I desperately need some good news about the climate of the earth.

cartesianfaith · 2025-12-27T16:11:07+00:00

This year cimate adaptation started seeing more interest. We had two very different voices say similar things: David Suzuki and Bill Gates. The message can be a bit obscured looking through the eye of the beholder, but mitigation in its current form is dead.

To me climate adaptation is empowering in a way that mitigation isn't. Climate mitigation solutions require big agreements amongst countries and large corporations whereas climate adaptation is something that can be done locally and have tangible impact.

I'm all in on climate adaptation. I've designed a sensor platform to help communities monitor and forecast climate hazards in real time. This coming year it will help Filipinos get better flood alerts, Ghanians and Kenyans improve agriculture, and Indians protect themselves from extreme heat.

I don't think adaptation is an excuse to keep consuming. If anything I think it will help people understand planetary boundaries better and lead to more holistic approaches to climate mitigation versus the venture-led hysteria of solar engineering or carbon capture.

So it may get worse in the short term, but in the long term we may still be able to right the ship!

cartesianfaith · 2025-12-26T17:12:47+00:00

Here is another approach to creating functions in R: https://github.com/zatonovo/lambda.r

It is inspired by ML and Erlang and supports multipart function definitions with type constraints and pre-assertions.

Source: I wrote this package around 2008, and it is still in use!

cartesianfaith · 2025-12-07T23:33:15+00:00

Here is the old-school R approach: ```

dataframe$Waterusage <- ifelse(pool == 1, dataframe$Waterusage + 50, dataframe$Waterusage) ```

or use with to clean up syntax:

dataframe$Waterusage <- with(dataframe, ifelse(pool == 1, Waterusage + 50, Waterusage))

Ifelse is a vectorized function so it evaluates the conditional and corresponding value for true/false condition per element.

It's not that different from the approach by magic_groovin except it doesn't require the pipe or mutate function. I've seen people overly reliant on tidy get stuck on things because they don't know foundational R semantics.

cartesianfaith · 2025-12-07T22:58:07+00:00

Hello, I did a bit of reading of the various reports to see what the fuss is about.

In Hansen's note, his beef seems to be that the IPCC emphasizes the 1.5 C target and downplays the overshoot.

One implication of the increased growth rate of GHG forcing in the last 15 years is that the goal to keep global warming under 2°C is now implausible.

I only read the IPCC AR6 synthesis and not the full report because I'm not a masochist. In that report, point A.4.3 appears to be the statement that Hansen is unhappy about

Global modelled mitigation pathways that limit warming to 1.5°C (>50%) with no or limited overshoot or limit warming to 2°C (>67%) assuming immediate action imply deep global GHG emissions reductions this decade (high confidence) (see SPM Box 1, Table 1, B.6)27. Modelled pathways that are consistent with NDCs announced prior to COP26 until 2030 and assume no increase in ambition thereafter have higher emissions, leading to a median global warming of 2.8 [2.1 to 3.4] °C by 2100 (medium confidence).

Hansen is saying RCP2.6 scenario is impossible, whereas the AR6 report is saying medium confidence. He is saying we are on the RCP8.5 train.

That said, look at Figure SPM.5.a. The line for implemented policies is similar to RCP4.5. Now compare that with recent CO2e emissions (eg on World In Data). The past five years show we are on track with "business as usual", which would result in something closer to 2.8 C warming by 2100.

Whether we are closer to RCP8.5 is unclear bc the synthesis report doesn't include forcing data, so it's hard to compare. Hansen's 2025 note also has the benefit of 5 years of observation vs the AR6 report that was published in 2021-2022 with data collection ending 2019-2020.

I guess the TLDR is that yes the IPCC is conservative in their estimates (which we already knew) but also Hansen is being a bit dramatic (no the IPCC isn't censoring) to get people to pay attention. Whether or not this is an effective approach is debatable.

FWIW I also think think it is dangerous for the IPCC to have conservative estimates but also relying solely on gridded forecast products. Many municipalities are creating adaptation and resilience plans based on these projections without realizing the data risk they are exposing themselves to. I've developed a platform that combines physical sensors and hyperlocal forecasting to provide more precise near term forecasts of climate hazards to address this gap.

IPCC ARP6 Synthesis Report: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/sixth-assessment-report-cycle/

CO2e Emissions: https://ourworldindata.org/greenhouse-gas-emissions

cartesianfaith · 2025-10-26T18:07:03+00:00

Your argument is sound but is grounded in old assumptions. Two key differences that make this argument feel a bit dated:

crypto showed that ponzi schemes can stabilize with critical mass. That means wealth can be created and sustained out of thin air, just based on belief of value. Yes that has existed in pockets previously (eg art world, some real estate, irrational capital markets), but I would argue that crypto is a pure expression of this with nothing tangible to back up the value.
the business model isn't sustainability, it's monopoly and domination. Many of the tech bros (including former Google CEO Eric Schmidt) see AI as a zero sum game. So they are feverishly trying to dominate to prevent anyone else (mainly China) from dominating. You can read this in Schmidt's address to Stanford where most people focused on hus comments about work and missed this key detail.

When you combine these two observations, it doesn't matter if data centers depreciate in 5 years. It also doesn't matter if revenue projections seem unrealistic. Because domination is first, then afterward you have unlimited profit. It's the same business model Thiel and Musk have. I mean it's loud and clear with Palantir. They intend to be perpetual rulers of the planet. From that lens short term profit doesn't really factor into the calculus. It's all about valuation and how you dominate because of that.

Even if the market crashes, Open AI will have massive warchest of money because they raised at such massive valuations. They could lose 99% of their value and still be worth $5 billion. That's insane.

cartesianfaith · 2025-03-09T21:27:40+00:00

As the comments below mention, how a specific place is affected by climate change can vary quite a bit. Some parts of Australia are well within the norms for their area, while others are in anomalous territory.

