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

121–130 of 242 posts

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

#121

Post by enraged_camel »

NumberCruncher wrote: post #105
sqeaky wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Moral is a human construct and as such it is subjective. Anyhow, I said that the life on earth survived a couple of disastrous events and still flourishes. Life will flourish wether the coast is under water or not. There were times when there wasn't any coast at all, or it was somewhere else. And does it really make a difference? You won't see anything of the war of resources except you live for 200 years. You may ta…

>>Life will flourish wether the coast is under water or not.

Life may flourish, but many lives won't.

>>And does it really make a difference?

It does make a huge difference to the 44 percent of humanity that lives on coastal areas.

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

#122

Post by anon1253 »

DennisP wrote: post #107
sqeaky wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Carbon sequestering is not as hard as it would seem. We have several technologies, but we can also just plant trees.

First we'd have to stop the massive deforestation that's happening right now. A lot of that is for agriculture, so we'd have to find another way to feed those people. We might also want to stop clearcutting vast forests in the Southeastern U.S. to ship wood pellets to Europe, which burns them. Then we'd have to save the rest of our existing forests, many of which are struggling due to various effects of climate chang…

All true, but "the scale of it all" will be truly mind boggling whatever we do, or don't do. Solving this problem will require engineering on a scale never seen before, failure to act will result in losses on a scale never seen before. So it's not a choice about scale, it's a choice about the survival of civilization.

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

#123

Post by api »

barneygumble742 wrote: post #98
zanny wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 c…

I've seen lots of comparisons of Trump and Hitler, Mussolini, or Franco. Personally I'm seeing more parallels to Hugo Chavez.

Chavez wrecked Venezuela in part by trying to "purge the insiders." That never works. Problem is that the insiders know everything and have all the skills and expertise.

Chavez was a left-populist and Trump is a right-populist, but history seems to show similar outcomes for populists of any type.

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

#124

Post by derrickdirge »

botexpert wrote: post #66
strictnein wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> are pushing harder than anyone to get away from dirty power. Where do you gather that from? They use more coal than the entirety of the rest of the world combined. Their coal usage has more than doubled over the past ~15 years. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/26/business/energy-environmen...

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jun/20/chinas-meat-co... This too, additional to other links. Meat consumption has a huge carbon footprint. Their government institutions see the problem and invent guidelines. We'll see the same stuff from the USA, most likely never.

>We'll see the same stuff from the USA, most likely never.

So at what point does the rest of the world intervene?

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

#125

Post by DennisP »

anon1253 wrote: post #122
DennisP wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First we'd have to stop the massive deforestation that's happening right now. A lot of that is for agriculture, so we'd have to find another way to feed those people. We might also want to stop clearcutting vast forests in the Southeastern U.S. to ship wood pellets to Europe, which burns them. Then we'd have to save the rest of our existing forests, many of which are struggling due to various effects of climate chang…

All true, but "the scale of it all" will be truly mind boggling whatever we do, or don't do. Solving this problem will require engineering on a scale never seen before, failure to act will result in losses on a scale never seen before. So it's not a choice about scale, it's a choice about the survival of civilization.

I completely agree. My only argument was with the word "just." It's a massive problem, and if we were a rational civilization we would be doing everything possible right now, before it's too late. It should be as high a priority as if a civilization-ending asteroid were on a collision course with the Earth.

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

#126

Post by yongjik »

burkaman wrote: post #97
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"?

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.

However, if it's-too-laters really hold that opinion, they will also oppose (among other things) development of affected areas, because those areas are a foregone conclusion. For example, they will oppose any new buildings (at least major urban developments) in low coastal areas such as Manhattan, (part of) San Francisco, or Miami. Such projects are a waste of resource in the same way reducing CO2 emission is, and they will make relocation much more costly when the inevitable happens.

Funnily enough, I don't hear that opinion often, which makes me suspect that most people just want an excuse to keep their lifestyle unchanged.

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

#127

Post by [deleted] »

api wrote: post #123
barneygumble742 wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 c…

I've seen lots of comparisons of Trump and Hitler, Mussolini, or Franco. Personally I'm seeing more parallels to Hugo Chavez. Chavez wrecked Venezuela in part by trying to "purge the insiders." That never works. Problem is that the insiders know everything and have all the skills and expertise. Chavez was a left-populist and Trump is a right-populist, but history seems to show similar outcomes for populists of any ty…

[deleted]

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

#128

Post by dharma1 »

spacehacker wrote: post #109
dharma1 wrote: post #56

This graph of global sea ice area is kind of alarming: https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-JX41K2UK6Io/WCvyXQ6CFvI/AAAAAAAAW... More info: http://arctic-news.blogspot.co.uk/

Fortunately, sea ice does not contribute much to the sea level because it displaces about the same volume it will add when melted.

Yep, but it does have other negative effects. https://www.carbonbrief.org/five-reasons-why-the-speed-of-ar...

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

#129

Post by nhaehnle »

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 and upvoted your comment for the discussion and thought it encourages. However, realistically speaking it's extremely unlikely that Trump thinks like that. All the evidence points towards him being extremely incompetent, even completely misunderstanding the extent of the office he's been elected for. He's not the guy to pull off smart conspiracies.

The clearest evidence for this is his repeated emphasis on increasing the use of coal and oil. Even if you believe massive global upheaval of societies can no longer be avoided, burning more coal and oil is still going to hurt you.

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

#130

Post by TheSpiceIsLife »

barneygumble742 wrote: post #38
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 comes down to the DOD having a serious talk with Trump. They have been taking it just as seriously as the EPA.

That's it.

I'm keen to see how Trump evolves as his presidency progresses.

Let's see how he goes after the DoD and other TLAs[1] have told him how it's going to be.

1. Three Letter Agencies

Post reply on HN