Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

2015 “smashed” 2014’s global temperature record

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 252 posts

Re: 2015 “smashed” 2014’s global temperature record

#181

Post by drewrv »

galactical wrote: post #161
drewrv wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm curious what book you read because it sounds like it does not agree with what almost all scientists believe. Perhaps you should start with The IPCC Reports.

This was the book, chosen because it looked like the most objective one available: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0986398306

This book seems explicitly one sided to me, it says right in the blurb:

> The authors of Climate Change: The Facts number some of the most prominent dissenters from Big Climate alarmism

Re: 2015 “smashed” 2014’s global temperature record

#182

Post by snowwrestler »

jupiter90000 wrote: post #40

Is anyone aware if there is reliable data prior to say 1880? [1] Is there any possibility that large scale climate trends could be outside of the observed window of time available? For instance, some large scale natural state-shifting appears to occur on the order of hundreds of years (reference is about earthquakes, but maybe relevant?) [2]. Based on everything I've heard/read/etc about this, it seems unlikely that…

This is a good time to remind folks that the theory of anthropogenic warming doesn't rest on historical climate reconstructions. Past climate helps us understand the implications but without those reconstructions we would still have a clear and strongly supported theory.

Re: 2015 “smashed” 2014’s global temperature record

#183

Post by brc »

orf wrote: post #17

It sounds bad but I'm very unoptomistic about our chances of stopping this. There is just too much pollution and too little meaningful global cooperation. Just imagine if Trump did get into office as well...

There is no 'solution' to climate change becaus the climate changes. It's not even always a problem, either. It's like strong/weak currencies. Some people want a strong currency, others want a weak currency.

Adaptation to climate is what humans have always done and what humans will always do. The richer we are, the better we can adapt. It is beyond futile to wast percentage points of productivity growth futilely trying so change something which is not changeable.

The problems faced by humans 100 years ago are mostly not problems anymore, because of the use of technology and greater productivity. Framing productivity and technology as the problems simply is code for trying to freeze progress.

The greater issue is people using fear to try and gain more power. Fear of terrorism and fear of climate change are the major levers being used to increase the control by those in power. Mostly this is by people who think they can reduce the chaos of life though better planning. While that is possible at the margin and at the micro level (better city planning results in better cities) at a level above that it breaks down and makes things worse.

Central planning is, has been and always will be a disaster. Whenever you hear a politician advocating giving them more power so they can plan a better life for you, know that while they may sincerely believe it, it is more likely to make things worse for you.

Re: 2015 “smashed” 2014’s global temperature record

#184

Post by brc »

epistasis wrote: post #147
brc wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The expense and lead times and nimby-ism which cripples nuclear are mostly regulatory. If you apply the same constraints to wind generation (which is increasingly happening) it looks even worse than nuclear.

I've never seen convincing numbers that the expense is regulatory. And the nimby-ism is not regulatory in the least. There are always grand claims of how cheap nuclear can be, but it has never been seen in practice. Sometimes people even claim that nuclear is cheap by only looking at the operating & maintenance costs, ignoring the true costs of nuclear, which are all upfront. What type of nuclear constraints could be…

Where you can put wind power, how many approvals you must have, how long the lead times are.

If you can't see how regulatory process increase costs, use this thought experiment. You want to build a house. You buy some land for it, and submit the plans for approval. Now spend the next ten years paying an architect to complete forms and submitting them for review. You have to pay the carrying cost of the land and the architects salary. The cost of the building materials for house remains the same. Can you now afford the house?

Re: 2015 “smashed” 2014’s global temperature record

#185

Post by InclinedPlane »

yongjik wrote: post #60
InclinedPlane wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Total CO2 emissions by countries, 2014: US 5.3 Gt China 10.5 Gt India 2.3 Gt Yeah, China and India are totally relevant to global CO2 emissions. The global climate doesn't give a damn about how many people are responsible for a given quantity of emissions, it's completely and utterly uncaring.

So, if China decides to divide itself into ten countries, each with 1.05 Gt emission, the earth will be so much better? The global climate doesn't give a damn about national borders, either. Of course China is important, because decisions made by its government can affect a billion people, but the same can be said for the US. (Good luck persuading Chinese people to reduce their emission, if the US doesn't commit itse…

Both factors are important, period. Whether it's people who are emitting a lot per capita today or countries with lots of people who are increasing their emissions.

You cannot have a reasonable discussion about CO2 emissions without talking about India and China.

Let's say the US halves its per capita emissions tomorrow. Hey, that's fantastic right?

