Live data from Hacker News

Climate models are running red hot, and scientists don’t know why

bloomberg.com

331–332 of 332 posts

Re: Climate models are running red hot, and scientists don’t know why

#331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not to rain on your parade, but programs like this from big power companies are essentially meant to allow customers to feel good while simultaneously not going through the work and cost of switching completely to renewable power. That's because the power companies want to keep people from developing competition to them... if enough individuals install solar plants with battery storage, eventually they power company…

The idea is that a CO2 tax will never be implemented. Instead of doing nothing the best thing you could possibly do is to self impose a CO2 tax on yourself. If politicians finally decide to implement a CO2 tax you've already prepared yourself and won't see a significant increase.

That's exactly the way my wife and I saw it. Our provincial government removed the tax on Jan 1 2019. We just simply self imposed the tax.

Re: Climate models are running red hot, and scientists don’t know why

#332
post #3

Well, politicians aren't doing anything anyway, whether the models predict catastrophe or CATASTROPHE. Already according to the 3° sensitivity predictions we would need an effort that rivals WW2 to stay below 1.5°. Yet major countries are led by climate denialists.

Why is a 1.5° maximum a target that should be aimed for? William Nordhaus says a 3.5° maximum is the optimal target. His models show that a 3.5° maximum would result in a net benefit of 30 trillion whereas a 2.5° maximum would be a detriment of 50 trillion[1]. That is to say the reduction in damage would be far less than the cost of implementing such a policy. The cost for a 1.5° maximum target would be even more sev…

This is what the IPCC has to say about this: https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/chapter-3/
Post reply on HN