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

91–100 of 242 posts

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

#91

Post by [deleted] »

ced wrote: post #89
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…

recognizes that we're too late to stop its worst effects I see this sentiment a lot on HN these days. What's the reasoning behind it? If the temperature in my room increases, I'll go from feeling uncomfortable, to sweating profusely, to fainting, to death. Is there any scientific reason to believe that, say, a 4C increase gives us horrible outcomes, but a 8C increase will be "not much worse"?

[deleted]

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

#92

Post by hueving »

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.

>You do realize a plurality of American voters voted for Hillary Clinton

Nobody cares. Both candidate vote totals combined don't even make up the majority of the US population.

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

#93

Post by maxerickson »

hbt wrote: post #69
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'm glad I'm not the only one who thought this. No one has a solution for climate change that doesn't involve changing personal habits. People don't want to do that. Eating less meat or a carbon tax (i.e taxing the working poor) is not a solution. It's admitting defeat. People don't need to "believe in climate change". We simply need to build a solution that is much better than what they have available now. What that…

Wind is almost 5% of US electric production.

Solar is finally ready to make a difference (look at the last 5 years of the table: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_the_United_Stat... ).

Adding 0.3% of generation each year isn't fast enough, but it's ridiculous to say that no one knows how to execute a move towards clean electricity and that it can barely make a difference.

And batteries are almost there as far as being affordable storage.

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

#94

Post by Pica_soO »

jameskilton wrote: post #6
buckbova wrote: post #2

> According to research published last year, spending a day in Beijing is currently akin to smoking almost 40 cigarettes. Decoupling emissions from economic growth thus helps both people and planet. Convincing Mr Trump of this fact is now an urgent and daunting challenge. How is convincing Trump here the answer? Isn't convincing China more important? How about convincing the American people? Do this and politicians w…

I'm confused with this statement but I'll try to clear up something you seem to be missing. 1) China is already convinced. It's in the article. They are the world-leading user of solar power and are pushing harder than anyone to get away from dirty power. 2) Trump wants to push and invest in dirty power. He wants to significantly increase the production of coal and gas. The very stuff that causes global warming. Conv…

The problem is that these green energy politics are working within a artesic system of problems, meaning if you start for example the massive creation of bio-ethanol- you destroy by demand and supply jungle in other countrys (freeing carbon dioxide) and unleash social unrest (due to starvation - Egypt, Africa and the south America). The cost of re stabilization, eats via tax into the economy but is unable to reach the cost-creator, creating cascading instability's as the burden is shifted upon those who are unable to evade it.

Solar is fine though, once it paid back its energy production debt. I think bio-fuels should be taxed for the undoing of the distributed damage.

Mixed feelings never make for good punchlines :.)

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

#95

Post by maxerickson »

blondie9x wrote: post #28
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.

It's too bad Americans cannot vote for some of the most prominent cabinet members the way they vote for President/Vice-President. Many of these appointees will have a more direct impact on people's lives but yet they have no say in who will represent them. Democracy?

We have representatives that do that. The prominent cabinet members have to make it through the Senate.

Rand Paul has already come out publicly against a couple of names floated for Secretary of State and is making noise that 2 or 3 other Senators (enough) are also concerned.

I don't really like Rand Paul, but at the moment I'm pretty glad that he actually has a coherent and strong ideology.

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

#96

Post by mike10010100 »

stouset wrote: post #90
ced wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

recognizes that we're too late to stop its worst effects I see this sentiment a lot on HN these days. What's the reasoning behind it? If the temperature in my room increases, I'll go from feeling uncomfortable, to sweating profusely, to fainting, to death. Is there any scientific reason to believe that, say, a 4C increase gives us horrible outcomes, but a 8C increase will be "not much worse"?

4˙C is already reaching an extinction-level event for humanity.

Not really for humanity directly. We'd survive. But the plants and animals we depend on probably wouldn't have a very good time, and our biodiversity as a planet would significantly decrease.

Not quite extinction level, perhaps another Great Dying, though.

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

#97

Post by burkaman »

ced wrote: post #89
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…

recognizes that we're too late to stop its worst effects I see this sentiment a lot on HN these days. What's the reasoning behind it? If the temperature in my room increases, I'll go from feeling uncomfortable, to sweating profusely, to fainting, to death. Is there any scientific reason to believe that, say, a 4C increase gives us horrible outcomes, but a 8C increase will be "not much worse"?

I think the warming itself is not really the biggest problem, it's the secondary effects like rising sea levels, increased natural disasters, etc. So for example if it's too late to stop coastal cities from being flooded, twice that much sea level rise is not much worse, because all the important cities and infrastructure are already gone.

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

#98

Post by barneygumble742 »

zanny wrote: post #88
barneygumble742 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It comes down to the DOD having a serious talk with Trump. They have been taking it just as seriously as the EPA.

This is from the man who thinks that US generals are inept and don't understand ISIS. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-Mjy9ETtRY I'm not sure how hes supposed to give a damn what they say.

I know. In the past whether it was a republican or a democrat administration, they have always taken the counsel of the DOD very seriously. But like many things after this consequential election, the country is in uncharted territory. The US has always had a president with past government leadership or military experience.

U.S.C. Article Two, Section 1 needs changes but that won't happen with constitutional purists currently in power.

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

#99

Post by cel1ne »

ced wrote: post #89
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…

recognizes that we're too late to stop its worst effects I see this sentiment a lot on HN these days. What's the reasoning behind it? If the temperature in my room increases, I'll go from feeling uncomfortable, to sweating profusely, to fainting, to death. Is there any scientific reason to believe that, say, a 4C increase gives us horrible outcomes, but a 8C increase will be "not much worse"?

> I see this sentiment a lot on HN these days. What's the reasoning behind it?

By concluding it's too late, one does not have to feel bad for not doing anything about it. Humans are simple that way.

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

#100

Post by [deleted] »

zanny wrote: post #88
barneygumble742 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It comes down to the DOD having a serious talk with Trump. They have been taking it just as seriously as the EPA.

This is from the man who thinks that US generals are inept and don't understand ISIS. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-Mjy9ETtRY I'm not sure how hes supposed to give a damn what they say.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN