Scientists caught off-guard by record temperatures linked to climate change • Hacker News Board

Re: Scientists caught off-guard by record temperatures linked to climate change

#161

Post by cpncrunch » Wed, Jul 27, 2016, 5:08 PM UTC

radiorental wrote: post #136

cpncrunch wrote: post #118

What is this data based on? From my own experience, living on Vancouver Island, temperatures this summer have been much cooler than in recent years. This summer has been almost exactly average in temp, compared to above average for the last few years. Looking at accuweather's data (www.accuweather.com, search for a city, then click 'month'), virtually everywhere in the US has been pretty much bang on the average temp…

What drought? it rained in my town today.

Ok, I see you were being sarcastic, saying that what happens in my hometown has no relevance. I guess you didn't read the rest of my comment...as well as my personal anecdote (which was probably bad to put on HN), I put actual science.

If you look at the data for New York, Miami, Los Angeles, and various other cities across the US, you'll see that temperatures have been exactly average for June and July.

So, I'm just wondering where this data came from, and why it is difference from the actual recorded temperatures. Is it because it is satellite data? If so, why does it differ?

In typical HN fashion this is a press release rather than an actual scientific article.

Just to clarify, I'm not a climate change denier. However scare articles with no science behind them do more harm than good (if that is what this is).

EDIT here is where the data comes from:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201606

I guess a small amount above average temperatures just isn't noticeable in the average temperature graphs.

Re: Scientists caught off-guard by record temperatures linked to climate change

#162

Post by CWuestefeld » Wed, Jul 27, 2016, 5:14 PM UTC

akiselev wrote: post #150

CWuestefeld wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it's not anthropogenic, then no big deal this is a regular cyclical warm period that the Earth goes through naturally. Your conclusion doesn't follow. Just because man didn't create it [1] doesn't mean that it's necessarily cyclical. The earth has changed in many ways in its lifetime. Some of those changes are indeed parts of cycles. Other changes are strictly one-way. [1] hypothetically; I'm not actually making t…

If its neither cyclical nor anthropogenic then what can we do about it other than adapt to higher temperatures? If it's not human caused than there is nothing we can do short of geoengineering on a mind boggling scale which makes no sense. If centuries of industrialization haven't caused climate change then what's the chance that we can reverse a natural process on a planetary scale?

I don't see it as a stretch to expect that we can go further in a given direction by dedicating resources to accomplish it, compared to what might happen accidentally by chance.

That's not to say that such a thing is without danger. I'm particularly wary of unintended consequences. But the people that are pursuing vast reductions in emissions aren't giving very much thought to the unintended consequences of their approach, either.

My point is that the arguments are being made with a huge amount of assumption on all sides. That's not the way to get to a good answer. We need to really consider what the likelihoods of possible outcomes are, in terms of lost human utility; and we might be able to do about them, including their costs and likelihood of success. I don't see a lot of real pro-vs-con debate - most of what I see is the Al Gore tactic of intentionally exaggerating claims to frighten people into acquiescence.

Re: Scientists caught off-guard by record temperatures linked to climate change

#163

Post by the8472 » Wed, Jul 27, 2016, 5:15 PM UTC

kodroid wrote: post #66

So, what can be done? I posted this question on Reddit ages ago with no replys, would be interesting to hear anyone on heres opinion on it... > Hi all, Im sure there are many reasons why this would not work but thought would be good to get some input. I came across this article about creating carbon fibre from atmospheric carbon https://www.technologyreview.com/s/540706/researcher-demonst... and as carbon fibre utili…

It takes a lot of energy. If we built enough clean energy to have some to spare for pulling carbon out of the atmosphere then we would already have met the goals of decarbonizing the economy. This would merely be going the extra mile on top of that.

And we already have self-replicating zero-emission carbon extraction machines. They're called trees. You could just plant trees, wait a few decades and then drop them with some weights into the ocean if you wanted to get rid of carbon. Of course you would have to do that at industrial scale and somehow find a way to replace all the nutrient minerals you're also sinking into the ocean.

And we're talking about gigatons per year. The only thing that's comparable in human production is concrete. We would have to build all our roads, cities and megastructures out of carbon to reverse current emissions.

Re: Scientists caught off-guard by record temperatures linked to climate change

#164

Post by antisthenes » Wed, Jul 27, 2016, 5:55 PM UTC

CWuestefeld wrote: post #113

ipsin wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This "we've gotten this far!" argument applies to global warming as well, doesn't it? I don't believe the proposition that global warming is not a problem because human ingenuity will fix it. Our land and oceans are already straining under our population load.

Yes, they're straining. But they've always been, through recorded history. The only difference is that when we look back at them through 21st century glasses, the problems don't even look like problems anymore. I mean, we stopped denuding the forests to get firewood, so a visitor from, say, 3 centuries ago would be astonished at how well wooded the land is near cities. You can canoe down the Delaware River today and…

> Yes, they're straining. But they've always been, through recorded history.

You keep repeating that, but it simply isn't true. The oceans have not been straining in the pre-industrial era in the slightest.

> You can canoe down the Delaware River today and feel entirely surrounded by the trees, yet around the time of the Revolution, those hills were bare.