But then let's say China and India come up to match the US's per capita emissions levels. That would increase China's emissions by 25% and India's emissions by 5x. Increasing total emissions for all 3 countries by 50%.

Even if the US stops emitting CO2 tomorrow, if China and India reach 50% of the US's per capita emissions they will together account for 1.2x the total emissions of the US, China, and India today.

Pretending that because the US has much higher per capita emissions today means that it's ok to ignore the rest of the world is pure fantasy. That's the point. We should totally "talk" to China and India. Nobody gets a free pass.

Re: 2015 “smashed” 2014’s global temperature record

#186

Post by fmihaila »

api wrote: post #177
fmihaila wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Desperate people living in poverty are not those most responsible for climate change. The developed countries, most prominently the US (in absolute terms), contributed most to the problem and have the economic power to start addressing it. The reason Canada (to take another example) hasn't done more to prevent climate change has more to do with greed and misallocation of resources than with poverty eradication. The c…

Desperate people living in poverty will be just as responsible as those living in developed countries as soon as they can work their way out of poverty. Those in developed countries are never going to go back to the standard of living found in poor ones, or at least not without fighting it to the death. I agree with the rest and I wasn't implying that we can't have both. But there do seem to be a lot of people who ta…

> Those in developed countries are never going to go back to the standard of living found in poor ones, or at least not without fighting it to the death.

Of course not, nor should they.

> I agree with the rest and I wasn't implying that we can't have both. But there do seem to be a lot of people who take a moralistic tone about this or who push solutions that amount to the same.

Understood, and I agree to a certain point, although I think a lot of the strident tone on the environmentalist side is more the result of sheer panic than a desire to moralize. Be that as it may, we can choose to filter out the tone and look at the substance, and when we do that the positions on both sides are not as irreconcilable as they appear (as you seem to agree).

Re: 2015 “smashed” 2014’s global temperature record

#187

Post by green7ea »

oldmanjay wrote: post #146
citrin_ru wrote: post #88

I'm recently come to US and currently live in (rented) apartments where gas stove with pilot light is used. 24x7 small fire inside stove turns gas into heat and CO2 with water. I was very surprised - it is waste of energy. I never seen pilot light before (in other countries).

I would be amazed to find out that a) this only exists in America and b) it is significant Edit: it is significant, although the citations are impossible to follow. I am amazed. But I see nothing that indicates it unique to the US.

I can confirm that they also exist in Canada but that they are rare.

Re: 2015 “smashed” 2014’s global temperature record

#188

Post by brc »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #180
brc wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, the central England temperature series (CET). Now run by the met office, it goes back to 1659. There is no scientific doubt about the roman and medieval warm periods being as warm or warmer than today. The anthropological evidence of this is abundant, and it shows up in most proxies as well. The most likely case is that the natural variations swamp whatever changes humans make. Based on evidence, it's unlikely t…

Amply and persistently debunked. See e.g. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/seven-answers-to-c...

Which part? Are you saying the roman or medieval warm periods dont exist?

Re: 2015 “smashed” 2014’s global temperature record

#189

Post by vectorjohn »

gus_massa wrote: post #135
vectorjohn wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think people have systematically moved the locations of thermometers to warmer places? There's a thing called averages, medians, and other statistics that can remove or put error bars on that kind of uncertainty.

[Not the op] I neither think that someone moved a thermometer to a warmer place. The problem is that some weather stations were originally placed outside a city many years ago, but the city grow until the weather station is surrounded by the city. Cities are 2°F or 3°F warmer than the countryside, so this creates a fake temperature. Obviously, this changes are not ignored, so the temperature tables have corrections f…

That's a good point about cities growing to encompass weather stations, and it would be a slow steady change. But like you said, that can be corrected for and I presume you or the gp are not the first to have thought of it. So I still strongly disagree with the assertion that using this data is pseudoscience. Almost everything in science has to compensate measurements for known anomalies or biases.

Re: 2015 “smashed” 2014’s global temperature record

#190

Post by flubert »

guscost wrote: post #172
wang_li wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do you have reason to believe this will not happen? What's kind of amazing is that people don't believe that we will develop a solar powered technique to extract carbon the from the atmosphere and create liquid fuels.

Like an artificial plant? If it is possible to engineer something that works better (and there is no reason to believe it is impossible ) that would be a huge event.

You may be interest in:

"A New Dawn for Industrial Photosynthesis"

http://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs11120-011-96...

Post reply on HN