Hacker News Reader

Comment by actually_a_dog | Hacker News Reader

Take a look at the map in this article: https://nerdist.com/article/global-warming-video-earth-4-deg...

Everywhere that isn't green will be uninhabitable under a worst case 4C warming scenario. How do you think that balances out?

For the sake of accuracy, I should note that the map leaves off Antarctica, a substantial portion of which will become habitable under this scenario.

View on HN

So that article admits right at the outset that it is extremely speculative. You could just as easily post an extremely speculative article that shows the entire world will be jungle with the rise in temperatures.

The only speculation is whether or not the 4C scenario is the one we're in. The map itself is derived from climate models, which have been shown to be accurate in reproducing current conditions, when fed correct levels of atmospheric greenhouse gasses. I can dig up the paper that says this if anyone would care to read it.

> The map itself is derived from climate models, which have been shown to be accurate in reproducing current conditions

how do you know that the models show accurate results that match and predict real measurements? Where is the code to verify that there's no post-factum editing and fitting the results into the desired interpretations? Who is performing verification? Is it made open-source for independent reviews?

Would you like to read the paper? If you say you will actually read it, I will find the reference. The answers to your questions are mostly there. For the ones that are not, I'm sure you can contact the researchers, ask them, and report back.

I would like to see sources of the models first, similarly to how implementations of RSA could be found on Github prior finding papers describing principles of RSA and verified by everyone interested in the topic of cryptography. If there's a paper claiming that the models consistently predict observable climate numbers in the future, the models have to be published openly in full, as it would be a pre-requisite for verifying reproducibility of the results.

Alright, well, I guess you don't want what I have to offer, so, have fun on your own.

I doubt you had anything to offer in the first place. If you had it, you would have shared a link, as I can do for cryptography projects with strong claims.

You're free to be wrong.

I'm simply not willing to spend effort digging up a reference for someone who won't read it. Literally all you had to say was "I'd like the reference please, so I can read it," but you did not. So, it seems I was right. Given your attitude, I don't even believe you intended to do what you said you were going to do in good faith.

Have a nice day.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com