This is a typical anecdote that falls flat in the face of data. Look at global forestation rates in the pre-industrial era and today.

> So you'll have to explain to me

No one owes any explanation to a person who denies facts when presented with them. You made claims without evidence, therefore your claims can be dismissed without evidence.

Re: Scientists caught off-guard by record temperatures linked to climate change

#165

Post by wccrawford » Wed, Jul 27, 2016, 6:01 PM UTC

CWuestefeld wrote: post #156

wccrawford wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As to the importance of the term "anthropogenic"... If we aren't causing it (or contributing significantly), then stopping what we're doing won't fix it . So yes, it's important to the conversation that we're actually causing the problem.

If we aren't causing it (or contributing significantly), then stopping what we're doing won't fix it. That's not correct. If I'm sitting in my car and it starts to roll downhill, it's gravity that's causing the movement, not my car. Yet applying the brakes is still the correct course of action. Moreover, even if we assume that humans are the cause of the problem, it doesn't necessarily follow that the cessation of hu…

Applying the brakes is not "stopping what you're doing". It's doing a new thing. If you're "sitting in your car" and not doing anything else, the opposite is not sitting in your car, and doing that would not solve the problem at hand.

Re: Scientists caught off-guard by record temperatures linked to climate change

#166

Post by yongjik » Wed, Jul 27, 2016, 6:09 PM UTC

cconcepts wrote: post #9

I have no doubt that climate change is a problem. I have kids, I dont want to give them a hospital pass. I've tried to stop living such a carbon dependant lifestyle but I look outside and my efforts feel futile. How do I REALLY do something about this other than a few pretentious yet barely discomforting lifestyle changes and the odd empassioned few sentences at dinner parties? Start pushing for a carbon tax? Start a…

This might be opening a can of worms, but "electing national leaders who know that Global Warming is actually happening" can go a long way.

Now, in some cases, I understand that the alternative (because there's usually the alternative) candidate is so unpalatable to you because of their other political positions.

I'm just saying that, if we're serious about this, we must rate "Does this candidate understand that Global Warming is real?" as a "Very Important Factor"(TM) in choosing your representatives. At all levels of the government.

Re: Scientists caught off-guard by record temperatures linked to climate change

#167

Post by antisthenes » Wed, Jul 27, 2016, 6:16 PM UTC

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #38

madaxe_again wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Our civilisation is a chaotically stable system - but we have already seen what even phantasmic disruption (i.e. the subprime triggered global crash) can cause, and we are already seeing the tremors of political unstability in nations where such a thing seemed unthinkable only a few years ago - and these things do not happen in a vacuum. What I'm saying is that it doesn't require every human, every bureaucrat, every…

>Our civilisation is a chaotically stable system This. Worse, it's a chaotically stable system run by people who have no idea what a chaotically stable system is, or how little change is needed for the wheels to come off. I'm not even slightly optimistic, because as a species we have evolved exactly the wrong kind of management and decision-making processes to get through this. Survival requires being able to think a…

Do you have a blog by any chance?

Re: Scientists caught off-guard by record temperatures linked to climate change

#168

Post by antisthenes » Wed, Jul 27, 2016, 6:19 PM UTC

pietrofmaggi wrote: post #48

pif wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that many people agree with you in principle, but when they start considering the cost in terms of lifestyle, than the followers start to vanish.

"Cost in terms of lifestyle" compared to what? there're studies (e.g. this report from citybank[0]) that shows that inaction is actually more expensive, taking into account the cost of the climate change disasters... Seems to me that people believe that doing nothing we will keep living in the same way. Sorry to have to wake you up. Doing nothing will screw up the planet and your (and mine) "lifestyle". The article r…

> "Cost in terms of lifestyle" compared to what?

> I have kids and this is not the future I want for them.

Why did you choose to have kids? Was not having kids an acceptable lifestyle cost for you in order to save the planet ?

Re: Scientists caught off-guard by record temperatures linked to climate change

#169

Post by pilom » Wed, Jul 27, 2016, 6:48 PM UTC

toasterlovin wrote: post #159

pilom wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"fruit and most leafy-green vegetables have a similar cost per calorie to meat. Thus, I would argue that they have about the same environmental impact as meat." Unfortunately, this is provably false. For beef, you need to grow 12,000 calories of plants to produce (i.e. feed) 1,000 calories of beef. About 8 to 1 for pork, 6 to 1 for turkey, and 5 to 1 for chicken.

The beef you buy in stores is not fed leafy green vegetables or fruit.

You're absolutely right, it is fed 12,000 calories of alfalfa. Even if alfalfa were less energy intensive to grow than leafy green vegetables, it will never be 12 times less intensive. Almonds or blueberries requiring 2x more energy per calorie than alfalfa? Mabye. Never gonna be 12 times.

Re: Scientists caught off-guard by record temperatures linked to climate change

#170

Post by colordrops » Wed, Jul 27, 2016, 7:00 PM UTC

r_smart wrote: post #98

colordrops wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are hippies and there are trend following hedonists. You are talking about the latter.

No true hippy?

Whatever the semantics and supposed logical fallacy, there are multiple groups of people that are categorized by the mainstream as "hippies", even though some of them are opposite in many ways.