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

Nine climate tipping points now 'active,' warn scientists

phys.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–99 of 99 posts

Re: Nine climate tipping points now 'active,' warn scientists

#91

Post by NeedMoreTea »

rayiner wrote: post #49
Lutger wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article you link to does not back up your claim about scientific consensus at all. In fact, it's rather biased and bad from that point of view.

What bias? > Michael Shellenberger is a Time Magazine “Hero of the Environment” and Green Book Award Winner. He is also a frequent contributor to The New York Times, Washington Post Additionally, the author cites and links to specific facts in IPCC and UN reports regarding population displacement, sea levels, crop yields, and economic impact.

I would rather listen to the IPCC direct from their reports, or via less biased reporting than to Michael Shellenberger. He is consistently pro nuclear, a registered lobbyist, and particularly anti renewables - often simply making stuff up to find problems in their use.

Thus he often leaves me with feeling that I have to check every citation back to source to see the part he didn't quote, or the preceding and following sentence. He has such a clear agenda I find him hard to trust on any topic.

Re: Nine climate tipping points now 'active,' warn scientists

#92

Post by NeedMoreTea »

ppf wrote: post #76
cmendel wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GP's point is that they aren't. We are looking down the barrel of a total ecological collapse, and the trigger has likely already been pulled.

I tend to agree, I was just curious where this discussion would end up. So, what should we do?

Start changing behaviour after the IPCC first report came in, in 1990. Waiting until we have not just visible, but dramatic and surprisingly early consequences is leaving taking evasive action in the car until the bodywork has started to crumple. I note that nearly all the surprises seem to be of things being far more or far sooner than predicted...

That leaves dramatic and expensive global scale action. We're not doing it. There's no sign we're thinking about doing it. Let the market resolve is the sole incredibly weak suggestion.

I don't think history is going to view citizens and politicians of the 21st century kindly. I can forgive and understand those contributing to the problem before say 1990, before the awareness was widespread. We've emitted more since 1990 than in the entire time before.

So a planetary scale game of chicken...

Re: Nine climate tipping points now 'active,' warn scientists

#93

Post by rayiner »

NeedMoreTea wrote: post #91
rayiner wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What bias? > Michael Shellenberger is a Time Magazine “Hero of the Environment” and Green Book Award Winner. He is also a frequent contributor to The New York Times, Washington Post Additionally, the author cites and links to specific facts in IPCC and UN reports regarding population displacement, sea levels, crop yields, and economic impact.

I would rather listen to the IPCC direct from their reports, or via less biased reporting than to Michael Shellenberger. He is consistently pro nuclear, a registered lobbyist, and particularly anti renewables - often simply making stuff up to find problems in their use. Thus he often leaves me with feeling that I have to check every citation back to source to see the part he didn't quote, or the preceding and followi…

He’s linking to the IPCC and UN reports he’s citing so you can just look it up.

Being anti-nuclear is a pretty good indication that you don’t think climate change is really a serious problem. France has a CO2 footprint much lower than its neighbors because it’s grid is heavily nuclear. (Right now, we don’t have the battery technology for a fully renewable grid, so countries like Germany must backup renewables with coal and gas. Also, it makes no sense to shut down nuclear plants that have already been paid for to build renewables. If climate change was really pressing, you’d keep the nuclear plant running, build the renewable resource, and shut down a coal plant instead.)

Re: Nine climate tipping points now 'active,' warn scientists

#94

Post by NeedMoreTea »

rayiner wrote: post #93
NeedMoreTea wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would rather listen to the IPCC direct from their reports, or via less biased reporting than to Michael Shellenberger. He is consistently pro nuclear, a registered lobbyist, and particularly anti renewables - often simply making stuff up to find problems in their use. Thus he often leaves me with feeling that I have to check every citation back to source to see the part he didn't quote, or the preceding and followi…

He’s linking to the IPCC and UN reports he’s citing so you can just look it up. Being anti-nuclear is a pretty good indication that you don’t think climate change is really a serious problem. France has a CO2 footprint much lower than its neighbors because it’s grid is heavily nuclear. (Right now, we don’t have the battery technology for a fully renewable grid, so countries like Germany must backup renewables with co…

Being obstinately anti-nuclear can be, though it pays to recognise the absurd costs that tend to come with nuclear electricity when you consider full lifecycle including decommissioning and waste handling. Right now we can bring renewables online cheaper and faster, though we are probably best served with a mix of both if nuclear costs can be constrained. Germany's move from already existing nuclear whilst using lignite is madness.

