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

#191

Post by pif » Thu, Jul 28, 2016, 8:24 AM UTC

RodericDay wrote: post #125

pif wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I really am happier as a result of what I'm doing. I'm sincerely glad for you, but how much of your current happiness comes from the challenge that you posed yourself and you won? In other terms, how much effort are you putting every day in your (fully respectable) cause? > Can everybody be as happy as me with as little as me? I'm not sure. Me neither. It looks to me as you chose to be happier via ecology. Most peo…

> Most people have already chosen how they wish to be happier, and giving up cheap energy is just a huge roadblock for them. this sounds like total resignation. how about challenging those people on their choices?

Are we talking about the same people who always buy the cheapest thing while complaining that jobs left abroad? Good luck with that!

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

#192

Post by pif » Thu, Jul 28, 2016, 8:27 AM UTC

mikekchar wrote: post #185

pif wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I really am happier as a result of what I'm doing. I'm sincerely glad for you, but how much of your current happiness comes from the challenge that you posed yourself and you won? In other terms, how much effort are you putting every day in your (fully respectable) cause? > Can everybody be as happy as me with as little as me? I'm not sure. Me neither. It looks to me as you chose to be happier via ecology. Most peo…

I think the big thing that surprised me was that I put in less effort on average. The absolutely biggest thing was getting rid of the car. A car enables you to go 100 km out of your way and cram your life full of complicated stuff. I can't do that any more, so I am much more relaxed ;-) Hanging the clothes is another interesting one. We wash the clothes every day in the morning. The washing machine uses surprisingly…

Thanks for your reply! I don't share some of your opinions, but I appreciate your coherence. Up-vote ;-)

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

#193

Post by sdoering » Thu, Jul 28, 2016, 8:47 AM UTC

CWuestefeld wrote: post #106

sdoering wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is, that if it isn't anthropomorphic, then there is (at least in some peoples' minds) nothing to do about it and we can safely ignore it. We can keep doing our stuff without second thoughts. So "finger pointing" to humanity isn't that bad of a tactic to get things done.

You seem to be arguing that if there were an asteroid that's going to collide with the earth, we would all ignore it.

Funny, how you (tried to) turn my argument on it's head. I never argued for ignorance. I just stated, that this is what lot's of people do, when stating, that climate change is not manmade.

No, we should look at it, we should deal with it (in the best possible way) regardless of it being manmade or not. The anthropogenic part of the argument shouldn't have any weight at all in the decision to act or not to act (I am for acting).

It only should play a role in understanding the causes so to better fight the effects.

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

#194

Post by throwanem » Thu, Jul 28, 2016, 11:05 AM UTC

Chathamization wrote: post #158

throwanem wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you for making my point for me. Here in the US, we're not constrained by fuel shortages, and we don't have to make ourselves beholden to a potentially hostile foreign state in order to take advantage of the AP-1000 design. We also have the world's broadest and deepest reservoir of institutional knowledge on the subject of nuclear power - a technology invented in the United States, and which we have arguably dev…

> building a response that relies entirely on ill-tested, seasonally variable, and enormously inefficient power generation methods to supply life-critical baseload power. Many nuclear advocates seem to share this misconception. Fighting climate change is not about simply switching all power generation to one and only one alternative source. It's not about whether we are going to rely 100% on nuclear or 100% on solar,…

>This ignores the economic and construction issues that nuclear plants have.

Engineering problems with known solutions, were we only to implement them.

> There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding by some about what the fight against climate change actually entails.

If that's so, it's a result of the rhetoric employed by many on the conventional, non-nuclear anti-AGW side. For example, you're the first person I've ever heard espouse this kind of incrementalism on CO2 figures. For most rhetoric on the subject, "apocalyptic" is not too strong a term.

I think a lot of nuclear advocates adopt their position on the basis that it's the most effective available response if things really are that bad. And then we get confused when people would rather keep technologies that spew filth constantly into the air, instead of accepting a very slight increased risk of localized and contained industrial accidents which are costly but not deadly. (Yeah, I know: Chernobyl and Fukushima. No one is proposing we build RBMKs in the US, and unlike Japan, if we want to build 2nd-gen BWRs safe from tsunamis, we have ample inland territory on which to do so.) If it's a choice between nuclear power and civilizational collapse involving megadeaths, that seems like a no-brainer. If it's not such a choice, it's fair to ask why so many people have done so much to make it seem so.

Honestly, I think the environmental movement has shot itself in the foot here in a huge way. Decades of painting nuclear power as Satan incarnate has made it politically impossible, indeed unthinkable, to include new, safe nuclear as the foundation of a strategy addressing AGW with a truly sustainable generation architecture, so what we're left with is quarter measures and cheese-paring fractionalism - changing lightbulbs to save the world.

