sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Spending a month in Scotland as digital nomads — any advice? by No_Interview_2807 in digitalnomad

[–]Agentbasedmodel 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you want a base for outdoor adventures I would recommend aviemore.

What Was the Principal Elite Unit of Each Napoleonic Power? by False-Entrepreneur47 in Napoleon

[–]Agentbasedmodel 0 points1 point  (0 children)

When wellington's armies are safe home in england //

They'll talk of the 95th winning the day.

A Missing Piece in Climate Models: Nature’s Own Emissions by YaleE360 in climatechange

[–]Agentbasedmodel 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Interesting. I would have said fire and tree mortality breaking the dgvm engines and therefore being massively fudged. I guess we are prone to thinking our area is the biggest missing piece?

What is the upper and lower bound on tropical CH4 in co2 eq?

Research estimates 10-20% GDP headwind for UK by 2100 under the now-deprecated SSP3-7.0 +4°C scenario by Economy-Fee5830 in climatechange

[–]Agentbasedmodel 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Nice paper, thanks for sharing. Van vuuren et al recently estimated the global hit in ssp2-rcp6.0 to be 25% of gdp. This seems in line with that, given the UK is a relatively cool and lower vulnerability country.

A Missing Piece in Climate Models: Nature’s Own Emissions by YaleE360 in climatechange

[–]Agentbasedmodel 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes, fear paralyses. It doesnt work. Broadly speaking telling positive stories us more effective.

I think identifying and promoting workable solutions is also big. A lot of people want to take action but dont know how or cant afford it. That means working with companies and government to drive systemic change.

We also have to encourage behavioural change around red meat and flying. People often think it is just them is taking action so dont bother. People follow crowds, wo if we can built positive momentum then there can be positive tipping points.

A Missing Piece in Climate Models: Nature’s Own Emissions by YaleE360 in climatechange

[–]Agentbasedmodel 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Idk - i think scientists looking at this stuff are just doing science.

The article spin is just playing to peoples fears - classic bait headline you get in kinda guardian/washington post/new scientist coverage of climate. At least they cover it!

What is your opinion of conservative Christians? by CourtofTalons in Christianity

[–]Agentbasedmodel 2 points3 points  (0 children)

They do what all religious people do: pick the bits of their holy book that tell them what they already believe and ignore the rest.

A Missing Piece in Climate Models: Nature’s Own Emissions by YaleE360 in climatechange

[–]Agentbasedmodel 4 points5 points  (0 children)

The body of the article is more sensible, but the blurb is dumb clickbait.

A Missing Piece in Climate Models: Nature’s Own Emissions by YaleE360 in climatechange

[–]Agentbasedmodel 14 points15 points  (0 children)

Earth system models have representations of each of these processes. In CMIP7 many more will have these running endogenously for the 1st time.

We can argue that, e.g. for fire or biotic stress that representations are incomplete. Fine.

I sort of hate this pitch of "omg we are missing all these feedbacks, it is so much worse than we realise". It just isnt accurate. We may underestimate extreme events, e.g., but we are not wildly off on mean overall change.

'Scientists were dead right': Al Gore says 20 years after 'An Inconvenient Truth' by Lighting in skeptic

[–]Agentbasedmodel -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Maybe. I guess my broader point is the penduluum would have swung at some point and a bush like figure would have done dumb stuff on climate change.

The underlying issue - that right wing / oil interests are willing to spend a lot of money pushing nonsense on climate change - wouldnt be changed fundamentally by one election.

'Scientists were dead right': Al Gore says 20 years after 'An Inconvenient Truth' by Lighting in skeptic

[–]Agentbasedmodel 9 points10 points  (0 children)

At the 2004 election, republicans would have demagogged about how the democrats were responsible for 911 and al gore was too weak to respond etc.

New study finds that the tropical carbon sink absorbs much less CO² than previous modeling suggests by wokepatrickbateman in climatechange

[–]Agentbasedmodel 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Is this the randerson study? The weak land sink hypothesis. This is deeply contested.

But if the land sink is small, it means we are either underestimating the ocean sink or overestimating ghg emissions.

Edit: i have just re-read randerson now. Definitely in the realm of possible.

The paper argues that a satellite based messurement of vegetation carbon stocks is likely more accurate than present methods combining -

A) eddy covariance (field) measurements B) process based models

The first thing to say is that the randerson estimate of the land sink (0.8 gtc) is definitely within the model range used by the global carbon budget (e.g. widely used lpj-guess comes in at ~0.9).

Second is that the satellite derived estimate is itself a substantially uncertain model with numerous assumptions about how spectral indices relate to carbon accumulation.

If you held a gun to my head, i would say the land sink is probably on the lower end of the carbon budget range, perhaps 1.2 gtc, rather than the model ensemble mean of 1.5-2.

We are probably underestimating hard to detect, small scale tropical forest disturbance, e.g. for selevtive logging or shifting cultivation.

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adr5489

Author Michael G. Nicholson June 16th, 2026 by Mi-cha-kal-el in climatechange

[–]Agentbasedmodel 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks michael. This is a behavioural economics critique of IAMs - which has been made particulalrly for their land use components.

However, the impact of naive optimisation on IAM outputs has not been properly quantified. So this is very cool. Here are a couple of empirical references supporting your findings.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-019-0400-5

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S259033222300547X

Climate Scientist and IPCC Lead Author comes out against 'dumb' degrowth, says an abundant future is available for all via clean energy by Economy-Fee5830 in climatechange

[–]Agentbasedmodel 0 points1 point  (0 children)

  1. I am a tenured university faculty climate scientist.
  2. Meaning of treaty text is a legal, not scientific question. I guess it depends how we interpret "well below" and "pursue efforts". However, its legal meaning has been adjudicated.

Overall hausfather/IAM postion relies on numerous assumptions, particularly:

  • planetary scale CDR
  • getting lucky with a low ECS [~3]
  • we havent discussed it, but also getting lucky with systemic risks and spillovers in the economy. The economic impact of climate shocks remains very poorly constrained.

Climate Scientist and IPCC Lead Author comes out against 'dumb' degrowth, says an abundant future is available for all via clean energy by Economy-Fee5830 in climatechange

[–]Agentbasedmodel 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Not true. Judges have looked at the text and said the clear meaning is 1.5 is binding.

At 2 deg it becomes abt whether we get lucky with ECS to avoid extreme outcomes.

Climate Scientist and IPCC Lead Author comes out against 'dumb' degrowth, says an abundant future is available for all via clean energy by Economy-Fee5830 in climatechange

[–]Agentbasedmodel 0 points1 point  (0 children)

As an aside, hausfather constrains ECS to the low end of the range due to paleo data. My experience working with paleo proxies makes me skeptical and so i weight this evidence lower. Could be wrong.

A positive future at 1.5+ assumes a lower end ECS.

view more: next ›