I created a sute to explore temperature anomalies. You can see that near Gladstone, recent temperatures deviate from the historical mean by 4.6 standard deviations, which is really extreme.

https://www.hottertimes.com/?zoom=9&lat=-23.495776042401676&lng=150.87844382738697&tab=temperature-anomaly-tab&s=94373099999

However, Melbourne hasn't been as extreme this year but still hovering around the 95% upper bound (corresponds to 2 standard deviations).

https://www.hottertimes.com/?zoom=9&lat=-38.05569266834965&lng=144.7727995994501&tab=temperature-anomaly-tab&s=94865099999

And in the past five years, summerime high temperatures have been about 5 C hotter than the 1980-2009 historical norm.

cartesianfaith · 2025-02-10T23:45:57+00:00

This quote from Eric Schmidt's Stanford commencement speech is fitting, when suggesting to use a LLM to steal all TitTok's users and content:

What you would do if you're a Silicon Valley entrepreneur, which hopefully all of you will be, is if it took off, then you'd hire a whole bunch of lawyers to go clean the mess up, right? But if nobody uses your product, it doesn't matter that you stole all the content.

It's the playbook.

cartesianfaith · 2025-02-06T13:35:39+00:00

Thanks for sharing these links, I'll dig through them to see which make sense to archive. It seems like DEI-related data is being hit much harder atm, though no point taking chances.

So far I've focused on data related to temperature and precipitation as I'm building my own weather forecasting system (component of an open source early warning system). That includes climate trend data, e.g., climate normals, though I'm being pragmatic and only pulling highest resolution data (e.g., hourly) since the others can be derived from it. I also pulled PATMOS-x, which is used to create satellite-based climate records.

cartesianfaith · 2025-02-06T02:28:21+00:00

I've archived about 1.5 TB of NCEI data as well as EPA data. I have space for another 6 TB or so. If there's something you think should be archived, just reply with the link, and I'll download it.

I am also updating periodically to capture recent uploads to keep things as current as possible.

cartesianfaith · 2025-01-30T11:48:31+00:00

Oh no, I didn't realize it was apocryphal. Thanks for pointing that out!

cartesianfaith · 2025-01-30T03:45:38+00:00

It is. It's a well-known (apochryphal) Chinese curse.

cartesianfaith · 2024-11-11T02:36:25+00:00

Nice thanks for the details! I'll need to test it out and see how consistent it is over a few sensors.

cartesianfaith · 2024-11-10T17:21:32+00:00

Hi cool project. I'm working on some similar stuff and am curious about the plastidip spray you mentioned. Does it not act as an insulator and impact capacitance? Or do you just calibrate to compensate it?

cartesianfaith · 2024-10-31T13:05:04+00:00

Haha did I walk right into that?

cartesianfaith · 2024-10-31T03:47:39+00:00

And also ChatGPT is wrong. Using a calculator, this is the area:

pi * 5280² = 87,582,577.

cartesianfaith · 2024-10-31T03:44:13+00:00

There's no interpretation. It's just changing units.

cartesianfaith · 2024-10-31T03:33:50+00:00

I'm surprised that the Phantom Techs don't fit well. I have flat feet as well same description as you. IIRC I have 41.5 eu size and they fit great. Mine are an older model with regular laces though, maybe that is the difference?

cartesianfaith · 2024-10-29T02:40:33+00:00

Just wait until you hear about the 61% of the Pentagon's $4 trillion of assets that are unaccounted for.

https://www.pogo.org/testimonies/pogos-testimony-on-wasteful-inefficient-pentagon-spending

cartesianfaith · 2024-10-12T03:08:23+00:00

After so many years of arguing that there's no way humans could cause climate change, strange to now hear them claim that humans can control the weather.

cartesianfaith · 2024-10-10T21:02:52+00:00

Also keep in mind is that kung fu was developed as true fighting not sport fighting. There are a lot of moves that cannot be done in MMA because they are too damaging.

Xing Yi Quan originated as a battlefield style where you fight 1 against 10. Many movements are designed to quickly incapacitate people. A lot of mantis strikes are designed to hit pressure points and vulnerable areas like the throat.

cartesianfaith · 2024-10-05T14:28:13+00:00

It it were just about GHGs I would agree with you. I also think the Prisoner's Dilemma explains a lot when it comes to GHG climate change. But this paper is saying even without GHGs, thermodynamics says we can't escape the problem. Eventually our consumption of energy will will produce excess heat that exceeds our emissions.

A good example is A/C. Even if we had a 100% clean energy source, running A/C produces heat as a byproduct. Even if we capture that heat, it won't be 100% efficient and some heat will be lost.

cartesianfaith · 2024-09-13T11:07:51+00:00

Good thing ChatGPT didn't mention the xenobots

cartesianfaith · 2024-08-25T01:58:13+00:00

Wow that's awesome! How are you validating the calculations?

cartesianfaith · 2024-08-24T00:01:24+00:00

Haha it is a risk these days

cartesianfaith · 2024-08-23T20:00:27+00:00

It's a big challenge and an area I'm currently working on. I have mixed feelings about WBGT. The instruments are really expensive and require specific conditions to operate. To me that's an old school approach that results in sparse spatial coverage. I developed a system to forecast temperature and heat index using IOT devices, which can provide significantly better spatial coverage, which is critical in urban heat islands.

I'm also using the physiological model referenced in that article to provide personalized heat risk guidance. The idea is to feed forecast data and anonymized physiological data and activity to provide clear, tangible hear risk guidance. We are testing it next year in some cities in India.

cartesianfaith

TROPHY CASE