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

Global warming: The state of the climate in 2016

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 242 posts

Re: Global warming: The state of the climate in 2016

#71

Post by sqeaky »

NumberCruncher wrote: post #47
sqeaky wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On a geological timescale we are in a cooling trend, but what non-biased source grants credence to the idea that CO2 and Methane aren't warming things right now in greater amounts? It seems entirely reasonable that anthropogenic climate change is a bigger deal than ice ages and we could prevent one.

Having a higher CO2 or methan level for 100 years is on a geological timescale a rounding error. There were times in earth history (vulcano eruptions, meteor impacts) where life had to face a rapid and drastic climate change. And we are still here.

I think you are unaware of the scope of the problem. (also I did not and cannot downvote you)

The amount of life and species lost to human activities already makes the past few thousand years a major extinction event in line with the 5 other major ones. With this fact in mind taking the stance that this is OK because "life had to face a rapid and drastic climate change" is the moral equivalent of saying killing most of the life is OK because it happened before. That is morally repugnant. I do not think are morally repugnant so I must presume you are unaware of the facts I just presented.

CO2 stays in the atmosphere a long time. If we keep putting there permanently. If we kill ourselves (not with CO2 but with wars caused by the resource availability changes caused by climate change) then what happens during our "rounding error" many will still be dead.

The planet will probably be fine, the Bay of Texas will probably be fine and my newly made beachfront property in Omaha will be damn fine. If you live on a coast, get most of your goods by boat or live in one of the areas that will tear itself apart in useless resource wars then the eventual cooling trend doesn't help you and has no place in this discussion.

Re: Global warming: The state of the climate in 2016

#72

Post by jackmott »

Shivetya wrote: post #25
jamesblonde wrote: post #3

The canary in the coalmine for global warming is Arctic sea ice. It is melting at an alarming rate, and we can expect an ice-free (>1m sq km of sea ice) Arctic in the summer within a decade or two (or 3-4 years if recent trends continue!). There's a small active community who follow this. We tend to hang out here - a HN level of polite discussion goes on: http://neven1.typepad.com/

well fortunately the Antarctic is gaining mass, so things happen. We are still only 12k years out an ice age and learning as we go. Natural variability is quite boring so it doesn't make headlines as much as it should. the real reality is that the Paris agreement is a horrid piece of do nothing legislation that lets the major developing powers do what they want all the while getting the nod of acceptance from the UN…

No, there is an Antarctic ice sheet that is gaining mass. As a whole, Antarctica is losing ice mass. As is the case for global ice mass balance. Chart of satellite gravity measurements for Antarctica: http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Antarctica_Ice_Mass.g...

Re: Global warming: The state of the climate in 2016

#73

Post by jdavis703 »

zelon88 wrote: post #67
snowwrestler wrote: post #60

I don't actually believe this, but it occurred to me the other day as a funny way to look at a very sad situation: What if Trump does believe global warming is real, but recognizes that we're too late to stop its worst effects? What if he expects the world to go to hell over the next 50 years and is focused on protecting the U.S. specifically? What would he do? He'd build a wall across the lower border of the U.S. to…

I like that the theory has to assume that Canada is just naturally expected to take in American refugees while Mexico can go screw itself. With such ignorant American exceptionalism it's no wonder why we haven't fixed global warming yet.

You do realize a plurality of American voters voted for Hillary Clinton? She's leading by margins larger than Kennedy and Nixon.

Edited to use correct terminology.

Re: Global warming: The state of the climate in 2016

#74

Post by jhobag »

snowwrestler wrote: post #60

I don't actually believe this, but it occurred to me the other day as a funny way to look at a very sad situation: What if Trump does believe global warming is real, but recognizes that we're too late to stop its worst effects? What if he expects the world to go to hell over the next 50 years and is focused on protecting the U.S. specifically? What would he do? He'd build a wall across the lower border of the U.S. to…

thank you for writing down what's been going through my head for the past 2 years

Re: Global warming: The state of the climate in 2016

#75

Post by grzm »

jdavis703 wrote: post #73
zelon88 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like that the theory has to assume that Canada is just naturally expected to take in American refugees while Mexico can go screw itself. With such ignorant American exceptionalism it's no wonder why we haven't fixed global warming yet.

You do realize a plurality of American voters voted for Hillary Clinton? She's leading by margins larger than Kennedy and Nixon. Edited to use correct terminology.

I understand your point, but plurality ≠ majority.

Plurality is more votes than any other candidate.

Majority means more than 50% of the vote.

This doesn't detract from the point you're trying to make, but it is inaccurate. You strengthen your argument by using the appropriate word.

