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

191–200 of 252 posts

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

#191

Post by nickbauman »

ps4fanboy wrote: post #32

Nuclear Power, until those who care about the environment accept that the only clean at scale power solution for base load is nuclear power we will get no where. "Renewables" are great and should be in the mix but they are not an at scale solution. http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/images/ghgemissions/source... By going mostly electric for our transportation and nuclear for power generation we could really make a den…

The former head of the IAEC has come out on record against this notion. She said that the paltry few nuclear power plants in development are no where near far along enough to make a difference for over 20 years from now, while renewables are delivering, albeit still too slowly, right now.

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

#192

Post by orf »

brc wrote: post #183
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 tryi…

> It is beyond futile to wast percentage points of productivity growth futilely trying so change something which is not changeable.

You sound like a climate change denier? There is most definitely a solution to pumping massive quantities of emissions into the air, and it involves not doing that.

> fear of climate change are the major levers being used to increase the control by those in power

Except as far as I can see it those in power (at least in the US) are doing their best to deny climate change. And my whole point is the people in power are not doing enough, hence... you know, climate change.

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

#193

Post by vectorjohn »

dang wrote: post #179
vectorjohn wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lots of people keep saying this, but I really don't think it's true. Solar and wind work fine at scale. There is nothing un-scalable about them. What they don't do is work at night, and in that case nuclear is a fine option. Although batteries that can run a house overnight aren't that expensive.

> Just keep repeating it, but it isn't true. Please edit uncivil language like this out of your comments when posting here. Without that (well, that and the uppercase yelling), this comment would be a fine one. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Fixed. Didn't know a single word in caps was considered yelling.

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

#194

Post by MichaelMoser123 »

ps4fanboy wrote: post #32

Nuclear Power, until those who care about the environment accept that the only clean at scale power solution for base load is nuclear power we will get no where. "Renewables" are great and should be in the mix but they are not an at scale solution. http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/images/ghgemissions/source... By going mostly electric for our transportation and nuclear for power generation we could really make a den…

> nuclear power bla bla global warming bla bla

Chernobyl? Fukushima?

The technology has the potential of destroying huge areas for good. Do we want that?

A complex system that is attacked on multiple threat vectors is likely to fail - no matter how many redundandancies are put into safety. I can tell you that from looking at CS/network security.

A complete failure/breach of a big reactor is very costly.

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

#195

Post by epistasis »

brc wrote: post #132
akamaka wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we can go mostly electric for our transportation, as you suggest, that means we have cheap and plentiful battery storage. If we can easily store power, there's not much advantage for using nuclear power over wind and solar.

Not necessarily true. Liquid fuels are used for transportation but only for niche generation, because they have higher costs, both in capital equipment and in fuel cost. Likewise, battery cost for transport can make it attractive, but that doesn't necessarily make it better for stationary generation. Scale beats everything when it comes to generation.

Scale matters for massive thermodynamic processes for effieiceny, but 21st century technology has become much more decentralized. You don't need massive installations of solar or wind at one location, the can be distributed throughout the grid. Massive scale is possible, but it's not required once you get away from heat differentials as the core of your energy process.

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

#196

Post by brc »

orf wrote: post #192
brc wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 tryi…

> It is beyond futile to wast percentage points of productivity growth futilely trying so change something which is not changeable. You sound like a climate change denier? There is most definitely a solution to pumping massive quantities of emissions into the air, and it involves not doing that. > fear of climate change are the major levers being used to increase the control by those in power Except as far as I can s…

What is a climate change denier? Someone who denies that the climate has and will change?

Of course stopping all production will stop changing the makeup of the atmosphere as far as humans go. In the same way stopping people killing each other solves the murder problem. Most people are tryin to talk beyond a pat level of posturing.

I'm not ready to throw all my devices and vehicles and climate control in landfill to try and subtely change the weather 100 years hence. Nor do I think that intentionally retarding productivity and growth for the same hope. In this I am intellectually honest.

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

#197

Post by galactical »

drewrv wrote: post #181
galactical wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It's definitely one sided, I just thought the author list consisting of climatologists, professors, and scientists would be more fact-based than a lot of the other books out there. Which is why I'm frustrated that that does not appear to be the case.

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

#199

Post by galactical »

brc wrote: post #171
galactical wrote: post #138

What's a good book for someone who wants to know more about climate change? I recently bought the most scientific, written by scientists book I could find on Amazon, and the gist of the book is that any amount of warming that is happening is due to geologic cycles and not human activity. The consensus here seems to be that it is due to human activity, so if that's the case can you point me to a good explanation of wh…

You see references to the IPCC here. Safely ignore those. The ipcc is a political organisation - it's in the title. It was setup specifically to find evidence for a set theory, not to study the problem. Plus the models that the IPCC uses to forecast disaster have been proven to have zero predictive power. I would continue to read books written by scientists on both sides of the argument, and ignore anything said by a…

I somewhat agree with this. The IPCC book looks like it's got all the information I'm looking for (maybe a little long for my level of interest), but it's from a non-objective organization so it could be as biased as the book I've got, just in the other direction.

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

#200

Post by brc »

epistasis wrote: post #195
brc wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not necessarily true. Liquid fuels are used for transportation but only for niche generation, because they have higher costs, both in capital equipment and in fuel cost. Likewise, battery cost for transport can make it attractive, but that doesn't necessarily make it better for stationary generation. Scale beats everything when it comes to generation.

Scale matters for massive thermodynamic processes for effieiceny, but 21st century technology has become much more decentralized. You don't need massive installations of solar or wind at one location, the can be distributed throughout the grid. Massive scale is possible, but it's not required once you get away from heat differentials as the core of your energy process.

It still matters for transmission, construction and maintenance costs, as well as resources like land and labor.

You may not need scaled installations, but they will still beat out the alternatives in any industry shakeout over the long term. We build large scale factories, farms, ports, airports, roads and retail outlets. These happen because they work. Even if the energy production at scale gave no advantage, all the other advantages of scale means that it wins out in the end.

Post reply on HN