Being a pro-nuclear zealot who feels solar, wind, and hydro essentially has no place is as damaging and unhelpful, with as much of an agenda as anyone pro-fossil or believing climate heating isn't a problem. The man has a one issue agenda, read all his writings accordingly. shrug :)

Re: Nine climate tipping points now 'active,' warn scientists

#95

Post by BLKNSLVR »

vixen99 wrote: post #57
melonkidney wrote: post #17

One thing I find encouraging is how many people (particularly young people) are now understanding the seriousness of the climate situation. I would really like to see a public pledge from companies, universities, etc that people who risk their education/career by pushing for real change will not be disadvantaged. If anyone is interested in helping to make this a reality, shoot me an email at together@highestsupport.c…

Getting it into perspective, emissions of CO2 in the UK are now at a level last seen in 1890 and that contribution to world CO2 is around 1% with US at 16% with a bit more than half that from Europe. https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-uk-carbon-emissions-in-... https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/each-countrys-share-co2- Meanwhile it's widely understood that all major fossil fuel-producing nations—including the United…

This is how seriously Australian politicians take climate change:

https://reneweconomy.com.au/barnaby-joyce-auctions-lump-of-c...

Re: Nine climate tipping points now 'active,' warn scientists

#96

Post by dredmorbius »

threatofrain wrote: post #89
mempko wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Im sorry but, when have economists been right about anything? Economics is not a science, they just use math and big words because real scientists seem to.

Economics is a difficult phenomena but any nation or academic body which ignores it study would be severely foolish. There’s no point in bashing its scienciness.

Economics, as a discipline and organised body of knowledge, is going through a rather severe crisis of confidence. And does, periodically.

https://www.ineteconomics.org/events/the-economic-crisis-and...

Re: Nine climate tipping points now 'active,' warn scientists

#97

Post by wayoutthere »

LessDmesg wrote: post #61
wayoutthere wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The sociological impact will be immense and likely bankrupt most of the world. We're going to have to move people out of low-lying areas in a pretty short amount of time. There will be billions of refugees but the inland areas don't have the infrastructure or water sources to absorb that many people. There will be food shortages as farmable land becomes inundated or dries up. Wars will happen as desperate people / na…

Sounds like fearmongering with no basis. There are lots of areas which would benefit from warming and become food producers (Siberia and Canada come to mind). As for Southeast Asians: they're already used to living on water, with stilt houses, rice terraces etc. Humans can cope, as tgey always have. Overall, there will be more water, more warmth and more civilization.

Sure, individual humans will cope with change the best they can, but in the absence of coordinated effort they’re just refugees.

Refugees aren’t bad people, but they are desperate. They will not abide by your country’s rule of law if it means they starve as a result.

The global political environment is actively hostile to coordinated climate action. Without that, we’re just going to see a series of uncontrolled crises spilling over into neighboring nations as countries fight over limited and shifting resource patterns.

Re: Nine climate tipping points now 'active,' warn scientists

#98

Post by shkkmo »

ppf wrote: post #87
shkkmo wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are the one who made a strong assertion that the potential for extinction caused by rapid global warming is less than what humans have already caused. I made relatively few assertions and the ones I did make are basic ecological science. I was pointing out that your strong claim was irresponsible given the plausible possibilities and our limited knowledge.

Not quite. I made the assertion that the ecological damage humans have already caused is much worse than that caused so far by current climate change. We both agree that predicting the further change in climate and its ecological impact is very difficult.

> I made the assertion that the ecological damage humans have already caused is much worse than that caused so far by current climate change.

Take a look again at what you are responding too and what you said, it is not at all clear that we're were contrasting past effects on diversity. Indeed, given the topic of the the prospective of rapid global warming causing it is unclear what relevency that point would have.

Re: Nine climate tipping points now 'active,' warn scientists

#99

Post by arrrg »

chatmasta wrote: post #79
RickJWagner wrote: post #78

" around 10 metres of irreversible sea-level rise. Reducing emissions could slow this process, allowing more time for low-lying populations to move." This seems like hyperbole to me. I'll be glad to buy Hawaiin real estate (at an appropriate discount, of course) to show my sincerity. Any sellers? Seriously, articles of this kind are so over the top that they cause mental fatigue for the issue and de-emphasize climate…

President Obama seems to agree with you, as he recently bought a mansion on the beach in Martha’s Vineyard. It’s hard to take climate alarmism seriously when its proponents are taking actions like that.

Barack Obama is a boring, middle of the road, centrist as hell politician.

He is as much a “proponent” of climate change as, say, Angela Merkel. Which is to say, not all that much. He cares a little bit but not that much.

Also, he’s rich and for rich people the risk of sea level rise is dramatically lower because they can fight for their little corner either through technological means or they can just move away and it’s not an existential threat to them, no matter what they do.

Post reply on HN