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

US-Canada heatwave 'virtually impossible' without warming

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 224 posts

Re: US-Canada heatwave 'virtually impossible' without warming

#61

Post by chrisco255 »

necrotic_comp wrote: post #11
chrisco255 wrote: post #4

Not only is it possible but the worst heat waves on record were experienced in the 1930s: https://www.weather.gov/arx/heat_jul36

What I don't understand is what people who argue against climate change stand to gain. The argument for climate change is: "humans are polluting the planet and it's causing a change in the environment and will have a disastrous effect on the climate." The arguments I hear against climate change always seem to concede that humans are polluting the planet, but argue in different ways (natural cycle/not really happening…

What I don't understand is people who deny climate history. Facts are facts.

Re: US-Canada heatwave 'virtually impossible' without warming

#62

Post by jokoon »

mrob wrote: post #46
jokoon wrote: post #23

I'm starting to think that governments and people will be unable to fight CO2 emissions for several reasons: * Reducing living standards is counter intuitive when consumerism is the norm, in France the Yellow Vests movement showed that it's very difficult to tax carbon if it punish poor people. Inequality and carbon emissions are deeply intertwined. * People will just consume, feel guilty, maybe take some individual…

>it's very difficult to tax carbon if it punish poor people. Inequality and carbon emissions are deeply intertwined. The atmosphere belongs equally to everybody, so polluters should pay compensation to everybody. The only practicable implementation of this is a carbon tax and dividend. And rich people tend to pollute more, so it will make poor people better off.

> And rich people tend to pollute more, so it will make poor people better off.

In the long term, poor people will be better off, yes, but not in the short term.

I'm not convinced. Carbon improves the living standard of everybody. Even a fair and progressive carbon tax will hit poor people harder in relative terms. So even if it hits rich people harder, it will much unpleasant on poor people than it will be on poor people.

To give an example, removing 5% of the income of poor people is much more unpleasant that removing 30% of the income of rich people, for plenty of reasons that are explained in studies on inequality.

So I don't disagree that rich people pollute more and will be taxed a lot, but it doesn't change the fact that poor people having been benefitting from CO2 emissions, so the 30% of rich people, as individuals and not corporations, are not responsible for the majority of CO2 emissions.

Cutting the emissions of corporations will also affect poor people in unpleasant ways.

Re: US-Canada heatwave 'virtually impossible' without warming

#64

Post by iso1631 »

sgpl wrote: post #39

I've been cranking up my AC and adding ice to my water to combat the heat but I recently read an article about sea-life [0] boiling to death in their natural habitats (oceans, seas) which made me realize that animals in the wild increasingly don't have this option. It made me really sad to think about the fact that we'll probably see mass-extinction events (for animals, etc.) in the near future or at least within my…

> I've been cranking up my AC

What is your power source?

Re: US-Canada heatwave 'virtually impossible' without warming

#65

Post by pseudalopex »

ipaddr wrote: post #24
jameshart wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The dust bowl heatwaves are not a good argument against the idea that human activity can have dramatic climate impacts in a short time, though.

I don't the parent is attacking global warming. The headline doesn't lineup with past temp records. Is there something in a dust bowl heatwave that could help explain why it is virtually impossible when it clearly isn't? When something like global warming become a religion any comment perceived as attacking itself no matter how innocent and truthful will bring out zealots looking to defend their faith. I think we sho…

The 1936 records were lower. They were in a different region with different climate. And human activity was part of why they happened.

Re: US-Canada heatwave 'virtually impossible' without warming

#66

Post by irthomasthomas »

UncleMeat wrote: post #42
irthomasthomas wrote: post #40

I thought we where not supposed to conflate weather and climate change? https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/noaa-n/climate/climate_we... https://www.science20.com/news_articles/stop_conflating_weat... https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/hot-planet/dont-be-fool...

It isn't being conflated. The way this sort of research works is by modeling weather under different conditions and determining that certain weather patterns are statistically more likely under conditions consistent with global warming. This isn't just "it is hot for a week so that must be global warming". It is "the air patterns that are required for this sort of thing to happen are highly associated with higher ave…

Did you read even one of the articles I linked?

But the BBC article... "the research has not yet been peer-reviewed.

"They used 21 climate models to estimate..."

"They compared the climate as it is today, with the world as it would be without human-induced warming."

This is not empirical science. And by using a 1000 year model they are starting their analysis, conveniently, after the peak of the Roman Warm Period.