Re: Global warming: The state of the climate in 2016

#76

Post by jules »

kristopolous wrote: post #30
papercrane wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

China is convinced.[1] The American public is convinced, although not as much as they probably should be.[2][3][4] The problem here is to convince world leaders to actually do something. [1] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-16/china-tell... [2] http://climatepublicopinion.stanford.edu/sample-page/opinion... [3] https://environment.yale.edu/poe/v2014/ [4] http://www.gallup.com/poll/190010/concern-global-…

Biggest problem is that climate change aggressively challenges many foundations of capitalism and consumerism. That's a religion to some people. And this is akin to changing it.

Capitalism has been and will be an essential ingredient to solve the problem and switch to other sources of energy. The issue is that the costs to the global environment are not borne by the polluters. Put a price tag on pollution and the market will do the best it can.

Re: Global warming: The state of the climate in 2016

#77

Post by tomelders »

clumsysmurf wrote: post #15

"Convincing Mr Trump of this fact is now an urgent and daunting challenge." By appointing Myron Ebell to lead the transition at the EPA, Mr Trump has made it clear he's made up his mind. Personnel is policy.

However it is a top priority for the pentagon. Since Trump is the kind of guy that adopts the position of the last person he spoke to, one hopes the pentagon will step up their game and scare him into taking the drastic measures needed.

Trump supporters are usually the most vocal opponents to the climate change campaign, but like all people they will perform mental gymnastics to agree with their champion for a linited amount of time.

Through that (albeit ridiculously optimistic) lens, it's a golden opportunity.

Re: Global warming: The state of the climate in 2016

#78

Post by tomelders »

clumsysmurf wrote: post #15

"Convincing Mr Trump of this fact is now an urgent and daunting challenge." By appointing Myron Ebell to lead the transition at the EPA, Mr Trump has made it clear he's made up his mind. Personnel is policy.

However it is a top priority for the pentagon. Since Trump is the kind of guy that adopts the position of the last person he spoke to, one hopes the pentagon will step up their game and scare him into taking the drastic measures needed.

Trump supporters are usually the most vocal opponents to the climate change campaign, but like all people they will perform mental gymnastics to agree with their champion for a linited amount of time.

Through that (albeit ridiculously optimistic) lens, it's a golden opportunity.

Re: Global warming: The state of the climate in 2016

#80

Post by madaxe_again »

snowwrestler wrote: post #60

I don't actually believe this, but it occurred to me the other day as a funny way to look at a very sad situation: What if Trump does believe global warming is real, but recognizes that we're too late to stop its worst effects? What if he expects the world to go to hell over the next 50 years and is focused on protecting the U.S. specifically? What would he do? He'd build a wall across the lower border of the U.S. to…

I do. At any rate, I do in the case of world leaders and the actions of states over the last decades. Or at any rate I'd like to believe I do.

Virtually everything has been consistent with preparing for the worst case climate disaster. You might think that if we knew it was unavoidable it might comprise protecting populations in cities and so-forth by building huge coastal works, or moving populations, or other such huge projects, but were you to do something so overt you would instill mass panic and bring about a preemptive disaster. No. You would play a very subtle hand.

You would tighten border security, and normalise surveillance and the idea of searches, scans, and armed police.

You would instill a fear of refugees and migrants - this makes it far easier down the line when we hear how many hundreds of millions are in "temporary accommodation". They're far off. They're different to us. Callousness is a survival attribute, if the suddenly popular zombie horror and post apocalyptic genres tell us anything.

You'd saturate popular media with programmes in favour of securitised states, and which deal with unmanageable mindless hordes that need mowing down for the greater good.

You'd engage in wars which build a security apparatus and provide a distraction, while simultaneously feeding your black budgets for the preservation of the, hm, economically and socially valuable sectors of society and technology.

You hold hope around the idea of escape to another world to keep those whom might act problematically mollified until it's too late.

In your end game you start moving your population. Again, you don't want it done in chaotic panic, so you do it piecemeal. A move to the political right, you send your liberal elite scarpering to new climes, and while they're at it they pick places that they think will be mitigated against climate change because they think it might be a problem in their lives. A bit of civil unrest, more leave. Start a war. People flee. People die. Those without the means to flee get left behind - remember that desensitisation bit, and the whole concentrating upwards of wealth - if you wanted to design a system that would leave the majority of humanity unempowered and in the lurch if it all gets climatic, but give the "economically productive elite" a fire escape, you'd build it like what we have today.

I don't actually believe this either (although it would almost be comforting to, as it provides an explanation of sorts for the world), but I do wonder what home truths made Obama want to jump after his security briefings eight years ago - and that DoD report from a while back about the defence (civil and national) implications of climate change revealed a sobering level of thought has already gone into some rather dire possibilities.

It's a fairly crap hypothesis as one can't readily prove or disprove it.

Post reply on HN