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

#195

Post by LeanderK » Thu, Jul 28, 2016, 4:43 PM UTC

Noseshine wrote: post #33

LeanderK wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

why not engage actively in an NGO fighting to battle climate change? Most of them have developed ties to the government where they can really push for a certain agenda and have a realistic chance of success. Most of the major cities (in the west, idk about the other parts of the world) have their own small NGOs, but there is always greenpeace etc. They need support on the streets, but also help with their infrastruct…

That doesn't really answer the question though. You merely named a proxy - what you can do is support that other guy . It doesn't say what that other guy - the NGO - is supposed to do, it merely presupposes that the NGOs know what they are doing, without saying anything about what that is in concrete terms. I don't consider anything along the lines of "raising awareness" an answer, so just increasing the size of the…

well, i have worked for a year in an environmental NGO, so here is my view to your arguments:

First, i think raising awareness is very important. I know its frustrating and seems like an endless battle, but it's the only sustainable route. Also i think its working, when i compare myself to my parents or grandparents the environmental consciousness increased (at least in germany). They bike to work, many even don't own a car, they think about their footprint when they buy groceries, they support public transport instead of highways (and in some areas even accept a worse driving experience for better public transport) etc.

"Of course, which path forward still matters, but "use less energy" is the path back." Well Germanys energy consumption peaked 1979 (i think) because of efficiency. Also the discussion is not about the amount of energy, but the environmental impact of the energy.

now about "supporting the other guy". NGOs do much more then raising awareness, for example they employ experts that monitor the government and the industry. They help develop legislature, they lobby, they investigate etc. They have knowledge you and i can not gain, because it is impossible for an single human being to study so much topics and gather so much experience. Look at it like you want to disrupt the automotive industry, you can't do it...at least not alone ;) You need to assemble a team, raise capital and spread awareness of your masterplan while researching your secret, disruptive technology. Since most of the people here are located in 'merica, i don't know exactly what the situation is over there, but here in germany every city have their own NGOs and they need help. Every kind of help, from replacing their shitty website to creating interactive campaign pages etc. Also there is a lot of room for ideas to create nonprofit startups with. In munich, germany there is even an incubator-like facility (impact-hub) to help nonprofit and for-profit startups that pursue ideas that help the people, environment etc.

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

#196

Post by staticelf » Fri, Jul 29, 2016, 8:44 AM UTC

toasterlovin wrote: post #109

uhtred wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good on you. I've drastically reduced the amount of meat I eat to about once a week, for many reasons including environmental. I feel western society almost worships meat (especially in America - bacon, anyone?) and links it to masculinity. I think most people would rather watch the world burn than give up meat.

To my mind, if you are concerned about your impact on the environment, what kind of food you eat is not nearly as important as how much money you spend. It's a coarse grained rule of thumb, but money basically represents a share of the world's abundance. When you spend money, you are claiming a part of that abundance for yourself. And the more you spend, the larger share you are claiming. So if you eat a vegetarian m…

> So if you eat a vegetarian meal at a restaurant at $40, that is worse for the environment than eating $10 worth of meat at home.

This is just so completely false and what you are really doing is trying to simplify it too much.

Sure if the vegetarian meal was grown where there used to be a rain forest, flown across the world and driven in trucks then maybe it would be worse for the environment than a small local farm that don't have a lot of animals would.

But that is _never_ the case and to get that $10 meat the meat have to eat a lot more than my vegetarian meal. Everything is of course depending on the conditions, but there is no need for any denial on how bad meat production is for the environment. It is unsustainable for the humans to eat as much meat as we do today.

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

#197

Post by pietrofmaggi » Fri, Jul 29, 2016, 1:00 PM UTC

danieltillett wrote: post #189

antisthenes wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "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 ?

Unfortunately unless everyone stops having kids it is not going to help. I would argue that what the world needs is more thoughtful people and that thoughtful people should be having more children.

Well, if everybody stops having kids (everybody), saving the planet will not be a problem for a long time, at least for human kind :-)

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

#198

Post by madaxe_again » Sat, Jul 30, 2016, 12:10 PM UTC

pilom wrote: post #152

madaxe_again wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And even some products which supposedly provide free apples are made with apples, and require themselves to be used beyond their serviceable lifetime to provide more apples than went into making them. In short, we either need a radical new source of apples, or we need to find a way to use far fewer apples.

Pulling away from the metaphor for a moment, I was under the impression that with today's technology (not the panels of 20 years ago), solar panels take about 4 years to produce as much power as it took to manufacture them and then service lives of 25 years minimum. I'm honestly curious, do you have a source?

Most of today's renewable technologies have decent energy buy-back times - this is in part due to improvements in materials, and in part due to manufacturing infrastructure energy investment being paid off - and of course the increasing use of renewable energy for the manufacture of renewable energy production goods.

That all said, a lot of what is currently installed will probably never see energy buy-back. Rather, we have to look upon a lot of existing renewable investment as just that - investment - for this has paved the way for actually energy positive renewable energy technology, which we now have, and seem poised to squander.