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

211–220 of 242 posts

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

#211

Post by EdSharkey »

pas wrote: post #190
EdSharkey wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe "stop pollution" was always the goal and they had to crank the message to alarmist levels to get any traction. As technology progresses and we get better at keeping our local environments clean, I predict their predictions will become increasingly dire. These doomsday warnings are just a sign that we're improving.

Or, you know, that things are getting dire. We shall see who was right though.

I lived on a hill in Los Angeles in the 70's and 80's, putting me inside the regularly Stage One-alert smog layer there. It was horrible, but we cleaned up our act since then. More people live in L.A. now than ever and pollution is down. Not a dire enough situation, try again during summertime when it's hot.

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

#212

Post by DennisP »

hnsucks2 wrote: post #183
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…

>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. You say that like we couldn't just let them starve. If their descendants are going to be wiped out by global warming anyway what's the difference?

There's that word "just" again. The countries where it's happening don't want to let their people starve; you'd have to make them. You'd have to use military force to guard vast forests all over the world from hundreds of millions of desperate people. Good luck with that.

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

#213

Post by hnsucks2 »

DennisP wrote: post #212
hnsucks2 wrote: post #183

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. You say that like we couldn't just let them starve. If their descendants are going to be wiped out by global warming anyway what's the difference?

There's that word "just" again. The countries where it's happening don't want to let their people starve; you'd have to make them. You'd have to use military force to guard vast forests all over the world from hundreds of millions of desperate people. Good luck with that.

Does nerve gas harm trees?

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

#214

Post by melling »

pas wrote: post #193
melling wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to that article: "China’s coal consumption growth was responsible for more than half of global CO2 emission growth in the past 10 years." China gets over 70% of its electricity from coal. Yes, they are building more solar but it'll take over a decade for there to be significant change. Anyway, the real problem is that even if everyone somehow meets the Paris limits, it's not enough. https://www.beforetheflo…

And they're building nuclear plants too.

They currently get 2-3% of their electricity from nuclear:

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/539691/china-will-soon-le...

A 5x increase in 15-20 years gets you to 10-15%. While that's good, I don't think it's enough given the current rate of CO2 production. It's hard to complain because they're doing a lot more than everyone else. Unfortunately, we need to find a way to do more.

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

#215

Post by Tomis02 »

grzm wrote: post #156
codecamper wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Peter has invested in clean tech before. He's a technologist. He wants to live forever (on a stable climate planet). We can assume he believes in global warming.

I could be cynical and view his clean tech investments as a capitalist assessing the market, independent of his beliefs in global warming. If enough people want clean tech for whatever reason (including false beliefs in climate change), investing in clean tech can be a smart move. That said, I did find a quote that indicates he cares about the environment. Thiel told the TechCrunch Disrupt crowd that "one potential r…

"We call it climate science." Normal people call it climatology. Rhymes with biology.

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

#216

Post by pas »

EdSharkey wrote: post #211
pas wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or, you know, that things are getting dire. We shall see who was right though.

I lived on a hill in Los Angeles in the 70's and 80's, putting me inside the regularly Stage One-alert smog layer there. It was horrible, but we cleaned up our act since then. More people live in L.A. now than ever and pollution is down. Not a dire enough situation, try again during summertime when it's hot.

LA? Still terrible. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_pollution_in_the_United_St...

The air is still killing people there, even if it doesn't feel hard to breathe.

The same goes for the climate, I guess, if you don't feel it, it must be okay. But it's not.

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

#217

Post by anon1253 »

hnsucks2 wrote: post #213
DennisP wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's that word "just" again. The countries where it's happening don't want to let their people starve; you'd have to make them. You'd have to use military force to guard vast forests all over the world from hundreds of millions of desperate people. Good luck with that.

Does nerve gas harm trees?

Why not nuke metropolitan areas while you're at it? Most of the population is in the coastal cities anyway, who cares about New York, Shanghai or Mumbai. Quick fix. Or force serialization for > 60% of the world population. I mean sure, there are "solutions" but there is ethics to consider too …

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

#218

Post by hnsucks2 »

anon1253 wrote: post #217
hnsucks2 wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does nerve gas harm trees?

Why not nuke metropolitan areas while you're at it? Most of the population is in the coastal cities anyway, who cares about New York, Shanghai or Mumbai. Quick fix. Or force serialization for > 60% of the world population. I mean sure, there are "solutions" but there is ethics to consider too …

For a start, the cities you list contain many valuable people. Places doing lots of slash-and-burn farming, not so much. My original comment was a bit facetious, but if it is a civilization-ending threat (and I'm not saying it is), better to start the killing sooner when we can control who dies than collapse the whole thing and lose thousands of years of scientific and cultural progress.

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

#219

Post by pas »

mzw_mzw wrote: post #197
pas wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or, you know, that things are getting dire. We shall see who was right though.

Dire enough that the population of the United States is going to have to evacuate en masse to Canada? Really?

Of course not. But the math is pretty simple. More and bigger waves, more and bigger storms on the coasts. The sea level will rise slowly, but surely. It will take 100+ years, but it'll rise by at least 10 meters, of course if we don't do something against it. And it's not impossible to build dikes and levees, but they'd look like huge hills on the shore. Not so bad, we have plenty of time to move a lot of dirt, but maybe a few people would spend that on preventing sea level rise instead.

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

#220

Post by burkaman »

yongjik wrote: post #126
burkaman wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

I have actually heard that opinion, for example: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/09/new-york-future...

However, most people I've talked to who say "there's nothing we can do" are really saying "I think I will be dead before this is a really big problem, so fuck it".

Post reply on HN