an electric vehicle, and b) not spending $trillions fighting wars due to Western society’s unslakable thirst for oil. [1]

Let’s not goalpost this — mining & refining metals (etc.) is dirty business, and we should clean it up, but to be clear: it has a very limited impact on climate change.

> extra consumption

Extra consumption? I proposed taking the trillions of dollars spent on military equipment, plus fuel for planes, aircraft carriers, and other ships, tanks, etc., not to mention the deaths of thousands of people — war is “consumption” to an absurd degree — and replacing all that with domestic EVs.

Don’t tell me that’s “extra consumption”. If anything it’s a dramatic reduction in consumption.

[1] Whether you believe the war in Iraq was fought for oil or not, oil is a causative factor: without the presence of oil in the Middle East, and the riches its trade brings to the states in the area, it’s unlikely we’d be fighting there.