Re: US-Canada heatwave 'virtually impossible' without warming

#67

Post by sandworm101 »

akavel wrote: post #38
necrotic_comp wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I don't understand is what people who argue against climate change stand to gain. The argument for climate change is: "humans are polluting the planet and it's causing a change in the environment and will have a disastrous effect on the climate." The arguments I hear against climate change always seem to concede that humans are polluting the planet, but argue in different ways (natural cycle/not really happening…

IMO, because admitting that climate change is reality would in consequence require massive, expensive, and hugely uncomfortable changes in one's lifestyle. Plus, not uncommonly, becoming de facto socially ostracised in at least some (though possibly all) of one's social circles. Also, there's not even some concrete "ozone layer hole" you could point your finger at, but rather some vague: "Some, though not all [FUD wo…

>> massive, expensive, and hugely uncomfortable changes in one's lifestyle.

Why? The biggest climate change issue, carbon, doesn't require any lifestyle changes. Solar/wind/batteries + nuclear reactors can provide us with all the electricity we need. Cars/trucks can be electrified in the near term too, although there are non-electric green options too (fuel from captured carbon).

Maybe if your precious "lifestyle" involves rolling coal as you drive to you private jet to then go shoot some endangered lions. Maybe if your lifestyle involves a love of smokestacks or indulging a hypochondriac fear of that windmills will give you cancer. Those people will see an impact. But us normals can still drive cars and have air conditioning in our apartments.

Re: US-Canada heatwave 'virtually impossible' without warming

#68

Post by nosianu »

karmelapple wrote: post #50
necrotic_comp wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I don't understand is what people who argue against climate change stand to gain. The argument for climate change is: "humans are polluting the planet and it's causing a change in the environment and will have a disastrous effect on the climate." The arguments I hear against climate change always seem to concede that humans are polluting the planet, but argue in different ways (natural cycle/not really happening…

Because it may cost a little money in the short term. Or it may mean admitting politicians from a different viewpoint might be right.

"Costs money" is not an argument that is of much use - for an economy. Cost is income. It's a circle. Only when you apply the mindset of an individual does that cost avoidance mindset make sense. Then "costs" represent something really gone and lost. On a bigger scale though, if you want more income for more people you don't want to reduce "costs", quite the opposite.

The question for an economy is, does the flow of money lead to outcomes we want? I'd say if it flows through paths that lead to the growth of businesses that are good to reduce climate change impact that is something we want. On the other hand, if it flows through paths that lead to growth of purely financial constructs, wealth concentration (which also concentrates control, quite the opposite of the mantra of capitalism which is supposed to be freedom to do your own thing), or more unwanted telephone calls, or overpriced medicine, that's something where we would want to redirect some of the flow. For an economy, money is more about the flow, like blood. Where it passes things grow. So we want to look at the paths of the flows. "Cost" is of little use here. Of course, if you have a concrete thing you are looking at and want it to be more efficient cost again makes sense, but in this discussion here we are trying to make different kinds of decisions, where "cost" is less helpful, since we don't even have anything concrete that we want to make more efficient.

DISCLAIMER - These are the thoughts of someone not trained in (apart from a few semesters on the side while studying something technical) or working anything related to economics.

Re: US-Canada heatwave 'virtually impossible' without warming

#69

Post by Sebb767 »

throwaway894345 wrote: post #33
necrotic_comp wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I don't understand is what people who argue against climate change stand to gain. The argument for climate change is: "humans are polluting the planet and it's causing a change in the environment and will have a disastrous effect on the climate." The arguments I hear against climate change always seem to concede that humans are polluting the planet, but argue in different ways (natural cycle/not really happening…

> What I don't understand is why people who argue against climate change stand to gain. I suspect it is something like psychological security (“I’ve only known a history of rapid progress and I’m not emotionally prepared to confront the possibility that life will be worse for my children and grandchildren, nor that I was complicit”). At least that’s the average joe climate denier. For the very wealthy it’s simple gre…

> For the very wealthy it’s simple greed.

It's greed for basically anyone above the poverty line. There's functionally no difference for wanting a better life for you and your children and to increase your wealth for what is, in the end, the same goal.

Unnecessarily driving an SUV, eating far too much meat and running the lines supplying peoples with those meat is morally not that different.

Re: US-Canada heatwave 'virtually impossible' without warming

#70

Post by aww_dang »

JulianMorrison wrote: post #52
aww_dang wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the other hand, proponents of climate apocalypse frequently make a distinction between weather and climate.

There is a causal arrow from climate to weather. It just isn't as crude as "warm planet equals warm weather". It would be closer to the truth to say "warm planet equals more unsettled weather, averaging warmer over the large scale, but including unseasonal cold as (for example) wind patterns distort".

I appreciate that. From the perspective of the skeptic the Popper quote comes to mind.

Karl Popper — 'A theory that explains everything, explains nothing'

Post reply on HN